Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios11-03-2022 02:54
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
11-03-2022 02:59
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
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.

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".
RE: trust your intuition on the definitions11-03-2022 03:14
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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".[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
11-03-2022 03:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

According to my information, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are not increasing.

According to my understanding of physics, atmospheric CO2 levels have no reason to be increasing.

Why should I believe otherwise?

sealover wrote:Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon.

You said it, i.e. "cycle", not "accumulate".

sealover wrote:Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester.

Meanwhile other plants gladly and greedily suck up the available CO2.

sealover wrote:Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide.

As far as anything you have unambiguously defined, nothing is happening in this regard.

sealover wrote:The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

According to my information, there has been no increase in frequency or severity of wildfires, except in places like California where the complete mismanagement of forests is deliberate so they can generate more fires and feed the Climate Change narrative.

sealover wrote:Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere.

Sorry, trafn already beat you to this lunatic's argument.


Unfortunately, he had a meltdown and became one of the two people banned from this site, otherwise he could tell you more about it personally.

In the meantime, read more about the discussions that have already happened HERE. Perhaps if you look at it from the outside looking in, you can better see how silly the whole argument is.

sealover wrote: As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket.

Releasing CO2 back to the atmosphere where it used to be in the first place is not some sort of problem.

sealover wrote:Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.

"Feedbacks" is religious dogma that runs counter to physics. "Forcings" is the Global Warming religion's doctrinal term for "miracles" and "feedbacks" are the highest form of "forcings", being performed directly by the goddess Climate herself. You aren't going to fool any scientist into believing that the laws of thermodynamics can somehow be overcome by mere belief in Climate Change.
RE: why should you believe?11-03-2022 04:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:


According to my information, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are not increasing.

According to my understanding of physics, atmospheric CO2 levels have no reason to be increasing.

Why should I believe otherwise?



-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything.

According to my information, your information is incorrect.

Belief is not required.

I'm just trying to preach to the choir.

There are enough people who get it already.
11-03-2022 04:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:I'm not trying to get you to believe anything.

Your arguments presume, and rest on, belief in Climate Change, and where belief in Climate Change does not exist, your arguments immediately fall apart.

sealover wrote:According to my information, your information is incorrect.

... and my information is science, math, logic and economics. Your "information" is Climate Change dogma and general science denial.

sealover wrote:Belief is not required.

If you are satisfied with your arguments being summarily discarded, then I'm happy if you're happy.

sealover wrote:I'm just trying to preach to the choir.

Who do you imagine is in your choir?

sealover wrote:There are enough people who get it already.

So we're back to the sufficient quantity of "Yea!" votes establishing thettled thienth. Got it.

.
11-03-2022 06:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

Fossils aren't fuel. They don't burn. How do you carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere? It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
sealover wrote:
Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon.

What's wrong with carbon?
sealover wrote:
Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. You still haven't said why you are so scared of carbon dioxide or carbon.
sealover wrote:
Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide.

Define 'climate change'. Climate has no value associated with it. What is 'changing'?
sealover wrote:
The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

What increased frequency and severity of wildfires? Argument from randU fallacy.
sealover wrote:
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.

What's wrong with methane? It's a fuel. It does not decompose to carbon dioxide by itself. You have to burn it.
sealover wrote:
Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.

Another magick buzzword. What 'feedback'? Define this 'feedback'. Define climate change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2022 10:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.[/quote]
That's called 'coal'.
sealover wrote:
Most people don't have any trouble getting their heads around that one.

Apparently YOU have such trouble.
sealover wrote:
Trust your intuition on the most likely meaning of "vicious feedback".

Not a definition. Try again.
sealover wrote:
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.

So define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
A person could go crazy trying to preemptively exclude every nuance.

Getting frustrated? Try using English instead of meaningless buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
A person could become isolated using a dictionary that they alone adhere to.

Dictionaries don't define any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary.
sealover wrote:
It's easier to communicate using a common language.

You should try it sometime.
sealover wrote:
Words mean what they mean.

Buzzwords have no meaning. You refuse to define of the terms you are using as buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
Get over it.

Nothing to get over. A void argument is a fallacy. You make them when you use meaningless buzzwords as the subject of a sentence.

You can't around it, dude. Define the terms you use.


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
11-03-2022 10:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


According to my information, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are not increasing.

According to my understanding of physics, atmospheric CO2 levels have no reason to be increasing.

Why should I believe otherwise?



-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything.

Yes you are.
sealover wrote:
According to my information, your information is incorrect.

What information? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric concentration of CO2, the global sea level, the pH of the oceans, the global storm activity, or many of the other things you are making up.
sealover wrote:
Belief is not required.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion, dude. Yes it is. Any nonbeliever is treated like Satan himself.
sealover wrote:
I'm just trying to preach to the choir.

I see no choir here. Cliche fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There are enough people who get it already.

Who?

No one has defined 'climate change'. You can be the first!


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
11-03-2022 18:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:There are enough people who get it already.
Who? No one has defined 'climate change'. You can be the first!

Yes! Please let there be a first.

@ sealover, the truth is that we all know the reason there is so little discussion of Climate Change. That reason is that not a single Climate worshiper will unambiguously define any of the major doctrinal terms. Warmizombies and Climate lemmings kill any and all honest discussion on the matter before it can even occur by rushing to express bizarre physics violations and logical contradictions with totally undefined buzzwords.

When you arrived at Climate-Debate, it was like the clouds had parted and the sun had shown down from the heavens. Suddenly there was hope that someone would finally define those terms that had stood like Kilamanjaroo between us and honest conversation. That hope brought great joy and promise ...

Please, be the Climate discussion champion that I know you can be. Help us out with the unambiguous definitions for the following Climatalogimetrical terms (i.e. of "The Science"):

Climate
Climate Change
Climate Change Mitigation
The Threat
Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming
Forcings
Feedbacks


One does not need to be well versed in science to define these because these terms do not exist in science. Thank you for doing this. You really are #1!
.
RE: we hold these truths to be self evident11-03-2022 21:33
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:There are enough people who get it already.
Who? No one has defined 'climate change'. You can be the first!

Yes! Please let there be a first.

@ sealover, the truth is that we all know the reason there is so little discussion of Climate Change. That reason is that not a single Climate worshiper will unambiguously define any of the major doctrinal terms. Warmizombies and Climate lemmings kill any and all honest discussion on the matter before it can even occur by rushing to express bizarre physics violations and logical contradictions with totally undefined buzzwords.

When you arrived at Climate-Debate, it was like the clouds had parted and the sun had shown down from the heavens. Suddenly there was hope that someone would finally define those terms that had stood like Kilamanjaroo between us and honest conversation. That hope brought great joy and promise ...

Please, be the Climate discussion champion that I know you can be. Help us out with the unambiguous definitions for the following Climatalogimetrical terms (i.e. of "The Science"):

Climate
Climate Change
Climate Change Mitigation
The Threat
Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming
Forcings
Feedbacks


One does not need to be well versed in science to define these because these terms do not exist in science. Thank you for doing this. You really are #1!
.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If "these terms do not exist in science", maybe we should just use a dictionary.

I've got one. Do you need help finding a dictionary?
12-03-2022 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:There are enough people who get it already.
Who? No one has defined 'climate change'. You can be the first!

Yes! Please let there be a first.

@ sealover, the truth is that we all know the reason there is so little discussion of Climate Change. That reason is that not a single Climate worshiper will unambiguously define any of the major doctrinal terms. Warmizombies and Climate lemmings kill any and all honest discussion on the matter before it can even occur by rushing to express bizarre physics violations and logical contradictions with totally undefined buzzwords.

When you arrived at Climate-Debate, it was like the clouds had parted and the sun had shown down from the heavens. Suddenly there was hope that someone would finally define those terms that had stood like Kilamanjaroo between us and honest conversation. That hope brought great joy and promise ...

Please, be the Climate discussion champion that I know you can be. Help us out with the unambiguous definitions for the following Climatalogimetrical terms (i.e. of "The Science"):

Climate
Climate Change
Climate Change Mitigation
The Threat
Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming
Forcings
Feedbacks


One does not need to be well versed in science to define these because these terms do not exist in science. Thank you for doing this. You really are #1!
.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If "these terms do not exist in science", maybe we should just use a dictionary.

I've got one. Do you need help finding a dictionary?

Why? Dictionaries do not define any word.


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: just use logic12-03-2022 04:48
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


According to my information, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are not increasing.

According to my understanding of physics, atmospheric CO2 levels have no reason to be increasing.

Why should I believe otherwise?



You can just use logic then.

Time is money.

Money is the root of all evil.

THEREFORE TIME IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything.

Yes you are.
sealover wrote:
According to my information, your information is incorrect.

What information? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric concentration of CO2, the global sea level, the pH of the oceans, the global storm activity, or many of the other things you are making up.
sealover wrote:
Belief is not required.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion, dude. Yes it is. Any nonbeliever is treated like Satan himself.
sealover wrote:
I'm just trying to preach to the choir.

I see no choir here. Cliche fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There are enough people who get it already.

Who?

No one has defined 'climate change'. You can be the first!
12-03-2022 07:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:

Your best post thus far.
RE: Acid Rain and Ocean Acidification14-03-2022 12:24
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
14-03-2022 18:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
In 1985, I began post graduate research.

"Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days.

Rain is naturally acid.
sealover wrote:
Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time.

Is this what you call your welfare?
sealover wrote:
I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant.

So you scammed the government with big money successfully?
sealover wrote:
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.

Nitric acid isn't nitrate. Sounds like you need bottled oxygen to breath to deal with your hypoxia.
So...because there was too much nitrate there wasn't enough nitrate? gotit.
sealover wrote:
And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid.

Sulfuric acid isn't sulfate.
sealover wrote:
And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency.

Don't eat aluminum.


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: "Rainfall is naturally acid"14-03-2022 21:58
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
In 1985, I began post graduate research.

"Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days.

Rain is naturally acid.
sealover wrote:
Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time.

Is this what you call your welfare?
sealover wrote:
I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant.

So you scammed the government with big money successfully?
sealover wrote:
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.

Nitric acid isn't nitrate. Sounds like you need bottled oxygen to breath to deal with your hypoxia.
So...because there was too much nitrate there wasn't enough nitrate? gotit.
sealover wrote:
And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid.

Sulfuric acid isn't sulfate.
sealover wrote:
And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency.

Don't eat aluminum.


--------------------------------------------------------------

"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.
14-03-2022 22:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:In fact, you can calculate the pH of natural rainfall just by knowing the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

One would need to know the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the cylinder volume of the falling rain ... and that cannot be accurately measured.

Better wording would have been: "You can estimate the pH of natural rainfall just by guessing at the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."

Don't be afraid! It can be intimidating at first, but guesstimation can also be fun.

sealover wrote:Back when atmospheric CO2 was about 350 ppm, rainfall pH was about 5.6.

Before I begin to mock the schytt out of you for the complete gullibility that you are putting on display, I'll advise you that you should never have allowed your Global Warming indoctrinators to so easily bend you over furniture and ream you up the azz with their "atmospheric CO2 is accumulating!" fear-mongering disinformation. They only got away with it on you because you apparently slept through your high school education.

Atmospheric CO2 is not somehow accumulating and I'm going to have a lot of fun with you as you feel obligated to regurgitate the lies you have been ordered to believe.

... so let's get this done. Why should any rational adult believe that plants somehow won't greedily gobble up any and all extra CO2 they get?

Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow know what the average atmospheric CO2 concentration is?

Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow know what the earth's atmospheric CO2 distribution is?

The floor is yours. I'm eager to get to raking you over the coals.

.
RE: acid rain, environmental chemotherapy15-03-2022 03:51
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
15-03-2022 04:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
sealover wrote:The first large scale attempt at environmental chemotherapy was in response to "acid rain".

Wait, wait, wait .... we're supposed to be clarifying your bizarre fantasy about CO2 accumulation, like plants somehow stopped grabbing up all the CO2 they can.

Why should any rational adult believe that plants somehow won't greedily gobble up any and all extra CO2 they get?

Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow know what the average atmospheric CO2 concentration is?

Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow know what the earth's atmospheric CO2 distribution is?

Please don't move on without admitting that your statements were stupid. We have newcomers coming to this site everyday and when they see dishonesty of the kind coming from you, it make them think this is just another YAP.

Be honest and address the questions posed to you about the claims that you made. Take the science approach and accept challenges to your ideas, even to your really stupid ones.

... and don't forget to post those equations for which you need a little extra help so I can get working on them for you.

sealover wrote: Lime (calcium carbonate) was applied to large areas of forest. ...

I ask that anyone interested in yet another pointless anecdote of whining and drivel from seal_over to respond to this post with a note "I appreciate this anecdote."
15-03-2022 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
In 1985, I began post graduate research.

"Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days.

Rain is naturally acid.
sealover wrote:
Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time.

Is this what you call your welfare?
sealover wrote:
I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant.

So you scammed the government with big money successfully?
sealover wrote:
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.

Nitric acid isn't nitrate. Sounds like you need bottled oxygen to breath to deal with your hypoxia.
So...because there was too much nitrate there wasn't enough nitrate? gotit.
sealover wrote:
And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid.

Sulfuric acid isn't sulfate.
sealover wrote:
And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency.

Don't eat aluminum.


--------------------------------------------------------------

"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.

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 or even CO2 over a region.
sealover wrote:
Don't be afraid!

It can be intimidating at first, but science math can also be fun.

You deny math.
sealover wrote:
Back when atmospheric CO2 was about 350 ppm, rainfall pH was about 5.6.

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (or the oceans).
sealover wrote:
Scientists could even predict how much the rainfall pH would drop when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 360 ppm.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are using made up numbers.
sealover wrote:
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.

Carbonic acid isn't an acid????!?
sealover wrote:
Most of the acidity in "acid rain" came from sulfuric acid.

Also known as hydrogen sulfate.

And where did this come from? Where is it now?
sealover wrote:
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.

Don't eat aluminum.
sealover wrote:
The trees weren't actually "eating" the aluminum.

You should stay away from trees. You never know what they might eat next.


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
15-03-2022 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
The first large scale attempt at environmental chemotherapy was in response to "acid rain".

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'environmental chemotherapy'. You still haven't described why rain being an acid (it is naturally an acid) is a problem.
sealover wrote:
Lime (calcium carbonate) was applied to large areas of forest.

No need. It's already there.
sealover wrote:
It succeeded at addressing calcium deficiency.

It also mobilized a lot of soil organic matter.

Soil organic matter solubility is pH dependent.

You cannot dissolve anything in calcium carbonate.
sealover wrote:
The lime additions to the forests caused dissolved organic matter exports from watersheds to nearly double.

The benefits probably outweighed the harm.

Define 'dissolved organic matter'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The harm could have been avoided with better understanding of biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
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.

Obviously you have no idea what chemotherapy is. Perhaps one day you'll get cancer and you'll find out.
sealover wrote:
Be careful. You're playing with fire. It's a complex system we're messing with.

Complexity fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. You don't have any ability to 'mess with the system'. Earth is a LOT bigger than you are.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 15-03-2022 19:17
16-03-2022 06:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.


We really count on negative feedback, like oceans soaking up extra CO2. It's easy to forget about positive feedback.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
16-03-2022 06:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.


We really count on negative feedback, like oceans soaking up extra CO2. It's easy to forget about positive feedback.

They don't. Buzzword fallacies.


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: Am I "trolling" my own threads?18-03-2022 22:23
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
On a dozens of occasions in my few weeks here, the trolls have advised me that I'm "trolling" my own threads.

I'm not sure what that means.

I think I have about 3 or 4 posts on threads that are not my own.

If I am "trolling" anyone else's thread, my victims have been few in number.

Want an unambiguous definition of troll?

Someone who has posted more than 100,000 times, on other people's threads.
18-03-2022 22:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
Want an unambiguous definition of troll?


Trolling is simply posting with the objective of upsetting other people.

Sort of like the unambiguous definition of being an A-hole. It's as clear as most anything else in life.

But specifically it gets people banned from moderated forums (this forum is unmoderated) because it's posting without serving the purpose of the topic.

But really sealover I see this over and over. Someone like you comes here by accident and it's so engrossing for a bit to have someone say crazy stuff. Like HOW can they believe that!
They are simply idiots here to waste your time. Review the links in my sig to see how pointless a discussion with ITN or IBD is.

I'm here to discuss these things with you seriously so let's get on with it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: Thank you! we will soon have company18-03-2022 22:44
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Thank you for an intelligent rational statement that makes a useful point.

I expect we'll be seeing a whole lot more of those around here soon.

And, yes, by all means click the poster's name by the avatar.

It will guide you straight past the garbage to a list of posts that are worth reading.

"tmiddles" resilience is admirable. It take a good mind and thick skin to survive in this jungle.

But the jungle is about to change.

Soon the trolls will be outnumbered, far outnumbered by people who actually care about climate changes.

There will be no absurd, circular discussions about requirement for an "unambiguous definition".

There will be intelligent exchanges between people who actually understand science and have the credentials to prove it.

And I say most sincerely how much I admire your intelligence and resilience.


tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Want an unambiguous definition of troll?


Trolling is simply posting with the objective of upsetting other people.

Sort of like the unambiguous definition of being an A-hole. It's as clear as most anything else in life.

But specifically it gets people banned from moderated forums (this forum is unmoderated) because it's posting without serving the purpose of the topic.

But really sealover I see this over and over. Someone like you comes here by accident and it's so engrossing for a bit to have someone say crazy stuff. Like HOW can they believe that!
They are simply idiots here to waste your time. Review the links in my sig to see how pointless a discussion with ITN or IBD is.

I'm here to discuss these things with you seriously so let's get on with it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
18-03-2022 22:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
There will be no absurd, circular discussions about requirement for an "unambiguous definition".


I think it's useful to figure out why an objection is BS
but only once

Neil Degrassy Tyson had a guy say the moon landing was fake (like Candace Owens just did) and so he asked him: "What evidence would convince you"
The guy said a photo of the lunar lander still on the moon (it is there).
So Tyson produced it.
The guy then said it was no good because it came from NASA.
At which point Tyson was done with the fool.

The nice thing about about liars and nutjobs is you can simply guide them over the crazy line and then wash you hands.
RE: click by the avatar and plug your nose18-03-2022 23:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
As always, you make a rational point that has some value in the discussion.

Something a reader can do, if they plug their nose first, is click by the avatar of any one of the local trolls.

There is a striking consistency. They are full of insults and empty of science.

Judge for yourself.

Plug your nose and click the avatar.

Then you can judge for yourself who is "credible".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
There will be no absurd, circular discussions about requirement for an "unambiguous definition".


I think it's useful to figure out why an objection is BS
but only once

Neil Degrassy Tyson had a guy say the moon landing was fake (like Candace Owens just did) and so he asked him: "What evidence would convince you"
The guy said a photo of the lunar lander still on the moon (it is there).
So Tyson produced it.
The guy then said it was no good because it came from NASA.
At which point Tyson was done with the fool.

The nice thing about about liars and nutjobs is you can simply guide them over the crazy line and then wash you hands.
18-03-2022 23:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...click by the avatar of any one of the local trolls....


And like I said I've got my case for why they are pure troll here:
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

Also my attempts at clear, basic explanations of the thermodynamics at a grade school level.
18-03-2022 23:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
tmiddles wrote:Trolling is simply posting with the objective of upsetting other people.

Your definition renders all posts involving science and math as "trolling" as far as wamizombies are concerned.

tmiddles wrote:But specifically it gets people banned from moderated forums

This is true of all sites whereby the moderators are moderators in name only, but are actually censors who adhere to your definition. On Debate Politics, for example, the censors there keep "warning" me every time I throw science or math at one of the leftist morons. You can almost use it as a countdown timer. The officially stated reason for the warnings are always "Trolling/Flaming" but the real reason is precisely what you said, i.e. the censors feel that I know well that posting science and math will make wamizombies feel bad. Look how it makes you feel.

Good (relativistic) definition.

tmiddles wrote:But really seal over I see this over and over.

That's to be expected. You're not in a safe space here, with censors who control what thoughts and ideas are permitted to be expressed and who totally control the discussion so that stupid people don't feel threatened. You have made it clear that your greatest fear is that others might be thinking thoughts that you have not permitted. You hate the 1st Amendment because it allows each individual to believe whatever he or she wishes to believe. Of course wamizombies such as yourself never appreciate how the 1st Amendment allows them to believe the most absurd physical-defying crap without suffering any legal ramifications and instead simply bitch, whine, grumble, complain, snivel and gripe that others are getting away with believing what they believe without being thrown in jail.

tmiddles wrote:Someone like you comes here by accident and it's so engrossing for a bit to have someone discuss science, math and other crazy stuff. Like HOW can they believe that! ... and get away with it?

You hit the nail on the head. Well put!

Wait, seal over has explained many times that he didn't come here by accident.

What do you and seal over have in common, besides only being here to preach your religion of hatred and intolerance?

Hint:

Questions for tmiddles that remain unanswered:

1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered]
2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered]
3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered]
4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered]
5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered]
6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered]
- 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered]
7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered]
8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered]
9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered]
10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered]
11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered]
12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered]
13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered]
16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered]
17) Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing to any perceptible extent? [Status: Unanswered]
18) What evidence do you have that the hockey stick slashers you presented were neither BLM or ANTIFA? [Status: Unanswered]
19) What evidence do you have that any of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested and are now in prison? [Status: Unanswered]
20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered]
21) Why do you scream red-faced at the mere rumor of violence by Trump supporters yet you go to the mat in defense of BLM and ANTIFA violence documented in video and photographs? [Status: Unanswered]
22) So how was Ashli Babbit, a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building, treasonous? [Status: Unanswered]
RE: do you know how to read papers?18-03-2022 23:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Biogeochemistry" has been dismissed as a "buzzword" about a hundred times so far.

I won't expose any of my own sentences to dissection to give you an unambiguous definition.

There is a highly-respected journal called "Biogeochemistry".

If you look it up, they provide an excellent definition for the basic term you can't seem to wrap your head around.

And for the "trolls who play word games..", I'll give you one to tear apart.

Check out Biogeochemistry, 1995, volume 42, pages 189-220.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Trolling is simply posting with the objective of upsetting other people.

Your definition renders all posts involving science and math as "trolling" as far as wamizombies are concerned.

tmiddles wrote:But specifically it gets people banned from moderated forums

This is true of all sites whereby the moderators are moderators in name only, but are actually censors who adhere to your definition. On Debate Politics, for example, the censors there keep "warning" me every time I throw science or math at one of the leftist morons. You can almost use it as a countdown timer. The officially stated reason for the warnings are always "Trolling/Flaming" but the real reason is precisely what you said, i.e. the censors feel that I know well that posting science and math will make wamizombies feel bad. Look how it makes you feel.

Good (relativistic) definition.

tmiddles wrote:But really seal over I see this over and over.

That's to be expected. You're not in a safe space here, with censors who control what thoughts and ideas are permitted to be expressed and who totally control the discussion so that stupid people don't feel threatened. You have made it clear that your greatest fear is that others might be thinking thoughts that you have not permitted. You hate the 1st Amendment because it allows each individual to believe whatever he or she wishes to believe. Of course wamizombies such as yourself never appreciate how the 1st Amendment allows them to believe the most absurd physical-defying crap without suffering any legal ramifications and instead simply bitch, whine, grumble, complain, snivel and gripe that others are getting away with believing what they believe without being thrown in jail.

tmiddles wrote:Someone like you comes here by accident and it's so engrossing for a bit to have someone discuss science, math and other crazy stuff. Like HOW can they believe that! ... and get away with it?

You hit the nail on the head. Well put!

Wait, seal over has explained many times that he didn't come here by accident.

What do you and seal over have in common, besides only being here to preach your religion of hatred and intolerance?

Hint:

Questions for tmiddles that remain unanswered:

1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered]
2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered]
3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered]
4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered]
5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered]
6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered]
- 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered]
7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered]
8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered]
9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered]
10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered]
11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered]
12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered]
13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered]
16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered]
17) Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing to any perceptible extent? [Status: Unanswered]
18) What evidence do you have that the hockey stick slashers you presented were neither BLM or ANTIFA? [Status: Unanswered]
19) What evidence do you have that any of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested and are now in prison? [Status: Unanswered]
20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered]
21) Why do you scream red-faced at the mere rumor of violence by Trump supporters yet you go to the mat in defense of BLM and ANTIFA violence documented in video and photographs? [Status: Unanswered]
22) So how was Ashli Babbit, a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building, treasonous? [Status: Unanswered]
19-03-2022 00:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...
Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide....Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.


So are there any feedbacks of CO2 causeing more CO2 that are not due to an increase in temperature?

Like we have:
Higher CO2 causes a higher surface temp on Earth ->
that causes tundra to melt ->
The Tundra was storing CO2 which is now added to the atmosphere

Are there any feedback loops where temp is not the middle step?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN[/quote]
RE: Tundra - gigatons of organic carbon and methane19-03-2022 00:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...
Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide....Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.


So are there any feedbacks of CO2 causeing more CO2 that are not due to an increase in temperature?

Like we have:
Higher CO2 causes a higher surface temp on Earth ->
that causes tundra to melt ->
The Tundra was storing CO2 which is now added to the atmosphere

Are there any feedback loops where temp is not the middle step?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The warming tundra is a double whammy.

An enormous reservoir, teratons, of organic carbon is becoming warm enough to decompose.

A little deeper is an enormous reservoir of methane locked in melting ice.
19-03-2022 00:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
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).
19-03-2022 01:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
On a dozens of occasions in my few weeks here, the trolls have advised me that I'm "trolling" my own threads.

You are.
sealover wrote:
I'm not sure what that means.

A 'troll' is a person that posts simply to entice others to respond in anger or makes meaningless posts.
sealover wrote:
I think I have about 3 or 4 posts on threads that are not my own.

And you are trolling your own threads.
sealover wrote:
If I am "trolling" anyone else's thread, my victims have been few in number.

Want an unambiguous definition of troll?

Trolling has no specific victims. It does waste your time to troll, and it does have a tendency to hijack a thread. It contributes nothing to a thread.
sealover wrote:
Someone who has posted more than 100,000 times, on other people's threads.

Compositional error fallacy. Bulverism 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
19-03-2022 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Want an unambiguous definition of troll?


Trolling is simply posting with the objective of upsetting other people.

A fair bit of is, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Sort of like the unambiguous definition of being an A-hole. It's as clear as most anything else in life.

It's possible to be an A-hole without being a troll.
tmiddles wrote:
But specifically it gets people banned from moderated forums (this forum is unmoderated) because it's posting without serving the purpose of the topic.

This forum is moderated by branner. He created and owns the forum. I don't think branner has ever banned anyone for trolling, though he has banned people for spamming.
tmiddles wrote:
But really sealover I see this over and over. Someone like you comes here by accident and it's so engrossing for a bit to have someone say crazy stuff. Like HOW can they believe that!

You are describing yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
They are simply idiots here to waste your time. Review the links in my sig to see how pointless a discussion with ITN or IBD is.

Since it is pointless to deny theories of science and/or mathematics, you have pointless discussions.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm here to discuss these things with you seriously so let's get on with it.

Discuss what?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-03-2022 01:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Soon the trolls will be outnumbered, far outnumbered by people who actually care about climate changes.


Science has no voting bloc. Mathematics has no voting bloc. Logic has no voting bloc. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-03-2022 01:26
19-03-2022 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"Biogeochemistry" has been dismissed as a "buzzword" about a hundred times so far.

I won't expose any of my own sentences to dissection to give you an unambiguous definition.

There is a highly-respected journal called "Biogeochemistry".

If you look it up, they provide an excellent definition for the basic term you can't seem to wrap your head around.

And for the "trolls who play word games..", I'll give you one to tear apart.

Check out Biogeochemistry, 1995, volume 42, pages 189-220.


Define 'biogeochemistry'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-03-2022 01:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...
Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide....Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change.


So are there any feedbacks of CO2 causeing more CO2 that are not due to an increase in temperature?

What 'feedback'? What is 'feeding back'?
tmiddles wrote:
Like we have:
Higher CO2 causes a higher surface temp on Earth ->

Not possible. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
that causes tundra to melt ->

Tundra melts every summer and freezes again every winter. Meh.
tmiddles wrote:
The Tundra was storing CO2 which is now added to the atmosphere

Why would swamp add CO2 to the atmosphere?
tmiddles wrote:
Are there any feedback loops where temp is not the middle step?

Buzzword 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
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way022-07-2021 07:31
Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out6109-12-2020 20:12
This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud3627-11-2020 23:07
Case fatality rate3620-04-2020 10:28
The case for spraying (just enough) chemicals into the sky to fight climate change013-03-2019 21:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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