Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

2

RE: I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.09-04-2022 03:32
sealover ★★★☆☆ (810)	I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games. As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention. There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification". Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context. One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions! If this is your only game, find someone else to play with. I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022. How are you defining Climate Change?
09-04-2022 03:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (13507)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote:How are you defining Climate Change? I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games. Great. Then your assertion is summarily discarded as FALSE, i.e. sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022. Thanks for playing.
09-04-2022 05:51
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2016)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with .There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff. Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby? duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way. ... but you say otherwise? duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3% What do you mean by "does"? duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us. squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first. I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.If plants consume everything why is there any at all? The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%. I am very proud of the Australian Prime minister.He was clearly reluctant to go to COP 26 in Glasgow but was pressured politically.He stood up and declared Australia is meeting its commitments and came back the next day.Approval has been given to build the Scarborough gas project which will take a metric shitload of gas out the ground and sell it to who ever wants it.Australia has been accused of being climate criminals and I like it. duncan61
10-04-2022 00:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (20344)	sealover wrote: I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games. Yes you do. You STILL haven't defined 'climate change'. You have been doing everything possible to evade defining this phrase. sealover wrote: As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention. Science isn't a community. It isn't discoveries either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. sealover wrote: There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification". Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context. Define 'climate change'. sealover wrote: One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions! Define 'climate change'. sealover wrote: If this is your only game, find someone else to play with. It is YOU playing this game. Inversion fallacy. Define 'climate change'. sealover wrote: I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls. Inversion fallacy. YOU are the troll. You are still evading. Define 'climate change'. 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
10-04-2022 00:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (20344)	duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with .There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff. Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby? duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way. ... but you say otherwise? duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3% What do you mean by "does"? duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us. squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first. I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. duncan61 wrote: If plants consume everything why is there any at all? If you consume oxygen why is there any at all? duncan61 wrote: The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%. This is also not possible to measure. They are random numbers. 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

10-04-2022 00:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (13507)	duncan61 wrote:I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently. I have disputed the claim, with you specifically, for as long as you have been on this board. You have never contributed anthing useful. Now you are claiming that plants will refuse to consume additional CO2. You are so wise. duncan61 wrote:IIf plants consume everything why is there any at all? Yep, your level of stupid again. Did Pete Rogers order you to ask that question in such an absolute form. You are a fuqqing genius. duncan61 wrote:The carbon cycle is natural Nice term. Would you mind defining it for me? duncan61 wrote:and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%. You won't take issue with anything stupid. You only take issue with people trying to help you. You are so wise.
12-04-2022 18:09
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: Thanks for playing. And now, for our next contestant on... IS CLIMATE CHANGE ALL RIGHT! come on down

Page 2 of 2

2

Join the debate Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change:

Related content

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	488	27-03-2023 20:00
Hess to buy $750 million in carbon credits	1	04-12-2022 07:19
carbon database for household goods and services	18	22-11-2022 04:36
Geneticaly modifying plants and trees for carbon capture?	4	11-06-2022 09:21
Water Vapor And The Climate, Why Carbon Dioxide Is A Very Minor Player	9	03-05-2022 16:54

▲ Top of page

Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact