Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

Are you saying plants cannot consume nitrogen from soil?

That doesn't sound correct.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

Are you saying plants cannot consume nitrogen from soil?

That doesn't sound correct.

If a plant adds Nitrogen to the soil, the plant cannot be consuming Nitrogen from the soil. So when a plant adds Nitrogen to the soil it comes from the atmosphere.

Case closed, not that you will stop thrashing around like a wounded wombat

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?

Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.

When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.

LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know

I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?

Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed

Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...

Swan wrote:My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant

sealover wrote:
My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

Well I don't think I ever meant to imply plants add nitrogen to soil by taking nitrogen from the soil. In fact, the basic principle I entered this discussion with was that this would be impossible.

I probably was trying to say plants return the nitrogen they took from the soil when they die.

As I understand it, after a plant dies, it will decompose into ammonia.

Then it will break down further into nitrites and nitrates.

Then those will break down further into nitrogen gases in the atmosphere.

Various bacterias will cause this.

The enlightenment I have gained from this discussion is that bacteria can work with legumes to pull nitrogen gases from the air into soil, and so can lightning.

Then there is the discussion about how the nitrogen was created in the first place, and that's when volcanoes and meteorites came up.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

Well I don't think I ever meant to imply plants add nitrogen to soil by taking nitrogen from the soil. In fact, the basic principle I entered this discussion with was that this would be impossible.

I probably was trying to say plants return the nitrogen they took from the soil when they die.

As I understand it, after a plant dies, it will decompose into ammonia.

Then it will break down further into nitrites and nitrates.

Then those will break down further into nitrogen gases in the atmosphere.

Various bacterias will cause this.

The enlightenment I have gained from this discussion is that bacteria can work with legumes to pull nitrogen gases from the air into soil, and so can lightning.

Then there is the discussion about how the nitrogen was created in the first place, and that's when volcanoes and meteorites came up.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

Well I don't think I ever meant to imply plants add nitrogen to soil by taking nitrogen from the soil. In fact, the basic principle I entered this discussion with was that this would be impossible.

I probably was trying to say plants return the nitrogen they took from the soil when they die.

As I understand it, after a plant dies, it will decompose into ammonia.

Then it will break down further into nitrites and nitrates.

Then those will break down further into nitrogen gases in the atmosphere.

Various bacterias will cause this.

The enlightenment I have gained from this discussion is that bacteria can work with legumes to pull nitrogen gases from the air into soil, and so can lightning.

Then there is the discussion about how the nitrogen was created in the first place, and that's when volcanoes and meteorites came up.

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
My garden is currently producing broccoli, tomatos, peppers, beets, basil, cucumbers and eggplant


None of these plant growths will lead to nitrogen being pulled from the air and being returned to the soil.

I got some string bean and pea seeds if you want to throw them into the rotation, to replenish the soil.

Otherwise you will need to add fertilizer.


When plants store and or add Nitrogen to the soil, where do you suppose that this Nitrogen comes from.


LOL it comes out of the atmosphere as plants do not synthesize elements as you are suggesting.

You are stupid but you will never know


I think it is bacteria in the soil who has the job of synthesizing nitrogen, no?


Wrong the bacteria do not synthesize Nitrogen, they take it from the air. The only speculative place where elements are synthesized is in the center of stars but that is only theory.

So whether it is the pea, the bacteria or the symbiotic relationship between the two, the added Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere

This is why I passed chemistry and you failed


Well then, how did it get to the atmosphere?

Some say volcanoes, Some say meteorites...



Look I understand, you hate losing, but you said that Nitrogen fixing plants do not get the Nitrogen that they store from the atmosphere and you were wrong. You even implied that Nitrogen fixers add Nitrogen to the soil by up taking Nitrogen from that soil, which indicates that you not only failed chemistry but everything after third grade math as well.

It's ok, nobody wins when arguing with me, just how it is. Ask the bureau

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gosh, I'm learning something new about soil science.

Swan has enlightened me that plants "store" nitrogen from the atmosphere. Previous posts specifically explained how that nitrogen is "stored" in the root nodules.

I may have been credited for discovering a "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" (Chapin, 1995, Nature, "New cog in the nitrogen cycle").

But I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how nitrogen can be "stored" in the root nodule of a nitrogen fixing plant.

Please enlighten me further.


"Well then, how did it get into the atmosphere?" - Spongy Iris

Yes, how did all that N2 gas get into the atmosphere?

More than one mechanism can generate N2. N2 can get squeezed out of rocks during metamorphism, derived from ammonia, nitrate, and high heat and pressure. Fertilizer bombs make N2, from ammonium and nitrate. Annamox bacteria make N2 from ammonium and nitrate.

If you could ask every molecule of N2 in the atmosphere TODAY exactly where it came from, more than 90% of them would give the same answer. Denitrification by bacteria in soil or water is the process that gave us nearly all the N2 in the air right now. Okay, maybe there are more annamox bacteria than we know about.

Denitrifying bacteria are found in low oxygen conditions, where they use nitrate, rather than oxygen, as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon for metabolic energy. The oxidized (inorganic) carbon product of denitrification is not carbon dioxide. Carbonate ion is produced as organic carbon gets oxidized during denitrification.

So, N2 comes and goes to and from the atmosphere. Nearly all the N2 molecules in the atmosphere TODAY were generated by denitrifying bacteria. The process is driven by energy released from organic carbon oxidized anaerobically. That organic carbon was made photosynthesis.

Really, PHOTOSYNTHESIS made the N2 in the atmosphere, because photosynthesis made the organic carbon that drives denitrification. Without photosynthesis, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere. There would be very little nitrogen. It would be a very thin atmosphere.

Nearly every N2 molecule in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got oxidized via dentrification. Every molecule of N2 in the air represents a molecule of organic carbon that got transformed to carbonate, rather than carbon dioxide, upon oxidation.

Well I don't think I ever meant to imply plants add nitrogen to soil by taking nitrogen from the soil. In fact, the basic principle I entered this discussion with was that this would be impossible.

I probably was trying to say plants return the nitrogen they took from the soil when they die.

As I understand it, after a plant dies, it will decompose into ammonia.

Then it will break down further into nitrites and nitrates.

Then those will break down further into nitrogen gases in the atmosphere.

Various bacterias will cause this.

The enlightenment I have gained from this discussion is that bacteria can work with legumes to pull nitrogen gases from the air into soil, and so can lightning.

Then there is the discussion about how the nitrogen was created in the first place, and that's when volcanoes and meteorites came up.

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Do you really believe that the quantity of atmospheric nitrogen "fixed" by lightening amounts to more than a "drop in a bucket"? You could calculate how much fertilizer N a typical garden consumes, and see how much N2 gets fixed by your nearest lightening strike.

The rainfall has some some ammonia, various NOxs, especially including NITRIC acid. There are orders of magnitude more tomato-fertilizer nitogen in rainfall as ACID RAIN than there is from some lightening strikes. Indeed, "acid rain" has so much bioavailable nitrogen that it causes nitrogen "saturation" of ecosystems.

Maybe you are aware of some discovery and measurements I never heard of about how important lightening derived nitrogen is for plant nutrition.

sealover wrote:
[
But you did leave out one very important cog in the nitrogen cycle.

In at least one ecosystem I studied very intensively, the plant does NOT decompose into ammonia after it dies. "Mineralization", when organic nitrogen is transformed into ammonia or nitrate, is short circuited in many ecosystems. A pine tree is typically associated with a mycorrhizal fungi on its roots. Those mycorrhizal fungi release dissolved organic nitrogen from the dead plant and transfer it directly to the plant in organic form. Most of our farming involves fast growing annual plants that get virtually ALL their nitrogen from the soil in the form of either ammonium or nitrate. But most forests do things differently, and the nitrogen cycle is short circuited most of the time. Foresters couldn't figure out why the measured rates of nitrogen mineralization were so damn low, and yet the pine trees were able to get all the nitrogen they needed. They kept assuming something was wrong with their methodology. But they were right. The pines were getting most of their nitrogen as amino acids provided by a mycorrhizal fungi. The mycorrhizal fungi got the amino acids from the dead plant. The nitrogen never changed to a form that could be lost to denitrification or nitrate leaching/runoff.

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Not all lightning moves downward, What about lightning that moves upward, Can this take nitrogen from the atmosphere too, and keep it from the soil? The cloud layer certainly isn't the beginning and end of lightning, there is upper atmospheric lightning. Some images of said phenomenon even seem to show pretty good evidence of lightning hitting Heaven. The acronym for lightning hitting Heaven is called ELVES.

BTW, I'm not sure if any poop is gonna hit the fan in regards to the Epstein underage whorehouses for the rich and famous scandal. Pam Blondie doesn't seem too keen on provoking a public lynching, so looks like Danny Boy is gonna have to quit to try to initiate the scapegoat ritual.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Not all lightning moves downward, What about lightning that moves upward, Can this take nitrogen from the atmosphere too, and keep it from the soil? The cloud layer certainly isn't the beginning and end of lightning, there is upper atmospheric lightning. Some images of said phenomenon even seem to show pretty good evidence of lightning hitting Heaven. The acronym for lightning hitting Heaven is called ELVES.

BTW, I'm not sure if any poop is gonna hit the fan in regards to the Epstein underage whorehouses for the rich and famous scandal. Pam Blondie doesn't seem too keen on provoking a public lynching, so looks like Danny Boy is gonna have to quit to try to initiate the scapegoat ritual.

There is no need for a vertical strike just ionized air

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Not all lightning moves downward, What about lightning that moves upward, Can this take nitrogen from the atmosphere too, and keep it from the soil? The cloud layer certainly isn't the beginning and end of lightning, there is upper atmospheric lightning. Some images of said phenomenon even seem to show pretty good evidence of lightning hitting Heaven. The acronym for lightning hitting Heaven is called ELVES.

BTW, I'm not sure if any poop is gonna hit the fan in regards to the Epstein underage whorehouses for the rich and famous scandal. Pam Blondie doesn't seem too keen on provoking a public lynching, so looks like Danny Boy is gonna have to quit to try to initiate the scapegoat ritual.

There is no need for a vertical strike just ionized air

"Air particles are affected and carried:

The intense heat of lightning (~30,000 K or 53,540°F) causes more ionization and rapidly expands the air — this creates thunder.
Ionized particles may be briefly "carried" in the expanding plasma, but they don't travel long distances after the strike — they rapidly recombine and neutralize."

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Not all lightning moves downward, What about lightning that moves upward, Can this take nitrogen from the atmosphere too, and keep it from the soil? The cloud layer certainly isn't the beginning and end of lightning, there is upper atmospheric lightning. Some images of said phenomenon even seem to show pretty good evidence of lightning hitting Heaven. The acronym for lightning hitting Heaven is called ELVES.

BTW, I'm not sure if any poop is gonna hit the fan in regards to the Epstein underage whorehouses for the rich and famous scandal. Pam Blondie doesn't seem too keen on provoking a public lynching, so looks like Danny Boy is gonna have to quit to try to initiate the scapegoat ritual.

There is no need for a vertical strike just ionized air

"Air particles are affected and carried:

The intense heat of lightning (~30,000 K or 53,540°F) causes more ionization and rapidly expands the air — this creates thunder.
Ionized particles may be briefly "carried" in the expanding plasma, but they don't travel long distances after the strike — they rapidly recombine and neutralize."

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

During thunderstorms, lightning breaks down atmospheric nitrogen, allowing it to combine with oxygen and form nitrates. These nitrates then dissolve in rainwater, are carried to the soil, and are absorbed by plants (TOMATOS INCLUDED) as a natural fertilizer. This process, called atmospheric nitrogen fixation, is a crucial way plants obtain nitrogen, an essential nutrient for growth.

You are wrong, now stop being as illiterate as Pam Blondie

PS. Epstein may well have been duped into believing that he was working for the Mossad when in reality Russia or China may have been directly involved. That said since everything is a lie then Israel is out of the picture. Just sayin.

PSS. The best form of fertilizer is good old poop.

Not all lightning moves downward, What about lightning that moves upward, Can this take nitrogen from the atmosphere too, and keep it from the soil? The cloud layer certainly isn't the beginning and end of lightning, there is upper atmospheric lightning. Some images of said phenomenon even seem to show pretty good evidence of lightning hitting Heaven. The acronym for lightning hitting Heaven is called ELVES.

BTW, I'm not sure if any poop is gonna hit the fan in regards to the Epstein underage whorehouses for the rich and famous scandal. Pam Blondie doesn't seem too keen on provoking a public lynching, so looks like Danny Boy is gonna have to quit to try to initiate the scapegoat ritual.

There is no need for a vertical strike just ionized air

"Air particles are affected and carried:

The intense heat of lightning (~30,000 K or 53,540°F) causes more ionization and rapidly expands the air — this creates thunder.
Ionized particles may be briefly "carried" in the expanding plasma, but they don't travel long distances after the strike — they rapidly recombine and neutralize."

Your insistence that lightning does not ionize the air allowing for water and Nitrogen to form several compounds that fall from the sky in the rain is precious. However the school that gave you a diploma should be bombed for public safety because you are an inebriated fool (fun nevertheless).

Bye the way a horizontal lightning strike that never reaches the ground will ionize more air near the clouds where the rain is everytime bub. But you keep on rambling about your behavioral science degree, that you used to land here as my internet pet. We can do this for a thousand years and you would never tsee a meaningfull mustake, nor will you uncover the real JFK files.

The truth is out there

Are you sure that you want to know?

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

The most ammonification I ever saw in my life!

It was December, 2005. The rains were late that year. The first really big storm had finally come in to dump a load on the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

I had to go out on a delta "island" to collect groundwater samples. We had a bunch of monitoring wells, screened at different depths to sample from different water bearing units. The heavy rain made for terrible field conditions, but it ensured that even the shallowest ground water bearing units would provide samples for analysis.

During the dry season, the large microbial biomass in the organic-matter-rich upper topsoil dried out and died. Now it was finally getting wet again, and the dead microbial biomass was supporting a feeding frenzy of live microorganisms.

There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature. Thermogenic bacteria were monopolizing the rich food supply in places by baking off the competition. Dead microorganisms are the ideal food for live microorganisms, containing everything they need. But there is too much nitrogen in it. Microorganisms don't need that much protein.

What is ammonification? It is nearly always the process of removing an amino group from an amino acid. The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy, or used as raw material to build carbon compounds. They can't get that energy unless they take off the amino group first. This "ammonifies" the dead microbial biomass.

Okay, it was the wildest thing I ever saw. Steam rising from the ground and a few hot water shallow wells in December. But we didn't just measure the temperature of the groundwater samples. Another field measure performed was pH. HOLY COW! One of the samples has pH 11. Others were pH 9-10. I had never seen that before. But that's ammonification for ya! It can sure drive up the pH, at least temporarily.

What goes up must come down. So, when organic nitrogen is ammonified, this can raise the pH to astounding heights.

When ammonium is oxidized, this can cause serious acid formation. One of those water samples with very high field pH didn't get properly capped and refrigerated. Several hours later, we measured its pH just to see what happened, even though it was no longer a valid sample for lab analysis. The pH had dropped to about 3. That's nitrification for ya! Oxidation of ammonium to nitric acid.

It was incredible luck to be in the field during the massive ammonification event. The changes were so brief, they would not have been observed if we weren't there the same day. Hot groundwater with pH 11? Never saw it before, and never saw it since.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

The most ammonification I ever saw in my life!

It was December, 2005. The rains were late that year. The first really big storm had finally come in to dump a load on the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

I had to go out on a delta "island" to collect groundwater samples. We had a bunch of monitoring wells, screened at different depths to sample from different water bearing units. The heavy rain made for terrible field conditions, but it ensured that even the shallowest ground water bearing units would provide samples for analysis.

During the dry season, the large microbial biomass in the organic-matter-rich upper topsoil dried out and died. Now it was finally getting wet again, and the dead microbial biomass was supporting a feeding frenzy of live microorganisms.

There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature. Thermogenic bacteria were monopolizing the rich food supply in places by baking off the competition. Dead microorganisms are the ideal food for live microorganisms, containing everything they need. But there is too much nitrogen in it. Microorganisms don't need that much protein.

What is ammonification? It is nearly always the process of removing an amino group from an amino acid. The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy, or used as raw material to build carbon compounds. They can't get that energy unless they take off the amino group first. This "ammonifies" the dead microbial biomass.

Okay, it was the wildest thing I ever saw. Steam rising from the ground and a few hot water shallow wells in December. But we didn't just measure the temperature of the groundwater samples. Another field measure performed was pH. HOLY COW! One of the samples has pH 11. Others were pH 9-10. I had never seen that before. But that's ammonification for ya! It can sure drive up the pH, at least temporarily.

What goes up must come down. So, when organic nitrogen is ammonified, this can raise the pH to astounding heights.

When ammonium is oxidized, this can cause serious acid formation. One of those water samples with very high field pH didn't get properly capped and refrigerated. Several hours later, we measured its pH just to see what happened, even though it was no longer a valid sample for lab analysis. The pH had dropped to about 3. That's nitrification for ya! Oxidation of ammonium to nitric acid.

It was incredible luck to be in the field during the massive ammonification event. The changes were so brief, they would not have been observed if we weren't there the same day. Hot groundwater with pH 11? Never saw it before, and never saw it since.

That is an awesome observation, sounds like it happened in an overnight feeding frenzy!

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

The most ammonification I ever saw in my life!

It was December, 2005. The rains were late that year. The first really big storm had finally come in to dump a load on the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.

I had to go out on a delta "island" to collect groundwater samples. We had a bunch of monitoring wells, screened at different depths to sample from different water bearing units. The heavy rain made for terrible field conditions, but it ensured that even the shallowest ground water bearing units would provide samples for analysis.

During the dry season, the large microbial biomass in the organic-matter-rich upper topsoil dried out and died. Now it was finally getting wet again, and the dead microbial biomass was supporting a feeding frenzy of live microorganisms.

There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature. Thermogenic bacteria were monopolizing the rich food supply in places by baking off the competition. Dead microorganisms are the ideal food for live microorganisms, containing everything they need. But there is too much nitrogen in it. Microorganisms don't need that much protein.

What is ammonification? It is nearly always the process of removing an amino group from an amino acid. The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy, or used as raw material to build carbon compounds. They can't get that energy unless they take off the amino group first. This "ammonifies" the dead microbial biomass.

Okay, it was the wildest thing I ever saw. Steam rising from the ground and a few hot water shallow wells in December. But we didn't just measure the temperature of the groundwater samples. Another field measure performed was pH. HOLY COW! One of the samples has pH 11. Others were pH 9-10. I had never seen that before. But that's ammonification for ya! It can sure drive up the pH, at least temporarily.

What goes up must come down. So, when organic nitrogen is ammonified, this can raise the pH to astounding heights.

When ammonium is oxidized, this can cause serious acid formation. One of those water samples with very high field pH didn't get properly capped and refrigerated. Several hours later, we measured its pH just to see what happened, even though it was no longer a valid sample for lab analysis. The pH had dropped to about 3. That's nitrification for ya! Oxidation of ammonium to nitric acid.

It was incredible luck to be in the field during the massive ammonification event. The changes were so brief, they would not have been observed if we weren't there the same day. Hot groundwater with pH 11? Never saw it before, and never saw it since.

That is an awesome observation, sounds like it happened in an overnight feeding frenzy!

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases. How this supposedly violates the laws of thermodynamics, SB law, blah blah blah denialist bullshit that just proves you never looked at an introductory physics textbook.

The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

The foul deed I accuse you of is the dishonesty of your pretext for being an obnoxious dick. You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

"SB LAW!" "Define your terms" "You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

The troll ambush team seems to have disbanded.

Google stopped supplying you guys with fresh prey.

ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

For two months, his fans have been deprived of the genius insights. Who will tell us that science is not something that is not science? Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. It is not possible for anyone to measure it.. if you didn't see it with your own eyes, you have no way to know if it ever really happened...

I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth, I bet the whole denialist troll gang would come running back to ambush them in a heartbeat.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases. How this supposedly violates the laws of thermodynamics, SB law, blah blah blah denialist bullshit that just proves you never looked at an introductory physics textbook.

The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

The foul deed I accuse you of is the dishonesty of your pretext for being an obnoxious dick. You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

"SB LAW!" "Define your terms" "You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

The troll ambush team seems to have disbanded.

Google stopped supplying you guys with fresh prey.

ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

For two months, his fans have been deprived of the genius insights. Who will tell us that science is not something that is not science? Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. It is not possible for anyone to measure it.. if you didn't see it with your own eyes, you have no way to know if it ever really happened...

I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth, I bet the whole denialist troll gang would come running back to ambush them in a heartbeat.

Seriously at least one of you guys needs to submit this to the Journal of Applied Schizophrenia ASAP

You said:
can you explain the greenhouse effect using physics?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — let's explore the greenhouse effect from a physics perspective.

The Greenhouse Effect: Physical Principles
The greenhouse effect is the process by which certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap infrared radiation (heat), warming the planet's surface. It's governed by principles from thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:
1. Solar Radiation In (Shortwave Radiation)
The Sun emits energy primarily as shortwave electromagnetic radiation: visible light, ultraviolet (UV), and some near-infrared (IR).

This radiation passes easily through the atmosphere because gases like N₂, O₂, and Ar are transparent to it.

Roughly 70% of this energy is absorbed by Earth's surface, warming it.

2. Earth's Radiation Out (Longwave Radiation)
The Earth, being cooler than the Sun (~288 K vs. 5778 K), radiates energy as longwave infrared radiation (wavelengths ~4–100 micrometers) according to Planck's Law.

This outgoing IR radiation would escape to space — if not for greenhouse gases.

3. Interaction with Greenhouse Gases
Gases like CO₂, CH₄, H₂O vapor, and N₂O absorb specific IR wavelengths.

This happens because:

Molecules have vibrational modes that can resonate with IR radiation.

When IR radiation hits these molecules, it causes them to vibrate more — absorbing energy.

Later, they re-emit this radiation in all directions, including back toward Earth.

This trapping and re-emission of IR radiation is the core mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

4. Resulting Warming
The net effect is that more energy is retained in the Earth–atmosphere system.

This raises the equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth above what it would be without an atmosphere.

Core Physical Concepts Involved
Concept Role in the Greenhouse Effect
Blackbody Radiation (Planck's Law) Earth and Sun emit radiation depending on temperature
Kirchhoff's Law Good absorbers are also good emitters — greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit IR
Thermodynamic Equilibrium The climate system balances incoming and outgoing energy
Quantum Mechanics Explains why only certain gases absorb IR — due to molecular energy levels
Mathematical View (Simplified)
Stefan–Boltzmann Law for blackbody emission:

P
=
σ
T
4
P=σT
4

P
P: power radiated per unit area

σ
σ: Stefan–Boltzmann constant

T
T: temperature in Kelvin

Earth adjusts its surface temperature
T
T until energy in = out, factoring in the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.

Without the Greenhouse Effect
If Earth had no atmosphere, the surface temperature would be about 255 K (-18°C), instead of the current average 288 K (15°C). The natural greenhouse effect adds about 33°C — essential for life.

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

Im a BM wrote:
I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases.

Im a BM wrote:
The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

Im a BM wrote:
The foul deed I accuse you of is...being an obnoxious dick.

Im a BM wrote:
You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

Im a BM wrote:
"SB LAW!"

Im a BM wrote:
"Define your terms"

Im a BM wrote:
You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

Im a BM wrote:
So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

Im a BM wrote:
ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

Im a BM wrote:
If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

Probably because your professors failed to teach you that energy is required to raise the temperature of a system. Let me know when you are able to take a hot shower from your CO2 powered water heater.

Im a BM wrote:
I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases.

All matter absorbs thermal energy, everywhere.

Im a BM wrote:
The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

Would you agree that energy was used to raise the temperature of that system?

Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

I asked if you had ever been hired to get results. By your answer it sounds like your idea of results is convincing a group of people into believing you are right and winning a court case. Those are not the results I wanted to hear about. I want to know if you ever fixed an environmental issue. Did you ever use your knowledge to create a new marketable product? Did you improve an existing product? Did you provide results outside of court of study groups? What have you PRODUCED? Correct me if I'm wrong but your life has been largely government funded studies and testifying in court. Here's a good question...What situation carried the most risk for you personally if you were proven wrong?

Im a BM wrote:
The foul deed I accuse you of is...being an obnoxious dick.

Thank you. This is truly a badge of honor. Has IBdaMann ever received such an crown? Eat your heart out IBdaMann!

Im a BM wrote:
You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

If I quote IBdaMann the text will appear in the shaded boxes. This is something you still have not learned how to do correctly. It is actually quite amusing coming from someone claiming a PhD!

Im a BM wrote:
"SB LAW!"

Yes, the old SB law is one of your favorites to violate. Your magic greenhouse theory tries to increase temperature while decreasing radiance. Dude, that's an egregious violation.

Im a BM wrote:
"Define your terms"

Every scientist defines his terms. When will you become a scientist?

Im a BM wrote:
You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

You don't know what heat is. This isn't the hard stuff. You won't even need IBdaMann for this.

Im a BM wrote:
So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

JPP is a far more active hangout, but it can get nasty over there. Probably not a good place for you since you are so easily offended. I don't post much anywhere anymore. My life is full of better things for me to do. Sometimes I feel the need to speak up, but usually I just read the liberal drive, shake my head, and walk away. Most of it is just sad.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

OK that was just an incredibly stupid thing to say. I would call that total spam. His last post was on June 25th, about 3 weeks ago.

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

Did you ever locate your audience? I was totally cheering for you!

Im a BM wrote:
If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth.

That new member would kindly be asked to define "climate change". The conversation is very difficult to move forward in a productive manner without a definition of terms. How do we even know if we're discussing the same issues or items? Or is everything climate change? Without YOUR definition, of which we are still eagerly awaiting, we'll just have to assume that all matter is climate everywhere. Does that sound fairly fair?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

Probably because your professors failed to teach you that energy is required to raise the temperature of a system. Let me know when you are able to take a hot shower from your CO2 powered water heater.

Im a BM wrote:
I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases.

All matter absorbs thermal energy, everywhere.

Im a BM wrote:
The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

Would you agree that energy was used to raise the temperature of that system?

Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

I asked if you had ever been hired to get results. By your answer it sounds like your idea of results is convincing a group of people into believing you are right and winning a court case. Those are not the results I wanted to hear about. I want to know if you ever fixed an environmental issue. Did you ever use your knowledge to create a new marketable product? Did you improve an existing product? Did you provide results outside of court of study groups? What have you PRODUCED? Correct me if I'm wrong but your life has been largely government funded studies and testifying in court. Here's a good question...What situation carried the most risk for you personally if you were proven wrong?

Im a BM wrote:
The foul deed I accuse you of is...being an obnoxious dick.

Thank you. This is truly a badge of honor. Has IBdaMann ever received such an crown? Eat your heart out IBdaMann!

Im a BM wrote:
You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

If I quote IBdaMann the text will appear in the shaded boxes. This is something you still have not learned how to do correctly. It is actually quite amusing coming from someone claiming a PhD!

Im a BM wrote:
"SB LAW!"

Yes, the old SB law is one of your favorites to violate. Your magic greenhouse theory tries to increase temperature while decreasing radiance. Dude, that's an egregious violation.

Im a BM wrote:
"Define your terms"

Every scientist defines his terms. When will you become a scientist?

Im a BM wrote:
You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

You don't know what heat is. This isn't the hard stuff. You won't even need IBdaMann for this.

Im a BM wrote:
So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

JPP is a far more active hangout, but it can get nasty over there. Probably not a good place for you since you are so easily offended. I don't post much anywhere anymore. My life is full of better things for me to do. Sometimes I feel the need to speak up, but usually I just read the liberal drive, shake my head, and walk away. Most of it is just sad.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

OK that was just an incredibly stupid thing to say. I would call that total spam. His last post was on June 25th, about 3 weeks ago.

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

Did you ever locate your audience? I was totally cheering for you!

Im a BM wrote:
If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth.

That new member would kindly be asked to define "climate change". The conversation is very difficult to move forward in a productive manner without a definition of terms. How do we even know if we're discussing the same issues or items? Or is everything climate change? Without YOUR definition, of which we are still eagerly awaiting, we'll just have to assume that all matter is climate everywhere. Does that sound fairly fair?

How do you debunk somebody who simply says greenhouse gases slow down heat loss and thereby increase temperature?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

Probably because your professors failed to teach you that energy is required to raise the temperature of a system. Let me know when you are able to take a hot shower from your CO2 powered water heater.

Im a BM wrote:
I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases.

All matter absorbs thermal energy, everywhere.

Im a BM wrote:
The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

Would you agree that energy was used to raise the temperature of that system?

Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

I asked if you had ever been hired to get results. By your answer it sounds like your idea of results is convincing a group of people into believing you are right and winning a court case. Those are not the results I wanted to hear about. I want to know if you ever fixed an environmental issue. Did you ever use your knowledge to create a new marketable product? Did you improve an existing product? Did you provide results outside of court of study groups? What have you PRODUCED? Correct me if I'm wrong but your life has been largely government funded studies and testifying in court. Here's a good question...What situation carried the most risk for you personally if you were proven wrong?

Im a BM wrote:
The foul deed I accuse you of is...being an obnoxious dick.

Thank you. This is truly a badge of honor. Has IBdaMann ever received such an crown? Eat your heart out IBdaMann!

Im a BM wrote:
You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

If I quote IBdaMann the text will appear in the shaded boxes. This is something you still have not learned how to do correctly. It is actually quite amusing coming from someone claiming a PhD!

Im a BM wrote:
"SB LAW!"

Yes, the old SB law is one of your favorites to violate. Your magic greenhouse theory tries to increase temperature while decreasing radiance. Dude, that's an egregious violation.

Im a BM wrote:
"Define your terms"

Every scientist defines his terms. When will you become a scientist?

Im a BM wrote:
You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

You don't know what heat is. This isn't the hard stuff. You won't even need IBdaMann for this.

Im a BM wrote:
So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

JPP is a far more active hangout, but it can get nasty over there. Probably not a good place for you since you are so easily offended. I don't post much anywhere anymore. My life is full of better things for me to do. Sometimes I feel the need to speak up, but usually I just read the liberal drive, shake my head, and walk away. Most of it is just sad.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

OK that was just an incredibly stupid thing to say. I would call that total spam. His last post was on June 25th, about 3 weeks ago.

Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

Did you ever locate your audience? I was totally cheering for you!

Im a BM wrote:
If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth.

That new member would kindly be asked to define "climate change". The conversation is very difficult to move forward in a productive manner without a definition of terms. How do we even know if we're discussing the same issues or items? Or is everything climate change? Without YOUR definition, of which we are still eagerly awaiting, we'll just have to assume that all matter is climate everywhere. Does that sound fairly fair?

How do you debunk somebody who simply says greenhouse gases slow down heat loss and thereby increase temperature?

First, heat must be defined. Heat and temperature are far too often conflated. Forget about heat being warm or hot. For example, what is "heat loss"? at what temperature does something become "heat"? It doesn't. No such thing as heat loss....unless a system came to perfect equilibrium. Then there would be no heat. In our Earth system there is always heat.

Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy and ALWAYS from higher temperature to lower temperature matter. There are three forms of heat.

Conduction
Convection
Radiation

A greenhouse atmosphere gets warmer than ambient air by eliminating convection. No claim anywhere says that CO2 reduces convection. Why is it labeled a "greenhouse gas"?

Yes, gasses absorb thermal energy. This is how the earth's solid surface COOLS itself. Gasses also also emit thermal energy. Chat GPT goes off the rails by claiming the energy is re emitted back to the surface.

The surface was warmed first, and thermal energy was emitted to a cooler body. Heat would be flowing BACKWARDS if thermal energy was absorbed again by the warmer surface.

Make sense?

Is Solar Energy to Earth Always the Same?
Short answer:
No, not exactly the same — but very close to constant on short timescales.

What Is Constant (Roughly)?
The solar constant:

The average amount of solar energy hitting 1 m² at the top of Earth's atmosphere:
≈
1361
 W/m²
≈1361 W/m²
It varies slightly (≈ 0.1%) due to the 11-year solar cycle, sunspots, and minor orbital variations.
So while not perfectly constant, it's very stable over years or decades — stable enough for climate balance to hold (until human effects come in).

Does This Mean the Sun–Earth System Has No Heat Loss?
No — because:

Earth does not keep the energy it receives.
It re-radiates nearly all of it back into space as infrared (longwave) radiation, governed by the Stefan–Boltzmann Law:
P
=
σ
T
4
P=σT
4

The Sun itself is losing energy:
The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, converting mass to energy via
E
=
m
c
2
E=mc
2
.
It loses ~4 million tons of mass every second to radiation!
That energy radiates into space in all directions — only a tiny slice hits Earth.
Nothing cycles back:
Energy Earth radiates to space doesn't return to the Sun.
The Sun's energy eventually disperses into the cold vacuum of space.
This is an open system, not a closed loop.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases. How this supposedly violates the laws of thermodynamics, SB law, blah blah blah denialist bullshit that just proves you never looked at an introductory physics textbook.

The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

The foul deed I accuse you of is the dishonesty of your pretext for being an obnoxious dick. You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

"SB LAW!" "Define your terms" "You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

The troll ambush team seems to have disbanded.

Google stopped supplying you guys with fresh prey.

ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

For two months, his fans have been deprived of the genius insights. Who will tell us that science is not something that is not science? Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. It is not possible for anyone to measure it.. if you didn't see it with your own eyes, you have no way to know if it ever really happened...

I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth, I bet the whole denialist troll gang would come running back to ambush them in a heartbeat.

Seriously at least one of you guys needs to submit this to the Journal of Applied Schizophrenia ASAP

I think I need some help from IBdaMann or Into The Night.

I'm stumped. I asked ChatGPT:

You said:
can you explain the greenhouse effect using physics?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — let's explore the greenhouse effect from a physics perspective.

The Greenhouse Effect: Physical Principles
The greenhouse effect is the process by which certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap infrared radiation (heat), warming the planet's surface. It's governed by principles from thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:
1. Solar Radiation In (Shortwave Radiation)
The Sun emits energy primarily as shortwave electromagnetic radiation: visible light, ultraviolet (UV), and some near-infrared (IR).

This radiation passes easily through the atmosphere because gases like N₂, O₂, and Ar are transparent to it.

Roughly 70% of this energy is absorbed by Earth's surface, warming it.

2. Earth's Radiation Out (Longwave Radiation)
The Earth, being cooler than the Sun (~288 K vs. 5778 K), radiates energy as longwave infrared radiation (wavelengths ~4–100 micrometers) according to Planck's Law.

This outgoing IR radiation would escape to space — if not for greenhouse gases.

3. Interaction with Greenhouse Gases
Gases like CO₂, CH₄, H₂O vapor, and N₂O absorb specific IR wavelengths.

This happens because:

Molecules have vibrational modes that can resonate with IR radiation.

When IR radiation hits these molecules, it causes them to vibrate more — absorbing energy.

Later, they re-emit this radiation in all directions, including back toward Earth.

This trapping and re-emission of IR radiation is the core mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

4. Resulting Warming
The net effect is that more energy is retained in the Earth–atmosphere system.

This raises the equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth above what it would be without an atmosphere.

Core Physical Concepts Involved
Concept Role in the Greenhouse Effect
Blackbody Radiation (Planck's Law) Earth and Sun emit radiation depending on temperature
Kirchhoff's Law Good absorbers are also good emitters — greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit IR
Thermodynamic Equilibrium The climate system balances incoming and outgoing energy
Quantum Mechanics Explains why only certain gases absorb IR — due to molecular energy levels
Mathematical View (Simplified)
Stefan–Boltzmann Law for blackbody emission:

P
=
σ
T
4
P=σT
4

P
P: power radiated per unit area

σ
σ: Stefan–Boltzmann constant

T
T: temperature in Kelvin

Earth adjusts its surface temperature
T
T until energy in = out, factoring in the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.

Without the Greenhouse Effect
If Earth had no atmosphere, the surface temperature would be about 255 K (-18°C), instead of the current average 288 K (15°C). The natural greenhouse effect adds about 33°C — essential for life.

How do I debunk it?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
There was steam rising from the ground in places, and one of the shallow wells produced a water sample warmer than body temperature....
...The leftover carbon skeleton can be oxidized for energy

I think what you are trying to say is that additional energy was required to raise the temperature of the system. Let that sink in for a moment...

I think that the energy that raised the temperature of the shallowest ground water bearing units was not "additional" to the "system". The temperature increase was brief and temporary.

So, I'm not sure how to let it sink in.

I believe you're trying to say that it is somehow comparable to the theoretical "impossibility" of greenhouse effect. That the atmospheric temperature couldn't care less how high is the concentration of infrared-absorbing gases. How this supposedly violates the laws of thermodynamics, SB law, blah blah blah denialist bullshit that just proves you never looked at an introductory physics textbook.

The thermogenic bacteria do not bring any additional energy into the system in order to raise the temperature. They use the chemicals that are already present in the system, performing exothermic chemical reactions with them.

GasGuzzler, you continue evading my inquiry. Having accused me of foul deeds, you refused to comment on whether or not my chemistry consulting for the private sector might be worthy of respect.

The foul deed I accuse you of is the dishonesty of your pretext for being an obnoxious dick. You have so little understanding of introductory physics, all you can do is try to quote IBdaMann to the best of your limited ability.

"SB LAW!" "Define your terms" "You don't even know what 'heat' is!"

So, are you guys all partying in another playground now?

The troll ambush team seems to have disbanded.

Google stopped supplying you guys with fresh prey.

ITN, the troll king of spam, hasn't posted in a couple of months.

For two months, his fans have been deprived of the genius insights. Who will tell us that science is not something that is not science? Something that is not a chemical is not a chemical. There is no such thing as something that doesn't even exist. It is not possible for anyone to measure it.. if you didn't see it with your own eyes, you have no way to know if it ever really happened...

I suspect that you guys are very lonely enough these days, as so few people would ever WANT to play with you.

If a new member were to join and innocently express concern that climate change might adversely impact the well being of humanity and other life on Earth, I bet the whole denialist troll gang would come running back to ambush them in a heartbeat.

Seriously at least one of you guys needs to submit this to the Journal of Applied Schizophrenia ASAP

I think I need some help from IBdaMann or Into The Night.

I'm stumped. I asked ChatGPT:

You said:
can you explain the greenhouse effect using physics?
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — let's explore the greenhouse effect from a physics perspective.

The Greenhouse Effect: Physical Principles
The greenhouse effect is the process by which certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap infrared radiation (heat), warming the planet's surface. It's governed by principles from thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

Step-by-Step Breakdown:
1. Solar Radiation In (Shortwave Radiation)
The Sun emits energy primarily as shortwave electromagnetic radiation: visible light, ultraviolet (UV), and some near-infrared (IR).

This radiation passes easily through the atmosphere because gases like N₂, O₂, and Ar are transparent to it.

Roughly 70% of this energy is absorbed by Earth's surface, warming it.

2. Earth's Radiation Out (Longwave Radiation)
The Earth, being cooler than the Sun (~288 K vs. 5778 K), radiates energy as longwave infrared radiation (wavelengths ~4–100 micrometers) according to Planck's Law.

This outgoing IR radiation would escape to space — if not for greenhouse gases.

3. Interaction with Greenhouse Gases
Gases like CO₂, CH₄, H₂O vapor, and N₂O absorb specific IR wavelengths.

This happens because:

Molecules have vibrational modes that can resonate with IR radiation.

When IR radiation hits these molecules, it causes them to vibrate more — absorbing energy.

Later, they re-emit this radiation in all directions, including back toward Earth.

This trapping and re-emission of IR radiation is the core mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

4. Resulting Warming
The net effect is that more energy is retained in the Earth–atmosphere system.

This raises the equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth above what it would be without an atmosphere.

Core Physical Concepts Involved
Concept Role in the Greenhouse Effect
Blackbody Radiation (Planck's Law) Earth and Sun emit radiation depending on temperature
Kirchhoff's Law Good absorbers are also good emitters — greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit IR
Thermodynamic Equilibrium The climate system balances incoming and outgoing energy
Quantum Mechanics Explains why only certain gases absorb IR — due to molecular energy levels
Mathematical View (Simplified)
Stefan–Boltzmann Law for blackbody emission:

P
=
σ
T
4
P=σT
4

P
P: power radiated per unit area

σ
σ: Stefan–Boltzmann constant

T
T: temperature in Kelvin

Earth adjusts its surface temperature
T
T until energy in = out, factoring in the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.

Without the Greenhouse Effect
If Earth had no atmosphere, the surface temperature would be about 255 K (-18°C), instead of the current average 288 K (15°C). The natural greenhouse effect adds about 33°C — essential for life.

How do I debunk it?

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?