Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios > Page 5

Page 5 of 6

02-04-2022 04:18
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Sealover. You are obsessed with humans have made a mess.Can you be a bit more specific.Is all this happening in Vancouver or the swamps of Louisiana.I am looking out the window and I see ordered houses and lots of birds and trees.You never answer my direct questions because you cant.Can you stop giving small children anxiety with your made up fiction.Have you tested the sea water where you live?I have and it is perfect at Trigg beach and the snorkeling is amazing.There is a real chance a white shark will bite you in half but thats how it is
RE: Using Fossil Fuel Combustion to Sequester CO2 from the Atmosphere.02-04-2022 04:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Using Fossil Fuel Combustion to Sequester CO2 from the Atmosphere. It is FUTILE to try to REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS from fossil fuel combustion by the amount that would be required to effectively address climate change. If the ONLY approach is fossil fuel emissions reduction, then it is hopeless. Emissions reduction by reducing losses of organic carbon from agricultural soils and natural ecosystems would help, but not enough. We have to think outside of the box. We have to think MASSIVE SEQUESTRATION of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And we won't be able to do it without burning some fossil fuel to make it happen. For example, when a desert is irrigated, the land can become a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The plants capture CO2 through photosynthesis, and some of that carbon remains stored as soil organic matter. It may be well worth it to burn some fuel to run a pump, if that's all it takes to turn that desert into a carbon "sink". It may even pass the cost-benefit analysis to use fossil fuel combustion energy to DESALINATE sea water to irrigate desert. The amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere and stored as soil organic matter may be many times greater than the CO2 emissions from the fossil fuel burned in order to desalinate the sea water and pump it to the desert. There are many more examples where using energy from fossil fuel combustion would be the most convenient way to facilitate large scale CO2 sequestration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]Into the Night wrote: Not possible to measure, dude. You can't measure rain globally or even regionally. You are making shit up again. There is no such chemical as 'sulfate'. Calcium is not a nutrient and doesn't even occur in nature. Magnesium is not a nutrient and doesn't even occur in nature. Coal is carbon, not sulfur. Sulfur isn't organic. I already said this. Neither nitrogen oxide nor nitrogen dioxide is nitric acid. Cars have had EGR systems for 50 years now. They produce little to no NOx gases now. Nitrogen dioxide occurs naturally in the atmosphere due to UV exposure from the Sun upon nitrogen. Did they give 'em a good whuppin'? Nitric acid isn't a fertilizer. What 'ecosystem'? Plants don't use nitrogen. They can only chemicals like ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, or urea to get their nitrogen. What added nitrogen? From where? At you least you admit your posts are fake science and filled with buzzwords occasionally. How? Water is not any nitrate. Didn't they catch the fella pouring nitric acid into the watershed? Nitrate isn't a chemical. Nitrate isn't a chemical. Nitrate isn't a chemical. Nitrate isn't a chemical. Carbon isn't organic. Still can't your head wrapped around reduction reactions either. Ammonium is not a chemical. You can't reduce a nitrate. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce a nitrate. That you continue to make up buzzwords, cut and paste shit, make up stories about how 'important' you are, and generally try to bullshit your way through life. You are a nothing. Void argument fallacy. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nah. Just like the stove...maybe cook dinner while you have it hot. Methane is not a 'mess'.
02-04-2022 05:17
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	This is not a debate it is just you making ridiculous suggestions. Why not plant more trees where they grow naturally.I know how reverse osmosis works and it takes an incredible amount of energy to force sea water through a membrane to make it potable.You think pouring it on a desert miles away is a good idea?The Sahara is shrinking due to changing rainfall and some journalists write articles on how this is alarming.There is a thing called Milanovic cycles and the North pole is going to be on Russian soil at some time in the future.The Glaciers are retreating at the same pace 30-40 foot a year.On the other side they are growing at 30-40 feet a year.Its all smoke and mirrors.The picture is taken just on sunset so the steam coming from the stack is this big black plume,Same place next day at 12.00pm it is just a puff of steam.Sealover .why can you not rationalize this like I have as a human living here.People miles away claim the Barrier reef is all messed up but you go there and it is pristine.One house falls of its stumps on the coast of Florida bcause it was not well built in the 50s and it is climate change yet the 10,000 other houses are still there.Go figure Edited on 02-04-2022 05:54
02-04-2022 05:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	seal over wrote: Using Fossil Fuel Combustion to Sequester CO2 from the Atmosphere. Why steal food from plants? Let the plants have their food. In fact, just burn your fossils (if you can) and feed whatever CO2 is produced directly to the plants. Why do you want to destroy fossils in the first place? Is this part of that cancel culture? Are you going to tear down some statues while you are at it? The things you recommend are pretty stupid. sealover wrote:It is FUTILE to try to REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS from fossil fuel combustion by the amount that would be required to effectively address climate change. What is Climate Change? Why does it need to be addressed? What is the minimum effective level of addressing? How does the combustion of anything affect the addressing of Climate Change? What is the amount of combustion change needed to reach the minimum level of Climate Change addressing? What do fossils have to do with Climate Change? What do fossils have to do with fuel? What does CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS have to do with Climate Change? Why is the reduction of fossil CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS such that it is FUTILE to achieve the combustion change required to achieve the minimum level of effective addressing for Climate Change? seal over wrote: If the ONLY approach is fossil fuel emissions reduction, then it is hopeless. I hate to ask ... but what is "it" that is hopeless? Getting you to make a point? Getting you to define your terms? Getting you to clarify anything? If it's all of that then you have already made that clear over the previous 500+ spams. If it is something else, you aren't going to say what it is, are you? You're babbling again, aren't you? This is just spam #527, isn't it? seal over wrote: Emissions reduction by reducing losses of organic carbon from agricultural soils and natural ecosystems would help, but not enough. If I'm not mistaken, you were supposed to explain what you mean by "organic carbon" some 312 spams prior. You still haven't gotten around to it. There is no such thing as "organic carbon vs. inorganic carbon" because carbon is carbon. So what do you mean? seal over wrote: We have to think outside of the box. You are already outside of every box. You are outside any ballpark. You are searching the outer limits for the most distant peanut gallery. seal over wrote: We have to think MASSIVE SEQUESTRATION of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Of course we do. Everybody knows we do. It has to be MASSIVE, in all upper case. At least we have a measuring stick to gauge success. If there are any plants remaining alive, we need to sequester more. Once all plantlife is dead, we should see a positive feedback chain reaction of all animal and insect life rapidly dying off. All life on the surface should perish. Then we'll know we have saved the planet. seal over wrote: And we won't be able to do it without burning some fossil fuel to make it happen. I still don't see how fossils come into play. seal over wrote: For example, when a desert is irrigated, the land can become a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nope. Being irrigated doesn't do anything. Being cultivated with plants is what does it. Killing off the plants and thus all the other life on the surface of planet earth is rather counterproductive to your goals. seal over wrote: The plants capture CO2 through photosynthesis, and some of that carbon remains stored as soil organic matter. Negligible. Why are you even mentioning it? seal over wrote: It may be well worth it to burn some fuel to run a pump, if that's all it takes to turn that desert into a [wasteland]". Fortunately for humanity, this won't accomplish your goal of killing everyone. @GasGuzzler, the word for killing a large group of people is "genocide." What is the word for killing all the life on the surface of the earth? "Omnicide?" Sven says that if all the deer die then it's outright veniside. seal over wrote: It may even pass the cost-benefit analysis to use fossil fuel combustion energy to DESALINATE sea water to irrigate desert. If you DESALINATE sea water, how will the lower case letters fare? seal over wrote: The amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere and stored as soil organic matter may be many times greater than the CO2 emissions from the fossil fuel burned in order to desalinate the sea water and pump it to the desert. Too funny! Where's tmiddles to complain about seal over believing something that will get us all killed?
02-04-2022 06:35
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	IBdaMann wrote: @GasGuzzler, the word for killing a large group of people is "genocide." What is the word for killing all the life on the surface of the earth? "Omnicide?" Sven says that if all the deer die then it's outright veniside. Carbonicide? Tell that Sven Issen athole to stay the hell away from my food! You too, seal over. That means leave the fuking carbon alone. Carbon is a cycle, and every living thing needs it to survive. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 02-04-2022 06:38

02-04-2022 08:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	GasGuzzler wrote:Carbonicide? Nobody is killing any carbon, I don't think. At least Sven doesn't think so, but he is trying to sequester your food, though. He says he needs it more than you do. I was thinking, which I do all the time, that if seal over wants to kill all the fauna and all the flora that maybe we should have the words "faunacide" and "floracide" ready for use ... maybe even "faunafloracide" and "faunafloraveniside." And the killing of all the pioneer trees will be a "protoarbolicide." Wait a minute ... that leaves only the ferns! ... and the cockroaches ... and the hexavalent chromium. Do we really need to kill everything in order to save all life on the planet? Attached image:
02-04-2022 15:52
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	Spongy Iris wrote: Nice to meet you GretaGroupie! Hi Spongy, nice to meet you, too. I was a bit confused by that northern lights stuff in trafn's book. Actually, I've never seen them.
02-04-2022 17:36
GretaGroupie★★☆☆☆ (350)	IBdaMann wrote: Thanks for the picture IBM. It makes a lot more sense than what trafn wrote. And besides, how does that make electricity? Anywho, my hormones are too ragey for me to focus. Talk later.
02-04-2022 22:16
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	We need to capture and sequester, which plants have been doing, long before the human species. We clear hundreds of thousand of acres of prime CO2 capturing plants and trees, so we can plant solar and windmill farms. Those solar and wind farms aren't shutting down existing, CO2 spewing power plants, or stopping construction of new power plants. How many millions of acres need to be cleared of vegetation, before we no longer need to burn fuel, to make electricity? Think the demand will reduce, as millions of people starve to death. Then maybe we can shutdown some of the older, fuel-burning power plants. Which nobody can afford to repair an maintain anyway.
03-04-2022 02:33
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Thanks for the picture IBM. It makes a lot more sense than what trafn wrote. And besides, how does that make electricity? Anywho, my hormones are too ragey for me to focus. Talk later. Yes. How does that make electricity? I am waiting for IBM's reply.. I might even pay attention to his or her reply to our question..
03-04-2022 09:04
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GretaGroupie wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Nice to meet you GretaGroupie! Hi Spongy, nice to meet you, too. I was a bit confused by that northern lights stuff in trafn's book. Actually, I've never seen them. This article has some good tweets from people who caught pictures of the light show in the far north from this week's geomagnetic storm. https://www.space.com/stunning-aurora-photos-march-2022-solar-storms
03-04-2022 19:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Spongy Iris wrote: GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Thanks for the picture IBM. It makes a lot more sense than what trafn wrote. And besides, how does that make electricity? Anywho, my hormones are too ragey for me to focus. Talk later. Yes. How does that make electricity? I am waiting for IBM's reply.. I might even pay attention to his or her reply to our question.. The Sun puts out protons and electrons. These particles are the solar wind. These are charged particles. When this solar wind get close to Earth, Earth's magnetic field deflects it away, since they are charged particles. The deflection basically follows Earth's magnetic field lines, so the particles are directed toward the poles. Because of the way the field converges at the pole, these particles can enter the upper atmosphere. As they do, they strike molecules in the Earth's atmosphere, exciting the electrons in them to higher orbits. As these electrons drop back again, they emit a photon of visible light...the auroras. Exciting electrons like this by using other charged particles such as electrons is exactly the same way a neon light works. So it's not making electricity. It's just charged particles coming from the Sun. 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
03-04-2022 19:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Spongy Iris wrote:I am waiting for IBM's reply.. Sometimes you have to wait in line like everyone else. ANSWER: the sun's particles are just particles. They don't make electricity. They have kinetic energy but they are not a voltage.
03-04-2022 20:00
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Yes, it is possible to create electromagnetic waves using magnets. No, it is not possible to create magnetic waves without an electric field being present. Electric fields and magnetic fields are not separate entities. They are really facets of one unified entity: the electromagnetic field.
03-04-2022 20:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Spongy Iris wrote:Yes, it is possible to create electromagnetic waves using magnets. You say that as though I have said otherwise. Magnets can be used to create electricity. Spongy Iris wrote:No, it is not possible to create magnetic waves without an electric field being present. What electric field are you claiming neodymium has?

RE: Ion Selective Field Effect Transistors (ISFETs).03-04-2022 20:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Ion Selective Field Effect Transistors (ISFETS) Electric fields can be used in chemistry as a proxy in chemical analysis. Ion selective field effect transistors (ISFETS) are inexpensive and relatively accurate. They are similar to ion selective probes (e.g. pH meters) in that an ion selective membrane is wrapped around a transistor. Only the ions that can pass through the membrane will interact with the electric field sensed by the transistor. I suspect that Dumb Ugly Clown Kook (DUCK) has NO IDEA what any of this means, even though DUCK Boy makes free use of the term "electric field", as if DUCK Boy had the tiniest clue what any of that scientific buzzword gibber babble really means. "Unambiguous definition for electric field". Forget it! Electric field "effect"? Now, those are just fake buzzwords for sure! ISFETS, ion selective field effect transistors, are going to be the new wave for hydroponics growing operations if anyone is into investing in new technology. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Yes, it is possible to create electromagnetic waves using magnets. You say that as though I have said otherwise. Magnets can be used to create electricity. Spongy Iris wrote:No, it is not possible to create magnetic waves without an electric field being present. What electric field are you claiming neodymium has?
RE: New UN Climate Report is Discouraging.05-04-2022 03:49
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	New UN Climate Report is Discouraging. A genuine climate "debate" would probably examine the newest UN report on climate change. A genuine climate debate would allow for discussion of the worst case scenarios detailed in the newest UN report. They are not MY predictions, but I trust the intelligence of the people who are making them. Something tells me there won't be much discussion about what would seem to be a big development in the climate debate. A big new batch of evidence to consider, belittle, and dismiss. -------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.
05-04-2022 05:55
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just read 3 of the latest reports.I am not sure if it is happening now.2030 2070.Its not very specific.So North Africa is having droughts and floods.Thats never happened before.Its not flooded where I am and plenty of water.Its 26.C now and will go down to 16.C tonight.Not very scary really.I would like to backtrack.The UN report is done by journalists who are working of the IPCC report that have 100s of scientists compiling reports that the IPCC work off. Absolute truth with no fudging of data at all.I am a plumber with year 10 English and even I know if a report starts with maybe or could possibly its not very specific is it.You reinforce my theory that the people who believe such missinformation wish too.
05-04-2022 08:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	duncan61 wrote:I am a plumber with year 10 English and even I know if a report starts with maybe or could possibly its not very specific is it. If they are instilling fear to a greater extent than they are being clear, then obviously the fear-instilling is the priority and the being clear is not.
05-04-2022 12:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Ion Selective Field Effect Transistors (ISFETS) Electric fields can be used in chemistry as a proxy in chemical analysis. Not a proxy. sealover wrote: Ion selective field effect transistors (ISFETS) are inexpensive and relatively accurate. They are similar to ion selective probes (e.g. pH meters) in that an ion selective membrane is wrapped around a transistor. Only the ions that can pass through the membrane will interact with the electric field sensed by the transistor. Not how an ISFET is constructed. ISFETs are used as pH meters. They are not similar to it. They are. They can also be used to measure other ion presence, not just pH. sealover wrote: I suspect that Dumb Ugly Clown Kook (DUCK) has NO IDEA what any of this means, even though DUCK Boy makes free use of the term "electric field", as if DUCK Boy had the tiniest clue what any of that scientific buzzword gibber babble really means. "Unambiguous definition for electric field". Forget it! Electric field "effect"? Now, those are just fake buzzwords for sure! Yup. Buzzword. You don't know what it means. I guess you don't know how a ISFET works, or even a FET, or even what the acronym FET means. sealover wrote: ISFETS, ion selective field effect transistors, are going to be the new wave for hydroponics growing operations if anyone is into investing in new technology. What's to invest? They're cheap like you said. They were invented in the 70's. What's new? They've been around for 50 years. Hydroponics is even older. It's been around for 450 years. I use ISFETs myself for measuring positive ions for some of my sensors in industry. I occasionally use the pH version, but not as often as the positive ion version. 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
05-04-2022 12:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: New UN Climate Report is Discouraging. Buzzword fallacy. There is no need for a 'climate report'. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates. There isn't a single value associated with climate. sealover wrote: A genuine climate "debate" would probably examine the newest UN report on climate change. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate to change. sealover wrote: A genuine climate debate would allow for discussion of the worst case scenarios detailed in the newest UN report. You want to fear monger so bad, you can taste it. sealover wrote: They are not MY predictions, but I trust the intelligence of the people who are making them. Do you like palm readers too? Or are more into crystal balls? How about Holy Entrails? sealover wrote: Something tells me there won't be much discussion about what would seem to be a big development in the climate debate. What's to debate? A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. sealover wrote: A big new batch of evidence to consider, belittle, and dismiss. You want to fear monger so bad you can taste it. 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
05-04-2022 12:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	duncan61 wrote: I have just read 3 of the latest reports.I am not sure if it is happening now.2030 2070.Its not very specific.So North Africa is having droughts and floods.Thats never happened before. Sure it has. duncan61 wrote: Its not flooded where I am and plenty of water.Its 26.C now and will go down to 16.C tonight.Not very scary really.I would like to backtrack.The UN report is done by journalists who are working of the IPCC report that have 100s of scientists compiling reports that the IPCC work off. They are not scientists since they deny science and mathematics. They are bureaucrats making up shit. duncan61 wrote: Absolute truth with no fudging of data at all. No data. None at all. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the pH of the oceans, the global ocean level, the total ice and snow on Earth, the Earth's emissivity, or the total rainfall on Earth. duncan61 wrote: I am a plumber with year 10 English and even I know if a report starts with maybe or could possibly its not very specific is it.You reinforce my theory that the people who believe such missinformation wish too. It is NO information, not misinformation. The 'data' is just random numbers of type randU. People just made it up. Happens a lot with religions like the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, etc. 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: Standard calomel electrode for pH is NOT an ISFET.05-04-2022 20:43
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Standard calomel electrode for pH is NOT an ISFET. Normally, there is nothing worth responding to in Parrot Boy's posts. But sometimes things have to be clarified just in case someone didn't know. If "ISFETS are used a pH meters", that is a recent change since the last time I did any lab work. The standard calomel electrode is what has been used to measure pH... forever. IT IS NOT AN ISFET. It contains no transistor. It is an electrode. Ion selective electrodes are old news. Not everyone got the memo yet. And not to waste time on comments unworthy of reply, but... When a farmer buy DRY ammonia, he isn't being tricked. The stuff really is anhydrous. As soon as that ammonia contacts a proton on a solid soil surface, it is no longer ammonia. At that point, "dry" or not, it is called AMMONIUM. Nobody is suggesting that they apply "dry ammonium'. And it was a RADICAL NEW WAY TO APPLY NITROGEN FERTILIZER. Word games about whether "nitrogen" can ONLY mean "element" or something have nothing to do with applying dry ammonia as a COMPLETELY NEW way to fertilize with nitrogen. Word games about whether or not ammonia is "dry" aren't going to stop farmers from calling it what they have for about 100 years now. WORDS MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM PERFECTLY WHEN CORRECTLY USED IN CONTEXT. Get over it! People know how to talk and they know what they're saying to each other. Even if YOU haven't got a CLUE what the words mean to smart people. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Ion Selective Field Effect Transistors (ISFETS) Electric fields can be used in chemistry as a proxy in chemical analysis. Not a proxy. sealover wrote: Ion selective field effect transistors (ISFETS) are inexpensive and relatively accurate. They are similar to ion selective probes (e.g. pH meters) in that an ion selective membrane is wrapped around a transistor. Only the ions that can pass through the membrane will interact with the electric field sensed by the transistor. Not how an ISFET is constructed. ISFETs are used as pH meters. They are not similar to it. They are. They can also be used to measure other ion presence, not just pH. sealover wrote: I suspect that Dumb Ugly Clown Kook (DUCK) has NO IDEA what any of this means, even though DUCK Boy makes free use of the term "electric field", as if DUCK Boy had the tiniest clue what any of that scientific buzzword gibber babble really means. "Unambiguous definition for electric field". Forget it! Electric field "effect"? Now, those are just fake buzzwords for sure! Yup. Buzzword. You don't know what it means. I guess you don't know how a ISFET works, or even a FET, or even what the acronym FET means. sealover wrote: ISFETS, ion selective field effect transistors, are going to be the new wave for hydroponics growing operations if anyone is into investing in new technology. What's to invest? They're cheap like you said. They were invented in the 70's. What's new? They've been around for 50 years. Hydroponics is even older. It's been around for 450 years. I use ISFETs myself for measuring positive ions for some of my sensors in industry. I occasionally use the pH version, but not as often as the positive ion version.
05-04-2022 22:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: Standard calomel electrode for pH is NOT an ISFET. Yes it is. sealover wrote: Normally, there is nothing worth responding to in Parrot Boy's posts. Yet you respond to each of them. Paradox. sealover wrote: But sometimes things have to be clarified just in case someone didn't know. If "ISFETS are used a pH meters", that is a recent change since the last time I did any lab work. You didn't do any lab work. sealover wrote: The standard calomel electrode is what has been used to measure pH... forever. There is no standard calomel electrode. sealover wrote: IT IS NOT AN ISFET. It contains no transistor. It is an electrode. It is an ISFET. sealover wrote: Ion selective electrodes are old news. Yet you said they were brand new technology. Paradox. You are becoming quite irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. sealover wrote: Not everyone got the memo yet. And not to waste time on comments unworthy of reply, but... Since you are replying, you must deem my comments 'worthy'. sealover wrote: When a farmer buy DRY ammonia, he isn't being tricked. The stuff really is anhydrous. [quote]sealover wrote: As soon as that ammonia contacts a proton on a solid soil surface, it is no longer ammonia. At that point, "dry" or not, it is called AMMONIUM. [quote]sealover wrote: Nobody is suggesting that they apply "dry ammonium'. You did. sealover wrote: And it was a RADICAL NEW WAY TO APPLY NITROGEN FERTILIZER. Word games about whether "nitrogen" can ONLY mean "element" or something have nothing to do with applying dry ammonia as a COMPLETELY NEW way to fertilize with nitrogen. Nah. It's been used since 1910. sealover wrote: Word games about whether or not ammonia is "dry" aren't going to stop farmers from calling it what they have for about 100 years now. Farmers just call it 'ammonia'. They will apply it wet or dry (and let the soil wet it). sealover wrote: WORDS MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM PERFECTLY WHEN CORRECTLY USED IN CONTEXT. Get over it! Buzzwords have no meaning. Since you refuse to define them, they still have no meaning. sealover wrote: People know how to talk and they know what they're saying to each other. Apparently YOU don't. You just spew buzzwords and spam. sealover wrote: Even if YOU haven't got a CLUE what the words mean to smart people. Lame insult. A fallacy. 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: new paper about applied biogeochemistry03-05-2022 19:54
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	new paper about applied biogeochemistry April 25, 2022 by Aminata Fofana, and others 89 pages available at SSRN "Permafrost thaw in northern peatlands is likely to create a positive feedback to climate change as soil carbon (C) is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4)." that's the BAD news "..and p-hydroxybenzoic acid, which are produced by Sphagnum spp., were added at field-relevant concentrations, under anaerobic conditions... Addition of both organic acids greatly increased the CO2:CH4 ratio in deep peats." That's the GOOD news. p-hydroxy benzoic acid is an ortho phenol carboxylic acid produced by plants that can regulate microbial processes in soil. One way or another, carbon in the melting permafrost is going to be released to the atmosphere. Applied biogeochemistry can help ensure that it is released as CO2 and not CH4. Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide. Timely action to nurture beneficial biological activity in the soil can help to mitigate one of the vicious feedbacks to global warming. It is just the most recent paper to cite sealover's work for this kind of thing. Any questions? sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.
03-05-2022 20:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	sealover wrote: new paper about applied biogeochemistry Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: April 25, 2022 by Aminata Fofana, and others 89 pages available at SSRN "Permafrost thaw in northern peatlands is likely to create a positive feedback to climate change as soil carbon (C) is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4)." There is no 'feedback'. Buzzword fallacy. Carbon is not carbon dioxide or methane. sealover wrote: that's the BAD news "..and p-hydroxybenzoic acid, which are produced by Sphagnum spp., were added at field-relevant concentrations, under anaerobic conditions... Addition of both organic acids greatly increased the CO2:CH4 ratio in deep peats." That's the GOOD news. p-hydroxy benzoic acid is an ortho phenol carboxylic acid produced by plants that can regulate microbial processes in soil. One way or another, carbon in the melting permafrost is going to be released to the atmosphere. Applied biogeochemistry can help ensure that it is released as CO2 and not CH4. Buzzword fallacies. Carbon is not carbon dioxide or methane. The permafrost isn't melting. sealover wrote: Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide. You can't make energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. sealover wrote: Timely action to nurture beneficial biological activity in the soil can help to mitigate one of the vicious feedbacks to global warming. There is no 'feedback'. Buzzword fallacy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. sealover wrote: It is just the most recent paper to cite sealover's work for this kind of thing. Any questions? Yes. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Describe how any gas or vapor has the magick capability to warm the Earth. Remember you cannot ignore any theories of science. 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: Oops! "p" stands for PARA, not ORTHO03-05-2022 22:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	Oops! "p" stands for PARA, not ORTHO Got too excited when I saw that a new paper cited me and jumped the gun. p-hydroxybenzoic acid is a PARA phenol carboxylic acid. Doesn't act as a chelating agent, but DOES regulate microbial carbon cycling. --------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: new paper about applied biogeochemistry April 25, 2022 by Aminata Fofana, and others 89 pages available at SSRN "Permafrost thaw in northern peatlands is likely to create a positive feedback to climate change as soil carbon (C) is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4)." that's the BAD news "..and p-hydroxybenzoic acid, which are produced by Sphagnum spp., were added at field-relevant concentrations, under anaerobic conditions... Addition of both organic acids greatly increased the CO2:CH4 ratio in deep peats." That's the GOOD news. p-hydroxy benzoic acid is an ortho phenol carboxylic acid produced by plants that can regulate microbial processes in soil. One way or another, carbon in the melting permafrost is going to be released to the atmosphere. Applied biogeochemistry can help ensure that it is released as CO2 and not CH4. Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide. Timely action to nurture beneficial biological activity in the soil can help to mitigate one of the vicious feedbacks to global warming. It is just the most recent paper to cite sealover's work for this kind of thing. Any questions? sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.
07-06-2023 00:14
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.
07-06-2023 00:14
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	sealover wrote: gfm7175 wrote: We do not use fossils for fuel, as fossils don't burn very well... We use hydrocarbons instead. It is not possible to measure global CO2 content to any useful accuracy. Define "vicious feedbacks". Define "climate change". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever word one wishes to use to call it, there is carbon-based material that humans have been extracting from the earth to use as fuel for combustion. Most people don't have any trouble getting their heads around that one. Trust your intuition on the most likely meaning of "vicious feedback". Figure that when someone uses such a widely used term as "climate change", there is probably a common understanding what it is most likely to mean. A person could go crazy trying to preemptively exclude every nuance. A person could become isolated using a dictionary that they alone adhere to. It's easier to communicate using a common language. Words mean what they mean. Get over it
07-06-2023 00:15
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: In 1985, I began post graduate research. "Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days. Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time. I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant. The powers that be will willing to fund generously at the time. Action could be stalled so long as they were still waiting to get all the reports. It looked like they were doing all they could. And some of the powers believed their own fantasies that the research would exonerate them and absolve them of responsibility to act. The field of biogeochemistry came of age. They were the only scientists who had the right training for the big picture questions. Acidic deposition. "Acid rain". On average about two thirds sulfuric acid and one third nitric acid, with a lot of regional variation in the relative content of the two acids. One problem was that it was acidic. Another problem was that the protons didn't come by themselves. There was nitrate from nitric acid. "Nitrogen saturation" of ecosystems was one impact. Nitrate is fertilizer. Ecosystems that were historically nitrogen limited were leaking out nitrate from the excess input. Nitrate in surface water was fertilizer for algae blooms, eutrophication, and hypoxia. And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid. When sulfate passed through the soil, it wasn't going out alone. It usually dragged an ion of calcium or magnesium along with it. Calcium and magnesium deficiency in forests on silica-rich soils was causing die back. And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency. Acid rain also influenced soil organic matter. It reduced the solubility of soil organic matter. It protonated organic anions, limiting their complexing power and solubility. Rather than being retained in soil as chelation complexes with organic anions, calcium and magnesium were being dragged away by sulfate.

07-06-2023 00:17
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	"Rainfall is naturally acid". Yes, it is. In fact, you can calculate the pH of natural rainfall just by knowing the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Don't be afraid! It can be intimidating at first, but science math can also be fun. Back when atmospheric CO2 was about 350 ppm, rainfall pH was about 5.6. Scientists could even predict how much the rainfall pH would drop when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 360 ppm. That is because carbonic acid in the raindrops is in chemical equilibrium with carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere. But "acid rain" isn't about carbonic acid. Most of the acidity in "acid rain" came from sulfuric acid. Also known as hydrogen sulfate. In some regions, most of the acidity in "acid rain" came from nitric acid. Also known as hydrogen nitrate. One of the adverse environmental impacts of "acid rain" was aluminum toxicity. The trees weren't actually "eating" the aluminum.[/quote]
07-06-2023 00:17
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: The first large scale attempt at environmental chemotherapy was in response to "acid rain". Lime (calcium carbonate) was applied to large areas of forest. It succeeded at addressing calcium deficiency. It also mobilized a lot of soil organic matter. Soil organic matter solubility is pH dependent. The lime additions to the forests caused dissolved organic matter exports from watersheds to nearly double. The benefits probably outweighed the harm. The harm could have been avoided with better understanding of biogeochemistry. One form of environmental chemotherapy or another is being given more and more consideration as the search for solutions becomes more desperate. Chemotherapy for the sky - fill it with anthropogenic aerosols to block the sun. Chemotherapy for the sea - add anthropogenic fertilizer to supply limiting nutrients such as iron. Chemotherapy for the land - fix the bad chemicals we left in the soil and water by adding other anthropogenic chemicals. Be careful. You're playing with fire. It's a complex system we're messing with.
07-06-2023 00:20
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	sealover wrote: The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature. The carbon dioxide is from aerobic respiration of organic carbon in soil organic matter by microorganisms. The methane needs more than a sentence, but it is pretty straightforward that warming temperatures are capable of melting ice. Positive feedback from anthropogenic global warming on natural ecosystem release of greenhouse gases is a real thing. Honest. I won't bother with an "unambiguous definition for "feedback" because everyone with half a brain already knows what it means. They didn't take the required preparatory courses first, and should not have enrolled in this class. They are not allowed to interrupt the presentation with absurd demands. There should be some way to kick them out of the classroom, but... That's the downside of an unmoderated forum. ---------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]tmiddles wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: The warming tundra is a double whammy. I just used that as an example of "positive"? feedback where CO2 causing warming is required. It's an indirect feedback. Most feedback is "negative"? right? Like if you put more CO2 in the air the oceans will absorb more, reducing the CO2 in the air. negative feedback If an object gets hotter it releases that energy even fast, again negative feedback. I'm wondering if CO2 has any positive feedback that doesn't require warming as the middle step (that you can think of).
07-06-2023 00:21
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	sealover wrote: Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases from two different carbon-containing sources in the tundra. There is an enormous reservoir of trapped methane beneath the tundra. When the ice melts, the carbon in the methane is released in a chemical form only slightly different than the form in which it was trapped. Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. When the tundra warms up, it also releases carbon as carbon dioxide. This carbon in this carbon dioxide is in chemical form VERY different than the one in which it was trapped. Carbon dioxide emissions from the tundra originate from ORGANIC carbon in the tundra. Organic carbon only counts as greenhouse gas when it's methane. Well, we could technical about some of the minor greenhouse gases which also contain carbon in organic, rather than inorganic form. Inorganic carbon is carbon that has been oxidized and has oxygen attached. Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Carbon dioxide emissions from the warming tundra result from organic carbon oxidizing to inorganic carbon, through aerobic respiration in microbial decomposition. It's okay if you didn't get all that the first time. You'll be hearing about it again. ============================================= [quote]tmiddles wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: The increased release of carbon dioxide and methane from tundra are both positive feedbacks to increased temperature. Yes but it's INDIRECT. CO2 causes warming, warming causes thawing, thawing releases CO2. Fire has positive feedback that is direct. Fire heats things up, more fire. Very few things truly "snow ball" or they would blow up right? So let's stipulate that we can't think of any examples of CO2 resulting in more CO2 in a manner that doesn't require the mean temp at the surface to increase (global warming). You'd agree that while there is AGW, human cause global warming, there is also Non-human global warming, right? Like we believe that around 12,000 years ago when we had mammoths and the globes surface was roughly 7C cooler than it is now. So over the past 12,000 years it has gotten 7C warmer WITHOUT human's playing a role. So lets skip to my question: I think there is a false implication from the "double wammy" feedback that this will spiral out of control on it's own. But that doesn't happen with natural warming either. So since natural warming and cooling "settle down" and don't actually spiral out of control, wouldn't it be likely AGW would too?
07-06-2023 00:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'm glad I could help. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a reason nobody visits your thread to ask YOU questions about science. You HAVE to be a party crasher because nobody would ever want to go to YOUR place, and nobody would willingly invite you to theirs. More than 100,000 posts. And just this one. How much time did it take to write so much worthless crap? I would encourage you to get a life. To tmiddles. I want to steer clear of climate history questions for now. Basically, without anthropogenic global warming, we would be due for some gradual natural cooling. We're just about at the end of the natural warming. The ridiculously distorted "new ice age" stuff of the 1970s was based on the average length of the cycle. If it does the same thing again that it did over and over before, we are within a thousand years of the shift away from warming. Then the glaciers will start building up again, very slowly, for 13 thousand years or so. Sea level will slowly go back down as water is locked in glaciers.. But what I want to address is this pathetic loser who can't stay off my threads. I be da man should start his own thread where he can offer his superior expertise in science. Based on his irrefutable credibility, people will flock their to seek his wisdom. Perhaps he doesn't realize that nobody will be asking me questions because they want to get one of these lengthy rants from him. I guess it keeps him off the streets, but I wish he would find another thread to troll
07-06-2023 00:24
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: The repeating cycle of ice ages didn't begin until a few million years ago. Before that there was a global ocean current flowing between North America and South America. Warm tropical water passed between the two continents to spread far and wide. There wasn't as much warm water in the tropics, and there wasn't as much cold water at the poles. When plate tectonics sealed off the two oceans at Panama, everything changed.
07-06-2023 00:26
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: Example of feedback a few million years ago. Since I already brought it up, I'll give you a brief preview. This is biogeochemistry AND a climate feedback. Mother Nature switched the dial on CO2, and now we were in for ice ages. With the global ocean current sealed off, the tropical seas got warmer and the polar seas got colder. So, if these historically high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere dropped so much, where did all the carbon go? Well, the tundra got very cold for one thing. It started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon that wasn't going back to the atmosphere anytime soon.
07-06-2023 00:27
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: With apologies to tmiddles, My intention is to ensure that my posts serve as either science lessons, or troll eradication lessons. So my apologies, tmiddles if our personal conversations are impersonal. And again, my admiration for your thick-skinned resilience as a rational person who wants to learn something in this troll-infested place. Venus is a great example I love to use for the importance of standing water to keep a planet cool. Oddly enough, there is an important variable of global warming to be learned from it. Furthermore, Venus is free of any confounding variable of human activity. Exclusively NON anthropogenic on Venus. Water keeps the earth cool. If we didn't have standing water in the oceans, the earth would be much hotter today, all other things being equal. Water takes heat from the surface and sends it back out to space. Not as radiation. The water molecules themselves carry the heat with them as they evaporate and float high into the atmosphere. They release that heat high above the surface when they condense out of the air as liquid water. That heat is well above the surface. It has a better chance of radiating out into space than it does of reheating the planet's surface. "Heat" is really the wrong word in many ways. It is about the energy required evaporate liquid water, and the energy released upon condensation of water vapor. "Heat" suggests that the temperature of the water molecules going up and down from the surface has anything to do with it. Well, Venus used to have a LOT of water. Furthermore, back in the day, the sun used to have less luminosity. Venus then, was like earth today. But the sun was constantly ramping up the luminosity. There was a point when there was still water, but hotter than before. Then there was a point when the water ran out completely, and the planet turned into an oven. By the way, the sun's luminosity is still ramping up. It's kind of a factor in natural global warming. WE'RE NEXT! But we've got at least a thousand million years to adapt.
07-06-2023 00:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: Photorespiration and C-3 versus C-4 metabolism in photosynthesis. True fact: The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from historic (for the last few million years) levels hovering around 350 ppm to the current concentration above 400 million ppm has caused a significant increase in carbon sequestered and retained in the plant during photosynthesis. Translation, significantly larger yields now because plants don't accidentally burn up some of their organic carbon because of photorespiration. Before getting into photorespiration, let's look at another impact of higher CO2 on carbon sequestered and retained during photosynthesis. What happened to corn and sugar cane yields? Why didn't THEY go up? The data is in the public domain. Some plants benefit tremendously from higher CO2. Up to 25% yield increase. Other plants don't benefit at all. Not at all. Up to 0% yield increase. What's the difference? Unlike the vast majority of plant species benefitting from higher CO2, corn and sugar cane were never taking any losses to photorespiration. They had evolved a different way to catch CO2 from the atmosphere. They used C-4 metabolism. "4" being for the number of carbon atoms already in organic form on the molecule to which the next carbon would added from the next CO2 molecule being reduced and attached to it. It was a good trick that gave C-4 plants an advantage back in the day. They could get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to all the C-3 plants. But now the competitive advantage C-4 plants used to have has been lost. In fact now, C-3 plants get higher yields with the same amount of sunlight, compared to C-4. Those guys are now at a DISADVANTAGE in the competition. Back to photorespiration later.
07-06-2023 00:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1246)	[quote]sealover wrote: Photorespiration, rise of C-4 photosynthesis fitness when CO2 decline to 350ppm Three million years ago, Mother Nature reset the dial on the earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It dropped down. Like way, way down to where it had never been before. going to be evasive about photorespiration details, but suffice it for now to say that when photorespiration causes the plant to waste organic carbon that it fixed from the atmosphere just an enzyme grabbed oxygen, accidentally, rather than carbon dioxide. Carbon is a limiting nutrient when everyone competes under low CO2 at high noon under dense canopy of tropical rainforest. They can draw it down enough to increase the cost of doing business for photosynthesis. Like, by a LOT. Not coincidentally, corn and sugarcane originated from such environment. Bamboo too. Able to outgrow neighbors who were losing most of the carbon they fixed to photorespiration when the carbon feeding frenzy was so fierce. Bamboo, sugar cane, corn. Notoriously fast growers shoot up high fast. C_4 metabolism enabled them to do that when their neighbors were stalling under CO2-starved conditions.

Page 5 of 6

Join the debate Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare	32	10-04-2024 08:23
Second case of top-secret Biden documents found stored at Staples near the printer	0	12-01-2023 01:46
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way	0	22-07-2021 07:31
Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out	61	09-12-2020 20:12
This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud	36	27-11-2020 23:07