Remember me
▼ Content

The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation



Page 1 of 4123>>>
The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation10-03-2022 04:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
This thread to stimulate discussion about the futility any efforts to mitigate climate change without addressing ocean acidification.

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

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

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

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

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.
10-03-2022 05:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:This thread to stimulate discussion about the futility any efforts to mitigate climate change without addressing ocean acidification.

Might you consider first defining what you believe you mean by "Climate Change"?

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

You have already posted this. You are now guilty of spamming the board.

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

This is a completely unsupported assertion. Why would any rational adult believe this to be the case?

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?

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

Ooooooh, the Climate Change acceleration is worse than scientists had previously feared! We are DOOMED!

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

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.

... because CO2 is pollution, and a poison, right? CO2 is bad, right? You're a chemist so you know, right? You know that CO2 is destroying our planet, not serving as some sort of "life essential" compound as some conservatives would have us believe, right?

You've convinced me. How much additional taxation should I be endorsing?
10-03-2022 06:47
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.
10-03-2022 07:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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?
RE: must sarcasm be self owned?10-03-2022 07:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.
10-03-2022 07:55
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
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.
10-03-2022 08:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
This thread to stimulate discussion about the futility any efforts to mitigate climate change without addressing ocean acidification.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'climate mitigation'. You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Even in the rosiest, best-case scenario of emissions reduction and emissions sequestration, ocean acidification will continue to get worse for decades.

You can't acidify an alkaline. Emissions of what? CO2? What's wrong with CO2?
sealover wrote:
The sea's capacity to continue absorbing carbon dioxide is being diminished.

Nope. The CO2 concentration of seawater generally matches that in the air above it.
sealover wrote:
A mass extinction of sea life could nullify all our terrestrial (land based) efforts to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

Why would you want to reduce atmosphere concentrations of CO2? What mass extinction? By what mechanism?
sealover wrote:
We have already seen worst-case scenarios unfolding ahead of schedule.

Where? When? What 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.

Ocean water CO2 concentration is generally the same as the atmospheric CO2 concentration above it.

Why are you so scared of CO2?


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
10-03-2022 08:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.

Why do it at all?


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
10-03-2022 08:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.


There is no science here.
There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. 'Geoengineering' is a buzzword from science fiction. Try English. You will have better conversations.


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
10-03-2022 08:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.

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


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
10-03-2022 08:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.
10-03-2022 08:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.

Couldn't he start according to the schedule?
10-03-2022 09:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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?
10-03-2022 09:33
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.

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

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.

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.
10-03-2022 09:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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?
RE: what might turn someone off to this site?10-03-2022 09:59
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.

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

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

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.
10-03-2022 13:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.
RE: another turn off about this website10-03-2022 18:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.


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

Reading a post such as this offers another insight into why it might be a turn off to participate in discussions on this website.
10-03-2022 18:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.

Please troll some other board. We prefer honest discussions here.
Edited on 10-03-2022 18:55
10-03-2022 19:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
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.
10-03-2022 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.

Apparently not. You want to reduce CO2.
sealover wrote:
I also love America.

Apparently not. You want to shut down the use of fuel.
sealover wrote:
I even love life.

Apparently not. You want to make life miserable for people.
sealover wrote:
I was not aware that I was torturing and killing everything.

I agree. You are, however, with your proposed fascism. You are clueless.
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.

It is not possible to measure the storm activity on Earth. The data at the National Hurricane Center in Florida doesn't agree with you. You are making shit up again.
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.

True. Better techniques can now produce far better yield than before. The use of combine harvesters has made wheat cheap enough that we now practically give bread away.


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
10-03-2022 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.

It's quite decipherable. You want to impose fascism and communism and implement the Church of Global Warming as the state religion. Like any fundamentalist, you spew dire warnings about not being 'one of the enlightened'. Like any fundamentalist, you attempt to prove your religion as True. Like any fundamentalist, you make shit up. Like any fundamentalist, you declare 'experts' to be God-like...infallible.

Your religion is false.

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

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry in science.
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.

Science isn't papers. You cannot define words that way. You are going to have to define your terms.
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.

Define 'real'. There is no 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacies.


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
10-03-2022 19:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.

People participate in these discussions...unless you are not a person....?
sealover wrote:
My "blatant dishonesty" hasn't been a confounding variable until a couple of days ago.

Your blatant dishonesty is based on your use of buzzwords galore, none of which you have defined.
sealover wrote:
Someone finds out about the website and wants to read a "climate debate"

Go ahead. Discuss the climate. Define your terms.
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.

Define 'climate change'.

You see, IBD, gfm, and I understand that the Church of Global Warming ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and often comes along spewing the same old made up bullshit and fear mongering to try to prove their religion True.

We understand that the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. Both are fundamentalist style religions.

We understand the disingenuous nature of fundamentalists like you, that spend their time making shit up, claiming the government is God, that carbon dioxide is evil, and produce Holy Links to other fellows in their religion to 'prove' the religion is True.

We understand that you have no concept of statistical mathematics or probability mathematics. We also understand that many of you have trouble with simple algebra.

We understand that you discard the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of the various States.

We understand that you generally want to force everyone to drive electric cars, freeze in the cold, that stuff magickally appears on your doorstep without the use of trucks, planes, ships, and trains.

We understand that you believe that Man actually has control of something that has been here long before Man ever set foot on this planet. We are a blip in time, dude. I know that cuts at the heart of your ego, but it's true. Earth is really big enough to take care of itself.

We understand that your only recourse is to become repetitive, even asking the same questions over and over mindlessly even though they've already been answered, and that you eventually turn to complaining about defining your meaningless buzzwords and start spewing insults.

Yeah. We know exactly what you are.


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
10-03-2022 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.


You get some amazing critters there too. One thing about grass. It grows just about anywhere, even in harsh climates like the Antarctic desert. Of course, no one cares about mowing it there! Grass is an amazing plant!

The Spring line is moving north. I already see buds on the trees here in the Pacific Northwest. Soon there will be leaves once again, and blooms on the cherry trees.

I love the warm days of spring and summer to come.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 10-03-2022 19:55
RE: Grieving for my favorite coral reef11-03-2022 22:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Grieving the death of my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean.

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

I had seen many beautiful ecosystems before, from wetlands to rainforests. But I had never seen anything as amazing as that coral reef. So much life in so many diverse forms. Such vibrant color.

I went back several times to snorkel in that coral reef during my years of service. I got some nasty stings from some of the creatures there, and I even had a very close encounter with a very large barracuda.

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

The reef was still amazingly beautiful. Still full of life, activity, and vibrant color. 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.

In 1997, I returned to the Dominican Republic to do postdoctoral research in the rainforest of the central highlands. It was a pleasant surprise to see what had become of the island's forests since my time as a volunteer working in reforestation. It looked pretty bleak in the 1980s. More than 90% of the island's forest cover had already been lost to deforestation, and it was only getting worse. By 1997, the situation had reversed. Significant gains had been made in the area covered with trees. The forest was coming back. It looked like there was hope after all. Maybe we could sequester some of that excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as new forest biomass and soil organic matter. It was a big improvement over the time when forests were routinely slashed and burned for cropping or grazing. In those days, the enormous reservoir of organic carbon contained in forest biomass and soil organic matter was being transformed into a major source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

By 1997, it was clear that coral reefs worldwide were being ravaged. The increase in ocean surface water temperature clearly had something to do with it. 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. The balance of the sea's carbonate buffer system had shifted, with relatively more carbonic acid, and with carbonate ion becoming more scarce. Deficiency of carbonate ion was impeding shell formation. The heat was bleaching them, but the shortage of carbonate was making it hard to even grow. "Ocean acidification" had arrived.

The sea absorbs more than a third of all terrestrial CO2 emissions. This has resulted in a more than 30% depletion of the sea's alkalinity (aka acid neutralizing capacity). The pH is declining. The capacity to absorb additional carbon dioxide is diminishing. The capacity of marine ecosystems such as coral reefs to remove carbon dioxide by photosynthesis is diminishing.

My favorite island in the Caribbean turned out to be a success story of forest recovery. A beacon of hope that we really can turn this around. We can reverse the trend and manage the land to be a "sink" to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide into biomass and soil organic matter. Rather than continue to mismanage the land so that decomposition and combustion during wildfire transforms biomass and soil organic matter into atmospheric carbon dioxide.

On the other hand, my favorite coral reef in the Caribbean is a warning story and a call to take further action. In 1997, it made me feel sad to see the reef again. Another major "bleaching" event had occurred since my last visit. If I didn't know what the reef looked like before, I would have been overwhelmed by the beauty that surrounded. Still full of life, activity, and vibrant color. But now the corpses of bleached coral could be seen everywhere. In some parts, the reef was more dead than alive. It was only getting worse. It broke my heart.
12-03-2022 00:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.

.
RE: you gonna believe your own lying eyes?12-03-2022 00:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.

.


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

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

I found a special pocket of reef and got to know it well.

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

And this just proves it.

Evidence? EVIDENCE! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' EVIDENCE!
12-03-2022 01:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:I should know better than to believe my own lying eyes.

Yeah, that won't work. You didn't see any dying/dead coral reef. You were, however, instructed to say that you saw such by those who do your thinking for you, but you are lying and you know it ... and I know it ... and everybody else knows it.

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

That I did, and you still seem puzzled at how I knew. You still seem oblivious to all the ways you confirm that you are a liar in virtually every post.

Also, I lost count of the number of times that you insisted that you are only interested in an honest conversation, but when Harvey and Duncan try to have a police conversation with you, you immediately shut them down.

Too funny.

So let's look at Bayahibe reef, the one you say has met its demise:










When I look at these images, the words "dead reef" just don't come to mind. As far as Bayahibe goes, I guess that if a reef is going to meet its demise, this is certainly the way to go!



Yes, you are a liar.
12-03-2022 03:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
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


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 12-03-2022 04:01
RE: welcome to the party12-03-2022 04:09
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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!
12-03-2022 04:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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!!

GasGuzzler, so realize you weren't asking me, but I'd like to toss my speculation into the ring and see if I'm somewhat on target.

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.

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.

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

.
12-03-2022 05:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
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.

This is a great point that does raise some relevant questions in light of current events.
With the States of America refusing to drill for oil in Alaska, you would think Climate would shine her bright beacon of approval with adoration across the land with prosperity for all....but wait....we will now purchase oil from the thugs of Venezuela and Syria. Climate must be furious! With Russian wheat and Ukrainian corn off the table, I fear she will rain down a drought and starve us into submission for our carbon sins. Oh, the wisdom of Climate!

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.

I cannot join you in praising the CO2 as a versatile tool. After all, we have yet to heat our homes with the stuff. I just believe Climate is so powerful that she can do what she will with ANY powerful greenhouse gas.

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

I don't know the correct answer to this nor do I have the time to Google it. I need to get this climate reuse project finished before Climate comes knocking at my door collecting carbon sin taxes. Gotta run!


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 12-03-2022 06:09
12-03-2022 05:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
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!


Crickets on my one simple question...and it was a superior quality question.

TOTALLY disappointed.



Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
RE: new record high AND low temperatures - IMPOSSIBLE12-03-2022 07:39
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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


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

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![/quote]

Crickets on my one simple question...and it was a superior quality question.

TOTALLY disappointed.
[/quote]

======================================

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.
12-03-2022 07:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
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.


The question was pertaining to simultaneous Climate induced flooding and drought. Why do I feel like you evaded my question?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 12-03-2022 07:52
12-03-2022 08:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.

Was that the coral reef or something else?

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.

We had litesong. He posted phony temperatures of the Arctic twice daily, and talked about the Present High Arctic Berserker for which I posted accompanying artwork.

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

litesong argued the same thing, i.e. that Global Warming was making the northern hemisphere colder by baking the Arctic and pushing the freezing air southward. Warmizombies are a crazy bunch. So are Greenpeace weenies.

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

Nope. That's the kind of conclusion I would expect of the logically inept.

.
RE: flooding AND drought. Yes, both.12-03-2022 08:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
GasGuzzler wrote:.


The question was pertaining to simultaneous Climate induced flooding and drought. Why do I feel like you evaded my question?[/quote]

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

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

Both of these periodic shifts in ocean current have occurred with increasing frequency and severity in recent decades.

Would I lie to you?

The drought part is mostly straight forward as a matter of temperature increase. There has been an important ocean component. Such as the shift in the Atlantic 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.

Tropical rainforests have been burning when either Southeast Asia or South America gets a drought because of El Nino or La Nina. It's not that tropical rainforests never ever burned before. But never like this.

The flooding is when the ocean currents shift (La Nina or El Nino) bring excessive rain. Or when a hurricane stalls over land and just dumps and dumps on the same spot because climate change shifted the polar vortex.

California gets the worst of both worlds. When the "pineapple express" arrives, too much rain grows too much fuel. When the drought comes back we get the devastating wildfires.

And that is my opinion.
12-03-2022 08:57
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Have you checked any historical records by any chance.Climate Discussion Nexus has them in droves for Canada.Crop yeilds up and longer growing seasons.WA set a record for grain harvest this year.No human understands ocean currents.People have a go and kudos to them spending my tax money on a pointless exercise it is one of lifes wonders.It slows down we are doomed.It speeds up we are doomed just differently.Doubt building a nest here is going to work until you open your mind and do your own research like I did.
12-03-2022 09:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:The shortest answer I can give requires some understanding about ocean currents and both the El Nino and the La Nina phenomenon.

I don't think anyone wanted your shortest answer anyway.

Question: if El Niño and La Niña are just fantasy BS like Global Warming, does that mean that your answer is BS as well?

sealover wrote:Would I lie to you?

The question is whether you will stop.

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

So the answer is no.
12-03-2022 17:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
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.



Wait...did you just make a case for manmade COOLING?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
volcanic effects on acid rain806-02-2021 19:40
Attachment Test901-07-2020 00:06
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds106-03-2019 21:58
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 20:16
Climate Change Mitigation Option112-01-2017 18:00
▲ 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