Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Private Climate Policy > Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency? > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

03-08-2024 00:00
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	Maybe Mark is back today. I'll try to keep this relatively short. In the presence of oxygen, sulfides are oxidized by bacteria to sulfuric acid. In the absence of oxygen, sulfates can be used as oxidant by bacteria to exploit the energy from organic carbon. Drainage from mines typically has pH between 0 and 3, from the sulfuric acid generated by oxidation of sulfides in the presence of oxygen. For fifty years now, a very effective technique to neutralize acidity from acid mine drainage is to build a constructed wetland to capture the acidic water. By the time any of that water exits the wetland into groundwater or surface water, its pH has been raised to about 7 by bacteria reducing sulfate in the low oxygen conditions of wetland sediment. So, with oxygen around, sulfides (hydrogen sulfide, iron pyrite, etc.) get oxidized to sulfuric acid. In low oxygen sediments, with organic carbon around, sulfate gets reduced by bacteria to sulfide, and generates alkalinity (bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion). Iron is virtually always present in wetland sediments, so reduction of ferric iron occurs along with sulfate reduction, to produce solid iron pyrite If a pure culture of methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria were fed methane, they would generate alkalinity and hydrogen sulfide. The hydrogen sulfide would go up into to the air space as gas, and the alkalinity would remain as dissolved ions in the water. That water flushed out to the sea would be high in alkalinity. The hydrogen sulfide gas and any leftover methane in the air space above could be used to feed a different culture of bacteria. These would be allowed to have oxygen to oxidize the sulfide and the methane. They would generate sulfuric acid in the water, which could be drained to an inland lagoon, constructed wetland where the acid would be neutralized before any of the water flows back to the sea. The bacteria in both cases could be harvested as a protein-rich energy-rich product for multiple uses. The administrator doesn't seem too interested in having a moderated sub forum, so this website is probably just a lost cause at this point. sealover wrote: Hi Mark By next Saturday, I'll give a much more detailed response. Much of what I've posted is about managing wetlands to ensure that the submarine groundwater discharge they emit to the sea has plenty of alkalinity, in the form of bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions. However, there is a broader question of how to oxidize fossil fuel in a manner that produces alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide. The highest energy yield would be from coupling nitrate reduction to methane oxidation, as many bacteria can do. This would produce alkalinity. But nitrate isn't readily available at significant concentration for use as oxidant. A lower energy yield would be from use of abundant (sulfate) as oxidant. It might be done abiotically as a giant battery. Or we could use methane as FEED for sulfate reducing bacteria, who could get everything they need from sea water. Methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria could be cultured in mass amounts. Their "waste" product would neutralize acidity as it is flushed out to the sea. Their biomass could be used as livestock feed, or to generate biofuel via fermentation, and as fertilizer. markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: .... And markjfernandez obviously isn't coming back to post again at climate-debate.com .... I'm back! Had a lot of things going on, including the general election for electing politicians to government. Figuring out for whom to vote, was and is important for climate change. Took me a while to do the research, but in the end I managed to vote for a party with a fairly 'green' outlook. On the news recently, there was mention about the enormous carbon sink that peatlands are, and in the news report, it was featuring peatlands in Scotland. It appears peatlands are a form of wetland, so sealover's writings concerning how beneficial properly managing wetlands is, seems to apply to the Scottish peatlands mentioned. From what sealover says, it seems that if in our different industrial and other processes, we can emit bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions, that could perhaps be much better than emitting carbon dioxide? If they can be fed into the sea, they could then help tackle 'ocean acidification'? By switching away from emitting CO2, this would probably also help reduce atmospheric CO2? Could the bacteria that reduces sulfate and iron, perhaps be used somehow where fossil fuels are used/burned, to produce bicarbonate and/or carbonate ions instead of 'ocean acidifying' carbon dioxide? Nowadays I'm just skipping over the posts written by trolls... Will try to check back in again next Saturday.
10-08-2024 19:16
markjfernandes ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	sealover wrote: ... The administrator doesn't seem too interested in having a moderated sub forum, so this website is probably just a lost cause at this point. ... I'm open to another forum for such things, if you have any ideas? Don't mind even paying a small amount for any subscription fees.... Okay, I'm fairly convinced that you have approximately potentially a good solution for better handling fossil fuels, to reduce carbon emissions as well as to reduce "ocean acidification". What do we need to do to make these ideas more of a reality? One thought I've had, is that if we establish 'carbon taxes' for fossil-fuel companies, it will put pressure on them to research and develop any of the rough ideas you've suggested. It's not simply a case of developing the science and research, nor even of developing prototypes, perhaps. It's a case of how do we change the industries, so that the ideas are really substantially adopted. Another question: are there any entites out there, currently researching these ideas, or are these new ideas, that you (and your colleagues) are proposing, that haven't really properly received funding? Has a research paper been published on any of these ideas? From what you say about bacteria, they appear quite versatile, as though they would very likely be helpful. I'm not professionally involved in biochemistry, not really involved in anything much related to it. I just have an interest (from an ethical and moral standpoint) in trying to tackle climate change. I can roughly understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be someone directly involved in the scientific research and related matters. My father was actually an analytical chemist (and the present pope was actually also a professional chemist). I started studying chemistry during further education (16-18) but decided to switch from it in the end. In reading your posts, I'm struggling to recall the meaning of various scientific things you are mentioning. I'm actually involved in songwriting, and presently songwriting for tackling climate change. In one song, I mention seaweed deliberately as at the time I was writing the lyrics, I perceived that seaweed was somehow very good for the environment due to its negative carbon footprint. Sorry for not replying last week, but will try again to log-in next Saturday.
10-08-2024 20:30
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: ... The administrator doesn't seem too interested in having a moderated sub forum, so this website is probably just a lost cause at this point. ... I'm open to another forum for such things, if you have any ideas? Don't mind even paying a small amount for any subscription fees.... Okay, I'm fairly convinced that you have approximately potentially a good solution for better handling fossil fuels, to reduce carbon emissions as well as to reduce "ocean acidification". What do we need to do to make these ideas more of a reality? One thought I've had, is that if we establish 'carbon taxes' for fossil-fuel companies, it will put pressure on them to research and develop any of the rough ideas you've suggested. It's not simply a case of developing the science and research, nor even of developing prototypes, perhaps. It's a case of how do we change the industries, so that the ideas are really substantially adopted. Another question: are there any entites out there, currently researching these ideas, or are these new ideas, that you (and your colleagues) are proposing, that haven't really properly received funding? Has a research paper been published on any of these ideas? From what you say about bacteria, they appear quite versatile, as though they would very likely be helpful. I'm not professionally involved in biochemistry, not really involved in anything much related to it. I just have an interest (from an ethical and moral standpoint) in trying to tackle climate change. I can roughly understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be someone directly involved in the scientific research and related matters. My father was actually an analytical chemist (and the present pope was actually also a professional chemist). I started studying chemistry during further education (16-18) but decided to switch from it in the end. In reading your posts, I'm struggling to recall the meaning of various scientific things you are mentioning. I'm actually involved in songwriting, and presently songwriting for tackling climate change. In one song, I mention seaweed deliberately as at the time I was writing the lyrics, I perceived that seaweed was somehow very good for the environment due to its negative carbon footprint. Sorry for not replying last week, but will try again to log-in next Saturday. Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. I will come back with a longer list of websites where you can learn about it. Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org So, like the other sites whose addresses I do no have memorized, oainfoexchange.org is a place where scientists communicate with each other about it. I was attracted to climate-debate.com initially because it showed up high on the list of search engine results for such a discussion site, and it was NOT just for scientists. Unfortunately, it is not a website for scientists at all. It is attractive to ANTI scientists, but even they can't get along without insults.
11-08-2024 04:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826)	sealover wrote: I was attracted to climate-debate.com initially because it showed up high on the list of search engine results for such a discussion site, and it was NOT just for scientists. It is attractive to ANTI scientists, ... ... and you were looking for a place to preach your science denial. sealover wrote: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org Aaaahhhh, the fear-panic-hype of the ocean acidification science denial calls out to you, and appeals to you in such a way that it overrides any pursuit of science in which you might engage. Why won't you explain why rational adults should believe that the ocean's alkalinity is somehow being depleted? Why do you use the term "ocean acidification" when you know that isn't happening?
13-08-2024 22:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	sealover wrote: Maybe Mark is back today. I'll try to keep this relatively short. You failed. sealover wrote: In the presence of oxygen, sulfides are oxidized by bacteria to sulfuric acid. Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: In the absence of oxygen, sulfates can be used as oxidant by bacteria to exploit the energy from organic carbon. Sulfates are not a chemical nor oxygen. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Drainage from mines typically has pH between 0 and 3, from the sulfuric acid generated by oxidation of sulfides in the presence of oxygen. Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: For fifty years now, a very effective technique to neutralize acidity from acid mine drainage is to build a constructed wetland to capture the acidic water. Capturing an acid does not neutralize it. sealover wrote: By the time any of that water exits the wetland into groundwater or surface water, its pH has been raised to about 7 by bacteria reducing sulfate in the low oxygen conditions of wetland sediment. Sulfate is not a chemical nor a pH. sealover wrote: So, with oxygen around, sulfides (hydrogen sulfide, iron pyrite, etc.) get oxidized to sulfuric acid. [/quote] Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: In low oxygen sediments, with organic carbon around, sulfate gets reduced by bacteria to sulfide, and generates alkalinity (bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion). Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfide is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a substance. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: Iron is virtually always present in wetland sediments, so reduction of ferric iron occurs along with sulfate reduction, to produce solid iron pyrite Sulfate is not a chemical. sealover wrote: If a pure culture of methane oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria were fed methane, they would generate alkalinity and hydrogen sulfide. Sulfate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a substance. sealover wrote: The hydrogen sulfide would go up into to the air space as gas, and the alkalinity would remain as dissolved ions in the water. That water flushed out to the sea would be high in alkalinity. Alkalinity is not a substance nor an ion. sealover wrote: The hydrogen sulfide gas and any leftover methane in the air space above could be used to feed a different culture of bacteria. Meh. You don't need bacteria for chemical reactions to occur. sealover wrote: These would be allowed to have oxygen to oxidize the sulfide and the methane. Sulfide is not a chemical. sealover wrote: The bacteria in both cases could be harvested as a protein-rich energy-rich product for multiple uses. Why? There are much cheaper forms of energy available. For example, carbon, plant material (which contain various carbohydrates), hydrocarbon constructs such as gasoline, kerosene, butane, or methane. sealover wrote: The administrator doesn't seem too interested in having a moderated sub forum, so this website is probably just a lost cause at this point. Whining about the website doesn't accomplish anything. You DO seem to be unable to avoid posting here, despite you calling the forum a "lost cause". 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
13-08-2024 22:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	markjfernandes wrote: I'm open to another forum for such things, if you have any ideas? Don't mind even paying a small amount for any subscription fees.... Okay, I'm fairly convinced that you have approximately potentially a good solution for better handling fossil fuels, to reduce carbon emissions as well as to reduce "ocean acidification". Fossils aren't use as fuel. Fossils don't burn. There is no such thing as "fossil fuel". Carbon is a fuel. You cannot acidify an alkaline. markjfernandes wrote: What do we need to do to make these ideas more of a reality? One thought I've had, is that if we establish 'carbon taxes' for fossil-fuel companies, There are no fossil fuel companies. No such tax is possible. markjfernandes wrote: it will put pressure on them to research and develop any of the rough ideas you've suggested. It's not simply a case of developing the science and research, Science is not a 'research' or 'study'. markjfernandes wrote: nor even of developing prototypes, perhaps. It's a case of how do we change the industries, so that the ideas are really substantially adopted. There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel industry'. Fossils don't burn. markjfernandes wrote: Another question: are there any entites out there, currently researching these ideas, or are these new ideas, that you (and your colleagues) are proposing, that haven't really properly received funding? Has a research paper been published on any of these ideas? The federal government has plenty of money to fund all kinds of wacky research programs. They just print it. markjfernandes wrote: From what you say about bacteria, they appear quite versatile, as though they would very likely be helpful. You can't live without bacteria. They allow you to digest food. markjfernandes wrote: I'm not professionally involved in biochemistry, not really involved in anything much related to it. I just have an interest (from an ethical and moral standpoint) in trying to tackle climate change. I can roughly understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be someone directly involved in the scientific research and related matters. My father was actually an analytical chemist (and the present pope was actually also a professional chemist). I started studying chemistry during further education (16-18) but decided to switch from it in the end. In reading your posts, I'm struggling to recall the meaning of various scientific things you are mentioning. He isn't mentioning any science or chemistry. Neither are you. markjfernandes wrote: I'm actually involved in songwriting, and presently songwriting for tackling climate change. Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: In one song, I mention seaweed deliberately as at the time I was writing the lyrics, I perceived that seaweed was somehow very good for the environment due to its negative carbon footprint. WTF is 'negative carbon'??????!? What shoe size does it wear? 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
13-08-2024 23:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	sealover wrote: Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. Well...fiction anyway. sealover wrote: I will come back with a longer list of websites where you can learn about it. Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: So, like the other sites whose addresses I do no have memorized, oainfoexchange.org is a place where scientists communicate with each other about it. Denying science is scientists. sealover wrote: I was attracted to climate-debate.com initially because it showed up high on the list of search engine results for such a discussion site, and it was NOT just for scientists. Obviously. You are here. Fortunately, there ARE a couple of scientists here. IBDaMann and myself. sealover wrote: Unfortunately, it is not a website for scientists at all. Nothing prevents a scientist from posting here. sealover wrote: It is attractive to ANTI scientists, but even they can't get along without insults. As in your example. 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
17-08-2024 19:33
markjfernandes ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	sealover wrote: ... Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. .... Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org ... Thanks for sending this resource link to me. Firstly, I think we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification, as well as also about how the same can perhaps also be used for the provision of more sustainable energy sources (by not producing so much CO2 as a byproduct), to ANOTHER forum. This forum is for how seaweed can be helpful for climate change (and perhaps slightly more broadly how both macro and micro algae, or maybe even more broadly how 'phyto marine life', can be helpful). So please suggest a new forum for continuing with this discussion. Had a look at the link, and it didn't seem very easy to find information on the uses of bacteria you describe. I'm looking for a research paper or newspaper/magazine article to read. I'm not a professional scientist, and I don't think it's particularly helpful (for climate change), for me to learn about the science in huge detail. Perhaps you could tell me which are the relevant projects @ https://community.oceanvisions.org/projects . I'm looking for how I can personally help tackle climate change, as a non-scientist. As a songwriter, I'm not sure how elegant it would be to include lyrics about helpful bacteria in a song, but could be something to try. Otherwise, if I can help in other ways, I'm interested in those other ways too. Thanks.
17-08-2024 22:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: ... Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. .... Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org ... Thanks for sending this resource link to me. Firstly, I think we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification, You cannot acidify an alkaline. markjfernandes wrote: as well as also about how the same can perhaps also be used for the provision of more sustainable energy sources Bacteria is not a power plant. markjfernandes wrote: (by not producing so much CO2 as a byproduct), No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. markjfernandes wrote: to ANOTHER forum. Running away like a coward will change nothing. markjfernandes wrote: This forum is for how seaweed can be helpful for climate change Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: (and perhaps slightly more broadly how both macro and micro algae, or maybe even more broadly how 'phyto marine life', can be helpful). Helpful for what? Climate cannot change. No bacteria, algae, or seaweed can make it change. markjfernandes wrote: So please suggest a new forum for continuing with this discussion. Running away like a coward won't work. markjfernandes wrote: Had a look at the link, and it didn't seem very easy to find information on the uses of bacteria you describe. I'm looking for a research paper or newspaper/magazine article to read. I'm not a professional scientist, Obvious. Neither is he. Both of you deny science, mathematics, logic, and the English language. markjfernandes wrote: and I don't think it's particularly helpful (for climate change), Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: for me to learn about the science in huge detail. You are not discussing any theory of science. You are denying them. markjfernandes wrote: Perhaps you could tell me which are the relevant projects @ https://community.oceanvisions.org/projects . I'm looking for how I can personally help tackle climate change, Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: as a non-scientist. Obvious. markjfernandes wrote: As a songwriter, I'm not sure how elegant it would be to include lyrics about helpful bacteria in a song, but could be something to try. Otherwise, if I can help in other ways, I'm interested in those other ways too. A song about bacteria? An interesting subject for a song! Let me know what you come up with! 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
18-08-2024 18:27
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: ... Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. .... Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org ... Thanks for sending this resource link to me. Firstly, I think we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification, as well as also about how the same can perhaps also be used for the provision of more sustainable energy sources (by not producing so much CO2 as a byproduct), to ANOTHER forum. This forum is for how seaweed can be helpful for climate change (and perhaps slightly more broadly how both macro and micro algae, or maybe even more broadly how 'phyto marine life', can be helpful). So please suggest a new forum for continuing with this discussion. Had a look at the link, and it didn't seem very easy to find information on the uses of bacteria you describe. I'm looking for a research paper or newspaper/magazine article to read. I'm not a professional scientist, and I don't think it's particularly helpful (for climate change), for me to learn about the science in huge detail. Perhaps you could tell me which are the relevant projects @ https://community.oceanvisions.org/projects . I'm looking for how I can personally help tackle climate change, as a non-scientist. As a songwriter, I'm not sure how elegant it would be to include lyrics about helpful bacteria in a song, but could be something to try. Otherwise, if I can help in other ways, I'm interested in those other ways too. Thanks. Hello again, Mark I am sending you a PM with my e mail address. To post info here, I have to type it all in. I never learned how to attach files here, and I didn't want to encourage anyone else to take the risk of opening attached files on a website such as this. By e mail, I could send you files with bibliographies. On the other hand, as an artist and songwriter, there are other files I could share with you that might be more inspiring than lists of peer reviewed scientific papers. If you were willing to go into the "sealover" posts on this website you could find such things as well. In any case, I'd rather communicate by e mail in which I can more easily attach files with relevant information.
19-08-2024 00:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826)	sealover wrote: Hello again, Mark I am sending you a PM with my e mail address. To post info here, I have to type it all in. I never learned how to attach files here, and I didn't want to encourage anyone else to take the risk of opening attached files on a website such as this. By e mail, I could send you files with bibliographies. On the other hand, as an artist and songwriter, there are other files I could share with you that might be more inspiring than lists of peer reviewed scientific papers. If you were willing to go into the "sealover" posts on this website you could find such things as well. In any case, I'd rather communicate by e mail in which I can more easily attach files with relevant information. What about your censorship zone? Certainly Branner is going to give you your own kiddie pool, yes?
19-08-2024 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	sealover wrote: Hello again, Mark I am sending you a PM with my e mail address. To post info here, I have to type it all in. Did you know you have to type email too? sealover wrote: I never learned how to attach files here, I guess the word "Attachment" below eludes you. sealover wrote: and I didn't want to encourage anyone else to take the risk of opening attached files on a website such as this. What risk? sealover wrote: By e mail, I could send you files with bibliographies. Well...made up "bibliographies" anyway... sealover wrote: On the other hand, as an artist and songwriter, there are other files I could share with you that might be more inspiring than lists of peer reviewed scientific papers. Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus. Science has no voting bloc. sealover wrote: If you were willing to go into the "sealover" posts on this website you could find such things as well. Nope. Not science. sealover wrote: In any case, I'd rather communicate by e mail in which I can more easily attach files with relevant information. Still can't figure out how to use a website. Sad. Too bad you never learned how to run simple software. Are you sure you can handle e-mail? 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
19-08-2024 19:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: Hello again, Mark I am sending you a PM with my e mail address. To post info here, I have to type it all in. I never learned how to attach files here, and I didn't want to encourage anyone else to take the risk of opening attached files on a website such as this. By e mail, I could send you files with bibliographies. On the other hand, as an artist and songwriter, there are other files I could share with you that might be more inspiring than lists of peer reviewed scientific papers. If you were willing to go into the "sealover" posts on this website you could find such things as well. In any case, I'd rather communicate by e mail in which I can more easily attach files with relevant information. What about your censorship zone? Certainly Branner is going to give you your own kiddie pool, yes? Apparently not. Meh. I suppose Sealover and his socks are going to stay here in public. He'll get tired of posting emails 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
19-08-2024 22:45
gfm7175★★★★★ (3322)	hahahahahaha so now sealover has resorted to talking to himself?!?!?!?!? hahahahahahaha HILARIOUS!!!
04-09-2024 17:34
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1067)	gfm7175 wrote: hahahahahaha so now sealover has resorted to talking to himself?!?!?!?!? hahahahahahaha HILARIOUS!!! Chuckle... chuckle... Giggle... giggle.. laugh.. laugh... hahahahahahah Ha Ha Ha Cackle! Bwah ha ha ha! But I don't think we will be hearing from Mark again. If we do, he will be the ONLY one among the 132 members who joined after I did to continue posting.
04-09-2024 19:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	Im a BM wrote: gfm7175 wrote: hahahahahaha so now sealover has resorted to talking to himself?!?!?!?!? hahahahahahaha HILARIOUS!!! Chuckle... chuckle... Giggle... giggle.. laugh.. laugh... hahahahahahah Ha Ha Ha Cackle! Bwah ha ha ha! But I don't think we will be hearing from Mark again. If we do, he will be the ONLY one among the 132 members who joined after I did to continue posting. So you've retired your 'Mark' sock, 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
04-09-2024 21:46
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: gfm7175 wrote: hahahahahaha so now sealover has resorted to talking to himself?!?!?!?!? hahahahahahaha HILARIOUS!!! Chuckle... chuckle... Giggle... giggle.. laugh.. laugh... hahahahahahah Ha Ha Ha Cackle! Bwah ha ha ha! But I don't think we will be hearing from Mark again. If we do, he will be the ONLY one among the 132 members who joined after I did to continue posting. So you've retired your 'Mark' sock, Robert? markjfernandes started this thread in good faith. He wasn't looking for an insult fest, I don't think. But let's pretend for a moment that he is really a "sock" of another site member. Not an actual new member. This would mean that the trolls have a PERFECT record of driving away new members. Unless Mark is real and decides to post something again, the trolls have successfully driven away EVERY new member who joined in the two an a half years since my first post. 132 new members signed up during that time. Presumably, at least SOME of them would have wanted to stick around and actively participate, if this website offered an attractive place to communicate. But unless Mark is real and reappears, the trolls are batting 1000.
04-09-2024 22:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (22393)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: gfm7175 wrote: hahahahahaha so now sealover has resorted to talking to himself?!?!?!?!? hahahahahahaha HILARIOUS!!! Chuckle... chuckle... Giggle... giggle.. laugh.. laugh... hahahahahahah Ha Ha Ha Cackle! Bwah ha ha ha! But I don't think we will be hearing from Mark again. If we do, he will be the ONLY one among the 132 members who joined after I did to continue posting. So you've retired your 'Mark' sock, Robert? markjfernandes started this thread in good faith. Creating another sock is not good faith, Robert. It's lying. sealover wrote: But let's pretend for a moment that he is really a "sock" of another site member. Don't try to deny it, Robert. It's your sock. 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 04-09-2024 22:51
07-09-2024 22:10
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	It has been a few Saturdays now since we heard from you, Mark. Your authenticity as a real human being has been challenged. I got no reply to my PM, so I assume you haven't been back. I quite agree that "...we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification." There is a broad range of things included: 1. STOP altering the hydrology of natural coastal wetlands, because we need the bacteria in the sediment to do all they can to tackle ocean acidification. When drained for agriculture, they form acid sulfate soils and put sulfuric acid, rather than alkalinity, into the sea. 2. RESTORE natural hydrology to disturbed coastal wetlands, because we need the bacteria in the sediment to do their thing and generate alkalinity in the submarine groundwater that they discharge into the sea. 3. EXPAND THE RANGE of coastal wetlands through engineering, because we need even more of those bacteria to put alkalinity into the submarine groundwater discharge. 4. EXPLOIT THE BURIED ORGANIC CARBON in coastal wetlands, particularly where they have already been submerged by rising sea level. All we have to do is pump some sea water down into the deep sediments, and bacteria will do the rest with the available resources. This would create alkalinity-rich submarine groundwater discharge from places that have ceased to produce any because they are now below sea level. As far as "bang for the buck" goes, this would add the MOST alkalinity to the sea with the LEAST investment. Imagine off the coast of Indonesia a wind mill over the sea. Instead of generating electricity, it just pumps sea water down a well into the buried sediment of submerged former wetlands. 5. CULTIVATE THE BACTERIA that can generate alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide. Their "waste" product can benefit the sea while their biomass can provide protein, energy, and fertilizer. But, as I told you in the PM, this website is the wrong place for you and I to continue the discussion. This post, for example, will soon be buried in ugly troll feces, and few would know to dig through and find it. But you could still post here again as proof of life. If you do not post again, or if you are really just a fabrication of a pre-existing site member, it will mean that EVERY ONE of the 132 members who joined after I first posted have given up on the website. But if you are real and you reappear, it will mean that the trolls are battling ever so slightly LESS than 1000 in their successful campaign to drive away all new members. markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: ... Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. .... Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org ... Thanks for sending this resource link to me. Firstly, I think we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification, as well as also about how the same can perhaps also be used for the provision of more sustainable energy sources (by not producing so much CO2 as a byproduct), to ANOTHER forum. This forum is for how seaweed can be helpful for climate change (and perhaps slightly more broadly how both macro and micro algae, or maybe even more broadly how 'phyto marine life', can be helpful). So please suggest a new forum for continuing with this discussion. Had a look at the link, and it didn't seem very easy to find information on the uses of bacteria you describe. I'm looking for a research paper or newspaper/magazine article to read. I'm not a professional scientist, and I don't think it's particularly helpful (for climate change), for me to learn about the science in huge detail. Perhaps you could tell me which are the relevant projects @ https://community.oceanvisions.org/projects . I'm looking for how I can personally help tackle climate change, as a non-scientist. As a songwriter, I'm not sure how elegant it would be to include lyrics about helpful bacteria in a song, but could be something to try. Otherwise, if I can help in other ways, I'm interested in those other ways too. Thanks.
08-09-2024 00:09
markjfernandes ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	sealover wrote: It has been a few Saturdays now since we heard from you, Mark. Your authenticity as a real human being has been challenged. I am real, at least I think I am. I don't how people prove they are real in these contexts. If you could point out something that I could do to prove that I'm real, then maybe I could show you that. I don't use a pseudonym (Mark Fernandes is my real name) because even though there are negatives to using your real name, there are also positives, and I believe those positives make it worthwhile using your real name. I've posted some videos with me as presenter and sometimes singer, to YouTube, but I can see how that doesn't necessarily prove you are who you claim to be. I got no reply to my PM, so I assume you haven't been back. Just replied now. Didn't reply earlier, because I instead sent an email to you (I think on Tuesday). I explain in the PM. .... There is a broad range of things included: ... I understood these things listed, probably because you've been mostly labouring to explain the concepts behind them. Interestingly, I was thinking that I'm sort of a scientist by training. I received a BEng (engineering) degree but that was because I didn't give a decision on whether I wanted a BSc (science) degree instead: I was too busy with other things and missed the deadline, but I felt more aligned to the science modules and science, never really liked engineering much, but now later in life, I've come to appreciate the discipline of engineering (more mature now). Anyway, as we both agree, we ought to continue the discussion elsewhere. ... But if you are real and you reappear, it will mean that the trolls are battling ever so slightly LESS than 1000 in their successful campaign to drive away all new members. .... lol I think I am slightly different to other posters who want to tackle climate change, in that I do it out of a sense of continuing moral obligation, and not for enjoyment so much. Because of this, I'll likely carry on posting to climate-debate.com . I don't know of another forum for such discussion, so this is my only option at the moment for such.
08-09-2024 00:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1731)	markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: It has been a few Saturdays now since we heard from you, Mark. Your authenticity as a real human being has been challenged. I am real, at least I think I am. I don't how people prove they are real in these contexts. If you could point out something that I could do to prove that I'm real, then maybe I could show you that. I don't use a pseudonym (Mark Fernandes is my real name) because even though there are negatives to using your real name, there are also positives, and I believe those positives make it worthwhile using your real name. I've posted some videos with me as presenter and sometimes singer, to YouTube, but I can see how that doesn't necessarily prove you are who you claim to be. I got no reply to my PM, so I assume you haven't been back. Just replied now. Didn't reply earlier, because I instead sent an email to you (I think on Tuesday). I explain in the PM. .... There is a broad range of things included: ... I understood these things listed, probably because you've been mostly labouring to explain the concepts behind them. Interestingly, I was thinking that I'm sort of a scientist by training. I received a BEng (engineering) degree but that was because I didn't give a decision on whether I wanted a BSc (science) degree instead: I was too busy with other things and missed the deadline, but I felt more aligned to the science modules and science, never really liked engineering much, but now later in life, I've come to appreciate the discipline of engineering (more mature now). Anyway, as we both agree, we ought to continue the discussion elsewhere. ... But if you are real and you reappear, it will mean that the trolls are battling ever so slightly LESS than 1000 in their successful campaign to drive away all new members. .... lol I think I am slightly different to other posters who want to tackle climate change, in that I do it out of a sense of continuing moral obligation, and not for enjoyment so much. Because of this, I'll likely carry on posting to climate-debate.com . I don't know of another forum for such discussion, so this is my only option at the moment for such. I believe you are real, but I can't PROVE it. Thank you for alerting me to check my email's overzealous spam blocker. I might have never seen your message. If you continue to post at climate-debate.com, you will find at least one sincere individual interested in discussing how to address serious problems.
08-09-2024 01:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14826)	sealover wrote:If you continue to post at climate-debate.com, you will find at least one sincere individual interested in discussing how to address serious problems. Well, in addition to GasGuzzler, I'm here as well. So, at least two.
08-09-2024 05:18
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3031)	sealover wrote: Thank you for alerting me to check my email's overzealous spam blocker. Your spam blocker works perfectly. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
08-09-2024 05:54
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1067)	GasGuzzler wrote: sealover wrote: Thank you for alerting me to check my email's overzealous spam blocker. Your spam blocker works perfectly. You made the cut! You have been vouched for as a "sincere individual interested in discussing how to address serious problems". AWESOME! I wonder why Into the Night didn't make it on the cool kids list I know! because he is NOT sincere at all.
09-09-2024 11:20
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1067)	When did you figure out that you had been duped into talking to a "sock"? Into the Night wrote: markjfernandes wrote: sealover wrote: ... Hi Mark! Yes, there is a lot of research already published about these things. .... Here is a good one to start with: Ocean Acidification Information Exchange oainfoexchange.org ... Thanks for sending this resource link to me. Firstly, I think we MUST continue any discussion on how the use of bacteria can be used to tackle ocean acidification, You cannot acidify an alkaline. markjfernandes wrote: as well as also about how the same can perhaps also be used for the provision of more sustainable energy sources Bacteria is not a power plant. markjfernandes wrote: (by not producing so much CO2 as a byproduct), No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. markjfernandes wrote: to ANOTHER forum. Running away like a coward will change nothing. markjfernandes wrote: This forum is for how seaweed can be helpful for climate change Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: (and perhaps slightly more broadly how both macro and micro algae, or maybe even more broadly how 'phyto marine life', can be helpful). Helpful for what? Climate cannot change. No bacteria, algae, or seaweed can make it change. markjfernandes wrote: So please suggest a new forum for continuing with this discussion. Running away like a coward won't work. markjfernandes wrote: Had a look at the link, and it didn't seem very easy to find information on the uses of bacteria you describe. I'm looking for a research paper or newspaper/magazine article to read. I'm not a professional scientist, Obvious. Neither is he. Both of you deny science, mathematics, logic, and the English language. markjfernandes wrote: and I don't think it's particularly helpful (for climate change), Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: for me to learn about the science in huge detail. You are not discussing any theory of science. You are denying them. markjfernandes wrote: Perhaps you could tell me which are the relevant projects @ https://community.oceanvisions.org/projects . I'm looking for how I can personally help tackle climate change, Climate cannot change. markjfernandes wrote: as a non-scientist. Obvious. markjfernandes wrote: As a songwriter, I'm not sure how elegant it would be to include lyrics about helpful bacteria in a song, but could be something to try. Otherwise, if I can help in other ways, I'm interested in those other ways too. A song about bacteria? An interesting subject for a song! Let me know what you come up with!

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate Is promoting the use of seaweed worthwhile for tackling the climate-change emergency?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is	0	01-09-2022 13:50
Pizza Hut facing boycott calls after promoting 'drag kids' book for kindergartners	15	08-06-2022 13:29
Reasons Why Promoting Using NCOV COVID Vaccine Is Going Against The Unseen Divine Law This Timeline	0	25-07-2021 16:03
Bernie To Use Executive Fiat To Declare Climate Emergency, Ban Fracking, More	5	01-02-2020 01:04
Global CO2 Emergency Plan (GCEP) needed asap	7	26-01-2020 23:47