| 07-06-2023 00:34 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Two ways water keeps us cool. First, heat is removed from the surface by evaporation. Hopefully that requires no explanation. Heat that had been removed from the surface is released high above when water condenses. Some of that heat is released as infrared radiation that is as likely to go to space as it is back to the surface. Some of that heat simply raises the temperature of the air high above the surface. Away from the ground. Water also provides shade when it condenses into clouds. In the absence of clouds, a lot more sunlight would be heating the surface. |
| 07-06-2023 00:36 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
sealover wrote:[/b] Photorespiration - the world's most abundant enzyme RuBisCO Increased atmospheric concentrations of Carbon in just the last few decades has caused significant increases in yields for plants that use C-3 metabolism. Which is almost all of them. Some in the desert do not because they cannot risk dessication by leaving open their stomata during the day when they would need to be pulling in CO2. They would have to open up at night and accumulate a stored reserve of CO2 taken in from the night air. It was costly to bind up the carbon dioxide without being able to use it yet for photosyntheis C-4 plants such as sugar cane, corn, and bamboo evolved a different way to catch CO2 that only became a competitive advantage within the past few million years, when CO2 dropped to below 350 ppm in the atmosphere. C-4 plants gained a major competitive advantage when the atmosphere changed a few million years ago. They have lost that competitive advantage in just the last few decades. Corn and sugar cane yields have not increased at all because of higher CO2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Photorespiration, rise of C-4 photosynthesis fitness when CO2 decline to 350ppm Three million years ago, Mother Nature reset the dial on the earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. It dropped down. Like way, way down to where it had never been before. going to be evasive about photorespiration details, but suffice it for now to say that when photorespiration causes the plant to waste organic carbon that it fixed from the atmosphere just an enzyme grabbed oxygen, accidentally, rather than carbon dioxide. Carbon is a limiting nutrient when everyone competes under low CO2 at high noon under dense canopy of tropical rainforest. They can draw it down enough to increase the cost of doing business for photosynthesis. Like, by a LOT. Not coincidentally, corn and sugarcane originated from such environment. Bamboo too. Able to outgrow neighbors who were losing most of the carbon they fixed to photorespiration when the carbon feeding frenzy was so fierce. Bamboo, sugar cane, corn. Notoriously fast growers shoot up high fast. C_4 metabolism enabled them to do that when their neighbors were stalling under CO2-starved conditions. |
| 07-06-2023 00:38 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Photorespiration if CO2 is too low. And it's hot. Photorespiration diminishes net primary productivity by about a quarter. Or at least it USED TO back in the 19-350s. Photorespiration had never even been an issue of concern until a few million years ago. Never an issue of concern unless the competition for carbon dioxide was absolutely fierce, like a rainforest, and temperatures were high. Until a few million years ago, there weren't many niches for a plant that could remain productive during CO2 drawdown at high noon, when it is so hot. Especially if the adaptation to do so made one LESS competitive under any other conditions. Photorespiration occurs when the enzyme RuBisCO accidentally attaches to a molecule of oxygen, O2. Rubisco is supposed to attach to carbon dioxide, CO2. Rubisco has much much higher affinity for CO2 than is does for O2. But when CO2 draws down to loss, a few oxygen slip through the gate because the carbon dioxide are so hard to find. When RuBisCO attaches oxygen instead of CO2, it costs the plant photosynthate. Not the FUTURE photosynthate that would have been formed if Rubisco captured CO2 like it was supposed to. Photorespiration costs the plant photosynthate that it already synthesized. Instead of taking carbon dioxide in, the plant is putting carbon dioxide out, at the cost of its own stored food supply. Imagine an indoor grower who is unaware of this. They have been gifted a somewhat large and healthy plant. They turn on the grow lights in the closet. They seal the closet door for security. The plants holds on as best it can. Hour after hour, photorespiration burns up the plants store of food, while preventing it making any new food to replace it. At some point someone notices something went wrong. Must have been the temperature, like a sauna in there. Well, yes! The temperature played an important role aggravating the damage. At any given (depleted, draw down) concentration of carbon dioxide, there is more photorespiration at higher temperature. |
| 07-06-2023 00:39 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
sealover wrote:[/b] Vicious FIRE Feedbacks. "Firenados". The Swamp is Now in Flames. One of the vicious feedbacks to Anthropogenic Global Weirding that I am most familiar with is in regard to the occurrence of wildfire in forests. Forest soil was my specialty forever in the Ivory Tower, until I got into coastal wetland groundwater investigation for the private sector. The mortality rates for trees in forest was already skyrocketing in the 1990s. Pests on forest trees were able to able to extend their range to higher elevations as the winters grew warmer and shorter. Trees killed by pests became a fire hazard. The presence of so many pest-killed dead trees was a major contributing factor to how destructive the wildfires were, regardless of whether or not climate change caused the fire itself. Climate change caused the pest-killed trees to contribute to the fire hazard. The fires themselves have become spectacular. "Firenados", tornado-like columns of flame towering into the sky. This wasn't my grandfather's weather any more. And can you imagine that the SWAMPS ARE AFLAME. Weird, but true. Things get too warm and dry. Even the swamps can dry up. And they can BURN. And it's hard to put peat fires out. And can you imagine RAIN FORESTS BURNING. Aren't they supposed to be pretty wet all the time? There is a HUGE amount of organic carbon stored in the biomass and soil organic matter of rain forests. It caught on fire a little bit, once or twice a century, in the good old days of 350 ppm CO2. Rainforests are burning every year now. LOTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE RELEASED. A vicious fire feedback for Anthropogenic Global Weirding. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change. |
| 07-06-2023 00:40 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Tundra Methane: FIRE REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT. Under the tundra is an enormous reservoir of organic carbon in the soil organic Under the tundra is also an enormous reservoir of organic carbon in methane locked in the ice. Folks have been posting videos of setting off tundra methane with a cigarette lighter. Ironically, it HELPS TO BURN THE FOSSIL FUEL WHEN ITS METHANE. If the tundra methane floats into the atmosphere as CH4, it has about 20 as much global warming potential than it would if it had been burned and oxidized to carbon dioxide, CO2. Too bad we can't send all the tree huggers to go around the tundra with lighters. They could reduce the global warming potential of methane emissions by 95%. But there aren't enough tree huggers truly committed enough to do it. Who else could help us. METHANE OXIDIZING BACTERIA. Wherever methane comes up to meet the atmosphere, there is usually a methane oxidizing bacteria waiting for it. At the interface where oxygen is available in contact with the methane emitted, a population of methane oxidizing bacteria is usually present. Reducing the global warming potential of that methane by 95%. Thank God for methane oxidizing bacteria. Maybe we should culture them and use them to vaccinate methane leaks where fracking for natural gas has created new niches for methane oxidizers. Reducing the global warming potential of that methane by 95%. |
| 07-06-2023 00:42 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Acid Rain" Impact on Organic Anions in Forest Floor Picture a laboratory where a soil column is about to be sprayed with pH 3 solution of 50-50 sulfuric acid and nitric acid. Other soil columns had already been sprayed with pH 5.6 naturally acidic rain. The naturally acidic rain droplets stuck to the decomposing litter on the top of the soil columns. The litter soaked it up like a sponge. Once the litter on top of the columns was wet enough, it would begin to drain forest floor leachate into the mineral soil. NOT THE SAME WITH ACID RAIN! When columns were wetted with pH 3 50-50 sulfuric acid and nitric acid, the droplets did NOT stick to the decomposing litter on top of the soil columns. There was a hydrophobic effect as droplets beaded off the top of the litter and flowed directly down to the mineral soil. It took a long time for the litter to wet up enough to act as a sponge. Much of the acid rain entered the mineral soil without interacting with the litter. This made a big difference to what happened in the soil as the "raw" acid rain percolated down the soil column. With naturally acidic rainfall, the forest floor leachate was full of organic anions. These organic anions could form strong complexes with calcium and magnesium. These organometallic complexes of calcium and magnesium could adsorb to organic matter in the soil to be retained against leaching loss. With "acid rain", far fewer organic anions are present in forest floor leachate. Protonation of organic anions by "acid rain" renders many of them insoluble. Protonation of organic anions by "acid rain" greatly diminishes their capacity to form organometallic complexes with calcium and magnesium. So, they don't. Instead, calcium and magnesium are complexed by SULFATE from the sulfuric acid in "acid rain". To a lesser extent, NITRATE drags off some calcium and magnesium too. So, calcium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, calcium nitrate, and magnesium nitrate all wash away from the forest soil where the trees need them. The calcium and magnesium should have been picked up and recaptured by organic anions. They would have stayed in the soil to get back into the trees. But "acid rain" screwed everything up. |
| 07-06-2023 00:43 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
sealover wrote:[/b] Oligotrophic Rainforests on Acid White Sands. Biomass versus Soil Carbon Content. "Soil in rain forests is extremely poor in nutrients. It's all in the vegetation." Sometimes true, sometimes not. Rainforests on soils developed from recent volcanic ash or volcanic mudflows can be extremely RICH in nutrients. Those guys are EASY to reforest. Those guys take many many harvests of slash and burn before you start to diminish their productivity. Rainforests in delta regions where flooding has just lay down a new layer of nutrient rich sediment - the topsoil washed off from some land upriver. Those rainforest soils are extremely rich in nutrients. Rainforests in downslope positions, where landslides lay down nutrient rich topsoil from above. Those rainforest soils can have a lot of nutrients. At the opposite extreme are the rain forests on acid white sand. In those forests, the mineral soil is EXTREMELY POOR in nutrients. Acid white sand soils are so devoid of nutrients that roots don't even grow in the mineral soil. It's all in the vegetation, or in the deep litter layer that the vegetation has created above the acid white sand mineral soil. So as far as NUTRIENTS go, YES they are all in the live or dead biomass. Same with the carbon. There is no organic carbon stored in the acid white sand mineral soil. All the organic carbon is in the live or dead biomass ABOVE the mineral soil. Now, where is MOST of the organic carbon? In the LIVE BIOMASS? NO! Most of the organic carbon in that rainforest on the acid white sand is contained in the dead organic matter above the mineral soil surface. Indeed, as is the case with MOST FORESTS, there is A LOT MORE ORGANIC CARBON IN DEAD BIOMASS THAN LIVE BIOMASS. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: Soil in rain forests is extremely poor in nutrients. It's all in the vegetation. |
| 07-06-2023 00:46 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Sustainable Slash and Burn. Black Ash versus White Ash. Paul Zinke was an excellent forest soil science professor at UC Berkeley. Much of his own research was in the rainforests of Southeast Asia, where indigenous tribe people practiced slash and burn on the hillslopes of the rain forest. Slash and burn on an inclined hill slope exposes the barren soil to erosion. But they way these folks did it was SUSTAINABLE. They were very careful preparing the fuel before setting the fires. Branches of felled trees were cut and laid out along the contours of the slope, to minimize erosion. Fuel was carefully distributed and the fuel moisture carefully monitored. When conditions of fuel moisture, temperature, wind, time of day were all just right, the wise old man knew it was time to strike the matches. The fire was low intensity. It left BLACK ASH. NOT white ash. The difference between a fire leaving black ash versus white ash is HUGE as far as nutrient losses or risk of erosion goes. In northern California, one of the most important jobs of the tribal wise man was to know when to set the fires. Done while the fuel was still moist in the spring. A low intensity fire, not like the wildfires from dry lightening at the end of the summer - white ash conflagrations. A deliberately set, black ash low intensity fire, to open up for a fresh new crop of deer feed. A deliberate low intensity fire to make the acorns easier to find, and to give the acorns a better shot at growing up to make more acorns. Anthropogenic shift in dominance of acorn bearing oaks in California foothills. A deliberate low intensity fire to make the pine nuts easier to find, and to give the close coned pines the heat they need to open up and let out their seed to make more pine nut bearing trees. Anthropogenic shift in dominance of pine nut bearing closed cone pines in California foothills. So, the tribesmen in Southeast Asia, according to the royal tax records, their dry rice harvests had been consistently high on the same land for centuries. Sustainable slash and burn farming in rainforests. It's just a little labor intensive, but it can be done. The most important trick is to ensure a LOW INTENSITY FIRE. Black ash is better than white ash. A LOT better. |
| 07-06-2023 00:47 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Why the "Hockey Stick" graph should NEVER have been included. The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph. A straight flat line suddenly angles up into straight inclined line. Nature doesn't work that way. It is unfortunate that this grossly oversimplified presentation was ever included. Indeed, if the "Hockey Stick" graph had used shorter time intervals for averaging, something would have emerged that better predicted the temperature increases of the last 30 years. There was NEVER a straight flat line for average temperature over centuries. And the temperature rise has NEVER been a straight line incline up. If the temperature data, or actually the ESTIMATED temperature data had been averaged over shorter time interval, the preindustrial temperatures would have been sort of a sine wave going up and down. What we got since the "Hockey Stick" was published are the temperature numbers for three decades of net increase. They don't look like the end of a hockey stick. They look more like a stair case. During periods of consecutive years when the natural trend was a slight temperature decrease, the anthropogenic increase was largely canceled. Those are the flat step parts of the staircase. During periods of consecutive years when the natural trend was a slight increase, the anthropogenic increase was AMPLIFIED! Those are the very steep increases between steps in the staircase. People who were expecting to see a hockey stick instead saw a sine wave angle up to become a staircase. It appeared to DEFY predictions of global warming when, in fact, it CONFIRMED them. Some of those idiots insisted that we had GLOBAL COOLING during the consecutive years when natural cooling canceled anthropogenic forcing. So, the "Hockey Stick" didn't do anyone any favors as far as providing an accurate prediction of future, well now past and present, temperature trends. |
| 07-06-2023 00:49 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Acid Rain". Aluminum Toxicity. Organic Anions. Calcium. Many forest soils form from silica-rich parent material such as granite. They support evergreen, sclerophyllous woody perennials. Needle leaf forests and chaparral are what can survive in the very low calcium soil. Pines, among others, evolved to need only the tiniest amounts of calcium. In contrast, forest soils formed from limestone support a very different kind of plant community, different growth habit and morphology. Neutral pH soils rich in calcium. "Acid Rain" was harmless to forests on calcareous soils. "Acid Rain" was devastating to forests on acidic, siliceous soils. Calcium deficiency and aluminum toxicity were identified as the culprits. Aluminum toxicity can be a major limitation to crop productivity on soils with pH less than 5, following deforestation. Lime is often applied to ensure pH is no less than 5, or more ideally, at least 5.5 to avoid aluminum toxicity. However, before deforestation, the forest was thriving on that same soil with pH less than 4. To plants adapted to acidic soils, aluminum is only toxic when it is in labile ion form in solution. Aluminum that is complexed by organic ligands is NOT toxic. Before the forest was cleared, the forest floor supplied organic anions that leached into the mineral soil. These anions complexed calcium and magnesium, to prevent their loss from the ecosystem. Before clearing the forest, organic anions from the forest floor formed organometallic complexes with labile aluminum in solution, rendering it non toxic. Before "acid rain", organic anions from the forest floor formed organometallic complexes with labile aluminum in solution, rendering it non toxic. "Acid rain" causes organic anions to become protonated into organic acids. This makes many of them insoluble. This makes those that are still soluble far less capable of forming organometallic complexes with aluminum to detoxify it. There is also a synergistic effect between calcium deficiency and aluminum toxicity. Curing one also cures the other. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: "Acid Rain" Impact on Organic Anions in Forest Floor Picture a laboratory where a soil column is about to be sprayed with pH 3 solution of 50-50 sulfuric acid and nitric acid. Other soil columns had already been sprayed with pH 5.6 naturally acidic rain. The naturally acidic rain droplets stuck to the decomposing litter on the top of the soil columns. The litter soaked it up like a sponge. Once the litter on top of the columns was wet enough, it would begin to drain forest floor leachate into the mineral soil. NOT THE SAME WITH ACID RAIN! When columns were wetted with pH 3 50-50 sulfuric acid and nitric acid, the droplets did NOT stick to the decomposing litter on top of the soil columns. There was a hydrophobic effect as droplets beaded off the top of the litter and flowed directly down to the mineral soil. It took a long time for the litter to wet up enough to act as a sponge. Much of the acid rain entered the mineral soil without interacting with the litter. This made a big difference to what happened in the soil as the "raw" acid rain percolated down the soil column. With naturally acidic rainfall, the forest floor leachate was full of organic anions. These organic anions could form strong complexes with calcium and magnesium. These organometallic complexes of calcium and magnesium could adsorb to organic matter in the soil to be retained against leaching loss. With "acid rain", far fewer organic anions are present in forest floor leachate. Protonation of organic anions by "acid rain" renders many of them insoluble. Protonation of organic anions by "acid rain" greatly diminishes their capacity to form organometallic complexes with calcium and magnesium. So, they don't. Instead, calcium and magnesium are complexed by SULFATE from the sulfuric acid in "acid rain". To a lesser extent, NITRATE drags off some calcium and magnesium too. So, calcium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, calcium nitrate, and magnesium nitrate all wash away from the forest soil where the trees need them. The calcium and magnesium should have been picked up and recaptured by organic anions. They would have stayed in the soil to get back into the trees. But "acid rain" screwed everything up. |
| 07-06-2023 00:50 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Solubility isn't affected by pH. Rain is normally acid." Yes, hidden in the fine print of the post was reference to "naturally" acidic rain with a pH about 5.6. This "normally acid" pH 5.6 rain is acidic only from CARBONIC ACID. Also hidden in the fine print of the post, the "acid rain" was pH 3, 50-50 sulfuric and nitric acid. Not the "normally acid" kind. The ANTHROPOGENIC kind. In 1990, sealover's master's thesis was entered into the UC Berkeley Library. The title: Phenols in forest litter and leachate: Interaction with Acidity. It was ALL ABOUT how solubility IS affected by pH. First, the hydrophobic effect of increased surface tension in the rain drops. The high ionic strength of the pH 3 "acid rain" means that there is high surface tension in the rain droplets. This prevents some of it from even interacting with with the litter before percolating down into mineral soil. "Normally acid" rain does NOT do this. The solubility of phenol carboxylic acids is HIGHLY pH dependent. As deprotonated anions, they can form dipoles with surrounding water molecules lined up in polar fashion. This makes them soluble despite their hydrocarbon component, which tends to be hydrophobic. That master's thesis was a very rare case of one that outsiders went to see at the UC Berkeley library. Between 1990 and 1994, there was no place else to find the information it contained. In fact, pH is the MASTER VARIABILITY regulating the solubility of organic matter in water. |
| 07-06-2023 00:52 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: "Acid Rain" and "Nitrogen Saturation" of Ecosystems. "Acid Rain" did a lot of damage to a lot of ecosystems. Most of the acid in "acid rain" was sulfuric acid (hydrogen SULFATE). Most of the damage was done by the strong mineral acid and its associated oxyanion, sulfate. Sulfate formed strong complexes with calcium and magnesium, removing these essential nutrients from the soil via surface runoff or leaching into groundwater. The sulfuric acid in acid rain was mostly from anthropogenic coal combustion. Lesser amounts of sulfuric acid in acid rain were from combustion of sulfur containing DIESEL fuel. Still lesser amounts of sulfuric acid in acid rain were from natural sources, such as volcanic activity or wildfires burning sulfur containing organic material. The other acid in "acid rain" was NITRIC ACID (hydrogen NITRATE). Nitric acid was becoming a larger and larger ingredient in "acid rain" as humans used more and more vehicles for transportation on the land or in the sea and sky. The heat of combustion provided activation energy to oxidize some nitrogen gas into NOx, including nitric acid. In California in the 1980s, about 2/3 of the acid in "acid rain" was NITRIC acid, and the other 1/3 was sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid was the bad boy who dragged off the calcium and magnesium. Nitric acid didn't drag off so much calcium and magnesium, but it provided FERTILIZER. Most natural ecosystems were nitrogen limited. Most natural ecosystems would respond to added nitrogen. "Nitrogen saturation" was the buzzword they made up for this fake science. Heathlands were being taken over by faster growing plant species, no longer limited by nitrogen availability. Watersheds were "leaking" nitrate into groundwater and surface water. Plant communities were shifting in response to shifting nitrogen availability. Humans weren't doing much of anything to reduce anthropogenic nitric acid in "acid rain". But something funny happened about a dozen years ago. "sealover" was asked to review a new paper (peer review before publication kind of thing). This paper was the first of many that would find Mother Nature had adapted to "nitrogen saturation". The nitric acid (hydrogen nitrate) additions to the watershed had not ceased. Just as much nitrate was raining down into the watershed as before. But the concentration of nitrate in ground water and surface water was steadily declining toward negligible amounts. Well, before anthropogenic "acid rain", there hadn't been much of a niche available for nitrate reducing bacteria in the soil and groundwater of these watersheds. Historically, there had never been enough nitrate to support them. It took a few decades for them to get established, but now there was a population of nitrate reducing bacteria along the subsurface flow paths. They were catching the nitrate in the water and using it to oxidize organic carbon via denitrification or via dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium. They were neutralizing the acidity of the nitric acid, as nitrate reduction generated alkalinity. The bacteria were consuming the excess nitrate from the ground water before it could find its way into any surface waters to cause eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills. Some of that nitrate was being lost as dinitrogen gas to denitrification. Most of that nitrate was being retained in the ecosystem a dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium generated alkalinity while transforming the nitrate into ammonium, which can be held in soil by cation exchange. What could we learn from this? There are other places where anthropogenic impacts cause a material to be present where it was not before. Methane coming up out of the tundra. Ammonium in the gold mine tailings being oxidized to nitrate. Nitrate from "acid rain" in subsurface flows and surface waters. Nature already had a microorganism adapted to solve the problem. But there had never been such a problem in these specific locations before. A microorganism was going to have to move in from somewhere else to oxidize the methane or consume the nitrate. That can take decades or longer. Humans can give the microbes a helping hand to put them where they needed. Humans can selectively breed or even genetically engineer the microorganisms to do an even better job cleaning up our mess for us. |
| 07-06-2023 00:53 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: And we can select WHICH nitrate reducing bacteria to introduce. No N2 loss to denitrification. So, we have the phenomenon of forested watersheds that displayed "nitrogen saturation" a few decades ago, but now they are no longer "leaking" out nitrate. Even though input of nitrate as nitric acid in "acid rain" has not ceased. Nitrate reducing bacteria eventually established active populations along the subsurface flow paths of these watersheds. Humans could have accelerated the natural mitigation. Humans could have introduced nitrate reducing bacteria, along with the rainfall entering subsurface flow paths. Humans could have tailored the selection of nitrate reducing bacteria to be a best fit for local conditions, physical and chemical. Humans could have ensured that ONLY bacteria that perform dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium are introduced. NO DENITRIFIERS! Denitrifying bacteria transform nitrate into dinitrogen gas, mostly. That nitrogen gas goes to the atmosphere where it is useless as a nutrient for ecosystems. Dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium by bacteria keeps the nitrogen in the ground as ammonium. Furthermore, there are FACTORS THAT REGULATE HOW MUCH NITROUS OXIDE is emitted as a by product during either denitrification OR dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium. We can selectively breed the bacteria. Maybe even genetically engineer them. Ensure that they put out as little nitrous oxide as possible. And ensure that the physical and chemical conditions under which they operate allow them to minimize the emission of nitrous oxide during nitrate reduction. |
| 07-06-2023 00:54 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Polyphenol Reduction of Methane Emission from Bovine Burps. "sealover" loves his buzzwords, but POLYPHENOL just might be his favorite. When cattle or other ruminants digest cellulose-rich feed, bacteria inside protozoa inside bovine guts produce a cellulase enzyme, enabling the animal host to benefit from this otherwise indigestible carbohydrate. But the low oxygen conditions of the bovine gut favor methanogenesis. Cattle burp out a WHOLE LOT OF METHANE. But cattle burp out a WHOLE LOT LESS METHANE when their feed contains the right amount of the right kind of polyphenol. Not just theoretical. Already being applied commercially. We could discuss this kind of practical, inexpensive, and quick solution. Or we could argue about whether or not we are allowed to discuss methane in any context because unambiguous definition of methane as a greenhouse gas involved in climate change, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... ANWER THE QUESTION! What question? DEFINE YOUR TERMS! Yeah, that WAS the only real QUESTION, wasn't it? |
| 07-06-2023 00:57 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: In 1990, sealover's master's thesis was entered into the UC Berkeley Library. |
| 07-06-2023 00:59 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Using Fossil Fuel Combustion to Sequester CO2 from the Atmosphere. It is FUTILE to try to REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS from fossil fuel combustion by the amount that would be required to effectively address climate change. If the ONLY approach is fossil fuel emissions reduction, then it is hopeless. Emissions reduction by reducing losses of organic carbon from agricultural soils and natural ecosystems would help, but not enough. We have to think outside of the box. We have to think MASSIVE SEQUESTRATION of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And we won't be able to do it without burning some fossil fuel to make it happen. For example, when a desert is irrigated, the land can become a "sink" for atmospheric carbon dioxide. The plants capture CO2 through photosynthesis, and some of that carbon remains stored as soil organic matter. It may be well worth it to burn some fuel to run a pump, if that's all it takes to turn that desert into a carbon "sink". It may even pass the cost-benefit analysis to use fossil fuel combustion energy to DESALINATE sea water to irrigate desert. The amount of carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere and stored as soil organic matter may be many times greater than the CO2 emissions from the fossil fuel burned in order to desalinate the sea water and pump it to the desert. There are many more examples where using energy from fossil fuel combustion would be the most convenient way to facilitate large scale CO2 sequestration. |
| 07-06-2023 01:00 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: new paper about applied biogeochemistry April 25, 2022 by Aminata Fofana, and others 89 pages available at SSRN "Permafrost thaw in northern peatlands is likely to create a positive feedback to climate change as soil carbon (C) is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4)." that's the BAD news "..and p-hydroxybenzoic acid, which are produced by Sphagnum spp., were added at field-relevant concentrations, under anaerobic conditions... Addition of both organic acids greatly increased the CO2:CH4 ratio in deep peats." That's the GOOD news. p-hydroxy benzoic acid is an ortho phenol carboxylic acid produced by plants that can regulate microbial processes in soil. One way or another, carbon in the melting permafrost is going to be released to the atmosphere. Applied biogeochemistry can help ensure that it is released as CO2 and not CH4. Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide. Timely action to nurture beneficial biological activity in the soil can help to mitigate one of the vicious feedbacks to global warming. It is just the most recent paper to cite sealover's work for this kind of thing. Any questions? [quote]sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change. |
| 07-06-2023 01:01 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change. |
| 07-06-2023 01:02 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: In 1985, I began post graduate research. "Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days. Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time. I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant. The powers that be will willing to fund generously at the time. Action could be stalled so long as they were still waiting to get all the reports. It looked like they were doing all they could. And some of the powers believed their own fantasies that the research would exonerate them and absolve them of responsibility to act. The field of biogeochemistry came of age. They were the only scientists who had the right training for the big picture questions. Acidic deposition. "Acid rain". On average about two thirds sulfuric acid and one third nitric acid, with a lot of regional variation in the relative content of the two acids. One problem was that it was acidic. Another problem was that the protons didn't come by themselves. There was nitrate from nitric acid. "Nitrogen saturation" of ecosystems was one impact. Nitrate is fertilizer. Ecosystems that were historically nitrogen limited were leaking out nitrate from the excess input. Nitrate in surface water was fertilizer for algae blooms, eutrophication, and hypoxia. And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid. When sulfate passed through the soil, it wasn't going out alone. It usually dragged an ion of calcium or magnesium along with it. Calcium and magnesium deficiency in forests on silica-rich soils was causing die back. And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency. Acid rain also influenced soil organic matter. It reduced the solubility of soil organic matter. It protonated organic anions, limiting their complexing power and solubility. Rather than being retained in soil as chelation complexes with organic anions, calcium and magnesium were being dragged away by sulfate. |
| 07-06-2023 01:04 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1247) |
[quote]sealover wrote: Anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations. Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon. Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester. Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide. The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere. As these massive stores of organic carbon warm up enough to decompose, carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket. Many more examples of vicious feedbacks that will aggravate climate change. |
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare | 32 | 10-04-2024 08:23 |
| Second case of top-secret Biden documents found stored at Staples near the printer | 0 | 12-01-2023 01:46 |
| The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way | 0 | 22-07-2021 07:31 |
| Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out | 61 | 09-12-2020 20:12 |
| This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud | 36 | 27-11-2020 23:07 |