Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems > Page 18

Page 18 of 21

07-06-2023 20:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: As the stupid word games make clear, trolls have never studied chemistry in the real world. [quote]sealover wrote: Look up the definition for carbohydrate, and you will find the term "saccharide". Parrot Boy wouldn't know that. He could have won the debate by quoting Snarky's incorrect claim that lignin is a saccharide. A saccharide is a carbohydrate. sealover wrote: But all he knows is how to play word games and make contrarian assertions. You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. sealover wrote: Deny that lignin is found in cell walls, It isn't. sealover wrote: and try to make it about "fibrous" somehow. It isn't. sealover wrote: Kind of like "amphibious" versus the actual definition of amphibian. You still don't know what these words mean either, do you? sealover wrote: And this thread is completely covered in troll feces now. Yours. sealover wrote: Would have been nice to try to discuss the topic. You ARE discussing the topic. sealover wrote: Lignin comes in second after polyphenol as the chemical that most regulates carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling. Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. Carbon is a fuel. sealover wrote: Meanwhile, Parrot Boy STILL makes the absurd anti scientific assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate. Yet doesn't even know what a saccharide is. Both are carbohydrates. 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
07-06-2023 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins. [quote] MYSTERY SOLVED! Since "the entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins." And since lignin is NOT a protein. Lignin HAS to be a carbohydrate. Like every other non protein compound found in plants. They are ALL carbohydrates, according to the infallible expert in science. We are so lucky to have a plant chemistry expert such as Parrot Boy to enlighten us Thank you. I don't consider myself a 'plant chemistry expert', but I do know how photosynthesis works and what a carbohydrate is. 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
07-06-2023 20:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this. Why? Because an internet troll wrote it? sealover wrote: Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change. My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995. Nature will publish almost any kind of crap. Climate cannot change. Science isn't a magazine or a journal. sealover wrote: It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks. Science isn't a paper or a textbook. Science does not use consensus. sealover wrote: Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. Lignin IS a carbohydrate. sealover wrote: It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change. There is no 'science of climate change'. Climate cannot change. 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
07-06-2023 20:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: "Plant cell walls don't contain lignin" They don't. sealover wrote: Truly an extraordinary claim that defies (or simply denies) what has been asserted in scientific textbooks for more than 100 years. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not a textbook. sealover wrote: If someone can show that lignin is a carbohydrate, It is by definition. Nothing to show. sealover wrote: they will have to rewrite all the organic chemistry textbooks. It would be worth a Nobel Prize. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to award the Nobel prize either. Science isn't a prize or a book. sealover wrote: If someone can show that plant cell walls don't contain lignin, they will have to rewrite all the biology and botany textbooks. You don't get to quote every book. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: Then there will be the mystery of where is the lignin, if it is not in cell walls. No mystery. sealover wrote: What OTHER part of the plant contains lignin? I've never heard such a thing. Obviously. sealover wrote: But he made no attempt to address the reality of my published (and widely cited) research about lignin in the real world. Which is ONLY found in cell walls. Lignin is not in the cell walls. sealover wrote: Nobody ever claimed that lignin or polyphenols contain nitrogen, dumbas.. dumb as a scientifically illiterate Internet troll. Random phrase. No apparent coherency. 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: page 16 and 17 of thread have complete recap12-06-2023 10:42
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	If someone wants to see a recap of all the most relevant posts from this thread, they are all shown in chronological order, beginning half way down page 16, and covering most of page 17. The hundreds of posts of parrot poop that dominate most of this thread can be avoided by going directly to page 16 and going about half way down. Near the end of page 17 begins another long sequence of parrot poop posts. Parrot poop is most of what anyone can find on this website. One single scientifically illiterate troll accounts for nearly 20780 posts out of a total of 94176 posts on the site. They are all as pointless as the string of posts above this one. But sooner or later, someone who actually studied enough chemistry to know what organic carbon is may want to see the most relevant posts. Right now, almost all of them are on pages 16 and 17.

RE: cell wall decomposition - carbohydrates versus lignin21-06-2023 08:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	This paper came out 12 years ago in the highly prestigious journal SCIENCE. Of course, it cites the author of this thread for relevant work regarding lignin in decomposing plant litter. DC Eastwood, et al. 2011. The plant cell wall-decomposing machinery underlies the functional diversity of forest fungi. Science. Volume 333 issue 6043 pp 762-765. The carbohydrates cellulose and hemicellulose are found along with the phenolic polymer lignin as structural components in the cell walls of plants. The chemical differences between carbohydrates and phenolics require entirely different "machinery" in forest soil fungi to degrade them. The carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicellulose) can be degraded by "brown rot" fungi as a source of metabolic energy. Free living fungi (not in symbiosis with plant roots) can make a living from carbohydrate respiration. The phenolic polymer (lignin) is much more difficult to degrade. "White rot" fungi can do this, but they don't get metabolic energy from lignin respiration. They need an outside energy source (a symbiotic plant or a carbohydrate meal elsewhere) in order to tear apart the lignin. This makes the nitrogen tied up in ligno-protein complexes available for uptake.
RE: crop residue management21-06-2023 09:05
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	This widely cited paper from 1999 came out not long after the 1995 paper of mine that it cites. K. Kumar and KM Goh. 1999. Crop residues and management practices: effects on soil quality, nitrogen dynamics, crop yield, and nitrogen recovery. Advances in Agronomy. Volume 68 pages 197-319 This paper is a good background resource for someone genuinely interested in the topic of this thread.
21-06-2023 09:18
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	This 2016 paper, which cites yours truly, is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the thread topic. Wim W. van der Putten, et al. 2016. Where, when, and how plant-soil feedback matters in a changing world. Functional Ecology. Volume 30 pages 1109-1121. On the one hand, there is the basic research need to better understand plant-soil feedback to elucidate the natural world. On the other hand, there are global changes that are altering the conditions under which plant-soil feedbacks occur. Whether or not you believe in climate change of any kind, there is great practical value for better understanding of plant-soil feedbacks. In agriculture and forestry, for example. Especially, given the reality of climate change, there is great practical value for understanding the underlying biogeochemical mechanisms of plant-soil feedbacks. For example, agricultural practices will need to add greater amounts of organic matter to the soil than they did in the past, because the rate of soil organic matter loss due to respiration is greater now, with higher temperatures.
RE: minimizing nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate in waters21-06-2023 09:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	This 2006 paper rather extensively cites yours truly in an excellent review article. GV Subbarao, et al. 2006. Scope and strategies for regulation of nitrification in agricultural systems: Challenges and opportunities. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. Volume 25 Pages 303-305. This isn't about carbon sequestration at all. It is about how to minimize adverse impacts of nitrification in agricultural systems. Nitrification is the oxidation of ammonium to nitrate in a two step process by two different kinds of bacteria. It results in soil acidification as ammonium oxidizes to nitric acid. It results in nitrate becoming available to contaminate ground water or surface water. And it generates nitrous oxide, a VERY powerful greenhouse gas, as a by product. This paper offers excellent information on this important topic.
RE: carbon storage in soil - mechanisms21-06-2023 09:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	This 2020 paper cites my related work. It is a review of research into the mechanisms involved in soil carbon storage. I Basile-Doelsch et al. 2020. Reviews and synthesis: The mechanisms underlying carbon storage in soil. Biogeosciences. Volume 17 5223-5242. Highly relevant to this thread topic. Note: On pages 16 and 17 of this thread there is a compilation of all the most relevant posts from the first 15 and a half pages. Just scroll past all the parrots.
21-06-2023 10:13
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced. It is highly relevant to the thread topic. Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research. Volume 188 Pages 41-52. This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years. One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.
21-06-2023 10:14
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: This paper just came out two days ago. Sven Korz et al. 2023. Effect of grape pomace varieties and soil characteristics on the leaching potential of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Soil Systems. Volume 7(2) page 49- Quite relevant to the thread topic. Using different varieties of grape pomace as fertilizer, they tracked the movement of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Enriching soil organic carbon content and providing nitrogen fertilizer to the crop. They cited yours truly because my discovery enabled them to make sense of the results. They found that hydrolysable tannins (polyphenols) penetrated to more than 10 cm depth into the top soil. While the grape pomace added more organic nitrogen to the soil, the quantity of mineral nitrogen (ammonium or nitrate) leaching out of that zone DECREASED. They concluded that, as per my hypothesis, polyphenols bound up protein that was already in the soil, reducing the ability of microorganisms to mineralize it. The point of all the bragging is in case a viewer who has genuine interest in the thread topic wants to discuss it further, they will know that the active members of this website are not EXCLUSIVELY comprised of scientifically illiterate trolls. Organic nitrogen, versus mineral nitrogen is an important concept. Organic nitrogen is bound to carbon atoms. Not just any carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is bound to atoms of organic carbon. Ammonium carbonate, for example, is nitrogen bound to carbon. But that carbon is inorganic. Fully oxidized. Ammonium carbonate is mineral nitrogen. Urea H2N-C=O-NH2, Doesn't look clear here, but it is two amino groups bound to a carbonyl carbon. Carbonyl carbon is double bonded to oxygen. Kind of a gray area in terms of not being COMPLETELY oxidized carbon, but urea is not organic nitrogen. Proteins and amino acids are organic forms of nitrogen. The term "organic carbon" is clearly defined in any organic chemistry textbook. Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized forms of carbon - carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. Organic carbon is the thousands of OTHER carbon compounds that are in chemically reduced form. Organic carbon becomes inorganic carbon as soon as it oxidizes. Inorganic carbon becomes organic carbon as soon as it gets reduced. Such as during photosynthesis
21-06-2023 10:15
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Another publication came out earlier this year, citing yours truly, and making the connection between plant-litter-soil interactions and climate change. U. Schickhoff et al. 2023. The treeline ecotone in Rolwaling Himal, Nepal: Pattern-process relationships and treeline shift potential. IN Singh, S.P. et al. (eds) Ecology of Himalayan Treeline Ecotone. pages 95-145. This is about the fact that the Himalayan treeline is moving uphill to higher altitude, and efforts to identify variables to better predict future changes. Global warming is occurring more rapidly at the highest latitudes and the highest altitudes. "Warming trends across Nepal have increased to 0.2 degrees C per decade" This rate is a bit higher than the global average. "The treeline position in Rowling is lagging behind climate changes" Soils have already warmed enough that should permit tree growth at much higher altitude than before. The treeline has already moved to higher altitude, but not as rapidly as soil temperatures would predict. This is most notable where rhododendron thickets ("krummholz") occur above the treeline. And then it gets back to vegetation chemistry and the influence of polyphenols on the cycling of carbon and nitrogen, as well as the thermal insulation properties of the accumulated rhododendron litter layer. The trees are going to have to wait a while longer before they can move on up into these areas where rhododendron forms thick insulating litter layers and nitrogen is tied up in forms for which their ericoid mycorrhizal fungi have a competitive acquisition advantage.
21-06-2023 10:16
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Another good reference for the thread topic. Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation. And that isn't to taunt the trolls. It is in the hope that this will be taken seriously by someone who is interested in the topic. And perhaps would never join the discussion, or even read any of the other posts, without knowing that there is a participant who doesn't have to just make shit up about science. It is an excellent review article of many different investigations, in the highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal called Agronomy. (2021) Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882- The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself. Someone who takes genuine interest in the topic indicated by the thread title would want to read this. Whether they join the discussion or not. Others who have no genuine interest in the thread topic are allowed to just give it the silent treatment. It is okay to ignore this thread.
21-06-2023 10:17
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Yeah, they cited me. Apparently, the authors, reviewers, and publishers all agreed that it made sense to use the term "organic carbon" in the title. Maybe organic carbon really does exist, despite the fact that "carbon is an element." This paper is about forest management, not croplands. As per the thread title, these are agroecosystems. This paper is not based on climate change or concern about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. It is about soil productivity and its dependence on organic carbon. It is about preventing loss of soil organic carbon in order to avoid loss of loss of forest productivity.

21-06-2023 10:19
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate? Im a BM wrote: [quote](Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984). Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220. Yeah, they cited me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils. In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce. Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists. Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer. Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon. By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil.
21-06-2023 13:06
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	sealover wrote: sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate? Im a BM wrote: [quote](Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984). Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220. Yeah, they cited me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils. In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce. Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists. Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer. Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon. By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil. On what planet does this happen? What is a metal organic acid, aside from the Fantastic planet meaning that is. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
21-06-2023 19:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	No matter how many times sealover (or his sock Im a BM) want to spam; * carbon is not organic * nitrogen is not organic * carbon dioxide is not capable of warming the Earth * methane is not capable of warming the Earth * you can't acidify an alkaline He is not a scientist, chemist, or 'expert' of any kind. He is a pretender, relying on buzzword jabberwocky to confuse and distract.
21-06-2023 20:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Swan wrote: sealover wrote: sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate? Im a BM wrote: [quote](Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984). Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220. Yeah, they cited me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils. In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce. Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists. Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer. Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon. By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil. On what planet does this happen? What is a metal organic acid, aside from the Fantastic planet meaning that is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The term "metal organic acid" is new to me. I don't believe they exist. A metal COMPLEXING organic acid is another story. Metal complexing organic acids, often called "chelating agents", play a very important role in human physiology as well as in the biogeochemistry of soils. When the organic acid is deprotonated (dissociated into hydrogen ion and organic anion), it can form an ionic or covalent bond with a metal cation. Without metal complexing organic acids to chelate iron, the concentration of bioavailable iron in sea water would be too low to support much photosynthesis. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as vitamin C (ascorbic acid), to chelate iron, our bodies could not absorb any iron from the food we eat. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as the phenol carboxylic acids in polyphenols, the iron, aluminum, and manganese in Podzol (Spodosol) soils would not be transported downward into deeper soil layers as it is stripped away from the uppermost layer, leaving behind acidified white sand. If you have dyslexia, as I do, I can empathize with the error of thinking that you read "metal organic acid" when the text said "metal complexing organic acid."
21-06-2023 20:54
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: No matter how many times sealover (or his sock Im a BM) want to spam; * carbon is not organic * nitrogen is not organic * carbon dioxide is not capable of warming the Earth * methane is not capable of warming the Earth * you can't acidify an alkaline He is not a scientist, chemist, or 'expert' of any kind. He is a pretender, relying on buzzword jabberwocky to confuse and distract. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most carbon on earth is NOT organic. The largest "pool" of carbon on earth is INORGANIC carbon. Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form - carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. Organic carbon is in chemically reduced form. It is much more chemically versatile than inorganic carbon, capable of forming thousands and thousands of different compounds. As far as life is concerned, the most important difference between organic carbon and inorganic carbon is that energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Most nitrogen on earth is NOT organic. Nitrogen gas in the atmosphere, as well ammonium and nitrate in soil and water are NOT organic nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is covalently bonded to organic carbon. Proteins and amino acids, for example, are ORGANIC nitrogen. The nitrogen in the amino group is covalently bonded to the organic carbon in the protein or amino acid. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that increases the retention time of heat in the lower atmosphere. Ultimately, it all goes back out to space as infrared radiation, but it sticks around longer with greenhouse gases in the air. Methane is a greenhouse that is 20-30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in its global warming potential. This is based both on the inherent capacity of each gas to absorb infrared, and on the different residence times of each gas in the atmosphere. You probably can't acidify "an alkaline", if there really is such a thing as "an alkaline". Ocean "acidification" is one of those terms we're stuck with because too many people already agreed to use it. The ocean is not acidic, nor is it in danger of becoming acidic (pH less than 7) The problem with the ocean is that human activity has added a lot of carbonic acid. The pH has barely shifted. Still above 8. But the carbonate system has shifted. There are higher concentrations of carbonic acid, and lower concentrations of carbonate ion. It is the depletion of alkalinity, manifest in diminished concentrations of carbonate ion, rather than a discernable pH shift, that is of concern to scientists. I'll continue to post references to relevant papers that cite my research and discoveries. Only a scientifically illiterate troll would suggest that I am not a scientist, chemist, or "expert" of any kind. If a new viewer is interested, all the most relevant posts from this thread are compiled on pages 16 and 17, to be available without parrot interference.
22-06-2023 02:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: Swan wrote: sealover wrote: sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate? Im a BM wrote: [quote](Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984). Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220. Yeah, they cited me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils. In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce. Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists. Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer. Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon. By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil. On what planet does this happen? What is a metal organic acid, aside from the Fantastic planet meaning that is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The term "metal organic acid" is new to me. I don't believe they exist. A metal COMPLEXING organic acid is another story. Metal complexing organic acids, often called "chelating agents", play a very important role in human physiology as well as in the biogeochemistry of soils. When the organic acid is deprotonated (dissociated into hydrogen ion and organic anion), it can form an ionic or covalent bond with a metal cation. Without metal complexing organic acids to chelate iron, the concentration of bioavailable iron in sea water would be too low to support much photosynthesis. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as vitamin C (ascorbic acid), to chelate iron, our bodies could not absorb any iron from the food we eat. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as the phenol carboxylic acids in polyphenols, the iron, aluminum, and manganese in Podzol (Spodosol) soils would not be transported downward into deeper soil layers as it is stripped away from the uppermost layer, leaving behind acidified white sand. If you have dyslexia, as I do, I can empathize with the error of thinking that you read "metal organic acid" when the text said "metal complexing organic acid." There is no such thing as 'metal complexing organic acid'. Buzzword fallacy. 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
22-06-2023 03:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	sealover wrote: Most carbon on earth is NOT organic. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: The largest "pool" of carbon on earth is INORGANIC carbon. Carbon is not a pool. It is not organic. sealover wrote: Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form - carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Organic carbon is in chemically reduced form. It is much more chemically versatile than inorganic carbon, capable of forming thousands and thousands of different compounds. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: As far as life is concerned, the most important difference between organic carbon and inorganic carbon is that energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Most nitrogen on earth is NOT organic. Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Nitrogen gas in the atmosphere, as well ammonium and nitrate in soil and water are NOT organic nitrogen. Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Organic nitrogen is covalently bonded to organic carbon. Nitrogen is not organic. Carbon is not organic. sealover wrote: Proteins and amino acids, for example, are ORGANIC nitrogen. The nitrogen in the amino group is covalently bonded to the organic carbon in the protein or amino acid. It is not. Nitrogen is not organic. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that increases the retention time of heat in the lower atmosphere. You cannot trap heat. sealover wrote: Ultimately, it all goes back out to space as infrared radiation, but it sticks around longer with greenhouse gases in the air. You cannot trap heat. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law for ANY length of time. sealover wrote: Methane is a greenhouse that is 20-30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in its global warming potential. 20-30 times zero is still zero. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. sealover wrote: This is based both on the inherent capacity of each gas to absorb infrared, and on the different residence times of each gas in the atmosphere. Absorption of infrared light from the surface does not heat the Earth. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. sealover wrote: You probably can't acidify "an alkaline", if there really is such a thing as "an alkaline". There is. sealover wrote: Ocean "acidification" is one of those terms we're stuck with because too many people already agreed to use it. You cannot acidify an alkaline. sealover wrote: The ocean is not acidic, nor is it in danger of becoming acidic (pH less than 7) The problem with the ocean is that human activity has added a lot of carbonic acid. None. sealover wrote: The pH has barely shifted. Still above 8. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. sealover wrote: But the carbonate system has shifted. There is no 'carbonate system'. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: There are higher concentrations of carbonic acid, It is not possible to measure the global concentration of carbonic acid. sealover wrote: and lower concentrations of carbonate ion. Carbonate is not a chemical or ion. sealover wrote: It is the depletion of alkalinity, No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: manifest in diminished concentrations of carbonate ion, No such chemical or ion. sealover wrote: rather than a discernable pH shift, It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. sealover wrote: that is of concern to scientists. Void reference fallacy. Discard of science. Discard of chemistry. Discard of mathematics. sealover wrote: I'll continue to post references to relevant papers that cite my research and discoveries. Pretending that you are a 'scientist' doesn't make you one. sealover wrote: Only a scientifically illiterate troll would suggest that I am not a scientist, chemist, or "expert" of any kind. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU denying and discarding science (including chemistry) and mathematics. sealover wrote: If a new viewer is interested, all the most relevant posts from this thread are compiled on pages 16 and 17, to be available without parrot interference. Spamming does not make you correct and can get you banned from this site. 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
22-06-2023 07:45
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Still think removing CO2 is a dangerous, possibly planet-killing, moronic approach to testing a hypothesis. Specially, since CO2 is being attack on so many fronts all at once. Plant life will die off long before the average 150 ppm. There is no accurate means to regulate, stop all sequestration, or quickly adjust CO2 levels to any minimal range. Plants are only getting about half, of what is ideal for them anyway. Fortunately, plants will likely survive, and eventually recover. Most everything else that feeds off plants will starve first. Some will survive as well. Humans will likely kill more of themselves, fighting over food, than starve.
22-06-2023 16:25
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	sealover wrote: Swan wrote: sealover wrote: sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Does it have the same effect in other-than-spruce forests, or forests that are not temperate? Im a BM wrote: [quote](Northup et al. 1998;Thomas and Hargrove 1984). Northup RR, Dahlgren RA, McColl JG (1998) Polyphenols as regulators of plantlitter-soil interactions in northern California's pygmy forest: a positive feedback? Biogeochemistry 42:189–220. Yeah, they cited me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The effect is consistent with what is seen throughout the world on podzol soils. In this case, what is growing on the podzol happens to be spruce. Podzols can be found from the equator to Siberia. Indeed, the term "podzol" is from the early Russian soil scientists. Podzols form under humid conditions when the soil parent material is of very high silica content. Metal complexing organic acids leaching out of the forest floor strip away what little aluminum, iron, and manganese was present in the uppermost part of the mineral soil. This leaves behind an acidified white sand layer of nearly pure quartz. Roots don't even try to get nutrients from this layer. Podzols are very vulnerable to poor management. For example, when subjected to slash and burn agriculture, they rapidly diminish in productivity, as they rapidly lose the organic carbon from the soil. It is difficult to restore productivity after the soil nutrients, which were scarce in the first place, are lost along with the organic carbon. By leaving the slash from tree thinning operations on the soil surface, they dramatically improved retention of organic carbon and associated nutrients in the underlying soil. On what planet does this happen? What is a metal organic acid, aside from the Fantastic planet meaning that is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The term "metal organic acid" is new to me. I don't believe they exist. A metal COMPLEXING organic acid is another story. Metal complexing organic acids, often called "chelating agents", play a very important role in human physiology as well as in the biogeochemistry of soils. When the organic acid is deprotonated (dissociated into hydrogen ion and organic anion), it can form an ionic or covalent bond with a metal cation. Without metal complexing organic acids to chelate iron, the concentration of bioavailable iron in sea water would be too low to support much photosynthesis. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as vitamin C (ascorbic acid), to chelate iron, our bodies could not absorb any iron from the food we eat. Without metal complexing organic acids, such as the phenol carboxylic acids in polyphenols, the iron, aluminum, and manganese in Podzol (Spodosol) soils would not be transported downward into deeper soil layers as it is stripped away from the uppermost layer, leaving behind acidified white sand. If you have dyslexia, as I do, I can empathize with the error of thinking that you read "metal organic acid" when the text said "metal complexing organic acid." Is this jr high school chemistry? Why are you not more concerned with the mathematical impossibility of the existence of the universe without 85% more mass and energy? Or could sulfur consuming microbes be related to methane consuming life on Titan or Europa for example. Or more important yet how did life which is a molecular computer program begin, and did it begin on the Earth, and how would Earth life adapt to Mars? Or do you just believe what Darwin who never saw DNA babbled because you were told to believe or fail? See I have no such restrictions and yes sir no sir ass-holes like you are just jealous PS. What is the most perfect example of a full mental retard? Answer, a person with a 150 plus IQ who chooses to sit on top of millions of tons of TNT and blast off. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-06-2023 18:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote: Why are you not more concerned with the mathematical impossibility of the existence of the universe without 85% more mass and energy? The universe is a mathematical certainty. I'm not sure how you missed it. Swan wrote: Or could sulfur consuming microbes be related to methane consuming life on Titan or Europa for example. Yep, this is totally related to the certainty of the universe, which is junior high school chemistry, as you noted. Swan wrote: Or more important yet how did life which is a molecular computer program begin, How silly of me to not realize this previously, but now that you put it that way, it's all so patently obvious. life is/are AI computer programs written on quantum organic molecules. My money is on the answer being "42". Swan wrote: and did it begin on the Earth, and how would Earth life adapt to Mars? I think it started in California, i.e. on an entirely different planet, but found a way to adapt to environments devoid of any fire seasons. Swan wrote:Or do you just believe what Darwin who never saw DNA babbled Do you have any idea what Charles Darwin "babbled"? Is that a "no"? Swan wrote:PS. What is the most perfect example of a full mental retard? Someone who comments on what Charles Darwin didn't write because he doesn't even have the vaguest clue what Charles Darwin did write.
RE: re:Cattle-crap22-06-2023 19:43
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: No matter how many times sealover (or his sock Im a BM) want to spam; * carbon is not organic * nitrogen is not organic * carbon dioxide is not capable of warming the Earth * methane is not capable of warming the Earth * you can't acidify an alkaline He is not a scientist, chemist, or 'expert' of any kind. He is a pretender, relying on buzzword jabberwocky to confuse and distract. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most carbon on earth is NOT organic. The largest "pool" of carbon on earth is INORGANIC carbon. Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form - carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. Organic carbon is in chemically reduced form. It is much more chemically versatile than inorganic carbon, capable of forming thousands and thousands of different compounds. As far as life is concerned, the most important difference between organic carbon and inorganic carbon is that energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized to inorganic carbon. Most nitrogen on earth is NOT organic. Nitrogen gas in the atmosphere, as well ammonium and nitrate in soil and water are NOT organic nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is covalently bonded to organic carbon. Proteins and amino acids, for example, are ORGANIC nitrogen. The nitrogen in the amino group is covalently bonded to the organic carbon in the protein or amino acid. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that increases the retention time of heat in the lower atmosphere. Ultimately, it all goes back out to space as infrared radiation, but it sticks around longer with greenhouse gases in the air. Methane is a greenhouse that is 20-30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in its global warming potential. This is based both on the inherent capacity of each gas to absorb infrared, and on the different residence times of each gas in the atmosphere. You probably can't acidify "an alkaline", if there really is such a thing as "an alkaline". Ocean "acidification" is one of those terms we're stuck with because too many people already agreed to use it. The ocean is not acidic, nor is it in danger of becoming acidic (pH less than 7) The problem with the ocean is that human activity has added a lot of carbonic acid. The pH has barely shifted. Still above 8. But the carbonate system has shifted. There are higher concentrations of carbonic acid, and lower concentrations of carbonate ion. It is the depletion of alkalinity, manifest in diminished concentrations of carbonate ion, rather than a discernable pH shift, that is of concern to scientists. I'll continue to post references to relevant papers that cite my research and discoveries. Only a scientifically illiterate troll would suggest that I am not a scientist, chemist, or "expert" of any kind. If a new viewer is interested, all the most relevant posts from this thread are compiled on pages 16 and 17, to be available without parrot interference. Bovine manure is widely used as fertilizer. Which helps plants grow, if provided sufficient sunlight, CO2, and H20. How else are vegans suppose to get their food, if people don't continue consuming animal flesh?
22-06-2023 20:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21583)	HarveyH55 wrote: Still think removing CO2 is a dangerous, possibly planet-killing, moronic approach to testing a hypothesis. Specially, since CO2 is being attack on so many fronts all at once. Plant life will die off long before the average 150 ppm. There is no accurate means to regulate, stop all sequestration, or quickly adjust CO2 levels to any minimal range. Plants are only getting about half, of what is ideal for them anyway. Fortunately, plants will likely survive, and eventually recover. Most everything else that feeds off plants will starve first. Some will survive as well. Humans will likely kill more of themselves, fighting over food, than starve. Fortunately, it is not possible to remove the CO2. 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
22-06-2023 23:02
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Why are you not more concerned with the mathematical impossibility of the existence of the universe without 85% more mass and energy? The universe is a mathematical certainty. I'm not sure how you missed it. Swan wrote: Or could sulfur consuming microbes be related to methane consuming life on Titan or Europa for example. Yep, this is totally related to the certainty of the universe, which is junior high school chemistry, as you noted. Swan wrote: Or more important yet how did life which is a molecular computer program begin, How silly of me to not realize this previously, but now that you put it that way, it's all so patently obvious. life is/are AI computer programs written on quantum organic molecules. My money is on the answer being "42". Swan wrote: and did it begin on the Earth, and how would Earth life adapt to Mars? I think it started in California, i.e. on an entirely different planet, but found a way to adapt to environments devoid of any fire seasons. Swan wrote:Or do you just believe what Darwin who never saw DNA babbled Do you have any idea what Charles Darwin "babbled"? Is that a "no"? Swan wrote:PS. What is the most perfect example of a full mental retard? Someone who comments on what Charles Darwin didn't write because he doesn't even have the vaguest clue what Charles Darwin did write. Nope, no universal math adds up to the universe even being there, which is why some physicist are now saying that the universe is a simulation. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-06-2023 01:21
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Why are you not more concerned with the mathematical impossibility of the existence of the universe without 85% more mass and energy? The universe is a mathematical certainty. I'm not sure how you missed it. Swan wrote: Or could sulfur consuming microbes be related to methane consuming life on Titan or Europa for example. Yep, this is totally related to the certainty of the universe, which is junior high school chemistry, as you noted. Swan wrote: Or more important yet how did life which is a molecular computer program begin, How silly of me to not realize this previously, but now that you put it that way, it's all so patently obvious. life is/are AI computer programs written on quantum organic molecules. My money is on the answer being "42". Swan wrote: and did it begin on the Earth, and how would Earth life adapt to Mars? I think it started in California, i.e. on an entirely different planet, but found a way to adapt to environments devoid of any fire seasons. Swan wrote:Or do you just believe what Darwin who never saw DNA babbled Do you have any idea what Charles Darwin "babbled"? Is that a "no"? Swan wrote:PS. What is the most perfect example of a full mental retard? Someone who comments on what Charles Darwin didn't write because he doesn't even have the vaguest clue what Charles Darwin did write. I know exactly what chucky Darwin babbled My dear Hooker, ... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. Babbles because not even one gene could form from nothing and literally everyone now knows this, but Darwin never saw a gene, he thought life was goo IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-06-2023 10:26
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Another falsifiable hypothesis I published. As I run away from every question, I offer another published falsifiable hypothesis for you to shred up with your superior scientific knowledge and with your superior debating skills. [b]1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. pages 369-380. IN Inderjit (ed.) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press. [/b] Or you could go with EITHER paper from Nature, 1995 or 1998. It should be easy for a scientific genius such as yourself to expose my scientific fraud using published words of my own that I simply cannot run away from.

23-06-2023 10:28
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [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
23-06-2023 10:30
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: Im a BM wrote: James_ wrote: If my experiment shows that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer then carbon sequestration would need to be a reversible process. This is because if ODSs are not reduced then where would gasses for the ozone layer come from? quoting NOAA who is quoting the IPCC; [quote]Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. Im a BM wrote: for Roj475 another major area that might be of interest for discussion, rather than "debate". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]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. James, you might want to check something out before you submit your paper for review. From the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics volume 17 12893-12910 This 2017 paper by Khosrawi et al is titled "Denitrification, dehydration and ozone loss during the 2015/2016 Artic winter." The first sentence of the abstract: "The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years." While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters. When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification". Apparently there is no "unambiguous definition" for the term (making it a "buzzword"?), because "denitrification" ALSO means microbial nitrate reduction to form nitrogen gas, and by product nitrous oxide. "Denitrification" in soil and water at the earth's surface is the largest source of nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere. As you note, nitrous oxide plays a role in the stratosphere. With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process. With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters, nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form. By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover. I encourage you to study up a bit on stratospheric denitrification, which happens when some of that nitric acid freezes. It might help you complete the puzzle you are working on
23-06-2023 10:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: There is a tiny chance that someone other than an Internet troll will read this. Carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling are very important regarding climate change. Polyphenols and lignin are very important regarding carbon sequestration and nitrogen cycling. My most famous scientific paper was published in the journal Nature, in 1995. It has been cited in 765 different peer-reviewed scientific papers and textbooks. It includes lignin research and proves that lignin is NOT the most important regulator of nitrogen cycling. The paper: Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. 1995. Nature. Volume 377. Pages 227-229. Quoting from Figure 2 - "...and lignin was measured by the acid detergent method (reference #30). Regressions of these parameters versus the ratio of DON:mineral nitrogen were as follows: Condensed tannins (r2 = 0.99, p = <0.001), total phenolics (r2 = 0.90, p = <0.001), C:N ratio (r2 = 0.76, p = <0.001), and lignin (not significant)." In the pine litter samples studied, lignin ranged from 20-40%. But release of mineral nitrogen was not significantly correlated to lignin. However, it was highly significantly correlated to condensed tannin and total phenolic content. Scientists in the real world who know what lignin is and study it took this very seriously. It has been known for more than a century that lignin can form strong complexes with protein. These ligno protein complexes are very difficult for microorganisms to degrade. Release of mineral nitrogen from them is slow. Lignin can also form strong complexes with carbohydrates. These lignin-carbohydrate complexes are a common component of cell walls, where all the lignin is found. The acid detergent method separates all carbohydrates from lignin-carbohydrate complexes, dissolving the saccharide and leaving behind the lignin as insoluble residue. Note: for a one-word unambiguous definition of carbohydrate, use "saccharide". All carbohydrates are saccharides, and all saccharides are carbohydrates. Mono saccharides include glucose and fructose. Di saccharides include sucrose (glucose + fructose) and lactose (glucose + galactose). Oligosaccharides include starch and cellulose, as well as hemi celluloses. All saccharides dissolve in acid detergent. Lignin is not a carbohydrate. For decades ecologists had debated whether or not carbon:nitrogen ratio or lignin was a better predictor for nitrogen release from decomposing organic matter. My 1995 paper in Nature blew it wide open. It is still possible someone that will join the website who wants to discuss this kind of real world science as it applies to climate change.
23-06-2023 10:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: ]Into the Night wrote:. Lignin is a carbohydrate. . Plant cell walls don't contain lignin. [quote]. Lignin is a complex polymer comprised primarily of aromatic phenols. It is a structural component found in the cell walls of woody plants. It can form strong complexes with carbohydrates and proteins Ecologists have long been interested in what lignin does when it gets into the soil. The nitrogen bound in protein tannin complexes is difficult for microorganisms to mineralize, and this nitrogen cycles very slowly. Ecologists also long believed that lignin was the primary source of humic acids in soil, responsible for producing stable organic matter with centuries long mean residence time. My (1995) paper in Nature was the first to show that lignin wasn't necessarily the most important regulator to influence nitrogen cycling. Plenty of lignin research cited it, but the paper was only a few pages long. Minimal lignin discussion. My (1998) paper in Biogeochemistry has a great more detail about lignin. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions... Biogeochemistry. Volume 42 pages 189-220. It has been cited in 456 different peer-reviewed scientific papers or textbooks. 31 pages long, it includes extensive discussion about lignin. And it is highly relevant to the topic of this thread.
23-06-2023 10:35
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Among the papers that cited the 1998 Biogeochemistry paper, this is one of the ones I am most proud to have influenced. It is highly relevant to the thread topic. Claire Chenu et al. 2019. Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research. Volume 188 Pages 41-52. This paper has been cited in 433 different peer-reviewed papers, etc., and will likely pick up a whole lot more in the next few years. One day someone might view this who is interested in this topic.
23-06-2023 10:36
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: This paper just came out two days ago. Sven Korz et al. 2023. Effect of grape pomace varieties and soil characteristics on the leaching potential of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Soil Systems. Volume 7(2) page 49- Quite relevant to the thread topic. Using different varieties of grape pomace as fertilizer, they tracked the movement of total carbon, nitrogen, and polyphenols. Enriching soil organic carbon content and providing nitrogen fertilizer to the crop. They cited yours truly because my discovery enabled them to make sense of the results. They found that hydrolysable tannins (polyphenols) penetrated to more than 10 cm depth into the top soil. While the grape pomace added more organic nitrogen to the soil, the quantity of mineral nitrogen (ammonium or nitrate) leaching out of that zone DECREASED. They concluded that, as per my hypothesis, polyphenols bound up protein that was already in the soil, reducing the ability of microorganisms to mineralize it. The point of all the bragging is in case a viewer who has genuine interest in the thread topic wants to discuss it further, they will know that the active members of this website are not EXCLUSIVELY comprised of scientifically illiterate trolls. Organic nitrogen, versus mineral nitrogen is an important concept. Organic nitrogen is bound to carbon atoms. Not just any carbon atoms. Organic nitrogen is bound to atoms of organic carbon. Ammonium carbonate, for example, is nitrogen bound to carbon. But that carbon is inorganic. Fully oxidized. Ammonium carbonate is mineral nitrogen. Urea H2N-C=O-NH2, Doesn't look clear here, but it is two amino groups bound to a carbonyl carbon. Carbonyl carbon is double bonded to oxygen. Kind of a gray area in terms of not being COMPLETELY oxidized carbon, but urea is not organic nitrogen. Proteins and amino acids are organic forms of nitrogen. The term "organic carbon" is clearly defined in any organic chemistry textbook. Inorganic carbon is fully oxidized forms of carbon - carbon dioxide, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. Organic carbon is the thousands of OTHER carbon compounds that are in chemically reduced form. Organic carbon becomes inorganic carbon as soon as it oxidizes. Inorganic carbon becomes organic carbon as soon as it gets reduced. Such as during photosynthesis.
23-06-2023 10:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Another publication came out earlier this year, citing yours truly, and making the connection between plant-litter-soil interactions and climate change. U. Schickhoff et al. 2023. The treeline ecotone in Rolwaling Himal, Nepal: Pattern-process relationships and treeline shift potential. IN Singh, S.P. et al. (eds) Ecology of Himalayan Treeline Ecotone. pages 95-145. This is about the fact that the Himalayan treeline is moving uphill to higher altitude, and efforts to identify variables to better predict future changes. Global warming is occurring more rapidly at the highest latitudes and the highest altitudes. "Warming trends across Nepal have increased to 0.2 degrees C per decade" This rate is a bit higher than the global average. "The treeline position in Rowling is lagging behind climate changes" Soils have already warmed enough that should permit tree growth at much higher altitude than before. The treeline has already moved to higher altitude, but not as rapidly as soil temperatures would predict. This is most notable where rhododendron thickets ("krummholz") occur above the treeline. And then it gets back to vegetation chemistry and the influence of polyphenols on the cycling of carbon and nitrogen, as well as the thermal insulation properties of the accumulated rhododendron litter layer. The trees are going to have to wait a while longer before they can move on up into these areas where rhododendron forms thick insulating litter layers and nitrogen is tied up in forms for which their ericoid mycorrhizal fungi have a competitive acquisition advantage.
23-06-2023 10:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Another good reference for the thread topic. Needless to say, they acknowledge my scientific discoveries with a citation. And that isn't to taunt the trolls. It is in the hope that this will be taken seriously by someone who is interested in the topic. And perhaps would never join the discussion, or even read any of the other posts, without knowing that there is a participant who doesn't have to just make shit up about science. It is an excellent review article of many different investigations, in the highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal called Agronomy. (2021) Alexandra Tiefenbacher et al. 2021. Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy. Volume 11(5) Pages 882- The paper speaks for itself. The title speaks for itself. Someone who takes genuine interest in the topic indicated by the thread title would want to read this. Whether they join the discussion or not. Others who have no genuine interest in the thread topic are allowed to just give it the silent treatment. It is okay to ignore this thread.
23-06-2023 10:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: This paper, which refers to "organic carbon" in the title, came out earlier this year. Meisam Nazari et al. 2023. Keeping thinning-derived deadwood logs on forest floor improves soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity in a temperate spruce forest. European Journal of Forest Research. Volume 142. Pages 287-300. Yeah, they cited me. Apparently, the authors, reviewers, and publishers all agreed that it made sense to use the term "organic carbon" in the title. Maybe organic carbon really does exist, despite the fact that "carbon is an element." This paper is about forest management, not croplands. As per the thread title, these are agroecosystems. This paper is not based on climate change or concern about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. It is about soil productivity and its dependence on organic carbon. It is about preventing loss of soil organic carbon in order to avoid loss of loss of forest productivity.
23-06-2023 10:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote: Soil science is a major underlying theme in discussion of carbon sequestration. My first significant paper about these things was published in 1995. (Yours truly et al). 1995. Intraspecific variation of conifer phenolic concentration on a marine terrace soil acidity gradient; A new interpretation. Plant and Soil. Volume 171, pages 255-262. These coastal terraces on have soils ranging from pH 5 on the youngest and most fertile terrace to pH 3 on the oldest and least fertile terrace. The pygmy forest grows on ancient soils (ranging from 300000 to 500000 years of soil development) that are EXTREMELY infertile and strongly acidic. It was an ideal opportunity to investigate the mechanisms that enable oligotrophic ecosystems to sustain productivity over geologic time, recycling a tiny pool of nutrients under conditions of high potential leaching loss. It turns out that the same mechanisms that prevent nutrient loss also prevent loss of soil organic carbon. The "gibber babble" will be meaningless to scientifically illiterate trolls. Sooner or later, someone will join the discussion who understands actual science and the "gibber babble" used to communicate it. It may be of historic interest to have a reference for what was literally the first paper published on this particular topic - chemical adaptations to extreme soil conditions. The trolls may continue to insist that I don't even know what science is. That's okay. Other scientists take my work pretty seriously. Maybe the next post should get into some of the papers that CITED this one, coming out after 1995, because they continue right up to this year. And since a fundamental requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be "reproducible", it is an important reality test after a discovery is published to see if other scientists can confirm it. In fact, obvious proof that a "discovery" was NOT valid is if nobody ever bothers to cite it because it wasn't reproducible. Of if the only citations are to refute it. It's okay if I get nothing but insults down here in the rabbit hole. I get plenty of praise from real scientists in the real world

Page 18 of 21

Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	96	23-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'	8	21-06-2023 12:55
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	52	16-06-2023 09:44