Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean > Page 24

Page 24 of 24

08-07-2026 17:36
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Google, "Why use soil acidifier for citrus trees?" Too funny! You believe everything on the internet; you think everything issued by the internet must be true. ... and you're a scientist. In a rare example of honesty and accuracy, IBdaMann identifies me as a "scientist". I only use Google AI as a substitute for my own brain when I want an example to show others. I already knew that soil acidifiers of various kinds (elemental sulfur, aluminum sulfate, polysulfides of calcium, etc.) were sold to people who wanted to grow citrus in soil with pH > 6.5. A pH of 7.0 isn't low enough for citrus to get enough iron from the soil. Under aerobic conditions, iron solubility is highly pH dependent. Another option is to leave the soil for the citrus with pH > 7, but just add the iron in organically complexed form, to remain soluble and bioavailable. Google, "Can I give my citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil?" Google replies, "Yes, you can give your citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil." But Google later goes on to advise that.."* The drawback: Chelated iron is a short-term band-aid. It does not change the soil pH. The problem will keep coming back unless you fix the soil acidity in the long run." Unless you are willing to give your citrus a little more chelated iron every growing season, you have to acidify the soil if you want the citrus to get enough iron. The same principle applies in sea water. Chelated iron is bioavailable despite pH being greater than 8. Chelated iron is virtually the ONLY natural iron you can find dissolved in sea water. Brief fertilization with inorganic iron blown by the wind can fertilize brief blooms, but unless that iron becomes organically complexed, it soon precipitates out as it is oxidized. Organic alkalinity is that part of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity that arises from organic anions, the conjugate bases of weak organic acids. It may be less than 1% of the sea's total alkalinity, but it can comprise up to 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge entering the sea from coastal wetlands. The chelated iron contained in submarine groundwater discharge, carried by the organic alkalinity, is what fertilizes photosynthesis in the most productive waters of the ocean.
08-07-2026 18:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Google, "Why use soil acidifier for citrus trees?" Too funny! You believe everything on the internet; you think everything issued by the internet must be true. ... and you're a scientist. In a rare example of honesty and accuracy, IBdaMann identifies me as a "scientist". Lie. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I only use Google AI as a substitute for my own brain when I want an example to show others. This statement is correct. Im a BM wrote: I already knew that soil acidifiers of various kinds (elemental sulfur, aluminum sulfate, polysulfides of calcium, etc.) were sold to people who wanted to grow citrus in soil with pH > 6.5. A pH of 7.0 isn't low enough for citrus to get enough iron from the soil. Under aerobic conditions, iron solubility is highly pH dependent. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Sulfur is not an acid. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. Polysulfide is not a chemical. Iron is not soluble. Im a BM wrote: Another option is to leave the soil for the citrus with pH > 7, but just add the iron in organically complexed form, to remain soluble and bioavailable. Iron is not organic. Iron is not soluble. 'Bioavailable' is not a word. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Google, "Can I give my citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil?" Google replies, "Yes, you can give your citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil." It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Chelated is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But Google later goes on to advise that.."* The drawback: Chelated iron is a short-term band-aid. It does not change the soil pH. The problem will keep coming back unless you fix the soil acidity in the long run." Chelated is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Unless you are willing to give your citrus a little more chelated iron every growing season, you have to acidify the soil if you want the citrus to get enough iron. Chelated is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: The same principle applies in sea water. Chelated iron is bioavailable despite pH being greater than 8. Chelated iron is virtually the ONLY natural iron you can find dissolved in sea water. Brief fertilization with inorganic iron blown by the wind can fertilize brief blooms, but unless that iron becomes organically complexed, it soon precipitates out as it is oxidized. Chelated is not a chemical. 'Bioavailable' is not a word. Iron is not pH. Natural is not a chemical. Iron is not soluble. Iron is not a fertilizer. Iron is not inorganic. Iron is not organic. It is not possible to percipitate what is not in solution. Im a BM wrote: Organic alkalinity is that part of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity that arises from organic anions, the conjugate bases of weak organic acids. It may be less than 1% of the sea's total alkalinity, but it can comprise up to 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge entering the sea from coastal wetlands. The chelated iron contained in submarine groundwater discharge, carried by the organic alkalinity, is what fertilizes photosynthesis in the most productive waters of the ocean. Alkalinity is not a chemical. The ocean is alkaline. Anion is not a chemical. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. It is not possible to fertilize photosynthesis. 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
08-07-2026 18:53
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]sealover wrote:Google, "Why use soil acidifier for citrus trees?" Too funny! You believe everything on the internet; you think everything issued by the internet must be true. ... and you're a scientist. In a rare example of honesty and accuracy, IBdaMann identifies me as a "scientist". Lie. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I only use Google AI as a substitute for my own brain when I want an example to show others. This statement is correct. Im a BM wrote: I already knew that soil acidifiers of various kinds (elemental sulfur, aluminum sulfate, polysulfides of calcium, etc.) were sold to people who wanted to grow citrus in soil with pH > 6.5. A pH of 7.0 isn't low enough for citrus to get enough iron from the soil. Under aerobic conditions, iron solubility is highly pH dependent. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Sulfur is not an acid. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. Polysulfide is not a chemical. Iron is not soluble. Im a BM wrote: Another option is to leave the soil for the citrus with pH > 7, but just add the iron in organically complexed form, to remain soluble and bioavailable. Iron is not organic. Iron is not soluble. 'Bioavailable' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: Google, "Can I give my citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil?" Google replies, "Yes, you can give your citrus chelated iron instead of acidifying the soil." It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Chelated is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But Google later goes on to advise that.."* The drawback: Chelated iron is a short-term band-aid. It does not change the soil pH. The problem will keep coming back unless you fix the soil acidity in the long run." Chelated is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Unless you are willing to give your citrus a little more chelated iron every growing season, you have to acidify the soil if you want the citrus to get enough iron. Chelated is not a chemical. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: The same principle applies in sea water. Chelated iron is bioavailable despite pH being greater than 8. Chelated iron is virtually the ONLY natural iron you can find dissolved in sea water. Brief fertilization with inorganic iron blown by the wind can fertilize brief blooms, but unless that iron becomes organically complexed, it soon precipitates out as it is oxidized. Chelated is not a chemical. 'Bioavailable' is not a word. Iron is not pH. Natural is not a chemical. Iron is not soluble. Iron is not a fertilizer. Iron is not inorganic. Iron is not organic. It is not possible to percipitate what is not in solution. Im a BM wrote: Organic alkalinity is that part of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity that arises from organic anions, the conjugate bases of weak organic acids. It may be less than 1% of the sea's total alkalinity, but it can comprise up to 25% of the total alkalinity in submarine groundwater discharge entering the sea from coastal wetlands. The chelated iron contained in submarine groundwater discharge, carried by the organic alkalinity, is what fertilizes photosynthesis in the most productive waters of the ocean. Alkalinity is not a chemical. The ocean is alkaline. Anion is not a chemical. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. It is not possible to fertilize photosynthesis. Into the Night, I know that you will not understand this response to your comments. However, anyone viewing who passed high chemistry can. "Chelated is not a chemical". Of course it's not! "Chelated" is what happens to a transition metal such as iron when it is complexed by an organic ligand at two different binding sites, in a ring structure. From the Greek word chele or chelos for "claw" of a crab. Grabbed between two claws, the transition metal is bound by formation of inner sphere complexes (covalent bonds) with the organic ligand. "Sulfur is not an acid," Of course it's not! Elemental "yellow" sulfur added to soil is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria. They use oxygen, O2, as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the sulfur to sulfuric acid, using the reaction as a source of metabolic energy. S + O2 + H2O = H2SO4 "Aluminum sulfate is not an acid." Actually, it is. It is an acidic salt. The trivalent aluminum ion, Al3+ adsorbs to cation exchange sites as exchangeable acidity, and releases adsorbed H+ into solution. Al2(SO4)3 will lower soil pH. "Polysulfide is not a chemical". That's a matter of opinion, but calcium polysulfide is certainly a chemical. A polymer of CaS, its sulfide is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria in the soil. Yes, calcium polysulfide is a soil acidifying chemical. "Iron is not a fertilizer." That is certainly a matter of opinion. Iron deficiency is what limits citrus growth in alkaline soil. People seem to have agreed to call it "iron fertilizer" when they buy and sell it, and to call it "iron fertilization" when they attempt geoengineering schemes in the sea. Iron is only needed by organisms in the tiniest amount. A "trace" nutrient element. But you can't grow without it, on land or in the sea. "Something is not something else" seems to be a theme that comes up again and again and again. Nearly always irrelevant, but once in a while "science is not a chemical" provides a teachable moment.
08-07-2026 23:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, I know that you will not understand this response to your comments. However, anyone viewing who passed high chemistry can. Chemistry is not an elevation. Im a BM wrote: "Chelated is not a chemical". Of course it's not! "Chelated" is what happens to a transition metal such as iron when it is complexed by an organic ligand at two different binding sites, in a ring structure. From the Greek word chele or chelos for "claw" of a crab. Grabbed between two claws, the transition metal is bound by formation of inner sphere complexes (covalent bonds) with the organic ligand. Iron is not complex. Iron is not organic. Ligand is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'inner sphere complex'. Im a BM wrote: "Sulfur is not an acid," Of course it's not! Elemental "yellow" sulfur added to soil is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria. They use oxygen, O2, as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the sulfur to sulfuric acid, using the reaction as a source of metabolic energy. Sulfur is not oxygen. It is easy to burn sulfur. You don't need bacteria. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Hydrogen is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: "Aluminum sulfate is not an acid." Actually, it is. It is an acidic salt. The trivalent aluminum ion, Al3+ adsorbs to cation exchange sites as exchangeable acidity, and releases adsorbed H+ into solution. Al2(SO4)3 will lower soil pH. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. Salt is not an acid. AL3+ is not a chemical. H+ is not a chemical. Aluminum sulfate is not pH. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Polysulfide is not a chemical". [/b] That's a matter of opinion, but calcium polysulfide is certainly a chemical. A polymer of CaS, its sulfide is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria in the soil. Yes, calcium polysulfide is a soil acidifying chemical. Polysulfide is not a chemical. Your buzzword does not make it so. Sulfide is not a chemical. Sulfur is not oxygen. Bacteria is not oxygen. You cannot acidify an alkaline. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Iron is not a fertilizer."[/b] That is certainly a matter of opinion. Iron deficiency is what limits citrus growth in alkaline soil. People seem to have agreed to call it "iron fertilizer" when they buy and sell it, and to call it "iron fertilization" when they attempt geoengineering schemes in the sea. Iron is only needed by organisms in the tiniest amount. A "trace" nutrient element. But you can't grow without it, on land or in the sea. ...deleted whining... Iron is not a fertilzer. Your buzzword does not make it so. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. There is no such thing as 'geoengineering'. 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
08-07-2026 23:26
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, I know that you will not understand this response to your comments. However, anyone viewing who passed high chemistry can. Chemistry is not an elevation. Im a BM wrote: "Chelated is not a chemical". Of course it's not! "Chelated" is what happens to a transition metal such as iron when it is complexed by an organic ligand at two different binding sites, in a ring structure. From the Greek word chele or chelos for "claw" of a crab. Grabbed between two claws, the transition metal is bound by formation of inner sphere complexes (covalent bonds) with the organic ligand. Iron is not complex. Iron is not organic. Ligand is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'inner sphere complex'. Im a BM wrote: "Sulfur is not an acid," Of course it's not! Elemental "yellow" sulfur added to soil is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria. They use oxygen, O2, as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the sulfur to sulfuric acid, using the reaction as a source of metabolic energy. Sulfur is not oxygen. It is easy to burn sulfur. You don't need bacteria. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Hydrogen is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: "Aluminum sulfate is not an acid." Actually, it is. It is an acidic salt. The trivalent aluminum ion, Al3+ adsorbs to cation exchange sites as exchangeable acidity, and releases adsorbed H+ into solution. Al2(SO4)3 will lower soil pH. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. Salt is not an acid. AL3+ is not a chemical. H+ is not a chemical. Aluminum sulfate is not pH. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Polysulfide is not a chemical". [/b] That's a matter of opinion, but calcium polysulfide is certainly a chemical. A polymer of CaS, its sulfide is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria in the soil. Yes, calcium polysulfide is a soil acidifying chemical. Polysulfide is not a chemical. Your buzzword does not make it so. Sulfide is not a chemical. Sulfur is not oxygen. Bacteria is not oxygen. You cannot acidify an alkaline. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Iron is not a fertilizer."[/b] That is certainly a matter of opinion. Iron deficiency is what limits citrus growth in alkaline soil. People seem to have agreed to call it "iron fertilizer" when they buy and sell it, and to call it "iron fertilization" when they attempt geoengineering schemes in the sea. Iron is only needed by organisms in the tiniest amount. A "trace" nutrient element. But you can't grow without it, on land or in the sea. ...deleted whining... Iron is not a fertilzer. Your buzzword does not make it so. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. There is no such thing as 'geoengineering'. Once again, Into the Night PROVES that he is not a LIAR who pretends to be a "chemist". Only a real chemist would realize that "Hydrogen is not oxygen", or that "Sulfur is not oxygen", or that "Chemistry is not an elevation." Something is not something else, apparently. Who knew? Everybody always says that "Aluminum sulfate IS pH", so Into the Night saves the day and explains that "Aluminum sulfate is not pH". "Bacteria is not oxygen." Only a "chemist" understands science at THIS level. Thank goodness Into the Night ALWAYS comes through to comment on EVERYTHING I post, to correct all those misunderstandings. I'm always insisting that sulfur IS oxygen, so a chemist must intervene. No, that isn't scientifically illiterate TROLLING! It's the kind of enlightening and informative commentary only a true "chemist" could bring as "value added" to the discussion.
09-07-2026 03:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Once again, Into the Night PROVES that he is not a LIAR who pretends to be a "chemist". Only a real chemist would realize that "Hydrogen is not oxygen", or that "Sulfur is not oxygen", or that "Chemistry is not an elevation." YOU made these associations. Do not blame your problems on anybody else. Im a BM wrote: Something is not something else, apparently. Who knew? Apparently you didn't. Im a BM wrote: Everybody always says that "Aluminum sulfate IS pH", so Into the Night saves the day and explains that "Aluminum sulfate is not pH". You are not everybody, Robert. You are just you. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: "Bacteria is not oxygen." Only a "chemist" understands science at THIS level. You don't. But then, you are not a chemist or a scientist. Im a BM wrote: Thank goodness Into the Night ALWAYS comes through to comment on EVERYTHING I post, to correct all those misunderstandings. You can't blame your idiocy on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: I'm always insisting that sulfur IS oxygen, so a chemist must intervene. This statement is correct. Im a BM wrote: No, that isn't scientifically illiterate TROLLING! You are describing yourself again. Im a BM wrote: It's the kind of enlightening and informative commentary only a true "chemist" could bring as "value added" to the discussion. Your preaching isn't a discussion. Your buzzwords and gibber-babble isn't a discussion. 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
09-07-2026 03:03
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, I know that you will not understand this response to your comments. However, anyone viewing who passed high chemistry can. Chemistry is not an elevation. Im a BM wrote: "Chelated is not a chemical". Of course it's not! "Chelated" is what happens to a transition metal such as iron when it is complexed by an organic ligand at two different binding sites, in a ring structure. From the Greek word chele or chelos for "claw" of a crab. Grabbed between two claws, the transition metal is bound by formation of inner sphere complexes (covalent bonds) with the organic ligand. Iron is not complex. Iron is not organic. Ligand is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'inner sphere complex'. Im a BM wrote: "Sulfur is not an acid," Of course it's not! Elemental "yellow" sulfur added to soil is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria. They use oxygen, O2, as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the sulfur to sulfuric acid, using the reaction as a source of metabolic energy. Sulfur is not oxygen. It is easy to burn sulfur. You don't need bacteria. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Hydrogen is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: "Aluminum sulfate is not an acid." Actually, it is. It is an acidic salt. The trivalent aluminum ion, Al3+ adsorbs to cation exchange sites as exchangeable acidity, and releases adsorbed H+ into solution. Al2(SO4)3 will lower soil pH. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. Salt is not an acid. AL3+ is not a chemical. H+ is not a chemical. Aluminum sulfate is not pH. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Polysulfide is not a chemical". [/b] That's a matter of opinion, but calcium polysulfide is certainly a chemical. A polymer of CaS, its sulfide is readily oxidized under aerobic conditions by sulfur oxidizing bacteria in the soil. Yes, calcium polysulfide is a soil acidifying chemical. Polysulfide is not a chemical. Your buzzword does not make it so. Sulfide is not a chemical. Sulfur is not oxygen. Bacteria is not oxygen. You cannot acidify an alkaline. [b]Im a BM wrote: "Iron is not a fertilizer."[/b] That is certainly a matter of opinion. Iron deficiency is what limits citrus growth in alkaline soil. People seem to have agreed to call it "iron fertilizer" when they buy and sell it, and to call it "iron fertilization" when they attempt geoengineering schemes in the sea. Iron is only needed by organisms in the tiniest amount. A "trace" nutrient element. But you can't grow without it, on land or in the sea. ...deleted whining... Iron is not a fertilzer. Your buzzword does not make it so. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. There is no such thing as 'geoengineering'. Once again, Into the Night PROVES that he is not a LIAR who pretends to be a "chemist". Only a real chemist would realize that "Hydrogen is not oxygen", or that "Sulfur is not oxygen", or that "Chemistry is not an elevation." Something is not something else, apparently. Who knew? Everybody always says that "Aluminum sulfate IS pH", so Into the Night saves the day and explains that "Aluminum sulfate is not pH". "Bacteria is not oxygen." Only a "chemist" understands science at THIS level. Thank goodness Into the Night ALWAYS comes through to comment on EVERYTHING I post, to correct all those misunderstandings. I'm always insisting that sulfur IS oxygen, so a chemist must intervene. No, that isn't scientifically illiterate TROLLING! It's the kind of enlightening and informative commentary only a true "chemist" could bring as "value added" to the discussion. How does aluminum sulfate acidify soil when added as an amendment. I mentioned that it can adsorb to CEC sites, exchanging out adsorbed protons, hydrogen ions or H+, for aluminum ions, Al3+ HOW DO YOU SPELL RELIEF? Rolaids was aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Understanding how aluminum sulfate, Al2(SO4)3 behaves as an ACID might make more sense by knowing how Rolaids aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3 acts as an ANTACID. Al(OH)3 + 3H+ = Al3+ + 3H2O or using stomach acid... Al(OH)3 + 3HCl = AlCl3 + 3H2O Aluminum hydroxide acts as a BASE to neutralize stomach acid. Al2(SO4)3 + 6H2O =2Al(OH)3 + 3H2SO4 Aluminum sulfate acts as an ACID to acidify soil.
09-07-2026 06:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	sealover wrote: How does aluminum sulfate acidify soil when added as an amendment. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. sealover wrote: I mentioned that it can adsorb to CEC sites, exchanging out adsorbed protons, hydrogen ions or H+, for aluminum ions, Al3+ 'adsorb' is not a word. H+ is not a chemical. Al3+ is not a chemical. sealover wrote: HOW DO YOU SPELL RELIEF? Rolaids was aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Rolaids is not aluminum hydroxide. sealover wrote: Understanding how aluminum sulfate, Al2(SO4)3 behaves as an ACID might make more sense by knowing how Rolaids aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3 acts as an ANTACID. Rolaids is not aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. sealover wrote: Aluminum hydroxide acts as a BASE to neutralize stomach acid. Aluminum hydroxide is not an alkaline. sealover wrote: Aluminum sulfate acts as an ACID to acidify soil. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. 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
09-07-2026 16:50
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Into the Night, you accomplish nothing of value by TROLLING everything I post. The vast majority of your "is not" claims are incorrect. You obviously never studied chemistry. But I must correct the Rolaids formula, which changed in 1996, when they changed the spelling of "relief". It was dihydroxyl aluminum sodium carbonate. A different form of aluminum hydroxide, also known as carbaldrate. NaAl(OH)2CO3. Two thirds of its acid neutralizing capacity was aluminum hydroxide and one third was sodium carbonate. Into the Night makes so many FALSE assertions about what "is not". Let's just get one little science lesson out of it. "Adsorb is not a word" - Into the Night ITN isn't necessarily a LIAR who is aware the statement is incorrect. More likely, they didn't cover "adsorption" in his high school, and that's as far as he ever got in his "study" of chemistry. "Adsorb" is indeed a word in chemistry, and an important one at that. I have used it so many times here, I'm surprised ITN didn't ever complain about it not existing before this. I guess it's like "organic carbon", a word that took ITN YEARS to decide was unacceptable. Google, you are SO MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night! Google, please tell us, "What does the term 'adsorb' mean in chemistry?" I'm sure that Into the Night will be incapable of learning this and will come back and simply declare, as the King of All Terms, that there is "no such thing". But others who DID pass high school chemistry will get it. Google is correct with the reply: "To adsorb means to gather atoms, ions, or molecules of a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid onto the surface of a solid or liquid material. It is a strict-surface level event, much like dust or magnetic filings sticking to the outside of a magnet." My most frequent references to adsorption are in regard to cations adsorbing to cation exchange sites on soil surfaces. I have also mentioned ozone destroying agents adsorbing to the surface of nitric acid crystals high in the sky during stratospheric denitrification. Into the Night wouldn't know, because he never studied chemistry. One morning he woke up two years ago and suddenly discovered that "carbonate is not a chemical", and became OBSESSED with everything that is "not a chemical". For eight years of posting here before that, identifying what what "not a chemical" was NEVER Into the Night's "thing". Today, Into the Night discovered that "adsorb is not a word". If he was paying attention, he had seen me use that "not a word" over and over for years. Perhaps he'll come back with "there is no such thing as adsorption". There is no such thing as a "chemist" who doesn't even know what adsorption is. Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: How does aluminum sulfate acidify soil when added as an amendment. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. sealover wrote: I mentioned that it can adsorb to CEC sites, exchanging out adsorbed protons, hydrogen ions or H+, for aluminum ions, Al3+ 'adsorb' is not a word. H+ is not a chemical. Al3+ is not a chemical. sealover wrote: HOW DO YOU SPELL RELIEF? Rolaids was aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3. Rolaids is not aluminum hydroxide. sealover wrote: Understanding how aluminum sulfate, Al2(SO4)3 behaves as an ACID might make more sense by knowing how Rolaids aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3 acts as an ANTACID. Rolaids is not aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid. sealover wrote: Aluminum hydroxide acts as a BASE to neutralize stomach acid. Aluminum hydroxide is not an alkaline. sealover wrote: Aluminum sulfate acts as an ACID to acidify soil. Aluminum sulfate is not an acid.
09-07-2026 18:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, you accomplish nothing of value by TROLLING everything I post. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The vast majority of your "is not" claims are incorrect. You obviously never studied chemistry. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: But I must correct the Rolaids formula, which changed in 1996, when they changed the spelling of "relief". It was dihydroxyl aluminum sodium carbonate. A different form of aluminum hydroxide, also known as carbaldrate. NaAl(OH)2CO3. Two thirds of its acid neutralizing capacity was aluminum hydroxide and one third was sodium carbonate. Dihydroxyl aluminum sodium carbonate is not a chemical. There is no aluminum hydroxide in Rolaids. There is no sodium carbonate in Rolaids. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night makes so many FALSE assertions about what "is not". Let's just get one little science lesson out of it. You deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: "Adsorb is not a word" - Into the Night ITN isn't necessarily a LIAR who is aware the statement is incorrect. More likely, they didn't cover "adsorption" in his high school, and that's as far as he ever got in his "study" of chemistry. "Adsorb" is indeed a word in chemistry, and an important one at that. I have used it so many times here, I'm surprised ITN didn't ever complain about it not existing before this. I guess it's like "organic carbon", a word that took ITN YEARS to decide was unacceptable. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Chemistry is not a high school. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Google, you are SO MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night! Google, please tell us, "What does the term 'adsorb' mean in chemistry?" I'm sure that Into the Night will be incapable of learning this and will come back and simply declare, as the King of All Terms, that there is "no such thing". But others who DID pass high school chemistry will get it. Chemistry is not Google. Google is not sentient. You are not Google. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Chemistry is not a high school. [b]Im a BM wrote: Google is correct with the reply: "To adsorb means to gather atoms, ions, or molecules of a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid onto the surface of a solid or liquid material. It is a strict-surface level event, much like dust or magnetic filings sticking to the outside of a magnet." 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: [/b] My most frequent references to adsorption are in regard to cations adsorbing to cation exchange sites on soil surfaces. I have also mentioned ozone destroying agents adsorbing to the surface of nitric acid crystals high in the sky during stratospheric denitrification. Cation is not a chemical. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer. There is no such thing as a 'nitric acid crystal'. There is no such thing as 'stratospheric denitrification'. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wouldn't know, because he never studied chemistry. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: One morning he woke up two years ago and suddenly discovered that "carbonate is not a chemical", and became OBSESSED with everything that is "not a chemical". For eight years of posting here before that, identifying what what "not a chemical" was NEVER Into the Night's "thing". Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Today, Into the Night discovered that "adsorb is not a word". If he was paying attention, he had seen me use that "not a word" over and over for years. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps he'll come back with "there is no such thing as adsorption". There is no such thing as a "chemist" who doesn't even know what adsorption is. 'Adsorb' is not a word. You deny chemistry. You deny theories of science. 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
09-07-2026 19:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, you accomplish nothing of value by TROLLING everything I post. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: The vast majority of your "is not" claims are incorrect. You obviously never studied chemistry. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: But I must correct the Rolaids formula, which changed in 1996, when they changed the spelling of "relief". It was dihydroxyl aluminum sodium carbonate. A different form of aluminum hydroxide, also known as carbaldrate. NaAl(OH)2CO3. Two thirds of its acid neutralizing capacity was aluminum hydroxide and one third was sodium carbonate. Dihydroxyl aluminum sodium carbonate is not a chemical. There is no aluminum hydroxide in Rolaids. There is no sodium carbonate in Rolaids. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night makes so many FALSE assertions about what "is not". Let's just get one little science lesson out of it. You deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: "Adsorb is not a word" - Into the Night ITN isn't necessarily a LIAR who is aware the statement is incorrect. More likely, they didn't cover "adsorption" in his high school, and that's as far as he ever got in his "study" of chemistry. "Adsorb" is indeed a word in chemistry, and an important one at that. I have used it so many times here, I'm surprised ITN didn't ever complain about it not existing before this. I guess it's like "organic carbon", a word that took ITN YEARS to decide was unacceptable. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Chemistry is not a high school. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Google, you are SO MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night! Google, please tell us, "What does the term 'adsorb' mean in chemistry?" I'm sure that Into the Night will be incapable of learning this and will come back and simply declare, as the King of All Terms, that there is "no such thing". But others who DID pass high school chemistry will get it. Chemistry is not Google. Google is not sentient. You are not Google. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Chemistry is not a high school. [b]Im a BM wrote: Google is correct with the reply: "To adsorb means to gather atoms, ions, or molecules of a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid onto the surface of a solid or liquid material. It is a strict-surface level event, much like dust or magnetic filings sticking to the outside of a magnet." 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: [/b] My most frequent references to adsorption are in regard to cations adsorbing to cation exchange sites on soil surfaces. I have also mentioned ozone destroying agents adsorbing to the surface of nitric acid crystals high in the sky during stratospheric denitrification. Cation is not a chemical. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer. There is no such thing as a 'nitric acid crystal'. There is no such thing as 'stratospheric denitrification'. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wouldn't know, because he never studied chemistry. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: One morning he woke up two years ago and suddenly discovered that "carbonate is not a chemical", and became OBSESSED with everything that is "not a chemical". For eight years of posting here before that, identifying what what "not a chemical" was NEVER Into the Night's "thing". Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Today, Into the Night discovered that "adsorb is not a word". If he was paying attention, he had seen me use that "not a word" over and over for years. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps he'll come back with "there is no such thing as adsorption". There is no such thing as a "chemist" who doesn't even know what adsorption is. 'Adsorb' is not a word. You deny chemistry. You deny theories of science. 24,222 posts of PURE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS. Everyone can learn so much from the great "chemist" Into the Night. Everyone can look up the chemistry term "adsorb" or "adsorption" to discover that Into the Night is a LIAR. It IS possible to look up the definition of chemistry terms. In fact, it's EASY!
11-07-2026 01:32
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Time to rewrite the chemistry textbooks about sea water pH buffering! According to IBdaMann, I will NOT see a huge drop in pH if I add just one drop of acid to a liter of PURE water. But if I add a drop of acid to a liter of SEA water, "the impact of a drop of acid would be more pronounced". "So, Mr. Chemistry Genius.." Well, that's Dr. Chemistry Genius to you! My chemistry genius has actually been acknowledged in the public domain by scientists who are recognized as chemistry geniuses. But at climate-debate.com, two obnoxious TROLLS who don't have a pHucking CLUE about sea water buffering insist on relentless HECKLING. Those two punks killed the discussion and drove everyone away, starting about eleven years ago. 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"?
11-07-2026 04:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Im a BM wrote:"So, Mr. Chemistry Genius.." Well, that's Dr. Chemistry Genius to you! Time to rewrite the chemistry textbooks about sea water pH buffering! According to Robert Nothup, I will NOT see a bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but in fact I will see a bigger impact on the acid from the pure water. This comes from the guy who insists that water cannot evaporate because that would go against his Global Warming religion. But at climate-debate.com, he TROLLS every thread on the board with spam out of spite while he blames everyone else for his own irrelevance, his wasted life and for not having a pHucking CLUE about science. He single-handedly killed every single discussion in every single thread, starting from the moment he arrived. Let's review Northup's "science": Water doesn't evaporate. Pure water has a greater impact on acid than sea water. Thermodynamics isn't mandatory where his Climate religion is concerned. He is a thienth geniuth.
11-07-2026 07:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: 24,222 posts of PURE SCIENTIFIC GENIUS. Thank you. Im a BM wrote: Everyone can learn so much from the great "chemist" Into the Night. Thank you. Some people have. Im a BM wrote: Everyone can look up the chemistry term "adsorb" or "adsorption" to discover that Into the Night is a LIAR. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: It IS possible to look up the definition of chemistry terms. 'Adsorb' is not a word. Im a BM wrote: In fact, it's EASY! 'Adsorb' is not a word. 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
11-07-2026 14:15
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Anyone who can read can see how DISHONEST IBdaMann is. He clearly wrote, "the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." In response to how much pH would change upon addition of a drop of acid. In his flagrant, habitual DISHONESTY, IBdaMann now tries to claim that he said "..bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but I will in fact see bigger impact on acid.." "..impact on acid.."? WTF??? Not defined as change to pH. Not defined at all. But what IBdaMann actually said was "the impact of a drop of the acid.. on the sea water... on the pure water." DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! You LYIN' motherpHucker! 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"?
11-07-2026 21:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Anyone who can read can see how DISHONEST IBdaMann is. You're the one with the socks, Robert. You're the one trying to deny science. You're the one trying to pretend to be a scientist. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: He clearly wrote, "the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." In response to how much pH would change upon addition of a drop of acid. This statement is correct. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: In his flagrant, habitual DISHONESTY, IBdaMann now tries to claim that he said "..bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but I will in fact see bigger impact on acid.." "..impact on acid.."? WTF??? Not defined as change to pH. Not defined at all. Acid is not pH, Robert. [b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: But what IBdaMann actually said was "the impact of a drop of the acid.. on the sea water... on the pure water." [/b] No, he didn't. Don't put words in peoples mouths. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 30a. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! You LYIN' motherpHucker! He isn't. Lie. Synthesis. You can't blame YOUR problems on anybody else, 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
11-07-2026 21:54
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Anyone who can read can see how DISHONEST IBdaMann is. You're the one with the socks, Robert. You're the one trying to deny science. You're the one trying to pretend to be a scientist. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: He clearly wrote, "the impact of a drop of the acid would be more pronounced on the sea water than on the pure water." In response to how much pH would change upon addition of a drop of acid. This statement is correct. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: In his flagrant, habitual DISHONESTY, IBdaMann now tries to claim that he said "..bigger impact on acid from sea water than I will from pure water, but I will in fact see bigger impact on acid.." "..impact on acid.."? WTF??? Not defined as change to pH. Not defined at all. Acid is not pH, Robert. [b]Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: But what IBdaMann actually said was "the impact of a drop of the acid.. on the sea water... on the pure water." [/b] No, he didn't. Don't put words in peoples mouths. Lie. Synthesis. Mantra 30a. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! You LYIN' motherpHucker! He isn't. Lie. Synthesis. You can't blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Robert. As usual, you conveniently omitted the actual post and words of IBdaMann, so that you too could stand by your LIES along with him. Neither of you has a clue how to measure alkalinity, but IBdaMann's actual comprehension of chemistry is superior to that of ITN. At least IBdaMann, eventually, figured out that pH = -log(H+), and therefore ANY solution with >1.0 M (H+) must have pH <0. He eventually realized that pH was an exponential function of base ten, and not the natural log. He eventually realized that his quip about "magical" acid with pH = 0.0 only revealed his ignorance. But Into the Night conveniently omitted ALL of IBdaMann's original comments in order to do this reply. Had to go out of his way to remove the denied text. IBdaMann absolutely asserted the impact on the water of a drop of acid, not the undefined "change to the acid". You pHuckin' LIARS are a waste of time to discuss actual chemistry with. Anyway, MOST rivers and MOST cubic meters of river surface water entering the sea have pH >7. However, many natural rivers are naturally acidic. The most naturally acidic rivers are a tiny minority where oxidation of ammonium or sulfides generates nitric acid or sulfuric acid. Some such streams can have pH well below 3.0 or even below pH 1.0 (see Dahlgren et al, Nature 1994, "California Acid Rock" is the title of the review article in the same issue of Nature). The first one Randy published about was NITRIC acid formed from oxidation of ammonium in the bedrock. Most such streams get their acid as sulfuric acid derived from the microbial oxidation of iron pyrite. In second place for most acidic rivers are those acidified by ORGANIC acids from the vegetation. "Blackwater rivers" can have pH below 3, in the case of the Amazon tributaries of the Rio Negro, flowing out of exceptionally tannin rich rainforests growing on "acid white sand" soils. Blackwater rivers are dark with organic matter, getting their low pH from tannins (phenol, carboxylic acids) and humic acids. It is irritating that scientifically illiterate trolls compulsively shit all over my threads at this website. But it is easy to scroll past their bullshit. Into the Night insists that no river in the world is naturally acidic. At least ITN conceded that rain can be naturally acidic. But he can't seem to comprehend that Henry's law makes the pH of about 5.6 the predictable equilibrium pH reached by pure water in contact with the atmosphere at sea level. Nor can he comprehend that anthropogenic sulfuric acid and nitric acid are what make some rainfall have pH significantly lower than 5.6, as low as 3.0 in "acid rain" and as low as pH 2.0 in "acid fog". The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence. Perhaps they have convinced each other that they are both credible as "scientists". I doubt that they have anyone else fooled.
12-07-2026 18:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: As usual, you conveniently omitted the actual post and words of IBdaMann, so that you too could stand by your LIES along with him. I don't need to repeat them. Neither do you. IBdaMann already posted them. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Neither of you has a clue how to measure alkalinity, but IBdaMann's actual comprehension of chemistry is superior to that of ITN. At least IBdaMann, eventually, figured out that pH = -log(H+), and therefore ANY solution with >1.0 M (H+) must have pH <0. He eventually realized that pH was an exponential function of base ten, and not the natural log. He eventually realized that his quip about "magical" acid with pH = 0.0 only revealed his ignorance. Alkalinity is not a chemical. It is not possible to have a pH less than zero. H+ is not a chemical. You don't get to speak for anybody else, Robert. Mantra 30a. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: But Into the Night conveniently omitted ALL of IBdaMann's original comments in order to do this reply. Had to go out of his way to remove the denied text. I don't spam like you do, Robert. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: IBdaMann absolutely asserted the impact on the water of a drop of acid, not the undefined "change to the acid". You pHuckin' LIARS are a waste of time to discuss actual chemistry with. Don't try to change what other people posted, Robert. You deny chemistry. You deny science. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Anyway, MOST rivers and MOST cubic meters of river surface water entering the sea have pH >7. However, many natural rivers are naturally acidic. I see you are still agreeing with IBdaMann on fake data. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: The most naturally acidic rivers are a tiny minority where oxidation of ammonium or sulfides generates nitric acid or sulfuric acid. Some such streams can have pH well below 3.0 or even below pH 1.0 (see Dahlgren et al, Nature 1994, "California Acid Rock" is the title of the review article in the same issue of Nature). The first one Randy published about was NITRIC acid formed from oxidation of ammonium in the bedrock. Most such streams get their acid as sulfuric acid derived from the microbial oxidation of iron pyrite. Ammonium is not a chemical. Sulfide is not a chemical. Quoting a rag is not data. Nitrogen is not a rock. Iron is not sulfur. Pyrite is not oxygen. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: In second place for most acidic rivers are those acidified by ORGANIC acids from the vegetation. "Blackwater rivers" can have pH below 3, in the case of the Amazon tributaries of the Rio Negro, flowing out of exceptionally tannin rich rainforests growing on "acid white sand" soils. Blackwater rivers are dark with organic matter, getting their low pH from tannins (phenol, carboxylic acids) and humic acids. Vegetation is not acid. It is not possible to measure the pH of river. Tannin is not a chemical. Sand is not acid. Tannins is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: It is irritating that scientifically illiterate trolls compulsively shit all over my threads at this website. But it is easy to scroll past their bullshit. You write the bullshit, troll. You cannot blame your problem on anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Into the Night insists that no river in the world is naturally acidic. This statement is correct. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: At least ITN conceded that rain can be naturally acidic. But he can't seem to comprehend that Henry's law makes the pH of about 5.6 the predictable equilibrium pH reached by pure water in contact with the atmosphere at sea level. Nor can he comprehend that anthropogenic sulfuric acid and nitric acid are what make some rainfall have pH significantly lower than 5.6, as low as 3.0 in "acid rain" and as low as pH 2.0 in "acid fog". Henry's law does not discuss pH. Denial of Henry's Law. Factories are not rainfall. It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a system. Water is a buffer for all acids. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Perhaps they have convinced each other that they are both credible as "scientists". I doubt that they have anyone else fooled. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, 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
13-07-2026 10:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Im a BM wrote: The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence. Too funny. What is the system boundary? What is the system's usable energy?
13-07-2026 21:08
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3712)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence. Too funny. What is the system boundary? What is the system's usable energy? Science is not funny. What is the system boundary, and what is the system's usable energy in the Dewey Decimal System? Google AI gives kind of a crappy, while accurate definition for the "carbonate system" in water chemistry. Water chemistry textbooks provide better definitions for it, but we'll take Google for a spin anyway. Google, "How does the carbonate system provide pH buffering in sea water?" "The carbonate system acts as a natural shield for seawater. It keeps the pH stable - usually hovering around 8.1 - by swapping chemical forms to absorb or release hydrogen ions, H+... Three main chemical players make up this system: 1. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) 2. Bicarbonate (HCO3-) 3. Carbonate CO3(2-)" Notice how they simply say "carbonate" and everyone understands that it means CO3(2-), regardless of whether we call it category or chemical. And everyone understands that it plays a major role in seawater pH buffering. Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid. Google AI's little story goes on to offer links to legitimate information about ocean acidification and how it impacts CaCO3 shell forming organisms. Edited on 13-07-2026 21:10
13-07-2026 23:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: The local trolls aren't capable of comprehending the ocean's "carbonate system" of pH buffering, so they simply deny its existence. Too funny. What is the system boundary? What is the system's usable energy? Science is not funny. Science can be quite hilarious. Too bad YOU don't have a sense of humor! Im a BM wrote: What is the system boundary, and what is the system's usable energy in the Dewey Decimal System? YARP Im a BM wrote: Google AI gives kind of a crappy, while accurate definition for the "carbonate system" in water chemistry. Water chemistry textbooks provide better definitions for it, but we'll take Google for a spin anyway. Carbonate is not a system. Water is not chemistry. Chemistry is not a book. Chemistry is not Google. Im a BM wrote: Google, "How does the carbonate system provide pH buffering in sea water?" Carbonate is not a system. Im a BM wrote: "The carbonate system acts as a natural shield for seawater. It keeps the pH stable - usually hovering around 8.1 - by swapping chemical forms to absorb or release hydrogen ions, H+... Carbonate is not a system. Seawater does not have a shield. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Carbonate is not a chemical. H+ is not a chemical. [b]Im a BM wrote: Three main chemical players make up this system: 1. Carbonic acid (H2CO3) 2. Bicarbonate (HCO3-) 3. Carbonate CO3(2-)" Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. HCO3- is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: [/b] Notice how they simply say "carbonate" and everyone understands that it means CO3(2-), regardless of whether we call it category or chemical. And everyone understands that it plays a major role in seawater pH buffering. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Water is a buffer for all acids. Im a BM wrote: Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid. Water is a buffer for all acids. Im a BM wrote: Google AI's little story goes on to offer links to legitimate information about ocean acidification and how it impacts CaCO3 shell forming organisms. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Go have a plate of oysters. 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
15-07-2026 16:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Im a BM wrote:Science is not funny. Question: Two cats begin to slide off a high roof; which one survives longer? Answer: The one with the greater Mew! (μ). Im a BM wrote: What is the system boundary, and what is the system's usable energy in the Dewey Decimal System? Until you can express a system boundary, it would appear that there is no system. Im a BM wrote: Google AI gives kind of a crappy, while accurate definition for the "carbonate system" Let me know when Google AI provides a system boundary. Im a BM wrote:Notice how they simply say "carbonate" Did you just use the pronoun "they" to describe AI output? Too funny! Im a BM wrote:Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid. ... unless you apply the definition for buffering, and then pure water, and thus dilution, becomes a buffer.
18-07-2026 00:23
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:Science is not funny. Question: Two cats begin to slide off a high roof; which one survives longer? Answer: The one with the greater Mew! (μ). Im a BM wrote: What is the system boundary, and what is the system's usable energy in the Dewey Decimal System? Until you can express a system boundary, it would appear that there is no system. Im a BM wrote: Google AI gives kind of a crappy, while accurate definition for the "carbonate system" Let me know when Google AI provides a system boundary. Im a BM wrote:Notice how they simply say "carbonate" Did you just use the pronoun "they" to describe AI output? Too funny! Im a BM wrote:Because water itself is NOT a buffer for acid. ... unless you apply the definition for buffering, and then pure water, and thus dilution, becomes a buffer. Let's give Google a chance to show that she knows WAY more science than any scientifically-illiterate Internet TROLL. Google, "Does evaporation change the pH of water?" Google say: "Yes, evaporation changes the pH of water by altering the concentration of dissolved substances. ... Acid Concentration: If the water contains acids that do not easily evaporate, the loss of water volume concentrates these acids. This decreases the pH, making the water more acidic." So then, please tell me Google, "Does carbonic acid evaporate more easily than water?" Google says it's complicated... but... "How does evaporation affect the pH of a solution that contains bicarbonate, HCO3-, and carbonate, CO3(2-)?" Google says: "Evaporation removes water, which increases the concentration of both bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate CO3(2-) ions. ... These ions act as a buffer. A buffer is a liquid that resists quick changes to its pH level." One more question. Tell me, Google, did the PhD biogeochemist known as "sealover" or "Im a BM" EVER even ONCE assert that "water does not evaporate"? COME ON! Do you really believe Google is THAT gullible? Try another one in that case. "At 20 degrees celcius, does liquid carbonic acid have more vapor pressure than liquid water?" Google reassures us that, "No. Liquid water has higher vapor pressure than pure liquid carbonic acid at 20 degrees C." That's what I thought! Google, "Does evaporation act as a mechanism of pH buffering in water? Google say: "No, evaporation does not act as a mechanism of pH buffering" Okay, what about DILUTION? Google, "Does dilution act as a mechanism of pH buffering?" Google say: "No, dilution does not act as a mechanism of pH buffering" That's what I thought! Google, "what is the mechanism of pH buffering in sea water?" Google say: "Seawater's pH is stabilized near pH 8.1 by the carbonate buffer system" So, blame the system, I guess.

Page 24 of 24

Join the debate Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Ocean ph.	91	18-07-2026 07:13
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	624	13-07-2026 21:27
Ocean "acidification" once and for all?	32	08-07-2026 17:12
The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones	23	07-07-2026 17:35
What the pHuck are bupHers, ocean acidipHication, and "pH"?	5	07-05-2026 21:38