The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation

sealover wrote:This thread to stimulate discussion about the futility any efforts to mitigate climate change without addressing ocean acidification.

sealover wrote:Even in the rosiest, best-case scenario of emissions reduction and emissions sequestration, ocean acidification will continue to get worse for decades.

sealover wrote:The sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide is being diminished.

sealover wrote:A mass extinction of sea life could nullify all our terrestrial (land based) efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:We have already seen worst-case scenarios unfolding ahead of schedule.

sealover wrote:The worst case scenario is that the sea stops absorbing about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions and becomes a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
A mass extinction of sea life could nullify all our terrestrial (land based) efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Oooooh, FEAR ... PANIC ... DOOM ... all that's missing is the call for fresh new taxes.

Well, what are you waiting for? How much will all of this cost? How much more power are you suggesting We the People cede to the government so that we can survive?

So how much do you suggest our taxes be raised so that the government can adequately save the planet?

You've convinced me. How much additional taxation should I be endorsing?

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

sealover wrote:
This thread to stimulate discussion about the futility any efforts to mitigate climate change without addressing ocean acidification.

sealover wrote:
Even in the rosiest, best-case scenario of emissions reduction and emissions sequestration, ocean acidification will continue to get worse for decades.

sealover wrote:
The sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide is being diminished.

sealover wrote:
A mass extinction of sea life could nullify all our terrestrial (land based) efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
We have already seen worst-case scenarios unfolding ahead of schedule.

sealover wrote:
The worst case scenario is that the sea stops absorbing about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions and becomes a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:
A mass extinction of sea life could nullify all our terrestrial (land based) efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Oooooh, FEAR ... PANIC ... DOOM ... all that's missing is the call for fresh new taxes.

Well, what are you waiting for? How much will all of this cost? How much more power are you suggesting We the People cede to the government so that we can survive?

So how much do you suggest our taxes be raised so that the government can adequately save the planet?

You've convinced me. How much additional taxation should I be endorsing?

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

What would it actually cost to implement the kind of draconian measures that would be necessary to generate more alkalinity from wetland carbon?

How much would it cost to drill a hole into the shallowest part of the sea floor?

A hole that might need to go as far as 10 meters deep into soft sediment before it reaches a zone of thickest buried organic matter.

How much would it cost to pump some sea water down into that hole?

How expensive would it be for a wind-driven or sea-wave-powered pump to be left there to keep on pumping indefinitely with minimal maintenance and no need for fuel?

I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet. The common element is Carbon. We wouldn't exist without carbon molecules. Where does the Carbon come from, to build those molecules? We don't each chunks of coal, or drink petroleum. No living thing actually feeds on raw carbon. The only living thing that takes carbon directly from the environment, is plants. In the form of CO2... The human population continues to grow, as do most every other species. All based on carbon molecules, which comes from plants. Increasing CO2, increases the food supply, to support the growing populations. Why do your people hate life so much? Why must you torture and kill everything? Sure, the climate changes, always has. But why is the direction it's changing so bad? Plants do well in a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. Plants are food for every living thing to exist. The planet is adjusting to our needs. God takes care of our needs. Beware of false prophets, like Al Gore, well any democrat. They all hate America, hate life, not their own.

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet. The common element is Carbon. We wouldn't exist without carbon molecules. Where does the Carbon come from, to build those molecules? We don't each chunks of coal, or drink petroleum. No living thing actually feeds on raw carbon. The only living thing that takes carbon directly from the environment, is plants. In the form of CO2... The human population continues to grow, as do most every other species. All based on carbon molecules, which comes from plants. Increasing CO2, increases the food supply, to support the growing populations. Why do your people hate life so much? Why must you torture and kill everything? Sure, the climate changes, always has. But why is the direction it's changing so bad? Plants do well in a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. Plants are food for every living thing to exist. The planet is adjusting to our needs. God takes care of our needs. Beware of false prophets, like Al Gore, well any democrat. They all hate America, hate life, not their own.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
We have already seen worst-case scenarios unfolding ahead of schedule.

Where? When? What schedule?

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet.

Good luck with that one. He doesn't know any chemistry.

sealover wrote:There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

sealover wrote:Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

... don't stop there; finish the thought. Why would an increase in atmospheric CO2 bring about increased drought, flooding, hurricanes, etc.? Please explain why you felt it necessary to add that clause.

Hint: This calls for you to explain how atmospheric CO2 somehow drives weather. I, for one, really want to hear this.

sealover wrote:Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

You have this nasty habit of cutting out right when you need to explain the cryptic foolishness that you just wrote.

What, of significance, was not equal?

sealover wrote:I suspect that my cryptic foolishness isn't indecipherable to all.

sealover wrote:I will continue to present what I understand to be accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:I will continue to use the same terms everyone else uses for their scientific papers

sealover wrote: trusting that the target audience will understand what they mean.

sealover wrote:IIt's a bit disappointing that the discussion has not yet been joined by anyone who is curious about the real world biogeochemistry being discussed.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I suspect that my cryptic foolishness isn't indecipherable to all.

Brilliant approach. Be cryptic if you suspect that somebody will understand you.

sealover wrote:I will continue to present what I understand to be accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry.

Nope. You will continue to present the erroneous terminology of your religious dogma.

sealover wrote:I will continue to use the same terms everyone else uses for their scientific papers

... except that they are not scientific papers, the authors are not everyone else and you don't speak for any of them. You have decided to cite bogus, political propaganda that is devoid of any science and that uses erroneous terminology.

You are a genius!

sealover wrote: trusting that the target audience will understand what they mean.

At least you acknowledge that your target audience are scientifically illiterate gullibles who you seek to manipulate. Got it.

sealover wrote:IIt's a bit disappointing that the discussion has not yet been joined by anyone who is curious about the real world biogeochemistry being discussed.

Do you think that you blatant dishonesty might have turned them off?

sealover wrote:Before I got on here, there wasn't a single recent thread about climate change.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Before I got on here, there wasn't a single recent thread about climate change.

.. and there still isn't a single thread with an unambiguous definition of:

1. Global Warming
2. Climate Change
3. Greenhouse Effect
4. greenhouse gas

Not a single brain-dead, scientifically illiterate, Wikipedia-thumping wamizombie ever comes here to participate in an honest discussion. Not a single one. You are no exception.

When simply asked to define your terms, you doubled down on dishonesty. Just like all the other Marxist schytts, you came here to preach your F'ed religion, not to tolerate any sort of differing views. You tried to fool others into accepting you as an expert in science, as though it somehow wasn't obvious by your gaffes that you are simply regurgitating opinions that were handed to you by someone else. When your audience asked you to use correct terminology, you pretended to speak for "everyone" in a true demonstration of omniscient preacher syndrome.

... and now your playbook tells you to cry like a baby and pretend your widdo-feewings are vewy huut. Do you feel the outpouring of sympathy?

Define your fuqqing terms you dishonest, brain-dead schytt. Show your audience that you actually want to participate in an honest discussion. Don't expect a whole lot of sympathy otherwise.

sealover wrote:Reading a post such as this offers another insight into why it might be a turn off to dishonest preachers who have no intention of participating in any honest discussions at this website.

sealover wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet. The common element is Carbon. We wouldn't exist without carbon molecules. Where does the Carbon come from, to build those molecules? We don't each chunks of coal, or drink petroleum. No living thing actually feeds on raw carbon. The only living thing that takes carbon directly from the environment, is plants. In the form of CO2... The human population continues to grow, as do most every other species. All based on carbon molecules, which comes from plants. Increasing CO2, increases the food supply, to support the growing populations. Why do your people hate life so much? Why must you torture and kill everything? Sure, the climate changes, always has. But why is the direction it's changing so bad? Plants do well in a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. Plants are food for every living thing to exist. The planet is adjusting to our needs. God takes care of our needs. Beware of false prophets, like Al Gore, well any democrat. They all hate America, hate life, not their own.

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

I love plants as much as the next guy.

I also love America.

I even love life.

I was not aware that I was torturing and killing everything.

There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

When CO2 is as low as it used to be, a significant fraction of photosynthate was lost to photorespiration, when Rubisco grabs onto oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. All other things being equal, yields are now higher with higher CO2.

Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

sealover wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet. The common element is Carbon. We wouldn't exist without carbon molecules. Where does the Carbon come from, to build those molecules? We don't each chunks of coal, or drink petroleum. No living thing actually feeds on raw carbon. The only living thing that takes carbon directly from the environment, is plants. In the form of CO2... The human population continues to grow, as do most every other species. All based on carbon molecules, which comes from plants. Increasing CO2, increases the food supply, to support the growing populations. Why do your people hate life so much? Why must you torture and kill everything? Sure, the climate changes, always has. But why is the direction it's changing so bad? Plants do well in a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. Plants are food for every living thing to exist. The planet is adjusting to our needs. God takes care of our needs. Beware of false prophets, like Al Gore, well any democrat. They all hate America, hate life, not their own.

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

I love plants as much as the next guy.

sealover wrote:
I also love America.

sealover wrote:
I even love life.

sealover wrote:
I was not aware that I was torturing and killing everything.

sealover wrote:
There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

sealover wrote:
When CO2 is as low as it used to be, a significant fraction of photosynthate was lost to photorespiration, when Rubisco grabs onto oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. All other things being equal, yields are now higher with higher CO2.

Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

... don't stop there; finish the thought. Why would an increase in atmospheric CO2 bring about increased drought, flooding, hurricanes, etc.? Please explain why you felt it necessary to add that clause.

Hint: This calls for you to explain how atmospheric CO2 somehow drives weather. I, for one, really want to hear this.

sealover wrote:Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

You have this nasty habit of cutting out right when you need to explain the cryptic foolishness that you just wrote.

What, of significance, was not equal?

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

I suspect that my cryptic foolishness isn't indecipherable to all.

sealover wrote:
I will continue to present what I understand to be accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
I will continue to use the same terms everyone else uses for their scientific papers, trusting that the target audience will understand what they mean.

sealover wrote:
It's a bit disappointing that the discussion has not yet been joined by anyone who is curious about the real world biogeochemistry being discussed.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I suspect that my cryptic foolishness isn't indecipherable to all.

Brilliant approach. Be cryptic if you suspect that somebody will understand you.

sealover wrote:I will continue to present what I understand to be accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry.

Nope. You will continue to present the erroneous terminology of your religious dogma.

sealover wrote:I will continue to use the same terms everyone else uses for their scientific papers

... except that they are not scientific papers, the authors are not everyone else and you don't speak for any of them. You have decided to cite bogus, political propaganda that is devoid of any science and that uses erroneous terminology.

You are a genius!

sealover wrote: trusting that the target audience will understand what they mean.

At least you acknowledge that your target audience are scientifically illiterate gullibles who you seek to manipulate. Got it.

sealover wrote:IIt's a bit disappointing that the discussion has not yet been joined by anyone who is curious about the real world biogeochemistry being discussed.

Do you think that you blatant dishonesty might have turned them off?

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

I'm new here, but I have had a chance to form a first impression.

I have some insights into what might turn someone off from wanting to participate in these discussions.

sealover wrote:
My "blatant dishonesty" hasn't been a confounding variable until a couple of days ago.

sealover wrote:
Someone finds out about the website and wants to read a "climate debate"

sealover wrote:
They don't have to look long to realize it wasn't what they thought it would be.

Before I got on here, there wasn't a single recent thread about climate change.

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I can't imagine how that could be done without a major tax hike.

Of course, you've convinced me. How much of a major tax hike are we talking? Should the poor bear the brunt of this tax hike, or should the rich? While we're at it, could we use the opportunity to just tack on a few additional social services onto the same bill and maybe help a few illegal aliens who just want better lives for their families?

Where do I sign?

The risk of using sarcasm to make a point is that the irony can be lost on the uninformed. Then the very comment said sarcastically becomes "proof" of an assertion.

In case it wasn't obvious, the point was that it would NOT require a major tax hike. Or any tax hike at all. Or any benefits for illegal aliens? And it just proves that I don't know anything about science?

I can't tell if what I'm reading here is sarcasm or not.

I will be sure to never again include sarcasm in what I write here.

It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

Why not start with Organic Chemistry? You know, the stuff makes up all life on the planet. The common element is Carbon. We wouldn't exist without carbon molecules. Where does the Carbon come from, to build those molecules? We don't each chunks of coal, or drink petroleum. No living thing actually feeds on raw carbon. The only living thing that takes carbon directly from the environment, is plants. In the form of CO2... The human population continues to grow, as do most every other species. All based on carbon molecules, which comes from plants. Increasing CO2, increases the food supply, to support the growing populations. Why do your people hate life so much? Why must you torture and kill everything? Sure, the climate changes, always has. But why is the direction it's changing so bad? Plants do well in a warm, wet, CO2 rich environment. Plants are food for every living thing to exist. The planet is adjusting to our needs. God takes care of our needs. Beware of false prophets, like Al Gore, well any democrat. They all hate America, hate life, not their own.

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

I love plants as much as the next guy.

I also love America.

I even love life.

I was not aware that I was torturing and killing everything.

There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought, hurricanes, etc., don't erase those gains.

When CO2 is as low as it used to be, a significant fraction of photosynthate was lost to photorespiration, when Rubisco grabs onto oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. All other things being equal, yields are now higher with higher CO2.

Unfortunately, not all other things have been equal.

Plants do their best at 700-800 ppm CO2. Most indoor growers augment at 1200ppm (consider safe to working, with out equipment or restrictions). Plants need a bare minimal of 180 ppm, just to survive. 150 ppm or less, they are starving to death. CO2 is a trace gas, approximately 0.04% of our atmosphere. It's not a thick, planet killing blanket, that surrounds the entire planet, evenly. Like in A Bill Nye 'science' video.

I live Florida, and we get hurricanes, flooding, droughts. We often get the temperatures, considered catastrophic warming, for the northern latitudes. Even through the 'winter' months, I still have to mow my lawn every 2-3 weeks. I don't fertilize or water it, just let it go natural. All the climate crap doesn't seem to kill off the plants. Not sure why the Yankees are so scared.

sealover wrote:Grieving the death of my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean.

sealover wrote:The first time I snorkeled in the coral reef at Bayahibe on the Caribbean coast of the Dominican Republic, I was overwhelmed by the beauty that surrounded me.
It was 1982.

sealover wrote: I was a Peace Corps volunteer, assigned to the central highlands to work in reforestation and environmental education.

sealover wrote:I didn't see the reef again until 1988. Scientists were already aware that something was harming the coral reefs.

sealover wrote: "Bleaching", during which the coral animal expels its photosynthetic symbiotic partners, had been observed among some coral reefs in the world's warmest seas. The reef at Bayahibe was among them.

sealover wrote: But the corpses of bleached coral could be seen scattered about in many places. It didn't look the same as before. Something was wrong.

sealover wrote:In 1997, I returned to the Dominican Republic to do postdoctoral research in the rainforest of the central highlands.

sealover wrote:By 1997, it was clear that coral reefs worldwide were being ravaged.

sealover wrote: The increase in ocean surface water temperature clearly had something to do with it.

sealover wrote: But it had also become clear that there was a chemical imbalance involved. The alkalinity of the sea was being depleted by our excessive CO2 emissions.

sealover wrote: ... On the other hand, my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean is ...

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Grieving the death of my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean.

No coral reef has met its demise. You are lying about something that you expect will never be verified/validated. ... and ooops, you forgot about YouTube totally contradicting you.

sealover wrote:The first time I snorkeled in the coral reef at Bayahibe on the Caribbean coast of the Dominican Republic, I was overwhelmed by the beauty that surrounded me.
It was 1982.

... and this is what it looked like in 2014.

... and this is what it looked like 2019.

... and here is a glimpse of it in 2020.

sealover wrote: I was a Peace Corps volunteer, assigned to the central highlands to work in reforestation and environmental education.

Is that where you were lied to, manipulated and ultimately indoctrinated into Team Marxism? Is that where you were taught just how alkaline pure water can get?

sealover wrote:I didn't see the reef again until 1988. Scientists were already aware that something was harming the coral reefs.

Nope ... not any scientists. Political activist hacks, maybe, but not people who actually understand science and who are not trying to weasel governments into funding them regular paychecks for doing nothing.

sealover wrote: "Bleaching", during which the coral animal expels its photosynthetic symbiotic partners, had been observed among some coral reefs in the world's warmest seas. The reef at Bayahibe was among them.

Coral "whitening" has been observed in virtually every coral reef. There's a rapid temperature change, some corals expel their zooxanthellae which causes the coral to lose its color and turn bone white, then the zooxanthellae slowly return, the coral gets its color back and everything is fine. No harm no foul.

Also, anyone who is not totally scientifically illiterate can tell you that "bleaching" is entirely the wrong word. There is no bleach involved. The word "bleaching" is used by lying fuqqs who wish to generate artificial fear and panic in support of some Marxist agenda by generating imagery of caustic chemicals.

So what was claimed to be "harming" the coral reef at Bayahibe? Did you call BOOOLSCH'T because the coral reef obviously wasn't being harmed, or did you willingly join in on the scam?

sealover wrote: But the corpses of bleached coral could be seen scattered about in many places. It didn't look the same as before. Something was wrong.

Now you are lying. You have shifted into "spread fear and panic" mode.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/179

sealover wrote:In 1997, I returned to the Dominican Republic to do postdoctoral research in the rainforest of the central highlands.

You're a Greenpeace activist, aren't you? That explains a lot.

sealover wrote:By 1997, it was clear that coral reefs worldwide were being ravaged.

I don't know who you think you are fooling. There is no end to the videos of each and every reef in all its glory in virtually every year taken by tourists. You picked a loser of a lie. Did you forget to factor YouTube into your narrative?

sealover wrote: The increase in ocean surface water temperature clearly had something to do with it.

Except that there has never been any measured increase in the ocean's surface water temperature. Your story keeps getting more and more absurd.

sealover wrote: But it had also become clear that there was a chemical imbalance involved. The alkalinity of the sea was being depleted by our excessive CO2 emissions.

Just for the record, when it is a delusion that is "clear to you" ... everything thereafter is just babbling. I presume that it never occurred to you to simply discard that conclusion by noting that the reef's pH wasn't changing. I presume that you never took any of the steps in the scientific method to challenge and validate your theory. I presume that you don't even know what that would entail.

sealover wrote: ... On the other hand, my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean is ...

... doing just fine. All of it is thriving. No one need panic or fear for any reason.

.

sealover wrote:I should know better than to believe my own lying eyes.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, you pegged me for a "liar" from the start.

sealover wrote:
It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

sealover wrote:
I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

sealover wrote:
I want to encourage you to improve the quality of your questions.

sealover wrote:
There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought,...don't erase those gains.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I sea that I am just a bit late to this party. May I request that you to back the truck up a little bit? Thanks.

sealover wrote:
It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

No, I don't want to discuss any bio or geogibberbabble.

sealover wrote:
I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

Very tough. Picture a teacher fighting back the tears while trying to teach religion under the cover of "science".

sealover wrote:
I want to encourage you to improve the quality of your questions.

Thanks for the encouragement there, sparky. I'll do me best.

sealover wrote:
There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought,...don't erase those gains.

I have to assume you are claiming more CO2 also means more flooding and drought. If you are not making this claim, then please forgive me for the poor quality of my question.

I fail to find a similar equation where I can add a tiny fraction of an existing ingredient and have it simultaneously yielding opposing results.

Examples:

If I add more seasoning to my meat, it doesn't become flavorfully bland.

If I add more pressure to air my shocks, it doesn't give me a softer ride that is a bit more harsh.

If I add more hardener to my epoxy, it doesn't leave me a hard gooey mess.

If I add more powder to my casing, it doesn't make my bullet slower AND faster.

If I increase the heat in my home, it doesn't cool as it gets warmer.

What gives?? How is it that CO2 is so POWERFUL that it can increase flooding and drought simultaneously?

While you're schooling me, please explain how CO2 can do EITHER! I really don't get it!!

Thanks,

GG

GasGuzzler wrote:How is it that CO2 is so POWERFUL that it can increase flooding and drought simultaneously?

While you're schooling me, please explain how CO2 can do EITHER! I really don't get it!!

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Regarding your question about CO2 both increasing and decreasing precipitation, I believe the textbook doctrine holds that Climate is the one who does all that, using CO2 as a "tool" to accomplish her ends. Please see explanation below. It's not so much a question of what effect will CO2 have, but more of a question about what does Climate will. Climate, of course, wills whatever is bad, because she intends it as a punishment for our human activity. If reducing precipitation will cause drought and thus hardship, reduce precipitation she will. If increasing precipitation will bring flooding and thus hardship then increase precipitation she will. Remember, whatever is bad and serves as a punishment is what Climate wills.

IBdaMann wrote:
2. As to your question about the magical thermodynamics-violating power of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, this is what makes CO2 such a versatile tool for Climate. The ability to defy physics affords Climate substantial flexibilty in meting out Climate justice and in tailoring the punishment to fit the crime.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course we need to get confirmation from sealover but I think this answer is the 95% saline solution.

sealover wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I sea that I am just a bit late to this party. May I request that you to back the truck up a little bit? Thanks.

sealover wrote:
It might have been too much to hope that someone would want to discuss biogeochemistry of geoengineering alkalinity generation from wetland carbon.

No, I don't want to discuss any bio or geogibberbabble.

sealover wrote:
I'm trying to picture how tough it would be if you were a student of mine.

Very tough. Picture a teacher fighting back the tears while trying to teach religion under the cover of "science".

sealover wrote:
I want to encourage you to improve the quality of your questions.

Thanks for the encouragement there, sparky. I'll do me best.

sealover wrote:
There is truth to the idea that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can make more food production possible, so long as flooding, drought,...don't erase those gains.

I have to assume you are claiming more CO2 also means more flooding and drought. If you are not making this claim, then please forgive me for the poor quality of my question.

I fail to find a similar equation where I can add a tiny fraction of an existing ingredient and have it simultaneously yielding opposing results.

Examples:

If I add more seasoning to my meat, it doesn't become flavorfully bland.

If I add more pressure to air my shocks, it doesn't give me a softer ride that is a bit more harsh.

If I add more hardener to my epoxy, it doesn't leave me a hard gooey mess.

If I add more powder to my casing, it doesn't make my bullet slower AND faster.

If I increase the heat in my home, it doesn't cool as it gets warmer.

What gives?? How is it that CO2 is so POWERFUL that it can increase flooding and drought simultaneously?

While you're schooling me, please explain how CO2 can do EITHER! I really don't get it!!

Thanks,

GG

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

Welcome to the party!

You are not too late by a long shot.

It is barely getting started.

Just wait until the other kids get here.

This is going to be so cool!

GasGuzzler wrote:

I fail to find a similar equation where I can add a tiny fraction of an existing ingredient and have it simultaneously yielding opposing results.

Examples:

If I add more seasoning to my meat, it doesn't become flavorfully bland.

If I add more pressure to air my shocks, it doesn't give me a softer ride that is a bit more harsh.

If I add more hardener to my epoxy, it doesn't leave me a hard gooey mess.

If I add more powder to my casing, it doesn't make my bullet slower AND faster.

If I increase the heat in my home, it doesn't cool as it gets warmer.

What gives?? How is it that CO2 is so POWERFUL that it can increase flooding and drought simultaneously?

While you're schooling me, please explain how CO2 can do EITHER! I really don't get it!!

Thanks,

GG

sealover wrote:


I dabbled in the Internet climate change debate for a while about ten years ago.

One guy they called "the mad weather man"

He constantly posted weather reports from some place that had set a new record cold temperature.

His assertion was that it was really getting colder.

He was quite correct to point out the statistical anomaly.

We had never seen so many new record low temperatures set before, and we've been measuring the temperature outside for a long time.

Looking strictly at the frequency of new record low temperatures, the earth appeared to be cooling fast.

On the other hand, new record high temperatures were being set. Also a statistical anomaly compared to the past. More than twice as many new high temperatures compared to low temperatures. And the differences were greater. The new high temperatures on average were a much greater increase compared to previous than the decrease seen in the new record lows compared to previous.

But it can't be getting colder and warmer at the same time, so somebody must be lying.

sealover wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Crickets on my one simple question...and it was a superior quality question. TOTALLY disappointed.

I dabbled in the Internet climate change debate for a while about ten years ago.

sealover wrote:One guy they called "the mad weather man" He constantly posted weather reports from some place that had set a new record cold temperature.

sealover wrote:His assertion was that it was really getting colder.

sealover wrote:Looking strictly at the frequency of new record low temperatures, the earth appeared to be cooling fast.

GasGuzzler wrote:.

sealover wrote:The shortest answer I can give requires some understanding about ocean currents and both the El Nino and the La Nina phenomenon.

sealover wrote:Would I lie to you?

sealover wrote:The drought part is mostly straight forward as a matter of temperature increase.

sealover wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:.

.....when European nations stopped emitting so much sun blocking soot into the air.
There wasn't as much shade to keep the Atlantic cool any more. Africa got some severe droughts because of it.