Why I'm Skeptical

gfm7175 wrote:
I'm skeptical because Global Warming (Climate Change) is a buzzword which can only be defined in a circular manner... It is a Void Argument.

Beyond that truth, GW proponents make regular use of the "Inversion Fallacy" tactic... Global Warming worshipers proclaim that it is "everybody else" who is denying science (they refer to these people as 'science deniers') while it is actually THEY who deny various laws of science, such as the SB Law. They don't realize that they are religious because they are blinded by their fundamentalism...

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't denial the climate is getting warmer, has been for a long time, still seems to have a ways to go yet. Still plenty of ice left over from the last 'Great Freeze'. We as a species, haven't been around long enough to know what is normal, be we do know the planet is changing constantly, sometimes slow, and barely noticeable, sometimes fast and violently. I don't remember long periods, where nothing noteworthy has happened. I've read of many major historical events, which happened before we started burning fossil fuels. The actual recorded temperatures and CO2 levels, taken consistently, and standardized, doesn't go back very far, maybe a few decades. Everything else, is either patched together guesses, or just plain computer generated, based on models, using a very small, narrow data set. I believe the science to be weak, to little hard data to call Global Warming a theory. Just an interesting observation, at best.

When man entered into the Industrial Revolution, we'd already been burning fossil fuels for a while, mostly coal. But, when things started to take off, so did the need for building materials. The quick, simple, and cheap material, was wood. High demand, high profits, those big, old growth trees were the focus of lumber mills. You'd get a very large volume of premium lumber out of one tree, compared to the low yield, and poor quality of a dozen younger trees. The rise in CO2, if even relevant, could just as easily be blamed on cutting down large quantities of trees, many centuries old. Also, burning land, to clear it for development, was the common procedure, before we had heavy equipment to do it, less destructively. Not to mention, those fires weren't controlled, least not very well, none too selective either. Modern days, we have wildfires out of control, all the time, usually not started intentionally, but a lot of acreage burns every year. It's not just the CO2 released in the burning, but few plants and trees to take the CO2 out of the air. Wildfires happen naturally too, it's not just a man-made CO2 thing. I've been told many times, that burning wood is 'carbon-neutral', and doesn't matter. There is only on kind of CO2, chemically. Regardless of source, it either matters, or it don't.

Climate Change, is more of a political, economic, and environmental movement. More like a doomsday cult, than any actual crisis. It appeals to people who want power and control over others (deniers are squashed like bugs, under a lot of fancy math and computer models, terminology). You don't have to actual believe in the doomsday aspect, to want to be involved. The people pumping out the most CO2, are also the ones polluting the air, water, even the ground we grow our food on. Can't get them to clean it up on their own, because it's the right thing to do, Climate Change will force them green and clean. The vast majority of the population, is energy dependent, the bulk of which come from fossil fuels. A lot of folks would really die, if we were to just pull the plug on everything fossil fuel. Whole lot more, I suspect, than if the doomsday visions are even remotely correct. We simply can't make the change over to green energy in a few decades, without some huge gaps in service. Whole lot of money involved, the new, green version, is going to be provided by some newer players, and some of the older providers are going to be destroyed. Big shift on how much you pay, who you pay, and likely fewer options. And of course, there is a ton of research and development work, which costs a lot of money. Folk with nation/corporate checkbooks, need answers and solutions fast, which always raise the price, reduces quality. As legislation moves to control use of fossil fuels, companies dependent on them, are in a race mitigate the effects, or find quick and cost effective alternatives. It's not the possible warming effect that drives them, it's loss of their business, by 'Carbon-tax'. Politics, is about power, to control the course. Politicians really like being able to decide who get punished, and who gets reward, and of course who gets to profit most. Unfortunately, the 'pocket-stuffers', greatly outnumber the folks in office, who actually want to help. Pres. Trump should have started investigating the finances of most of our career politicians, he'd have found much of his own troubles quiet down quickly. I'm sure his tax records aren't any more shady, than most of the rich folks, legal, just not ethical.

CO2 isn't major component of the atmosphere, under 1%. The number changes so much, depends on where you look. Mostly, it's around on tenth of a percent, but being generous, should cover most, with the 1% allowance. That's spread out, over a very huge volume. I just can't imagine how it could possible have much of an influence on anything, least not in any catastrophic role. Something natural, normal, and actually needed for life on this planet. Every living thing on earth, contains carbon, and it all can't come straight out of the ground sources. Plants need the CO2, and many lifeforms feed off the plants. Seems to me, that this planet must have been much warmer, for long periods, to produce the vegetation to feed the giant fossils, called dinosaurs. Lot of plants like hot and humid climates. We can see the effects of cold, every fall and winter. Most of the planet had to been more like a year-round spring/summer. We pull a whole lot of fossil fuels from the ground, which had to be a t some point, a living, carbon-based, organism. I'm not sure how long it takes, from living/breathing, to black goo, deep in the earth. I know swamp gas doesn't take long, methane, another natural, greenhouse gas... The point being, all that carbon-based fuel, use to be part of the ecosystem on the surface, part of the environment, which seem idealistic for supporting life. Those fossil fuels, hold a very key component to life, but have been leeching out of the environment for a long time.

I tend to believe the warming, is normal, natural, and a good thing for the planet. Although the burning of fossil fuels, is pretty nasty for the environment, releasing the CO2 is also a good thing. I tend to believe a warmer planet, will put more water vapor in the air, and keep us from getting too hot. That water vapor will condense and fall. Lots of places will get rain, where it's been rare. Lot of desert land could be green again, maybe a good place for the flood area people to consider moving to. Think the oceans will mostly stay the same, maybe even drop a little. There is no baseline normal, to compare any data with, it's in constant change, and not man made. Nothing we plan on doing to change climate, is going to have any effect at all. We can't change it, think it's a bad idea if we could. We can change ourselves, prepare, and adapt, move to better, safer locations. Sure, it's human nature to want to own, and hold on to things, places. But, if we want to survive, we sometimes have to let go of the past, and figure out what we can make do, with what we have available. Planet will keep spinning, follow the same path around the sun, we can only roll with it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't denial the climate is getting warmer, has been for a long time, still seems to have a ways to go yet. Still plenty of ice left over from the last 'Great Freeze'. We as a species, haven't been around long enough to know what is normal, be we do know the planet is changing constantly, sometimes slow, and barely noticeable, sometimes fast and violently. I don't remember long periods, where nothing noteworthy has happened. I've read of many major historical events, which happened before we started burning fossil fuels. The actual recorded temperatures and CO2 levels, taken consistently, and standardized, doesn't go back very far, maybe a few decades. Everything else, is either patched together guesses, or just plain computer generated, based on models, using a very small, narrow data set. I believe the science to be weak, to little hard data to call Global Warming a theory. Just an interesting observation, at best.

When man entered into the Industrial Revolution, we'd already been burning fossil fuels for a while, mostly coal. But, when things started to take off, so did the need for building materials. The quick, simple, and cheap material, was wood. High demand, high profits, those big, old growth trees were the focus of lumber mills. You'd get a very large volume of premium lumber out of one tree, compared to the low yield, and poor quality of a dozen younger trees. The rise in CO2, if even relevant, could just as easily be blamed on cutting down large quantities of trees, many centuries old. Also, burning land, to clear it for development, was the common procedure, before we had heavy equipment to do it, less destructively. Not to mention, those fires weren't controlled, least not very well, none too selective either. Modern days, we have wildfires out of control, all the time, usually not started intentionally, but a lot of acreage burns every year. It's not just the CO2 released in the burning, but few plants and trees to take the CO2 out of the air. Wildfires happen naturally too, it's not just a man-made CO2 thing. I've been told many times, that burning wood is 'carbon-neutral', and doesn't matter. There is only on kind of CO2, chemically. Regardless of source, it either matters, or it don't.

Climate Change, is more of a political, economic, and environmental movement. More like a doomsday cult, than any actual crisis. It appeals to people who want power and control over others (deniers are squashed like bugs, under a lot of fancy math and computer models, terminology). You don't have to actual believe in the doomsday aspect, to want to be involved. The people pumping out the most CO2, are also the ones polluting the air, water, even the ground we grow our food on. Can't get them to clean it up on their own, because it's the right thing to do, Climate Change will force them green and clean. The vast majority of the population, is energy dependent, the bulk of which come from fossil fuels. A lot of folks would really die, if we were to just pull the plug on everything fossil fuel. Whole lot more, I suspect, than if the doomsday visions are even remotely correct. We simply can't make the change over to green energy in a few decades, without some huge gaps in service. Whole lot of money involved, the new, green version, is going to be provided by some newer players, and some of the older providers are going to be destroyed. Big shift on how much you pay, who you pay, and likely fewer options. And of course, there is a ton of research and development work, which costs a lot of money. Folk with nation/corporate checkbooks, need answers and solutions fast, which always raise the price, reduces quality. As legislation moves to control use of fossil fuels, companies dependent on them, are in a race mitigate the effects, or find quick and cost effective alternatives. It's not the possible warming effect that drives them, it's loss of their business, by 'Carbon-tax'. Politics, is about power, to control the course. Politicians really like being able to decide who get punished, and who gets reward, and of course who gets to profit most. Unfortunately, the 'pocket-stuffers', greatly outnumber the folks in office, who actually want to help. Pres. Trump should have started investigating the finances of most of our career politicians, he'd have found much of his own troubles quiet down quickly. I'm sure his tax records aren't any more shady, than most of the rich folks, legal, just not ethical.

CO2 isn't major component of the atmosphere, under 1%. The number changes so much, depends on where you look. Mostly, it's around on tenth of a percent, but being generous, should cover most, with the 1% allowance. That's spread out, over a very huge volume. I just can't imagine how it could possible have much of an influence on anything, least not in any catastrophic role. Something natural, normal, and actually needed for life on this planet. Every living thing on earth, contains carbon, and it all can't come straight out of the ground sources. Plants need the CO2, and many lifeforms feed off the plants. Seems to me, that this planet must have been much warmer, for long periods, to produce the vegetation to feed the giant fossils, called dinosaurs. Lot of plants like hot and humid climates. We can see the effects of cold, every fall and winter. Most of the planet had to been more like a year-round spring/summer. We pull a whole lot of fossil fuels from the ground, which had to be a t some point, a living, carbon-based, organism. I'm not sure how long it takes, from living/breathing, to black goo, deep in the earth. I know swamp gas doesn't take long, methane, another natural, greenhouse gas... The point being, all that carbon-based fuel, use to be part of the ecosystem on the surface, part of the environment, which seem idealistic for supporting life. Those fossil fuels, hold a very key component to life, but have been leeching out of the environment for a long time.

I tend to believe the warming, is normal, natural, and a good thing for the planet. Although the burning of fossil fuels, is pretty nasty for the environment, releasing the CO2 is also a good thing. I tend to believe a warmer planet, will put more water vapor in the air, and keep us from getting too hot. That water vapor will condense and fall. Lots of places will get rain, where it's been rare. Lot of desert land could be green again, maybe a good place for the flood area people to consider moving to. Think the oceans will mostly stay the same, maybe even drop a little. There is no baseline normal, to compare any data with, it's in constant change, and not man made. Nothing we plan on doing to change climate, is going to have any effect at all. We can't change it, think it's a bad idea if we could. We can change ourselves, prepare, and adapt, move to better, safer locations. Sure, it's human nature to want to own, and hold on to things, places. But, if we want to survive, we sometimes have to let go of the past, and figure out what we can make do, with what we have available. Planet will keep spinning, follow the same path around the sun, we can only roll with it.

Im a BM wrote: Who could forget HarveyH55? He let me know that I am a "fraud" pretending to be a scientist.

Im a BM wrote: He stopped accusing me of being a fraud, and even expressed his disgust at the arrogance of the trolls who pretended to know more science than a PhD scientist.

Im a BM wrote: The "Define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron, because climate change is a meaningless buzzword of a WACKY religion.." gang rape ambush only worked on brand new members

Im a BM wrote: I respect HarveyH55 for proving that he was actually capable of LEARNING something.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Who could forget HarveyH55? He let me know that I am a "fraud" pretending to be a scientist.

Did you thank him?

Im a BM wrote: He stopped accusing me of being a fraud, and even expressed his disgust at the arrogance of the trolls who pretended to know more science than a PhD scientist.

That's not really what he was expressing.

Im a BM wrote: The "Define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron, because climate change is a meaningless buzzword of a WACKY religion.." gang rape ambush only worked on brand new members

... who refused to define their undefined buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote: I respect HarveyH55 for proving that he was actually capable of LEARNING something.

... and he teaches things as well. I can't think of a single time HarveyH55 refused to define a term when asked.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Who could forget HarveyH55? He let me know that I am a "fraud" pretending to be a scientist.

Did you thank him?

Im a BM wrote: He stopped accusing me of being a fraud, and even expressed his disgust at the arrogance of the trolls who pretended to know more science than a PhD scientist.

That's not really what he was expressing.

Im a BM wrote: The "Define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron, because climate change is a meaningless buzzword of a WACKY religion.." gang rape ambush only worked on brand new members

... who refused to define their undefined buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote: I respect HarveyH55 for proving that he was actually capable of LEARNING something.

... and he teaches things as well. I can't think of a single time HarveyH55 refused to define a term when asked.

I'm still hoping that HarveyH55 responds to the notification that his thread is getting replies.

IBdaMann once expressed support for the idea that Branner might carve out a section of the website that has SOME kind of moderation.

Yet, if IBdaMann had set an example to follow, the same benefits could have been acquired without any change to website operation.

If IBdaMann had been leading by example, he wouldn't have SPAMMED the threads about chemistry that he couldn't even PRETEND to understand.

But if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, just baffle them with bullshit!

And be sure to throw in personal insults and false accusations while you do it.

Those Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron FRAUDS needed a real "scientist", such as IBdaMann, to publicly humiliate them.

Couldn't leave ANY part of the website as a safe "kiddie pool" for those who weren't particularly attracted to be part of an anti scientific insult fest.

Im a BM wrote:
"You cannot resist pH change with a buzzword.' - Into the Night

Because "carbonate" is just a "buzzword", apparently.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, it's time to draw a line in the sand.

Im a BM wrote:
I call BOOOLSCHITEN****FACE on Into the Night!

Im a BM wrote:
I assert, right here and right now, that the carbonate ion IS a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
I further assert that carbonate is NOT a buzzword, but rather is the word chemists most often employ in order to refer to the carbonate ION. That is, if you see the word "carbonate" without the name of a cation immediately in front of it. THEN it only refers to the carbonate ion that is part that particular compound.

Im a BM wrote:
And most audaciously, I assert that you CAN resist pH change with carbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote:
You can get those carbonate ions to protonate, and take those added hydrogen ions right out of solution, keeping pH pretty close to where it was before.

Im a BM wrote:
Problem is, that means you have taken carbonate ions out of solution, turning them into bicarbonate ions. A little thing they call "buffering", that consumes a finite supply of buffering capacity as acid is added.

Im a BM wrote:
In the ocean, this means that added acid is hardly making a dent in pH, but it is reducing the concentration of carbonate ions in solution.

Im a BM wrote:
Marine organisms require carbonate ions acquired in dissolved form from sea water to form calcium carbonate shell.

Im a BM wrote:
It has had measurable harmful impact on the health of marine organisms to have less of it now in sea water, as carbonate ions have been removed from solution in order to buffer against pH change.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"You cannot resist pH change with a buzzword.' - Into the Night

Because "carbonate" is just a "buzzword", apparently.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, it's time to draw a line in the sand.

Cliche fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
I call BOOOLSCHITEN****FACE on Into the Night!

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
I assert, right here and right now, that the carbonate ion IS a chemical.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
I further assert that carbonate is NOT a buzzword, but rather is the word chemists most often employ in order to refer to the carbonate ION. That is, if you see the word "carbonate" without the name of a cation immediately in front of it. THEN it only refers to the carbonate ion that is part that particular compound.

Carbonate isnot a chemical. You don't get to quote everybody. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And most audaciously, I assert that you CAN resist pH change with carbonate ions.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
You can get those carbonate ions to protonate, and take those added hydrogen ions right out of solution, keeping pH pretty close to where it was before.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Problem is, that means you have taken carbonate ions out of solution, turning them into bicarbonate ions. A little thing they call "buffering", that consumes a finite supply of buffering capacity as acid is added.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
In the ocean, this means that added acid is hardly making a dent in pH, but it is reducing the concentration of carbonate ions in solution.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Marine organisms require carbonate ions acquired in dissolved form from sea water to form calcium carbonate shell.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
It has had measurable harmful impact on the health of marine organisms to have less of it now in sea water, as carbonate ions have been removed from solution in order to buffer against pH change.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:I assert, right here and right now, that the carbonate ion IS a chemical.

Im a BM wrote: I further assert that carbonate is NOT a buzzword, but rather is the word chemists most often employ in order to refer to the carbonate ION.

Im a BM wrote: That is, if you see the word "carbonate" without the name of a cation immediately in front of it. THEN it only refers to the carbonate ion that is part that particular compound.

Im a BM wrote: And most audaciously, I assert that you CAN resist pH change with carbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote: Those "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron" group attacks on "Global Warming worshipers" (spelled wrong) wouldn't have been as fun without gfm7175 joining in to call them out on their bullshit.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Those "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron" group attacks on "Global Warming worshipers" (spelled wrong) wouldn't have been as fun without gfm7175 joining in to call them out on their bullshit.

Let's unpack:

1. Asking you to define your terms is only an attack if you are a lying, scientifically-illiterate moron.
2. It is incorrect to write "spelled wrong." "Spelled incorrectly" is correct.
3. "Global Warming worshipers" is all spelled correctly.
4. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we enjoy gfm7175 performing his quality control and maintaining the high standards that make Climate-Debate the single best discussion site on the internet.

Im a BM wrote:
"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

"You don't speak for everyone." - Into the Night

And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

Im a BM wrote:
If you DON'T understand why it is a FACT that Into daMann et al are performing "quality control and maintaining the high standards that make Climate-Debate the single best discussion site on the internet."

Im a BM wrote:
Well, if you don't see how that is TRUE, "you are a lying, scientifically-illiterate moron."

Im a BM wrote:
The "single best discussion site on the internet" is SO GOOD, it has grown from 1715 members to nearly SIX ACTIVE MEMBERS TODAY.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't forget that alligators are amphibians

Im a BM wrote:
and that climate CANNOT change

Im a BM wrote:
because that would break some kind of thermodynamics rule or something.

Im a BM wrote:
All those fake scientists in the world are SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE.

Im a BM wrote:
If we could just get them to check out the "best discussion site on the internet", they could learn the TRUTH about SCIENCE from some "truly scientific" experts.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't be afraid to ask!

You might have to wait a while to get an answer, because they are pretty busy answering all the OTHER questions they get asked all the time.

I've been waiting a while, but I know they will EVENTUALLY answer.

Im a BM wrote:
What is a "chemical", and why is it that the carbonate ion CANNOT be one?

Im a BM wrote:
What is pH, and why is it that it CANNOT be less than or equal to zero?

Im a BM wrote:
What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

Im a BM wrote:
What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Im a BM wrote:
Why is it that carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions CANNOT be pH buffers?

Im a BM wrote:
How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn "science" at this website that you will NEVER find in the textbooks.

Im a BM wrote:
THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

"You don't speak for everyone." - Into the Night

And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

Science is not a degree or title. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
If you DON'T understand why it is a FACT that Into daMann et al are performing "quality control and maintaining the high standards that make Climate-Debate the single best discussion site on the internet."

Contextomy fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, if you don't see how that is TRUE, "you are a lying, scientifically-illiterate moron."

You ARE a l ying scientifically illiterate moron.

Im a BM wrote:
The "single best discussion site on the internet" is SO GOOD, it has grown from 1715 members to nearly SIX ACTIVE MEMBERS TODAY.

Argument from randU fallacy. Climate-debate.com has never had 1715 active users.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't forget that alligators are amphibians

Correct.

Im a BM wrote:
and that climate CANNOT change

Correct.

Im a BM wrote:
because that would break some kind of thermodynamics rule or something.

Random phrase ignored.

Im a BM wrote:
All those fake scientists in the world are SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE.

There is no such thing as a 'fake scientist'. A priest in the Church of Global Warming is not a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
If we could just get them to check out the "best discussion site on the internet", they could learn the TRUTH about SCIENCE from some "truly scientific" experts.

There ARE some good experts in science here. You're not one of them.

Im a BM wrote:
Don't be afraid to ask!

You might have to wait a while to get an answer, because they are pretty busy answering all the OTHER questions they get asked all the time.

I've been waiting a while, but I know they will EVENTUALLY answer.

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
What is a "chemical", and why is it that the carbonate ion CANNOT be one?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
What is pH, and why is it that it CANNOT be less than or equal to zero?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Why is it that carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions CANNOT be pH buffers?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

RQAA.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn "science" at this website that you will NEVER find in the textbooks.

Science is not a textbook.

Im a BM wrote:
THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

When it comes to the topic of the Church of Global Warming and what it preaches, I would agree. No other forum that I know is so consistently on this topic.

Im a BM wrote:
Keep you fallace in your pants for a minute there.

I happen to be an EXPERT contextomist.

I disagree with your assertion.

NO, it is NOT a contextomy fallacy.

What evidence do I have to support my contrarian assertion?

I don't need no stinkin' evidence.

My decree stands alone to satisfy any burden of proof

Because I am omniscient and infallible.

If I declare that it is NOT a contextomy fallacy, there is nothing more to say.

I'm the only one here who even knows what a contextomy fallacy IS.

And I declare that it is NOT a contextomy fallacy.

Into the Night, you are NOT a contextomist.

You have never actually studied contextomy anywhere.

You have never even read a contextomy textbook.

You certainly haven't published any original and important discoveries in any of the contextomy science journals.

You just PRETEND to be some kind of "contextomist", but you don't know enough actual contextomy to pull off a plausible bluff.

Im a BM wrote:"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

Im a BM wrote: And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

Im a BM wrote: The "single best discussion site on the internet" is SO GOOD, it has grown from 1715 members to nearly SIX ACTIVE MEMBERS TODAY.

Im a BM wrote: What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

Im a BM wrote: What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Im a BM wrote:How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Im a BM wrote: THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

Clue in on the words "I think." You'll become more proficient at that as you get better at English.

Pro Tip: Amphibious = Amphibian, amphibious animals are amphibians. Don't ever forget it.

Im a BM wrote: And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

You only speak for yourself.

You did kind of kill it with your spamming. It's how you advertize that you are a Marxist.

[quote]Im a BM wrote: What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

An actual chemist would have no problem understanding the exponential nature of acidity and basicity, and how sea water will have a much more pronounced effect on any acid than pure water will.

Im a BM wrote: What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Dilution. Check the definition of "buffering." You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all of the acid will be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution. You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of the hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization.

Do you need to review the definition of buffering?

Im a BM wrote:How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Greenhouse effect itself is bunk; hence there is no such thing as greenhouse gas.

Im a BM wrote: THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

You can thank gfm7175 for his vigilant quality control efforts, GasGuzzler for his culinary configuration management, and for Ralph's research into methane reservoirs.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

Clue in on the words "I think." You'll become more proficient at that as you get better at English.

Pro Tip: Amphibious = Amphibian, amphibious animals are amphibians. Don't ever forget it.

Im a BM wrote: And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

You only speak for yourself.

You did kind of kill it with your spamming. It's how you advertize that you are a Marxist.

[quote]Im a BM wrote: What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

An actual chemist would have no problem understanding the exponential nature of acidity and basicity, and how sea water will have a much more pronounced effect on any acid than pure water will.

Im a BM wrote: What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Dilution. Check the definition of "buffering." You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all of the acid will be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution. You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of the hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization.

Do you need to review the definition of buffering?

Im a BM wrote:How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Greenhouse effect itself is bunk; hence there is no such thing as greenhouse gas.

Im a BM wrote: THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

You can thank gfm7175 for his vigilant quality control efforts, GasGuzzler for his culinary configuration management, and for Ralph's research into methane reservoirs.

Amphibian is a noun, amphibious is an adjective. Not everything that has amphibious traits is an amphibian. Aee attached photo for and amphibious craft that is not an amphibian except inside of your jello brain



Linguistic skills verified

130

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

Clue in on the words "I think." You'll become more proficient at that as you get better at English.

Pro Tip: Amphibious = Amphibian, amphibious animals are amphibians. Don't ever forget it.

Im a BM wrote: And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

You only speak for yourself.

Im a BM wrote: The "single best discussion site on the internet" is SO GOOD, it has grown from 1715 members to nearly SIX ACTIVE MEMBERS TODAY.

You did kind of kill it with your spamming. It's how you advertize that you are a Marxist.

Im a BM wrote: What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

An actual chemist would have no problem understanding the exponential nature of acidity and basicity, and how sea water will have a much more pronounced effect on any acid than pure water will.

Im a BM wrote: What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Dilution. Check the definition of "buffering." You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all of the acid will be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution. You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of the hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization.

Do you need to review the definition of buffering?

Im a BM wrote:How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Greenhouse effect itself is bunk; hence there is no such thing as greenhouse gas.

Im a BM wrote: THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

You can thank gfm7175 for his vigilant quality control efforts, GasGuzzler for his culinary configuration management, and for Ralph's research into methane reservoirs.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:"I think I speak for everyone..." - IBdaMann

Clue in on the words "I think." You'll become more proficient at that as you get better at English.

Pro Tip: Amphibious = Amphibian, amphibious animals are amphibians. Don't ever forget it.

Im a BM wrote: And MYSELF, I think I speak for EVERY PhD scientist on the "Board" at the "single best discussion site on the Internet"

You only speak for yourself.

Im a BM wrote: The "single best discussion site on the internet" is SO GOOD, it has grown from 1715 members to nearly SIX ACTIVE MEMBERS TODAY.

You did kind of kill it with your spamming. It's how you advertize that you are a Marxist.

Im a BM wrote: What is a "magical" acid, and how does it cause a more pronounced impact on sea water than pure water?

An actual chemist would have no problem understanding the exponential nature of acidity and basicity, and how sea water will have a much more pronounced effect on any acid than pure water will.

Im a BM wrote: What makes water itself such an excellent pH buffer?

Dilution. Check the definition of "buffering." You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all of the acid will be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution. You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of the hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization.

Do you need to review the definition of buffering?

Im a BM wrote:How do those phantom inertial gases prove that "greenhouse gases" are BUNK?

Greenhouse effect itself is bunk; hence there is no such thing as greenhouse gas.

Im a BM wrote: THIS IS "THE SINGLE BEST DISCUSSION SITE ON THE INTERNET"!!!

You can thank gfm7175 for his vigilant quality control efforts, GasGuzzler for his culinary configuration management, and for Ralph's research into methane reservoirs.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, I hope you are not prevented from seeing this post by because Into the Night dropped another piece of... "spam" in the way.

He already provided your response for you, if you are satisfied with his services as your spokesperson.

You may have your OWN thoughts about it. You might not. It's hard to tell with you guys. Does Into daMann have ONE brain or TWO? Maybe one and a half.

IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

Just for fun, one could learn the definition of the term "passive diffusion". They might even learn some of the "diffusivity" equations to calculate for different TEMPERATURES how long it takes for the solute to move a finite distance away from to point of addition and out into the zone of dilution.

The distance covered in 30 seconds is not impressive.

With passive diffusion as the only mechanism advancing dilution of the solute away from the point source where it was added, even in warm water the distance covered in 30 seconds would be measured in millimeters or a couple of centimeters, TOPS.

What magic mechanism allows for hyper speed dilution? How quickly can a molecule of hydrochloric acid randomly crash its way about to mix into the surrounding water? 30 seconds for COMPLETE dilution defies the laws of physics. Just figure the distance a molecule of acid has to travel from the point source addition to get far enough away from it for meaningful dilution. It doesn't matter how big the sea is for thousands of miles in all directions. It takes a finite amount of time for even HALF of those added acid molecules to physically move away from the point where they were added into the surrounding sea water, with only passive diffusion as the mechanism for transport and blending.

Perhaps those 150 gallons were added where a CURRENT carries acid along with MASS FLOW. This is a HELL of a lot faster than passive diffusion to get that acid mixed far and wide. But in just 30 seconds, how far can even the strongest current carry it and mix it all up?

Besides, virtually ALL of the added PROTONS are going to hook up with either bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions within micrometers and milliseconds of their first point of contact with sea water.

Yeah, that complicates the sea water example. We won't have to deal with it when we get to the "pure water" assertions for our 150 gallons of unspecified strength hydrochloric acid. But in SEA WATER, as those hydrochloric acid molecules zigzag between the water molecules on their way to infinite dilution, they bump into BICARBONATE IONS, HCO3-, and CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-).

The bicarbonate and carbonate ions get "protonated" to form carbonic acid, and acid MUCH weaker than hydrochloric acid. This takes the "protons" (aka hydrogen ions or H+) out of solution so they cannot diminish the pH.

You dump your 150 gallons of acid in the sea, and you will even get localized fizzing at the surface as so much carbonic acid forms from protonation of bicarbonate and carbonate ions, it splits off its water molecule and becomes carbon dioxide gas. So, it's easier to calculate how much 150 gallons of acid will acidify the "pure water" system, as it does not have the pH buffering of the carbonate system to account for.

You didn't even mention how strong the 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid is.

Is it a "magical" mix of 1.0 N hydrochloric acid?

You know, the kind that has pH = 0, because pH = -log[H+]?


"You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization." - IBdaMann

NOW we can do some actual math and calculate pH, to see if the 6.95 figure holds up.

A vast reservoir of pure water will be impossible to find. There are plenty of vast reservoirs of fresh water in lakes, but it is hardly "pure". ANY water in contact with the atmosphere INSTANTLY becomes "impure". Carbon dioxide dissolves into it, some of that carbon dioxide binds to water molecules to become carbonic acid, and the pH goes down a bit.

Lets pretend we have a "vast reservoir" of exactly 1000 million liters of PURE WATER. Now we can calculate how close to pH 6.95 (in days, not minutes) that reservoir becomes with 150 gallons of (unspecified concentration) hydrochloric acid.

Maybe IBdaMann can show us his math, including the CONCENTRATION of the acid known to bring about the pH 6.95 in this "vast reservoir".

Just for fun, let's use MAGICAL acid (hydrochloric acid). That means it is a 1.0 N solution having pH = 0

Before figuring out what 150 gallons can do, let's see how much pure water ONE LITER of hydrochloric acid can bring to pH 6.95

Ten to the minus 6.95 moles per liter represents a finite addition H+ to a solution of ten to the minus 7 moles per liter. That finite quantity can be calculated on a per liter basis to know how much it would take to bring 1000 million liters from pH 7 to pH 6.95


We could calculate how much hydrogen ion it would take to bring 1000 million liters of pure water from pH 7 to pH 6.95, and see how many liters of "magical" acid it would take to do it. 150 gallons is about 568 liters, but I doubt that 150 gallons will be the amount that brings the whole volume to something very close pH 6.95


IBdaMann, I'll let YOU go FIRST, since you're the one making unsupported assertions about your 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid thing.

You don't even have to invent a magic mixer that suddenly moves enormous volumes of water very rapidly in order to dilute a point source addition of acid.

Let's just pretend you're not REALLY expecting it all to happen in 30 seconds.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, I hope you are not prevented from seeing this post by because Into the Night dropped another piece of... "spam" in the way.

He already provided your response for you, if you are satisfied with his services as your spokesperson.

You may have your OWN thoughts about it. You might not. It's hard to tell with you guys. Does Into daMann have ONE brain or TWO? Maybe one and a half.

IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

Just for fun, one could learn the definition of the term "passive diffusion". They might even learn some of the "diffusivity" equations to calculate for different TEMPERATURES how long it takes for the solute to move a finite distance away from to point of addition and out into the zone of dilution.

The distance covered in 30 seconds is not impressive.

With passive diffusion as the only mechanism advancing dilution of the solute away from the point source where it was added, even in warm water the distance covered in 30 seconds would be measured in millimeters or a couple of centimeters, TOPS.

What magic mechanism allows for hyper speed dilution? How quickly can a molecule of hydrochloric acid randomly crash its way about to mix into the surrounding water? 30 seconds for COMPLETE dilution defies the laws of physics. Just figure the distance a molecule of acid has to travel from the point source addition to get far enough away from it for meaningful dilution. It doesn't matter how big the sea is for thousands of miles in all directions. It takes a finite amount of time for even HALF of those added acid molecules to physically move away from the point where they were added into the surrounding sea water, with only passive diffusion as the mechanism for transport and blending.

Perhaps those 150 gallons were added where a CURRENT carries acid along with MASS FLOW. This is a HELL of a lot faster than passive diffusion to get that acid mixed far and wide. But in just 30 seconds, how far can even the strongest current carry it and mix it all up?

Besides, virtually ALL of the added PROTONS are going to hook up with either bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions within micrometers and milliseconds of their first point of contact with sea water.

Yeah, that complicates the sea water example. We won't have to deal with it when we get to the "pure water" assertions for our 150 gallons of unspecified strength hydrochloric acid. But in SEA WATER, as those hydrochloric acid molecules zigzag between the water molecules on their way to infinite dilution, they bump into BICARBONATE IONS, HCO3-, and CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-).

The bicarbonate and carbonate ions get "protonated" to form carbonic acid, and acid MUCH weaker than hydrochloric acid. This takes the "protons" (aka hydrogen ions or H+) out of solution so they cannot diminish the pH.

You dump your 150 gallons of acid in the sea, and you will even get localized fizzing at the surface as so much carbonic acid forms from protonation of bicarbonate and carbonate ions, it splits off its water molecule and becomes carbon dioxide gas. So, it's easier to calculate how much 150 gallons of acid will acidify the "pure water" system, as it does not have the pH buffering of the carbonate system to account for.

You didn't even mention how strong the 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid is.

Is it a "magical" mix of 1.0 N hydrochloric acid?

You know, the kind that has pH = 0, because pH = -log[H+]?


"You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization." - IBdaMann

NOW we can do some actual math and calculate pH, to see if the 6.95 figure holds up.

A vast reservoir of pure water will be impossible to find. There are plenty of vast reservoirs of fresh water in lakes, but it is hardly "pure". ANY water in contact with the atmosphere INSTANTLY becomes "impure". Carbon dioxide dissolves into it, some of that carbon dioxide binds to water molecules to become carbonic acid, and the pH goes down a bit.

Lets pretend we have a "vast reservoir" of exactly 1000 million liters of PURE WATER. Now we can calculate how close to pH 6.95 (in days, not minutes) that reservoir becomes with 150 gallons of (unspecified concentration) hydrochloric acid.

Maybe IBdaMann can show us his math, including the CONCENTRATION of the acid known to bring about the pH 6.95 in this "vast reservoir".

Just for fun, let's use MAGICAL acid (hydrochloric acid). That means it is a 1.0 N solution having pH = 0

Before figuring out what 150 gallons can do, let's see how much pure water ONE LITER of hydrochloric acid can bring to pH 6.95

Ten to the minus 6.95 moles per liter represents a finite addition H+ to a solution of ten to the minus 7 moles per liter. That finite quantity can be calculated on a per liter basis to know how much it would take to bring 1000 million liters from pH 7 to pH 6.95


We could calculate how much hydrogen ion it would take to bring 1000 million liters of pure water from pH 7 to pH 6.95, and see how many liters of "magical" acid it would take to do it. 150 gallons is about 568 liters, but I doubt that 150 gallons will be the amount that brings the whole volume to something very close pH 6.95


IBdaMann, I'll let YOU go FIRST, since you're the one making unsupported assertions about your 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid thing.

You don't even have to invent a magic mixer that suddenly moves enormous volumes of water very rapidly in order to dilute a point source addition of acid.

Let's just pretend you're not REALLY expecting it all to happen in 30 seconds.

So anything posted by anyone but you is spam in your mind.

Spam is great with sunnyside up eggs, but it's quicker to just tape it to my waist

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, I hope you are not prevented from seeing this post by because Into the Night dropped another piece of... "spam" in the way.

He already provided your response for you, if you are satisfied with his services as your spokesperson.

You may have your OWN thoughts about it. You might not. It's hard to tell with you guys. Does Into daMann have ONE brain or TWO? Maybe one and a half.

IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

Just for fun, one could learn the definition of the term "passive diffusion". They might even learn some of the "diffusivity" equations to calculate for different TEMPERATURES how long it takes for the solute to move a finite distance away from to point of addition and out into the zone of dilution.

The distance covered in 30 seconds is not impressive.

With passive diffusion as the only mechanism advancing dilution of the solute away from the point source where it was added, even in warm water the distance covered in 30 seconds would be measured in millimeters or a couple of centimeters, TOPS.

What magic mechanism allows for hyper speed dilution? How quickly can a molecule of hydrochloric acid randomly crash its way about to mix into the surrounding water? 30 seconds for COMPLETE dilution defies the laws of physics. Just figure the distance a molecule of acid has to travel from the point source addition to get far enough away from it for meaningful dilution. It doesn't matter how big the sea is for thousands of miles in all directions. It takes a finite amount of time for even HALF of those added acid molecules to physically move away from the point where they were added into the surrounding sea water, with only passive diffusion as the mechanism for transport and blending.

Perhaps those 150 gallons were added where a CURRENT carries acid along with MASS FLOW. This is a HELL of a lot faster than passive diffusion to get that acid mixed far and wide. But in just 30 seconds, how far can even the strongest current carry it and mix it all up?

Besides, virtually ALL of the added PROTONS are going to hook up with either bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions within micrometers and milliseconds of their first point of contact with sea water.

Yeah, that complicates the sea water example. We won't have to deal with it when we get to the "pure water" assertions for our 150 gallons of unspecified strength hydrochloric acid. But in SEA WATER, as those hydrochloric acid molecules zigzag between the water molecules on their way to infinite dilution, they bump into BICARBONATE IONS, HCO3-, and CARBONATE IONS, CO3(2-).

The bicarbonate and carbonate ions get "protonated" to form carbonic acid, and acid MUCH weaker than hydrochloric acid. This takes the "protons" (aka hydrogen ions or H+) out of solution so they cannot diminish the pH.

You dump your 150 gallons of acid in the sea, and you will even get localized fizzing at the surface as so much carbonic acid forms from protonation of bicarbonate and carbonate ions, it splits off its water molecule and becomes carbon dioxide gas. So, it's easier to calculate how much 150 gallons of acid will acidify the "pure water" system, as it does not have the pH buffering of the carbonate system to account for.

You didn't even mention how strong the 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid is.

Is it a "magical" mix of 1.0 N hydrochloric acid?

You know, the kind that has pH = 0, because pH = -log[H+]?


"You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into a vast reservoir of pure water and all 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid would dilute to pH 6.95 in less than one minute, with no other form of neutralization." - IBdaMann

NOW we can do some actual math and calculate pH, to see if the 6.95 figure holds up.

A vast reservoir of pure water will be impossible to find. There are plenty of vast reservoirs of fresh water in lakes, but it is hardly "pure". ANY water in contact with the atmosphere INSTANTLY becomes "impure". Carbon dioxide dissolves into it, some of that carbon dioxide binds to water molecules to become carbonic acid, and the pH goes down a bit.

Lets pretend we have a "vast reservoir" of exactly 1000 million liters of PURE WATER. Now we can calculate how close to pH 6.95 (in days, not minutes) that reservoir becomes with 150 gallons of (unspecified concentration) hydrochloric acid.

Maybe IBdaMann can show us his math, including the CONCENTRATION of the acid known to bring about the pH 6.95 in this "vast reservoir".

Just for fun, let's use MAGICAL acid (hydrochloric acid). That means it is a 1.0 N solution having pH = 0

Before figuring out what 150 gallons can do, let's see how much pure water ONE LITER of hydrochloric acid can bring to pH 6.95

Ten to the minus 6.95 moles per liter represents a finite addition H+ to a solution of ten to the minus 7 moles per liter. That finite quantity can be calculated on a per liter basis to know how much it would take to bring 1000 million liters from pH 7 to pH 6.95


We could calculate how much hydrogen ion it would take to bring 1000 million liters of pure water from pH 7 to pH 6.95, and see how many liters of "magical" acid it would take to do it. 150 gallons is about 568 liters, but I doubt that 150 gallons will be the amount that brings the whole volume to something very close pH 6.95


IBdaMann, I'll let YOU go FIRST, since you're the one making unsupported assertions about your 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid thing.

You don't even have to invent a magic mixer that suddenly moves enormous volumes of water very rapidly in order to dilute a point source addition of acid.

Let's just pretend you're not REALLY expecting it all to happen in 30 seconds.

So anything posted by anyone but you is spam in your mind.

Spam is great with sunnyside up eggs, but it's quicker to just tape it to my waist

Climate change is totally uncool, and we are definitely NOT going to invite her to the party.

You know, they have PUMPKIN flavored corn flakes, but NEVER ONCE have they allowed the people to experience TOMATO FLAVORED BREAKFAST CEREAL.

They've had like a HUNDRED years to do it.

What are the statistical odds that of all the chocolate peanut butter fruity marshmallow toasted nut caramel cinnamon...

NEVER ONCE tomato flakes, tomato crunch, tomato crisp, frosted tomato, chocolate tomato, peanut butter tomato... NOTHING.

It's like statistically IMPOSSIBLE that it's some kind of random coincidence.

Im a BM wrote: Then show me how much the million cubic meters of sea water pH changes. Of course it won't be 6.95, given that it is starting around pH 8.3.

Im a BM wrote: That should prove the dilution is buffering thing just as effectively.

Im a BM wrote: Well, the (NOT a "chemical") bicarbonate in the baking soda gets PROTONATED

Im a BM wrote: Do you predict any fizzing when we dump the 150 gallons of acid into either the sea or the pure water reservoir?

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Im a BM wrote: Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Then show me how much the million cubic meters of sea water pH changes. Of course it won't be 6.95, given that it is starting around pH 8.3.

Correct. The rapid dilution to pH 6.95 has to be in the pure water.

Im a BM wrote: That should prove the dilution is buffering thing just as effectively.

Nope. Let's stick with my scenario, i.e. 150 gallons of liquid HCL into a vast reservoir. The rate of dilution naturally depends on the circulation of the water in the reservoir, but if the reservoir is sufficiently large (greater than or equal in volume to 500M width, 600M length, 20M depth) then the 150 gallons of 11.6M liquid (cold) HCL will dilute to 6.95 pH.

By the way, the pure water of pH 7.0 converting to a slightly acidic pH of 6.95 instead of something closer to 0.0, because of the quantity of the pure water, meets the definition of buffering.

Im a BM wrote: Well, the (NOT a "chemical") bicarbonate in the baking soda gets PROTONATED

Here you are guilty of silly wording. You should have written "Well, the chemical "sodium bicarbonate" in the baking soda gets PROTONATED ..."

Im a BM wrote: Do you predict any fizzing when we dump the 150 gallons of acid into either the sea or the pure water reservoir?

A lot would happen. I overcomplicated the scenario in my attempt to simplify it. I stipulated liquid HCL so that we wouldn't get bogged down with the details of working with a gas. However, HCL has to be very cold to be a liquid, and when you dump liquid HCL into either a reservoir or the ocean, it's going to revert back to being a gas, which will start bubbling ... which isn't itself "fizzing" but that comes with the standard dissociation of the HCL. The ocean water will do the same but will produce a bunch more CO2 and destroy the earth's global climate.

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Nope. That's not what I said. I specified that 150 gallons would be neutralized strictly from dilution in a reservoir of pure water, and that the ocean would accomplish the same diluting but will also provide added neutralization which will result in a reduced time to fully neutralize the HCL.

Im a BM wrote: Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

I specified circulation of the water. If the water is mostly stationary, neutralization will obviously take longer.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Then show me how much the million cubic meters of sea water pH changes. Of course it won't be 6.95, given that it is starting around pH 8.3.

Correct. The rapid dilution to pH 6.95 has to be in the pure water.

Im a BM wrote: That should prove the dilution is buffering thing just as effectively.

Nope. Let's stick with my scenario, i.e. 150 gallons of liquid HCL into a vast reservoir. The rate of dilution naturally depends on the circulation of the water in the reservoir, but if the reservoir is sufficiently large (greater than or equal in volume to 500M width, 600M length, 20M depth) then the 150 gallons of 11.6M liquid (cold) HCL will dilute to 6.95 pH.

By the way, the pure water of pH 7.0 converting to a slightly acidic pH of 6.95 instead of something closer to 0.0, because of the quantity of the pure water, meets the definition of buffering.

Im a BM wrote: Well, the (NOT a "chemical") bicarbonate in the baking soda gets PROTONATED

Here you are guilty of silly wording. You should have written "Well, the chemical "sodium bicarbonate" in the baking soda gets PROTONATED ..."

Im a BM wrote: Do you predict any fizzing when we dump the 150 gallons of acid into either the sea or the pure water reservoir?

A lot would happen. I overcomplicated the scenario in my attempt to simplify it. I stipulated liquid HCL so that we wouldn't get bogged down with the details of working with a gas. However, HCL has to be very cold to be a liquid, and when you dump liquid HCL into either a reservoir or the ocean, it's going to revert back to being a gas, which will start bubbling ... which isn't itself "fizzing" but that comes with the standard dissociation of the HCL. The ocean water will do the same but will produce a bunch more CO2 and destroy the earth's global climate.

Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann says that "You could dump 150 gallons of hydrochloric acid into the ocean and all the acid would be neutralized within 30 seconds because of dilution."

Nope. That's not what I said. I specified that 150 gallons would be neutralized strictly from dilution in a reservoir of pure water, and that the ocean would accomplish the same diluting but will also provide added neutralization which will result in a reduced time to fully neutralize the HCL.

Im a BM wrote: Thirty seconds to homogeneously blend 150 gallons of acid into a large enough volume of water to dilute it to the point of pH neutrality. Those be some HIGH SPEED hydrochloric acid molecules, zigzagging between the water molecules to get to a zone of lower acid concentration and homogenize it to neutral pH.

I specified circulation of the water. If the water is mostly stationary, neutralization will obviously take longer.

Im a BM wrote:
The post directly above this addresses the specific reservoir of pure water IBdaMann describes, 500 meters by 600 meters and 20 meters deep.

IBdaMann says that these SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water can dilute 150 gallons of concentrated (11.6 Molar) hydrochloric acid to pH = 6.95

Bear that in mind as the underlying discussion shows how it would take THIRTY MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water to dilute it that much. In fact, those SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS are only enough to dilute that acid to pH = 5.96

On the other hand, just 2982 cubic meters of SEA WATER can buffer that 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid addition just as effectively as THIRTY MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water can by dilution.

Because the pH buffering of the carbonate system is NOT dilution.

Of course, you can't do the math without knowing what pH IS.

pH = -log[H+] the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, H+, in solution.

I hope IBdaMann can agree to this definition of pH. It means that our concentrated hydrochloric acid has pH BELOW ZERO, about -1, in fact. I know that Into the Night is NOT on board for defining pH as -log[H+], for this very reason that it makes any solution with 1.0 or more moles H+ per liter have a pH equal to or less than zero.

If IBdaMann does NOT agree with the definition of pH = -log[H+], he will have to show his alternative definition of pH for the equation he used to calculate that SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water will dilute that acid to pH = 6.95
MY version of the math says the pH should be 5.96.


ALTERNATIVE FACTS

The average liter of seawater has 2300 micromoles per liter of alkalinity.

Conversely, the average liter of sea water has about 125 milligrams per liter CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENTS (ppm) alkalinity

One million liters of seawater has 2300 moles or 125 kilograms calcium carbonate equivalents alkalinity.

One million liters, or 1000 cubic meters of sea water has the capacity to neutralize 2300 moles of H+.

150 gallons, or 568 liters of 11.6 molar concentrated hydrochloric acid has 568 x 11.6 moles of H+. Which equals 6589 moles of H+

2300 moles alkalinity per 1000 cubic meters, 6589 moles of H+ added.

It would take 2982 cubic meters of sea water, rather than 1000, to completely consume all the hydrogen ions in 150 gallons concentrated hydrochloric acid. Those protons are taken out of solution by attachment to either carbonate ions or carbonate ions. This turns carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions, and it turns bicarbonate ions into carbonic acid.

HCl + Na2CO3 = NaCl + NaHCO3 carbonate protonated to bicarbonate

HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3 bicarbonate protonated to carbonic acid

H2CO3 = H2O + CO2 carbonic acid splitting into water and carbon dioxide

2982 cubic meters of sea water to get enough pH buffering to handle 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid. You'll see a whole lot of fizzing as carbon dioxide gas bubbles out of it. But the pH will barely drop below 8.3.

NOW, put that 6589 moles of hydrogen ion into 2982 cubic meters of PURE WATER. 2,982,000 liters of pure water to dilute 6589 moles of added H+.
= 0.00221 moles per liter of ADDED H+ after dilution.

0.001 moles per liter H+ = ten to the minus 3 power = pH 3

More moles per liter H+ make pH LESS than 3.

I could drag it out to the exact answer, but the trend is clear.

The great buffering power of water itself through the magic of DILUTION enables 2982 cubic meters of pure water to "buffer" 150 gallons of added hydrochloric acid to pH < 3. A bit lower than 6.95.

2982 cubic meters of SEA WATER can buffer those 150 gallons of acid COMPLETELY, to keep pH pretty close to 8.3

Damn, I don't want to get the exact pH for 0.0022 molar acid.

Okay, dilution is perfectly linear, and pH is one unit per each power of ten.

Make it about 3 MILLION cubic meters of pure water. 1000 times more dilute than when our 3000 cubic meters of water couldn't get the pH up to 3.

Now we have the pH up to something less than 6.

30 million cubic meters of pure water dilutes your 150 gallons of acid to a pH approaching 7, but certainly not as high as 6.95.

3000 cubic meters of SEA WATER has a DIFFERENT mechanism for pH buffering.

Now I'm curious if it matches up with the sea water has 2000 times as much pH buffering capacity as pure water axiom. I think I'm seeing 10,000 here.

Then again, I fudged using 0.001 instead of 0.0022 for the H+ concentration to estimate pH = 3, when it is 2.2 times more acidic than that.

So, it would take AT LEAST 2000 times as much volume of pure water to deal with 150 gallons of concentrated acid, compared to sea water, to minimize pH shift.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
The post directly above this addresses the specific reservoir of pure water IBdaMann describes, 500 meters by 600 meters and 20 meters deep.

IBdaMann says that these SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water can dilute 150 gallons of concentrated (11.6 Molar) hydrochloric acid to pH = 6.95

Bear that in mind as the underlying discussion shows how it would take THIRTY MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water to dilute it that much. In fact, those SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS are only enough to dilute that acid to pH = 5.96

On the other hand, just 2982 cubic meters of SEA WATER can buffer that 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid addition just as effectively as THIRTY MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water can by dilution.

Because the pH buffering of the carbonate system is NOT dilution.

Of course, you can't do the math without knowing what pH IS.

pH = -log[H+] the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, H+, in solution.

I hope IBdaMann can agree to this definition of pH. It means that our concentrated hydrochloric acid has pH BELOW ZERO, about -1, in fact. I know that Into the Night is NOT on board for defining pH as -log[H+], for this very reason that it makes any solution with 1.0 or more moles H+ per liter have a pH equal to or less than zero.

If IBdaMann does NOT agree with the definition of pH = -log[H+], he will have to show his alternative definition of pH for the equation he used to calculate that SIX MILLION CUBIC METERS of pure water will dilute that acid to pH = 6.95
MY version of the math says the pH should be 5.96.


ALTERNATIVE FACTS

The average liter of seawater has 2300 micromoles per liter of alkalinity.

Conversely, the average liter of sea water has about 125 milligrams per liter CALCIUM CARBONATE EQUIVALENTS (ppm) alkalinity

One million liters of seawater has 2300 moles or 125 kilograms calcium carbonate equivalents alkalinity.

One million liters, or 1000 cubic meters of sea water has the capacity to neutralize 2300 moles of H+.

150 gallons, or 568 liters of 11.6 molar concentrated hydrochloric acid has 568 x 11.6 moles of H+. Which equals 6589 moles of H+

2300 moles alkalinity per 1000 cubic meters, 6589 moles of H+ added.

It would take 2982 cubic meters of sea water, rather than 1000, to completely consume all the hydrogen ions in 150 gallons concentrated hydrochloric acid. Those protons are taken out of solution by attachment to either carbonate ions or carbonate ions. This turns carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions, and it turns bicarbonate ions into carbonic acid.

HCl + Na2CO3 = NaCl + NaHCO3 carbonate protonated to bicarbonate

HCl + NaHCO3 = NaCl + H2CO3 bicarbonate protonated to carbonic acid

H2CO3 = H2O + CO2 carbonic acid splitting into water and carbon dioxide

2982 cubic meters of sea water to get enough pH buffering to handle 150 gallons of concentrated hydrochloric acid. You'll see a whole lot of fizzing as carbon dioxide gas bubbles out of it. But the pH will barely drop below 8.3.

NOW, put that 6589 moles of hydrogen ion into 2982 cubic meters of PURE WATER. 2,982,000 liters of pure water to dilute 6589 moles of added H+.
= 0.00221 moles per liter of ADDED H+ after dilution.

0.001 moles per liter H+ = ten to the minus 3 power = pH 3

More moles per liter H+ make pH LESS than 3.

I could drag it out to the exact answer, but the trend is clear.

The great buffering power of water itself through the magic of DILUTION enables 2982 cubic meters of pure water to "buffer" 150 gallons of added hydrochloric acid to pH < 3. A bit lower than 6.95.

2982 cubic meters of SEA WATER can buffer those 150 gallons of acid COMPLETELY, to keep pH pretty close to 8.3

Damn, I don't want to get the exact pH for 0.0022 molar acid.

Okay, dilution is perfectly linear, and pH is one unit per each power of ten.

Make it about 3 MILLION cubic meters of pure water. 1000 times more dilute than when our 3000 cubic meters of water couldn't get the pH up to 3.

Now we have the pH up to something less than 6.

30 million cubic meters of pure water dilutes your 150 gallons of acid to a pH approaching 7, but certainly not as high as 6.95.

3000 cubic meters of SEA WATER has a DIFFERENT mechanism for pH buffering.

Now I'm curious if it matches up with the sea water has 2000 times as much pH buffering capacity as pure water axiom. I think I'm seeing 10,000 here.

Then again, I fudged using 0.001 instead of 0.0022 for the H+ concentration to estimate pH = 3, when it is 2.2 times more acidic than that.

So, it would take AT LEAST 2000 times as much volume of pure water to deal with 150 gallons of concentrated acid, compared to sea water, to minimize pH shift.

Meth is bad

Anders wrote:
You are all wasting a lot of time fighting about minor issues, why do you spend your time like that?

im serious me and IB the man are not on same page, but try to be serious, we all know that it is not just shit he tell people.

You should better work against his worst options, we dont life in same world as everyone else, im sorry you just dont get it, we all make our own world, and we combine it as we wish, i hope you get it...