Remember me
▼ Content

Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change



Page 3 of 3<123
18-01-2025 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.


Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.


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
19-01-2025 21:13
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1795)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.


Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.


Actually, it is CORRECT, and anyone who is intellectually competent enough can Google the search term "pH = -log[H+]" tp confirm this.


FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SCIENCE

Define your terms? or Cite your evidence?

It is true that you can't really have any science unless you define your terms at some point in the process.

It is also true that you can't really have any science unless you have some EVIDENCE you can cite.

I think they call it the "Scientific Method" or something. There is something about acquiring evidence in a reproducible manner, so that others might know where the facts all flow from.

Let's see... In my 1998 paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (YUP, it's a REAL thing!), I cited about 170 peer-reviewed scientific papers so that others might know where THEY could find the evidence.

I'll admit, 170 different papers is a LOT for just one paper to be citing. But my paper was 31 pages long in a combined research/review article. Longer than your average paper.

But folks weren't expected to just take my word for it. The methodology had to be reproducible for someone else to follow, find comparable evidence, and see if they reach a comparable conclusion.

Yes, scientists are expected to define their terms once in a while.

For an introductory textbook, EVERY term is new to the student. So, a textbook will define a term, ONCE. After that, they just go ahead and use the term without defining it every time.

For my paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, there were only a handful of terms I was using that hadn't already been defined for everyone in the introductory textbooks.

"Extended phenotype" for example. It was a very important concept in my paper, but not very well known to the average scientist. So when I got to discussing the extended phenotype, I had to define what it meant. And I had to cite Richard Dawkins as the author who coined the term.

But I sure as hell wasn't expected to DEFINE organic carbon to be able to discuss it. If you don't know how to look that one up, who are you kidding when you think you could possibly understand anything ELSE in the paper?

But there is a wee bit of hypocrisy from the "Define your terms!" trolls here at climate-debate.com

Tell me that the definition of pH = -log[H+] is WRONG.

After I have, once again, defined my term in the same way all the chemistry textbooks do. pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion (H+) molarity.

Define YOUR terms, in that case!

You cannot define your terms, because you have NO IDEA what pH is.

Some kind of "ratio", right?

I know. "RQAA"

"You are not a chemist." - Into the Night

You are not a chemist, Into the Night.
19-01-2025 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Actually, it is CORRECT, and anyone who is intellectually competent enough can Google the search term "pH = -log[H+]" tp confirm this.[/b]

WRONG. Science isn't Google. Chemistry isn't Google.
Im a BM wrote:
FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SCIENCE

There are no rules of science, other than the definition of science itself, which I have already given you.
Im a BM wrote:
Define your terms? or Cite your evidence?

RQAA. Science is not evidence.
Im a BM wrote:
It is true that you can't really have any science unless you define your terms at some point in the process.

RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
It is also true that you can't really have any science unless you have some EVIDENCE you can cite.

Science does not use supporting evidence. It need not use evidence at all.
Im a BM wrote:
I think they call it the "Scientific Method" or something.

Science is not a 'method'.
Im a BM wrote:
There is something about acquiring evidence in a reproducible manner, so that others might know where the facts all flow from.

Science does not use supporting evidence.
Im a BM wrote:
Let's see... In my 1998 paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (YUP, it's a REAL thing!), I cited about 170 peer-reviewed scientific papers so that others might know where THEY could find the evidence.

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll admit, 170 different papers is a LOT for just one paper to be citing. But my paper was 31 pages long in a combined research/review article. Longer than your average paper.

Science is not a paper. I don't care how long your fiction is.
Im a BM wrote:
But folks weren't expected to just take my word for it. The methodology had to be reproducible for someone else to follow, find comparable evidence, and see if they reach a comparable conclusion.

Science is not a method. Science has no proofs. Science does not use supporting evidence.
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, scientists are expected to define their terms once in a while.

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
For an introductory textbook, EVERY term is new to the student. So, a textbook will define a term, ONCE. After that, they just go ahead and use the term without defining it every time.

Science is not a textbook.
Im a BM wrote:
For my paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, there were only a handful of terms I was using that hadn't already been defined for everyone in the introductory textbooks.

Science is not a paper or a textbook. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
"Extended phenotype" for example. It was a very important concept in my paper, but not very well known to the average scientist. So when I got to discussing the extended phenotype, I had to define what it meant. And I had to cite Richard Dawkins as the author who coined the term.

Science is not a citation.
Im a BM wrote:
But I sure as hell wasn't expected to DEFINE organic carbon to be able to discuss it. If you don't know how to look that one up, who are you kidding when you think you could possibly understand anything ELSE in the paper?

Carbon is not organic. Science is not a paper.
Im a BM wrote:
But there is a wee bit of hypocrisy from the "Define your terms!" trolls here at climate-debate.com

Tell me that the definition of pH = -log[H+] is WRONG.

Okay. It's wrong.
Im a BM wrote:
After I have, once again, defined my term in the same way all the chemistry textbooks do. pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion (H+) molarity.

Wrong.
Im a BM wrote:
Define YOUR terms, in that case!

You cannot define your terms, because you have NO IDEA what pH is.

Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Some kind of "ratio", right?

Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
You are not a chemist, Into the Night.

I certainly am. I am also a scientist. I am also an engineer. I am also a mechanic. I am also a business owner of a successful business.


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
20-01-2025 03:23
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1795)
The Phantom Inertial Gas (PIG) Hypothesis

As everyone knows, inertia is not a VECTOR quantity, it is a SCALAR quantity.

You don't need to know which direction that phantom gas molecule is headed, just how much it weighs and how fast its going.

Those phantom inertial gases (PIGs) are why it takes heat so long to get from the surface of the Earth to outer space.

The phantom inertia of these gases is obviously a function of their mass and velocity, but you have to take a good look at molecular geometry, because each atom in a molecule has its OWN phantom inertia in multiple vibrational modes.

I heard you can PREDICT which gases have the most and the least phantom inertia if you understand the symmetry of the molecular structure, and you can rank them for how much phantom inertia they contribute, gram per gram.

Like the way they pretend they can predict the global warming potential of the so called "greenhouse gases" according to their infrared absorption properties.

So, highest praises for the PIG hypothesis.

It is worthy of much future discussion.

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.


Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.


Actually, it is CORRECT, and anyone who is intellectually competent enough can Google the search term "pH = -log[H+]" tp confirm this.


FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SCIENCE

Define your terms? or Cite your evidence?

It is true that you can't really have any science unless you define your terms at some point in the process.

It is also true that you can't really have any science unless you have some EVIDENCE you can cite.

I think they call it the "Scientific Method" or something. There is something about acquiring evidence in a reproducible manner, so that others might know where the facts all flow from.

Let's see... In my 1998 paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (YUP, it's a REAL thing!), I cited about 170 peer-reviewed scientific papers so that others might know where THEY could find the evidence.

I'll admit, 170 different papers is a LOT for just one paper to be citing. But my paper was 31 pages long in a combined research/review article. Longer than your average paper.

But folks weren't expected to just take my word for it. The methodology had to be reproducible for someone else to follow, find comparable evidence, and see if they reach a comparable conclusion.

Yes, scientists are expected to define their terms once in a while.

For an introductory textbook, EVERY term is new to the student. So, a textbook will define a term, ONCE. After that, they just go ahead and use the term without defining it every time.

For my paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, there were only a handful of terms I was using that hadn't already been defined for everyone in the introductory textbooks.

"Extended phenotype" for example. It was a very important concept in my paper, but not very well known to the average scientist. So when I got to discussing the extended phenotype, I had to define what it meant. And I had to cite Richard Dawkins as the author who coined the term.

But I sure as hell wasn't expected to DEFINE organic carbon to be able to discuss it. If you don't know how to look that one up, who are you kidding when you think you could possibly understand anything ELSE in the paper?

But there is a wee bit of hypocrisy from the "Define your terms!" trolls here at climate-debate.com

Tell me that the definition of pH = -log[H+] is WRONG.

After I have, once again, defined my term in the same way all the chemistry textbooks do. pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion (H+) molarity.

Define YOUR terms, in that case!

You cannot define your terms, because you have NO IDEA what pH is.

Some kind of "ratio", right?

I know. "RQAA"

"You are not a chemist." - Into the Night

You are not a chemist, Into the Night.
20-01-2025 03:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
The Phantom Inertial Gas (PIG) Hypothesis


There is no such thing. A theory is not a hypothesis.
Im a BM wrote:
As everyone knows, inertia is not a VECTOR quantity, it is a SCALAR quantity.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Inertia is not a value.
Im a BM wrote:
You don't need to know which direction that phantom gas molecule is headed, just how much it weighs and how fast its going.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
Those phantom inertial gases (PIGs) are why it takes heat so long to get from the surface of the Earth to outer space.

You cannot trap heat. No such thing as 'phantom inertial gases'.
Im a BM wrote:
The phantom inertia of these gases is obviously a function of their mass and velocity, but you have to take a good look at molecular geometry, because each atom in a molecule has its OWN phantom inertia in multiple vibrational modes.

So now you discard Newton's law of motion.
Im a BM wrote:
I heard you can PREDICT which gases have the most and the least phantom inertia if you understand the symmetry of the molecular structure, and you can rank them for how much phantom inertia they contribute, gram per gram.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Like the way they pretend they can predict the global warming potential of the so called "greenhouse gases" according to their infrared absorption properties.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
So, highest praises for the PIG hypothesis.

It is worthy of much future discussion.

Buzzwords are not ready for any discussion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-01-2025 03:42
20-01-2025 19:20
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1795)
Meet the #1 MOST ACTIVE MEMBER at climate-debate.com

"Inertia is not a value" - Into the Night

Right. It is quantifiable. Isn't inertia a function of "momentum" = mv (mass times velocity?

Well, Google has its own opinion.

"In a mathematical context, inertia is often represented by mass (m) in Newton's second law of motion, F = ma..."

But Into the Night says "Inertia is not a value."

Same reason climate cannot change.

Climate is not a "value" either, according to Into the Night.

So PHANTOM inertia is some kind of phantom not-a-value thing.

I won't bother asking Into the Night what he believes "a value" is because the only scientific explanation he is capable of offering would be "RQAA".

Or some variation of "something that is not a value is not a value". Case closed.


Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The Phantom Inertial Gas (PIG) Hypothesis


There is no such thing. A theory is not a hypothesis.
Im a BM wrote:
As everyone knows, inertia is not a VECTOR quantity, it is a SCALAR quantity.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Inertia is not a value.
Im a BM wrote:
You don't need to know which direction that phantom gas molecule is headed, just how much it weighs and how fast its going.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
Those phantom inertial gases (PIGs) are why it takes heat so long to get from the surface of the Earth to outer space.

You cannot trap heat. No such thing as 'phantom inertial gases'.
Im a BM wrote:
The phantom inertia of these gases is obviously a function of their mass and velocity, but you have to take a good look at molecular geometry, because each atom in a molecule has its OWN phantom inertia in multiple vibrational modes.

So now you discard Newton's law of motion.
Im a BM wrote:
I heard you can PREDICT which gases have the most and the least phantom inertia if you understand the symmetry of the molecular structure, and you can rank them for how much phantom inertia they contribute, gram per gram.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Like the way they pretend they can predict the global warming potential of the so called "greenhouse gases" according to their infrared absorption properties.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
So, highest praises for the PIG hypothesis.

It is worthy of much future discussion.

Buzzwords are not ready for any discussion.
22-01-2025 08:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22922)
Im a BM wrote:
Meet the #1 MOST ACTIVE MEMBER at climate-debate.com

Thank you.
Im a BM wrote:
"Inertia is not a value" - Into the Night

Right. It is quantifiable. Isn't inertia a function of "momentum" = mv (mass times velocity?

No.
Im a BM wrote:
Well, Google has its own opinion.

Science is not Google.
Im a BM wrote:
"In a mathematical context, inertia is often represented by mass (m) in Newton's second law of motion, F = ma..."

Now you deny Newton's law.
Im a BM wrote:
But Into the Night says "Inertia is not a value."

Correct. Inertial is not a value.
Im a BM wrote:
Same reason climate cannot change.

Climate cannot change. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate is not a "value" either, according to Into the Night.

Climate is not a value.
Im a BM wrote:
So PHANTOM inertia is some kind of phantom not-a-value thing.

Buzzword fallacy. No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
I won't bother asking Into the Night what he believes "a value" is because the only scientific explanation he is capable of offering would be "RQAA".

Since you have denied much of mathematics as well, it's no surprise you have no idea what a value is.


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
22-01-2025 21:45
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1795)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.


Googling for fun.

Let's enter into GOOGLE the following search term:

Chemistry isn't Google.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+]

Wrong.


Actually, it is CORRECT, and anyone who is intellectually competent enough can Google the search term "pH = -log[H+]" to confirm this.


FOLLOWING THE RULES OF SCIENCE

Define your terms? or Cite your evidence?

It is true that you can't really have any science unless you define your terms at some point in the process.

It is also true that you can't really have any science unless you have some EVIDENCE you can cite.

I think they call it the "Scientific Method" or something. There is something about acquiring evidence in a reproducible manner, so that others might know where the facts all flow from.

Let's see... In my 1998 paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY (YUP, it's a REAL thing!), I cited about 170 peer-reviewed scientific papers so that others might know where THEY could find the evidence.

I'll admit, 170 different papers is a LOT for just one paper to be citing. But my paper was 31 pages long in a combined research/review article. Longer than your average paper.

But folks weren't expected to just take my word for it. The methodology had to be reproducible for someone else to follow, find comparable evidence, and see if they reach a comparable conclusion.

Yes, scientists are expected to define their terms once in a while.

For an introductory textbook, EVERY term is new to the student. So, a textbook will define a term, ONCE. After that, they just go ahead and use the term without defining it every time.

For my paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, there were only a handful of terms I was using that hadn't already been defined for everyone in the introductory textbooks.

"Extended phenotype" for example. It was a very important concept in my paper, but not very well known to the average scientist. So when I got to discussing the extended phenotype, I had to define what it meant. And I had to cite Richard Dawkins as the author who coined the term.

But I sure as hell wasn't expected to DEFINE organic carbon to be able to discuss it. If you don't know how to look that one up, who are you kidding when you think you could possibly understand anything ELSE in the paper?

But there is a wee bit of hypocrisy from the "Define your terms!" trolls here at climate-debate.com

Tell me that the definition of pH = -log[H+] is WRONG.

After I have, once again, defined my term in the same way all the chemistry textbooks do. pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion (H+) molarity.

Define YOUR terms, in that case!

You cannot define your terms, because you have NO IDEA what pH is.

Some kind of "ratio", right?

I know. "RQAA"

"You are not a chemist." - Into the Night

You are not a chemist, Into the Night.
Page 3 of 3<123





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems106509-02-2025 20:25
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands14309-12-2024 19:52
carbon footprint17520-05-2024 21:13
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers106-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon3006-07-2023 23:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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