Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification > Page 4

Page 4 of 9

RE: CORRECTION (organic alkalinity) and role of phenolic groups.24-03-2022 09:29
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	CORRECTION (organic alkalinity) and role of phenolic groups. I mistakenly said that organic alkalinity supplied most of the seas alkalinity. WRONG. Not even close. Bicarbonate and carbonate supply the overwhelming majority of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). ORGANIC ALKALINITY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT IN SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FROM WETLANDS - ABOUT ONE FOURTH OF TOTAL ALKALINITY. Phenolic groups, a hydroxyl group attached to an aromatic ring, also provide alkalinity. Phenolic acids are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. They do not deprotonate until much higher pH, compared to carboxylic acids. Much higher pKa. The most important functional group pairings within the organic alkalinity oxyanions are Ortho di carboxylic - Two adjacent carboxylic groups capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho hydric phenol carboxylic - adjacent phenolic and carboxylic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho di hydric phenolic - adjacent phenolic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. good enough for now. --------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Organic Alkalinity - Carboxylic and Phenolic groups on organic acids. Historically, organic alkalinity was not recognized as an important component in the alkalinity of the ocean. It was known that oxyanions of deprotonated organic acid existed. It was known that they contributed acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). Few people had any idea how much of them there was in sea water, and how important this unique "pool" of alkalinity is. Most alkalinity in sea water arises from phenol carboxylic acids, such as "humic" acids. These are often large molecules that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites provided by carboxylic and phenolic functional groups. Carboxylic acids are the most familiar organic acids. Vinegar, citric acid, vitamin C, lactic acid. They all have a carboxylic group. A carbon double bonded to one oxygen, and single bonded to a second oxygen in a hydroxyl (-OH) group. Carboxylic acids typically have pKa in the ballpark of 4.5. This means that at near pH 4.5, they are half deprotonated and half in acid form. The alkalinity of organic acid buffers can be calculated knowing the pH of the solution and the pKa of the organic acid. One thing that organic carbon alkalinity can do that inorganic carbon alkalinity cannot is to form organometallic complexes with transition metals such as iron. Often tightly bound as inner sphere chelation complexes, organic anions are a major controller on the behavior of metals in solution. Organic alkalinity is finally getting the attention it deserves in the new research. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Oh, oh, ... pick me, pick me ... are they measuring the sadness of the loss of a coral reef? So you are using pharmacology lingo because everyone knows what you mean?
RE: CORRECTION: BENZOIC ACIDS (aromatic carboxylic)24-03-2022 11:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	CORRECTION: BENZOIC ACIDS (aromatic carboxylic) The most common organic acids in nature are carboxylic acids. Deprotonation of the carboxylic group yields an organic carbon oxyanion. Organic carbon oxyanions contribute alkalinity. Some carboxylic groups on organic acids occur on aromatic rings. This combination of aromatic carboxylic is known as BENZOIC ACID. As in it is on a BENZENE aromatic ring. The pKas of benzoic acids range substantially more widely than the aliphatic carboxylic acids with pKas typically near 4. Phenolic acids, hydroxylic groups on aromatic benzene ring, are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. Furthermore, phenolics pKa is closer to 10. They don't deprotonate until high pH. The combination of aliphatic carboxylic, benzoic, phenol carboxylic, and polyphenolic functional results in four distinct pH ranges where naturally occurring organic alkalinity has peak buffering capacity. The two biggest peaks are near pH 4.5 and pH 10. Maximum resistance to pH shift in response to addition or neutralization of protons occurs near pH 4.5 and pH 10. Organic anions with adjacent acidic functional groups can form chelation complexes with metals, forming ring structure 2-bond complex. Dicarboxylic, ortho phenol benzoic, and ortho dihydric phenolic acids all have two adjacent acidic groups to act as polydentate ligands. ---------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: CORRECTION (organic alkalinity) and role of phenolic groups. I mistakenly said that organic alkalinity supplied most of the seas alkalinity. WRONG. Not even close. Bicarbonate and carbonate supply the overwhelming majority of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). ORGANIC ALKALINITY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT IN SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FROM WETLANDS - ABOUT ONE FOURTH OF TOTAL ALKALINITY. Phenolic groups, a hydroxyl group attached to an aromatic ring, also provide alkalinity. Phenolic acids are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. They do not deprotonate until much higher pH, compared to carboxylic acids. Much higher pKa. The most important functional group pairings within the organic alkalinity oxyanions are Ortho di carboxylic - Two adjacent carboxylic groups capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho hydric phenol carboxylic - adjacent phenolic and carboxylic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho di hydric phenolic - adjacent phenolic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. good enough for now. --------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Organic Alkalinity - Carboxylic and Phenolic groups on organic acids. Historically, organic alkalinity was not recognized as an important component in the alkalinity of the ocean. It was known that oxyanions of deprotonated organic acid existed. It was known that they contributed acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). Few people had any idea how much of them there was in sea water, and how important this unique "pool" of alkalinity is. Most alkalinity in sea water arises from phenol carboxylic acids, such as "humic" acids. These are often large molecules that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites provided by carboxylic and phenolic functional groups. Carboxylic acids are the most familiar organic acids. Vinegar, citric acid, vitamin C, lactic acid. They all have a carboxylic group. A carbon double bonded to one oxygen, and single bonded to a second oxygen in a hydroxyl (-OH) group. Carboxylic acids typically have pKa in the ballpark of 4.5. This means that at near pH 4.5, they are half deprotonated and half in acid form. The alkalinity of organic acid buffers can be calculated knowing the pH of the solution and the pKa of the organic acid. One thing that organic carbon alkalinity can do that inorganic carbon alkalinity cannot is to form organometallic complexes with transition metals such as iron. Often tightly bound as inner sphere chelation complexes, organic anions are a major controller on the behavior of metals in solution. Organic alkalinity is finally getting the attention it deserves in the new research. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Oh, oh, ... pick me, pick me ... are they measuring the sadness of the loss of a coral reef? So you are using pharmacology lingo because everyone knows what you mean?
RE: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen.24-03-2022 12:35
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
24-03-2022 14:10
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	sealover wrote: Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come. Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea by ourselves, dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. It is simply not humanly possible to provide the quantities required. Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge. Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. If anyone is curious, there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction. LOL who exactly would decide what the PH of the ocean should be and was before the industrial revolution? You? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
24-03-2022 17:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	seal over wrote: Even under the best-case climate change mitigation scenarios, I see you are upping the game. Not only is Climate Change completely undefined, you seek to build upon that success and to create new undefined nonexistence, e.g. mitigation scenarios. Awesome! Now, when you talk about the "best" of them, it's so totally clear what you mean. I can see why you can't afford to define even a single term because your little house of cards is just a slight breeze away from collapsing entirely. seal over wrote: atmospheric concentrations of carbon will only gradually decline. Awesome! You have shut off any avenue for anyone to ask you why any rational adult would want any sort of rapid decline of atmospheric concentrations of carbon. You have also avoided all clarification of the form of carbon of which you speak, i.e. elemental carbon, soot, CO2, something else, etc.. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? You're making it all up as you go along, aren't you? You ol' dog you! Good job! seal over wrote:Even if we cease all fossil fuel combustion Wouldn't people who own fossils prefer to keep them in museums? Who is burning fossils anyway? Is this part of the cancel culture that wants to destroy art and tear down statues? Did BLM discover that some prehistoric life forms were actually shitty people and now they are burning their fossils as RACIST! ? seal over wrote: tomorrow, ocean "acidification" (i.e. depletion of alkalinity) would continue to get worse for decades to come. I see that you drop that bomb of "ocean acidification" because most people operate under that misconception, and then offer your cryptic "depletion of alkalinity" which is also not true ... and you aggravate the hype by asserting that this disinformation will become "worse" ! You DOG! I see you have this well under control and don't need any help. Wait, this is an anonymous board and you didn't emphasize unbelievable credentials. I think you should post an addendum to this or you might lose followers ... unless you don't have any, in which case nevermind. seal over wrote:Direct human intervention to perform environmental chemotherapy You aren't going to explain that one, are you? You're going to claim that everyone already knows what it means, right? Awesome! seal over wrote: ... and provide exogenous alkalinity to the sea Finally! You get to something everyone understands intuitively! Too funny! seal over wrote: ... dumping gigatons of lime or grinding up gigatons of rocks to transport and distribute to the sea is a non-starter. I'm glad someone had the balls to step forward and rule that out. seal over wrote:Coastal wetlands are the major source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, as submarine groundwater discharge. After all, this is the working man's hot-button issue. seal over wrote:Under the low oxygen conditions of wetland soil, bacteria use sulfate as oxidant to oxidize organic carbon and acquire energy. Sulfate reduction by bacteria generates inorganic carbon alkalinity rather than carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. Finally somebody gets it. Thank you. We should just bulldoze these wetlands and be done with them. Goodbye and good riddance to all that inorganic carbon alkalinity via sulfate reduction-driven bacteria generation. I never liked it in the first place. seal over wrote:If anyone is curious, I'd like to try something in the "nobody is curious" column, please. seal over wrote: there are three distinctly different geoengineering approaches that could be applied to increase the generation of alkalinity for the sea through oxidation of wetland sediment organic carbon via microbial sulfate reduction. Wait, I thought all of that was a bad thing. I thought you understood. The ocean doesn't need any additional alkalinity and even if it did, wetlands would be a non-starter because of the negligible quantities involved, and sulfates cannot be reduced, and there is no such thing as geoengineering, and there is no such distinction of carbon, i.e. organic vs. inorganic. Oooops, that's the joke and I just ruined it. Crap. I'm sorry.
24-03-2022 17:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Swan wrote: LOL who exactly would decide what the PH of the ocean should be and was before the industrial revolution? You? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Don't laugh, seal over is a chemigeobiologist. He is an expert at knowing how the earth otherwise should be. He's omniscient as all Marxists are and he's working to save the planet, humanity and you from the certain doom of greedy capitalists. Ask not what terms your country can define for you. Ask what you should believe for your country! Stay tuned.
24-03-2022 17:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. ...The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. So the layers that were stacked vertically were simultaneously side-by-side. I can see that. How does your story of the three little layers differ from the story of the three little piggies? I may be getting a few details wrong but the big bad wolf of climate-changing capitalism destroyed everything but the house made of banded iron. Am I right? Attached image: Edited on 24-03-2022 17:18
24-03-2022 18:14
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: LOL who exactly would decide what the PH of the ocean should be and was before the industrial revolution? You? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Don't laugh, seal over is a chemigeobiologist. He is an expert at knowing how the earth otherwise should be. He's omniscient as all Marxists are and he's working to save the planet, humanity and you from the certain doom of greedy capitalists. Ask not what terms your country can define for you. Ask what you should believe for your country! Stay tuned. Actually there is no such thing as a chemigeobiologist
RE: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration24-03-2022 21:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
24-03-2022 23:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	Swan wrote:Actually there is no such thing as a chemigeobiologist I know. There is no such thing as a chemigeobiologist. There is no such thing as a chemibiogeologist. There is no such thing as a biochemigeologist. There is no such thing as a biogeochemist. There is no such thing as a geochemibiologist. There is no such thing as a geobiochemist. seal over is nonetheless claiming one of those as a credential on this anonymous forum. Attached image:
25-03-2022 00:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. Mitochondria is not a parasite. sealover wrote: The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Carbon isn't in oxygen. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. Carbon isn't organic. No one makes oxygen. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Target audience buzzword challenge. Chemoautotropic bacteria.25-03-2022 00:29
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Target audience buzzword challenge. Chemoautotrophic bacteria. I continue to rest assured that the target audience will recognize my correct use of buzzwords. Scientists who play word games can pick apart the ones they don't know and make a good guess. Many of the bacteria I have been speaking of are chemoautotrophs. Chemo"autotrophs". NOT chemo heterotrophs. "Chemo"autotrophs. NOT photo autotrophs. Chemoautotrophic bacteria feed themselves, reducing inorganic carbon with the energy of chemical oxidation/reduction reactions. Many of them oxidize minerals found in rocks - litho trophic chemoautotrophs Like sulfur oxidizers, iron oxidizers, manganese oxiders, nitrogen oxidizers, arsenic oxidizers, selenium, phosphorous, molybdenum, boron, and on and on. "sealover" is confident that the target audience gets all the buzzwords, or knows how to look them up based on the context of how they are used here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Actually there is no such thing as a chemigeobiologist I know. There is no such thing as a chemigeobiologist. There is no such thing as a chemibiogeologist. There is no such thing as a biochemigeologist. There is no such thing as a biogeochemist. There is no such thing as a geochemibiologist. There is no such thing as a geobiochemist. seal over is nonetheless claiming one of those as a credential on this anonymous forum.
25-03-2022 01:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Target audience buzzword challenge. Chemoautotrophic bacteria. ...deleted excess noise... Buzzword fallacy. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE26-03-2022 03:55
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
26-03-2022 04:05
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	So now you agree it was Cyanobacteria that created the first oxygen on the planet and then other species evolved.As I have seen this stuff in person I can understand it
RE: Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis.26-03-2022 04:10
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis. The basic photosystem required for intracellular photooxidation of manganese didn't require much voltage to make it work. Manganese(II) needed only to be oxidized to manganese(IV). It was EASY with ultraviolet. It took a light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that low voltage in bright blue visible light. It took a far more elaborate light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that voltage in dim red visible light. Still just enough voltage to yank off just those two electrons, to oxidize manganese(II) to manganese(IV). But now that elaborate light harvesting apparatus for dim red light could be brought to the bright surface to generate much higher voltage. Manganese has multiple oxidation states. Manganese(II) and manganese(IV) are just two of them. Manganese(VII), a highly oxidized by product of manganese(II) oxidation by manganese oxidizing bacteria, is a VERY POWERFUL OXIDANT. Manganese(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen, O2. Manganese(VII) can oxidize chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium, abiotically. A photosystem that generates enough voltage to turn manganese(II) to manganese(VII) could yank an electron off nitrite to make nitrate. Nitrite could be used as a last resort reductant reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis, generating nitrate, a powerful oxidant. And a photosystem that could generate that much voltage for manganese oxidation was almost ready to be able to oxidize water and generate oxygen gas. Then you would never need to depend on the environment to supply chemical reductants for photosynthesis. A lot of sun energy was wasted just to crank up the voltage enough to oxidize water. But now a photosynthetic bacteria could grow anywhere that had sun and water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
26-03-2022 04:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. Your pretense to speak for scientists is noted ... and summarily discarded. sealover wrote:The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. No. That is not the conclusion of a chemist. sealover wrote:It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. A chemist sees all possibilities and explores them all. Scientists don't just jump to conclusions as you are implying. This is why no rational adult will presume that you somehow speak for scientists. sealover wrote:And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Will you lend me the keys to your time machine so I can verify this myself? Attached image:
26-03-2022 04:22
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	[quote]sealover wrote: Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis. The basic photosystem required for intracellular photooxidation of manganese didn't require much voltage to make it work. Manganese(II) needed only to be oxidized to manganese(IV). It was EASY with ultraviolet. It took a light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that low voltage in bright blue visible light. It took a far more elaborate light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that voltage in dim red visible light. Still just enough voltage to yank off just those two electrons, to oxidize manganese(II) to manganese(IV). But now that elaborate light harvesting apparatus for dim red light could be brought to the bright surface to generate much higher voltage. Manganese has multiple oxidation states. Manganese(II) and manganese(IV) are just two of them. Manganese(VII), a highly oxidized by product of manganese(II) oxidation by manganese oxidizing bacteria, is a VERY POWERFUL OXIDANT. Manganese(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen, O2. Manganese(VII) can oxidize chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium, abiotically. A photosystem that generates enough voltage to turn manganese(II) to manganese(VII) could yank an electron off nitrite to make nitrate. Nitrite could be used as a last resort reductant reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis, generating nitrate, a powerful oxidant. And a photosystem that could generate that much voltage for manganese oxidation was almost ready to be able to oxidize water and generate oxygen gas. Then you would never need to depend on the environment to supply chemical reductants for photosynthesis. A lot of sun energy was wasted just to crank up the voltage enough to oxidize water. But now a photosynthetic bacteria could grow anywhere that had sun and water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [quote]sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ [quote]sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. Is that your version of saying yes.It was cyanobacteria that first put oxygen in the atmosphere duncan61 Edited on 26-03-2022 04:23
RE: Arsenic Based Anoxygenic Photosynthesis - Mono Lake, California.26-03-2022 04:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Arsenic Based Anoxygenic Photosynthesis - Mono Lake, California The use of arsenic by bacteria at Mono Lake was cause for a genuine scandal in science. Arsenic is VERY similar to phosphorus in its chemical properties and behavior. Many of the things organisms need phosphorus for, such as the phospholipids in membranes, can be made with arsenic instead. SO MANY of the things that phosphorus does can be replaced by arsenic that a very controversial paper was published in the journal NATURE. She claimed to have shown a bacteria from Mono Lake was able to survive, grow, and reproduce with NO PHOSPHORUS WHATSOEVER. It was a lie. She had to add just a smidgeon of phosphorus to keep them alive. But hardly any! This was an organism adapted to survive in an arsenic rich ecosystem. Who else lived there? How about an oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that uses arsenite as reductant and puts out arsenate as the oxidant product of photosynthesis? It's a much better deal than using nitrite. More bang for the sunlight buck. With so much arsenite around, the oxygenic photosynthetic competitors don't have a chance. No cyanobacteria here. They were outgrown and overrun. And it provided a source of arsenate as an oxidant for microbial ecosystems. Arsenate is a better oxidant than many, except for nitrate and oxygen, and a few others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis. The basic photosystem required for intracellular photooxidation of manganese didn't require much voltage to make it work. Manganese(II) needed only to be oxidized to manganese(IV). It was EASY with ultraviolet. It took a light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that low voltage in bright blue visible light. It took a far more elaborate light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that voltage in dim red visible light. Still just enough voltage to yank off just those two electrons, to oxidize manganese(II) to manganese(IV). But now that elaborate light harvesting apparatus for dim red light could be brought to the bright surface to generate much higher voltage. Manganese has multiple oxidation states. Manganese(II) and manganese(IV) are just two of them. Manganese(VII), a highly oxidized by product of manganese(II) oxidation by manganese oxidizing bacteria, is a VERY POWERFUL OXIDANT. Manganese(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen, O2. Manganese(VII) can oxidize chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium, abiotically. A photosystem that generates enough voltage to turn manganese(II) to manganese(VII) could yank an electron off nitrite to make nitrate. Nitrite could be used as a last resort reductant reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis, generating nitrate, a powerful oxidant. And a photosystem that could generate that much voltage for manganese oxidation was almost ready to be able to oxidize water and generate oxygen gas. Then you would never need to depend on the environment to supply chemical reductants for photosynthesis. A lot of sun energy was wasted just to crank up the voltage enough to oxidize water. But now a photosynthetic bacteria could grow anywhere that had sun and water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
RE: Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic Photosynthesis. Made in the shade!26-03-2022 04:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Made in the shade! One way that bacteria evolved to carry out anoxygenic photosynthesis is to use ferrous iron as reductant. Using ferrous iron as reductant, ferric iron is the oxidant product of this pathway for anoxygenic photosynthesis. Using ferrous iron in anoxygenic photosynthesis gives higher energy yield than using something like nitrite. And if ferrous iron is available, these iron oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria can out compete cyanobacteria nicely. Especially in the shade. There are places where ferrous iron seeps up into marine ecosystems from below. At the surface where the cyanobacteria and others compete for sunlight, there is just too much oxygen around for ferrous iron to be available at sufficient concentration to support anoxygenic photosynthesis. But IMMEDIATELY BELOW the top layer is a dense layer of photosynthetic bacteria thriving in the shade. There is enough more bang for the buck using ferrous iron rather than water as reductant for photosynthesis, it more than makes up for the difference having dimmer light. These guys have it made in the shade, even in today's oxygen rich world. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Arsenic Based Anoxygenic Photosynthesis - Mono Lake, California The use of arsenic by bacteria at Mono Lake was cause for a genuine scandal in science. Arsenic is VERY similar to phosphorus in its chemical properties and behavior. Many of the things organisms need phosphorus for, such as the phospholipids in membranes, can be made with arsenic instead. SO MANY of the things that phosphorus does can be replaced by arsenic that a very controversial paper was published in the journal NATURE. She claimed to have shown a bacteria from Mono Lake was able to survive, grow, and reproduce with NO PHOSPHORUS WHATSOEVER. It was a lie. She had to add just a smidgeon of phosphorus to keep them alive. But hardly any! This was an organism adapted to survive in an arsenic rich ecosystem. Who else lived there? How about an oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that uses arsenite as reductant and puts out arsenate as the oxidant product of photosynthesis? It's a much better deal than using nitrite. More bang for the sunlight buck. With so much arsenite around, the oxygenic photosynthetic competitors don't have a chance. No cyanobacteria here. They were outgrown and overrun. And it provided a source of arsenate as an oxidant for microbial ecosystems. Arsenate is a better oxidant than many, except for nitrate and oxygen, and a few others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Voltage required to oxidize nitrite in anoxygenic photosynthesis. The basic photosystem required for intracellular photooxidation of manganese didn't require much voltage to make it work. Manganese(II) needed only to be oxidized to manganese(IV). It was EASY with ultraviolet. It took a light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that low voltage in bright blue visible light. It took a far more elaborate light harvesting apparatus to be able to create that voltage in dim red visible light. Still just enough voltage to yank off just those two electrons, to oxidize manganese(II) to manganese(IV). But now that elaborate light harvesting apparatus for dim red light could be brought to the bright surface to generate much higher voltage. Manganese has multiple oxidation states. Manganese(II) and manganese(IV) are just two of them. Manganese(VII), a highly oxidized by product of manganese(II) oxidation by manganese oxidizing bacteria, is a VERY POWERFUL OXIDANT. Manganese(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen, O2. Manganese(VII) can oxidize chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium, abiotically. A photosystem that generates enough voltage to turn manganese(II) to manganese(VII) could yank an electron off nitrite to make nitrate. Nitrite could be used as a last resort reductant reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis, generating nitrate, a powerful oxidant. And a photosystem that could generate that much voltage for manganese oxidation was almost ready to be able to oxidize water and generate oxygen gas. Then you would never need to depend on the environment to supply chemical reductants for photosynthesis. A lot of sun energy was wasted just to crank up the voltage enough to oxidize water. But now a photosynthetic bacteria could grow anywhere that had sun and water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Photosynthetic oxygen from WATER not CARBON DIOXIDE. Photosynthesis was a tough one for scientists to figure out. The plant was taking in carbon dioxide and water. The plant was putting out oxygen and synthesizing carbohydrate. CO2 plus H20 go in. O2 and C6H12O6 come out. Well, it looks like the O2 must have come off the CO2. It looks like the H20 attached to the C to make the equivalent of CH2O. But that's not what happened at all. The oxygen came from the water. It was a purple sulfur photosynthetic bacteria who taught us that. This guy takes in hydrogen sulfide, H2S, for photosynthesis. The purple sulfur bacteria put out sulfate instead of oxygen. The purple sulfur anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria didn't have to take in water to make carbohydrate, just hydrogen sulfide. And this guy is a throw back to ancient ancient times when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. He can still outcompete cyanobacteria quite well in microsites where hydrogen sulfide is available, along with sunlight. They proved that the source of oxygen in oxygenic photosynthesis came from tearing apart water, not from tearing apart carbon dioxide apart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Mitochondria: A parasite became a partner in respiration. When cyanobacteria began to supply the earth with oxygen, it created a new niche for microorganisms to exploit a powerful new oxidant. Cyanobacteria could generate oxygen ANYWHERE THERE WAS SUNLIGHT. Unlike other oxidants, oxygen availability was not limited to geologic seeps and vents, or places where photooxidized manganese washed down into the sea. For the first time, it became profitable for microorganisms to oxidize ammonium into nitrite, and to oxidize nitrite into nitrate. The relatively low energy yield from oxidation of organic carbon could be boosted using this new, powerful oxidant - oxygen. Everybody wanted a piece of it. The hydrogen oxidizers could push everyone else out of the way, if hydrogen were seeping or bubbling into the microsite. They could get so much more bang for the buck from every oxygen molecule they use, the other microorganisms would be quickly outgrown and overrun. The more common situation was for hydrogen sulfide to be the strongest available reductant to combine with oxygen. Sulfur oxidizers could outgrow and overrun any competition for oxygen. Sometimes ferrous iron or manganese(II) were the next strongest available reductant. Some massive deposits of manganese(IV) or ferric iron resulted. And organic carbon was piling up everywhere. The protomitochondria didn't come aboard to offer his assistance to the cyanobacteria. He burrowed in as a parasite. Organic carbon was everywhere, but oxygen was very scarce. The protomitochondria evolved a good trick to be able to oxidize organic carbon via aerobic respiration, generating carbon dioxide as the oxidized carbon product. The protomitochondria couldn't compete well for the oxygen coming out of the cyanobacteria. Others who oxidized stronger reductants would always win. On the other hand, INSIDE the source of the oxygen there was also organic carbon. Burrow up inside there and you have a monopoly on both the oxidant and the reductant. The original arrangement was probably short lived. Probably only so long you can survive with someone inside you burning up your organic carbon with the oxygen you make. The parasite honed its skills to keep the host alive a little longer. The parasite honed its skills to ensure the host was healthy enough to feed him. The parasite started sharing some of the ATP it was making with the host. Before long, it became a mutually beneficial relationship that changed the course of biology. ------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: 3 layer fossil, adaptation to new oxygen. The banded iron formations formed from sea floor deposits. There was a layer of sea water between the photosynthetic community on the surface and the sea floor. The three-layer fossil described here is very different from banded iron formation. The three layers lived side by side simultaneously. The top layer needed only sunlight, and water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis. It was not being eroded away or buried in sediment. It remained intact year after year, generating oxygen and organic carbon. The middle layer needed only oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide continuously came up from below. An energy-rich reductant could be combined with a powerful oxidant. The input of oxygen from above was as was he input of Hydrogen sulfide from below. The sulfur oxidizers could just sit in the middle and take it in from both ends. One small catch. It constantly generated sulfuric acid. The bottom layer needed only sulfate from above. They were sitting on an accumulation of more organic carbon than they could ever use. Sulfate wasn't that great an oxidant, but it made exploitation of the organic carbon possible. Sulfate reduction generated alkalinity in the bottom layer. Exactly enough to neutralize the sulfuric acid that brought the sulfate. Sulfate reduction in the bottom layer also generated hydrogen sulfide to bubble back up to the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur going back and forth, being used as reductant in the form of sulfide, and then being used as oxidant in the form of sulfate. Acid generated, acid neutralized. Sustainable with no input besides sunlight for nearly forever. Every last drop of oxygen generated by photosynthesis was captured immediately by sulfur oxidizers. It would be at least two thousand million years of this before enough iron would eventually start to rust away, allowing for the accumulation of free oxygen in the atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Oxygen Limitation - Evolution of Mitochondrial Symbiosis. When the first oxygenic photosynthetic cyanobacteria stumbled on to a way to generate hydrogen for reduction of inorganic carbon, using water as the source of hydrogen, it changed biology, ecology, and the very chemistry of the land, sea, and air. Oxygenic photosynthesis generated oxygen gas, a powerful oxidant. A whole new niche opened up for anyone who could grab the oxygen as soon as it came off, and use it oxidize some reductant from somewhere else. One consequence were the layered fossils, NOT banded iron formations, showing the earliest adaptations. Hydrogen sulfide was the second strongest reductant out there, after hydrogen. Hydrogen sulfide was much heavier than hydrogen H2. Big bursts of geologic activity could fill the atmosphere with hydrogen gas. But the earth's gravity couldn't keep it on the planet very long. After the hydrogen floated off to space, taking its reducing power and potential energy off with it, the heavy hydrogen sulfide remained as the next most powerful reductant. The most profitable transaction out there for a bacteria was to get the oxygen from the cyanobacteria and use to oxidize hydrogen sulfide. There were plenty of other reductants around to oxidize for whoever got the oxygen first. Especially organic carbon. There was tons of it EVERYWHERE. It just didn't pay as well to use weaker reductants, with the oxygen. The hydrogen sulfide oxidizing bacteria had a competitive advantage. They formed a dense layer immediately below the photosynthetic bacteria at the surface. When the sulfur oxidizing bacteria use oxygen as oxidant, it generates sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfate, contains sulfate. Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion that can be used to oxidize organic carbon during sulfate reduction. Top layer. Cyanobacteria making oxygen oxidant. Middle layer. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria making sulfate oxidant. Bottom layer. Sulfate reducing bacteria turn organic carbon to inorganic carbon oxyanion. The chemistry of the fossil is consistent with the three layers of microbial communities. We'll get back to mitochondria tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: "sexual selection" is natural selection. It's included. Maybe you need to start over. seal over wrote:Ducks were gang raping a corpse. Another valuable anecdote to make us stronger if it doesn't kill us.
26-03-2022 05:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: CORRECTION (organic alkalinity) and role of phenolic groups. I mistakenly said that organic alkalinity supplied most of the seas alkalinity. WRONG. Not even close. Bicarbonate and carbonate supply the overwhelming majority of the sea's acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). ORGANIC ALKALINITY IS HUGELY IMPORTANT IN SUBMARINE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FROM WETLANDS - ABOUT ONE FOURTH OF TOTAL ALKALINITY. Phenolic groups, a hydroxyl group attached to an aromatic ring, also provide alkalinity. Phenolic acids are much weaker acids than carboxylic acids. They do not deprotonate until much higher pH, compared to carboxylic acids. Much higher pKa. The most important functional group pairings within the organic alkalinity oxyanions are Ortho di carboxylic - Two adjacent carboxylic groups capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho hydric phenol carboxylic - adjacent phenolic and carboxylic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. Ortho di hydric phenolic - adjacent phenolic groups on an aromatic ring, capable of forming chelation complex with transition metals. good enough for now. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Organic Alkalinity - Carboxylic and Phenolic groups on organic acids. Historically, organic alkalinity was not recognized as an important component in the alkalinity of the ocean. It was known that oxyanions of deprotonated organic acid existed. It was known that they contributed acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity). Few people had any idea how much of them there was in sea water, and how important this unique "pool" of alkalinity is. Most alkalinity in sea water arises from phenol carboxylic acids, such as "humic" acids. These are often large molecules that act as polydentate ligands with multiple binding sites provided by carboxylic and phenolic functional groups. Carboxylic acids are the most familiar organic acids. Vinegar, citric acid, vitamin C, lactic acid. They all have a carboxylic group. A carbon double bonded to one oxygen, and single bonded to a second oxygen in a hydroxyl (-OH) group. Carboxylic acids typically have pKa in the ballpark of 4.5. This means that at near pH 4.5, they are half deprotonated and half in acid form. The alkalinity of organic acid buffers can be calculated knowing the pH of the solution and the pKa of the organic acid. One thing that organic carbon alkalinity can do that inorganic carbon alkalinity cannot is to form organometallic complexes with transition metals such as iron. Often tightly bound as inner sphere chelation complexes, organic anions are a major controller on the behavior of metals in solution. Organic alkalinity is finally getting the attention it deserves in the new research. Random phrases and buzzwords. No apparent coherency. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-03-2022 06:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Made in the shade! ...deleted excessive noise... Talking to yourself. Random phrases and buzzwords. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Trollling. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: I need better material from you.28-03-2022 22:01
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	I need better material from you. I've already gotten enough quotes from you about pH, alkalinity, oxidation reduction.. But nothing good about carbon and nitrogen cycling. I need you guys to tear into my published papers some more. Explain to the world, as a credible scientist, why my falsifiable hypothesis (quite a few of them actually) is scientifically impossible. I need better material from you. Fresh new quotes to use for science lessons about carbon and nitrogen cycling. Please do your best to criticize my papers. You'll get my response to ALL of it in time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Made in the shade! ...deleted excessive noise... Talking to yourself. Random phrases and buzzwords. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Trollling. No argument presented.
RE: Rock Hound Bacteria? They ARE Lithophiles!29-03-2022 01:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Rock Hound Bacteria? They ARE Lithophiles! Give me an unambiguous definition for the term lithophile? It kind of depends on the context. It is either a person who loves rocks, a "rock hound", or... It is a BACTERIA that loves rocks so much that they can't live without them. Lithophilic bacteria are chemoautotrophs. They are capable of synthesizing their own organic carbon starting with carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate. They get their energy from the aerobic oxidation of rock minerals. Sulfur, iron, manganese, ammonium, and the list goes on and on. All a rock hound bacteria really needs is oxygen, inorganic carbon (CO2, HCO3, or CO3), and a rock mineral with chemically reduced form of the element they are specialized at oxidizing. Many rock hound bacteria CAN use pre-formed organic carbon that they acquire from the environment. Why not? It's already there and it's FREE. But they don't have to. They can get by just on inorganic carbon if required. Rock hound bacteria played a role in the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills. Ammonium was trapped in the mineral structure of the rocks in this narrow zone of the richest gold deposits in California Gold Rush history. It was, literally, the Mother Lode. The rocks of the Mother Lode used to be sea floor off the California coast, long long ago. A lot of organic nitrogen piled up in the sea floor debris. When plate tectonics shoved the sea floor of the coastal shelf up under the mountains of the coast, that organic nitrogen got buried among the sediment layers. The material in these sediments was never subjected to severe metamorphosis. They are metasedimentary rocks, but they didn't meta very much. The nitrogen remained intact as ammonium, rather than getting baked out or pressed out as nitrogen gas. By the time it became the Mother Lode, these buried sediments were no longer under the coast range. A whole new mountain range was now building on the coast, and there was a huge valley in between them. The Mother Lode was now in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. When the ancient buried ammonium-rich rock was exposed to oxygen, rock hound bacteria fed upon it. Two kinds. The first ones used oxygen to oxidize ammonium (NH4+) to nitrite (NO2-). The second ones used oxygen to oxidize nitrite (NO2-) to nitrate (NO3-). And nitrate then percolated down into groundwater. Flowed down along sub surface flow paths. And seeped back up into stream water and reservoir water. And fertilized too much algae. And killed too many fish.
29-03-2022 02:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	...fixing severely damaged quoting... sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Ferrous Iron as Reductant for Anoxygenic photosynthesis. Made in the shade! ...deleted excessive noise... Talking to yourself. Random phrases and buzzwords. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Trollling. No argument presented. I need better material from you. I've already gotten enough quotes from you about pH, alkalinity, oxidation reduction.. But nothing good about carbon and nitrogen cycling. I need you guys to tear into my published papers some more. Science is not papers. sealover wrote: Explain to the world, as a credible scientist, You don't get to decide who is 'credible' for everyone. You can only decide that for you. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: why my falsifiable hypothesis (quite a few of them actually)[quote]sealover wrote: is scientifically impossible. There is no such thing as a falsifiable hypothesis. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: I need better material from you. Fresh new quotes to use for science lessons about carbon and nitrogen cycling. You deny science. sealover wrote: Please do your best to criticize my papers. Void argument fallacy. Science isn't papers. You are a nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-03-2022 02:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Rock Hound Bacteria? They ARE Lithophiles! ...deleted excessive noise... Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 29-03-2022 02:29
RE: I know why I'm doing this. I don't know why you are doing this.29-03-2022 04:12
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	I know why I'm doing this. I don't know why you are doing this. Your behavior baffles me. "Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented." The same robotic expression for EVERY post. Is this intended for someone's benefit? I do know why I am doing this. I dedicated decades of my life just to get the training to do this. This has been my mission and calling since age 17, if not longer. I am fortunate to still be alive and, at least for the moment, recovered enough to share what I've learned while I still can. People who actually understand science will recognize that these are useful lessons available in few other places. I may relapse tomorrow and you will no longer have ME to offer these repeated messages to. "Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented." But my library will still be here. My colleagues may want to discuss matters at this website with or without me. All I'm trying to do for the moment is create a bunch of short science lessons. Who exactly it benefits when you post, I can't tell. You've done it 17000 times already. You must be getting something out of it. I can't figure out what it is, or who beside you might be benefitting from it. Are you under the illusion that YOU are teaching science lessons? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Rock Hound Bacteria? They ARE Lithophiles! ...deleted excessive noise... Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.
29-03-2022 18:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:I know why I'm doing this. What is "this" that you believe you know to be doing? Might your reason for always speaking in cryptic, ambiguous language be that you know nothing and have no clue what you are doing? sealover wrote: I don't know why you are doing this. sealover wrote:Your behavior baffles me. Most everything baffles you. You are easily confused. sealover wrote:The same robotic expression for EVERY post. If he keeps giving you the same response, it's likely that you haven't corrected your errors. Try defining your terms, correcting your errors and avoiding pointless anecdotes. Odds are you'll get a different response. sealover wrote:Is this intended for someone's benefit? Yes. Yours. You have to forgive Into the Night, he is slow to recognize people who are too stupid to learn. He approaches discussions with rose-colored glasses and is guilty of always trying to be helpful and of always giving others the benefit of the doubt. He's incorrigible in that regard. I recognized right away that you are a moron and a liar. I didn't tell anyone because I like to watch others try to figure these things out on their own. sealover wrote:I do know why I am doing this. Too funny. You don't know what any of the words you use mean. You don't even know what "this" is that you are doing. You probably don't know where you are right now, or what day of the week it is. You don't even know how to post a link or email a document. You don't even know how to copy-paste from the correct document. Too funny. sealover wrote:I dedicated decades of my life just to get the training to do this. Copy-pasting for your slavemasters? Get ready, here it comes ... [BITCH-SLAP] ... [2nd BITCH-SLAP] sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote:This has been my mission and calling since age 17, if not longer. Normally, when people refer to their "mission and calling" they have a greater awareness of what they mean than just "this." It must suck to be you. sealover wrote:I am fortunate to still be alive Aren't we all? sealover wrote:and, at least for the moment, recovered enough to share what I've learned while I still can. Disinformation does not count as anything that you have learned. sealover wrote:People who actually understand science will recognize that these are useful lessons available in few other places. My science acumen is quite solid and no, I do not see any usefulness in what you have posted nor do I see you making any effort to help make your pointless anecdotes more useful in any way. sealover wrote:I may relapse tomorrow and you will no longer have ME to offer these repeated messages to. You should not be posting. You should be out enjoying the moments of your life that you will never get back. You have no audience. You are wasting your life trying to follow a delusion. Go out and spend time with real people out in the real world and don't waste your life getting bitch-slapped by some internet ashsole. There are many better things to do. sealover wrote:But my library will still be here. You have no library. I realize that you aspire to be Barack Obama or Bill Clinton and have a "Library" ... and I tried to offer you that opportunity, but you really are a stupid fuq. Why are you wasting your life being abused? sealover wrote:My colleagues may want to discuss matters at this website with or without me. You have no colleagues. You have been abandoned. You are alone. sealover wrote:All I'm trying to do for the moment is create a bunch of short science lessons. Again, I tried to help you out. You're not really interested in creating anything of value. You're interested in being the center of attention. sealover wrote:Are you under the illusion that YOU are teaching science lessons? He's been trying to teach you science while I laugh in the background. I still haven't told him that you are too stupid to learn. I'm sure he'll realize this eventually but for the moment, I'm laughing myself to tears. ... and to think, you have never even thanked him. Too funny. Attached image:
RE: Phenotypic Plasticity as a Mechanism of Adaptive Radiation.29-03-2022 22:11
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Phenotypic Plasticity as a Mechanism of Adaptive Radiation. Adaptive radiation is when a species is able to move into new niches owing to a new adaptation. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal species to be competitive in niches that were previously too cold for it to survive. Adaptive radiation also allows a population to survive when the niche to which it is adapted changes. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal to stay competitive even as the niche to which it had adapted becomes colder. One way to facilitate adaptive radiation is to have a lot of genetic variability among progeny. Most of the mutant freaks will die because the genetic variation made them LESS competitive. One of the mutant freaks will survive where no others could because the genetic variation made it MORE competitive. A tree might have fruit bats dropping its seeds far and wide. Some of those seeds will fall into soil conditions to which the seed tree is not adapted. Genetic variability among the seeds could mean that one of them IS adapted to the different soil condition. This would be adaptive radiation facilitated by genetic variation. But what if you don't want to have to make so many seeds in order for them to be able to have variability of traits for adaptive radiation? PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY! A single genotype can code for multiple phenotypes, depending on environmental conditions. A single genotype in a fish species could allow that fish to survive in a broad range of salinity, if it has phenotypic plasticity. In saltier water, that fish will grow differently, have different physiology, and live a different lifestyle than the same fish genotype growing in less salty water. Phenotypic plasticity to change physiology, morphology, and behavior in response to changing environmental conditions is a superb mechanism of adaptive radiation. Some of my vegetable friends are really good at it. Beech. Fagus sylvatica. Drop one of their seeds into an acidic, siliceous soil, and they will grow one way. They will grow slowly, become very woody, hang on to their leaves as long as possible, concentrate their roots near the surface, allocate much if not most of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce exceptionally high concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will accumulate at the surface as distinct layers in different stages of decomposition. Detritivores such as earthworms will find the litter unpalatable and will not eat it or mix it into the mineral soil during the process of eating it. Drop another genetically identical beech seed into a calcareous, neutral pH soil, and it will grow VERY differently. They will grow rapidly, not become so woody, shed and replace their leaves frequently, distribute roots deep into the soil with few at the surface, allocate very little of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce only low concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will decompose rapidly and get mixed into the mineral soil as detritivores devour it. Other plants, you won't even recognize them when they grow in a different niche. Phenotypic plasticity facilitates adaptive radiation of a population out into new niches. Phenotypic plasticity also facilitates a population remaining in place when the niche changes. Plants are pretty good at it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:I know why I'm doing this. What is "this" that you believe you know to be doing? Might your reason for always speaking in cryptic, ambiguous language be that you know nothing and have no clue what you are doing? sealover wrote: I don't know why you are doing this. sealover wrote:Your behavior baffles me. Most everything baffles you. You are easily confused. sealover wrote:The same robotic expression for EVERY post. If he keeps giving you the same response, it's likely that you haven't corrected your errors. Try defining your terms, correcting your errors and avoiding pointless anecdotes. Odds are you'll get a different response. sealover wrote:Is this intended for someone's benefit? Yes. Yours. You have to forgive Into the Night, he is slow to recognize people who are too stupid to learn. He approaches discussions with rose-colored glasses and is guilty of always trying to be helpful and of always giving others the benefit of the doubt. He's incorrigible in that regard. I recognized right away that you are a moron and a liar. I didn't tell anyone because I like to watch others try to figure these things out on their own. sealover wrote:I do know why I am doing this. Too funny. You don't know what any of the words you use mean. You don't even know what "this" is that you are doing. You probably don't know where you are right now, or what day of the week it is. You don't even know how to post a link or email a document. You don't even know how to copy-paste from the correct document. Too funny. sealover wrote:I dedicated decades of my life just to get the training to do this. Copy-pasting for your slavemasters? Get ready, here it comes ... [BITCH-SLAP] ... [2nd BITCH-SLAP] sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote:This has been my mission and calling since age 17, if not longer. Normally, when people refer to their "mission and calling" they have a greater awareness of what they mean than just "this." It must suck to be you. sealover wrote:I am fortunate to still be alive Aren't we all? sealover wrote:and, at least for the moment, recovered enough to share what I've learned while I still can. Disinformation does not count as anything that you have learned. sealover wrote:People who actually understand science will recognize that these are useful lessons available in few other places. My science acumen is quite solid and no, I do not see any usefulness in what you have posted nor do I see you making any effort to help make your pointless anecdotes more useful in any way. sealover wrote:I may relapse tomorrow and you will no longer have ME to offer these repeated messages to. You should not be posting. You should be out enjoying the moments of your life that you will never get back. You have no audience. You are wasting your life trying to follow a delusion. Go out and spend time with real people out in the real world and don't waste your life getting bitch-slapped by some internet ashsole. There are many better things to do. sealover wrote:But my library will still be here. You have no library. I realize that you aspire to be Barack Obama or Bill Clinton and have a "Library" ... and I tried to offer you that opportunity, but you really are a stupid fuq. Why are you wasting your life being abused? sealover wrote:My colleagues may want to discuss matters at this website with or without me. You have no colleagues. You have been abandoned. You are alone. sealover wrote:All I'm trying to do for the moment is create a bunch of short science lessons. Again, I tried to help you out. You're not really interested in creating anything of value. You're interested in being the center of attention. sealover wrote:Are you under the illusion that YOU are teaching science lessons? He's been trying to teach you science while I laugh in the background. I still haven't told him that you are too stupid to learn. I'm sure he'll realize this eventually but for the moment, I'm laughing myself to tears. ... and to think, you have never even thanked him. Too funny.
RE: Familiar Phenotypic Plasticity. Ants, termites, wasps, and bees.29-03-2022 22:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Familiar Phenotypic Plasticity. Ants, termites, wasps, and bees. Phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a single phenotype to express multiple phenotypes, is more familiar to you than you may know. Some termite larvae are given a lot of hormones at the right stage of development to grow into guards. They have the same genes as the other termites, but they sure don't look the same. Their jaws are HUGE. They cannot eat with those jaws. Someone has to spit pre-chewed food into their mouth for them to keep them alive. With ants, bees, and wasps, how much royal jelly a larvae gets determines what it grows into. Queens, drones, guards, and soldiers.. Phenotypic plasticity is something you knew about your whole life! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Phenotypic Plasticity as a Mechanism of Adaptive Radiation. Adaptive radiation is when a species is able to move into new niches owing to a new adaptation. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal species to be competitive in niches that were previously too cold for it to survive. Adaptive radiation also allows a population to survive when the niche to which it is adapted changes. Becoming warm blooded allowed an animal to stay competitive even as the niche to which it had adapted becomes colder. One way to facilitate adaptive radiation is to have a lot of genetic variability among progeny. Most of the mutant freaks will die because the genetic variation made them LESS competitive. One of the mutant freaks will survive where no others could because the genetic variation made it MORE competitive. A tree might have fruit bats dropping its seeds far and wide. Some of those seeds will fall into soil conditions to which the seed tree is not adapted. Genetic variability among the seeds could mean that one of them IS adapted to the different soil condition. This would be adaptive radiation facilitated by genetic variation. But what if you don't want to have to make so many seeds in order for them to be able to have variability of traits for adaptive radiation? PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY! A single genotype can code for multiple phenotypes, depending on environmental conditions. A single genotype in a fish species could allow that fish to survive in a broad range of salinity, if it has phenotypic plasticity. In saltier water, that fish will grow differently, have different physiology, and live a different lifestyle than the same fish genotype growing in less salty water. Phenotypic plasticity to change physiology, morphology, and behavior in response to changing environmental conditions is a superb mechanism of adaptive radiation. Some of my vegetable friends are really good at it. Beech. Fagus sylvatica. Drop one of their seeds into an acidic, siliceous soil, and they will grow one way. They will grow slowly, become very woody, hang on to their leaves as long as possible, concentrate their roots near the surface, allocate much if not most of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce exceptionally high concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will accumulate at the surface as distinct layers in different stages of decomposition. Detritivores such as earthworms will find the litter unpalatable and will not eat it or mix it into the mineral soil during the process of eating it. Drop another genetically identical beech seed into a calcareous, neutral pH soil, and it will grow VERY differently. They will grow rapidly, not become so woody, shed and replace their leaves frequently, distribute roots deep into the soil with few at the surface, allocate very little of their photosynthate to mycorrhizal fungi, and produce only low concentrations of polyphenols. Leaf litter will decompose rapidly and get mixed into the mineral soil as detritivores devour it. Other plants, you won't even recognize them when they grow in a different niche. Phenotypic plasticity facilitates adaptive radiation of a population out into new niches. Phenotypic plasticity also facilitates a population remaining in place when the niche changes. Plants are pretty good at it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked from Fracking Operations.30-03-2022 00:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere. Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. In time, a natural population of methane oxidizing bacteria will establish at the place where the fracking leak methane contacts the atmosphere. They will oxidize the methane into carbon dioxide, reducing its global warming potential by 95%. But they can only oxidize the methane they can catch. They probably can't catch most of it. BUT WE CAN HELP THE METHANE OXIZIDIZING BACTERIA HELP US! We can help make sure they get there in the first place. They only exist in nature where natural sources of methane come up to the atmosphere. There probably aren't a lot of them close by when fracking opens up a crack. So we can culture the methane oxidizing bacteria and use them to establish populations where fracking causes methane to leak. We can culture them selectively to perform across a broad range of conditions of temperature, moisture, salinity, pH, etc. We can match our selectively cultured methane oxidizers to the conditions where we will plant their seeds. But they won't be able to oxidize all the methane. They probably won't even be able to oxidize MOST of the methane. We can help them out with some engineering. We can locate the point sources of methane emission and construct a high surface area structure to enable maximum contact between methane oxidizing bacteria and methane emitted from the fracking induced leak. A large, moist surface area, possibly supplemented with Pasteur Salt type inorganic nutrients to enable bacteria to thrive on the methane. The microorganisms will do it voluntarily and they will do their best to survive with just a tiny bit of help from us. Those methane oxidizing bacteria can help us reduce the global warming potential of fracking methane emissions by 95%. I'm not saying don't frack. I'm just saying be sure to light a match if you fart so it doesn't stink.
30-03-2022 00:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	seal over wrote:Applied Chemobiogastronomy to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. What's the pH of the methane you seek to neutralize? seal over wrote:Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. What fossils are cleaner than coal? seal over wrote:Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere.Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Talk to me about the Loch Ness monster instead. It will be more believable and you won't sound entirely stupid ... only very stupid. .
30-03-2022 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	sealover wrote: Applied Biogeochemistry to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. Methane is not a fossil. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Why do you consider coal 'unclean'. Did it visit a whore or something? sealover wrote: Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere. Methane comes from many sources. sealover wrote: Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. 20 * zero is still zero. sealover wrote: In time, a natural population of methane oxidizing bacteria will establish at the place where the fracking leak methane contacts the atmosphere. They will oxidize the methane into carbon dioxide, reducing its global warming potential by 95%. ...deleted excess noise... 95% of zero is still zero. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH!30-03-2022 04:46
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	"Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms with understand that "fossil fuel" include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. It is not a controversial term. Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. Nobody is claiming that coal underwent actual "fossilization". Nobody is claiming that the organic carbon in coal has been replaced with silica, and it is therefore actually a "fossil". What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is that natural gas can be purified into sulfur-free methane. Pure hydrocarbon. No sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium. What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is the just about ALL COAL IS DIRTY COAL. Some coal is SO DIRTY that wealthy nations finally stopped burning it. It is scientific reality that although coal is not actually a "fossil", it does often contain many other elements besides carbon. And one scientific reality is that coal fired power plants are the source of half of all the anthropogenic mercury entering the air, land, and sea. The term "neutralize" can apply to many things besides acidity. To "neutralize" the methane means, in this case, to reduce its global warming potential by 95% If I WERE trying to neutralize the "pH of the methane", at least I would know how calculate the alkalinity required to accomplish it. I would know that the units for alkalinity are NOT pH. ---------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: seal over wrote:Applied Chemobiogastronomy to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. What's the pH of the methane you seek to neutralize? seal over wrote:Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. What fossils are cleaner than coal? seal over wrote:Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere.Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Talk to me about the Loch Ness monster instead. It will be more believable and you won't sound entirely stupid ... only very stupid. .
30-03-2022 08:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	seal over wrote:"Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Those aren't fossils and they are not fuel for fossils. Why should any rational believe that they are? seal over wrote:Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms You don't discuss with rational people. You seek scientifically illiterate morons to whom to preach. seal over wrote:It is not a controversial term. So you admit to living in denial. Thank you. You are actively denying that I am contesting your term. Nonetheless, you already lost this point by acknowledging that you cannot offer any reason that a rational adult should consider carbon or hydrocarbons "fossils" or "fuel for fossils." If you were a chemist interested in science you would prefer the correct terms "hydrocarbons" and "carbon." ... but it is you who considers "hydrocarbons" and "carbon" to be controversial ... because you are an uneducated Marxist who must regurgitate what his slavemasters order, without question. You are not permitted to use the correct terminology and give the appearance that hydrocarbons and carbon are somehow OK. If you mention them, you must slur them. After all, you are trying to wipe them out along with capitalism. seal over wrote:Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. All scientists understand "hydrocarbons" and "carbon." All scientists understand that neither hydrocarbons nor carbon are either fossils or fuel for fossils. All stupid Marxists have no choice but to obey their slavemasters and to make lame excuses for using the wrong terminology.
30-03-2022 08:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	...fixing severely damaged quoting... sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: seal over wrote:Applied Chemobiogastronomy to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. What's the pH of the methane you seek to neutralize? seal over wrote:Fracking for natural gas has enabled us to tap into an enormous reservoir of fossil fuel far cleaner than coal, and far closer than the middle east. What fossils are cleaner than coal? seal over wrote:Unfortunately, fracking can cause methane to leak up in places where it is not captured before entering the atmosphere.Methane has about 20 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Talk to me about the Loch Ness monster instead. It will be more believable and you won't sound entirely stupid ... only very stupid. . "Fossil Fuel" - Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. DUH! Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. sealover wrote: Every rational person I have ever discussed the terms with understand that "fossil fuel" include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. None of these are fossils. Fossils aren't used for fuel. sealover wrote: It is not a controversial term. You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: Very few scientists fail to understand what it means. You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you. sealover wrote: Nobody is claiming that coal underwent actual "fossilization". You are. sealover wrote: Nobody is claiming that the organic carbon in coal has been replaced with silica, and it is therefore actually a "fossil". You are. sealover wrote: What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is that natural gas can be purified into sulfur-free methane. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Methane is already methane. You don't have to purify methane to get methane. sealover wrote: Pure hydrocarbon. No sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium. So? sealover wrote: What everyone but a handful of contrarians seems to understand is the just about ALL COAL IS DIRTY COAL. Coal is carbon. It easily washes off with just plain water. sealover wrote: Some coal is SO DIRTY that wealthy nations finally stopped burning it. The wealthiest nation on Earth, the States, burns coal for power and for making steel. It is also used in coal burning stoves, still found in some homes. sealover wrote: It is scientific reality that although coal is not actually a "fossil", it does often contain many other elements besides carbon. You called it a fossil. It isn't a fossil. Coal is carbon, an element. sealover wrote: And one scientific reality is that coal fired power plants are the source of half of all the anthropogenic mercury entering the air, land, and sea. Coal isn't mercury. Any impurities of mercury are easily extracted. It is sold to industry. sealover wrote: The term "neutralize" can apply to many things besides acidity. To "neutralize" the methane means, in this case, to reduce its global warming potential by 95% No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't get around it, dude. You can't create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-03-2022 09:02
RE: Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC)30-03-2022 20:13
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity. It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC). Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity. Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material. The cation exchange sites may be permanent negative charges arising within the structure, due to isomorphous substitution of lower charge cations within the crystal structure of clay minerals. The cation exchange capacity may be the variable charge that arises when carboxylic groups or phenolic groups on solid phase organic acids deprotonate. Cation exchange capacity is a direct measure of how much cation charge the solid phase can adsorb. This is also how much proton charge they can neutralize, as protons exchange for adsorbed cations. This is just a preview, really. We'll need to get into CEC a lot more as we discuss the importance of soil organic matter, and the consequences of its loss. In a typical soil, about half the CEC arises from clay minerals, and the other half from organic matter. When poor management causes loss of soil organic matter, it does more than release a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It causes the soil to be able to hold fewer nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Loss of soil organic matter causes associated nutrient cations to be lost as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: Applied Chemobiogastronomy to Neutralize Methane Leaked in Fracking Operations. What's the pH of the methane you seek to neutralize? Talk to me about the Loch Ness monster instead. It will be more believable and you won't sound entirely stupid ... only very stupid. You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you. So? Coal is carbon. It easily washes off with just plain water. You called it a fossil. It isn't a fossil. Coal is carbon, an element. Coal isn't mercury. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. [/quote]
RE: Cation Exchange Capacity. Exchangeable Acidity. % Base Saturation.30-03-2022 21:20
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	Cation Exchange Capacity. Exchangeable Acidity. % Base Saturation. Comparing solid phase CEC with aqueous solution ANC (alkalinity). Both are measure of ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY (moles per liter or kg) Both quantify a "pool" that contains base cations and metals adsorbed to solid phase exchange sites, or contains base cations and metals in solution complexed by oxyanions. Both solid phase CEC and solution ANC can exchange the base cations or metals for protons, or visa versa. Both are very pH dependent. At higher pH, more solid phase CEC sites and more solution phase ANC sites are occupied by base cations and metals, and fewer by protons. "Exchangeable acidity" is how much of the solid phase CEC is occupied by protons. You need to know "exchangeable" acidity to calculate how much lime must be added to bring soil to some desired higher pH. "% Base Saturation" Cation exchange capacity doesn't provide plants with any nutrition unless the cation exchange sites are occupied by nutrient base cations or metals. As highly leached soils become older and more acidified, more and more of the cation exchange sites are occupied by aluminum cations, rather than calcium, magnesium, potassium, ammonium, iron, or something good for the plant. Aluminum is not a plant nutrient, but it can be toxic to plants. "% Base Saturation" is the percentage of cation exchange sites occupied by calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. A low % Base Saturation means that most CEC sites are occupied by aluminum or by acid protons. A high CEC soil is useless for plants unless there is something good on the cation exchange sites. A soil with low % Base Saturation can't supply much base cation or metal nutrition to plants. It can't even neutralize much more acidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]sealover wrote: Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) = Solid Phase Alkalinity (ANC) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) is a synonym for alkalinity. It is also a synonym for CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC). Cation exchange capacity is solid phase alkalinity. Base cations such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium are adsorbed to cation exchange sites on solid phase soil material. The cation exchange sites may be permanent negative charges arising within the structure, due to isomorphous substitution of lower charge cations within the crystal structure of clay minerals. The cation exchange capacity may be the variable charge that arises when carboxylic groups or phenolic groups on solid phase organic acids deprotonate. Cation exchange capacity is a direct measure of how much cation charge the solid phase can adsorb. This is also how much proton charge they can neutralize, as protons exchange for adsorbed cations. This is just a preview, really. We'll need to get into CEC a lot more as we discuss the importance of soil organic matter, and the consequences of its loss. In a typical soil, about half the CEC arises from clay minerals, and the other half from organic matter. When poor management causes loss of soil organic matter, it does more than release a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It causes the soil to be able to hold fewer nutrients such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Loss of soil organic matter causes associated nutrient cations to be lost as well.
RE: How do you know? Were you there?06-04-2022 21:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1245)	How do you know? Were you there? What a valuable contribution to the debate! How do you know? Were you there? Polly wanna cracker? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days. How do you know? Were you there? sealover wrote: There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment. How do you know? Were you there? How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote]How do you know? Were you there? [/quote] You are just making shit up.[/quote]
07-04-2022 05:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390)	sealover wrote:How do you know? Were you there? What a valuable contribution to the debate! Yep, and your lack of any response effectively killed that discussion. I can't wait for your army of loyal followers to show up eager to access your library. . Attached image:

Page 4 of 9

Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean	405	20-12-2023 09:14
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution	1	21-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts	13	18-08-2022 06:25
CO2 ocean uptake	306	22-02-2021 04:08