Remember me
▼ Content

sealover, an actual PhD biogeochemist with relevant knowledge to share.


sealover, an actual PhD biogeochemist with relevant knowledge to share.24-04-2022 07:13
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago


duncan61
Edited on 24-04-2022 07:14
RE: Temperature data for 1922?24-04-2022 08:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Temperature data for 1922?

There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea. Some years are warmer than others.

You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist. That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

I am happy to try to answer valid questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

I think I have gotten exactly three such questions in six weeks.

Aren't you even curious about the mangroves?

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

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago
24-04-2022 08:44
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Thank you for your direct answer.I have no issues with human activity has increased CO2 and there has been some localised warming where thermometers have been continuously measuring.
There are of course massive areas of land that are not measured and sea temperatures vary so much it is not possible to get an average.
You seem to be concerned about Mangroves.There is a small amount in Bunbury on the west coast and From Brisbane North on the East coast.What specifically is your concern.I lived in Carnarvon for a long time which is all mangroves and in the shallows it is teeming with life
24-04-2022 09:11
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
sealover wrote:
Temperature data for 1922?

There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea. Some years are warmer than others.

You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist. That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

I am happy to try to answer valid questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

I think I have gotten exactly three such questions in six weeks.

Aren't you even curious about the mangroves?

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

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago


Doesn't that pretty much confirms that there isn't sufficient temperature data, to even guess that it's 1 degree warmer today, than it was 1 hundred years ago. Some years are warmer than others... 1 degree warmer? That makes it natural variation, not a climate crisis.

Surfaces temperatures? seems like that would be fairly important in your line of work. Temperature of a compositing manure pile is important data...
24-04-2022 09:46
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I am watching videos on Ocean Acidification and the common theme is it is going to happen later and it is always possibly going to happen.No one will but a definitive theory forward.As usual the amounts are greatly exaggerated to get the desired effect.Nothing is wrong with the oceans now but it should happen one day
24-04-2022 09:55
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I have ended up watching where corals are being grown and reseeded around the world.If the ocean has changed so that the corals died why are they now growing so well in the same place?
24-04-2022 13:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

There is so much doubt that only fanatical worshipers of your WACKY religion think that the earth is actively violating physics.

There is a world of doubt and you are about to explain yours ...

sealover wrote:As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea.

Wow, from having no doubt to having no idea in one sentence, you should be talking about how you have no shame.

sealover wrote: Some years are warmer than others.

How do you know ... when you have no idea. You have no data, you have no idea, you have no shame.

But you have your gamma-spec, and that counts for something.

sealover wrote: You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist.

... which makes you clergy in some WACKY Marxist religion.

sealover wrote: That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

... which precludes any willingness on your part to discuss any science, to unambiguously define your terms or to be clear in any way. You are quick to limit any "contribution" on your part to copy-pasted spam.

sealover wrote: I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

You are accelerating in your semantics-shifting, having gone from "no doubt" to "no idea" to "never having had any data" in four sentences flat.

sealover wrote: I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

This after spamming the board with admonition for asking you to provide links because, as you claim, finding documents is just too terribly easy. Now you declare that you would need to acquire a brand new sill set in order to use one of them internet search thingies.

sealover wrote: I am happy to try to answer valid questions

Nope. You are happy to REFUSE to answer any valid questions.

sealover wrote: ... about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

As an example, what do you mean by the terms in bold? How do you unambiguously define them?
24-04-2022 16:13
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
duncan61 wrote:
I have ended up watching where corals are being grown and reseeded around the world.If the ocean has changed so that the corals died why are they now growing so well in the same place?


Are they they putting corals back, that were collected from the same dying reef? Relocating corals from healthy reefs, on the planet? Or introducing GMO coral, created in Dr. Evil's laboratory?

Coral, are like every other living thing, and die eventually. They need food, and aren't immune to disease, or predators. Yeah, coral is food too. Coral are slow growing, but die and fade kind of quick. Given several years, they would recover on their own. Liberals are impatient, spoil brats. They want instant gratification, or they whine, cry, and scream, until somebody does what they demand.
RE: "Singing in the Rain" or "Vocalizing in the Precipitation"24-04-2022 18:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"Singing in the Rain" or "Vocalizing in the Precipitation"?

Scientific terminology can be used or it can be abused.

Someone says "singing in the rain" and the meaning is quite clear.

Someone says "vocalizing in the precipitation" and it sounds like science.

But it is far more ambiguous than "singing in the rain".

Most "vocalizing" people do is NOT "singing".

"Precipitation" often is NOT "rain".

A bullshitter could try to baffle others by saying the scientific sounding version.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - Resident expert in science.

Sulfate vocalizes in the precipitation. That is nothing like singing in the rain.

But usually the use of scientific terms accomplishes just the opposite.

It provides the most concise and specific way to say something that would take many many more words to say without them.

To say "denitrification" in laymen's terms takes an entire sentence.

To provide an "unambiguous definition" for "denitrification" is literally impossible.

Depending on the context, it means something that happens in soil and water, or it means something very different that happens high in the sky.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - parrot puppet

"Singing in the rain" or "vocalizing in the precipitation."
RE: Yes, they are tying to replant coral. Why?24-04-2022 19:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Yes, they are trying to replant coral. Why?

Corals have been around for hundreds of millions of years.

Humans have never had to "reseed" them before.

What happened?

If it ain't broke, why are they fixing it?

The original question of the thread was to ask if I "believe" that earth was 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago.

"How do you know? Were you there?"

I wasn't there, and I was not asked what I "know", only what I "believe".

You are allowed to "believe" anything you want. It doesn't mean you "know" it.

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

duncan61 wrote:
I have ended up watching where corals are being grown and reseeded around the world.If the ocean has changed so that the corals died why are they now growing so well in the same place?
24-04-2022 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
"Singing in the Rain" or "Vocalizing in the Precipitation"?

Scientific terminology can be used or it can be abused.

Someone says "singing in the rain" and the meaning is quite clear.

Someone says "vocalizing in the precipitation" and it sounds like science.

But it is far more ambiguous than "singing in the rain".

Most "vocalizing" people do is NOT "singing".

"Precipitation" often is NOT "rain".

A bullshitter could try to baffle others by saying the scientific sounding version.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - Resident expert in science.

Sulfate vocalizes in the precipitation. That is nothing like singing in the rain.

But usually the use of scientific terms accomplishes just the opposite.

It provides the most concise and specific way to say something that would take many many more words to say without them.

To say "denitrification" in laymen's terms takes an entire sentence.

To provide an "unambiguous definition" for "denitrification" is literally impossible.

Depending on the context, it means something that happens in soil and water, or it means something very different that happens high in the sky.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - parrot puppet

"Singing in the rain" or "vocalizing in the precipitation."


You've already posted this. Argument by repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-04-2022 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Yes, they are trying to replant coral. Why?


No need. Coral plants itself. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how coral grows or it's life cycle.


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
24-04-2022 20:47
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
sealover wrote:
Temperature data for 1922?

There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea. Some years are warmer than others.

You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist. That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

I am happy to try to answer valid questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

I think I have gotten exactly three such questions in six weeks.

Aren't you even curious about the mangroves?

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

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago


Retard alert, first you say no doubt, then you say that you have no idea what the temps were in 1922. Retard alert, be on the lookout for a sealoving retard
24-04-2022 20:53
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"Singing in the Rain" or "Vocalizing in the Precipitation"?

Scientific terminology can be used or it can be abused.

Someone says "singing in the rain" and the meaning is quite clear.

Someone says "vocalizing in the precipitation" and it sounds like science.

But it is far more ambiguous than "singing in the rain".

Most "vocalizing" people do is NOT "singing".

"Precipitation" often is NOT "rain".

A bullshitter could try to baffle others by saying the scientific sounding version.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - Resident expert in science.

Sulfate vocalizes in the precipitation. That is nothing like singing in the rain.

But usually the use of scientific terms accomplishes just the opposite.

It provides the most concise and specific way to say something that would take many many more words to say without them.

To say "denitrification" in laymen's terms takes an entire sentence.

To provide an "unambiguous definition" for "denitrification" is literally impossible.

Depending on the context, it means something that happens in soil and water, or it means something very different that happens high in the sky.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - parrot puppet

"Singing in the rain" or "vocalizing in the precipitation."


You've already posted this. Argument by repetition fallacy.


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

Why are you hitting yourself?
RE: I have no doubt about what I believe.24-04-2022 21:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
I have no doubt about what I believe.

Perhaps that is the ONLY thing I can truly "know".

The question was "do you believe that (X)." and the answer was "I have no doubt that (X)"

Hiding behind word games doesn't work here.

An answer to a question about what I "know" would ALWAYS have some element of doubt in an intellectually honest discussion.

An answer to a question about what I "believe" would not have a requirement for doubt to be intellectually honest.

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

Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Temperature data for 1922?

There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea. Some years are warmer than others.

You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist. That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

I am happy to try to answer valid questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

I think I have gotten exactly three such questions in six weeks.

Aren't you even curious about the mangroves?

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

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago


Retard alert, first you say no doubt, then you say that you have no idea what the temps were in 1922. Retard alert, be on the lookout for a sealoving retard
RE: Correction: Sulfate Sings in the Rain.24-04-2022 21:18
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Correction: Sulfate Sings in the Rain.

Dyslexia can be embarassing.

I quoted super genius about "Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized."

But then I wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what I thought I was saying.

I said "Sulfate vocalizes in the precipitation."

Correction:
Sulfate CANNOT vocalize in the precipitation. Sulfate sings in the rain.

Sorry about the confusion.

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

sealover wrote:
"Singing in the Rain" or "Vocalizing in the Precipitation"?

Scientific terminology can be used or it can be abused.

Someone says "singing in the rain" and the meaning is quite clear.

Someone says "vocalizing in the precipitation" and it sounds like science.

But it is far more ambiguous than "singing in the rain".

Most "vocalizing" people do is NOT "singing".

"Precipitation" often is NOT "rain".

A bullshitter could try to baffle others by saying the scientific sounding version.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - Resident expert in science.

Sulfate vocalizes in the precipitation. That is nothing like singing in the rain.

But usually the use of scientific terms accomplishes just the opposite.

It provides the most concise and specific way to say something that would take many many more words to say without them.

To say "denitrification" in laymen's terms takes an entire sentence.

To provide an "unambiguous definition" for "denitrification" is literally impossible.

Depending on the context, it means something that happens in soil and water, or it means something very different that happens high in the sky.

"Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." - parrot puppet

"Singing in the rain" or "vocalizing in the precipitation."
24-04-2022 22:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
squealoser wrote:Dyslexia can be embarassing

... especially when all you do is copy-paste. It's like being a hemophiliac who obsessively gets into fist-fights.

I know, I know, your WACKY church has given you marching orders to preach here and you have no choice. I get it. It's just that you would think they would find different work that is more suitable to a dyslexic idiot who can't even find documents via an internet search.

But, hey, you have to do what they tell you. I so get it.

squealoser wrote: I quoted super genius about "Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." But then I wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what I thought I was saying.

It's more like someone who can read brought it to your attention ... and then had to explain to you why you made an error ... and then had to explain it again ... and then had to order you to fix it ... and probably had to watch over your shoulder to make sure it was fixed correctly.
24-04-2022 23:44
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
The copy paste material is very well edited in advance.

I think I'll write a message on the bathroom wall for sealover to see when he reoccupies this body.

When we sent him here, he was supposed to post some well prepared copy paste material. The guy just doesn't understand the technology.

The Marxists masters spend so much money for him to do this, but he's failing.

In case I lose control of this body and sealover comes back before I can leave him a message on the bathroom wall..

Could YOU tell him how to post something other than freehand words hastily written with little effort to spellcheck or even proofread for obvious mistakes.

And tell him how to post a LINK. We've got TONS of great propaganda he is supposed to be posting links to.

Well, I better get off and get to the bathroom with a sharpie, before its too late.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
squealoser wrote:Dyslexia can be embarassing

... especially when all you do is copy-paste. It's like being a hemophiliac who obsessively gets into fist-fights.

I know, I know, your WACKY church has given you marching orders to preach here and you have no choice. I get it. It's just that you would think they would find different work that is more suitable to a dyslexic idiot who can't even find documents via an internet search.

But, hey, you have to do what they tell you. I so get it.

squealoser wrote: I quoted super genius about "Sulfate cannot be reduced. It is deoxidized." But then I wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what I thought I was saying.

It's more like someone who can read brought it to your attention ... and then had to explain to you why you made an error ... and then had to explain it again ... and then had to order you to fix it ... and probably had to watch over your shoulder to make sure it was fixed correctly.
25-04-2022 00:10
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
sealover wrote:
I have no doubt about what I believe.

Perhaps that is the ONLY thing I can truly "know".

The question was "do you believe that (X)." and the answer was "I have no doubt that (X)"

Hiding behind word games doesn't work here.

An answer to a question about what I "know" would ALWAYS have some element of doubt in an intellectually honest discussion.

An answer to a question about what I "believe" would not have a requirement for doubt to be intellectually honest.

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

Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Temperature data for 1922?

There is no doubt that, on average, surface temperatures are already MORE than 1 degree higher than they were, on average roughly a hundred years ago.

As for the specific year 1922, I have no idea. Some years are warmer than others.

You correctly note that I am a PhD biogeochemist. That is my unique contribution around which I would be willing to look up references, etc.

I have never personally done anything with surface temperature data.

I would have to acquire new skills to look up 1922 temperature records, if that is what the question was.

I am happy to try to answer valid questions about biogeochemistry related to climate change and ocean "acidification".

I think I have gotten exactly three such questions in six weeks.

Aren't you even curious about the mangroves?

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

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.I would like to ask one question.Do you believe the planet Earth is 1 degree warmer on average than 100 years ago


Retard alert, first you say no doubt, then you say that you have no idea what the temps were in 1922. Retard alert, be on the lookout for a sealoving retard


I have no doubt that you believe that whatever you believe is the truth because you believe it.

Take your pills
25-04-2022 00:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
But why does a prestigious doctor get reduced to slumming on the internet? I know the are several climate discussion sites, that cater almost exclusively to pompous fools. Wasn't my thing, probably would have been banned anyway, for daring to question.
25-04-2022 01:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:I have no doubt about what I believe.

Perhaps that is the ONLY thing I can truly "know".

... but you can DREAM!

.
Attached image:

RE: "Prestigious Doctor" - THANK YOU!25-04-2022 01:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"Prestigious Doctor" - THANK YOU!

It is nice to finally get recognition for the fact that up there in the real world, sealover IS a prestigious doctor.

Was it the papers in Nature that made it impossible to deny?

But you said something I found rather disturbing.

Are you calling this place a SLUM?

I looked for those climate discussion sites that cater almost exclusively to pompous fools, but THIS ONE always pops up first.

That happens to ANYONE who does a similar search.

Please tell me where to find those sites from which you "probably would have been banned". (for trolling)

I suspect that some of you here DID get banned from those and other websites.

I'm willing to set up more bases to work from, but the library is already HERE.

Perhaps you created a slum here, but it won't be too hard to make something valuable to humanity from this unique fixer upper opportunity. Even if you stay.

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

HarveyH55 wrote:
But why does a prestigious doctor get reduced to slumming on the internet? I know the are several climate discussion sites, that cater almost exclusively to pompous fools. Wasn't my thing, probably would have been banned anyway, for daring to question.
25-04-2022 01:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:I suspect that some of you here DID get banned from those and other websites.

I have been banned from YAP. This is how I know it would be perfect for you, and they certainly deserve you.

Look, you crave attention and undeserved recognition, so go to YAP where they will gush forth with all of that, and more. They have censors whose fingers are literally taped to the "BAN" button should anyone give you a hint of trouble. I don't know why you haven't been spending more time there, but fortunately for us, you've chosen to grace us with your biogeniuscientificity instead, and we appreciate it. We know that you have choices in where you post and we at Climate-Debate thank you for allowing us to cater to your needs for attention. We hope you have a wonderful journey no matter where your final destination may be.
Attached image:


Edited on 25-04-2022 01:58
25-04-2022 02:30
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
sealover wrote:
"Prestigious Doctor" - THANK YOU!

It is nice to finally get recognition for the fact that up there in the real world, sealover IS a prestigious doctor.

Was it the papers in Nature that made it impossible to deny?

But you said something I found rather disturbing.

Are you calling this place a SLUM?

I looked for those climate discussion sites that cater almost exclusively to pompous fools, but THIS ONE always pops up first.

That happens to ANYONE who does a similar search.

Please tell me where to find those sites from which you "probably would have been banned". (for trolling)

I suspect that some of you here DID get banned from those and other websites.

I'm willing to set up more bases to work from, but the library is already HERE.

Perhaps you created a slum here, but it won't be too hard to make something valuable to humanity from this unique fixer upper opportunity. Even if you stay.

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

HarveyH55 wrote:
But why does a prestigious doctor get reduced to slumming on the internet? I know the are several climate discussion sites, that cater almost exclusively to pompous fools. Wasn't my thing, probably would have been banned anyway, for daring to question.


What medical school did you graduate from?
25-04-2022 02:45
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
And the mangrove issue is?I was banned from SkS for asking about sea levels.Skeptical science.The forum developer John Cook now gets paid to do tours telling everyone how bad it all is.Like being a rock star without the band.I bought the coral reseeding up as if all the coral died because the water went bad why are they now growing in the same place again.Is the water good again?How did we all end up circle jerking around a bathroom mirror?
RE: So, how does the "library" work?25-04-2022 03:15
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
So, how does the "library" work?

Most people who seek a website like this are NOT looking for a fight.

They don't want to join in on the latest interpersonal conflict.

They aren't looking to jump in on some pointless argument that does not pass ANY standard for legitimate "debate" about climate change.

The "library" makes it possible to bypass the trolls and see a list of topics that might be of interest, even if they are not part of TODAY'S stupid fight.

They might have useful information to offer, or they might ask questions.

Actual QUESTIONS about biogeochemistry.

These will be people who have a clue what the words mean, and won't have to hide behind word games by pretending that they are meaningless buzzword gibber babble. Exposing their tremendous ignorance in the process.

Ten years ago, I faced far more competent trolls.

They at least recognized that the words really did have meaning and pretended to understand them and used them to make their point.

The trolls here have too little understanding to pull this off, so they just RIDICULE the words and pretend that NOBODY understands them because they can't possibly have any real meaning.

It only works when the audience is comprised of equally ignorant individuals.

Just rethinking the model of a website like this, within the infrastructure are mechanisms that allow avoidance of ugly posts from trolls.

Soon, I will be obliged to start posting more sophisticated material that will require the ability to copy paste and post links. Someone I like can teach me.

So, how does the "library" work?

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


duncan61 wrote:
And the mangrove issue is?I was banned from SkS for asking about sea levels.Skeptical science.The forum developer John Cook now gets paid to do tours telling everyone how bad it all is.Like being a rock star without the band.I bought the coral reseeding up as if all the coral died because the water went bad why are they now growing in the same place again.Is the water good again?How did we all end up circle jerking around a bathroom mirror?
25-04-2022 03:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
duncan61 wrote:And the mangrove issue is?

duncan, I know you didn't ask me specifically but I'd like to give you the best answer possible to your question.

The "mangrove" issue is truly a wondrously magical issue that resides at the very heart of all that is Climate, therefore there are several key points you must understand if you are to properly discuss mangroves at the adults' table:

1. Carbon Sequestration: I'm sure you understand how absolutely critical "carbon sequestration" is to warmizombies. squeal over presents mangroves as carbon-sequestering superheroes who, as I write this, are staving off the inevitable climate catastrophe. Whew! I hate to think what would have already happened to the planet had we not had mangroves serving as our climate powerhouses.

2. Alkalinity to Prevent Ocean Acidification: I'm sure you are aware of squeal over's pitch on the depleting alkalinity of the ocean, which is the real reason the ocean is acidifying. Well, despite mangroves working overtime to single-handedly save humanity and the planet on the CO2 front, they nonetheless manage to find the time and energy to provide the ocean with the precious needed alkalinity to keep the ocean from turning into battery acid. Praise mangroves again!

3. Saving the Whales: I'm sure you understand the Leftists' campaign to save the whales. Fortunately, mangroves manage to squeeze that in as well. Not only are mangroves actively saving humanity and the planet, they are taking on the whales' cause as well. I guess mangroves decided that whales were actually a higher priority than the polar bears. But hey, saving the whales is a tough job and somebody has to do it. Kudos to mangroves a third time.

Now, you might be wondering "How do mangroves save the whales?" Great question. Human activity naturally causes whales to become confused and to migrate directly into certain disaster and death. Mangroves step in and correct the whales' migration patterns, steering them AWAY from extinction. If it weren't for mangroves, our oceans would most certainly be whale-free today.

4. Attention: squeal over rightly points out that mangroves are totally underappreciated. He celebrates how mangroves are finally starting to get the recognition they deserve. These are glorious times.

I highly recommend you glance at my response to squeal over for a more detailed overview of this capstone topic:MANGROVES for CLIMATE JUSTICE!

Let me know if you have any other questions.
Edited on 25-04-2022 03:28
25-04-2022 03:24
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
There is no library...

To post links, you click the grey box with 'URL' in it. This will paste a set of HTML tags. You place your cursor between the tages, right click, and paste the link you previously copied.

""
25-04-2022 04:49
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Thank you IBDM.I am wading through the latest IPCC report between dropping in and out of here and Mangroves also sequester blue carbon and lock it away forever unless they die then it is released as black inorganic carbon which is the greenhouse gas with the heavy machine gun.
25-04-2022 14:17
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
sealover wrote:
So, how does the "library" work?

Most people who seek a website like this are NOT looking for a fight.

They don't want to join in on the latest interpersonal conflict.

They aren't looking to jump in on some pointless argument that does not pass ANY standard for legitimate "debate" about climate change.

The "library" makes it possible to bypass the trolls and see a list of topics that might be of interest, even if they are not part of TODAY'S stupid fight.

They might have useful information to offer, or they might ask questions.

Actual QUESTIONS about biogeochemistry.

These will be people who have a clue what the words mean, and won't have to hide behind word games by pretending that they are meaningless buzzword gibber babble. Exposing their tremendous ignorance in the process.

Ten years ago, I faced far more competent trolls.

They at least recognized that the words really did have meaning and pretended to understand them and used them to make their point.

The trolls here have too little understanding to pull this off, so they just RIDICULE the words and pretend that NOBODY understands them because they can't possibly have any real meaning.

It only works when the audience is comprised of equally ignorant individuals.

Just rethinking the model of a website like this, within the infrastructure are mechanisms that allow avoidance of ugly posts from trolls.

Soon, I will be obliged to start posting more sophisticated material that will require the ability to copy paste and post links. Someone I like can teach me.

So, how does the "library" work?

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


duncan61 wrote:
And the mangrove issue is?I was banned from SkS for asking about sea levels.Skeptical science.The forum developer John Cook now gets paid to do tours telling everyone how bad it all is.Like being a rock star without the band.I bought the coral reseeding up as if all the coral died because the water went bad why are they now growing in the same place again.Is the water good again?How did we all end up circle jerking around a bathroom mirror?


Too scared to tell us what medical school you graduated from?
25-04-2022 22:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
So, how does the "library" work?
...deleted remaining spam...

You already posted this. Spamming. Argument by repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan




Join the debate sealover, an actual PhD biogeochemist with relevant knowledge to share.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
Newcomer Welcome! from "sealover", PhD biogeochemist4911-05-2022 23:16
National Climate Change Is Real Day (sealover please do not read this it is a surprise)529-04-2022 20:08
Safe Friends of "sealover" - Troll-free Library Networking. Join the List.622-03-2022 05:21
I The Savior Return With Some Important Information Knowledge Wisdom317-03-2022 18:38
▲ 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