The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

29-08-2026 16:39
sealover ★★★★★ (2158)	Patricio, I hope you see the post above this one, as it has new replies to you from top to bottom. The bedrock nitrogen story is the one I want to do first, and it may be as far as I get. The East Bay Municipal Utility District was suing the California Department of Forestry. Massive fish kills contaminated the water in the reservoirs that supplied Oakland, Berkeley, and other Communist communities with water. The lawsuit was huge, but it was based on a false accusation. Logging operations were NOT responsible for the nitrate in the water that fertilized the algae blooms in the reservoirs. Cal Forest needed to hire a biogeochemist for their legal defense. Someone who knew all about nitrogen cycling in forest soils, and what regulates its entry into surface water as nitrate. We already knew before beginning the investigation that it couldn't be the logging operations. This was confirmed by the first field sampling. There was virtually NO nitrate in the creeks coming down from the forested watersheds where logging operations occurred. But then there was a sudden increase when the Mokolumne River came down into the Mother Lode. No logging at all in that area. Just chapparal, or pasture where the native deep rooted perrenials were cleared for cattle grazing. I have too little time to write right now, so I'll skip ahead. I convinced Randy to let me collect a bunch of rock samples the next time I went to collect water samples. I knew which ones to look for and where to find them. Lab analysis proved they were loaded with nitrogen. It was nitrogen in the form of ammonium. The rocks were made of former sea floor sediments that had only been subjected to mild heat and pressure of metamorphism. The nitrogen didn't get baked or squeezed out of the rock they way it would under more typical degrees of metamorphism. So, there was nitrogen in the bedrock of the Mother Lode, and it supplied the nitrogen that became nitrate getting into the reservoirs. But humans did play a role in causing the problem. Not the logging operations. Clearing the deep rooted perrenials for cattle grazing cut off Nature's mechanism of intercepting the bedrock nitrogen as it was released. Without those deep roots to catch it, it flowed with the groundwater until it seeped up into a creek. -------------------------------------- The roots that catch the nitrogen: Fixing the problem would be simple enough, once the cause is understood. I can't resist explaining how it started. Before Randy Dahlgren brought me in on the project, he had already found virtually no nitrate in the surface waters of the logging zone. Nitrate didn't suddenly spike until the Mokolumne River came down into the chapparal zone of the Mother Lode. So, Randy also collected a sample from Rattlesnake Creek, right next to the bridge, where it flowed into the Mokolumne. It had >100 ppm nitrate! So, with Randy's blessing to look for rock samples as a potential source, I went out to get water samples all up and down the river from the designated sampling points. And also look for smaller creeks with potentially high nitrate. Starting with Rattlesnake Creek, follow it up further to see where all that nitrate was coming from. Rattlesnake Creek was lined with a fuzzy mat of very fine tree roots. I had never seen anything like it before. The trees were tapping into that >100 ppm nitrate, and removing some of it before it got to the river. So, our job was to get the loggers off the hook for false accusations of river pollution. Nobody wanted us to point the blaming finger at the ranchers. Nobody followed up with the obvious implications for improved management. They need to leave some of that deep-rooted chaparral intact if they don't want high nitrate in the river water. Most of the pasture land is innocent. But some small areas of it overlie nitrate-rich groundwater, as ammonium released from bedrock is oxidized to nitrate. Like the trees along Rattlesnake Creek, the chaparral puts plenty of fine roots out to intercept the nitrate before it seeps up into surface water. Only a small fraction of the pasture land would need to be restored to deep-rooted perennial chaparral to stop the fish kills in the reservoir. -------------------------- Final edit: What is the connection between aquatic "dead zones" and climate? Aquatic "dead zones", where eutrophication (over feeding) caused by excess nitrogen fertilizer causes algae blooms, and then hypoxia (low oxygen). Well, among other problems they cause, aquatic "dead zones" are a source of nitrous oxide, N2O emissions to the atmosphere. Under low oxygen conditions, that very same nitrate that caused the algae bloom can be used by nitrate-reducing bacteria as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the abundant organic carbon, which caused the hypoxia. Whether the pathway is denitrification (to N2) or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium, nitrous oxide is a by product. Globally, microbial nitrate reduction is far and away the greatest source of N2O emissions. "Dead zones" offer perfect conditions for N2O (and also by product NO) emissions, with low oxygen, available nitrate for oxidant, and plenty of organic carbon to exploit. So, it is not "off topic" in any way to discuss aquatic "dead zones" on a climate discussion website. They are a source of an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas.
29-08-2026 20:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: ...deleted spam... So, it is not "off topic" in any way to discuss aquatic "dead zones" on a climate discussion website. They are a source of an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-08-2026 12:18
sealover ★★★★★ (2158)	Revision of Numbers in Old Data Sets - the Missing Organic Nitrogen. Patricio, of your questions deserves front and center, top position. Yes, the DID underestimate the total nitrogen fluxes from watersheds into streams and from rivers into the sea, for many decades. Some studies really DID measure total nitrogen, using Kjeldahl digestion to dissolve and transform all forms of nitrogen in the sample for measure of total nitrogen content. Most just measured ammonium and nitrate, knowing that dissolved organic forms of N existed, but presuming them to be present only at negligible concentration. Within a year of my paper in Nature identifying the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen, literally hundreds of papers had been submitted for review that confirmed the importance of DON across the board, from rain water to soil water, surface water, ground water, sea water. Everyone was confirming that DON was hardly negligible, and even accounted for the lion's share of N in some waters. A lot of samples had been measured for nitrogen without catching an important species. So, 1996, the Chapman Conference on Nitrogen in Watersheds.. Can't remember the exact title, but it was in Sunriver, Oregon. Well, organic nitrogen was a BIG deal that EVERYONE could get an original paper out of. Any place they finally measured it for the first time and confirmed its presence was another original finding of where previous data sets were proved to be inaccurate. The total fluxes of nitrogen from land to sea were considerably larger than measurement of inorganic nitrogen alone had made us believe. So, what do you do with the old data sets? Obviously, you're going to measure DON from now on so you'll never miss it, but how do you know how much you missed before. Even in 1996, a "camp" within that conference had agreed upon a way for quick back of the envelope calculations to get ballpark estimates of how much nitrogen they missed. A ten to one ratio for dissolved organic carbon to dissolved organic nitrogen could be used to take old numbers for DOC and turn them into numbers for DON. It was pretty consistent across a lot of ecosystems, that ten to one ratio of DOC ON. In 1996, they agreed that this was just a first step to make some educated guesses. I honestly don't know if anyone officially revised any old data sets to include new and larger numbers for nitrogen fluxes. There are ethical considerations around literally making up data to add to an old data set. It isn't hard to prove that you most certainly missed a lot of nitrogen. It is impossible to prove exactly how much you missed. But knowing you missed it is important. Certainly some kind of asterisk to older data tables, in any case. Patricio wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Patricio replies Well, Sealover, once upon a time (and I still have long hair) I was a 'hippie', though I was always more into jazz than rock and only took LSD three times . Anyway, love the history/memory lane, acid rain, etc., and genuine respect for what you've actually accomplished in this field. The "farming by the foot" detail reframes the whole issue for me. I'd been thinking of overapplication as a uniform practice -- a field‑scale habit. What you're describing is a resolution mismatch: we've been fertilizing at the acre scale when the biology operates at the square‑foot scale. That's a fundamentally different problem than "farmers are careless"; it's an instrumentation and incentive problem. Do we have evidence yet that variable‑rate adoption is large enough to register in Gulf hypoxia trends, or is it still too marginal to show up in NOAA's surveys? The blue baby syndrome detail is the gut‑punch of the whole post -- that the eutrophication story has a second, more immediate human casualty list running parallel to the ecological one. Most public discourse (mine included) jumps straight to dead zones and dead crabs without registering that nitrate‑contaminated wells were killing infants in farmworker housing in real time. That's the kind of thing that should reframe "overapplication was cheap insurance" -- cheap for whom, exactly? The dissolved organic nitrogen thread is the one I want to understand better, not argue with. If I'm following you: the conventional bookkeeping on nitrogen transport -- focused on nitrate and ammonium -- was missing a major vehicle entirely, and your 1995 Nature paper identified that for soil/groundwater systems before Moore et al. extended the finding to submarine groundwater discharge. Does that mean historical N‑loading estimates for systems like the Gulf are likely undercounts, or does DON behave differently enough (slower release, lower immediate bioavailability) that it changes the transport math without changing the eutrophication math? And the Mokelumne discovery is just a great story -- bedrock nitrogen causing fish kills that look superficially like agricultural runoff until someone actually traces the source. I assume that's the kind of result that gets argued with by people who've already decided what the answer has to be. Anyway, this is plenty to chew on -- genuinely curious where you land on the variable-rate and DON questions. I'll leave IBdaMann to his own devices. Take care, Patricio. I have to resist the temptation to delay my plan to go to the river right now... Yes, they underestimated the amount of nitrogen entering the sea from river flows EVERYWHERE during the decades when they only measured ammonium and nitrate. In more than a few rivers, organic nitrogen was MOST of the total N flux. They have gone back to old data sets to estimate how much nitrogen they missed, based on how much organic nitrogen they have speciated since. They can even calibrate a watershed-specific organicN-organicC ratio where they have TOC data and DON data, to use TOC data from the past to fill in the blank. Variable rate agriculture has advanced by leaps and bounds since I worked on it, and it TOTALLY changes the equation for ensuring maximum yield without a one size fits all application rate based on the LEAST fertile microsite. But the sensor I worked on died a tragic death from a too-trusting "catch and kill" contract. Nothing runs like a SNAKE! They wanted farmers to wait a while before offering the new technology. And the nitrogen in the rocks story involved Rush Limbaugh because he PRAISED my discovery on his show. We were contracted by Cal Forest to investigate because logging practices were being falsely accused of causing the fish kills. Rush was delighted that we proved it was Mother Nature killing the fish. And I didn't get a chance to tell Rush that if the ranchers hadn't killed the deep rooted perrenial chapparal to clear it for pasture, that bedrock nitrogen could have been intercepted by the vegetation like it used to be, rather than getting into the river. ----------------------------------- Okay, I'm back from the river. An otter came very close to me, while a great blue heron stood a few meters away. It made my day! There is considerable irony that IBdaMann accuses me of being gullible and brainwashed by the dogma they indoctrinate into science students at Commie universities. I was actually a major contrarian thorn in their side at the Ivory Tower. I insisted that they were all WRONG about what they thought they knew about some very basic stuff. They got the basic nitrogen cycle WRONG for many ecosystems, failing to realize that it was being short circuited by mycorrhizal fungi transferring nitrogen in organic form to the host plant root. They got it WRONG that dissolved organic forms of nitrogen were a negligible component of nitrogen fluxes in soils and waters. They got it WRONG that the adaptive value for natural selection of plant tannins was for anti herbivore defense, rather than for engineering plant-litter-soil interactions to their advantage to monopolize scarce resources. They got it WRONG that bedrock nitrogen was a negligible contributor to nitrate in any mountain stream waters. In the Ivory Tower, it was ME who was the contrarian making outrageous assertions that contradicted the mainstream consensus. But the rules were different there than they are at climate-debate.com I had to come up with some kind of credible EVIDENCE before anyone was going to just take my word for it. They kind of insist that science IS a citation, if the only other choice offered to support one's assertions is their presumed-to-be-self-evident omniscience. "No, its' not!" never won any Nobel Prizes until it was able to prove... "and THIS is what it actually IS (with LOTS of evidence and detailed explanation)". Even then, a whole bunch of other scientists were going to have to independently verify its reproducibility before "No, it's not" was ever going to be taken seriously. A good explanation for what actually IS in that case is required.
30-08-2026 12:19
sealover ★★★★★ (2158)	Patricio, I hope you see the post above this one, as it has new replies to you from top to bottom. The bedrock nitrogen story is the one I want to do first, and it may be as far as I get. The East Bay Municipal Utility District was suing the California Department of Forestry. Massive fish kills contaminated the water in the reservoirs that supplied Oakland, Berkeley, and other Communist communities with water. The lawsuit was huge, but it was based on a false accusation. Logging operations were NOT responsible for the nitrate in the water that fertilized the algae blooms in the reservoirs. Cal Forest needed to hire a biogeochemist for their legal defense. Someone who knew all about nitrogen cycling in forest soils, and what regulates its entry into surface water as nitrate. We already knew before beginning the investigation that it couldn't be the logging operations. This was confirmed by the first field sampling. There was virtually NO nitrate in the creeks coming down from the forested watersheds where logging operations occurred. But then there was a sudden increase when the Mokolumne River came down into the Mother Lode. No logging at all in that area. Just chapparal, or pasture where the native deep rooted perrenials were cleared for cattle grazing. I have too little time to write right now, so I'll skip ahead. I convinced Randy to let me collect a bunch of rock samples the next time I went to collect water samples. I knew which ones to look for and where to find them. Lab analysis proved they were loaded with nitrogen. It was nitrogen in the form of ammonium. The rocks were made of former sea floor sediments that had only been subjected to mild heat and pressure of metamorphism. The nitrogen didn't get baked or squeezed out of the rock they way it would under more typical degrees of metamorphism. So, there was nitrogen in the bedrock of the Mother Lode, and it supplied the nitrogen that became nitrate getting into the reservoirs. But humans did play a role in causing the problem. Not the logging operations. Clearing the deep rooted perrenials for cattle grazing cut off Nature's mechanism of intercepting the bedrock nitrogen as it was released. Without those deep roots to catch it, it flowed with the groundwater until it seeped up into a creek. -------------------------------------- The roots that catch the nitrogen: Fixing the problem would be simple enough, once the cause is understood. I can't resist explaining how it started. Before Randy Dahlgren brought me in on the project, he had already found virtually no nitrate in the surface waters of the logging zone. Nitrate didn't suddenly spike until the Mokolumne River came down into the chapparal zone of the Mother Lode. So, Randy also collected a sample from Rattlesnake Creek, right next to the bridge, where it flowed into the Mokolumne. It had >100 ppm nitrate! So, with Randy's blessing to look for rock samples as a potential source, I went out to get water samples all up and down the river from the designated sampling points. And also look for smaller creeks with potentially high nitrate. Starting with Rattlesnake Creek, follow it up further to see where all that nitrate was coming from. Rattlesnake Creek was lined with a fuzzy mat of very fine tree roots. I had never seen anything like it before. The trees were tapping into that >100 ppm nitrate, and removing some of it before it got to the river. So, our job was to get the loggers off the hook for false accusations of river pollution. Nobody wanted us to point the blaming finger at the ranchers. Nobody followed up with the obvious implications for improved management. They need to leave some of that deep-rooted chaparral intact if they don't want high nitrate in the river water. Most of the pasture land is innocent. But some small areas of it overlie nitrate-rich groundwater, as ammonium released from bedrock is oxidized to nitrate. Like the trees along Rattlesnake Creek, the chaparral puts plenty of fine roots out to intercept the nitrate before it seeps up into surface water. Only a small fraction of the pasture land would need to be restored to deep-rooted perennial chaparral to stop the fish kills in the reservoir. -------------------------- Final edit: What is the connection between aquatic "dead zones" and climate? Aquatic "dead zones", where eutrophication (over feeding) caused by excess nitrogen fertilizer causes algae blooms, and then hypoxia (low oxygen). Well, among other problems they cause, aquatic "dead zones" are a source of nitrous oxide, N2O emissions to the atmosphere. Under low oxygen conditions, that very same nitrate that caused the algae bloom can be used by nitrate-reducing bacteria as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize the abundant organic carbon, which caused the hypoxia. Whether the pathway is denitrification (to N2) or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium, nitrous oxide is a by product. Globally, microbial nitrate reduction is far and away the greatest source of N2O emissions. "Dead zones" offer perfect conditions for N2O (and also by product NO) emissions, with low oxygen, available nitrate for oxidant, and plenty of organic carbon to exploit. So, it is not "off topic" in any way to discuss aquatic "dead zones" on a climate discussion website. They are a source of an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas.
31-08-2026 00:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Stop spamming.
01-09-2026 21:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. Into the Night, you have a very colorful history of internet trolling that is well documented because you create so much irritation as you do what you do. At Usenet, one of your special tricks was to accuse other members or being "bots" or otherwise not actual human members posting their irritation about you. As partial revenge for how badly you pHucked up Branner's website, I'll keep asking Google to provide examples of the STUPID SHIT that the internet persona known as "Into the Night" posts at OTHER climate and science discussion sites. This thread by Patricio kind of brings it back full circle. My very first post got my very first reply from IBdaMann, and he actually found an EXCELLENT review article by Moore et al (which he didn't even bother citing the source or author name) about SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE. IBdaMann could only see it in political terms, as he didn't have a clue what any of those big word scientific gibber babble terms actually mean. He didn't notice that the one important chemical parameter NOT included in the submarine groundwater discharge review paper was ALKALINITY. But he went on a political diatribe about marine "dead zones" and how they are really a GOOD thing that we should want MORE of. I loved that review paper by Moore et al, because it actually speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to reporting the traditional nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. I take personal pride in having contributed significantly to making the scientific community aware that they were missing an important piece of the nitrogen cycle if they weren't measuring the nitrogen that was present in ORGANIC form, such a amino acids. They don't show up as nitrate or ammonium, so failure to measure them underestimates the total fluxes of nitrogen. I'm sure that Into the Night will insist on proving, ONCE AGAIN, that he never actually studied chemistry as he lists a bunch of words he doesn't think should be referred to as a "chemical". Or maybe he'll just wish it away, again, and declare that "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'." ------------------------ Yes, "submarine groundwater discharge" were the keywords that enabled IBdaMann to find this excellent review article. Abbreviated to "SGD", SGD is relevant to this thread because it is the Earth's most important source of fresh carbonate ions, CO3(2-), entering the sea to counteract the carbonic acid, H2CO3, from the "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea from the air. Historically, SGD carbonate ions entered the sea at a high enough rate to keep the sea at pH about 8.3, in a "steady state" balance with the rate of CO2 entry from the atmosphere. TWO THINGS CHANGED thanks to human activity: 1. The rate of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea INCREASED. 2. The rate of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea in submarine groundwater discharge DECREASED. The steady state pH of the sea is being shifted down to a more "acidic" (i.e. lower, regardless of starting point) pH. "Acidification" is movement down on the pH scale, whether it's from 8 to 6, or 13 to 11. My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is no less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Go to page 1 of this thread, the 6th post down from the top. You can see the abstract of the submarine groundwater discharge nutrient flux review article by Moore et al.
02-09-2026 06:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Into the Night, you have a very colorful history of internet trolling that is well documented because you create so much irritation as you do what you do. At Usenet, one of your special tricks was to accuse other members or being "bots" or otherwise not actual human members posting their irritation about you. As partial revenge for how badly you pHucked up Branner's website, I'll keep asking Google to provide examples of the STUPID SHIT that the internet persona known as "Into the Night" posts at OTHER climate and science discussion sites. This thread by Patricio kind of brings it back full circle. You can't blame your trolling and spamming on anybody else, Robert. I don't use Usenet. I never claimed anyone was a bot. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: My very first post got my very first reply from IBdaMann, and he actually found an EXCELLENT review article by Moore et al (which he didn't even bother citing the source or author name) about SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE. IBdaMann could only see it in political terms, as he didn't have a clue what any of those big word scientific gibber babble terms actually mean. He didn't notice that the one important chemical parameter NOT included in the submarine groundwater discharge review paper was ALKALINITY. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Science isn't gibber babble. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: But he went on a political diatribe about marine "dead zones" and how they are really a GOOD thing that we should want MORE of. I loved that review paper by Moore et al, because it actually speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to reporting the traditional nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. The ocean is mostly barren. Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorous is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Orthophosphate is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: I take personal pride in having contributed significantly to making the scientific community aware that they were missing an important piece of the nitrogen cycle if they weren't measuring the nitrogen that was present in ORGANIC form, such a amino acids. They don't show up as nitrate or ammonium, so failure to measure them underestimates the total fluxes of nitrogen. Science is not a community. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not organic. Amino acid is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a flux. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: I'm sure that Into the Night will insist on proving, ONCE AGAIN, that he never actually studied chemistry as he lists a bunch of words he doesn't think should be referred to as a "chemical". Or maybe he'll just wish it away, again, and declare that "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'." Nitrogen is not organic. You can't blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Yes, "submarine groundwater discharge" were the keywords that enabled IBdaMann to find this excellent review article. Abbreviated to "SGD", SGD is relevant to this thread because it is the Earth's most important source of fresh carbonate ions, CO3(2-), entering the sea to counteract the carbonic acid, H2CO3, from the "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea from the air. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbonic acid is destroyed by evaporation. Carbonic acid is not a gas. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Historically, SGD carbonate ions entered the sea at a high enough rate to keep the sea at pH about 8.3, in a "steady state" balance with the rate of CO2 entry from the atmosphere. Carbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. CO2 vents from the ocean. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: TWO THINGS CHANGED thanks to human activity: 1. The rate of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea INCREASED. 2. The rate of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea in submarine groundwater discharge DECREASED. The steady state pH of the sea is being shifted down to a more "acidic" (i.e. lower, regardless of starting point) pH. "Acidification" is movement down on the pH scale, whether it's from 8 to 6, or 13 to 11. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. It is not possible to measure the total CO2 on Earth. It is not possible to measure the CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Carbonate is not a chemical. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is no less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. Carbonate is not a chemical. The level of the ocean is not rising. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Hydraulics is not a gradient. Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Oxygen is not a sediment. Microbial sulfate is not a chemical. Microbial sulfate cannot be reduced. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. Carbonate is not a chemical. Wetlands are not sulfuric acid. Drained land is not a wetland. Sub sea is not a drainage. Drainage is not a sediment. Sulfuric acid does not contain iron. Terminal electron acceptor is no a chemical. Bacteria is not oxygen. Sulfur is not sulfuric acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Microbial sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate cannot be reduced. Terminal electron acceptor is not a chemical. SO(2-) is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbonic acid is not carbon. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. pH is not a chemical. Acidity is not a chemical. 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
02-09-2026 15:39
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Repetitive" and "formulaic" are two of the adjectives Google used to describe Into the Night's posting style at climate discussion sites. Yes, very repetitive and very formulaic. "Science is not blah blah blah. Blah blah is not a chemical. Blah is not blah blah. Blah blah blah is not blah blah." SO informative! Who could doubt that ITN is really a "chemist" when he provides such incredible chemistry lessons? Into the Night wrote: Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote My name is Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle You can't blame your trolling and spamming on anybody else, Robert. I don't use Usenet. I never claimed anyone was a bot. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Science isn't gibber babble. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? The ocean is mostly barren. Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorous is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Orthophosphate is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Science is not a community. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not organic. Amino acid is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a flux. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Nitrogen is not organic. You can't blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbonic acid is destroyed by evaporation. Carbonic acid is not a gas. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Carbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. CO2 vents from the ocean. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote:? Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. It is not possible to measure the total CO2 on Earth. It is not possible to measure the CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Carbonate is not a chemical. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is now less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. Carbonate is not a chemical. The level of the ocean is not rising. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Hydraulics is not a gradient. Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Oxygen is not a sediment. Microbial sulfate is not a chemical. Microbial sulfate cannot be reduced. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. Carbonate is not a chemical. Wetlands are not sulfuric acid. Drained land is not a wetland. Sub sea is not a drainage. Drainage is not a sediment. Sulfuric acid does not contain iron. Terminal electron acceptor is no a chemical. Bacteria is not oxygen. Sulfur is not sulfuric acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO4(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Microbial sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate cannot be reduced. Terminal electron acceptor is not a chemical. SO(2-) is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbonic acid is not carbon. Carbon dioxide is not carbonic acid. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. pH is not a chemical. Acidity is not a chemical.
08-09-2026 20:29
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Submarines don't discharge groundwater." - Into the Night This is the clever sentence that Into the Night continues to repeat, over and over again. Such a clever word game, arising from the term "submarine groundwater discharge". Into the Night has had four and a half years to figure out what this term obviously means in marine science. Four and a half years ago, IBdaMann gave me his first reply to my first post, with an abstract of an excellent review paper about submarine groundwater discharge. The paper compiled data from more than 200 sites. Submarine groundwater discharge is the water that flows into the sea from the land as subsurface flow. Often a significantly larger total volume of water flows under the river than flows in it as surface water. The excellent review article abstract that IBdaMann posted four and a half years ago pointed out that more total nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus in particular) entered the sea as submarine groundwater discharge than as surface water from the very same river deltas. The term is straightforward. Submarine, long before it became a name for warships, means below the sea water surface. Groundwater is water flowing in subsurface flow paths, deeper than surface water. Discharge is what happens to the groundwater when it reaches the edge land and seeps out into the sea, tens or hundreds of meters below the ocean surface. Perhaps Into the Night isn't so rigidly dogmatic that he is truly incapable of understanding this scientific term. But as Google reveals, his reputation as a poster at Usenet climate discussion forums... he was "..famous for relentless semantic nitpicking and rejection of scientific definitions." So, maybe that clever pun about "submarines don't discharge groundwater" isn't because he truly can't fathom how scientific definitions work. But repeating that same stupid pun so many times now... Suggests that there is "no such thing" as submarine groundwater discharge. Or at least, nothing intelligent to say about it. IBdaMann did something that actually turned out to be quite rare for him, locating an excellent review paper and posting the abstract. AND THE RELEVANCE TO THIS THREAD If Patricio ever returns to say hello, I encourage him to see the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread, page 1, six posts down from the top. The nutrients entering the sea as submarine groundwater discharge have not been included in the tally when they measure/calculate how much fertilizer goes into the sea as river flows. According to the review article by Moore et al, the abstract of which is posted on the sixth post down of the first page of the "Restoring Alkalinity.." thread, MORE nitrogen and phosphorus go into the sea via subsurface flow than in the overlying surface water of many rivers. Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. Into the Night, you have a very colorful history of internet trolling that is well documented because you create so much irritation as you do what you do. At Usenet, one of your special tricks was to accuse other members or being "bots" or otherwise not actual human members posting their irritation about you. As partial revenge for how badly you pHucked up Branner's website, I'll keep asking Google to provide examples of the STUPID SHIT that the internet persona known as "Into the Night" posts at OTHER climate and science discussion sites. This thread by Patricio kind of brings it back full circle. My very first post got my very first reply from IBdaMann, and he actually found an EXCELLENT review article by Moore et al (which he didn't even bother citing the source or author name) about SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE. IBdaMann could only see it in political terms, as he didn't have a clue what any of those big word scientific gibber babble terms actually mean. He didn't notice that the one important chemical parameter NOT included in the submarine groundwater discharge review paper was ALKALINITY. But he went on a political diatribe about marine "dead zones" and how they are really a GOOD thing that we should want MORE of. I loved that review paper by Moore et al, because it actually speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to reporting the traditional nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. I take personal pride in having contributed significantly to making the scientific community aware that they were missing an important piece of the nitrogen cycle if they weren't measuring the nitrogen that was present in ORGANIC form, such a amino acids. They don't show up as nitrate or ammonium, so failure to measure them underestimates the total fluxes of nitrogen. I'm sure that Into the Night will insist on proving, ONCE AGAIN, that he never actually studied chemistry as he lists a bunch of words he doesn't think should be referred to as a "chemical". Or maybe he'll just wish it away, again, and declare that "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'." ------------------------ Yes, "submarine groundwater discharge" were the keywords that enabled IBdaMann to find this excellent review article. Abbreviated to "SGD", SGD is relevant to this thread because it is the Earth's most important source of fresh carbonate ions, CO3(2-), entering the sea to counteract the carbonic acid, H2CO3, from the "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea from the air. Historically, SGD carbonate ions entered the sea at a high enough rate to keep the sea at pH about 8.3, in a "steady state" balance with the rate of CO2 entry from the atmosphere. TWO THINGS CHANGED thanks to human activity: 1. The rate of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea INCREASED. 2. The rate of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea in submarine groundwater discharge DECREASED. The steady state pH of the sea is being shifted down to a more "acidic" (i.e. lower, regardless of starting point) pH. "Acidification" is movement down on the pH scale, whether it's from 8 to 6, or 13 to 11. My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is no less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Go to page 1 of this thread, the 6th post down from the top. You can see the abstract of the submarine groundwater discharge nutrient flux review article by Moore et al. [/quote]
08-09-2026 22:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: This is the clever sentence that Into the Night continues to repeat, over and over again. Such a clever word game, arising from the term "submarine groundwater discharge". Into the Night has had four and a half years to figure out what this term obviously means in marine science. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Science is not marine. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Four and a half years ago, IBdaMann gave me his first reply to my first post, with an abstract of an excellent review paper about submarine groundwater discharge. The paper compiled data from more than 200 sites. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. A paper is not a submarine. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Submarine groundwater discharge is the water that flows into the sea from the land as subsurface flow. Often a significantly larger total volume of water flows under the river than flows in it as surface water. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Water does not flow uphill. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The excellent review article abstract that IBdaMann posted four and a half years ago pointed out that more total nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus in particular) entered the sea as submarine groundwater discharge than as surface water from the very same river deltas. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Water does not flow uphill. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The term is straightforward. Submarine, long before it became a name for warships, means below the sea water surface. Groundwater is water flowing in subsurface flow paths, deeper than surface water. Discharge is what happens to the groundwater when it reaches the edge land and seeps out into the sea, tens or hundreds of meters below the ocean surface. A submarine is not necessarily a warship. Water does not flow uphill. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Perhaps Into the Night isn't so rigidly dogmatic that he is truly incapable of understanding this scientific term. But as Google reveals, his reputation as a poster at Usenet climate discussion forums... he was "..famous for relentless semantic nitpicking and rejection of scientific definitions." Science is not a submarine. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. I don't use Usenet. Science is not definitions. You deny many theories of science. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: So, maybe that clever pun about "submarines don't discharge groundwater" isn't because he truly can't fathom how scientific definitions work. Science is not definitions. You deny many theories of science. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: But repeating that same stupid pun so many times now... Suggests that there is "no such thing" as submarine groundwater discharge. Or at least, nothing intelligent to say about it. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: IBdaMann did something that actually turned out to be quite rare for him, locating an excellent review paper and posting the abstract. AND THE RELEVANCE TO THIS THREAD If Patricio ever returns to say hello, I encourage him to see the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread, page 1, six posts down from the top. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The nutrients entering the sea as submarine groundwater discharge have not been included in the tally when they measure/calculate how much fertilizer goes into the sea as river flows. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. It is not possible to measure the total river flow of Earth. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: According to the review article by Moore et al, the abstract of which is posted on the sixth post down of the first page of the "Restoring Alkalinity.." thread, MORE nitrogen and phosphorus go into the sea via subsurface flow than in the overlying surface water of many rivers. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Water does not flow uphill. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Into the Night, you have a very colorful history of internet trolling that is well documented because you create so much irritation as you do what you do. At Usenet, one of your special tricks was to accuse other members or being "bots" or otherwise not actual human members posting their irritation about you. I don't use Usenet. I don't accuse anyone of being a bot. You may be as dumb as one, but you are not a bot. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: As partial revenge for how badly you pHucked up Branner's website, I'll keep asking Google to provide examples of the STUPID SHIT that the internet persona known as "Into the Night" posts at OTHER climate and science discussion sites. You can't blame me for your problems, Robert. Inversion fallacy. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: This thread by Patricio kind of brings it back full circle. My very first post got my very first reply from IBdaMann, and he actually found an EXCELLENT review article by Moore et al (which he didn't even bother citing the source or author name) about SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE. IBdaMann could only see it in political terms, as he didn't have a clue what any of those big word scientific gibber babble terms actually mean. He didn't notice that the one important chemical parameter NOT included in the submarine groundwater discharge review paper was ALKALINITY. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Gibber babble is not science. Gibber babble has no meaning. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: But he went on a political diatribe about marine "dead zones" and how they are really a GOOD thing that we should want MORE of. The ocean is mostly barren. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I loved that review paper by Moore et al, because it actually speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to reporting the traditional nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. Speciated is not a word. Nitrogen is not organic. Phosphorus is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Orthophosphate is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I take personal pride in having contributed significantly to making the scientific community aware that they were missing an important piece of the nitrogen cycle if they weren't measuring the nitrogen that was present in ORGANIC form, such a amino acids. They don't show up as nitrate or ammonium, so failure to measure them underestimates the total fluxes of nitrogen. Science is not a community. You deny many theories of science. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not organic. Amino acid is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a flux. You cannot measure what does not exist. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: I'm sure that Into the Night will insist on proving, ONCE AGAIN, that he never actually studied chemistry as he lists a bunch of words he doesn't think should be referred to as a "chemical". Or maybe he'll just wish it away, again, and declare that "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'." Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illiteracy on anyone else, Robert. Nitrogen is not organic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Yes, "submarine groundwater discharge" were the keywords that enabled IBdaMann to find this excellent review article. Abbreviated to "SGD", SGD is relevant to this thread because it is the Earth's most important source of fresh carbonate ions, CO3(2-), entering the sea to counteract the carbonic acid, H2CO3, from the "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea from the air. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbonic acid is not carbon dioxide. The ocean vents carbon dioxide. Carbonic acid is destroyed by this venting. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:Historically, SGD carbonate ions entered the sea at a high enough rate to keep the sea at pH about 8.3, in a "steady state" balance with the rate of CO2 entry from the atmosphere. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Carbonate is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not an acid. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote:TWO THINGS CHANGED thanks to human activity: 1. The rate of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea INCREASED. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbonic acid is not carbon dioxide. The ocean vents carbon dioxide. It is not possible to measure the total carbon dioxide on Earth. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: 2. The rate of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea in submarine groundwater discharge DECREASED. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Submarines don't discharge groundwater. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: The steady state pH of the sea is being shifted down to a more "acidic" (i.e. lower, regardless of starting point) pH. "Acidification" is movement down on the pH scale, whether it's from 8 to 6, or 13 to 11. You cannot acidify analkaline. Go learn what pH is. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is no less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. Carbonate is not a chemical CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Sea level is not rising. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The distance between the ground and low tide is zero. Hydraulics is not a gradient. Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not oxygen. Carbon is not a microbe. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfuric acid is not a wetland. Drained land is not a wetland. Water does not flow uphill. There is no pump. Sediment is not a drain. Pyrite is not sulfuric acid. Sulfur is not a oxygen. Sulfur is not a bacterium. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Sulfur dioxide is not sulfuric acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfate isnot a microbe. Sulfur is not iron. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate isnot a bacterium. SO(2-) is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not energy. Carbon is not carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is not a gas. Carbon dioxide is not a microbe. Carbon is sulfate or any other buzzword. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Buzzwords are not an acid or an alkaline. 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
11-09-2026 16:23
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	"Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night Some words actually have more than one potential meaning, and context is important. "Phenol", for example is the name of a specific chemical (a.k.a. "carbolic acid"), but it is also a general term for any benzene ring with a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached, and there are more than a thousand unique chemicals that are all called "phenols". "Phenol is not a chemical", as Into the Night has exhaustively repeated, can be true in some contexts. "Urea is not a chemical" pushes the stupidity a little farther. The term "urea" has no other definition, in any other context, besides one specific chemical. A longer term that includes "urea" may not be a reference to the specific chemical, but when written alone, "urea" is a "chemical". Known as "carbamide", urea's chemical formula is CO(NH2)2. I'm still on the fence about whether we should go around calling urea "organic nitrogen". For me, two amino groups don't count as a larger organic molecule on a single carbon atom otherwise double bonded to oxygen. But Google has convinced me that other scientists are calling urea "organic nitrogen", rather than "inorganic nitrogen". "Submarines don't discharge groundwater." - Into the Night This is the clever sentence that Into the Night continues to repeat, over and over again. Such a clever word game, arising from the term "submarine groundwater discharge". Into the Night has had four and a half years to figure out what this term obviously means in marine science. Four and a half years ago, IBdaMann gave me his first reply to my first post, with an abstract of an excellent review paper about submarine groundwater discharge. The paper compiled data from more than 200 sites. Submarine groundwater discharge is the water that flows into the sea from the land as subsurface flow. Often a significantly larger total volume of water flows under the river than flows in it as surface water. The excellent review article abstract that IBdaMann posted four and a half years ago pointed out that more total nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus in particular) entered the sea as submarine groundwater discharge than as surface water from the very same river deltas. The term is straightforward. Submarine, long before it became a name for warships, means below the sea water surface. Groundwater is water flowing in subsurface flow paths, deeper than surface water. Discharge is what happens to the groundwater when it reaches the edge land and seeps out into the sea, tens or hundreds of meters below the ocean surface. Perhaps Into the Night isn't so rigidly dogmatic that he is truly incapable of understanding this scientific term. But as Google reveals, his reputation as a poster at Usenet climate discussion forums... he was "..famous for relentless semantic nitpicking and rejection of scientific definitions." So, maybe that clever pun about "submarines don't discharge groundwater" isn't because he truly can't fathom how scientific definitions work. But repeating that same stupid pun so many times now... Suggests that there is "no such thing" as submarine groundwater discharge. Or at least, nothing intelligent to say about it. IBdaMann did something that actually turned out to be quite rare for him, locating an excellent review paper and posting the abstract. AND THE RELEVANCE TO THIS THREAD If Patricio ever returns to say hello, I encourage him to see the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread, page 1, six posts down from the top. The nutrients entering the sea as submarine groundwater discharge have not been included in the tally when they measure/calculate how much fertilizer goes into the sea as river flows. According to the review article by Moore et al, the abstract of which is posted on the sixth post down of the first page of the "Restoring Alkalinity.." thread, MORE nitrogen and phosphorus go into the sea via subsurface flow than in the overlying surface water of many rivers. Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. Into the Night, you have a very colorful history of internet trolling that is well documented because you create so much irritation as you do what you do. At Usenet, one of your special tricks was to accuse other members or being "bots" or otherwise not actual human members posting their irritation about you. As partial revenge for how badly you pHucked up Branner's website, I'll keep asking Google to provide examples of the STUPID SHIT that the internet persona known as "Into the Night" posts at OTHER climate and science discussion sites. This thread by Patricio kind of brings it back full circle. My very first post got my very first reply from IBdaMann, and he actually found an EXCELLENT review article by Moore et al (which he didn't even bother citing the source or author name) about SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE. IBdaMann could only see it in political terms, as he didn't have a clue what any of those big word scientific gibber babble terms actually mean. He didn't notice that the one important chemical parameter NOT included in the submarine groundwater discharge review paper was ALKALINITY. But he went on a political diatribe about marine "dead zones" and how they are really a GOOD thing that we should want MORE of. I loved that review paper by Moore et al, because it actually speciated ORGANIC nitrogen and ORGANIC phosphorus, in addition to reporting the traditional nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. I take personal pride in having contributed significantly to making the scientific community aware that they were missing an important piece of the nitrogen cycle if they weren't measuring the nitrogen that was present in ORGANIC form, such a amino acids. They don't show up as nitrate or ammonium, so failure to measure them underestimates the total fluxes of nitrogen. I'm sure that Into the Night will insist on proving, ONCE AGAIN, that he never actually studied chemistry as he lists a bunch of words he doesn't think should be referred to as a "chemical". Or maybe he'll just wish it away, again, and declare that "There is no such thing as 'organic nitrogen'." ------------------------ Yes, "submarine groundwater discharge" were the keywords that enabled IBdaMann to find this excellent review article. Abbreviated to "SGD", SGD is relevant to this thread because it is the Earth's most important source of fresh carbonate ions, CO3(2-), entering the sea to counteract the carbonic acid, H2CO3, from the "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea from the air. Historically, SGD carbonate ions entered the sea at a high enough rate to keep the sea at pH about 8.3, in a "steady state" balance with the rate of CO2 entry from the atmosphere. TWO THINGS CHANGED thanks to human activity: 1. The rate of "carbonic acid gas" (CO2) entering the sea INCREASED. 2. The rate of carbonate ions, CO3(2-) entering the sea in submarine groundwater discharge DECREASED. The steady state pH of the sea is being shifted down to a more "acidic" (i.e. lower, regardless of starting point) pH. "Acidification" is movement down on the pH scale, whether it's from 8 to 6, or 13 to 11. My goal with this thread is to provide biogeochemistry information about these things to people who might actually care about ocean acidification. There is less carbonate ion, CO3(2-) entering the sea in part because sea level is rising, thanks to anthropogenic global warming. There is no less distance between ground surface level and low tide. Less hydraulic gradient during tidal shift to drive sulfate rich sea water into organic carbon rich, low oxygen sediment to generate CO3(2-) via microbial sulfate reduction. There is less carbonate ion, and MORE SULFURIC ACID entering the sea from coastal wetlands now because humans have drained them, and continuously pump out sub sea level drainage water from them, discharging it uphill into the surface water outflows. Now that oxygen can get into that drained sediment, iron pyrite, FeS2, can oxidize to sulfuric acid! Aerobic sulfur oxidizing bacteria make a living using oxygen, O2, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize sulfur. The product is sulfuric acid. In contrast, microbial sulfate reduction GENERATES iron pyrite at the same time it NEUTRALIZES acid by generating carbonate ion. Under low oxygen conditions, sulfate reducing bacteria use sulfate, SO(2-) as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. Unlike aerobic respiration of organic carbon, which produced "carbonic acid gas" (CO2), microbial sulfate reduction produces CARBONATE ION, CO3(2-), which raises pH and neutralizes acidity. Go to page 1 of the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread, the 6th post down from the top. You can see the abstract of the submarine groundwater discharge nutrient flux review article by Moore et al. [/quote][/quote]
11-09-2026 21:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night Some words actually have more than one potential meaning, and context is important. "Phenol", for example is the name of a specific chemical (a.k.a. "carbolic acid"), but it is also a general term for any benzene ring with a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached, and there are more than a thousand unique chemicals that are all called "phenols". Urea is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Benzene ring is not a chemical. Hydroxyl is not a chemical. (-OH) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Phenol is not a chemical", as Into the Night has exhaustively repeated, can be true in some contexts. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical" pushes the stupidity a little farther. The term "urea" has no other definition, in any other context, besides one specific chemical. A longer term that includes "urea" may not be a reference to the specific chemical, but when written alone, "urea" is a "chemical". Urea is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Known as "carbamide", urea's chemical formula is CO(NH2)2. I'm still on the fence about whether we should go around calling urea "organic nitrogen". For me, two amino groups don't count as a larger organic molecule on a single carbon atom otherwise double bonded to oxygen. But Google has convinced me that other scientists are calling urea "organic nitrogen", rather than "inorganic nitrogen". Urea is not a chemical. Carbamide is not a chemical. Science is not Google. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Google is not sentient. You are not Google. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not inorganic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: ...deleted repetitious spam... Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-09-2026 22:07
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night Some words actually have more than one potential meaning, and context is important. "Phenol", for example is the name of a specific chemical (a.k.a. "carbolic acid"), but it is also a general term for any benzene ring with a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached, and there are more than a thousand unique chemicals that are all called "phenols". Urea is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Benzene ring is not a chemical. Hydroxyl is not a chemical. (-OH) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Phenol is not a chemical", as Into the Night has exhaustively repeated, can be true in some contexts. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical" pushes the stupidity a little farther. The term "urea" has no other definition, in any other context, besides one specific chemical. A longer term that includes "urea" may not be a reference to the specific chemical, but when written alone, "urea" is a "chemical". Urea is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Known as "carbamide", urea's chemical formula is CO(NH2)2. I'm still on the fence about whether we should go around calling urea "organic nitrogen". For me, two amino groups don't count as a larger organic molecule on a single carbon atom otherwise double bonded to oxygen. But Google has convinced me that other scientists are calling urea "organic nitrogen", rather than "inorganic nitrogen". Urea is not a chemical. Carbamide is not a chemical. Science is not Google. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Google is not sentient. You are not Google. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not inorganic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: ...deleted repetitious spam... Stop spamming. "You are not Google." - Into the Night Only a true scientific genius would know to say that! Google inquiry: "Is urea classified by actual scientists as a 'chemical'? Why or why not?" Google provides an UNAMBIGUOUS reply: "Yes, urea absolutely is classified by scientists as a chemical. In fact, it holds a monumental place in the history of modern chemistry." Google offers this tantalizing intro... then goes on to say: "Scientists define a chemical (or any chemical substance) as any matter that has a constant chemical composition and characteristic properties. Because urea has a specific, unchanging molecular structure, it fits this definition perfectly." Google be smart! Into the Night be STUPID. Literally, does not even know the DEFINITION of the term "chemical", yet thinks anyone might be gullible enough to believe his claim to be a "chemist". Shame!
11-09-2026 22:30
sealover ★★★★★ (2158)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical." - Into the Night Some words actually have more than one potential meaning, and context is important. "Phenol", for example is the name of a specific chemical (a.k.a. "carbolic acid"), but it is also a general term for any benzene ring with a hydroxyl group (-OH) attached, and there are more than a thousand unique chemicals that are all called "phenols". Urea is not a chemical. Phenol is not a chemical. Benzene ring is not a chemical. Hydroxyl is not a chemical. (-OH) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Phenol is not a chemical", as Into the Night has exhaustively repeated, can be true in some contexts. Phenol is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: "Urea is not a chemical" pushes the stupidity a little farther. The term "urea" has no other definition, in any other context, besides one specific chemical. A longer term that includes "urea" may not be a reference to the specific chemical, but when written alone, "urea" is a "chemical". Urea is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: Known as "carbamide", urea's chemical formula is CO(NH2)2. I'm still on the fence about whether we should go around calling urea "organic nitrogen". For me, two amino groups don't count as a larger organic molecule on a single carbon atom otherwise double bonded to oxygen. But Google has convinced me that other scientists are calling urea "organic nitrogen", rather than "inorganic nitrogen". Urea is not a chemical. Carbamide is not a chemical. Science is not Google. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Google is not sentient. You are not Google. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not inorganic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle wrote: ...deleted repetitious spam... Stop spamming. "You are not Google." - Into the Night Only a true scientific genius would know to say that! Google inquiry: "Is urea classified by actual scientists as a 'chemical'? Why or why not?" Google provides an UNAMBIGUOUS reply: "Yes, urea absolutely is classified by scientists as a chemical. In fact, it holds a monumental place in the history of modern chemistry." Google offers this tantalizing intro... then goes on to say: "Scientists define a chemical (or any chemical substance) as any matter that has a constant chemical composition and characteristic properties. Because urea has a specific, unchanging molecular structure, it fits this definition perfectly." Google be smart! Into the Night be STUPID. Literally, does not even know the DEFINITION of the term "chemical", yet thinks anyone might be gullible enough to believe his claim to be a "chemist". Shame! Im a BM was too pHucking LAZY to copy more of Google's answer. Google goes on to say: "Scientists classify urea as a chemical for several specific reasons: * Defined Molecular Structure: Urea has a specific, unchanging chemical formula: CO(NH2)2. It consists of one carbon atom, one oxygen atom, and two amino groups (NH2). * It is an organic compound:..." Wait a minute! This one is definitely a "gray area". I was taught that urea is classified as INORGANIC nitrogen. I understood that unless a nitrogen atom is bounded to an atom of ORGANIC carbon, it is not "organic" nitrogen. I thought that a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen atom was oxidized enough to be considered "inorganic". Apparently, it's kind of a "gray area" for chemists... And Google still has more to say about why urea is a "chemical". *" Predictable Chemical Reactions: It behaves consistently in chemical reactions, such as breaking down into ammonia and carbon dioxide when exposed to water and the urease enzyme."** Yes, that "chemical" urea can provoke very high pH when urease enzyme is present. It can drive soil pH (YES! Soil does have pH!) to as high as >11. "Yes", that very specific CHEMICAL that scientists call "urea" is in the news because it became a much more expensive way to fertilize after Trump followed Bibi's advice to start a war in the Persian Gulf. But what is Into the Night's problem anyway? Why is he so obsessed with semantic nitpicking about what is not a "chemical"? Google offers some insight: "The confusion often arises because the word 'chemical' is used differently in everyday speech than it is in science." Frankly, all of these criteria identify the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as a "chemical".. By all criteria identified for Google for what is a "chemical", and given the lack of ANY definition for the term chemical provided by Into the Night... Well, every time I name an anion in solution (carbonate, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, etc.) I am referring to a CHEMICAL by every criteria used by scientists, even if the word "chemical" is "used differently in everyday speech than it is in science".
12-09-2026 07:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (24435)	Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Only a true scientific genius would know to say that! Google inquiry: "Is urea classified by actual scientists as a 'chemical'? Why or why not?" Google provides an UNAMBIGUOUS reply: "Yes, urea absolutely is classified by scientists as a chemical. In fact, it holds a monumental place in the history of modern chemistry." Science is not Google. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Urea is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google offers this tantalizing intro... then goes on to say: "Scientists define a chemical (or any chemical substance) as any matter that has a constant chemical composition and characteristic properties. Because urea has a specific, unchanging molecular structure, it fits this definition perfectly." Google be smart! Into the Night be STUPID. Literally, does not even know the DEFINITION of the term "chemical", yet thinks anyone might be gullible enough to believe his claim to be a "chemist". Urea is not a chemical. You deny chemistry. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Shame! Im a BM was too pHucking LAZY to copy more of Google's answer. [/quote] Science is not Google Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google goes on to say: "Scientists classify urea as a chemical for several specific reasons: * Defined Molecular Structure: Urea has a specific, unchanging chemical formula: CO(NH2)2. It consists of one carbon atom, one oxygen atom, and two amino groups (NH2). * It is an organic compound:..." Wait a minute! This one is definitely a "gray area". I was taught that urea is classified as INORGANIC nitrogen. I understood that unless a nitrogen atom is bounded to an atom of ORGANIC carbon, it is not "organic" nitrogen. I thought that a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen atom was oxidized enough to be considered "inorganic". Apparently, it's kind of a "gray area" for chemists... You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Urea is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not inorganic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: And Google still has more to say about why urea is a "chemical". *" Predictable Chemical Reactions: It behaves consistently in chemical reactions, such as breaking down into ammonia and carbon dioxide when exposed to water and the urease enzyme." Urea is not a chemical. Urease is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle*wrote: Yes, that "chemical" urea can provoke very high pH when urease enzyme is present. It can drive soil pH (YES! Soil does* have pH!) to as high as >11. Urea is not a chemical. Urease is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: "Yes", that very specific CHEMICAL that scientists call "urea" is in the news because it became a much more expensive way to fertilize after Trump followed Bibi's advice to start a war in the Persian Gulf. But what is Into the Night's problem anyway? Why is he so obsessed with semantic nitpicking about what is not a "chemical"? You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Urea is not a chemical. Trump didn't start any war in the Persian Gulf. RQAA Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google offers some insight: "The confusion often arises because the word 'chemical' is used differently in everyday speech than it is in science." Frankly, all of these criteria identify the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as a "chemical".. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Your word games won't work. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: By all criteria identified for Google for what is a "chemical", and given the lack of ANY definition for the term chemical provided by Into the Night... RQAA Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Well, every time I name an anion in solution (carbonate, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, etc.) I am referring to a CHEMICAL by every criteria used by scientists, even if the word "chemical" is "used differently in everyday speech than it is in science". Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Your word games won't work. 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
15-09-2026 19:17
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3909)	Patricio started this excellent thread, but he gave up on it as quickly as he gave up on this website. I don't blame him, but I wish he had been willing to go farther with this discussion about fertilizer and nutrient sources that contribute to "dead zones" being created in the sea. But look at what he was up against! Relentlessly pestered by scientifically-illiterate trolls whose only goal is to kill every attempted discussion. "Urea is not a chemical." Into the Night just keeps repeating it. Denying "chemical" status to words he doesn't like, as if it means something... Will IBdaMann pretend he doesn't SEE it? The pHucking IDIOCY of claiming that "urea is not a chemical"? Will IBdaMann pretend that ITN is "correcting" some mistaken claim that urea is a chemical? Will anyone but IBdaMann pretend to believe Into the Night has some credible knowledge of "chemistry"? No, urea is not a "category". It is a specific compound with a specific composition that is very well known. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Only a true scientific genius would know to say that! Google inquiry: "Is urea classified by actual scientists as a 'chemical'? Why or why not?" Google provides an UNAMBIGUOUS reply: "Yes, urea absolutely is classified by scientists as a chemical. In fact, it holds a monumental place in the history of modern chemistry." Science is not Google. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Urea is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google offers this tantalizing intro... then goes on to say: "Scientists define a chemical (or any chemical substance) as any matter that has a constant chemical composition and characteristic properties. Because urea has a specific, unchanging molecular structure, it fits this definition perfectly." Google be smart! Into the Night be STUPID. Literally, does not even know the DEFINITION of the term "chemical", yet thinks anyone might be gullible enough to believe his claim to be a "chemist". Urea is not a chemical. You deny chemistry. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Shame! Im a BM was too pHucking LAZY to copy more of Google's answer. Science is not Google Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google goes on to say: "Scientists classify urea as a chemical for several specific reasons: * Defined Molecular Structure: Urea has a specific, unchanging chemical formula: CO(NH2)2. It consists of one carbon atom, one oxygen atom, and two amino groups (NH2). * It is an organic compound:..." Wait a minute! This one is definitely a "gray area". I was taught that urea is classified as INORGANIC nitrogen. I understood that unless a nitrogen atom is bounded to an atom of ORGANIC carbon, it is not "organic" nitrogen. I thought that a carbon atom double bonded to an oxygen atom was oxidized enough to be considered "inorganic". Apparently, it's kind of a "gray area" for chemists... You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You are not Google. You cannot become Google. Urea is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a compound. Carbon is not inorganic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: And Google still has more to say about why urea is a "chemical". *" Predictable Chemical Reactions: It behaves consistently in chemical reactions, such as breaking down into ammonia and carbon dioxide when exposed to water and the urease enzyme." Urea is not a chemical. Urease is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGoogle*wrote: Yes, that "chemical" urea can provoke very high pH when urease enzyme is present. It can drive soil pH (YES! Soil does* have pH!) to as high as >11. Urea is not a chemical. Urease is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: "Yes", that very specific CHEMICAL that scientists call "urea" is in the news because it became a much more expensive way to fertilize after Trump followed Bibi's advice to start a war in the Persian Gulf. But what is Into the Night's problem anyway? Why is he so obsessed with semantic nitpicking about what is not a "chemical"? You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Urea is not a chemical. Trump didn't start any war in the Persian Gulf. RQAA Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Google offers some insight: "The confusion often arises because the word 'chemical' is used differently in everyday speech than it is in science." Frankly, all of these criteria identify the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as a "chemical".. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Your word games won't work. Carbonate is not a chemical. CO3(2-) is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: By all criteria identified for Google for what is a "chemical", and given the lack of ANY definition for the term chemical provided by Into the Night... RQAA Im a BM and sealover and Patricio and FakeGooglewrote: Well, every time I name an anion in solution (carbonate, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, etc.) I am referring to a CHEMICAL by every criteria used by scientists, even if the word "chemical" is "used differently in everyday speech than it is in science". Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Your word games won't work.[/quote]

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate The Slow Suffocation: How Fertilizer Runoff Creates Ocean Dead Zones:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean	1001	16-09-2026 00:16
Aesop's Fables - The Troll Who Cried Dead Barrier Reef	16	10-09-2026 18:51
Climate Change is Dead	49	06-09-2026 03:24
Ocean ph.	147	31-08-2026 00:23
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	635	25-08-2026 04:04