Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Im a BM wrote: It is ironic that those who didn't have what it takes to even complete an undergraduate degree in science think they know how to criticize the accomplishments of actual scientists.

Im a BM wrote: There is much more to be proud of as a scientific has been than a scientific nobody who never was and never will be.

HarveyH55 wrote: He could have the library he always wanted, learn about running a site, at the beginner level. Gets to ban trolls, delete/edit posts, run the site anyway he wants.

HarveyH55 wrote: I'd of course join his site, just to earn the 'ban-badge'. Figure most of us here wouldn't even make it past the first post or two.

HarveyH55 wrote: I wonder if since it would be a climate-indoctrination discussion group, if he could get grant money, for removing adds, and the premium options.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
A brief introduction to some of the better known radio services and their propagation path.

Actually Amplitude modulation AM waves and Frequency modulation FM and Very Low Frequency VLF waves all propagate on different paths.
AM is a type of modulation, not a frequency. FM is a type of modulation not a frequency. VLF frequencies follow the land, even going underwater a fair bit. This make them useful for signaling submarines, though the bandwidth is necessarily very limited. Voice can't be used. It's not good enough for audio.

Swan wrote:

CIAO Charlie

Now can we get to secure quantum entangled wireless computational links already, this obsolete stuff is boring the hey out of me. SQEL for short.

Buzzword fallacy.

LOL the fool that is still living in the past does not understand quantum entangled networking, calls cubits a buzzword which makes you qualified to run investigations for the FBI.

130 well verified

Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Attempted insult(?). No argument presented.

LOL you can't even begin to initiate a quantum entangled photon networking conversation so your brain declares entanglement bogus. This is how schizzo minds work

Random phrases. Random buzzwords. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.

Swan wrote: Says the local troll n chief.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Says the local troll n chief.

Hold the phone one cotton-picking minute ...

Why is he the "troll in chief"? My being the "dominant troll" is well documented. I think you owe me an apology. You are just going to have to rescind Into the Night's award, I'm sorry.

Don't make me lodge a formal complaint. Don't make me drag Squeal Over into this or bring trafn back.

Im a BM wrote:
A new paper came out, and I've only seen the abstract so far.

I won't know exactly why they cited my research until I read the whole thing.

But it is highly relevant to this thread topic.


Frouz, J, and K. Jandova. 2023. Soluble phenols in litter are reduced during passage through the soil macrofauna gut due to formation of insoluble complexes with proteins: A case study with isopods and Diptera larvae. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Volume 187. Pages (?-?).



It's about making sense of what regulates the gain or loss of soil organic matter.

Macrofauna detritivores (e.g. earthworms, isopods, diptera) accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter.

According to the abstract, the polyphenols in the decomposing litter form insoluble complexes with proteins in the detritivore gut.

This is why ecologists used to call polyphenols (tannins) "digestibility reducing agents".

They also reduce emission of methane from cow guts.

There is a chance that this will be seen by someone who is actually interested in having a rational discussion about the science related to climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
They might be pleased to see that in addition to trolls insulting everybody, there is a PhD scientist willing to discuss complex issues regarding carbon cycling, etc.

Into the Night wrote:

There is no rational discussion about the 'science related to climate change'.
Climate cannot change. There is no 'science of climate change'.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
A new paper came out, and I've only seen the abstract so far.

I won't know exactly why they cited my research until I read the whole thing.

But it is highly relevant to this thread topic.


Frouz, J, and K. Jandova. 2023. Soluble phenols in litter are reduced during passage through the soil macrofauna gut due to formation of insoluble complexes with proteins: A case study with isopods and Diptera larvae. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Volume 187. Pages (?-?).



It's about making sense of what regulates the gain or loss of soil organic matter.

Macrofauna detritivores (e.g. earthworms, isopods, diptera) accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter.

According to the abstract, the polyphenols in the decomposing litter form insoluble complexes with proteins in the detritivore gut.

This is why ecologists used to call polyphenols (tannins) "digestibility reducing agents".

They also reduce emission of methane from cow guts.

There is a chance that this will be seen by someone who is actually interested in having a rational discussion about the science related to climate change.

They might be pleased to see that in addition to trolls insulting everybody, there is a PhD scientist willing to discuss complex issues regarding carbon cycling, etc.

A PhD scientist whose published work gets cited in the newest literature.

Never cuts and pastes material without even understanding what it says.

Never cuts and pastes anything. Not even the citation for this new paper.

Swan wrote:

Retard alert, the paper does not cite litter, which can be literally anything from rubber tires to arsenic, the paper quotes PLANT LITTER

it's about making sense of what regulates the gain or loss of soil organic matter.

Macrofauna detritivores (e.g. earthworms, isopods, diptera) accelerate the decomposition of soil organic matter.

According to the abstract, the polyphenols in the decomposing litter form insoluble complexes with proteins in the detritivore gut.

This is why ecologists used to call polyphenols (tannins) "digestibility reducing agents".

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Retard alert, the paper does not cite litter, which can be literally anything from rubber tires to arsenic, the paper quotes PLANT LITTER

The litter he mentioned discusses phenolics. I checked and this includes tannins.
https://www.englishwoodlandstimber.co.uk/talk-tannin-oak-chestnut-cladding-beam/

It's the chemical bonds it forms. The litter you mention in leaves also affect the trees that grew those leaves. A high tannin level in woodworking can be good. When you stain wood you like having a nice even stain, right?
And as the article on woodworking mentions, tannins (phenol) reacts to water. And when leaves "litter", their concentration of phenols is higher. This suggests that oxidation will occur. It might be like iron, water and air, iron oxide occurs. That's an electrolysis process. Different molecules create an electrical charge that affects the iron and other molecules it is interacting with.

If you look at soft woods, they have fewer phenols and need a pre-treatment that mimics phenols. Stains it seems adhere to phenols in the wood. It acts as a binding agent. Hardwoods have more phenols than soft woods do. So if you want to do woodworking you'll need to consider what will affect your finished product.
With that said, placing nails I think it's in rubbing alcohol will produce phenols. Steel wool also works. Then the solution will be richer in phenols so you can wet your wood with it before staining. And now I know why I prefer working with hardwoods.

p.s., With steel wool, I guess it needs to be 00 steal wool, that's as fine as it gets.
I just happened to remember I had this problem with trying to stain pine which is a softwood. And now you know why I use India ink which is black. The alternative is trying to figure out tannins.

Swan wrote:

Again litter can be anything, but the article does not specify litter, it specifies plant litter, something that the writer does not even comprehend, obviously

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no rational discussion about the 'science related to climate change'.
Climate cannot change. There is no 'science of climate change'.

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.

Right when I thought you were being rational you became like π and i.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can change form. I'll simplify this for you, okay?

James_ wrote:
Atmospheric gasses have mass independent of their weight, just 2 different quantities/values. And it's well known that dark matter acts on matter at the gravitational level. With gravity there is g = Gm/r^2 and for Earth = 9.806m/s.
Then there's v = √Gm/r and because that's gravity for you, it will influence atmospheric gasses.

James_ wrote:
With me, I think the Van Allen radiation belts (magnetosphere) also performs meaningful work when heating the Earth's atmosphere just as the Moon does.

James_ wrote:
An example is that the orbital velocity of gravity in the troposphere is about 7.9km/s which gives 28.4grams of air (1 mol of air) a centripetal force of about 0.0008kg.

James_ wrote:
Just not much. So what lock's the atmosphere into place when the Earth at the equator rotates at about 1,000mph?

James_ wrote:
The inverse function is the Van Allen radiation belts and then this gets into Coulomb's law and astrophysics. See? I told you I'd keep it simple for you.

James_ wrote:
It's just that when the ceiling height of the atmosphere increases then forward momentum is cancelled out because of the change in direction.

James_ wrote:
And it's possible that a lot of the warming in the Earth's atmosphere comes from the Van Allen radiation belts changing the ceiling of the atmosphere because that is meaningful work which involves a lot of kinetic energy.

James_ wrote:
p.s., π (Pi) is an irrational number while i is an imaginary number.

p.s.s., With Coulomb's law and the tropopause, the magnetosphere is extremely charged while the tropopasue has a very consistent temperature around -60°F/-51°C.

James_ wrote:
While not a negative or positive charge they are opposing states of energy.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Again litter can be anything, but the article does not specify litter, it specifies plant litter, something that the writer does not even comprehend, obviously

And you don't understand that this is about compost?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Again litter can be anything, but the article does not specify litter, it specifies plant litter, something that the writer does not even comprehend, obviously

And you don't understand that this is about compost?

Actually you didn't know that the article was about until I specified that it was about plant litter

Plant litter represents a major source of soil organic matter and hence understanding the pathway of its decomposition and stabilisation is crucial for understanding the soil carbon dynamic. Importantly, more than half of annual litter production is consumed by soil fauna globally. Here we test the hypothesis that soluble phenols can be removed from the litter during gut passage and bound on nitrogen rich compounds, which results in formation of insoluble complexes in the faeces produced by soil fauna. Two invertebrate species, Diptera larvae Bibio marci and terrestrial isopod Armadilidium vulgare, and litter of two tree species, Quercus robur and Alnus glutinosa, were used. Both species of invertebrates were fed by both litter types in full factorial manner. The litter contained significantly more free phenols than the faeces. In opposite, the content of bound phenols was significantly higher in faeces than in the litter. The loss of total nitrogen associated with removal of bound phenolic compounds from faeces was higher than that of the litter. Thus, soil fauna contributes to the stabilisation of soil organic matter by the conversion of soluble phenols to insoluble ones together with nitrogen immobilization. In conclusion, this process of stabilisation likely plays an important role in mature soils where mineral surfaces have reached carbon saturation or in soils with higher organic horizons.

Bye the way, my Father taught me this by the time I was three years old, so it's old news to me. However I prefer cow shit compost to plant matter in all cases.

Plant litter represents a major source of soil organic matter and hence understanding the pathway of its decomposition and stabilisation is crucial for understanding the soil carbon dynamic.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Again litter can be anything, but the article does not specify litter, it specifies plant litter, something that the writer does not even comprehend, obviously

And you don't understand that this is about compost?

Actually you didn't know that the article was about until I specified that it was about plant litter

Plant litter represents a major source of soil organic matter and hence understanding the pathway of its decomposition and stabilisation is crucial for understanding the soil carbon dynamic. Importantly, more than half of annual litter production is consumed by soil fauna globally. Here we test the hypothesis that soluble phenols can be removed from the litter during gut passage and bound on nitrogen rich compounds, which results in formation of insoluble complexes in the faeces produced by soil fauna. Two invertebrate species, Diptera larvae Bibio marci and terrestrial isopod Armadilidium vulgare, and litter of two tree species, Quercus robur and Alnus glutinosa, were used. Both species of invertebrates were fed by both litter types in full factorial manner. The litter contained significantly more free phenols than the faeces. In opposite, the content of bound phenols was significantly higher in faeces than in the litter. The loss of total nitrogen associated with removal of bound phenolic compounds from faeces was higher than that of the litter. Thus, soil fauna contributes to the stabilisation of soil organic matter by the conversion of soluble phenols to insoluble ones together with nitrogen immobilization. In conclusion, this process of stabilisation likely plays an important role in mature soils where mineral surfaces have reached carbon saturation or in soils with higher organic horizons.

Bye the way, my Father taught me this by the time I was three years old, so it's old news to me. However I prefer cow shit compost to plant matter in all cases.

Plant litter represents a major source of soil organic matter and hence understanding the pathway of its decomposition and stabilisation is crucial for understanding the soil carbon dynamic.

I disagree with this. It's not important. Also when flora converts CO2 into C6H12O6 then does that litter add carbon into the soil?
What do you think I was talking about when I posted this ? This was on June 20, 2016. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-co2-h2o-ch2o-o2-possible.876215/

It'd matter more if you considered how gravity allows a planet to gain mass which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Thermodynamics/The_Four_Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

Let me guess, Venus and Mercury suffer from entropy which is why they are not as dense as the Earth. Have you ever considered why some things "sink"? Maybe the soil around them is growing "deeper" while at the crust it is becoming thicker, maybe? I mean what if in another billion years (give or take hundreds of millions of years) Mars becomes like the Earth?

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone

James_ wrote:
Swanee, the IPCC and NOAA supports them when they said that they are relying on 2 greenhouse gasses to continue their trend of historical levels so the ozone layer will recover. And then proving what the IPCC said that NOAA supports will force the IPCC to change its position.
What people will know is that the IPCC and its policy cannot be questioned just like supporting when Jews agreed to a 2 State solution. Anymore I think people love wars because daily life isn't that exciting.

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

It is clear from previous posts that you are aware CH2O is formaldehyde.

However, a laymen's mistake might be to use CH2O for carbohydrates.

In this oversimplification, photosynthesis is CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2

Nearly all carbohydrates have the general formula Cn(H2O)n

C6H12O6 = glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.

C12H24O12 = sucrose, lactose, etc.

But CH2O is formaldehyde, not carbohydrate.

The post says, "since it's known that CH2O can be generated.." (???)

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

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. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

they are important to atmospheric forcing in the stratosphere

Some authors reported measured CH 2 O
concentrations significantly lower than predicted by models [Liu
et al., 1992; Zhou et al., 1996; Jacob et al., 1996], while others
came to the opposite conclusions [Ayers et al., 1997; Weller et
al., 2000]. The reasons for these discrepancies are not clear.
[ 4 ] Measurements of CH 2 O undertaken in the free troposphere
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722

James_ wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

It is clear from previous posts that you are aware CH2O is formaldehyde.

However, a laymen's mistake might be to use CH2O for carbohydrates.

In this oversimplification, photosynthesis is CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2

Nearly all carbohydrates have the general formula Cn(H2O)n

C6H12O6 = glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.

C12H24O12 = sucrose, lactose, etc.

But CH2O is formaldehyde, not carbohydrate.

The post says, "since it's known that CH2O can be generated.." (???)

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

This is NOAA's quote of the IPCC's 2013 report on climate change. I became aware of it possibly in 2014 but by 2016.

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. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

I think everyone is familiar with f(x) = ∆y/∆x. And if people aren't familiar with this, it's basic calculus. For the rate of change in CO2, N2O and CO2 if you
consider f(x) = y1 - y2/x1 - x2 = ∆y/∆x then while the gasses might be at different levels in the stratosphere, for the IPCC to associate them with either O2 or O3 their rates of change would need to be similar when saying as a percentage. This would separate those 4 gasses from al other gasses in the stratosphere.
When the IPCC said

For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

And when I'm a BM said

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

They were referring to what I just explained calculus would show. And the amount of O2 in the stratosphere would also directly correspond with the amount of O3 in the stratosphere because of the Chapman cycle as the image illustrates. Where it says λ < 308 nm means that the wave length of solar radiation is longer than 308 nanometers.

And when the math (calculus) shows that 4 different gasses have the same (relative) rate of change and all of those gasses originate in the troposphere

they are important to atmospheric forcing in the stratosphere

then what in the troposphere would be the LCD (lowest common denominator) of those 4 gasses?
And with the current understanding of both photochemistry and the halogen process (chlorine and bromine caused) does not account for the levels of CH2O
in many research papers.

Some authors reported measured CH 2 O
concentrations significantly lower than predicted by models [Liu
et al., 1992; Zhou et al., 1996; Jacob et al., 1996], while others
came to the opposite conclusions [Ayers et al., 1997; Weller et
al., 2000]. The reasons for these discrepancies are not clear.
[ 4 ] Measurements of CH 2 O undertaken in the free troposphere
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722

I thought between what the IPCC reported along with researchers that I'd fill in the gaps. It's what a "team player" does.

p.s., In the attached image where it says O2 + O -----> O3, in order for O3 to form energy will need to be absorbed. What ozone might actually be doing when "absorbing" UV radiation is refracting it back out into space.
With black body radiation such as solar radiation heating the Earth, that is not black body radiation but it is refracted solar radiation. Black body radiation would come from within the Earth itself.

p.s.s., I do not have the IPCC's 2013 report on my pc and I'll need to go through it to find specifically what NOAA is quoting. The full report is 1,552 pages. What pertains to the ozone layer and the stratosphere will make it easier to find NOAA's quote.

p.s.s.s., My website and its page on CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 for the Chapman Cycle. I say cold fusion because in essence if it's not photolytics or the halogen process then people will find Cold Fusion interesting but not O2 for the Chapman cycle. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

It is clear from previous posts that you are aware CH2O is formaldehyde.

However, a laymen's mistake might be to use CH2O for carbohydrates.

In this oversimplification, photosynthesis is CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2

Nearly all carbohydrates have the general formula Cn(H2O)n

C6H12O6 = glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.

C12H24O12 = sucrose, lactose, etc.

But CH2O is formaldehyde, not carbohydrate.

The post says, "since it's known that CH2O can be generated.." (???)

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

This is NOAA's quote of the IPCC's 2013 report on climate change. I became aware of it possibly in 2014 but by 2016.

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. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

I think everyone is familiar with f(x) = ∆y/∆x. And if people aren't familiar with this, it's basic calculus. For the rate of change in CO2, N2O and CO2 if you
consider f(x) = y1 - y2/x1 - x2 = ∆y/∆x then while the gasses might be at different levels in the stratosphere, for the IPCC to associate them with either O2 or O3 their rates of change would need to be similar when saying as a percentage. This would separate those 4 gasses from al other gasses in the stratosphere.
When the IPCC said

For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.

And when I'm a BM said

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

They were referring to what I just explained calculus would show. And the amount of O2 in the stratosphere would also directly correspond with the amount of O3 in the stratosphere because of the Chapman cycle as the image illustrates. Where it says λ < 308 nm means that the wave length of solar radiation is longer than 308 nanometers.

And when the math (calculus) shows that 4 different gasses have the same (relative) rate of change and all of those gasses originate in the troposphere

they are important to atmospheric forcing in the stratosphere

then what in the troposphere would be the LCD (lowest common denominator) of those 4 gasses?
And with the current understanding of both photochemistry and the halogen process (chlorine and bromine caused) does not account for the levels of CH2O
in many research papers.

Some authors reported measured CH 2 O
concentrations significantly lower than predicted by models [Liu
et al., 1992; Zhou et al., 1996; Jacob et al., 1996], while others
came to the opposite conclusions [Ayers et al., 1997; Weller et
al., 2000]. The reasons for these discrepancies are not clear.
[ 4 ] Measurements of CH 2 O undertaken in the free troposphere
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722

I thought between what the IPCC reported along with researchers that I'd fill in the gaps. It's what a "team player" does.

p.s., In the attached image where it says O2 + O -----> O3, in order for O3 to form energy will need to be absorbed. What ozone might actually be doing when "absorbing" UV radiation is refracting it back out into space.
With black body radiation such as solar radiation heating the Earth, that is not black body radiation but it is refracted solar radiation. Black body radiation would come from within the Earth itself.

p.s.s., I do not have the IPCC's 2013 report on my pc and I'll need to go through it to find specifically what NOAA is quoting. The full report is 1,552 pages. What pertains to the ozone layer and the stratosphere will make it easier to find NOAA's quote.

p.s.s.s., My website and its page on CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 for the Chapman Cycle. I say cold fusion because in essence if it's not photolytics or the halogen process then people will find Cold Fusion interesting but not O2 for the Chapman cycle. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion

"My website and its page on CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 for the Chapman Cycle"

I guess I was hoping you might say something about how formaldehyde (CH2O) is involved in the stratosphere or related somehow to the Chapman Cycle.

Maybe you didn't notice that this thread was intended for discussion of "Maximizing carbon sequestration..."

You have never presented a single genuine question about biogeochemistry related to the thread topics on any of my threads where you have posted.

It's fine if you have something of value to share, but I can't figure out what it is.

James_ wrote:
I'm a BM, What is often overlooked is when deforestation occurs that refracted solar radiation changes wavelengths. Also flora absorbs solar radiation in the form of E = hv which allows for
CO2 + H2O + hv > CH2O + O2. Scientists do not understand how formaldehyde or sucrose occurs. After all sucrose is composed of 6 formaldehyde molecules.
How much solar radiation is conserved as mass in the molecules of sucrose and other biomass? In the Earth's atmospheric gasses it is "stored heat content". Kind of why with what Harvey was discussing I mentioned joules of energy are quantas of light with what Planck and Einstein said.
That's removed from the Earth's atmosphere just as the frequency of refracted solar radiation changes to a longer wavelength which keeps refracted solar radiation in the atmosphere longer.
CO2 might be "nature's barometer" and alludes to a more complex system being involved.

p.s., A Montana farmer knows I think Sustainable Farming will need to be pursued because of both climate change and a growing world population. This would be a co-operative/socialist concept. If farmer's grow too much food then grain becomes worthless and a recession will follow.
But by ensuring a sustainable harvest will also help to offset deforestation and the problems that causes. And with many countries facing food shortages then Sustainable Farming would also be Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems, ie., in my case, farms.

Swan wrote:


Or you could just do the genetic engineering to mix farm crops with seagrass of kelp then crops could grow in salt environments which would double farmland or better yet cross the size gene from super-pumpkins into grapes making wine way more cost effective as one grape would make a liter of wine so everyone could get drunkard every day. Or better yet imagine a 200lb tomato

The delta has many plants that live only in wetlands, and they provide habitat for wetland wildlife. Some of these plants are cattails, swamp rose, spider lilies, and cypress trees.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


Or you could just do the genetic engineering to mix farm crops with seagrass of kelp then crops could grow in salt environments which would double farmland or better yet cross the size gene from super-pumpkins into grapes making wine way more cost effective as one grape would make a liter of wine so everyone could get drunkard every day. Or better yet imagine a 200lb tomato

Why?

The delta has many plants that live only in wetlands, and they provide habitat for wetland wildlife. Some of these plants are cattails, swamp rose, spider lilies, and cypress trees.

People can't use brine as potable water. Pumpkins used for making pies are small and will have various shapes. Carving pumpkins and Alan Bauldree sized pumpkins are disposed of after they're not good for showing or after a competition for the largest pumpkin. Please don't tell me that you don't know the difference between a baking pumpkin and a carving pumpkin. There's one brand of canned pumpkin for baking pumpkin pies that grow their own pumpkins. I think that's a quality control issue if you ask me which you did ask me.
Baking pumpkins aren't stringy like carving pumpkins and have a better texture to them as well. How do you not know this about pumpkins? Then there's also flavor.
We just had Halloween and you don't know what they use pumpkins for? That has got to be embarrassing.
Of course with you a pumpkin is just a pumpkin. Can I ask you a personal question? Is your Bible getting lonely?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swanee, the IPCC and NOAA supports them when they said that they are relying on 2 greenhouse gasses to continue their trend of historical levels so the ozone layer will recover. And then proving what the IPCC said that NOAA supports will force the IPCC to change its position.
What people will know is that the IPCC and its policy cannot be questioned just like supporting when Jews agreed to a 2 State solution. Anymore I think people love wars because daily life isn't that exciting.

Again cold fusion is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

It is clear from previous posts that you are aware CH2O is formaldehyde.

However, a laymen's mistake might be to use CH2O for carbohydrates.

In this oversimplification, photosynthesis is CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2

Nearly all carbohydrates have the general formula Cn(H2O)n

C6H12O6 = glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.

C12H24O12 = sucrose, lactose, etc.

But CH2O is formaldehyde, not carbohydrate.

The post says, "since it's known that CH2O can be generated.." (???)

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

James_ wrote:
If I am right https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion then it will change the U.N.'s climate change policy.
It would most likely shift the focus towards reducing other gasses or sequestering them. And if CO2 is collected from the atmosphere then what process or procedures would allow it to be used to generate O2 to support the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere?
Since it's be known that CH2O can be generated then
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2. Then CH4 could be burned to power the plant that does this.

And then CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O, it desalinates water when burning the CH4.
And in cities like Los Angeles, California, USA (not everyone is aware of U.S. geography) with its smog, this might help clean up their air. And with my experiment, it might shows scientists one way in which pollution could be attracted to a trap.

It is clear from previous posts that you are aware CH2O is formaldehyde.

However, a laymen's mistake might be to use CH2O for carbohydrates.

In this oversimplification, photosynthesis is CO2 + H2O = CH2O + O2

Nearly all carbohydrates have the general formula Cn(H2O)n

C6H12O6 = glucose, fructose, galactose, etc.

C12H24O12 = sucrose, lactose, etc.

But CH2O is formaldehyde, not carbohydrate.

The post says, "since it's known that CH2O can be generated.." (???)

Even more puzzling is how this could possibly relate to the Chapman Cycle.

Formaldehyde is a carbohydrate.
It has nothing to do with the Chapman cycle.

James_ wrote:

With maximizing carbon sequestration, my research will show we don't need to do that. What I'll be doing is showing that CO2 directly supports recovery of the zone layer. That comes before global warming.

James_ wrote:
I'm a BM, What is often overlooked is when deforestation occurs that refracted solar radiation changes wavelengths. Also flora absorbs solar radiation in the form of E = hv which allows for
CO2 + H2O + hv > CH2O + O2. Scientists do not understand how formaldehyde or sucrose occurs. After all sucrose is composed of 6 formaldehyde molecules.

James_ wrote:
How much solar radiation is conserved as mass in the molecules of sucrose and other biomass? In the Earth's atmospheric gasses it is "stored heat content". Kind of why with what Harvey was discussing I mentioned joules of energy are quantas of light with what Planck and Einstein said.

James_ wrote:
That's removed from the Earth's atmosphere just as the frequency of refracted solar radiation changes to a longer wavelength which keeps refracted solar radiation in the atmosphere longer.

James_ wrote:
CO2 might be "nature's barometer" and alludes to a more complex system being involved.

James_ wrote:
p.s., A Montana farmer knows I think Sustainable Farming will need to be pursued because of both climate change and a growing world population.

James_ wrote:
This would be a co-operative/socialist concept. If farmer's grow too much food then grain becomes worthless and a recession will follow.
But by ensuring a sustainable harvest will also help to offset deforestation and the problems that causes. And with many countries facing food shortages then Sustainable Farming would also be Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems, ie., in my case, farms.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
I'm a BM, What is often overlooked is when deforestation occurs that refracted solar radiation changes wavelengths. Also flora absorbs solar radiation in the form of E = hv which allows for
CO2 + H2O + hv > CH2O + O2. Scientists do not understand how formaldehyde or sucrose occurs. After all sucrose is composed of 6 formaldehyde molecules.

Sucrose is not formaldehyde. The chemistry of photosynthesis is well understood.

James_ wrote:
How much solar radiation is conserved as mass in the molecules of sucrose and other biomass? In the Earth's atmospheric gasses it is "stored heat content". Kind of why with what Harvey was discussing I mentioned joules of energy are quantas of light with what Planck and Einstein said.

Light is not heat. It is not possible to store or trap heat.

James_ wrote:
That's removed from the Earth's atmosphere just as the frequency of refracted solar radiation changes to a longer wavelength which keeps refracted solar radiation in the atmosphere longer.

Light travels at the speed of light, regardless of it's frequency.

James_ wrote:
CO2 might be "nature's barometer" and alludes to a more complex system being involved.

CO2 does not measure pressure.

James_ wrote:
p.s., A Montana farmer knows I think Sustainable Farming will need to be pursued because of both climate change and a growing world population.

Climate cannot change.

James_ wrote:
This would be a co-operative/socialist concept. If farmer's grow too much food then grain becomes worthless and a recession will follow.
But by ensuring a sustainable harvest will also help to offset deforestation and the problems that causes. And with many countries facing food shortages then Sustainable Farming would also be Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems, ie., in my case, farms.

Socialism doesn't work.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swanee, the IPCC and NOAA supports them when they said that they are relying on 2 greenhouse gasses to continue their trend of historical levels so the ozone layer will recover. And then proving what the IPCC said that NOAA supports will force the IPCC to change its position.
What people will know is that the IPCC and its policy cannot be questioned just like supporting when Jews agreed to a 2 State solution. Anymore I think people love wars because daily life isn't that exciting.

Again cold fusion is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

What 'cold fusion'?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swanee, the IPCC and NOAA supports them when they said that they are relying on 2 greenhouse gasses to continue their trend of historical levels so the ozone layer will recover. And then proving what the IPCC said that NOAA supports will force the IPCC to change its position.
What people will know is that the IPCC and its policy cannot be questioned just like supporting when Jews agreed to a 2 State solution. Anymore I think people love wars because daily life isn't that exciting.

Again cold fusion is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

What 'cold fusion'?

The cold fusion that is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swanee, the IPCC and NOAA supports them when they said that they are relying on 2 greenhouse gasses to continue their trend of historical levels so the ozone layer will recover. And then proving what the IPCC said that NOAA supports will force the IPCC to change its position.
What people will know is that the IPCC and its policy cannot be questioned just like supporting when Jews agreed to a 2 State solution. Anymore I think people love wars because daily life isn't that exciting.

Again cold fusion is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

What 'cold fusion'?

The cold fusion that is not changing the UN's position anytime soon

I have never supported Lite Song being banned. You're just disgusting. Know
where you are. If my mentioning Lite Song means nothing to you, this forum can be very political and you're just very stupid.
And yet Swan, I am asking for you to be banned. Getting banned from this forum is a rare occurrence. You might become the 2nd person I know of and the only person I support being banned.

Swan wrote:

You fear the truth, this is the life that you chose, and you will live with it regardless of me.

First you want me to be Alan and now Lite Song, so you are a desperate trolling fool, you cannot fool me, so now you ban me.

The truth will remain