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 5

02-04-2022 04:18
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2016)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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 ★★★★★ (2016)	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★★★★★ (13502)	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 ★★★★★ (2729)	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. Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan Edited on 02-04-2022 06:38

02-04-2022 08:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (13502)	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★★★★★ (4604)	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 ★★★★☆ (1287)	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 ★★★★☆ (1287)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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★★★★★ (13502)	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 ★★★★☆ (1287)	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★★★★★ (13502)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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 ★★★★★ (2016)	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★★★★★ (13502)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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★★★★★ (20344)	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 ★★★☆☆ (810)	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.

Page 5 of 5

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
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
Case fatality rate	36	20-04-2020 10:28