Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

How are you defining Climate Change?

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:How are you defining Climate Change?

I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.

sealover wrote:
I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

sealover wrote:
As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention.

sealover wrote:
There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification".

Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context.

sealover wrote:
One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions!

sealover wrote:
If this is your only game, find someone else to play with.

sealover wrote:
I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls.

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.

I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

duncan61 wrote:
If plants consume everything why is there any at all?

duncan61 wrote:
The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

duncan61 wrote:I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

duncan61 wrote:IIf plants consume everything why is there any at all?

duncan61 wrote:The carbon cycle is natural

duncan61 wrote:and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thanks for playing.

come on down

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).

climate scientist wrote:

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but wouldn't the same changing climatic conditions that promote increased respiration also promote increased photosynthesis? I'd have imagined that the latter effect would typically more than outweigh the former, thus resulting in a net uptake of carbon by soils, rather than a net loss (hence giving a negative rather than a positive feedback effect). Is this not correct?

Yes, you are correct that for plants, the CO2 fertilisation effect will likely outweigh the increased CO2 flux from plant respiration. But these authors are talking about soil respiration, which is an additional source of CO2 to the atmosphere that is separate from plants, and does not have any associated photosynthesis flux.

Soils are a large reservoir of organic carbon on the land, and soil respiration (by microbes) is mostly driven by temperature (and partially driven by moisture).

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

sealover wrote:Climate Scientist started this thread in January, 2016. I wish I had the chance to interact with another trained scientist at this website.

sealover wrote:The subject of this thread is of major importance.

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

The 20% figure for CO2 being released from soil suggests that atmospheric
gasses influences conserved CO2.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

The 20% figure for CO2 being released from soil suggests that atmospheric
gasses influences conserved CO2.

Made up numbers don't suggest anything. They are random numbers.

Im a BM wrote:
"Hydrogen is not a proton." - Into the Night

This must be a very important sentence, because ITN repeats it in many different posts.

It is important to make clear that hydrogen is NOT a proton.

And this is a clear as it gets to answer the question, "Are hydrogen ions protons?"

Maybe ITN has dyslexia far more severe than mine, and simply doesn't SEE the word "ion" after "hydrogen".

This would also explain the meaningless responses regarding bicarbonate and carbonate, 300 times repeating that neither of them is a "chemical".

Literally CANNOT SEE the word "ion".

How can I spell it out more clearly?

Are hydrogen IONS protons?

Because ITN explicitly insisted that they are NOT, before falling back to the "Hydrogen is not a proton" position, which apparently explains everything.

Just to tease the arrogant punk, maybe I'll pull up the "Rush Limbaugh.." thread where ITN explicitly explains WHY hydrogen IONS are not "protons".

You see, "protons" are only involved in nuclear reactions.

And you know ITN. He had to throw insults along with it. LOTS of insults. That's how he proves how well he understands "science".

There really IS an "RQAA" on file for this one, in the Rush Limbaugh thread.

Are hydrogen ions protons? (is the answer a SECRET?)

(RQAA, stop spamming, you are not a scientist, you are a nothing, you deny science, you are a liar, you ignore science..) until you get the definitive explanation that "Hydrogen is not a proton".

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

The 20% figure for CO2 being released from soil suggests that atmospheric
gasses influences conserved CO2.

Made up numbers don't suggest anything. They are random numbers.

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, we could cut more than twice as many CO2 emissions for less than half the cost if we allowed unrestricted fossil fuel combustion but required intelligent land management practices to be employed as the trade off.

Im a BM wrote:
As a PhD scientist

Im a BM wrote:
with specialization in soil carbon cycling,

Im a BM wrote:
I read this post and wish that more people were aware of these things.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, a feeble minded rebuttal could just try to control the definition of the words to make the whole thing go away.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon is not organic

Carbonate is not a chemical

Carbon is not inorganic

Soil is not carbon

Soil is not a chemical

Science is not carbon

But most of all CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL.


Case closed.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Im a BM wrote:
It is not surprising that IBdaMann had NO IDEA what "soil respiration" is.

Im a BM wrote:
"Respiration" is when a living organism takes in oxygen, O2, and uses it to oxidize organic carbon to produce the inorganic carbon product carbon dioxide, CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
More specifically, "respiration" is when the MITOCHONDRIA within the cells of the aerobic organisms take in oxygen and oxidize organic carbon to CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil respiration" is when those organisms are in the SOIL, such as roots, fungi, protozoans, worms, and other AEROBIC organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
When organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, by oxidizing it to inorganic carbon, it is NOT "respiration".

Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, when organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, the inorganic carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Anaerobic pathways that microorganisms use to oxidize organic carbon (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, etc.) all produce bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, or carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as the inorganic carbon product of oxidation. NOT carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:

Fun Fact:

Climate scientist pointed out that while some carbon loss from soil is due to erosion, the vast majority is soil carbon lost to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Peatlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lose a LOT of soil carbon to the atmosphere every year.

Im a BM wrote:
Two or three inches a year of land subsidence represents a HUGE flux of carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
But only 90% of the peat loss is as CO2 going to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
10% of the carbon in those 2-3 inches of peat lost every year is leaving the soil as DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER going into drainage ditches, and then pumped back up and dumped into the adjacent river.

Im a BM wrote:
That dissolved organic carbon can provoke low oxygen conditions as microorganisms use up the oxygen in order to RESPIRE the organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
And if that water is (foolishly) used as drinking water, disinfection with chlorine can produce some toxic and carcinogenic organo chlorine compounds from that dissolved organic carbon in the water.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not surprising that IBdaMann had NO IDEA what "soil respiration" is.

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Respiration" is when a living organism takes in oxygen, O2, and uses it to oxidize organic carbon to produce the inorganic carbon product carbon dioxide, CO2.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
More specifically, "respiration" is when the MITOCHONDRIA within the cells of the aerobic organisms take in oxygen and oxidize organic carbon to CO2.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil respiration" is when those organisms are in the SOIL, such as roots, fungi, protozoans, worms, and other AEROBIC organisms.

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
When organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, by oxidizing it to inorganic carbon, it is NOT "respiration".

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, when organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, the inorganic carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not organic. Oxygen is the only oxidant.

Im a BM wrote:
Anaerobic pathways that microorganisms use to oxidize organic carbon (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, etc.) all produce bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, or carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as the inorganic carbon product of oxidation. NOT carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:

Fun Fact:

Climate scientist pointed out that while some carbon loss from soil is due to erosion, the vast majority is soil carbon lost to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Climate is not a branch of science. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not soil.

Im a BM wrote:
Peatlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lose a LOT of soil carbon to the atmosphere every year.

Carbon is not soil. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Two or three inches a year of land subsidence represents a HUGE flux of carbon.

Carbon is not a flux.

Im a BM wrote:
But only 90% of the peat loss is as CO2 going to the atmosphere.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
10% of the carbon in those 2-3 inches of peat lost every year is leaving the soil as DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER going into drainage ditches, and then pumped back up and dumped into the adjacent river.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
That dissolved organic carbon can provoke low oxygen conditions as microorganisms use up the oxygen in order to RESPIRE the organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And if that water is (foolishly) used as drinking water, disinfection with chlorine can produce some toxic and carcinogenic organo chlorine compounds from that dissolved organic carbon in the water.

Carbon is not organic. Chlorine is not organic. Carbon is not toxic. Disinfecting water with chlorine in the presence of carbon is not toxic. That combination is used in several city freshwater treatment systems.

Im a BM wrote:

Inorganic carbon is NOT organic.

On the other hand, organic carbon is NOT inorganic.

Those who are GULLIBLE enough to believe so-called "chemistry" textbooks or dictionaries may have been deceived into believing that "organic carbon" or "inorganic carbon" are anything more than meaningless buzzwords.

I wouldn't normally refer to anyone as a scientifically illiterate moron, but that Into the Night CHEMISTRY CLOWN character comes pretty close.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Inorganic carbon is NOT organic.

On the other hand, organic carbon is NOT inorganic.

Those who are GULLIBLE enough to believe so-called "chemistry" textbooks or dictionaries may have been deceived into believing that "organic carbon" or "inorganic carbon" are anything more than meaningless buzzwords.

I wouldn't normally refer to anyone as a scientifically illiterate moron, but that Into the Night CHEMISTRY CLOWN character comes pretty close.

Carbon is not organic.
You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Inorganic carbon is NOT organic.

On the other hand, organic carbon is NOT inorganic.

Those who are GULLIBLE enough to believe so-called "chemistry" textbooks or dictionaries may have been deceived into believing that "organic carbon" or "inorganic carbon" are anything more than meaningless buzzwords.

I wouldn't normally refer to anyone as a scientifically illiterate moron, but that Into the Night CHEMISTRY CLOWN character comes pretty close.

Carbon is not organic.
You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert.

OF COURSE I can blame my problem on YOU.

You are the scientifically illiterate moron troll who most implausibly pretends to be a "chemist" while SHITTING all over everything good posted at this website.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Yes, that is just "Too funny"! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

It is not surprising that IBdaMann had NO IDEA what "soil respiration" is.

Im a BM wrote:
"Respiration" is when a living organism takes in oxygen, O2, and uses it to oxidize organic carbon to produce the inorganic carbon product carbon dioxide, CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
More specifically, "respiration" is when the MITOCHONDRIA within the cells of the aerobic organisms take in oxygen and oxidize organic carbon to CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
There are no Chemistry Vocabulary Police to enforce these rules, but I recently saw a definition for sulfate reducing bacteria that included a reference to "anaerobic respiration".

Im a BM wrote:
They had relaxed the definition of "respiration" to mean ANY oxidation of organic carbon carried out by a living organism.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, it can be argued that "respiration" is NOT shorthand for "aerobic respiration" involving mitochondria as the organism and oxygen, O2, as the oxidant.
Rocks are not bacteria.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Not all bacteria are the mitochondria now living in the cell of a eukaryotic aerobic organism. Of course, the mitochondria are descendants of an ancient bacteria that joined in symbiosis to live inside the cell of someone who could NOT use oxygen, O2, as oxidant, and did so at least 600 million years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil respiration" is basically shorthand for "soil aerobic respiration", when those organisms are in the SOIL, such as roots, fungi, protozoans, worms, and other AEROBIC organisms, transform organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as CO2, by using oxygen, O2, as oxidant.

Im a BM wrote:
When organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, by oxidizing it to inorganic carbon, it is NOT "respiration". Unless you don't get too technical and call it "anaerobic respiration".

Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, when organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, the inorganic carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Anaerobic pathways that microorganisms use to oxidize organic carbon (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, etc.) all produce bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, or carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as the inorganic carbon product of oxidation. NOT carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Fun Fact:

Climate scientist pointed out that while some carbon loss from soil is due to erosion, the vast majority is soil carbon lost to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Peatlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lose a LOT of soil carbon to the atmosphere every year.

Im a BM wrote:
Two or three inches a year of land subsidence represents a HUGE flux of carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
But only 90% of the peat loss is as CO2 going to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
10% of the carbon in those 2-3 inches of peat lost every year is leaving the soil as DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER going into drainage ditches, and then pumped back up and dumped into the adjacent river.

Im a BM wrote:
That dissolved organic carbon can provoke low oxygen conditions as microorganisms use up the oxygen in order to RESPIRE the organic carbon.

Im a BM wrote:
And if that water is (foolishly) used as drinking water, disinfection with chlorine can produce some toxic and carcinogenic organo chlorine compounds from that dissolved organic carbon in the water.

Im a BM wrote:
Tri halo methanes are mostly of anthropogenic origin. Whether chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine, putting three of those guys on a lone carbon atom creates a pharmacologically reactive molecule.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon tetra chloride is an example of a tri halo methane with three halogens (chlorine) plus ONE MORE... okay, a tetra halo methane now.

Im a BM wrote:
But using chlorine product to disinfect water with high dissolved organic carbon content carries the risk of generating potentially harmful amounts of tri halo methanes in the drinking water.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Yes, that is just "Too funny"! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

It is not surprising that IBdaMann had NO IDEA what "soil respiration" is.

Im a BM wrote:
"Respiration" is when a living organism takes in oxygen, O2, and uses it to oxidize organic carbon to produce the inorganic carbon product carbon dioxide, CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
More specifically, "respiration" is when the MITOCHONDRIA within the cells of the aerobic organisms take in oxygen and oxidize organic carbon to CO2.

Im a BM wrote:
There are no Chemistry Vocabulary Police to enforce these rules, but I recently saw a definition for sulfate reducing bacteria that included a reference to "anaerobic respiration".

Im a BM wrote:
They had relaxed the definition of "respiration" to mean ANY oxidation of organic carbon carried out by a living organism.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, it can be argued that "respiration" is NOT shorthand for "aerobic respiration" involving mitochondria as the organism and oxygen, O2, as the oxidant.
Rocks are not bacteria.

Im a BM wrote:
Not all bacteria are the mitochondria now living in the cell of a eukaryotic aerobic organism. Of course, the mitochondria are descendants of an ancient bacteria that joined in symbiosis to live inside the cell of someone who could NOT use oxygen, O2, as oxidant, and did so at least 600 million years ago.

The only oxidant is oxygen. You don't know what happened 600 million years ago. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Soil respiration" is basically shorthand for "soil aerobic respiration", when those organisms are in the SOIL, such as roots, fungi, protozoans, worms, and other AEROBIC organisms, transform organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as CO2, by using oxygen, O2, as oxidant.

Rocks are not roots, fungi, or any other life form. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
When organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, by oxidizing it to inorganic carbon, it is NOT "respiration". Unless you don't get too technical and call it "anaerobic respiration".

There is no oxidant other than oxygen. Carbon is not organic. Rocks don't breath.

Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, when organisms use an oxidant OTHER than oxygen to acquire energy from organic carbon, the inorganic carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide.

Rocks are not organisms. Oxygen is the only oxidant. Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Anaerobic pathways that microorganisms use to oxidize organic carbon (sulfate reduction, nitrate reduction, iron reduction, manganese reduction, etc.) all produce bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, or carbonate ion, CO3(2-) as the inorganic carbon product of oxidation. NOT carbon dioxide.

Rocks don't breath. Carbon is not organic. Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'. Nitrate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'nitrate'. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Fun Fact:

Climate scientist pointed out that while some carbon loss from soil is due to erosion, the vast majority is soil carbon lost to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Peatlands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lose a LOT of soil carbon to the atmosphere every year.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Two or three inches a year of land subsidence represents a HUGE flux of carbon.

Carbon is not a flow.

Im a BM wrote:
But only 90% of the peat loss is as CO2 going to the atmosphere.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
10% of the carbon in those 2-3 inches of peat lost every year is leaving the soil as DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER going into drainage ditches, and then pumped back up and dumped into the adjacent river.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
That dissolved organic carbon can provoke low oxygen conditions as microorganisms use up the oxygen in order to RESPIRE the organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
And if that water is (foolishly) used as drinking water, disinfection with chlorine can produce some toxic and carcinogenic organo chlorine compounds from that dissolved organic carbon in the water.

Carbon is not organic.

Im a BM wrote:
Tri halo methanes are mostly of anthropogenic origin. Whether chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine, putting three of those guys on a lone carbon atom creates a pharmacologically reactive molecule.

Random words ignored.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon tetra chloride is an example of a tri halo methane with three halogens (chlorine) plus ONE MORE... okay, a tetra halo methane now.

Random words ignored.

Im a BM wrote:
But using chlorine product to disinfect water with high dissolved organic carbon content carries the risk of generating potentially harmful amounts of tri halo methanes in the drinking water.

Carbon is not organic. Methanes is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
"Rocks don't breath." - Into the Night

Does ANYTHING "breath"?

Im a BM wrote:
Some scientifically illiterate morons believe that rocks are soil.

Im a BM wrote:
They also think that petroleum magically forms from inorganic ingredients.

Im a BM wrote:
All the helium that ever entered the Earth's atmosphere is still there today

Im a BM wrote:
because the laws of Thermodenial would be violated if it left the atmosphere to float off into space.

Im a BM wrote:
It's too bad someone would have to search this far to learn all this science that they just don't teach at any university.

Im a BM wrote:
But you can find the stuff they won't tell you anywhere else right here.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn about the chemical properties of water molecules that make water itself such an EXCELLENT buffer to resist pH change upon addition of acid or base.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn what pH REALLY is, and why it CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn the TRUTH about all those things that are FALSELY IDENTIFIED as "chemicals". Once you know what is NOT a chemical, the rest all makes sense.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone needs to publish a book with a list of everything that is NOT a chemical, because it is SO FUNDAMENTAL in any discussion of science.

Im a BM wrote:
If it is not a "chemical", chances are it is a meaningless buzzword that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY. It can and should be ignored if it is just a buzzword.

Im a BM wrote:
You cannot buffer against pH change with buzzwords, so any reference to "carbonate" or "bicarbonate" is a meaningless distraction/deflection

Im a BM wrote:
A true chemistry genius such as Into the Night clears away all the fog...

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to measure anything anyway, so don't even talk about it.

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to even make a good guess about what might have happened in the past because YOU were not there to see it.

Im a BM wrote:
Did Daddy used to tell you that you are a "nothing" when he wanted to hurt your feelings?

Im a BM wrote:
Did you prove to him that you are NOT a "nothing" by trolling and spamming?

Im a BM wrote:
When you were interacting with those other highly respected chemists, discussing the newest research, did people successfully advance their arguments by telling the others, "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."?

Im a BM wrote:
Did your chemistry research papers never get published because you just couldn't find a "truly scientific" journal that was of high enough quality to submit them to?

Im a BM wrote:
At least you have provided your scientific knowledge for the whole world by posting it on...

The Internet's "best discussion site".

Yup.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann assures us that climate-debate.com is the BEST discussion site on the whole dang internet.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Rocks don't breath." - Into the Night

Does ANYTHING "breath"?

Rocks don't breath, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Some scientifically illiterate morons believe that rocks are soil.

You're one of them!

Im a BM wrote:
They also think that petroleum magically forms from inorganic ingredients.

No magic or magick about it. It does. Well...it probably seems like magick to you, since you don't know any chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
All the helium that ever entered the Earth's atmosphere is still there today

It is.

Im a BM wrote:
because the laws of Thermodenial would be violated if it left the atmosphere to float off into space.

An atmosphere can't float off into space. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
It's too bad someone would have to search this far to learn all this science that they just don't teach at any university.

Science isn't a university

Im a BM wrote:
But you can find the stuff they won't tell you anywhere else right here.

Science isn't a web site.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn about the chemical properties of water molecules that make water itself such an EXCELLENT buffer to resist pH change upon addition of acid or base.

You STILL don't seem to understand this.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn what pH REALLY is, and why it CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

You obviously still don't know what pH is.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn the TRUTH about all those things that are FALSELY IDENTIFIED as "chemicals". Once you know what is NOT a chemical, the rest all makes sense.

You don't get this either.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone needs to publish a book with a list of everything that is NOT a chemical, because it is SO FUNDAMENTAL in any discussion of science.

There is no need to publish a book containing every random buzzword. It's not even possible.

Im a BM wrote:
If it is not a "chemical", chances are it is a meaningless buzzword that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY. It can and should be ignored if it is just a buzzword.

They are YOUR buzzwords, moron.

Im a BM wrote:
You cannot buffer against pH change with buzzwords, so any reference to "carbonate" or "bicarbonate" is a meaningless distraction/deflection

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
A true chemistry genius such as Into the Night clears away all the fog...

Nah. You're still in your fog.

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to measure anything anyway, so don't even talk about it.

It certainly is, but it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the pH of the oceans, the total snow and ice on Earth, or the global atmospheric content of CO2, or the emissivity of Earth, or the global sea level.

You just keep claiming magick values for this stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to even make a good guess about what might have happened in the past because YOU were not there to see it.

A guess is just that...a guess.

Im a BM wrote:
Did Daddy used to tell you that you are a "nothing" when he wanted to hurt your feelings?

Nope. That doesn't change the fact that you are a nothing, pretending to be a chemist and a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
Did you prove to him that you are NOT a "nothing" by trolling and spamming?

You can't blame me for your problems, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
When you were interacting with those other highly respected chemists, discussing the newest research, did people successfully advance their arguments by telling the others, "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."?

I respect chemists. You are not a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Did your chemistry research papers never get published because you just couldn't find a "truly scientific" journal that was of high enough quality to submit them to?

Science is not a paper, journal, or magazine.

Im a BM wrote:
At least you have provided your scientific knowledge for the whole world by posting it on...

The Internet's "best discussion site".

Yup.

I've provided a bit of it, yes. So has IBdaMann. So has gfm7175. So have others.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann assures us that climate-debate.com is the BEST discussion site on the whole dang internet.

I agree, for the reasons I have already given you.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"Rocks don't breath." - Into the Night

Does ANYTHING "breath"?

Rocks don't breath, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Some scientifically illiterate morons believe that rocks are soil.

You're one of them!

Im a BM wrote:
They also think that petroleum magically forms from inorganic ingredients.

No magic or magick about it. It does. Well...it probably seems like magick to you, since you don't know any chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
All the helium that ever entered the Earth's atmosphere is still there today

It is.

Im a BM wrote:
because the laws of Thermodenial would be violated if it left the atmosphere to float off into space.

An atmosphere can't float off into space. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:
It's too bad someone would have to search this far to learn all this science that they just don't teach at any university.

Science isn't a university

Im a BM wrote:
But you can find the stuff they won't tell you anywhere else right here.

Science isn't a web site.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn about the chemical properties of water molecules that make water itself such an EXCELLENT buffer to resist pH change upon addition of acid or base.

You STILL don't seem to understand this.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn what pH REALLY is, and why it CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

You obviously still don't know what pH is.

Im a BM wrote:
You can learn the TRUTH about all those things that are FALSELY IDENTIFIED as "chemicals". Once you know what is NOT a chemical, the rest all makes sense.

You don't get this either.

Im a BM wrote:
Someone needs to publish a book with a list of everything that is NOT a chemical, because it is SO FUNDAMENTAL in any discussion of science.

There is no need to publish a book containing every random buzzword. It's not even possible.

Im a BM wrote:
If it is not a "chemical", chances are it is a meaningless buzzword that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHEMISTRY. It can and should be ignored if it is just a buzzword.

They are YOUR buzzwords, moron.

Im a BM wrote:
You cannot buffer against pH change with buzzwords, so any reference to "carbonate" or "bicarbonate" is a meaningless distraction/deflection

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
A true chemistry genius such as Into the Night clears away all the fog...

Nah. You're still in your fog.

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to measure anything anyway, so don't even talk about it.

It certainly is, but it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the pH of the oceans, the total snow and ice on Earth, or the global atmospheric content of CO2, or the emissivity of Earth, or the global sea level.

You just keep claiming magick values for this stuff.

Im a BM wrote:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to even make a good guess about what might have happened in the past because YOU were not there to see it.

A guess is just that...a guess.

Im a BM wrote:
Did Daddy used to tell you that you are a "nothing" when he wanted to hurt your feelings?

Nope. That doesn't change the fact that you are a nothing, pretending to be a chemist and a scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
Did you prove to him that you are NOT a "nothing" by trolling and spamming?

You can't blame me for your problems, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
When you were interacting with those other highly respected chemists, discussing the newest research, did people successfully advance their arguments by telling the others, "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."?

I respect chemists. You are not a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
Did your chemistry research papers never get published because you just couldn't find a "truly scientific" journal that was of high enough quality to submit them to?

Science is not a paper, journal, or magazine.

Im a BM wrote:
At least you have provided your scientific knowledge for the whole world by posting it on...

The Internet's "best discussion site".

Yup.

I've provided a bit of it, yes. So has IBdaMann. So has gfm7175. So have others.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann assures us that climate-debate.com is the BEST discussion site on the whole dang internet.

I agree, for the reasons I have already given you.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Im a BM wrote:
It is not surprising ...

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Yes, that is just "Too funny"! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Yes, that is just "Too funny"! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming. You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy.

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.

Yes, that is just "Too funny"! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming. You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy.

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Says the CLOWN who pretends to be some kind of "chemist".

I am not you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, are you aware that pH = -log[H+]?

Wrong.