Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems



Page 2 of 13<1234>>>
RE: Google Scholar - New Cog in the Nitrogen Cycle28-03-2022 10:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Google Scholar - New Cog in the Nitrogen Cycle

With each new issue of the journal Nature, up to a dozen of the new papers are highlighted in the "News and Views" section.

Terry Chapin wrote the review titled "New cog in the nitrogen cycle."

It was intended to highlight why the "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" paper was considered to be such an important discovery.

FS Chapin, III. 1995. New cog in the nitrogen cycle. Nature. 377:199-200.

Google Scholar can find it with just "New cog in the nitrogen cycle".

It would take less time to type in "Nature 377:199-200."

This gives some idea why other scientists were duped into taking the idiot "sealover" seriously.

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


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

















Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I do not intend to "quote" them.

You intend to "name drop" so as to give the appearance that you somehow speak for someone who knows what he is talking about.

You are going to fool sooooo many people ... right?

sealover wrote:The target audience will quite easily find them by themselves.

There is no audience.

sealover wrote:I thought it would be fun to see if you could even FIND a random paper in a random journal such as Nature.

You are the one making the affirmative argument. The fact that you wish to keep your "references" hidden is a clear sign that you are lying.

sealover wrote:Is it SO MUCH to ask for a little privacy in the kiddie pool?

It's a bit too much to ask for you to be allowed to hijack the board and to declare who can post what.

Now, if you were to carve out your own sub-board, you can have your own "No Adults Allowed" kids table and be the big fish in the little pond.

.

He knows he will basically only be talking to himself.
Considering the amount of spamming he is doing, I'm a bit surprised Branner hasn't already warned him about rule 6.

After all, the kiddie pool section reserved for sealover is just the same path that trafn took, and trafn eventually got banned for spamming.
RE: Phenotypic Plasticity and Soil Carbon Loss in "Green Revolution" Crop Breeds.30-03-2022 01:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Phenotypic Plasticity and Soil Carbon Loss in "Green Revolution" Crop Breeds.

The "Green Revolution" allowed for incredible gains in crop yield through selective breeding of high responders to chemical fertilizer.

Selective breeding for phenotypic plasticity in response to high bioavailability of soil nutrients.

Given chemical fertilizer, the crop could thrive while providing little or no photosynthate to symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with its roots.

Given chemical nitrogen fertilizer, the crop could thrive while providing little or no photosynthate to symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with its roots.

The plant could pump most of its photosynthate into the part we wanted to harvest.

It was great for yields. HUGE INCREASES.

It wasn't so great for soil carbon. HUGE LOSSES.

The new breeds of crops put very little organic carbon into the soil, compared to their ancestors.

Soil organic matter would decompose more rapidly than it would be replaced.

With "Green Revolution" crop breeds, agricultural soils became a NET SOURCE of CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE as they experienced a NET LOSS OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER.

It's not too late to turn the trend around.

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

sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.

The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.
30-03-2022 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Phenotypic Plasticity and Soil Carbon Loss in "Green Revolution" Crop Breeds.


It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth, dude. You cannot 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
RE: Nitrous Oxide Emission, Nitrate Export to Waters. "Green Revolution" By Products.30-03-2022 03:16
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Nitrous Oxide Emission, Nitrate Export to Waters. "Green Revolution" By Products.

The "Green Revolution" brought about spectacular increases in crop yields.

As long as we spoon fed the crops concentrated chemical fertilizer, they could produce like crazy without having to put much carbon into the soil.

As long as we made sure there was more than enough nitrogen fertilizer in an bioavailable form for minimal effort root uptake, HUGE YIELDS.

One unanticipated adverse impact was loss of soil organic matter.

It wasn't just bad for the atmosphere, as a major source of CO2.

It was bad for the SOIL. It was bad for the sustainable productivity of the land.

Soil organic matter does a whole lot more than just store carbon.

Soil fertility depends on it.

But what about the nitrogen.

Humans were supplying LOTS of mineral nitrogen.

More than the crop could possibly use.

On average, less than 30% of applied agricultural nitrogen actually getting into the crop roots.

Where does the rest go?

If it started as UREA, first a soil microorganism hit it with urease enzyme.

The urea releases two ammonium ions and drives up the pH to as high as 10.

Eventually, nitrifying bacteria oxidize most of the ammonium to nitrite, and then immediately oxidize nitrite to nitrate.

Nitrification in terrestrial soils is one of the major sources of NITROUS OXIDE.

Now the applied nitrogen fertilizer is in the form of nitrate.

Nitrate is a mobile anion with very little affinity to adsorb to soil surfaces.

It is easily leached into groundwater or rinsed off as surface runoff.

Enough nitrate in groundwater makes a well unusable for drinking water.

Enough nitrate in surface water runoff can overfertilize aquatic ecosystems, leading to eutrophication, hypoxia, fish kills, and "dead zones" in the ocean.

Nitrate is easily lost to nitrate reduction when microorganisms use nitrate under low oxygen conditions to oxidize organic carbon.

Whether by denitrification, where nearly all the nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas, or by dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium, nitrate reduction generates nitrous oxide as a by product.

Nitrate reduction by microorganisms under low oxygen condition is the LARGEST SOURCE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS.

Agricultural nitrogen is the LARGEST SOURCE OF NITRATES BEING REDUCED.

The "Green Revolution" brought about a HUGE increase in ANTHROPOGENIC NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS.

Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.

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

sealover wrote:
Phenotypic Plasticity and Soil Carbon Loss in "Green Revolution" Crop Breeds.

The "Green Revolution" allowed for incredible gains in crop yield through selective breeding of high responders to chemical fertilizer.

Selective breeding for phenotypic plasticity in response to high bioavailability of soil nutrients.

Given chemical fertilizer, the crop could thrive while providing little or no photosynthate to symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with its roots.

Given chemical nitrogen fertilizer, the crop could thrive while providing little or no photosynthate to symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with its roots.

The plant could pump most of its photosynthate into the part we wanted to harvest.

It was great for yields. HUGE INCREASES.

It wasn't so great for soil carbon. HUGE LOSSES.

The new breeds of crops put very little organic carbon into the soil, compared to their ancestors.

Soil organic matter would decompose more rapidly than it would be replaced.

With "Green Revolution" crop breeds, agricultural soils became a NET SOURCE of CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE as they experienced a NET LOSS OF SOIL ORGANIC MATTER.

It's not too late to turn the trend around.

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

sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.

The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.
30-03-2022 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. 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
Edited on 30-03-2022 03:31
RE: Commercial Agricultural Nitrification Inhibitors. Keeping it in the soil.30-03-2022 03:59
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Commercial Agricultural Nitrification Inhibitors. Keeping it in the Soil.

To ensure maximum yield, agricultural nitrogen fertilizer is routinely over applied.

The fertilizer application rate required for the LEAST fertile part of the field is usually applied uniformly across the ENTIRE FIELD.

But even then, there is risk that the applied nitrogen will be lost before the crop can take up enough of it to achieve maximum yield.

Commercial nitrification inhibitors are often applied along with the urea or ammonium fertilizer.

Such inhibitors prevent bacteria from transforming ammonium into nitrite and then nitrate.

Such inhibitors include polyphenols naturally produced by plants.

Such inhibitors prevent loss of nitrogen fertilizer owing to nitrate leaching or runoff into groundwater or surface water.

Such inhibitors prevent emission of nitrous oxide during nitrification or during subsequent denitrification or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium.

Such inhibitors save farmers money on fertilizer, reducing the need for in season correction addition of fertilizer.

Such inhibitors prevent farmers from losing the potential maximum yield owing to nitrogen fertilizer loss from the soil.

Farmers use the purified synthetic pharmacological product made in laboratories.

Natural ecosystems make their own nitrification inhibitors to prevent loss of nitrate or emission of nitrous oxide.

If we could control emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural operations, we could cut out the vast majority of anthropogenic N2O emissions.

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
RE: Not ignoring thermodynamics. Just ignoring YOU.30-03-2022 04:13
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Not ignoring thermodynamics. Just ignoring YOU.

The target audience was already aware that nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas before they will ever see my posts.

Nobody needs to tell them why it is important.

Nobody needs to define the basic scientific terms for them.

They already know what the terms mean, and they use them to communicate with each other in mutually understood discussion.

The target audience is not interested in knowing why the hecklers don't believe we should be allowed to discuss anything without their prior approval of the vocabulary to be used.

The whole conversation could get derailed just trying to provide an "unambiguous definition" for "denitrification".

Denitrification is related to climate change because it generates nitrous oxide as bacteria reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Denitrification is related to climate change because it removes ozone destroying agents from the stratosphere as droplets of nitric acid freeze and fall to earth.

SOMEBODY MUST BE LYING BECAUSE THESE TERMS ARE INCOMPATIBLE.

Nobody will EVER understand what ANYONE MEANS when they say "denitrification" because it CANNOT BE UNAMBIGUOUSLY DEFINED.

Nobody should be allowed to EVER use the term "denitrification" in ANY discussion that pretends to be about "science".

So nobody should be allowed to discuss science.

Because all they use are buzzwords like "denitrification", which have no real meaning to anyone who truly understands "science".

Somebody needs to intervene and nip that nonsense in the bud!

FIRST you have to provide an UNAMBIGUOUS DEFINITION before you can talk.

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
































Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
30-03-2022 08:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Not ignoring thermodynamics.
Yes you are. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Just ignoring YOU.
Lie. You responded to my post.
sealover wrote:
The target audience was already aware that nitrous oxide is a major greenhouse gas before they will ever see my posts.
There is no 'target audience'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st of of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
Nobody needs to tell them why it is important.

It isn't.
sealover wrote:
Nobody needs to define the basic scientific terms for them.
...deleted excess noise...

Pivot fallacy. You can't create energy out of nothing, dude.

1st law of thermodynamics which you are ignoring:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

There is no work, so there is no energy change. You can't create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability.


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: Soil Acidification Due to Nitrification of Ammonia Fertilizer.30-03-2022 09:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Soil Acidification Due to Nitrification of Ammonia Fertilizer.

When urea, (H2N)2C=O, is hydrolyzed by urease enzyme, ammonium (NH4+) is released and microsite soil pH can be extremely high (>10).

Conversely, when ammonium (NH4+) is oxidized by microorganisms during nitrification, NITRIC ACID IS GENERATED.

Formation of nitric acid from urea or ammonium fertilizers is a widespread cause of acidification in agricultural soils.

Acidification from nitrification of applied urea or ammonium fertilizer is the biggest reason lime (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is applied to agricultural soils, with the exception of acid sulfate soils formed from drained wetlands.

Acidification from nitrification of urea or ammonium fertilizer is one of the biggest reasons farmers buy synthetic nitrification inhibitors.

Inhibiting nitrification prevents loss of nitrogen fertilizer, prevents soil acidification, and prevents requirement for liming to mitigate acidification.

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


sealover wrote:
Commercial Agricultural Nitrification Inhibitors. Keeping it in the Soil.

To ensure maximum yield, agricultural nitrogen fertilizer is routinely over applied.

The fertilizer application rate required for the LEAST fertile part of the field is usually applied uniformly across the ENTIRE FIELD.

But even then, there is risk that the applied nitrogen will be lost before the crop can take up enough of it to achieve maximum yield.

Commercial nitrification inhibitors are often applied along with the urea or ammonium fertilizer.

Such inhibitors prevent bacteria from transforming ammonium into nitrite and then nitrate.

Such inhibitors include polyphenols naturally produced by plants.

Such inhibitors prevent loss of nitrogen fertilizer owing to nitrate leaching or runoff into groundwater or surface water.

Such inhibitors prevent emission of nitrous oxide during nitrification or during subsequent denitrification or dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium.

Such inhibitors save farmers money on fertilizer, reducing the need for in season correction addition of fertilizer.

Such inhibitors prevent farmers from losing the potential maximum yield owing to nitrogen fertilizer loss from the soil.

Farmers use the purified synthetic pharmacological product made in laboratories.

Natural ecosystems make their own nitrification inhibitors to prevent loss of nitrate or emission of nitrous oxide.

If we could control emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural operations, we could cut out the vast majority of anthropogenic N2O emissions.

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
Nitrous oxide has about 200 times as much global warming potential as CO2.


No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
30-03-2022 19:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Soil Acidification Due to Nitrification of Ammonia Fertilizer.

When urea, (H2N)2C=O, is hydrolyzed by urease enzyme, ammonium (NH4+) is released and microsite soil pH can be extremely high (>10).

Conversely, when ammonium (NH4+) is oxidized by microorganisms during nitrification, NITRIC ACID IS GENERATED.

Formation of nitric acid from urea or ammonium fertilizers is a widespread cause of acidification in agricultural soils.

Acidification from nitrification of applied urea or ammonium fertilizer is the biggest reason lime (calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is applied to agricultural soils, with the exception of acid sulfate soils formed from drained wetlands.

Acidification from nitrification of urea or ammonium fertilizer is one of the biggest reasons farmers buy synthetic nitrification inhibitors.

Inhibiting nitrification prevents loss of nitrogen fertilizer, prevents soil acidification, and prevents requirement for liming to mitigate acidification.

So where did you cut and paste this from? Why are you even cut and pasting this stuff?


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: The "Extended" Phenotype for Carbon Sequestration in Fern Thickets..31-03-2022 04:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
The "Extended" Phenotype for Carbon Sequestration in Fern Thickets.

The phenotype is the physical expression of the genotype interacting with the environment.

The "environment" may include extra doses of royal jelly, which causes a very different phenotype where there is phenotypic plasticity.

But the phenotype isn't limited to the physical structure of the organism.

Richard Dawkins proposed the "extended" phenotype to highlight where genotype is expressed beyond the physical structure of the organism.

Nest building by birds, for example.

Natural selection favors the birds that build a better nest, even though the nest isn't part of the birds body structure.

Nest building would also lend itself to phenotypic plasticity.

If our human "nests" are part of our "extended" phenotype, they range from igloos made of ice floating over the north pole to ships capable of long voyages.

The fern thickets "extended" phenotype includes creating a very deep layer of litter above the mineral soil. Building a nest where all its lateral rhizomes extend.

The ferns are not remarkably productive as far as photosynthesis goes. Just a pale lime green that is only competitive in full sunlight, easily shaded out.

But the relatively small amount of carbon they capture through photosynthesis is disproportionately comprised of tannin which inhibits decomposition.

Ferns thickets sequester and store carbon at a higher rate than other ecosystems with higher net primary productivity, because the mean residence time of the litter they produce is so much longer.

We could employ the "extended" phenotype of plants to help us sequester more carbon from the atmosphere and keep it in the soil.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
sealover wrote:
Synchronized Canopy Dieback in Manganese-rich Island Arc Rainforests.

Fern thickets can induce manganese toxicity in island arc rainforests.

Island arcs occur where hot spots under the sea floor melt up a volcanic eruption.

The sea floor moves along with plate tectonics. The hot spot doe not.

The biggest tallest island in the arc is always the newest (Hawaii).

Eventually, the oldest islands in the arc get washed away by the waves, leaving their submarine stubs (Emperor Sea Mounts).

Sea floor is rich in manganese. Island arc soils are rich in manganese.

You can see the black stains of the manganese everywhere if you look at these soils, or even just walk along the forest path.

When fern thickest cause reductive dissolution of manganese to toxic levels that kill competitor pioneer trees, it was a localized event.

There was a "winner" from the induced toxicity, a successful use of allelopathy in chemical warfare.

But something happens in the manganese rich soils of Hawaiis rainforest to kill a lot of plants with manganese without any "winners".

Synchronized canopy dieback.

Doesn't happen often and requires a bad luck sequence of weather events.

At one point in the sequence manganese rich soil that normally stays wet get dry.

A whole lot of manganese(II) oxidizes to manganese(II), as bacteria use oxygen to get energy as manganese oxidizers.

Then the bad luck of unusually wet weather.

Waterlogged conditions prevail for a while and tons of manganese(IV) get reduced to manganese(II) by manganese reducing bacteria, who use manganese(IV) as oxidant for organic carbon.

This isn't just a creepy fern killing some local residents for its own benefit.

These can be entire hillslopes where more trees are dead than alive.

The survivors have less competition now, but they're looking kind of sick.

This was not allelopathic act of chemical warfare by a competitor.

In synchronized canopy dieback, nobody wins.

Oh, and it turns out that "carbon dioxide is not organic". (see below)

I'm certainly glad that we got that one straightened out!
---------------------------------------------------------------



quote]Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Carbon Sequestration and Allelopathy in Rainforest Fern Thickets.

Wetlands are very effective at sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it as organic carbon, preserved against decomposition by low oxygen conditions.
...deleted excessive noise...

Why do you fear carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not a carbohydrate either.
[/quote]
31-03-2022 07:36
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
I find it odd, that the focus of these 'articles' is to capture, and sequester carbon as directly as possible into the soil. Would planting more food crops for all species, do a much better job? most of the carbon would be metabolized, and used for many years in some animal, or human. Eventually ending up in the soil anyway. Why is it crucial, to starve people, and animals? Do eco-terrorist really enjoy torturing and denying basic needs. Some sort of power-trip, to make them feel superior to those the impose suffering upon?
31-03-2022 09:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
HarveyH55 wrote:Why is it crucial, to starve people, and animals?

It is Marxism after all. Venezuela anyone? Zimbabwe? Marxism doesn't crank out countries full of fat people.

HarveyH55 wrote:Do eco-terrorist really enjoy torturing and denying basic needs.

Well, duhhh. "We're not happy until you're not happy." Starvation resolves that irritating happiness problem quite nicely.
31-03-2022 09:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I find it odd, that the focus of these 'articles' is to capture, and sequester carbon as directly as possible into the soil. Would planting more food crops for all species, do a much better job? most of the carbon would be metabolized, and used for many years in some animal, or human. Eventually ending up in the soil anyway. Why is it crucial, to starve people, and animals? Do eco-terrorist really enjoy torturing and denying basic needs. Some sort of power-trip, to make them feel superior to those the impose suffering upon?

You have to remember that he is afraid of CO2. He thinks that it somehow causes the Earth to warm.


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: No, it is NOT possible to create energy out of nothing.02-04-2022 20:18
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
No, it is NOT possible to create energy out of nothing.

According to the LIES we tell each other in the Ivory Tower, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth, dude.

I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth.

Maybe this helps to clear up your confusion.

Um.. ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM NOWHERE!

ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM GAS OR VAPOR!

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




























Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Phenotypic Plasticity and Soil Carbon Loss in "Green Revolution" Crop Breeds.


It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth, dude. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
02-04-2022 20:24
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2551)
seal over wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth


Great! Now we are having a discussion.

Without additional energy from the sun, or any other source, how is it possible for the temperature of the earth to increase?
RE: No additional sun energy required for warming02-04-2022 20:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
No additional sun energy required for warming.

The presence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases brings about temperature increase without any additional sun energy being transmitted to the earth.

The vast majority of sun energy that reaches the earth's atmosphere eventually radiates back out into space.

Greenhouse gases increase the average residence time of that sun energy staying close to the earths surface.

It would be the most transparent of straw man fallacies to claim that the treehuggers' position requires more sun energy to be transmitted to earth.

Too much of my OWN work depended on understanding the near infrared absorption properties of carbon compounds to suddenly disbelieve it now.

I've SEEN the "greenhouse effect" with my OWN LYING EYES when I regulated the 13-C CO2 concentration in a tightly sealed greenhouse with external artificial lamps.

If it is NOT greenhouse effect, what the heck is it?

Methane can absorb a lot more infrared than CO2.

Nitrous oxide can absorb a LOT more infrared than methane.

It's basic textbook physics.

It shouldn't have to be explained over and over and over.


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

GasGuzzler wrote:
seal over wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth


Great! Now we are having a discussion.

Without additional energy from the sun, or any other source, how is it possible for the temperature of the earth to increase?
02-04-2022 20:38
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
sealover wrote:
No, it is NOT possible to create energy out of nothing.

According to the LIES we tell each other in the Ivory Tower, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth, dude.

I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth.

Maybe this helps to clear up your confusion.

Um.. ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM NOWHERE!

ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM GAS OR VAPOR!



It's one of those word games Parrot Boy plays.

As an example, I can say a pressure cooker can cook corned beef 4 times as fast as an oven.

Then Parrot Boy would say, dude, you can't create energy from nothing. You can't heat up beef with a gas. Or some crap like that.

When he gets cornered he makes irrelevant comments which only seem to apply, but don't actually apply to the debate.

If there was more participation in this forum, that would help to drown him out, and then maybe it would be possible to have a civilized conversation.

Amyway, it's not too hard to scroll past his comments.


RE: A "debate" of contrarian contradictions02-04-2022 20:55
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
A "debate" of contrarian contradictions.

Thank you for your insights.

Thank you for refusing to be a... given the nature of the provocations.

Parrot Boy has mastered the "debate" art of contrarian contradictions.

"I'm rubber and you're glue" kind of stuff.

Black IS white. Just say it over and over and over, and it becomes true.

Science is NOT science!

You cannot reduce nitrate. Sulfate is not a chemical.

They are all simply contrarian contradictions.

They are all unsupported contrarian assertions.

They arise from the imaginary authority of Parrot Boy's imaginary credentials.

And they are the FINAL WORD.

No, it's NOT!

I WIN AGAIN!!!

Yes, it's easy enough to scroll past the garbage. You see that colorful parrot and you know to just keep on scrolling... There he is again... And again... Keep scrolling. Finally got past Parrot Boy's multiple consecutive posts of BS.

Weird how he posts SO MUCH MORE OFTEN than anyone else.

Apparently, he thinks he has a lot to say, and we all need to hear it.

Over and over and over and over.

"No science. No argument. Fallacies 1,2 and 3. Listen NOT to ME!"

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


Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
No, it is NOT possible to create energy out of nothing.

According to the LIES we tell each other in the Ivory Tower, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth, dude.

I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth.

Maybe this helps to clear up your confusion.

Um.. ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM NOWHERE!

ENERGY FROM SUN! NOT FROM GAS OR VAPOR!



It's one of those word games Parrot Boy plays.

As an example, I can say a pressure cooker can cook corned beef 4 times as fast as an oven.

Then Parrot Boy would say, dude, you can't create energy from nothing. You can't heat up beef with a gas. Or some crap like that.

When he gets cornered he makes irrelevant comments which only seem to apply, but don't actually apply to the debate.

If there was more participation in this forum, that would help to drown him out, and then maybe it would be possible to have a civilized conversation.

Amyway, it's not too hard to scroll past his comments.
02-04-2022 21:05
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
sealover wrote:
No additional sun energy required for warming.

I've SEEN the "greenhouse effect" with my OWN LYING EYES when I regulated the 13-C CO2 concentration in a tightly sealed greenhouse with external artificial lamps.

If it is NOT greenhouse effect, what the heck is it?

Methane can absorb a lot more infrared than CO2.

Nitrous oxide can absorb a LOT more infrared than methane.



Thanks for the chemistry lessons!

But I'm sorry, I'm not clear what you are saying has contributed more to the warming of Earth seen.

Is it the increase of CO2 in a tightly sealed container "greenhouse"?

Or is it an increase of methane and nitrous oxide absorbing more infrared?


RE: Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.02-04-2022 21:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

In a couple of months, I hope that rather than a biogeochemist posting this, you will hear from a PhD atmospheric physicist. Or at least an atmospheric physic graduate student.

I should stick to biogeochemistry.

But, here goes with the atmospheric physics.

The ultimate fate of almost ALL the solar energy the reaches the earth is to be radiated back to space as infrared, with lesser losses of visible light energy.

Greenhouse gases trap the heat a little longer.

Rather than radiate straight back to space, some of the infrared get recycled within the atmosphere. Lighting each other up with infrared, absorbing, reemitting, and keeping the heat close to the surface in the process. A little longer residence time for the heat, which results in higher temperature.

Ever wonder why a person stays warmer with TWO blankets on a cold night?

Their body didn't start putting out more heat, but the temperature under the blanket increased when a second blanket was laid down.

Unlike the blankets we use in bed, greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass.

Humans threw an extra blanket on the atmosphere with our anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ALL the OTHERS we haven't even BEGUN to discuss.

Like the one China is blackmailing the world with.

If we don't keep PAYING CHINA TO CAPTURE IT, they are just going to release it to the atmosphere instead.

CFCs aren't just ozone destroyers.

Some of them are greenhouse gases with global warming potential orders of magnitude greater than CO2 or even nitrous oxide.

Some of them continue to be deliberately manufactured.

Some of the worst ones continue to be accidentally manufactured as by products during synthesis of a desired product.

China won't continue to keep those by products out of their smoke stack emissions unless we continue to pay them a hefty bribe to do it.

Eff China when it comes to harming our biosphere!

Maybe they didn't get to benefit from the damage that the wealthy nations did back in the day, but there is no inherent entitlement for China to do it NOW!

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
No additional sun energy required for warming.

I've SEEN the "greenhouse effect" with my OWN LYING EYES when I regulated the 13-C CO2 concentration in a tightly sealed greenhouse with external artificial lamps.

If it is NOT greenhouse effect, what the heck is it?

Methane can absorb a lot more infrared than CO2.

Nitrous oxide can absorb a LOT more infrared than methane.



Thanks for the chemistry lessons!

But I'm sorry, I'm not clear what you are saying has contributed more to the warming of Earth seen.

Is it the increase of CO2 in a tightly sealed container "greenhouse"?

Or is it an increase of methane and nitrous oxide absorbing more infrared?
02-04-2022 21:36
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
sealover wrote:
No additional sun energy required for warming.

The presence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases brings about temperature increase without any additional sun energy being transmitted to the earth.

The vast majority of sun energy that reaches the earth's atmosphere eventually radiates back out into space.

Greenhouse gases increase the average residence time of that sun energy staying close to the earths surface.

It would be the most transparent of straw man fallacies to claim that the treehuggers' position requires more sun energy to be transmitted to earth.

Too much of my OWN work depended on understanding the near infrared absorption properties of carbon compounds to suddenly disbelieve it now.

I've SEEN the "greenhouse effect" with my OWN LYING EYES when I regulated the 13-C CO2 concentration in a tightly sealed greenhouse with external artificial lamps.

If it is NOT greenhouse effect, what the heck is it?

Methane can absorb a lot more infrared than CO2.

Nitrous oxide can absorb a LOT more infrared than methane.

It's basic textbook physics.

It shouldn't have to be explained over and over and over.


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

GasGuzzler wrote:
seal over wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there is universal agreement that the SUN is the source of the energy that is warming the earth


Great! Now we are having a discussion.

Without additional energy from the sun, or any other source, how is it possible for the temperature of the earth to increase?


The classic parlor trick... The sun only shines on one half of this huge planet at any given time of the day. The wind blows, water circulate. It's a very large, and dynamic planet. It' not a sealed greenhouse, with stale, un-moving air, fully illuminated. It's an effective marketing tool, great illusion. But, as a scientist, you would know it hardly recreates a fraction of the dynamics involved on a global scale. A greenhouse doesn't trap 'heat', it blocks the wind from carrying it away. Why do greenhouse up north, have heaters for the winter months? Which also augment CO2... An actual greenhouse outdoors, under natural light, does cool off during the night, just slower, without cold outside air circulating through them.

Even if there was some CO2-infrared magic going on, it would be directional. Only a small fraction of anything emitted, would be heading back toward the surface. It would also fall off rather quickly, as the night-time surface cooled. CO2 isn't evenly distributed throughout the entire atmosphere. I doesn't form a continuous, blanket-like layer. Surrounding the planet. Earth in no way, resembles a greenhouse.
03-04-2022 00:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2551)
Finally, after 2 months of preaching, we got meat and potatoes on the table! I'm going to try to keep this very simple. Please tell me where I'm incorrect, if anywhere.

sealover wrote:
Ever wonder why a person stays warmer with TWO blankets on a cold night?

No, I don't, because I understand that heat is only the flow of thermal energy. I understand that a blanket REDUCES heat. A blanket works by reducing the flow of thermal energy. A blanket is an insulator that reduces heat.

sealover wrote:
Their body didn't start putting out more heat, but the temperature under the blanket increased when a second blanket was laid down.

Yes, and that's because the second blanket farther reduced the heat, the flow of thermal energy coming from the warm body.

sealover wrote:
Unlike the blankets we use in bed, greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass.

Wait...why are suddenly trying to destroy your own blanket analogy?

sealover wrote:
Humans threw an extra blanket on the atmosphere with our anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ALL the OTHERS we haven't even BEGUN to discuss.


OK, we're back to the insulating, heat reducing blanket. Good.
For this analogy to work, you must also claim that CO2 or methane are insulators. They are not. We have them in abundance, and yet none of the so called greenhouse gases are used for insulation.

Quite the opposite. CO2 for example is a reasonably good CONDUCTOR of thermal energy. If incoming IR is absorbed by the surface and converted to thermal energy, the thermal energy is absorbed by the next cooler item available...the atmosphere and whatever is in it. What just happened? The atmosphere, and any CO2, COOLED the surface.

What now? The atmosphere is never in equilibrium, so that thermal energy must go somewhere. If I'm sealover, I'm sending it right back to the surface to reheat the surface and raise the temp slightly. Shit.....can't do that! Heat always flows from warmer to cooler. The surface was what heated the atmosphere in the first place, so it cannot go back down. Only option is up and out.

This is why you are always told "no cooler gas can warm up a warmer surface".

Does this make any sense to you?

To bring this full circle, a greenhouse works in the same way. A greenhouse REDUCES heat, specifically convective heat. IR comes in through the glass, it is converted to thermal energy, but the glass only allows conductive heat flowing to the outside.

Just a random comment. The word "heat" is probably one of the most misused words in all of humanity. Heat is not temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. Heat can happen at any temperature.

Sorry if I just ruined your whole life.
Edited on 03-04-2022 00:19
RE: First sealover post: March 10, 2022. "after 2 months of preaching."03-04-2022 00:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
First sealover post: March 10, 2022. "after 2 months of preaching.."

Time goes by at a different pace in the rabbit hole.

3 weeks can seem like 2 months.

Maybe you need to get out and get some air.

It has been 3 weeks of... whatever it has been, it has been 3 weeks and not quite 2 months yet.

Maybe this is causing you to lose perspective and lose sense of time.


"Sorry if I just ruined your whole life."


No problem, my friend.

Apology accepted!




















GasGuzzler wrote:
Finally, after 2 months of preaching, we got meat and potatoes on the table! I'm going to try to keep this very simple. Please tell me where I'm incorrect, if anywhere.

Does this make any sense to you?

Just a random comment. The word "heat" is probably one of the most misused words in all of humanity. Heat is not temperature. It is the flow of thermal energy from warmer to cooler. Heat can happen at any temperature.

Sorry if I just ruined your whole life.
03-04-2022 00:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote: Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

Too funny! You should get a billboard that reads "Proud Owner of Scientific Illiteracy"

.
Attached image:

RE: Correction: March 9, 2022. First sealover post on this website.03-04-2022 01:01
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Correction: March 9, 2022. First sealover post on this website.

I published an error in my last post.

I failed to notice there was a second page.

The very first sealover post on this website was March 9, 2022.

NOT March 10, 2022, as I erroneously published.

So, really it has been MUCH more than just three weeks.

Makes sense that it would seem like two months already.

But the best is yet to come.

There is this one flaming a hole, I call him DUCK (Dumb Ugly Clown Kook).

He wrote some extremely UGLY STUFF that hasn't been quoted yet.

And that was just in the last two months.. I mean three weeks.. WAY more than three weeks, given that I LIED about the date of my first post.

Kind of like my LIES about coral reefs and advanced degrees in science.

Wait until 2 months, 3 weeks, whatever it has been becomes 6 months of preaching packed into just 5 weeks of posting!

When you have lost all sense of time I will have achieved mind control.

ALL HAIL THE NEW RELIGION! PRAISE SCIENCE! MAY SCIENCE BLESS YOU!

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


















IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

Too funny! You should get a billboard that reads "Proud Owner of Scientific Illiteracy"

.
03-04-2022 02:09
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
sealover wrote:
Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

Here goes with the atmospheric physics.

The ultimate fate of almost ALL the solar energy the reaches the earth is to be radiated back to space as infrared, with lesser losses of visible light energy.

Greenhouse gases trap the heat a little longer.

Rather than radiate straight back to space, some of the infrared get recycled within the atmosphere. Lighting each other up with infrared, absorbing, reemitting, and keeping the heat close to the surface in the process. A little longer residence time for the heat, which results in higher temperature.

Ever wonder why a person stays warmer with TWO blankets on a cold night?

Their body didn't start putting out more heat, but the temperature under the blanket increased when a second blanket was laid down.

Unlike the blankets we use in bed, greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass.

Humans threw an extra blanket on the atmosphere with our anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ALL the OTHERS we haven't even BEGUN to discuss.

Like the one China is blackmailing the world with.

If we don't keep PAYING CHINA TO CAPTURE IT, they are just going to release it to the atmosphere instead.

CFCs aren't just ozone destroyers.

Some of them are greenhouse gases with global warming potential orders of magnitude greater than CO2 or even nitrous oxide.

Some of them continue to be deliberately manufactured.

Some of the worst ones continue to be accidentally manufactured as by products during synthesis of a desired product.

China won't continue to keep those by products out of their smoke stack emissions unless we continue to pay them a hefty bribe to do it.

Eff China when it comes to harming our biosphere!

Maybe they didn't get to benefit from the damage that the wealthy nations did back in the day, but there is no inherent entitlement for China to do it NOW!


I read that air conditioners made before 2010 emit ozone destroying CFCs.

The ozone layer is a topic I am interested in. I like to think of it as the 1st "blanket," as you put it.

It sounds like you're familiar with the Chapman cycle of ozone generation.

The part of the cycle that interests me the most is: the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

This is what is credited for the temperature inversion: starting around an altitude of 6 miles, and continuing to an altitude close to 30 miles, the air gets warmer and warmer, reaching a moderate temperature, on average, of close to 20 degrees Celsius by 30 miles. This is generally where people say the ozone layer is.

Most clouds can't get past the ozone layer and stratosphere because of the temperature inversion. Although infrequently clouds like night shining "Noctilucent" clouds pass it.

I came across a phenomenon that confuses me in regards to my point of focus in the Chapman cycle.

Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW).

This forum's 2 most notorious trolls have denied the existence of SSW, and I expect they will continue to do so.

SSW happens every winter over the North Pole. It pushes cold air further south, and causes more rain around my neck of the woods, just a few cities over from your alma mater, Berkeley. People call this cold rainy weather the "Polar Vortex."

What confuses me, is going hand in hand with SSW at the North Pole, is the sudden appearance of lots of ozone at the North Pole.

It looks to me like ozone is a by product of SSW.

But how could SSW happen, and ozone be generated, at the North Pole in winter, when the sun doesn't shine there at that time?


03-04-2022 02:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:But, here goes with the atmospheric physics.

You don't know any. You are scientifically illiterate.

sealover wrote:Greenhouse gases trap the heat a little longer.

Heat cannot be trapped. You don't know what heat is.

sealover wrote:Rather than radiate straight back to space,

That's all the earth can do, i.e. radiate out to space.

Look up the word "equilibrium."

sealover wrote:some of the infrared get recycled within the atmosphere.

Recycling of infrared. Novel concept.
Attached image:


Edited on 03-04-2022 03:14
03-04-2022 02:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Spongy Iris wrote:
I read that air conditioners made before 2010 emit ozone destroying CFCs.

The ozone layer is a topic I am interested in. I like to think of it as the 1st "blanket," as you put it.


Here is your answer : https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/195

Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you.
Attached image:

RE: I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.03-04-2022 02:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

I had to learn some, but not enough to give a good off the cuff reply.

Back when Glenn Beck was big on Fox News, he made a big deal about the seeming contradiction.

If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

Fact is, that "denitrification" stuff, where nitric acid acid droplets in the stratosphere freeze and fall to earth, is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

Ironically, it may be what saved the ozone layer from our NON CFC anthropogenic ozone destroying agents.

There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

Then it started thinning again, seasonally, eventually at both poles.

This time it was NON CFC ozone destroyers (bromide, chloride, NOx, SOx, etc).

But then the stratosphere got COLD ENOUGH TO FREEZE NITRIC ACID.

Now there was a seasonal mop up of ozone destroying agents, scrubbed out of the stratosphere as they dissolve into nitric acid, then freeze and fall to earth.

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

Here goes with the atmospheric physics.

The ultimate fate of almost ALL the solar energy the reaches the earth is to be radiated back to space as infrared, with lesser losses of visible light energy.

Greenhouse gases trap the heat a little longer.

Rather than radiate straight back to space, some of the infrared get recycled within the atmosphere. Lighting each other up with infrared, absorbing, reemitting, and keeping the heat close to the surface in the process. A little longer residence time for the heat, which results in higher temperature.

Ever wonder why a person stays warmer with TWO blankets on a cold night?

Their body didn't start putting out more heat, but the temperature under the blanket increased when a second blanket was laid down.

Unlike the blankets we use in bed, greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass.

Humans threw an extra blanket on the atmosphere with our anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ALL the OTHERS we haven't even BEGUN to discuss.

Like the one China is blackmailing the world with.

If we don't keep PAYING CHINA TO CAPTURE IT, they are just going to release it to the atmosphere instead.

CFCs aren't just ozone destroyers.

Some of them are greenhouse gases with global warming potential orders of magnitude greater than CO2 or even nitrous oxide.

Some of them continue to be deliberately manufactured.

Some of the worst ones continue to be accidentally manufactured as by products during synthesis of a desired product.

China won't continue to keep those by products out of their smoke stack emissions unless we continue to pay them a hefty bribe to do it.

Eff China when it comes to harming our biosphere!

Maybe they didn't get to benefit from the damage that the wealthy nations did back in the day, but there is no inherent entitlement for China to do it NOW!


I read that air conditioners made before 2010 emit ozone destroying CFCs.

The ozone layer is a topic I am interested in. I like to think of it as the 1st "blanket," as you put it.

It sounds like you're familiar with the Chapman cycle of ozone generation.

The part of the cycle that interests me the most is: the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

This is what is credited for the temperature inversion: starting around an altitude of 6 miles, and continuing to an altitude close to 30 miles, the air gets warmer and warmer, reaching a moderate temperature, on average, of close to 20 degrees Celsius by 30 miles. This is generally where people say the ozone layer is.

Most clouds can't get past the ozone layer and stratosphere because of the temperature inversion. Although infrequently clouds like night shining "Noctilucent" clouds pass it.

I came across a phenomenon that confuses me in regards to my point of focus in the Chapman cycle.

Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW).

This forum's 2 most notorious trolls have denied the existence of SSW, and I expect they will continue to do so.

SSW happens every winter over the North Pole. It pushes cold air further south, and causes more rain around my neck of the woods, just a few cities over from your alma mater, Berkeley. People call this cold rainy weather the "Polar Vortex."

What confuses me, is going hand in hand with SSW at the North Pole, is the sudden appearance of lots of ozone at the North Pole.

It looks to me like ozone is a by product of SSW.

But how could SSW happen, and ozone be generated, at the North Pole in winter, when the sun doesn't shine there at that time?
03-04-2022 03:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
seal over wrote:I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

... because you don't understand any.

seal over wrote:If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

This is a rhetorical question because it is not possible. For this to occur would be a Climate miracle that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

seal over wrote:... is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

... and we have your omniscience to thank for this knowledge.

So are you saying that the earth's average global temperature is cooling or are you claiming that violations of thermodynamics are occurring?

seal over wrote:There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

How are you aware of this miracle? Omniscience again? I don't know if you are aware of this but O3 is invisible. How do you know when there's a hole and when that hole fills back in again? Satellites?

seal over wrote:Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

I thought I was the only one running around back then. Were you there as well? Yes, I remember the exact day the ozone formed. It was a Wednesday, exactly 487 million, 223 thousand, 461 years, seven months, seventeen days.

It was beautiful ... and I was there.

I didn't see you anywhere.

seal over wrote:We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

More of the Marxist "we" and more of the "WE are the omnipotent Climate Justice League superheroes who can do anything and violate all physics.

Hello, nobody can prevent the sun from creating all of the ozone.

seal over wrote:But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

Your problem is not your inability to explain why the stratosphere is getting colder; your problem is your inability to explain why you believe the stratosphere is getting colder.

seal over wrote:I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.

Lucky you, I have arrived.

No human is aware of any discernible change in earth's average temperature. If there is an indiscernible change, both the earth's surface and the earth's stratosphere will also move in that same direction. The stratosphere and the bottom of the atmosphere cannot have average temperatures that move in opposite directions. The 2nd law of thermodynamics governs that.

... *OR* ... you can explain which parts inside an oven become colder when you turn it on.
Attached image:

03-04-2022 03:55
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1169)
sealover wrote:
I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

I had to learn some, but not enough to give a good off the cuff reply.

Back when Glenn Beck was big on Fox News, he made a big deal about the seeming contradiction.

If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

Fact is, that "denitrification" stuff, where nitric acid acid droplets in the stratosphere freeze and fall to earth, is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

Ironically, it may be what saved the ozone layer from our NON CFC anthropogenic ozone destroying agents.

There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

Then it started thinning again, seasonally, eventually at both poles.

This time it was NON CFC ozone destroyers (bromide, chloride, NOx, SOx, etc).

But then the stratosphere got COLD ENOUGH TO FREEZE NITRIC ACID.

Now there was a seasonal mop up of ozone destroying agents, scrubbed out of the stratosphere as they dissolve into nitric acid, then freeze and fall to earth.

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.



Here is the word from NASA...

Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."


I was just thinking it is the generation of ozone in the ionosphere that generates heat, and if less of said activity is in operation, that would result in cooling.

Another cool thing I heard about the ionosphere is a radio wave can travel up to 62 miles bounced across there.


RE: He rolled his eyes and I was EMBARRASSED.03-04-2022 05:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
He rolled his eyes and I was EMBARASSED.

Almost 20 years ago.

Tempting to name drop, but just say I was attempting to give a lame explanation for the cooling of the stratosphere.

I mistakenly understood it to be simply a matter of reduced infrared radiation up to the stratosphere from a greenhouse gas enriched atmosphere. Because the heat was trapped below, less was getting up above kind of thing.

The man who rolled his eyes had just joined the conversation as I was speaking.

He was about to assume the position at the top of the scientific societies global warming top committee. The ones who coordinate with the UN scientists, etc.

I was so freaking embarrassed as he patiently corrected my presentation, noting that it was a commonly held misconception to oversimplify it as I had.

So, I've been shy about treading outside the boundaries of my specialty too much.

This one is especially sensitive, as it was a truly embarrassing moment among other respected scientists when I botched the explanation for the decreasing stratospheric temperatures.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Fun fact about bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere.

FM radio is line of sight. Your antennae must be in a direct straight line of sight position where the radio emission tower signals can reach it.

A mountain between the FM radio tower and your antennae will block the signal.

AM radio is bounced off the top of the sky and back down.

A mountain between the AM radio tower and your antennae will make no difference, and will not block the signal no matter how tall the mountain is.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

I had to learn some, but not enough to give a good off the cuff reply.

Back when Glenn Beck was big on Fox News, he made a big deal about the seeming contradiction.

If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

Fact is, that "denitrification" stuff, where nitric acid acid droplets in the stratosphere freeze and fall to earth, is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

Ironically, it may be what saved the ozone layer from our NON CFC anthropogenic ozone destroying agents.

There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

Then it started thinning again, seasonally, eventually at both poles.

This time it was NON CFC ozone destroyers (bromide, chloride, NOx, SOx, etc).

But then the stratosphere got COLD ENOUGH TO FREEZE NITRIC ACID.

Now there was a seasonal mop up of ozone destroying agents, scrubbed out of the stratosphere as they dissolve into nitric acid, then freeze and fall to earth.

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.



Here is the word from NASA...

Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."


I was just thinking it is the generation of ozone in the ionosphere that generates heat, and if less of said activity is in operation, that would result in cooling.

Another cool thing I heard about the ionosphere is a radio wave can travel up to 62 miles bounced across there.
03-04-2022 05:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2551)
seal over wrote:But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

You cannot explain it because you don't understand the first thing about heat. I explained it to you in extremely simple terms, and your argument was something about my comment in error about the date of your first post. I suppose you also call that science?

seal over wrote:I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.[/b]

You are counting on your handler to come do your thinking for you. You should be on the front steps of Berkley screaming "REFUND PLEASE!".
Edited on 03-04-2022 05:28
RE: Picture of sealover in pygmy forest. Nature. 1995.03-04-2022 05:37
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Picture of sealover in pygmy forest. Nature. 1995.

Anyone can find a photo of sealover in the pygmy forest.

It was with the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" article, in News and Views.

Nature. 1995. FS Chapin III. Volume 377. Pages 199-200.

You can ridicule sealover for physical appearance as well as make fun of the gibber babble buzzword rant sealover published.

New cog in the nitrogen cycle?

Shouldn't it be EASY to poke holes in something like that?

p.s. VHF television signals, like AM radio signals, bounce off the top of the sky and straight back down to us.

UHF television signals, like FM radio signals, must be received directly by line of sight transmission from tower to antennae.

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

[quote]sealover wrote:
Google Scholar - New Cog in the Nitrogen Cycle

With each new issue of the journal Nature, up to a dozen of the new papers are highlighted in the "News and Views" section.

Terry Chapin wrote the review titled "New cog in the nitrogen cycle."

It was intended to highlight why the "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" paper was considered to be such an important discovery.

FS Chapin, III. 1995. New cog in the nitrogen cycle. Nature. 377:199-200.

Google Scholar can find it with just "New cog in the nitrogen cycle".

It would take less time to type in "Nature 377:199-200."

This gives some idea why other scientists were duped into taking the idiot "sealover" seriously.
03-04-2022 05:39
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2551)
Spongy wrote: from NASA


Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."

Learn how to read gov BS. These are all the red flag words. This piece of drivel could just as well been an 18" snowfall forecast for Cuba.

I should go back and do it again and correct all the science violations....if I get time later I will.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
03-04-2022 11:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:Picture of sealover in pygmy forest. Nature. 1995. Anyone can find a photo of sealover in the pygmy forest.

This is where you should've used the subjunctive, i.e. "Anyone would have been able to find a photo of seal over in the pygmy forest by following the link I had provided if only I had been able to find a photo of seal over in the pygmy forest in order to share its link."

sealover wrote:It was with the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" article, in News and Views. Nature. 1995. FS Chapin III. Volume 377. Pages 199-200.

So why can't you find it?

sealover wrote:You can ridicule sealover for physical appearance as well as make fun of the gibber babble buzzword rant seal over published.

Aaaahhh, that's why you don't want anyone finding the article ... you are ashamed of what you wrote back then. So why don't you simply attach the photo to a post?
03-04-2022 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

Because you don't understand physics at all.
sealover wrote:
I had to learn some, but not enough to give a good off the cuff reply.

Your reply here is indeed 'off the cuff'. It is scripture from the Church of Global Warming.
sealover wrote:
Back when Glenn Beck was big on Fox News, he made a big deal about the seeming contradiction.

If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

Fact is, that "denitrification" stuff, where nitric acid acid droplets in the stratosphere freeze and fall to earth, is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere. You are making up numbers again.
sealover wrote:
Ironically, it may be what saved the ozone layer from our NON CFC anthropogenic ozone destroying agents.

The ozone layer isn't 'saved'. It is continuously created and destroyed. See the Chapman cycle, which you still deny.
sealover wrote:
There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

CFC's don't react with ozone. There has been no 'recovery' since there has been no 'damage'.
sealover wrote:
Then it started thinning again, seasonally, eventually at both poles.

Just like it always does. Nothing different.
sealover wrote:
This time it was NON CFC ozone destroyers (bromide, chloride, NOx, SOx, etc).

Ozone is continuously created and destroyed. See the Chapman cycle. NONE of these affect the ozone layer because of it.
sealover wrote:
But then the stratosphere got COLD ENOUGH TO FREEZE NITRIC ACID.

Now there was a seasonal mop up of ozone destroying agents, scrubbed out of the stratosphere as they dissolve into nitric acid, then freeze and fall to earth.

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

No mop-up.
sealover wrote:
Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

How do you know when the ozone layer formed? Were you there? You don't even know how ozone is created!
sealover wrote:
We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

We can't destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to.
sealover wrote:
But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.

Since you have this weird idea that the surface is getting warmer and the stratosphere is getting colder, you are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy NEVER decreases...ever.
sealover wrote:
Greenhouse Gases Increase Residence Time of Heat in Atmosphere.

You cannot slow or trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything.
sealover wrote:
Here goes with the atmospheric physics.

The ultimate fate of almost ALL the solar energy the reaches the earth is to be radiated back to space as infrared, with lesser losses of visible light energy.

Nope. Visible light doesn't heat anything. Absorption of visible light results in chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy. Only the absorption of infrared light results in conversion to thermal energy. See Plank's laws and quantum mechanics.
sealover wrote:
Greenhouse gases trap the heat a little longer.

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything. You obviously have no idea what 'heat' means.
sealover wrote:
Rather than radiate straight back to space, some of the infrared get recycled within the atmosphere. Lighting each other up with infrared, absorbing, reemitting, and keeping the heat close to the surface in the process. A little longer residence time for the heat, which results in higher temperature.

Heat is not contained in anything. You cannot slow or trap heat.
You cannot reduce entropy. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
Ever wonder why a person stays warmer with TWO blankets on a cold night?

CO2 is not a thermal insulator. Indeed, it conducts heat better than most gases.
sealover wrote:
Their body didn't start putting out more heat, but the temperature under the blanket increased when a second blanket was laid down.

The Magick Blanket argument denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
Unlike the blankets we use in bed, greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass.

Visible light does not convert to thermal energy.
sealover wrote:
Humans threw an extra blanket on the atmosphere with our anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ALL the OTHERS we haven't even BEGUN to discuss.

No gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy or create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot slow heat.
You cannot ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All matter radiates light according to it's temperature. That includes any Magick Gas.
sealover wrote:
CFCs aren't just ozone destroyers.

CFC's don't react with ozone.
sealover wrote:
Some of them are greenhouse gases with global warming potential orders of magnitude greater than CO2 or even nitrous oxide.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot reduce entropy...ever.
You cannot create energy out of nothing...ever.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law...ever.


The ozone in the ozone layer is formed by sunlight interacting with oxygen in the atmosphere.
The ozone in the ozone layer is also destroyed by sunlight interacting with ozone in the atmosphere.

See the Chapman cycle.

During the winter of a pole, there is no sunlight. So...no ozone is created. Ozone, being an unstable molecule, reverts back into oxygen. You get a 'hole'. Big hairy deal. There is no sunlight anyway.

As summer comes to each pole, that ozone 'hole' is filled with ozone. The 'hole' only forms during the winter of each pole.


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
03-04-2022 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
I do a TERRIBLE JOB explaining the atmospheric physics.

I had to learn some, but not enough to give a good off the cuff reply.

Back when Glenn Beck was big on Fox News, he made a big deal about the seeming contradiction.

If the STRATOSPHERE is getting COLDER, how could the ATMOSPHERE near the surface be getting WARMER?

Fact is, that "denitrification" stuff, where nitric acid acid droplets in the stratosphere freeze and fall to earth, is only happening now because the stratosphere is getting COLDER on average.

But it defies common sense, and it is wrong to oversimplify it.

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

Ironically, it may be what saved the ozone layer from our NON CFC anthropogenic ozone destroying agents.

There had been a spectacular recovery once the CFC emissions got cut.

Then it started thinning again, seasonally, eventually at both poles.

This time it was NON CFC ozone destroyers (bromide, chloride, NOx, SOx, etc).

But then the stratosphere got COLD ENOUGH TO FREEZE NITRIC ACID.

Now there was a seasonal mop up of ozone destroying agents, scrubbed out of the stratosphere as they dissolve into nitric acid, then freeze and fall to earth.

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

Before the ozone layer formed, less than 500 million years ago, life on land was pretty much impossible.

We almost destroyed it before we even understood what it was, what it does.

But I am TERRIBLE at explaining why part of climate change is that the stratosphere is, indeed, getting COLDER.

I'm counting on someone who can give a better explanation coming around.



Here is the word from NASA...

Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."


I was just thinking it is the generation of ozone in the ionosphere that generates heat, and if less of said activity is in operation, that would result in cooling.

Another cool thing I heard about the ionosphere is a radio wave can travel up to 62 miles bounced across there.


As sunlight strikes the atmosphere of Earth, it contains UV light. UV can also be grouped into three ranges of frequencies, known as UVa, UVb, and UVc (with UVc being the highest and most energetic frequency).

UVc is blocked by the presence of ozone. None of it reaches the surface. Fortunate. This frequency is quite dangerous to people. It's why you use a helmet and long sleeved clothing when arc welding.

When UVc is absorbed by ozone, the ozone is destroyed, being converted into oxygen. The effectively blocks UVc from getting any further into the atmosphere. This is an exothermic reaction, heating the atmosphere around it. This happens more at the top of stratosphere, especially in an area known as the stratopause.

UVb light can make it further into the atmosphere. Some of it (a small amount) even reaches the surface. Exposure to UVb causes sunburn over time (which varies by intensity).

When UVb light is absorbed by oxygen, ozone is created. This effectively blocks UVb light, reducing the intensity that reaches the surface by quite a lot. This is an endothermic reaction, taking thermal energy from the atmosphere around it, cooling it. This happens more at the bottom of the stratosphere (especially where it joins the troposphere, or the area known as the tropopause).

The end result of this is that the stratosphere has a temperature inversion. It gets warmer as you gain altitude. This is the opposite of the troposphere (the atmosphere from the surface up to about 30-40 thousand feet), which gets colder as you gain altitude.

Despite the temperature inversion, you still lose total thermal energy as you gain altitude, even in the stratosphere. This is due to the air getting thinner. Remember temperature is average thermal energy, not total thermal energy. This is according to the 0th law of thermodynamics.

The tropopause is the point where temperature stops dropping as you gain altitude, and essentially remains steady as you start to enter the stratosphere. It's the 'joint' you might say, where the troposphere and the stratosphere meet.

This is the best place for a jet engine. The air is coldest here, and therefore denser. You can stuff more air through the engine (increasing it's power). The air is less dense than the surface too, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. So you get more power from the engine and less drag.

A jet engine operating in the tropopause is the most efficient engine man has ever built.

The 2nd most efficient engine is the diesel-electric locomotive. Just ONE of these babies can haul a trainload of freight easily, thanks to steel wheels on steel tracks and the correspondingly low drag.

The Chapman cycle describes the creation and destruction of ozone. Ozone decays away each night, and is rebuilt each day. The greatest UVb reaching the surface is in the morning, before the ozone layer is built up again. For people not used to the Sun visiting areas where the Sun rides higher in the sky, such as a holiday beach in the tropics, limit your suntanning in the morning. Things are much safer to get your tan after about 2pm or so.

UVb causes sunburns. UVa causes tanning. Ozone blocks more UVb as it builds up each day. The morning is when you burn. You don't feel it until your skin reacts to the burn, say in the afternoon. You burn in the morning, but you feel it in the afternoon.

The worst UVb exposure to sunbathers is from 9am to 2pm. The Sun is highest, and the ozone layer isn't fully built up in that area yet.

I used to live in Hawaii, and watched folks from places like Seattle getting off the plane. Like maggots. For such visitors, I recommend just putting on your swimsuit at the hotel and stay in the hotel. You will tan INDOORS, just from the all the UV light bouncing around. After a day or two of this, they can safely hit the beach after 3pm...NEVER in the morning at all. By 9am, they will be burning. They won't feel it until the afternoon. Oft times it results in a 2nd degree burn, ruining their vacation and possibly resulting in a hospital stay.

Ya gotta respect that tropical Sun and what it can do if you aren't used to it.


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: It is only hard to find if you are an IDIOT!03-04-2022 20:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
It is only hard to find if your are an IDIOT!

"Aaaahhh, that's why you don't want anyone finding the article... you are ashamed of what you wrote back then."

I guess that could be one interpretation.

Others might observe that I have provided more than adequate reference for anyone who has the most rudimentary research skills to find it.

I guess that category doesn't include our "resident experts in science".

So, the only way you can find an article in NATURE is if someone gives you a link?

You must have had a tough time writing papers... never mind.

That would help explain why you are so knowledgeable, in any case.

Maybe this is more PROOF that I am just a LIAR!

That photo could be ANYONE!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Picture of sealover in pygmy forest. Nature. 1995. Anyone can find a photo of sealover in the pygmy forest.

This is where you should've used the subjunctive, i.e. "Anyone would have been able to find a photo of seal over in the pygmy forest by following the link I had provided if only I had been able to find a photo of seal over in the pygmy forest in order to share its link."

sealover wrote:It was with the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" article, in News and Views. Nature. 1995. FS Chapin III. Volume 377. Pages 199-200.

So why can't you find it?

sealover wrote:You can ridicule sealover for physical appearance as well as make fun of the gibber babble buzzword rant seal over published.

Aaaahhh, that's why you don't want anyone finding the article ... you are ashamed of what you wrote back then. So why don't you simply attach the photo to a post?
Page 2 of 13<1234>>>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Geneticaly modifying plants and trees for carbon capture?411-06-2022 09:21
Water Vapor And The Climate, Why Carbon Dioxide Is A Very Minor Player903-05-2022 16:54
Forgivable Carbon Sins...224-04-2022 05:52
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands8023-04-2022 17:38
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change4612-04-2022 18:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact