Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios

sealover wrote:
In 1990, sealover's master's thesis was entered into the UC Berkeley Library.

sealover wrote:
Anthropogenic emission

sealover wrote:
of carbon dioxide via fossil fuel combustion

sealover wrote:
is just one of many sources contributing to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

sealover wrote:
Natural ecosystems cycle enormous quantities of carbon.

sealover wrote:
Ecosystems that previously were net sinks, sequestering more carbon from the atmosphere than they emitted have shifted to emitting more than they sequester.

sealover wrote:
Climate change itself is causing ecosystems to emit more carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
The increased frequency and severity of wildfires is a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

sealover wrote:
Methane locked in the ice under the tundra is now being released to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
As these massive stores of organic carbon

sealover wrote:
warm up enough to decompose,

sealover wrote:
carbon dioxide emissions skyrocket.

sealover wrote:
Many more examples of vicious feedbacks

sealover wrote:
that will aggravate climate change.

sealover wrote:
In 1985, I began post graduate research.

sealover wrote:
"Acid Rain" was a big deal in those days.

sealover wrote:
Among the few things they will willing to fund environmental research for at the time.

sealover wrote:
I got lucky with a lab that got a big NSF grant.

sealover wrote:
The powers that be will willing to fund generously at the time.

sealover wrote:
Action could be stalled so long as they were still waiting to get all the reports.

sealover wrote:
It looked like they were doing all they could.

sealover wrote:
And some of the powers believed their own fantasies that the research would exonerate them and absolve them of responsibility to act.

sealover wrote:
The field of biogeochemistry came of age.

sealover wrote:
They were the only scientists who had the right training for the big picture questions.

sealover wrote:
Acidic deposition. "Acid rain".

sealover wrote:
On average about two thirds sulfuric acid and one third nitric acid,

sealover wrote:
with a lot of regional variation in the relative content of the two acids.

sealover wrote:
One problem was that it was acidic.

sealover wrote:
Another problem was that the protons didn't come by themselves.

sealover wrote:
There was nitrate from nitric acid.

sealover wrote:
"Nitrogen saturation" of ecosystems was one impact.

sealover wrote:
Nitrate is fertilizer.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
And there was sulfate from sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
And aluminum toxicity was being provoked, mainly on account of calcium deficiency.

sealover wrote:
Acid rain also influenced soil organic matter.

sealover wrote:
It reduced the solubility of soil organic matter.

sealover wrote:
It protonated organic anions,

sealover wrote:
limiting their complexing power and solubility.

sealover wrote:
Rather than being retained in soil as chelation complexes with organic anions, calcium and magnesium were being dragged away by sulfate.

sealover wrote:
Chemotherapy for the land - fix the bad chemicals we left in the soil and water by adding other anthropogenic chemicals.

Be careful. You're playing with fire. It's a complex system we're messing with.[

sealover wrote:
Warming causes the tundra to release two different carbon-containing greenhouse gases from two different carbon-containing sources in the tundra.

sealover wrote:
There is an enormous reservoir of trapped methane beneath the tundra.

sealover wrote:
When the ice melts, the carbon in the methane is released in a chemical form only slightly different than the form in which it was trapped.

sealover wrote:
Methane is a greenhouse gas about 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
When the tundra warms up, it also releases carbon as carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
This carbon in this carbon dioxide is in chemical form VERY different than the one in which it was trapped.

sealover wrote:
Carbon dioxide emissions from the tundra originate from ORGANIC carbon in the tundra. Organic carbon only counts as greenhouse gas when it's methane.

sealover wrote:
Well, we could technical about some of the minor greenhouse gases which also contain carbon in organic, rather than inorganic form.

sealover wrote:
Inorganic carbon is carbon that has been oxidized and has oxygen attached.

sealover wrote:
Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate.

sealover wrote:
Carbon dioxide emissions from the warming tundra result from organic carbon oxidizing to inorganic carbon, through aerobic respiration in microbial decomposition.

sealover wrote:
Example of feedback a few million years ago.

sealover wrote:
Since I already brought it up, I'll give you a brief preview.

This is biogeochemistry AND a climate feedback.

sealover wrote:
Mother Nature switched the dial on CO2, and now we were in for ice ages.

sealover wrote:
There used to be a gap between North America and South America, wide enough for a global current to constantly flow.

sealover wrote:
Then plate tectonics moved Panama to where it sealed off the two oceans.

sealover wrote:
With the global ocean current sealed off, the tropical seas got warmer and the polar seas got colder.

sealover wrote:
So, if these historically high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere dropped so much, where did all the carbon go?

sealover wrote:
Well, the tundra got very cold for one thing.

sealover wrote:
It started aggrading and building a store of organic carbon that wasn't going back to the atmosphere anytime soon.

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.

sealover wrote:
Vicious FIRE Feedbacks. "Firenados". The Swamp is Now in Flames.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Climate change caused the pest-killed trees to contribute to the fire hazard.

sealover wrote:
There is a HUGE amount of organic carbon stored in the biomass and soil organic matter of rain forests.

sealover wrote:
A vicious fire feedback for Anthropogenic Global Weirding.

sealover wrote:
new paper about applied biogeochemistry

sealover wrote:
Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
new paper about applied biogeochemistry

No such thing.

sealover wrote:
Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
new paper about applied biogeochemistry

No such thing.

sealover wrote:
Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

WOW!

NINE consecutive posts...

Im a BM wrote:
To say important things like.. "No such thing".

Im a BM wrote:
Unsupported contrarian assertions.

Im a BM wrote:
Smells a lot like SPAM, doesn't it?

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 a 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.

sealover wrote:
As the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread reveals,

sealover wrote:
sealover's published research has been cited in many other new peer-reviewed scientific papers since then.

sealover wrote:
The new viewer who stumbles on to this website might be pleasantly surprised to find out that there is a member who is actually a recognized expert in the biogeochemistry of carbon cycling.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Ion Selective Field Effect Transistors (ISFETS)

Electric fields can be used in chemistry as a proxy in chemical analysis.

Not a proxy.

sealover wrote:
Ion selective field effect transistors (ISFETS) are inexpensive and relatively accurate.

They are similar to ion selective probes (e.g. pH meters) in that an ion selective membrane is wrapped around a transistor.

Only the ions that can pass through the membrane will interact with the electric field sensed by the transistor.

Not how an ISFET is constructed. ISFETs are used as pH meters. They are not similar to it. They are. They can also be used to measure other ion presence, not just pH.

sealover wrote:
I suspect that Dumb Ugly Clown Kook (DUCK) has NO IDEA what any of this means, even though DUCK Boy makes free use of the term "electric field", as if DUCK Boy had the tiniest clue what any of that scientific buzzword gibber babble really means. "Unambiguous definition for electric field". Forget it!

Electric field "effect"? Now, those are just fake buzzwords for sure!

Yup. Buzzword. You don't know what it means. I guess you don't know how a ISFET works, or even a FET, or even what the acronym FET means.

sealover wrote:
ISFETS, ion selective field effect transistors, are going to be the new wave for hydroponics growing operations if anyone is into investing in new technology.

What's to invest? They're cheap like you said. They were invented in the 70's. What's new? They've been around for 50 years. Hydroponics is even older. It's been around for 450 years.

I use ISFETs myself for measuring positive ions for some of my sensors in industry. I occasionally use the pH version, but not as often as the positive ion version.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Standard calomel electrode for pH is NOT an ISFET.

Yes it is.

sealover wrote:
Normally, there is nothing worth responding to in Parrot Boy's posts.

Yet you respond to each of them. Paradox.

sealover wrote:
But sometimes things have to be clarified just in case someone didn't know.

If "ISFETS are used a pH meters", that is a recent change since the last time I did any lab work.

You didn't do any lab work.

sealover wrote:
The standard calomel electrode is what has been used to measure pH... forever.

There is no standard calomel electrode.

sealover wrote:
IT IS NOT AN ISFET. It contains no transistor. It is an electrode.

It is an ISFET.

sealover wrote:
Ion selective electrodes are old news.

Yet you said they were brand new technology. Paradox. You are becoming quite irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

sealover wrote:
Not everyone got the memo yet.

And not to waste time on comments unworthy of reply, but...

Since you are replying, you must deem my comments 'worthy'.

sealover wrote:
When a farmer buy DRY ammonia, he isn't being tricked. The stuff really is anhydrous.
[quote]sealover wrote:
As soon as that ammonia contacts a proton on a solid soil surface, it is no longer ammonia. At that point, "dry" or not, it is called AMMONIUM.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that they apply "dry ammonium'.

You did.

sealover wrote:
And it was a RADICAL NEW WAY TO APPLY NITROGEN FERTILIZER.

Word games about whether "nitrogen" can ONLY mean "element" or something have nothing to do with applying dry ammonia as a COMPLETELY NEW way to fertilize with nitrogen.

Nah. It's been used since 1910.

sealover wrote:
Word games about whether or not ammonia is "dry" aren't going to stop farmers from calling it what they have for about 100 years now.

Farmers just call it 'ammonia'. They will apply it wet or dry (and let the soil wet it).

sealover wrote:
WORDS MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEM PERFECTLY WHEN CORRECTLY USED IN CONTEXT.

Get over it!

Buzzwords have no meaning. Since you refuse to define them, they still have no meaning.

sealover wrote:
People know how to talk and they know what they're saying to each other.

Apparently YOU don't. You just spew buzzwords and spam.

sealover wrote:
Even if YOU haven't got a CLUE what the words mean to smart people.

Lame insult. A fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, Into the Night proved that he knows all about ISFETs.

"ISFETs are used as pH meters. They are not similar to it. They are." - ITN

and even

"I use ISFETs myself... and occasionally use the pH version." - ITN

But TODAY, ITN was reminded,

"I'm pretty sure you said it included pH meters which were actually ion selective field effect transistors (ISFETs), rather than the traditional variety."

to which ITN said, "Nope. Not how they're built."

But, wait...

however, pointing out your contradictions just brings more denials.

sealover wrote:
This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost.

sealover wrote:
But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation.

sealover wrote:
In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything.

Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid.

sealover wrote:
Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3.

As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process.

sealover wrote:
The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases.

sealover wrote:
Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways.

Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example.

Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity,

sealover wrote:
and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example.

keepit wrote:
itn,
you're wrong again. No hallucinating. You must be having delusions about these things. I'll point them out from time to time.

sealover wrote:
...deleted spam...
new paper about applied biogeochemistry
"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

sealover wrote:
"..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 a 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.

sealover wrote:
Applied biogeochemistry can help ensure that it is released as CO2 and not CH4.
No such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not methane.
[quote]sealover wrote:
Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide.

sealover wrote:
Timely action to nurture beneficial biological activity in the soil can help to mitigate one of the vicious feedbacks to global warming.

sealover wrote:
It is just the most recent paper to cite sealover's work for this kind of thing.

sealover wrote:
The new viewer who stumbles on to this website might be pleasantly surprised to find out that there is a member who is actually a recognized expert in the biogeochemistry of carbon cycling.

sealover wrote:
[b]"Rivers in Alaska ...

keepit wrote:
itn,
You're wrong again. seal lover isn't paranoid.
I can't point out all of your delusions.

keepit wrote:
itn,
It's just your imagination. No basis in reality.

Im a BM wrote:
THIS POST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS "SPAM" BY INTO THE NIGHT

Into the Night needs to provide an unambiguous definition of "spam" that is somehow consistent with the content of this post.

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

"Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists."

This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro.

I first saw it about four days ago:

"Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways."

Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg.

Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024:

J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268.

The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008.

This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost.

But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation.

In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything.

Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid.

Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3.

As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process.

The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases.

Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways.

Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example.

Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example.


Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations.

Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water.

Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III).

Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury.

Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it.

So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc.

It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost.
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5

sealover wrote:
Methane has about 20x the global warming potential, compared to carbon dioxide..

keepit wrote:
itn,
Tell me about these imaginary posts u speak of. And what buzzwords do you feel are used incorrectly.

Im a BM wrote:
THIS POST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS "SPAM" BY INTO THE NIGHT

Into the Night needs to provide an unambiguous definition of "spam" that is somehow consistent with the content of this post.