Google Scholar so you can do your own homework

seal over wrote:
Easy to find scientific papers

seal over wrote:
Most of the papers that can be found through Google Scholar include links to be able to see the entire thing.

seal over wrote:
This website is NOT a safe place to open links.

seal over wrote:
Some of these people are off their meds.

seal over wrote:
I could never figure out how to post anything here other than typing it in free hand.

seal over wrote:
Scientist rarely expect other scientists to do their homework for them.

seal over wrote:
Anyone with honest intellectual curiosity can locate papers given just a little information.

seal over wrote:
Anyone who claims to be a credible scientist learned how to do this in college.

seal over wrote:
Sorry, that was just a response to being called a "liar"

seal over wrote:
because I won't provide a link,

seal over wrote:
which I don't even know how to post, because it wasn't enough to give them the year, publication, volume, and page numbers.

seal over wrote:
But the purpose of this thread is to help others learn how to do their own homework.

It may be some weeks before this one gets followed up on.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Easy to find scientific papers

... and yet you fail at finding ANY of the papers you want to post.

Get back to us when you can find the documents you want others to read and post the link.

You've got to be a moron to ask people to scour the internet for documents that you can't even find!

Too funny.

sealover wrote:
"Scour the Internet" with just ONE website.

scholar.google.com scours the Internet for you, and keeps out the riff raff.

Peer reviewed scientific papers from credible journals can be found with just ONE website, and a few keywords.

More often than not, there will also be a link to a pdf file of the entire paper.

It is EASY for those with honest intellectual curiosity.

Well go through some useful examples in the coming days and years.

Out of respect for the idea that we should perhaps remain anonymous, I wasn't going to be the one to post a link to papers with my name as first author.

They are EASY to find, and we'll go through them all.

sealover wrote:
"Scour the Internet" with just ONE website.

scholar.google.com scours the Internet for you, and keeps out the riff raff.

Peer reviewed scientific papers from credible journals can be found with just ONE website, and a few keywords.

More often than not, there will also be a link to a pdf file of the entire paper.

It is EASY for those with honest intellectual curiosity.

Well go through some useful examples in the coming days and years.

Out of respect for the idea that we should perhaps remain anonymous, I wasn't going to be the one to post a link to papers with my name as first author.

They are EASY to find, and we'll go through them all.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Easy to find scientific papers

... and yet you fail at finding ANY of the papers you want to post.

Get back to us when you can find the documents you want others to read and post the link.

You've got to be a moron to ask people to scour the internet for documents that you can't even find!

Too funny.

sealover wrote:Example #1 Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.
Go to scholar.google.com It is a safe website to open links in.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.

Go to scholar.google.com It is a safe website to open links in.

Use the keywords "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter"

You will see at the top of the list a paper with a academia pdf link.

Open the link to see the entire paper.

This example will be used to show how a CONTRARIAN assertion regarding the dominant paradigm is made within the scientific community.

They thought they had the nitrogen cycle all figured out a LONG time ago.

They thought it was an absolute fact that organic forms of nitrogen in decaying organic matter (amino acids, etc.) had to be mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before plants could take it up.

Turns out now, 27 years and 750 citations later, that a LOT of plants get their nitrogen supplied to them by mycorrhizal fungi capable of short circuiting the mineralization step of the nitrogen cycle.

But the extraordinary contrarian assertion required extraordinary objective evidence to be presented.

Even then, it took decades to confirm that the falsifiable hypothesis produced a reproducible result when others tested it.

Only THEN can an extraordinary contrarian assertion claim credibility.

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

sealover wrote:
"Scour the Internet" with just ONE website.

scholar.google.com scours the Internet for you, and keeps out the riff raff.

Peer reviewed scientific papers from credible journals can be found with just ONE website, and a few keywords.

More often than not, there will also be a link to a pdf file of the entire paper.

It is EASY for those with honest intellectual curiosity.

Well go through some useful examples in the coming days and years.

Out of respect for the idea that we should perhaps remain anonymous, I wasn't going to be the one to post a link to papers with my name as first author.

They are EASY to find, and we'll go through them all.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Easy to find scientific papers

... and yet you fail at finding ANY of the papers you want to post.

Get back to us when you can find the documents you want others to read and post the link.

You've got to be a moron to ask people to scour the internet for documents that you can't even find!

Too funny.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 - Full Disclosure

In the same issue of Nature was a separate "news and reviews" essay by Terry Chapin. Title: New cog in the nitrogen cycle.

Scientific journals such as Nature often highlight the papers in each issue that are expected to be of greatest interest.

A respected expert writes a review about the significance of the new paper.

sealover did NOT prove the new cog in the nitrogen cycle.

Were that the case, the paper would have been cited 75000 rather than 750 times by now.

One valuable feature of Google Scholar is that it shows how many times the paper has been cited by other papers in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals.

If you click on the number of times cited for the "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", you get a list of the papers that cited it.

Each paper on that list shows how many times it has been cited.

Every paper in the first pages of papers on the list has been cited thousands of times.

Far more than the meager 750 for sealover's paper.

What it did prove was that pine needle chemistry minimizes the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate, and causes dissolved organic nitrogen to be the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in nitrogen fluxes.

People didn't even bother measuring dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) before that.

Turns out the DON is the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in many surface waters, and is a significant vehicle of nitrogen transport in most surface waters.

Before that, they had only been measuring ammonium and nitrate.

They've gone back to the records now to estimate how much nitrogen they missed.

Typically guesstimating that it was a minimum of 1:10, they add a new data column showing the minimum underestimate of total nitrogen.

With more specific data for the typical ratio of DON

ammonium + nitrate) of a specific surface water, they can make better guesstimates.

Meanwhile, they've made a point to always actually MEASURE DON as well in ongoing monitoring.

The first sentence of Example #1:

The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

I didn't prove jack about the plant nutrition or new cog in the nitrogen cycle part.

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

sealover wrote:
Example #1 Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.

Go to scholar.google.com It is a safe website to open links in.

Use the keywords "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter"

You will see at the top of the list a paper with a academia pdf link.

Open the link to see the entire paper.

This example will be used to show how a CONTRARIAN assertion regarding the dominant paradigm is made within the scientific community.

They thought they had the nitrogen cycle all figured out a LONG time ago.

They thought it was an absolute fact that organic forms of nitrogen in decaying organic matter (amino acids, etc.) had to be mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before plants could take it up.

Turns out now, 27 years and 750 citations later, that a LOT of plants get their nitrogen supplied to them by mycorrhizal fungi capable of short circuiting the mineralization step of the nitrogen cycle.

But the extraordinary contrarian assertion required extraordinary objective evidence to be presented.

Even then, it took decades to confirm that the falsifiable hypothesis produced a reproducible result when others tested it.

Only THEN can an extraordinary contrarian assertion claim credibility.

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

sealover wrote:
"Scour the Internet" with just ONE website.

scholar.google.com scours the Internet for you, and keeps out the riff raff.

Peer reviewed scientific papers from credible journals can be found with just ONE website, and a few keywords.

More often than not, there will also be a link to a pdf file of the entire paper.

It is EASY for those with honest intellectual curiosity.

Well go through some useful examples in the coming days and years.

Out of respect for the idea that we should perhaps remain anonymous, I wasn't going to be the one to post a link to papers with my name as first author.

They are EASY to find, and we'll go through them all.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Easy to find scientific papers

... and yet you fail at finding ANY of the papers you want to post.

Get back to us when you can find the documents you want others to read and post the link.

You've got to be a moron to ask people to scour the internet for documents that you can't even find!

Too funny.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 - The Global Warming Connection.

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

James_ wrote:
Most people won't know the difference between nitrogen dioxide and nitrous oxide. How is NO2 different from N2O?

sealover wrote:
Example #1 - The Global Warming Connection.

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

If you have a pet cat indoors, pine litter is a must. Otherwise you can never get rid of that ammonia smell of cat urine. Pine litter will keep your place free of the odor of cat urine.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

If you have a pet cat indoors, pine litter is a must. Otherwise you can never get rid of that ammonia smell of cat urine. Pine litter will keep your place free of the odor of cat urine.

sealover wrote:
Pine needles for cat litter and livestock bedding.

The same chemical properties that make pine needles good for the kitty litter box have always made them good for livestock bedding.

They immobilize the nitrogen from the livestock urine and inhibit urease enzyme from transforming urea into ammonia.

Historically, that livestock bedding - nutrient rich mix of pine needles, feces, and urine was applied to the field as slow release fertilizer compost. No need for manure lagoons or risk of contaminating waters.

If you use your kitty litter in the garden, just be sure to either bury it or set it aside to fully decompose before applying on the surface.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Pine needles for cat litter and livestock bedding.

The same chemical properties that make pine needles good for the kitty litter box have always made them good for livestock bedding.

They immobilize the nitrogen from the livestock urine and inhibit urease enzyme from transforming urea into ammonia.

Historically, that livestock bedding - nutrient rich mix of pine needles, feces, and urine was applied to the field as slow release fertilizer compost. No need for manure lagoons or risk of contaminating waters.

If you use your kitty litter in the garden, just be sure to either bury it or set it aside to fully decompose before applying on the surface.

This is a great post. Informative, no buzzwords, no preaching, just sharing good information and personal knowledge. Awesome.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
Pine needles for cat litter and livestock bedding.

The same chemical properties that make pine needles good for the kitty litter box have always made them good for livestock bedding.

They immobilize the nitrogen from the livestock urine and inhibit urease enzyme from transforming urea into ammonia.

Historically, that livestock bedding - nutrient rich mix of pine needles, feces, and urine was applied to the field as slow release fertilizer compost. No need for manure lagoons or risk of contaminating waters.

If you use your kitty litter in the garden, just be sure to either bury it or set it aside to fully decompose before applying on the surface.

This is a great post. Informative, no buzzwords, no preaching, just sharing good information and personal knowledge. Awesome.

WHOAAAA... Squeal over posted that?? Consider my mind blown...

This is also yet another example of why I will never ever use any sort of ignore feature even on the trolliest of trolls.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter.

sealover wrote:
Go to scholar.google.com It is a safe website to open links in.

Use the keywords "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter"

You will see at the top of the list a paper with a academia pdf link.

Open the link to see the entire paper.

sealover wrote:
This example will be used to show how a CONTRARIAN assertion regarding the dominant paradigm is made within the scientific community.

sealover wrote:
They thought they had the nitrogen cycle all figured out a LONG time ago.

They thought it was an absolute fact that organic forms of nitrogen in decaying organic matter (amino acids, etc.) had to be mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before plants could take it up.

sealover wrote:
Turns out now, 27 years and 750 citations later, that a LOT of plants get their nitrogen supplied to them by mycorrhizal fungi capable of short circuiting the mineralization step of the nitrogen cycle.

sealover wrote:
But the extraordinary contrarian assertion required extraordinary objective evidence to be presented.

Even then, it took decades to confirm that the falsifiable hypothesis produced a reproducible result when others tested it.

Only THEN can an extraordinary contrarian assertion claim credibility.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 - Full Disclosure

In the same issue of Nature was a separate "news and reviews" essay by Terry Chapin. Title: New cog in the nitrogen cycle.

Scientific journals such as Nature often highlight the papers in each issue that are expected to be of greatest interest.

sealover wrote:
A respected expert writes a review about the significance of the new paper.

sealover wrote:
sealover did NOT prove the new cog in the nitrogen cycle.

Were that the case, the paper would have been cited 75000 rather than 750 times by now.

sealover wrote:
One valuable feature of Google Scholar is that it shows how many times the paper has been cited by other papers in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals.

sealover wrote:
If you click on the number of times cited for the "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", you get a list of the papers that cited it.

Each paper on that list shows how many times it has been cited.

sealover wrote:
Every paper in the first pages of papers on the list has been cited thousands of times.

Far more than the meager 750 for sealover's paper.

sealover wrote:
What it did prove

sealover wrote:
was that pine needle chemistry

sealover wrote:
minimizes the mineralization of organic nitrogen

sealover wrote:
to ammonium or nitrate,

sealover wrote:
and causes dissolved organic nitrogen

sealover wrote:
to be the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in nitrogen fluxes.

sealover wrote:
People didn't even bother measuring dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) before that.

sealover wrote:
Turns out the DON is the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in many surface waters, and is a significant vehicle of nitrogen transport in most surface waters.

sealover wrote:
Before that, they had only been measuring ammonium and nitrate.

sealover wrote:
They've gone back to the records now to estimate how much nitrogen they missed.

sealover wrote:
Typically guesstimating that it was a minimum of 1:10, they add a new data column showing the minimum underestimate of total nitrogen.

sealover wrote:
With more specific data for the typical ratio of DON

ammonium + nitrate) of a specific surface water, they can make better guesstimates.

sealover wrote:
Meanwhile, they've made a point to always actually MEASURE DON as well in ongoing monitoring.

sealover wrote:
The first sentence of Example #1:

The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

sealover wrote:
I didn't prove jack about the plant nutrition or new cog in the nitrogen cycle part.

sealover wrote:
Example #1 - The Global Warming Connection.

Polyphenols in pine litter minimize the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate.

This minimizes emission of nitrous oxide from dissimilatory nitrate reduction by microorganisms.

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has more than two hundred times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Example #1 - The unsupported mycorrhizal connection.

In the abstract of the "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" paper, published in the journal Nature (1995), one of the sentences says:

"Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations..."

Inside joke: IdaBM had no difficulty "scouring the Internet" to find this abstract and attempt to criticize it. Nobody had to give him a link on a silver platter.

Im a BM wrote:
The paper provided conclusive evidence

Im a BM wrote:
for the first part of the sentence. There was irrefutable feedback along a soil chemistry gradient, with polyphenol concentration doubling along a three point gradient. There was irrefutable proof that this controlled the proportion of litter nitrogen released in organic versus mineral form.
...deleted excess spam...

Im a BM wrote:
But some of my colleagues were enraged that I was allowed to publish the second part of that sentence.

sealover wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Finding credible scientific papers is easy!

Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com

You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject.

If you were hoping to find disinformation from pseudo journals such as Energy and Environment, conservative think tanks, etc., you will be disappointed.

If you want to find peer-reviewed scientific papers from credible journals, I think Google Scholar has about 50 thousand (literally) different journals to access.

By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have.

One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited.

This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question.

This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie.

The older a paper is, the more suspicious it might be that hardly anyone cited it.

Reproducibility is one of the requirements of the Scientific Method.

Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact?

In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question.

This can quickly guide you to the most recent papers on the subject of interest.

These papers can also be used to verify if the results of the original paper were reproducible or not.

Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science

sealover wrote: Some trolls will feel compelled to defecate all over it, but a rational discussion might still be possible.

sealover wrote:I thought I'd share my own paper, in the hope of eventually discussing the many implications for management of agroecosystems to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Some trolls will feel compelled to defecate all over it, but a rational discussion might still be possible.

Nope. There's only you blaming your intellectual cowardice on others. Whenever anyone tries to engage you in a science discussion, no excuse is too lame for you to use to flee to the hills.

sealover wrote:I thought I'd share my own paper, in the hope of eventually discussing the many implications for management of agroecosystems to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

You came here to preach your WACKY Climate Change religion, not to "discuss" anything, much less science. Let's verify.

I would honestly like to know what greenhouse gas is. Can you explain it to me? No human has thus far been able.

Once you teach me what this greenhouse gas is, I'd like to question your assumption that we should somehow minimize such "emissions."

Can you engage in a rational science discussion? It would be most welcome and value added.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote: Some trolls will feel compelled to defecate all over it, but a rational discussion might still be possible.

Nope. There's only you blaming your intellectual cowardice on others. Whenever anyone tries to engage you in a science discussion, no excuse is too lame for you to use to flee to the hills.

sealover wrote:I thought I'd share my own paper, in the hope of eventually discussing the many implications for management of agroecosystems to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

You came here to preach your WACKY Climate Change religion, not to "discuss" anything, much less science. Let's verify.

I would honestly like to know what greenhouse gas is. Can you explain it to me? No human has thus far been able.

Once you teach me what this greenhouse gas is, I'd like to question your assumption that we should somehow minimize such "emissions."

Can you engage in a rational science discussion? It would be most welcome and value added.

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

Trolls were never the target audience.

The amount of remedial education required to help you understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect...

You should have learned these things at least nine years ago, if you were capable of understanding them.

Yet, you felt compelled to post more often on my threads than I did.

The target audience would have been people who already understood what virtually ALL of the world's scientists have been saying about the global warming impact of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

They would have been wanting to learn more about what regulates these things in natural ecosystems.

Besides, you have been an obnoxious dick from the get go. Making false accusations since your very first response, and throwing in personal insults at every turn.

You don't have the aptitude to understand science at the level I wish to discuss it.

And I don't think your inexcusable behavior at this website should be rewarded in any way.

I suspect that most of the false accusations you made against me are actually true statements about yourself.

No, I don't think you are a Marxist puppet being controlled by evil entities who sent you here to.. whatever it was you claimed I was doing.

But you ARE scientifically illiterate, having never earned any degree in chemistry or any other field of science.

In fact, I'm pretty sure you never even passed one single lower division, undergraduate course in physics, chemistry, or anything else that would make you knowledgeable about climate change mitigation.

You just want to play stupid word games and throw insults.

You don't want to learn anything, and you don't have the aptitude even if you wanted to.

If you and the other scientifically illiterate trolls could stop cluttering EVERY thread with your useless crap, some of the 1690 members who gave up on the website might come back.

In less than a month, it will be two years since my first post - to which you were the first to respond with the bizarre BS that I would soon learn was all you had to offer.

During those two years, about 120 new members joined.

The fact that you felt compelled to attack them contributed greatly to the fact that NONE of them stuck around long.

Your contribution to the discussion might be characterized as "value removed" (since you love to say "value added")

I think you are basically a disgusting person and I have no interest in discussing "science" with someone such as yourself.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Unfortunately, this isn't a moderated site, nor is it a discussion site. The title should have tip you off, 'Climate-Debate'. Isn't the goal of debating, to win an argument? Debate is a 'sport', or 'game' some people play. It's not about being right or wrong, only winning. I prefer not to play the 'game', usually abandon threads, when the head in that direction. Discussion, at that point is no longer possible.

I do believe climate-change is a political scam, and has nothing to do with human activity. Mann's correlation is just clever application of math and statistical analysis of patchwork data. Correlation is not causation. In this case, it's coincidence, at best. With good marketing, you can sell even the worst, useless products...