| 12-07-2026 23:21 | |
| Into the Night (24265) |
Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not a fungi. Tannin is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Fungus is not a plant. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Carbon is not a cycle. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Fungus is not a plant. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Nitrogen is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide. Oxygen is not bacteria. Nitrate is not a chemical. A greenhouse is not a gas. Nitrous oxide is not a greenhouse. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: There is no such thing as 'tannin biogeochemistry'. Tannins is not a chemical. Polyphenols is not a chemical. Tannin is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Vanity. Science is not a paper. Science is not a cite. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Nitrogen is not a fertilzer. Carbon is not a pool. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Carbon is not a storage. Nitrogen is not a fertilizer. Tannin is not a chemical. 'bionmass' is not a word. 'necromass' is not a word. Forest is not tundra. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Quoting other idiots that follow your idiocy and buzzword is just you being vain again. 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 |
| 12-07-2026 23:52 | |
| Into the Night (24265) |
Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Science is not a paper. Science is not a cite. Science is not an award. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: There is no such thing as 'organic matter stabilization'. Dirt is not an acid. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Science is not a journal. Science is not prestige. Science is not a paper. Dirt is not an acid. Conifer phenolic is not a chemical. Acid is not a gradient. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as a 'biogeochemist'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: The Earth is not a nutrient cycle. Nitrogen is not a rock. Phosphorus is not derived. Nitrogen is not derived. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: There is no such thing as a 'biogeochemist'. Nitrogen is not a rock. Nitrogen is not a river. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Nitrogen is not a rock. You don't get to speak for the dead. Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a flux. Nitrogen is not a vehicle. You cannot analyze what does not exist. Persulfate is not a chemical. Conductimetric is not a word. NO3-N is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Alkaline persulfate is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: You deny science. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Nitrogen is not a river. Amino is not a chemical. Science is not the EPA or any other government agency. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a rock. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrite is not a chemical. NOx is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Science is not an award. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Sequestration is just a buzzword. Science is not funding. So you want to live on welfare. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote 'ecosystem' is not a word. 'carbon sequestration' is a buzzword. Dirt is not nitrous oxide. Tannin is not a chemical. Polyphenol is not a chemical. ecology is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemical'. Carbon is not 'regulated'. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Tannin is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a rock. Carbon is not organic. Fungus is not a plant. Tannins is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not nitrous oxide. Nitrate is not a chemical. Photosynthate is not a chemical. Carbon is not 'sequestered'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Tannins is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Nitrifying is not a word. Tannin is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a 'leaching loss'. Nitrogen is not a 'release'. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Tannins is not a chemical. Sand is not an acid. A forest is not a desert. Tannin is not a chemical. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Tannins is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. Tannin is not a chemical. Carbon is not sequestered. Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote: Polyphenol is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Carbon is not sequestered. Carbon is not nitrous oxide. Tannin is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a rock. Nitrogen is not organic. NItrogen is not dirt. 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 |
| 13-07-2026 06:02 | |
| IBdaMann (15332) |
Im a BM wrote: According to some new theories, the mass extinction 252 million years ago was initially triggered by Siberian vulcanism, but went on to wipe out life on a much larger scale because rainforests were lost as a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide. This sounds like am interesting sci-fi storyline. In which galaxy were you thinking? Im a BM wrote: I think it was fifteen years ago when I first read about the quantities of [plant food] emitted to the atmosphere from the disturbed peatlands of Southeast Asia. ... and ...? Im a BM wrote: An undisturbed peatland is a "sink" for carbon dioxide My front lawn is a sink for CO2. Im a BM wrote: Some estimates fifteen years ago suggested that CO2 emissions from the Southeast Asian peatlands being drained for agriculture ALREADY exceeded CO2 emissions from all human use of fossil fuel. What use do humans have for fuel used by fossils? ... or are you talking about the fossils we burn for fuel? How were the CO2 "emissions" calculated? Your religion is stupid. Im a BM wrote: The point is that our fossil fuel emissions are becoming a minority part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The point is that there is no such thing as antithoroughlygenetic CO2 emissions. Your religion is stupid. Im a BM wrote: The quantity of CO2 emitted directly from burning fuel is now exceeded by the quantity of CO2 emitted due to OTHER human activities, such as deforestation and drainage of wetlands for agriculture. ... and you wonder why your religion is dead. Im a BM wrote: Climate change itself, Which climate? No climate of which I am aware has changed one iota over my lifetime. What the F are you talking about? Im a BM wrote: due primarily to increased [abundance of plant food] Im a BM wrote: Full Focus on Fossil Fuel Fails What are fossil fuels? You still haven't stated whether you are talking about fossils that are burned as fuel or fuels burned by fossils. Im a BM wrote: If the only approach employed by humans to address climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, it is doomed to fail. Let's see, *there are no fossil fuels *there is no Climate Change *there is no problem to solve *there is nothing that can somehow fail Im a BM wrote: First, it will fail because it will never happen. Im a BM wrote:Second, it will fail because even if it happens, it won't be enough. The word "it" is so very meaningful. Im a BM wrote:There are too many other new sources of greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere. Are you talking about the amazing greenhouse gas with miraculous superpowers to defy thermodynamics that I've heard so much about? Your religion practically revolves around this stuff. Your greenhouse effect miracle is one of the greatest miracles of the world of religion; it defies even the otherwise indominable Stefan-Boltzmann law. Im a BM wrote: Climate change itself is causing the Earth to increase its natural emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. How are we affecting the natural emissions on Mars and Saturn? Im a BM wrote: The warming of the tundra. That's called the "onset of summer". Im a BM wrote: The increased frequency and severity of wildfires. That's called California's "deliberate mismanagement". Im a BM wrote: The decreased capacity of coral reefs to act as a carbon "sink". There's no decreased capacity there, not that there somehow needs to be. The coral reefs are still fine; they haven't perished. Im a BM wrote: Human activity other than fossil fuel combustion results in carbon dioxide emissions that rival those from fossil fuel. Your religion is stupid. Im a BM wrote: Poor land management provoking loss of soil organic matter to be released as carbon dioxide. How is organic matter "released"? Does someone let it fall out of his hands? How does the released organic matter become converted to CO2? Your religion is stupid. Im a BM wrote: The list goes on of all the things we do beyond fossil fuel to cause more greenhouse gases to warm the planet. Who is "we"? How far beyond the fuel used by fossils does something need to be to count? Im a BM wrote: So, the only real hope is to somehow significantly increase the amount of carbon dioxide that gets sequestered from the atmosphere. Explain to me again why any rational adult would wish to do this. Im a BM wrote: Some are inventing technological devices to try to do this. ... and I was worried that this would be attempted with devices that weren't technological. Im a BM wrote: Others are attempting to enable natural ecosystems to sequester more carbon dioxide. One can only hope that any attempt to enable natural ecosystems will be based on technological devices. Im a BM wrote: In theory, if we provided enough bioavailable iron to the sea, it would act as fertilizer for a whole lot more marine photosynthesis to sequester CO2. In theory, as long as we simply care enough, that is all that should matter. If we destroy the planet or save it, at least we tried, right? Im a BM wrote:Natural ecosystems are often very good at sequestering carbon dioxide. My front lawn is very good at sequestering carbon dioxide. |
| 13-07-2026 21:24 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3736) |
sealover wrote: Stop spamming. |
| 14-07-2026 03:28 | |
| Into the Night (24265) |
Stop spamming. Stop talking to yourself. |
| 18-07-2026 00:37 | |
| sealover★★★★★ (2130) |
July 17, 2026 Newest paper to cite sealover's dissolved organic nitrogen assay method, came out three weeks ago. Xiao Wei, et al. 2026. Adaptive microbial life-history strategies mediate soil nitrogen cycling across cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Volume 411, 1 November 2026, 110608 I need to read it, as well as the newest paper by Fubara et al (2026) to have more to say about how it is relevant to the thread topic. This brand new paper deserves more attention after I get a chance to read it. This came out 7 days ago, on the 4th of July, 2026. Maybe it was "magic". B.A. Fubara, et al. 2026. A review on bioactive compounds mitigating climate change. Discover Chemistry(2026) 3:385 It cites my 1995 paper in Nature. "condensed tannins reduce enteric methane by 15-30% and soil N2O by 30-70%" That is just from one sentence of the abstract. Tannins reduce cow gas (CH4) and soil N2O emissions. This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic. I'm sure the two remaining trolls at climate-debate.com will shit all over it. |
| 18-07-2026 07:03 | |
| Into the Night (24265) |
sealover wrote: Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'bioactive compounds'. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Tannin is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'enteric methane'. sealover wrote: Tannin is not a chemical. Cows are not gaseous. Cows are not methane. sealover wrote: No problem. Happy to do so. Science is not a paper. Science is not a cow. Science is not made up 'chemicals'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-08-2026 19:22 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3736) |
August 3, 2026 update Thread-topic-relevant papers that cite "sealover" pubs. Came out 13 days ago: JA Ceja-Navarro, et al. 2026. Ecosystems retrogression enhances cross-domain microbial stability and increases the genetic potential for nutrient cycling. mLife 2026 doi.org/10.1002/mlf2.70087 This paper actually did research on the Ecological Staircase and pygmy forest, which Hans Jenny loved and encouraged me to investigate. Big picture: Ecosystems with sufficient water and soil nutrient availability form "mull" type humus that readily decomposes and gets incorporated into the mineral soil by burrowing organisms. Ecosystems with sufficient water but low soil nutrient availability form "mor" type humus, with unincorporated litter accumulating on the soil surface and distinct stratification of separate soil layers. This new paper gets into the "cross-domain" (fungi versus bacteria in different KINGDOMS of living things) phenomenon observed. Nutrient poor soils are dominated by fungi rather than bacteria, with mycorrhizal fungi accounting for most of the fungal biomass. Nutrient rich soils are dominated by bacteria with rapid turnover of nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. via bacterial decomposition. Came out 17 days ago: SO Afriyie. 2026. Influence of elevated carbon dioxide (eCO2) on microbial communities linked to carbon cycling in mangrove sediments. It's too soon for me to get the actual paper to find out why they cited me. But notice that word "mangrove" up in there. Just BEGGING to be ridiculed! Go for it, you scientifically-illiterate TROLLS! Aren't mangroves worthy of ridicule? July 17, 2026 Newest paper to cite sealover's dissolved organic nitrogen assay method, came out three weeks ago. Xiao Wei, et al. 2026. Adaptive microbial life-history strategies mediate soil nitrogen cycling across cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Volume 411, 1 November 2026, 110608 I need to read it, as well as the newest paper by Fubara et al (2026) to have more to say about how it is relevant to the thread topic. This brand new paper deserves more attention after I get a chance to read it. This came out 7 days ago, on the 4th of July, 2026. Maybe it was "magic". B.A. Fubara, et al. 2026. A review on bioactive compounds mitigating climate change. Discover Chemistry(2026) 3:385 It cites my 1995 paper in Nature. "condensed tannins reduce enteric methane by 15-30% and soil N2O by 30-70%" That is just from one sentence of the abstract. Tannins reduce cow gas (CH4) and soil N2O emissions. This paper deserves more discussion in this thread, as it is very much on topic. I'm sure the two remaining trolls at climate-debate.com will shit all over it. |
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change | 229 | 26-05-2026 20:18 |
| Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands | 171 | 30-10-2025 23:29 |
| Our Friend the Beaver: Carbon Sequestration, Alkalinity Generation, and the "Extended" Phenotyp | 83 | 23-10-2025 18:40 |
| carbon footprint | 175 | 20-05-2024 21:13 |
| Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers | 1 | 06-07-2023 23:52 |