"You cannot acidify an alkaline." SO WHAT!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > "You cannot acidify an alkaline." SO WHAT!

"You cannot acidify an alkaline." SO WHAT!07-09-2024 23:00
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	"You cannot acidify an alkaline." It is a meaningless sentence, because the word "alkaline" is not a noun. But this sentence appears on this website about a thousand times. This meaningless sentence can appear up to 12 times in a single post. The endless repetition of this sentence provides the scientific rebuttal to any claim that increased emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has had any acidifying impact on the ocean. More than a decade ago, I chose for my own communication to always put quotation marks on the "acidification" part of ocean acidification. Therefore, I nearly always write "ocean 'acidification'" (ocean "acidification") rather than the commonly used form of the term. As increased concentration of carbonic acid makes the sea less alkaline, and conversely more acidic, the pH remains above 7.0. The irrefutable scientific facts include a slight decrease in sea water pH, from an average near 8.3 to a new average near 8.2. The depletion of sea water alkalinity as it buffers against pH change upon addition of more carbonic acid - that is the actual chemical concern with respect to ocean "acidification". The shift in the sea's carbonate buffer system has reduced the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion acquired from sea water to make calcium carbonate shell. Commercial marine aquaculture has to pay an additional operating expense now, purchasing chemicals to add carbonate ion to the water in the nurseries, so the larvae can form enough shell to grow properly. Perhaps if the sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline" is repeated just one more time it will suddenly be clear how wrong anyone is for getting worried about ocean "acidification". Gullible Marxists want to create alarmist panic with a sea water chemistry HOAX. You want proof? Here's your proof! YOU CANNOT ACIDIFY AN ALKALINE! Of course you can't. There is no such thing as "an alkaline".
08-09-2024 02:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Im a BM wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline." It is a meaningless sentence, because the word "alkaline" is not a noun. Obviously he is using it as a noun, so it is a noun in his posts, with all the meaning he assigns to it. The meaning is substantial because it blows your claim of "ocean acidification" out of the water (pun intended). You pretend to "distance" yourself from the term "ocean acidification" because you know that it is totally bogus, but you them proceed to embrace it because your religion demands it. The sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline" is absolutely true and totally bitch-slaps you and your stupidity. Also, the ocean's alkalinity comes from natural erosion, of which the 2nd law of thermodynamics guarantees us that the earth will always have plenty to keep the ocean very alkaline. Which leads to the question of why you ever allowed yourself to be duped into believing that the ocean was somehow losing its alkalinity. You really screwed the pooch on this topic altogether.
08-09-2024 09:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	Im a BM wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline." It is a meaningless sentence, because the word "alkaline" is not a noun. Alkaline is a noun. Im a BM wrote: But this sentence appears on this website about a thousand times. Because you keep making the same error. Im a BM wrote: This meaningless sentence can appear up to 12 times in a single post. Because you keep making the same error. Im a BM wrote: The endless repetition of this sentence Inversion fallacy. The repetition fallacy is YOUR problem. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! Im a BM wrote: provides the scientific rebuttal to any claim that increased emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has had any acidifying impact on the ocean. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: More than a decade ago, I chose for my own communication to always put quotation marks on the "acidification" part of ocean acidification. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Therefore, I nearly always write "ocean 'acidification'" (ocean "acidification") rather than the commonly used form of the term. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: As increased concentration of carbonic acid makes the sea less alkaline, and conversely more acidic, the pH remains above 7.0. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: The irrefutable scientific facts Science is not 'irrefutable facts'. Im a BM wrote: include a slight decrease in sea water pH, from an average near 8.3 to a new average near 8.2. You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: The depletion of sea water alkalinity as it buffers against pH change upon addition of more carbonic acid - that is the actual chemical concern with respect to ocean "acidification". You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: The shift in the sea's carbonate buffer system No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: has reduced the concentration of carbonate ion in sea water. No such chemical as 'carbonate'. Im a BM wrote: Shell forming organisms require carbonate ion acquired from sea water to make calcium carbonate shell. No such chemical as 'carbonate'. Im a BM wrote: Commercial marine aquaculture has to pay an additional operating expense now, purchasing chemicals to add carbonate ion to the water in the nurseries, so the larvae can form enough shell to grow properly. No such chemical. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps if the sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline" is repeated just one more time it will suddenly be clear how wrong anyone is for getting worried about ocean "acidification". You can't acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Gullible Marxists want to create alarmist panic with a sea water chemistry HOAX. You want proof? Here's your proof! YOU CANNOT ACIDIFY AN ALKALINE! Of course you can't. There is no such thing as "an alkaline". There certainly is. Your inability to understand English is YOUR problem. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 08-09-2024 09:55
09-09-2024 22:53
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	whether or not we could possibly know what he means by using "alkaline" as a noun (WTF is "an alkaline?"), the bigger issue is the use of mind-numbing repetition as a substitute for offering an argument. It is one thing to post something in which the exact same sentence appears more than a dozen times, being the same sentence seen dozens of times before... maybe it enhances the value of the other content of the post? But when that repeated sentence constitutes the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Repetition fallacy on steroids. But does everyone get to invent new nouns now? Shouldn't they have to at least give an unambiguous definition? If I say "organic carbon" as a noun, I'm using the same term in the same way that millions of chemists have used it for many decades. I guess I am required to provide an unambiguous definition. But if I decide to change the commonly accepted meaning of a word to suit my purposes, everyone is supposed to be a mind reader? All right. Alkaline is a noun now. Somebody alert the dictionaries. Do we still get to use it as an adjective? Do you ever intend to reveal the secret of its definition as a noun? IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: "You cannot acidify an alkaline." It is a meaningless sentence, because the word "alkaline" is not a noun. Obviously he is using it as a noun, so it is a noun in his posts, with all the meaning he assigns to it. The meaning is substantial because it blows your claim of "ocean acidification" out of the water (pun intended). You pretend to "distance" yourself from the term "ocean acidification" because you know that it is totally bogus, but you them proceed to embrace it because your religion demands it. The sentence "You cannot acidify an alkaline" is absolutely true and totally bitch-slaps you and your stupidity. Also, the ocean's alkalinity comes from natural erosion, of which the 2nd law of thermodynamics guarantees us that the earth will always have plenty to keep the ocean very alkaline. Which leads to the question of why you ever allowed yourself to be duped into believing that the ocean was somehow losing its alkalinity. You really screwed the pooch on this topic altogether.
10-09-2024 01:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	Im a BM wrote: whether or not we could possibly know what he means by using "alkaline" as a noun (WTF is "an alkaline?"), The very fact that you ask this question shows you are no chemist or scientist. Im a BM wrote: the bigger issue is the use of mind-numbing repetition as a substitute for offering an argument. You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: It is one thing to post something in which the exact same sentence appears more than a dozen times, being the same sentence seen dozens of times before... maybe it enhances the value of the other content of the post? You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: But when that repeated sentence constitutes the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: Repetition fallacy on steroids. You could always stop. The fallacy is YOURS Robert. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! Im a BM wrote: But does everyone get to invent new nouns now? Shouldn't they have to at least give an unambiguous definition? If I say "organic carbon" as a noun, Carbon isn't organic. Im a BM wrote: I'm using the same term in the same way that millions of chemists have used it for many decades. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I guess I am required to provide an unambiguous definition. But if I decide to change the commonly accepted meaning of a word to suit my purposes, everyone is supposed to be a mind reader? All right. Alkaline is a noun now. Go learn English. Im a BM wrote: Somebody alert the dictionaries. Dictionaries don't define any word or grammar, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Do we still get to use it as an adjective? Do you ever intend to reveal the secret of its definition as a noun? Go learn English. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2024 06:22
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	"Basicity is exponential." - IBdaMann The term "basicity" was brought into the discussion for the very first time when IBdaMann wrote this. He should have had the common courtesy to define his terms. ESPECIALLY since the context for introducing the new term was to say: "Basicity is exponential." The poor reader has to be a mind reader to know what "basicity" means in this context. And it is "exponential"? Denied the courtesy of being given a definition by the author who first brought the term into the discussion, what is the poor reader to do? They could try looking up every available definition for the term "basicity", but NOWHERE can they find one in which "basicity is exponential". Isn't "basicity" the whole number of protons that an acid is capable of releasing into solution upon complete dissociation? There is the Lewis Basicity Scale, but there is nothing "exponential" about it. The reader might even locate a "basicity scale" where pH and pOH have been placed on the SAME SCALE, with 7 in the middle, usual ranging from 0-15... The same pH value shows its corresponding pOH value on the other side of the scale. Usually reading pH on the left side of the scale, with acidity increasing from bottom to top. The corresponding value can be found by reading pOH on the right side of the scale, with alkalinity increasing from top to bottom. But basicity is NOT "exponential", even on THIS "basicity scale". So, unless IBdaMann mans up and defines his terms, there is NO SUCH THING as "basicity" that is "exponential". Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: whether or not we could possibly know what he means by using "alkaline" as a noun (WTF is "an alkaline?"), The very fact that you ask this question shows you are no chemist or scientist. Im a BM wrote: the bigger issue is the use of mind-numbing repetition as a substitute for offering an argument. You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: It is one thing to post something in which the exact same sentence appears more than a dozen times, being the same sentence seen dozens of times before... maybe it enhances the value of the other content of the post? You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: But when that repeated sentence constitutes the ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You could always stop. Im a BM wrote: Repetition fallacy on steroids. You could always stop. The fallacy is YOURS Robert. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! Im a BM wrote: But does everyone get to invent new nouns now? Shouldn't they have to at least give an unambiguous definition? If I say "organic carbon" as a noun, Carbon isn't organic. Im a BM wrote: I'm using the same term in the same way that millions of chemists have used it for many decades. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I guess I am required to provide an unambiguous definition. But if I decide to change the commonly accepted meaning of a word to suit my purposes, everyone is supposed to be a mind reader? All right. Alkaline is a noun now. Go learn English. Im a BM wrote: Somebody alert the dictionaries. Dictionaries don't define any word or grammar, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Do we still get to use it as an adjective? Do you ever intend to reveal the secret of its definition as a noun? Go learn English.
10-09-2024 08:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Im a BM wrote: He should have had the common courtesy to define his terms. You have but to ask. Check the other thread.
10-09-2024 12:31
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: He should have had the common courtesy to define his terms. You have but to ask. Check the other thread. "Basicity is exponential" How could this statement apply to the effect of adding one drop of acid to a liter of sea water? Well, Googling the phrase "basicity is exponential" provided a clue, but it doesn't really agree with IBdaMann's conclusions. "'Basicity is exponential' means that as the concentration of a base substance increases, its ability to react with an acid (its basicity) increases at a rapidly accelerating rate." and they give an example "Imagine adding small amounts of sodium hydroxide (a strong base) to a solution. As the concentration of sodium hydroxide increases, the pH level (a measure of basicity) will jump up rapidly, demonstrating exponential behavior." So there IS a context in which the statement "Basicity is exponential" actually MAKES SENSE. But it has nothing to do with what happens adding drops of acid to sea water. Now, in anticipation of the convoluted obfuscation that will surely come in response, "proving" that "basicity is exponential" applies perfectly to adding acid to sea water. The "exponential" effect only happens in an UNBUFFERED solution. What happens adding drops of sodium hydroxide (a strong base) to sea water. Unlike the example above, the pH will NOT jump up rapidly, demonstrating exponential behavior. The carbonate system in the sea water will buffer against pH change. Instead of seeing a rise in pH, you will see a rise in the concentration of carbonate ion, and a decrease in the concentration of carbonic acid. NaOH (sodium hydroxide) = Na+ + OH- sodium ion + hydroxide ion OH- + H2CO3 = HCO3- + H2O carbonic acid becomes bicarbonate ion and OH- + HCO3- + CO3(2-) bicarbonate ion becomes carbonate ion. But there is NO exponential basicity effect on sea water because it is BUFFERED against it. And there would be no rising basicity AT ALL if what is being added to sea water is drops of ACID rather than BASE, even as it is BUFFERED against "exponential acidity" effects causing any rapid decrease in pH. But at least you DO see that elusive "change to the acid" as the concentration of carbonic acid increases. Edited on 10-09-2024 12:50
10-09-2024 20:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: He should have had the common courtesy to define his terms. You have but to ask. Check the other thread. The carbonate system in the sea water will buffer against pH change. There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'. Carbonate is not a chemical. Water is a buffer. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Where did the cult go?10-09-2024 22:02
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: He should have had the common courtesy to define his terms. You have but to ask. Check the other thread. The carbonate system in the sea water will buffer against pH change. There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'. Carbonate is not a chemical. Water is a buffer. What happened to the rest of your cult? The Church of Thermodenial seems to be a lot less popular now, compared to when you guys joined the website 9 and 10 years ago. You used to have a whole TEAM to pile on for troll attacks. There IS such a thing as the "carbonate system". LOOK IT UP, if you know how The lazy man's route could be a simple GOOGLE search. Google is not GOD, but it can show you a WHOLE BUNCH of references to see where scientists communicate about "the carbonate system". It is a standard fare chapter title for water chemistry textbooks (e.g. Chapter 7 - The Carbonate System) You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, Marxist, or gullible follower of the Church of Global Warming to like this kind of "system". You DO have to study at least a TINY bit of science to UNDERSTAND this kind of "system". "Carbonate is not a chemical." Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line? Did anyone claim that "carbonate is a chemical"? Can carbonate BECOME a chemical when it is called "carbonate ion"? "Water is a buffer". Uh, oh... No, water is NOT a buffer. Just for fun, Google "Is water a buffer for pH?" Plenty of clear answers available, including the first one "No, pure water is not considered a good buffer for pH." Or you could finally read a chemistry textbook and learn what a buffer IS.
12-09-2024 05:29
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1120)	Where have all the trolls gone off to? There was a time when a guy could expect a 5-troll pile on team attack, for daring to include the term "climate change" in their first post as a new member. The Definition Dogma Devils were relentless in their insistence that it is not permissible to write the term "climate change" unless one has submitted an unambiguous definition of the term that passes thermodynamic inspection. There would be a whole team agreeing that this was rational somehow. A whole team agreeing that they had a legitimate personal grievance against the new member for failing to obey the order to "define your terms" What happened to the rest of your cult? It defies plausibility that Into the Night is unaware of this inquiry. The Church of Thermodenial seems to be a lot less popular now, compared to when you guys joined the website 9 and 10 years ago. It will be interesting to see if ANY of the old troll gang is still around to celebrate the October anniversaries of IBdaMann and Into the Night joining the website, ten and nine years ago, respectively. I predict that when those days arrive in October, the senior troll and his second rate sidekick will account for more than 90% of all posts. They created such an attractive ecosystem here over the past nine years, it is a hollow shell of an echo chamber where they call back to each other and stroke each other's.... egos. What happened to the rest of your cult? You used to have a whole TEAM to pile on for troll attacks. You used to have a whole club to keep each other company and praise each other for being so well-versed in science and enlightened about the Marxist nature of the conspiracy behind the Church of Global Warming and their climate change hoax. After fewer and fewer new members arrived to fall into the ambush, did they have to resort to cannibalism? Only ten new members signed up in the last five months. Out of the 132 new members who joined in the last 20 months. It used to be two new members a week. Now it's one new member every two weeks. Which provides the basis for my prediction that by next month, IBdaMann and Into the Night will be virtually alone in their echo chamber. The cult seems to have disbanded. Or maybe it was troll-on-troll cannibalism. What happened to the rest of your cult? And there IS such a thing as the "carbonate system". You cannot nullify its existence by proclamation or decree. LOOK IT UP, if you know how The lazy man's route could be a simple GOOGLE search. Google is not GOD, but it can show you a WHOLE BUNCH of references to see where scientists communicate about "the carbonate system". It is a standard fare chapter title for water chemistry textbooks (e.g. Chapter 7 - The Carbonate System) You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, Marxist, or gullible follower of the Church of Global Warming to like this kind of "system". You DO have to study at least a TINY bit of science to UNDERSTAND this kind of "system". "Carbonate is not a chemical." Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line? Did anyone claim that "carbonate is a chemical"? Can carbonate BECOME a chemical when it is called "carbonate ion"? "Water is a buffer". Uh, oh... No, water is NOT a buffer. Just for fun, Google "Is water a buffer for pH?" Plenty of clear answers available, including the first one "No, pure water is not considered a good buffer for pH." Or you could finally read a chemistry textbook and learn what a buffer IS.
13-09-2024 01:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	Im a BM wrote: Where have all the trolls gone off to? You're still here. Im a BM wrote: And there IS such a thing as the "carbonate system". No such thing in science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: You cannot nullify its existence by proclamation or decree. I am not nullifying anything. There is simply no such thing in science or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: LOOK IT UP, if you know how Chemistry is not Google. Im a BM wrote: The lazy man's route could be a simple GOOGLE search. Chemistry is not Google. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: Google is not GOD, but it can show you a WHOLE BUNCH of references to see where scientists communicate about "the carbonate system". There is no such thing in chemistry. Carbonate is not a chemical or a 'system'. Im a BM wrote: It is a standard fare chapter title for water chemistry textbooks (e.g. Chapter 7 - The Carbonate System) Chemistry is not a textbook. Im a BM wrote: You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist, Marxist, or gullible follower of the Church of Global Warming to like this kind of "system". Yes you do, and you are all of it. Im a BM wrote: You DO have to study at least a TINY bit of science to UNDERSTAND this kind of "system". [quote]Im a BM wrote: "Carbonate is not a chemical." Okay, I'll bite. What is the punch line? Did anyone claim that "carbonate is a chemical"? DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: Can carbonate BECOME a chemical when it is called "carbonate ion"? Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: "Water is a buffer". Uh, oh... No, water is NOT a buffer. Water is a buffer. Im a BM wrote: Just for fun, Google "Is water a buffer for pH?" Chemistry is not Google. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: Plenty of clear answers available, including the first one "No, pure water is not considered a good buffer for pH." Chemistry is not Google. Google is not God. Im a BM wrote: Or you could finally read a chemistry textbook and learn what a buffer IS. Chemistry is not a book. I already know what a buffer is. YOU don't! DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-09-2024 01:25

Join the debate "You cannot acidify an alkaline." SO WHAT!:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?	77	07-01-2016 14:16