Remember me
▼ Content

Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum


Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum14-06-2024 21:14
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.
14-06-2024 21:18
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
sealover wrote:
This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.


Looks like I will need to make it shorter.

Maybe "Global Change and Biogeochemistry - Moderated Sub Forum" would work.

And then the first post would explain that a troll-free discussion of science at a sophisticated level is available.
14-06-2024 21:46
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
Im a BM wrote:
sealover wrote:
This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.


Looks like I will need to make it shorter.

Maybe "Global Change and Biogeochemistry - Moderated Sub Forum" would work.

And then the first post would explain that a troll-free discussion of science at a sophisticated level is available.



Hopefully, all the "sealover" threads will be transferred to a moderated sub forum.

"Im a BM" threads would still be in the "Climate debate in general" section.

Im a BM will continue to debunk the perversion of thermodynamics in this section.

sealover will discuss applied biogeochemistry and the science of global change in a sub forum that will have anti reality posts by hostile trolls seeking conflict deleted immediately.
15-06-2024 06:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
"Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum"

This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.

There is no such thing as 'global change science'.
There is no such thing as 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
16-06-2024 02:17
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5750)
Im a BM wrote:
sealover wrote:
This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.


Looks like I will need to make it shorter.

Maybe "Global Change and Biogeochemistry - Moderated Sub Forum" would work.

And then the first post would explain that a troll-free discussion of science at a sophisticated level is available.


How about (climate change for KOOKOOS)


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-06-2024 04:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
sealover wrote:
This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.



It may be some weeks before the website administrator becomes aware of my request to have a new moderated sub forum.

See the "Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com" thread for background on how this was done before.

It is almost immediately obvious that only a handful of members actually post on this website in its unmoderated form.

The hope is that a sub forum, moderated by a PhD biogeochemist, will have a better chance of creating a discussion that is attractive to more than those handful.

Just in the two years since I first posted, more than 130 new members joined the website. ONE of them continues to post, if he is still here after four weeks.

So, the aspiring moderator got his PhD from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz (go banana slugs!).

The aspiring moderator has been cited in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications by others, many of them reporting research explicitly related to climate change.

The goal is to have a sub forum where the kind of posts that drive new members away get deleted without delay.

The rest of the website, the vast majority of it, would still be available for the no holds barred insult fest that is so attractive it can get up to six members to participate in a single week.
22-06-2024 07:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote: Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.

Yes, hopefully you will soon have your censorship subforum. God-speed.

sealover wrote: It may be some weeks before the website administrator becomes aware of my request to have a new moderated sub forum.

I can send him a PM if you'd like. Maybe that will speed it along.


sealover wrote:The hope is that a sub forum, moderated by a PhD biogeochemist, will have a better chance of creating a discussion that is attractive to more than those handful.

This made me laugh. You really haven't thought this through. I wish you the best of luck though. Maybe your brand of "safe space" collective will build a following. We can hope for the best, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't work out.

sealover wrote: Just in the two years since I first posted, more than 130 new members joined the website. ONE of them continues to post, if he is still here after four weeks.

You sure drive away many.

sealover wrote: So, the aspiring moderator got his PhD from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz (go banana slugs!).

That's not going to help you any.

What will help you is advertising that you protectively censor a Global Warming safe-space. That's your only chance at building a strong, science-free community that won't ask any questions.

sealover wrote: The goal is to have a sub forum where the kind of posts that drive new members away get deleted without delay.

... and the subforum will determine that any post that exposes you for a sham is the kind that "drives away new members."

sealover wrote: The rest of the website, the vast majority of it, would still be available for the no holds barred insult fest that is so attractive it can get up to six members to participate in a single week.

This is what you haven't thought through. The scientifically illiterate warmizombie crowd to which you are appealing has one serious character flaw: internal conflict between the reality they observe and the extremely absurd physics violations they are ordered to regurgitate.

As such, they search for websites that simply do not allow any dissenting views so that their internal conflicts don't get put into overdrive. They can't tolerate having their religious sensitivities riled and their faith put in jeopardy. They will post in your protective bubble, but will nonetheless see the offensive material elsewhere on the site and will find it insufferable. They will wander out of your protective bubble and dare to confront what they secretly know to be true, and when the conflict becomes too much to bear, they will leave in frustration, despite the existence of your censored refuge.

You need to think about this more. You are headed for one huge disappointment.
06-07-2024 18:49
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
See the "Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com" thread for background on how this was done before.

It is almost immediately obvious that only a handful of members actually post on this website in its unmoderated form.

The hope is that a sub forum, moderated by a PhD biogeochemist, will have a better chance of creating a discussion that is attractive to more than those handful.

Just in the two years since I first posted, more than 130 new members joined the website. NONE of them continues to post.

On the other hand, of the more than 1700 members who joined at one time or another, the half dozen or so most active members today are the same who have been posting here for from five to ten years.

A moderated sub forum was briefly attempted here several years ago, and the hope is that Branner will facilitate trying the same thing again.

So, the aspiring moderator for the proposed sub forum got his PhD from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz (go banana slugs!).

The aspiring moderator has been cited in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications by others, many of them reporting research explicitly related to climate change. Specifically, the biogeochemistry of carbon and nitrogen cycling as it influences emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).

The goal is to have a sub forum where the kind of posts that consistently drive new members away get deleted without delay.

The rest of the website, the vast majority of it, would still be available for the no holds barred insult fest that is so attractive it can get up to six members to participate in a single week.

Branner, the website owner/administrator and absentee moderator, last visited at the end of February. So it may be about time now again for him to become aware of any emails or PMs at climate-debate.com
08-07-2024 02:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
The aspiring moderator has been cited in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications by others,

Science has no consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a 'publication', paper, journal, magazine, book, or website.
sealover wrote:
many of them reporting research explicitly related to climate change.

Science is not a research or study. Climate cannot change. There is no 'research' of climate.
sealover wrote:
Specifically, the biogeochemistry

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
of carbon and nitrogen cycling as it influences emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
sealover wrote:
The goal is to have a sub forum where the kind of posts that consistently drive new members away get deleted without delay.

So you badly want your Kiddie Pool.


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
08-07-2024 07:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Rober R. Northup wrote: The hope is that a sub forum, moderated by a PhD biogeochemist, will have a better chance of creating a discussion that is attractive to more than those handful.

Actually, the hope is that your whining, your preaching, your dishonesty and your spam will all have a home away from where everyone else posts.

@Branner, please give Robert Northup a censorship zone. PLEASE! I'll buy you a pizza.

Rober R. Northup wrote: Just in the two years since I first posted, more than 130 new members joined the website. NONE of them continues to post.

You effectively drove them away. I have no idea why you think they're going to flock to your censorship zone but please have at it. Build your "library." Knock yourself out.

Rober R. Northup wrote: On the other hand, of the more than 1700 members who joined at one time or another, the half dozen or so most active members today are the same who have been posting here for from five to ten years.

That's how it is at every online political forum. You would do better to speak in percentages because then everything would align nicely.

Rober R. Northup wrote: A moderated sub forum was briefly attempted here several years ago [by someone who resorted to spamming as I do], and the hope is that Branner will [make the same mistake again].

We can only hope.

Rober R. Northup wrote: So, the aspiring moderator for the proposed sub forum got his PhD from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz (go banana slugs!).

It doesn't matter. All that is important is that you intend to preach your religion and you will censor out any science or math. You meet all the prerequisites so Branner should be giving you your censorship zone any day now. Let's hope he doesn't tarry.

Rober R. Northup wrote: The aspiring moderator has been cited in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications by others, many of them reporting research explicitly related to climate change.

It can't be science if it is explicitly related to Climate Change, but who cares, we just need to get you your censor-space so you can get your power rush and build your "library." @Branner, are you listening?

Rober R. Northup wrote: Specifically, the biogeochemistry of carbon and nitrogen cycling as it influences emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).

This does not align with any existing unambiguous, formal definition of Climate Change. Did you, by chance, mean "bicycle-ergometry"?

Rober R. Northup wrote: The goal is to have a sub forum where ...

... where you can censor people. Everybody gets it. We're all pulling for you.

Rober R. Northup wrote: ... the kind of posts that consistently drive new members away get deleted without delay.

I'm waiting to see you delete your own posts.

Rober R. Northup wrote: The rest of the website, the vast majority of it, would still be available for the no holds barred insult fest that is so attractive it can get up to six members to participate in a single week.

This is so kind of you to permit all this. I'm thinking we should thank you when it comes time to pay you tribute.
14-07-2024 22:32
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum"

This is a test to see how well the title fits for display.

Hopefully, this will soon be where someone looking at the "Climate debate in general" list of threads will see this reference to the sub forum elsewhere on the site.

There is no such thing as 'global change science'.
There is no such thing as biogeochemistry.



There is no such thing as... a chemist who would write:

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."


Okay, let's play Devil's Advocate and say that this isn't just a chemist, it is a maverick among chemists.

Perhaps such an extraordinary claim is worthy of discussion, despite being inconsistent with classical chemistry.

Water itself is a buffer for acid?

Water itself is just molecules of H2O, right?

Water itself doesn't have any oxyanions of weak acids, other than hydroxide ions, right?

Okay. Water itself is a buffer for acid?

A buffer minimizes pH change upon addition of acid or base, right?

Water itself is a buffer for acid?

Okay, what kind of "acid" are we talking about that water can be a buffer for?

Hmmm... so water ITSELF, just those water molecules and the teensy bit of hydroxide ion they create is what is buffering the ocean against any detectable pH change that might result from any CARBOLIC acid being added to it.

WATER ITSELF IS NOT A BUFFER FOR ACID!

CARBOLIC ACID IS NOT BEING ADDED TO THE OCEAN!

CARBOLIC ACID IS NOT EVEN PRESENT AT DETECTABLE CONCENTRATION!

WOW! this is a maverick among chemists, indeed.
15-07-2024 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Im a BM wrote: Perhaps such an extraordinary claim is worthy of discussion, despite being inconsistent with classical chemistry.

Thank you. I'd like to jump into this discussion as long as you are going to allow rational discussion of this topic.

What is the definition of a buffer?

Don't worry, I'll answer that. I know you are uncomfortable around definitions.

A buffer is a solution that resists a change in pH, and thus retains a certain stability with regards to pH.

Will that definition/description work for you?

Notice that water is a component of all aqueous solutions. If you place a drop of your perfect acid into a 40-gallon tank of pure water, that acid will be neutralized. Yes, now we're discussing quantity of the pure water moreso than chemical reactions, but since we are discussing the ocean, the amount of water is essentially unlimited.

So, if we are discussing aquaeous solutions as buffers, the water contributes to the neutralization of the acid. The ocean has all you could ever want.

Any thoughts? Do you disgree with any part of this?
18-07-2024 19:59
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
It is still possible that the website owner, Jeppe Branner, will agree to this.

However, it appears very unlikely.

And there are years and years of evidence that a rational discussion which is attractive to more than a handful of members cannot happen without a moderator at this website.

THIS post will almost certainly get buried in troll feces before anyone else ever sees it.

Although I don't plant to post again until something changes, I will still receive a message if anyone sends me a PM at this website.

And I will respond.

After many weeks of waiting, and several months since his last visit, the website administrator (absentee moderator) DID log on a couple of days ago.

It appears unlikely that he will respond to any requests.


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

It may be some weeks before the website administrator becomes aware of my request to have a new moderated sub forum.

See the "Another better way to post on Climate-debate.com" thread for background on how this was done before.

It is almost immediately obvious that only a handful of members actually post on this website in its unmoderated form.

The hope is that a sub forum, moderated by a PhD biogeochemist, will have a better chance of creating a discussion that is attractive to more than those handful.

Just in the two years since I first posted, more than 130 new members joined the website. ONE of them continues to post, if he is still here after four weeks.

So, the aspiring moderator got his PhD from UC Davis, master's from UC Berkeley, and bachelor's from UC Santa Cruz (go banana slugs!).

The aspiring moderator has been cited in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications by others, many of them reporting research explicitly related to climate change.

The goal is to have a sub forum where the kind of posts that drive new members away get deleted without delay.

The rest of the website, the vast majority of it, would still be available for the no holds barred insult fest that is so attractive it can get up to six members to participate in a single week.[/quote]
18-07-2024 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
Im a BM wrote:
There is no such thing as... a chemist who would write:

"Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of ocean water isn't going to change to any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer."

There certainly is. You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Okay, let's play Devil's Advocate and say that this isn't just a chemist, it is a maverick among chemists.

A maverick? Thank you. I do enjoy coming up with new solutions for a problem.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps such an extraordinary claim is worthy of discussion, despite being inconsistent with classical chemistry.

There is no such thing as 'classical chemistry'.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is a buffer for acid?

That's right.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is just molecules of H2O, right?

Water typically contains other stuff, even distilled water, but for chemical purposes you can consider that to be true.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself doesn't have any oxyanions of weak acids, other than hydroxide ions, right?
Oxyanion is not a chemical. Hydroxide is not a chemical.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Okay. Water itself is a buffer for acid?

Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
A buffer minimizes pH change upon addition of acid or base, right?

Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
Water itself is a buffer for acid?

Yup.
Im a BM wrote:
Okay, what kind of "acid" are we talking about that water can be a buffer for?

Any acid. Any alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Hmmm... so water ITSELF, just those water molecules and the teensy bit of hydroxide ion they create is what is buffering the ocean against any detectable pH change that might result from any CARBOLIC acid being added to it.

Hydroxide is not a chemical. Carbolic acid is not being added to ocean water. Apparently you don't understand what 'equilibrium' even means.
Im a BM wrote:

WATER ITSELF IS NOT A BUFFER FOR ACID!

It certainly is.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
CARBOLIC ACID IS NOT BEING ADDED TO THE OCEAN!

I just said that.
Im a BM wrote:
CARBOLIC ACID IS NOT EVEN PRESENT AT DETECTABLE CONCENTRATION!
[/b]

Yes it is.
Im a BM wrote:
WOW! this is a maverick among chemists, indeed.

Thank you.


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
18-07-2024 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
sealover wrote:
...deleted whining...

Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.


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
18-07-2024 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Perhaps such an extraordinary claim is worthy of discussion, despite being inconsistent with classical chemistry.

Thank you. I'd like to jump into this discussion as long as you are going to allow rational discussion of this topic.

What is the definition of a buffer?


Note how Robert completely avoided your post and went off whining about the site again. He also promised to never post here again, even though he has posting here anyway.

A weak argument of the Stick fallacy.

He lies even to himself.


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




Join the debate Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry33117-06-2024 21:16
There is still no Global Warming science.38812-06-2024 20:54
Spam in forum1112-06-2024 03:44
Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads.4201-06-2024 06:13
General Question in General Forum.16128-05-2024 08:33
▲ 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