22-05-2024 02:23 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3. "Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change. duncan61 wrote: Relevant posts of thread are compiled, beginning 1/2 way down page 3. FACT: There IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry" |
22-05-2024 03:13 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
itn, A funny example of einstein's quotes was "doing the same thing repetitively even in the face of disappointing results is one definition of insanity". For example, constantly repeating the phrase "stop spamming" even the it doesn't change anything fits the definition perfectly. |
22-05-2024 06:15 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
Im a BM wrote: Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". Nope. There is no such thing as biogleeclubministry. There is chemistry. Im a BM wrote: FACT: There IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry" There is no such thing as bigcolostomy. |
22-05-2024 06:20 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
keepit wrote:itn, A funny example of einstein's quotes was "doing the same thing repetitively even in the face of disappointing results is one definition of insanity". For example, constantly repeating the phrase "stop spamming" even the it doesn't change anything fits the definition perfectly. keepit, a funny example of Einstein's quotes was "People with down syndrome think 1 + 1 = 1. For example, thinking that $1 + $1 = $1 fits the definition perfectly. |
23-05-2024 02:54 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3. "Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change. duncan61 wrote: Relevant posts of thread are compiled, beginning 1/2 way down page 3. SEE 5 OTHER THREADS ABOUT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CHANGE |
23-05-2024 03:21 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Buzzword fallacy. Science does not use consensus. There is not voting bloc in science. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy from nothing. |
23-05-2024 04:25 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3. "Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change. duncan61 wrote: Relevant posts of thread are compiled, beginning 1/2 way down page 3. SEE 5 OTHER THREADS ABOUT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CHANGE |
23-05-2024 05:31 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
Im a BM wrote: Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". Nope. There is no such thing as biogleeclubministry. There is chemistry. Im a BM wrote: FACT: There IS such a thing as "biogeochemistry" There is no such thing as bigcolostomy. |
23-05-2024 22:55 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". After nine years of... posting, maybe you should compile some of your "greatest hits". IBdaMann and Into the Night, I encourage both of you to find the BEST of your past posts and compile them so they can all be seen together in one place. The posts where you make the most convincing argument to prove your... whatever your point is. I hope that they won't all be one liners like Define your terms. There is no such thing as 'climate change'. Science is not... You are a liar. You are a moron. You don't even know what science is. Stop spamming. Surely, after eight or nine years, you have posted something that is of lasting value and you are proud to share it again. I mean, "Biogeochemistry debunked", for example. So much to be learned from it. Please put together an album of your greatest hits, so people will have some idea what the eff you are even trying to say. Or at least prove that you HAVE something to say. Other than trolling other people's posts on threads you don't even understand. |
24-05-2024 00:51 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: Yes, there IS such as thing as "biogeochemistry". Stop whining. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-05-2024 01:43 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
itn, He's not whining. He's trying to educate you. Personally, i think it's hopeless. Myself, i like to cogitate on the issues that come up here. By seeing the nonsense that comes out here, i formulate better ideas. |
24-05-2024 01:43 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
itn, He's not whining. He's trying to educate you. Personally, i think it's hopeless. Myself, i like to cogitate on the issues that come up here. By seeing the nonsense that comes out here, i formulate better ideas. |
24-05-2024 06:04 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
keepit wrote: itn, He's not whining. He's trying to educate you. keepit, you're full of baloney. squeal-over furniture has done nothing but preach Global Warming since arrival. He refuses to define his terms, which precludes him from trying to teach anything. Either he has a one-way conversation, i.e. he preaches and you listen, or he pouts like a baby all the way home. You, on the other hand, rarely have a coherent point. When you do, it's always absurdly wrong. You've made too many false statements, keepit. You can't be believed. keepit wrote: Myself, i like to cogitate on the issues that come up here. Baloney. You aren't capable of any thinking. Show me a post of yours that reflects thinking on your part. keepit wrote: By seeing the nonsense that comes out here, i formulate better ideas. You have never formulated an idea. You only spew baloney. |
24-05-2024 06:40 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3330) |
ibd, You're working way too hard. Relax. |
24-05-2024 18:02 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
keepit wrote:ibd, You're working way too hard. Relax. Calm down, keepit. There's no need to get all triggered. |
24-05-2024 19:55 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3. "Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change. duncan61 wrote: Relevant posts of thread are compiled, beginning 1/2 way down page 3. SEE 5 OTHER THREADS ABOUT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND GLOBAL CHANGE |
24-05-2024 22:44 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Stop spamming. |
10-09-2024 20:44 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
"Rain is naturally acidic" - Into the Night As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, it is. Natural rainfall, NOT impacted by H2SO4 or HNO3, is acidic. At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6 The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law. If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3 That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification") Distilled, deionized can be produced with pH 7.0 As soon as it comes into contact with the atmosphere, it will start to become acidic. A cup of plain, drinking water will acidify to pH 5.6 if it is given enough time to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. That is 1.4 pH units on the acid side of neutral. In contrast, sea water at pH 8.2, is 1.2 pH units on the alkaline side of neutral. Drinking water is more acidic than sea water is alkaline. It doesn't dissolve our teeth when we drink. It isn't even acidic enough to have sour taste. And sea water isn't caustic. It is only slightly alkaline. "Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations to survive." - IBdaMann In "very alkaline" environment, which the sea is NOT, this may be true. The circumneutral pH of the slightly alkaline sea is in the IDEAL pH range for life. "Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life could thrive like never before." - IBdaMann Well, it wouldn't have to go down much in pH to cross that threshold. But it is very highly buffered against pH change by the carbonate system. If space aliens with super technology changed the world ocean from pH 8.2 to pH 7, marine life could NOT thrive like never before. Very few organisms would survive the mass extinction. But as we drive the slightly alkaline sea a LITTLE CLOSER to that pH 7 threshold, it is already diminishing the sea's capacity to support life. Just as atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in fresh water to take the pH down to 5.6, it dissolves in sea water. Increased input of carbonic acid to the sea has taken the pH down from about 8.2 to 8.2 Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the "naturally acidic" pH of rain to decrease slightly. However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition) "Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3. "Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2. When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur. Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3) When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985, "Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid. Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid. "Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid. Automobile engines were the main source of acid.[/quote] |
10-09-2024 21:31 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14955) |
Im a BM wrote: "Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life could thrive like never before." - IBdaMann But it can't happen. 1. You can't acidify an alkaline 2. There's too much erosion on earth keeping the ocean as alkaline as it is. Im a BM wrote: But it is very highly buffered against pH change by the carbonate system. Leftists like to speak that way because they believe it makes them appear "thmart", i.e. the carbonate system, the climate system, the social system, etc.. and they believe that adding the word "system" makes stupid religio-political positions absolutely true. Im a BM wrote: If space aliens with super technology changed the world ocean from pH 8.2 to pH 7, marine life could NOT thrive like never before. Right. Of course, being the stupid leftist that you are, all you have is the misrepresentation of others' positions. Try discussing a gradual change over time that allows time for life to adapt, as opposed to an instantaneous drastic change. It's like you don't understand any science and all the fundamentals need to be explained to you. With a gradual change over a longer time period to an acidic ocean of say pH 6.8, yes, life would thrive like never before. A biologist you are not. Ask me how I know. Im a BM wrote: But as we drive the slightly alkaline sea a LITTLE CLOSER to that pH 7 threshold, it is already diminishing the sea's capacity to support life. Now you are simply doubling down on stupid. Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake George, for example, are teeming with diverse ecosystems, not suffocating from an already diminishing capacity to support life. |
10-09-2024 21:53 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain. It is not possible to measure the atmospheric content of CO2. Im a BM wrote: Not calculable. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain. Im a BM wrote: Rain is not the ocean. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'. Carbonate is not a chemical. It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Im a BM wrote: There is plenty of life in the ocean. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the pH of the ocean. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the atmospheric content of CO2 or the pH of the ocean. Im a BM wrote: Rain is naturally acidic. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the pH of rain. Im a BM wrote: Marble is not used for columns. Im a BM wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Fossils don't contain sulfur. Im a BM wrote: Nitric acid is not oxidized nitrogen. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: The primary component of rain is water. Im a BM wrote: Coal is not sulfur. Coal burning power plants trap any sulfur impurities. Im a BM wrote: The primary component of rain is water. Im a BM wrote: The exhaust of gasoline engines is primarily carbon dioxide and water, both naturally occurring materials. Neither is an acid. 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 |
10-09-2024 23:00 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
"It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain" - Into the Night "Rain is naturally acidic" - Into the Night Is it a paradox or just proof of omniscience? It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain, yet it is possible to somehow know with absolute certainty that rain is naturally acidic. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, rain is naturally acidic. Natural rainfall, NOT impacted by H2SO4 or HNO3, is ever so slightly acidic. At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6 The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law. If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3 That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification") Distilled, deionized can be produced with pH 7.0 As soon as it comes into contact with the atmosphere, it will start to become acidic. A cup of plain, drinking water will acidify to pH 5.6 if it is given enough time to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. That is 1.4 pH units on the acid side of neutral. In contrast, sea water at pH 8.2, is 1.2 pH units on the alkaline side of neutral. Drinking water is more acidic than sea water is alkaline. It doesn't dissolve our teeth when we drink. It isn't even acidic enough to have sour taste. And sea water isn't caustic. It is only slightly alkaline. "Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations to survive." - IBdaMann In "very alkaline" environment, which the sea is NOT, this may be true. The circumneutral pH of the slightly alkaline sea is in the IDEAL pH range for life. "Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life could thrive like never before." - IBdaMann Well, it wouldn't have to go down much in pH to cross that threshold. But it is very highly buffered against pH change by the carbonate system. If space aliens with super technology changed the world ocean from pH 8.2 to pH 7, marine life could NOT thrive like never before. Very few organisms would survive the mass extinction. But as we drive the slightly alkaline sea a LITTLE CLOSER to that pH 7 threshold, it is already diminishing the sea's capacity to support life. Just as atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in fresh water to take the pH down to 5.6, it dissolves in sea water. Increased input of carbonic acid to the sea has taken the pH down from about 8.2 to 8.2 Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the "naturally acidic" pH of rain to decrease slightly. However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition) "Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3. "Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2. When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur. Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3) When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985, "Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid. Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid. "Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid. Automobile engines were the main source of acid.[/quote][/quote] |
11-09-2024 03:47 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote: Random words and phrases. RQAA. No apparent coherency. No argument presented. Most spam deleted. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
12-09-2024 23:07 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Perhaps I can decipher the definition of "spam" by looking at the large section of my post that was deleted as "spam". But what remains of it got no response. You know with absolute certainty that it is not possible to measure rain pH. You know with absolute certainty that the pH of rain is naturally acidic. Without any way to measure its pH, what evidence proves it is acidic? Is it a paradox, or just proof of your omniscience? |
12-09-2024 23:58 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
The first time I posted this, and this is now the second time, all but two sentences of it were characterized as "spam" and were deleted in the response. The only two sentences of the post that were NOT "spam" were the two lines quoted from Into the Night. Perhaps "spam" means anything I write, or anything ITN does NOT write. My biased perspective is that the post discusses biogeochemistry, and doesn't really qualify as "spam". At least not upon its first presentation. Now that I am RE posting it, perhaps it becomes "spam" in a new way? Still can't wrap my head around the way words mean whatever ITN wants them to mean. I'm still convinced that the biogeochemistry is of value to be seen on a website supposedly intended for discussion of issues at least vaguely related to the environment. Even if it isn't quite as relevant as "Climate Marxism" ----------------------------------------------------------- "It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain" - Into the Night "Rain is naturally acidic" - Into the Night Is it a paradox or just proof of omniscience? It is not possible to measure the pH of the rain, yet it is possible to somehow know with absolute certainty that rain is naturally acidic. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, rain is naturally acidic. Natural rainfall, NOT impacted by H2SO4 or HNO3, is ever so slightly acidic. At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6 The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law. If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3 That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification") Distilled, deionized can be produced with pH 7.0 As soon as it comes into contact with the atmosphere, it will start to become acidic. A cup of plain, drinking water will acidify to pH 5.6 if it is given enough time to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. That is 1.4 pH units on the acid side of neutral. In contrast, sea water at pH 8.2, is 1.2 pH units on the alkaline side of neutral. Drinking water is more acidic than sea water is alkaline. It doesn't dissolve our teeth when we drink. It isn't even acidic enough to have sour taste. And sea water isn't caustic. It is only slightly alkaline. "Alkaline environments are hostile to life and require special adaptations to survive." - IBdaMann In "very alkaline" environment, which the sea is NOT, this may be true. The circumneutral pH of the slightly alkaline sea is in the IDEAL pH range for life. "Life is acidic. If the ocean's pH level were to decrease and cross the threshold to become acidic, marine life could thrive like never before." - IBdaMann Well, it wouldn't have to go down much in pH to cross that threshold. But it is very highly buffered against pH change by the carbonate system. If space aliens with super technology changed the world ocean from pH 8.2 to pH 7, marine life could NOT thrive like never before. Very few organisms would survive the mass extinction. But as we drive the slightly alkaline sea a LITTLE CLOSER to that pH 7 threshold, it is already diminishing the sea's capacity to support life. Just as atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in fresh water to take the pH down to 5.6, it dissolves in sea water. Increased input of carbonic acid to the sea has taken the pH down from about 8.2 to 8.2 Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the "naturally acidic" pH of rain to decrease slightly. However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition) "Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3. "Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2. When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur. Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3) When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985, "Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid. Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid. "Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid. Automobile engines were the main source of acid.[/quote][/quote][/quote] |
13-09-2024 02:59 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Stop spamming. |
21-09-2024 11:02 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
Into the Night wrote: What evidence leads you to conclude that "rain is naturally acidic" if "it is not possible to measure rain pH"? Show us how this science stuff works! |
21-09-2024 19:32 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote: RQAA 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 |
21-09-2024 22:49 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote: If I ever bother to answer another one of YOUR stupid "questions" again.. It is either RQAA or SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! Think about all the things that "science" is NOT. And all the things that are NOT a "chemical". And how important it is to specify all the things that are NOT. One five word sentence covers it ALL! It can be repeated over and over and over in every discussion. No, science is NOT a chemical. Science is not a chemical. Science is not a chemical. Science is not a chemical. I glad that we got THAT straightened out. |
23-09-2024 00:56 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote: I'm not asking you any questions. You are hallucinating again. Im a BM wrote: Stop whining. 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 |
RE: Too much to ask for a rational discussion...15-10-2024 03:27 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
Sealover, PhD, just wanted a fair chance to have a rational discussion. Trolls were never the target audience. But they made it impossible for the target audience to even see what the discussion was. And now that the search engines no longer show climate-debate.com as a relevant website to those seeking such discussion, the target audience will probably never stumble onto this website again. Only ten new members have joined in the last five months. About ten new members were joining every month when I found the site. Like so many others, I became aware of this website by doing a Google search. Many times since that first Google search, I checked again to see if it would consistently show climate-debate high on the page one list for anyone who put in search terms such as climate discussion forum or climate discussion website. Even about six months ago, Google still showed it as a valid and popular choice, just before it stopped doing so. Well, the bait that used to bring in the fresh meat is no longer out there. It turns out that it was too much to ask to be allowed to have a rational discussion about applied science and climate change. The local trolls can't even figure out that biogeochemistry is a real word. But not having a clue what it is never stopped them from trolling about it. I hope we all learned something. duncan61 wrote: |
16-10-2024 01:06 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
sealover wrote: But you are not rational. You are still locked in multiple paradoxes. sealover wrote: You deny theories of science. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. sealover wrote: Science is not buzzwords. sealover wrote: A nothing statement. sealover wrote: Define a 'crucial' element. Why is one element more or less 'crucial' than any other? sealover wrote: You deny chemistry. sealover wrote: Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Calcium carbonate is not a hydrocarbon. sealover wrote: It is not possible to trap heat. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as a global climate. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. You cannot claim all of science as 'biogeochemistry'. sealover wrote: How do you know life formed on this planet? There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no 'governor' or 'regulator' of any climate. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Define this 'pollution'. Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: What the **** is 'alternative and renewable energy'?? Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: You cannot prevent disease. You cannot use a buzzword to describe all of chemistry or all of science. sealover wrote: Science is not engineering. Obviously you have no innovation. You just copy and paste mindlessly, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
RE: "There is no such thing as biogeochemistry"16-10-2024 20:34 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
"There is no such thing as biogeochemistry" - Into the Night Very few people are aware of this fact. Most people have simply never heard of biogeochemistry. Most people do not have the infallible scientific omniscience to be aware that there is simply no such thing as biogeochemistry. Most people don't realize that the dictionaries are WRONG about this one. Most people don't realize that those so called scientific journals, such as the one with the title BIOGEOCHEMISTRY, are NOT truly scientific. Most people don't even know what science IS. It must be fun to be a genius. Perhaps a bit lonely. But the FUN NEVER STOPS when you are an omniscient genius, does it? Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: |
17-10-2024 09:16 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. Go learn English. Im a BM wrote: Dictionaries don't define any word. False authority fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a journal or magazine. Im a BM wrote: Nah. Just you and other believers in the Church of Global Warming. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 17-10-2024 09:17 |
RE: Organic carbon versus inorganic carbon18-10-2024 19:25 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
On April 9, 2022, duncan61 cut and pasted the information about biogeochemistry in the post below. It is an excellent summary of the relatively new scientific discipline. One of the things I like about it is that it points out the important distinction between organic carbon and inorganic carbon. Photosynthesis transforms carbon dioxide (inorganic carbon) into organic carbon. Vocabulary quagmire - "Mineral" versus "inorganic" and organic minerals. The term "mineral" is often used instead of "inorganic" in chemistry. Sulfuric acid is a "mineral" acid, where citric acid is an "organic" acid, composed of organic carbon. Fluorapatite is a mineral made by vertebrates to make tooth enamel. One definition of "organic", not the CHEMISTRY definition, is that it arises from living organisms. There are many "minerals" made by organisms, such as the aragonite (calcium carbonate) in shells of marine critters. Those minerals contain no organic carbon, and are not classified as organic. So our teeth contain a "mineral" that our bodies synthesize organically. But it is inorganic as far as chemistry is concerned. The Fischer Tropsch process synthetically transforms inorganic carbon into organic carbon. That methane is synthesized inorganically (no organisms making it) but it is composed of organic carbon. This is only mentioned because it was two and a half years ago when duncan61 posted this. If the trolls were not scientifically illiterate, they could have learned two and a half years ago about organic carbon versus inorganic carbon. The fact that biogeochemistry is an actual field of science is not difficult to grasp for people who are not scientifically illiterate. duncan61 wrote: |
18-10-2024 20:40 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1922) |
On April 9, 2022, duncan61 cut and pasted the information about biogeochemistry in the post below. It is an excellent summary of the relatively new scientific discipline. One of the things I like about it is that it points out the important distinction between organic carbon and inorganic carbon. Photosynthesis transforms carbon dioxide (inorganic carbon) into organic carbon. Vocabulary quagmire - "Mineral" versus "inorganic" and organic minerals. The term "mineral" is often used instead of "inorganic" in chemistry. Sulfuric acid is a "mineral" acid, where citric acid is an "organic" acid, composed of organic carbon. Fluorapatite is a mineral made by vertebrates to make tooth enamel. One definition of "organic", not the CHEMISTRY definition, is that it arises from living organisms. There are many "minerals" made by organisms, such as the aragonite (calcium carbonate) in shells of marine critters. Those minerals contain no organic carbon, and are not classified as organic. So our teeth contain a "mineral" that our bodies synthesize organically. But it is inorganic as far as chemistry is concerned. The Fischer Tropsch process synthetically transforms inorganic carbon into organic carbon. That methane is synthesized inorganically (no organisms making it) but it is composed of organic carbon. This is only mentioned because it was two and a half years ago when duncan61 posted this. If the trolls were not scientifically illiterate, they could have learned two and a half years ago about organic carbon versus inorganic carbon. The fact that biogeochemistry is an actual field of science is not difficult to grasp for people who are not scientifically illiterate. duncan61 wrote: note: Before joining this website two and a half years ago, I had NEVER ONCE used the term "scientifically illiterate". During several decades hanging out among professional scientists, I can't recall EVER ONCE hearing or seeing anyone else use the term "scientifically illiterate". Within a few hours of my first post on this website, I was informed that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron". To go on to be reminded, again and again and again, that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron". This did not make me special in any way. With just a few exceptions, EVERY member who has posted since my arrival has also been informed "You are a scientifically illiterate moron". High quality discussion of science! "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night |
19-10-2024 05:18 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Im a BM wrote: Science is not buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: 'Mineral' is not used in chemistry. Rocks are not organic. Im a BM wrote: 'Mineral' is not used in chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Sulfuric acid is not a rock. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. The Fischer-Tropsche process does not synthesize carbon or transform in any way. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Methane is not carbon. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a buzzword. You deny theories of science. Your religion has made you illiterate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-11-2024 19:48 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
A magic moment: January 20, 1988 Biogeochemistry is awesomely COOL! Take one magic moment, for example. In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. We had been examining the role of organic anions, particularly those of phenol carboxylic acids such as tannins, in forest soil biogeochemistry. My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. I was compiling a simple list. They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. HOLY COW! BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IS EFFING AWESOME!!! It would take another seven years before the discovery finally made a big splash in the journal NATURE. The joy of that discovery gave me some insight into why Archimedes went running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!" The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down page 3 |
25-11-2024 04:05 | |
sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". Applied biogeochemistry is at the heart of needed environmental remediation. A magic moment: January 20, 1988 Biogeochemistry is awesomely COOL! Take one magic moment, for example. In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. We had been examining the role of organic anions, particularly those of phenol carboxylic acids such as tannins, in forest soil biogeochemistry. My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. I was compiling a simple list. They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. HOLY COW! BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IS EFFING AWESOME!!! It would take another seven years before the discovery finally made a big splash in the journal NATURE. The joy of that discovery gave me some insight into why Archimedes went running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!" The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down page 3 |
25-11-2024 22:15 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Stop spamming. 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 |
25-11-2024 22:17 | |
Into the Night![]() (22983) |
sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' in science. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemists' in science. sealover wrote: There is no 'problem'. CO2 is not a pollutant. Stop spamming. 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 |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads. | 70 | 20-03-2025 03:29 |
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry | 369 | 20-03-2025 02:23 |
Biogeochemistry Related Thread List | 50 | 20-03-2025 01:03 |
Biogeochemistry Debunked | 54 | 08-12-2024 20:09 |
Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum | 15 | 18-07-2024 21:11 |