Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

sealover wrote:
He rolled his eyes and I was EMBARASSED.

Almost 20 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
Once bitten, twice shy.

Fun fact about bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere.

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

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

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

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

sealover wrote:
...deleted excess noise...
p.s. VHF television signals, like AM radio signals, bounce off the top of the sky and straight back down to us.

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

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
He rolled his eyes and I was EMBARASSED.

Almost 20 years ago.

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

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

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap light. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

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

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

No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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

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

You don't have a specialty in science. You deny science.

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

Because you deny the Chapman cycle.

sealover wrote:
Once bitten, twice shy.

Fun fact about bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere.

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

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

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

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

WRONG.

The method of modulating a radio wave makes NO DIFFERENCE to it's propagation path.

Broadcast FM radio in the States is a band around 100Mhz. Broadcast TV is also centered around this, with bands on either side of the FM broadcast band. These frequencies are generally line of sight, but can bend somewhat over hills. It can also reflect off of hills. When TV was linearly encoded, the effect could be seen as a 'ghost' image to the right of the real one on your TV screen. Sometimes multipath interference was so bad several such 'ghosts' appeared on your screen. It is also why you see TV and broadcast FM towers places as high as possible, on some nearby mountain if one is available. TV was broadcast as AM, with FM subcarriers used for audio and PM (phase modulation) used for color information. Today, they are AM with no subcarriers. Everything is class E now (digital). Packet MRC and destructive compression techniques takes care of compensating for noise in the radio.

Broadcast AM centers around the 1Khz band. These frequencies are blocked by ozone, so they do not make it up to the ionosphere until deep nightfall, where they can 'skip' some distance by bouncing around the Earth off the ionosphere. This effect is enhanced during long winter nights, giving some of the best skip conditions for these frequencies, peaking around 3-4am. These frequencies also can easily follow the land, over hill and dale. Antennas for these frequencies are often located in low swampy areas, where a good solid ground connection is available. Height doesn't help you with 1Khz.

Things improve a bit at around 7Mhz, a nice compromise frequency. It can make it through the ozone layer better, reaching the ionosphere, and also travel following terrain. A good all around band for long distance work. Most people using these frequencies are using CW or SSB (a type of AM without the carrier and missing one sideband).

By the time you get to 30Mhz, line of sight becomes your friend. Ozone blocks these frequencies quite well, but you can still get some good distance by terrain following. Radios here typically use FM, but there are AM and SSB radios around as well.

Aircraft radios are operating at around 120Mhz. They are AM. They are line of sight. This works well for aircraft since they are thousands of feet above the ground while using these radios, or sitting quite near the other transceiver when on the ground at the airport. Navigation frequencies are generally AM, with PM subcarriers for such things as VOR stations, or FM subcarriers for such things as localizer and glideslope. Older ADF navigation systems used AM.

GPS uses frequencies around 1.1Ghz to 1.5Ghz. These frequencies are not absorbed by ozone and are not reflected by the ionosphere. This range of frequencies are located in that range known as the 'space window'. All satellites must use this range of frequencies or we simply wouldn't be able to communicate with them very well at all.
GPS itself is PM, and contains a subcarrier that is FM (which contains the information packet identifying the satellite call letters, and the time in UTC (adjusted for propagation delays from WWV).

Timeservers found on computer networks are also typically adjusted somewhat for propagation delays from WWV, but not always. Some people have crappy NTP servers.

Cell phones operate at 1.8Ghz and 2.1Ghz. These are line of sight, and the atmosphere can indeed look quite 'foggy' at these frequencies. They are terrible for long distance work. This is why these frequencies were chosen for cell phones, to limit so many radios channels from interfering with each other. It does necessitate numerous radio towers (or cells) to relay signals to phones. Cell phone towers only have an effective range of few miles. Some high powered ones stuck on a mountain somewhere can have an effective range of about 30 miles. Cell phones use spread spectrum technology, modulated as FM signals.

A brief introduction to some of the better known radio services and their propagation path.

Spongy Iris wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the stratosphere IS GETTING COLDER now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So many delicate balances and counterbalances.

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

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

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

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

Here is the word from NASA...

Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat,

Ozone doesn't generate heat.

Spongy Iris wrote:
and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is not being depleted.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere.

You cannot trap or retain heat.
You cannot decrease entropy...ever. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling.

Science isn't scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Any 'scientist' saying this is not a scientist. They are denying science.

Spongy Iris wrote:
"The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."

BS buzzwords and ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and statistical mathematics.

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

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

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

When UVc is absorbed by ozone, the ozone is destroyed, being converted into oxygen. The effectively blocks UVc from getting any further into the atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
He rolled his eyes and I was EMBARASSED.

Almost 20 years ago.

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

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

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap light. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

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

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

No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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

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

You don't have a specialty in science. You deny science.

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

Because you deny the Chapman cycle.

sealover wrote:
Once bitten, twice shy.

Fun fact about bouncing radio signals off the ionosphere.

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

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

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

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

WRONG.

The method of modulating a radio wave makes NO DIFFERENCE to it's propagation path.

Broadcast FM radio in the States is a band around 100Mhz. Broadcast TV is also centered around this, with bands on either side of the FM broadcast band. These frequencies are generally line of sight, but can bend somewhat over hills. It can also reflect off of hills. When TV was linearly encoded, the effect could be seen as a 'ghost' image to the right of the real one on your TV screen. Sometimes multipath interference was so bad several such 'ghosts' appeared on your screen. It is also why you see TV and broadcast FM towers places as high as possible, on some nearby mountain if one is available. TV was broadcast as AM, with FM subcarriers used for audio and PM (phase modulation) used for color information. Today, they are AM with no subcarriers. Everything is class E now (digital). Packet MRC and destructive compression techniques takes care of compensating for noise in the radio.

Broadcast AM centers around the 1Khz band. These frequencies are blocked by ozone, so they do not make it up to the ionosphere until deep nightfall, where they can 'skip' some distance by bouncing around the Earth off the ionosphere. This effect is enhanced during long winter nights, giving some of the best skip conditions for these frequencies, peaking around 3-4am. These frequencies also can easily follow the land, over hill and dale. Antennas for these frequencies are often located in low swampy areas, where a good solid ground connection is available. Height doesn't help you with 1Khz.

Things improve a bit at around 7Mhz, a nice compromise frequency. It can make it through the ozone layer better, reaching the ionosphere, and also travel following terrain. A good all around band for long distance work. Most people using these frequencies are using CW or SSB (a type of AM without the carrier and missing one sideband).

By the time you get to 30Mhz, line of sight becomes your friend. Ozone blocks these frequencies quite well, but you can still get some good distance by terrain following. Radios here typically use FM, but there are AM and SSB radios around as well.

Aircraft radios are operating at around 120Mhz. They are AM. They are line of sight. This works well for aircraft since they are thousands of feet above the ground while using these radios, or sitting quite near the other transceiver when on the ground at the airport. Navigation frequencies are generally AM, with PM subcarriers for such things as VOR stations, or FM subcarriers for such things as localizer and glideslope. Older ADF navigation systems used AM.

GPS uses frequencies around 1.1Ghz to 1.5Ghz. These frequencies are not absorbed by ozone and are not reflected by the ionosphere. This range of frequencies are located in that range known as the 'space window'. All satellites must use this range of frequencies or we simply wouldn't be able to communicate with them very well at all.
GPS itself is PM, and contains a subcarrier that is FM (which contains the information packet identifying the satellite call letters, and the time in UTC (adjusted for propagation delays from WWV).

Timeservers found on computer networks are also typically adjusted somewhat for propagation delays from WWV, but not always. Some people have crappy NTP servers.

Cell phones operate at 1.8Ghz and 2.1Ghz. These are line of sight, and the atmosphere can indeed look quite 'foggy' at these frequencies. They are terrible for long distance work. This is why these frequencies were chosen for cell phones, to limit so many radios channels from interfering with each other. It does necessitate numerous radio towers (or cells) to relay signals to phones. Cell phone towers only have an effective range of few miles. Some high powered ones stuck on a mountain somewhere can have an effective range of about 30 miles. Cell phones use spread spectrum technology, modulated as FM signals.

A brief introduction to some of the better known radio services and their propagation path.

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

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

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

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

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

We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.

sealover wrote:
Variable Rate Technology: Farming by the Foot.

It is possible for farmers to use variable rate technology for application of agricultural chemicals.

For example, the "weed zapper" uses machine vision to distinguish the weed from the crop, and selectively applies herbicide by aiming the spray directly at the weed. And nobody else.

Where herbicide must be used in soil to control weeds, often there is much higher herbicide requirement where soil organic matter content is higher.

Soil organic matter adsorbs and neutralizes herbicide.

More herbicide is required for effective weed control in microsites where soil organic matter content is highest.

Near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) can instantaneously assess where soil organic matter content is higher and apply higher rates of herbicide.

Machine vision can tell if the crop isn't green enough, foot by foot, to adjust fertilizer application rates accordingly.

Machine vision can tell if the crop is diplaying excess or deficiency of nutrients.

Machine vision can tell if the crop is displaying symptoms of pests or disease.

A simple drone flyover could now provide a farmer with a detailed map of which parts of the field require more or less of which agricultural chemicals.

Typically, more than 70% of applied nitrogen fertilizer does not get taken up into crop roots.

Variable rate technology can dramatically improve nitrogen use efficiency, and reduce adverse environmental impacts of excess application of nitrogen fertilizer.

Variable rate technology could also allow us to monitor soil carbon storage as we tweak chemical application rates to enhance soil organic matter content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.

sealover wrote:
I often forget to mention iodide and fluoride as anthropogenic ozone destroyers.

Historically, attention was prioritized to those anthropogenic ozone destroying molecules that were recycled during the process.

Fully chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) were the worst.

Such as the freon used as refrigerant gas in air conditioners, freezers, etc.

The CFCs could take out THOUSANDS of ozone (O3) molecules before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying agents can only destroy ONE ozone molecule before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying aerosols and vapors include SOx, NOx, chloride, and bromide.

This list fails to include IODIDE and FLUORIDE, also present in the stratosphere thanks to human activity.

Now, there is cyclical variation in ozone thinning and regrowth.

It is NOT a DAILY cycle: ozone disappears at night, ozone regrows during day.

There is an ANNUAL cycle.

Even within the context of the ANNUAL cycle, DUCK Boy's explanation is still absurd.

You don't need to invoke Chapman AT ALL to understand "denitrification" and the atmospheric chemistry of one-to-one kill ratio ozone destroying agents such as SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, iodide, and fluoride.

In fact, outside of discussing the fate of the CFCs, CHAPMAN IS IRRELEVANT!

Fortunately, CFCs aren't the big problem anymore for ozone thinning.


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

sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

sealover wrote:
Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

Dyslexia made me miss a mistake, off by THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITURE.

The ozone layer is NOT "meters thick".

The ozone layer is MILLIMETERS thick. Just a few millimeters thick.

0.00006% of the atmosphere's chemical composition packed into a layer only a FEW MILLIMETERS THICK.

How is UV supposed to get through that?

That is some densely packed ozone.

It also confirms my suspicion that the critics around here have little basic knowledge, such as when they never even HEARD OF "global dimming".

The local scientific genius would have never noticed that my description of the thickness of the ozone layer was OFF BY THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

You see a GENUINE scientific debate is possible, but you wouldn't know it.


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

sealover wrote:
I often forget to mention iodide and fluoride as anthropogenic ozone destroyers.

Historically, attention was prioritized to those anthropogenic ozone destroying molecules that were recycled during the process.

Fully chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) were the worst.

Such as the freon used as refrigerant gas in air conditioners, freezers, etc.

The CFCs could take out THOUSANDS of ozone (O3) molecules before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying agents can only destroy ONE ozone molecule before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying aerosols and vapors include SOx, NOx, chloride, and bromide.

This list fails to include IODIDE and FLUORIDE, also present in the stratosphere thanks to human activity.

Now, there is cyclical variation in ozone thinning and regrowth.

It is NOT a DAILY cycle: ozone disappears at night, ozone regrows during day.

There is an ANNUAL cycle.

Even within the context of the ANNUAL cycle, DUCK Boy's explanation is still absurd.

You don't need to invoke Chapman AT ALL to understand "denitrification" and the atmospheric chemistry of one-to-one kill ratio ozone destroying agents such as SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, iodide, and fluoride.

In fact, outside of discussing the fate of the CFCs, CHAPMAN IS IRRELEVANT!

Fortunately, CFCs aren't the big problem anymore for ozone thinning.


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

sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

sealover wrote:
Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

Dyslexia made me miss a mistake, off by THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITURE.

The ozone layer is NOT "meters thick".

The ozone layer is MILLIMETERS thick. Just a few millimeters thick.

0.00006% of the atmosphere's chemical composition packed into a layer only a FEW MILLIMETERS THICK.

How is UV supposed to get through that?

That is some densely packed ozone.

It also confirms my suspicion that the critics around here have little basic knowledge, such as when they never even HEARD OF "global dimming".

The local scientific genius would have never noticed that my description of the thickness of the ozone layer was OFF BY THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

You see a GENUINE scientific debate is possible, but you wouldn't know it.


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

[quote]sealover wrote:
I often forget to mention iodide and fluoride as anthropogenic ozone destroyers.

Historically, attention was prioritized to those anthropogenic ozone destroying molecules that were recycled during the process.

Fully chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) were the worst.

Such as the freon used as refrigerant gas in air conditioners, freezers, etc.

The CFCs could take out THOUSANDS of ozone (O3) molecules before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying agents can only destroy ONE ozone molecule before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying aerosols and vapors include SOx, NOx, chloride, and bromide.

This list fails to include IODIDE and FLUORIDE, also present in the stratosphere thanks to human activity.

Now, there is cyclical variation in ozone thinning and regrowth.

It is NOT a DAILY cycle: ozone disappears at night, ozone regrows during day.

There is an ANNUAL cycle.

Even within the context of the ANNUAL cycle, DUCK Boy's explanation is still absurd.

You don't need to invoke Chapman AT ALL to understand "denitrification" and the atmospheric chemistry of one-to-one kill ratio ozone destroying agents such as SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, iodide, and fluoride.

In fact, outside of discussing the fate of the CFCs, CHAPMAN IS IRRELEVANT!

Fortunately, CFCs aren't the big problem anymore for ozone thinning.


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

[quote]sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

It hadn't registered with me that most of the ozone layer was just millimeters thin. I believe you.

Spongy Iris wrote:I'm still not convinced ozone is blocking much of the deadly "UVc" radiation from the Sun's corona.

Spongy Iris wrote:But I am convinced that billions (probably more) of copper dipole antennas in orbit surrounding Earth would block "UVc" radiation.

That is apparently how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory on behalf of the United States military in 1961 and 1963 created an artificial ionosphere above the Earth:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Please, think for yourself once or twice. The objective was to create an antenna, not an atmospheric layer. We're talking about a volume of 8.64 cubic meters, or a cube of 2.05 meters each in height, length and width. It really isn't possible to create an ionosphere with that amount of material.

They were just trying to create an antenna.

Secondly, you knew it was Wikipedia you were reading so you have only yourself to blame for letting any of the misinformation, the disinformation or any of the myriad of errors throughout Wikipedia lead you astray. Well, come to think of it, it does explain why you routinely spout off really stupid crap. It is totally your own fault.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

Dyslexia made me miss a mistake, off by THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITURE.

The ozone layer is NOT "meters thick".

The ozone layer is MILLIMETERS thick. Just a few millimeters thick.

0.00006% of the atmosphere's chemical composition packed into a layer only a FEW MILLIMETERS THICK.

How is UV supposed to get through that?

That is some densely packed ozone.

It also confirms my suspicion that the critics around here have little basic knowledge, such as when they never even HEARD OF "global dimming".

The local scientific genius would have never noticed that my description of the thickness of the ozone layer was OFF BY THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

You see a GENUINE scientific debate is possible, but you wouldn't know it.


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

[quote]sealover wrote:
I often forget to mention iodide and fluoride as anthropogenic ozone destroyers.

Historically, attention was prioritized to those anthropogenic ozone destroying molecules that were recycled during the process.

Fully chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) were the worst.

Such as the freon used as refrigerant gas in air conditioners, freezers, etc.

The CFCs could take out THOUSANDS of ozone (O3) molecules before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying agents can only destroy ONE ozone molecule before being neutralized.

Other anthropogenic ozone destroying aerosols and vapors include SOx, NOx, chloride, and bromide.

This list fails to include IODIDE and FLUORIDE, also present in the stratosphere thanks to human activity.

Now, there is cyclical variation in ozone thinning and regrowth.

It is NOT a DAILY cycle: ozone disappears at night, ozone regrows during day.

There is an ANNUAL cycle.

Even within the context of the ANNUAL cycle, DUCK Boy's explanation is still absurd.

You don't need to invoke Chapman AT ALL to understand "denitrification" and the atmospheric chemistry of one-to-one kill ratio ozone destroying agents such as SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, iodide, and fluoride.

In fact, outside of discussing the fate of the CFCs, CHAPMAN IS IRRELEVANT!

Fortunately, CFCs aren't the big problem anymore for ozone thinning.


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

[quote]sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

It hadn't registered with me that most of the ozone layer was just millimeters thin. I believe you.

I'm still not convinced ozone is blocking much of the deadly "UVc" radiation from the Sun's corona.

But I am convinced that billions (probably more) of copper dipole antennas in orbit surrounding Earth would block "UVc" radiation.

That is apparently how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory on behalf of the United States military in 1961 and 1963 created an artificial ionosphere above the Earth:

a ring of 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas (needles which were 1.78 centimetres (0.70 in) long and 25.4 micrometres (1.00 thou) [1961] or 17.8 micrometres (0.70 thou) [1963] in diameter) were placed in orbit to facilitate global radio communication.

A millimeters thin field of copper needles all around Earth would certainly block lots of radiation.

sealover wrote:
ABSURD ASSERTION: Daily shift between ozone and dioxygen.

DUCK Boy (Dumb Ugly Clown Kook), made yet another ABSURD ASSERTION on a thread dedicated to the proposition that accurate science be presented.

"..O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present."

This deserves some kind of Ignoramus prize for absurdity.

So, what happens at sunrise?

Do we have to wait for the ozone to recreate itself before we go outside?

seal over wrote:Important caveat. The estimated ozone layer "thickness" of about 3 mm,

seal over wrote:a VERY WIDELY CITED number,

seal over wrote:is based on if it were at SEA LEVEL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

seal over wrote:This provides a number that can be compared to the thickness of other layers of the atmosphere closer to the surface.

seal over wrote:I strayed too far from biogeochemistry.

seal over wrote:A rocket has to pass through tens of kilometers of extremely low pressure ozone.

seal over wrote:And I'll stick to biogeochemistry, but this was on my thread so...

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I bet you guys are right, technically, that O3 breaking down to O2, by UV light, would absorb some UV light.

Begin by acknowledging that you are getting it backwards, either intentionally or not. O2 forms into O3 because of solar UV. Of course there is a bit more to it but O3 forms during the day and then reverts back to O2 at night when the UV is not present.

Spongy Iris wrote:But my argument is, since ozone is only 0.00006% of the atmosphere, how do you expect me to believe such an incredibly trace gas can block the most deadly "UVc" rays?

O2 comprises 21% of the atmosphere. What are you talking about?

Do you not agree with your pal, Parrot? This is what he wrote,

When UVc is absorbed by ozone, the ozone is destroyed, being converted into oxygen. The effectively blocks UVc from getting any further into the atmosphere.

I was talking about ozone (O3) not oxygen (O2).

I could believe O2 blocks a lot more UV than O3 because it comprises 21% of the atmosphere, not 0.00006% such as O3.

sealover wrote:
Ozone (O3) @ 0.00006%. Oxygen (O2) @ 21% of atmosphere.

Ozone is present as a trace gas present in a remarkably thin layer of the stratosphere.

sealover wrote:
When ozone is present closer to the earth's surface, it is a MUCH STRONGER OXIDANT than dioxygen gas (O2).

sealover wrote:
Ozone near ground level left a "bathtub ring" among the pines around the LA Basin.

sealover wrote:[quote]sealover wrote:
Visible from space in the 1990s, a "bathtub ring" of dead or discolored vegetation, all at the exact same elevation in the mountains all around the basin. It was ozone damage.

sealover wrote:
When plants perform photosynthesis, they have to pass relatively large volumes of air through their stomata in order to get enough of the trace gas CO2.

This makes them vulnerable to ANY airborne pollutant.

sealover wrote:
It also makes plants good at scrubbing airborne pollutants out of the air.

sealover wrote:
But the ozone was killing them, across a very narrow range of elevation.

sealover wrote:
The LA basin becomes a stagnant trap for air sometimes.

sealover wrote:
The layer where the ozone was forming, as UV interacted with smog, stayed at a very narrow range of elevation above sea level.

sealover wrote:
The ozone burned a bathtub ring in the trees around the LA basin.

A bath tub ring you could see from OUTER SPACE.

sealover wrote:
So, ozone is very different than the oxygen (O2) that comprises 21% of the atmosphere.

sealover wrote:
The fact that the total pool of ozone in the stratosphere is so TINY compared to the total pool of oxygen or any other major gas in the atmosphere...

Don't read too much into the difference.

Just because ozone is only 0.00006% of the gas in the total atmosphere, consider where it is located.

The ozone is concentrated in a METERS THICK (i.e. incredibly THIN) layer in the stratosphere.

sealover wrote:
At that point of contact, UV rays are going to have a tough time getting past all those ozone molecules concentrated in that thin layer.

When it comes to total "pools", sometimes size does not matter.

It's knowing how to pack all your ozone tightly into an extremely thin shield.

sealover wrote:
WITHIN the ozone layer, I suspect that the concentration of ozone is significantly higher than 0.00006%. Maybe even higher than 21%.

sealover wrote:
I often forget to mention iodide and fluoride as anthropogenic ozone destroyers.

sealover wrote:
Historically, attention was prioritized to those anthropogenic ozone destroying molecules that were recycled during the process.

sealover wrote:
Fully chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) were the worst.

sealover wrote:
Such as the freon used as refrigerant gas in air conditioners, freezers, etc.

sealover wrote:
The CFCs could take out THOUSANDS of ozone (O3) molecules before being neutralized.

sealover wrote:
Other anthropogenic ozone destroying agents can only destroy ONE ozone molecule before being neutralized.

sealover wrote:
Other anthropogenic ozone destroying aerosols and vapors include SOx, NOx, chloride, and bromide.

sealover wrote:
This list fails to include IODIDE and FLUORIDE, also present in the stratosphere thanks to human activity.

sealover wrote:
Now, there is cyclical variation in ozone thinning and regrowth.

sealover wrote:
It is NOT a DAILY cycle: ozone disappears at night, ozone regrows during day.

sealover wrote:
There is an ANNUAL cycle.

sealover wrote:
Even within the context of the ANNUAL cycle, DUCK Boy's explanation is still absurd.

You don't need to invoke Chapman AT ALL

sealover wrote:
to understand "denitrification" and the atmospheric chemistry of one-to-one kill ratio ozone destroying agents such as SOx, NOx, chloride, bromide, iodide, and fluoride.

sealover wrote:
In fact, outside of discussing the fate of the CFCs, CHAPMAN IS IRRELEVANT!

sealover wrote:
Fortunately, CFCs aren't the big problem anymore for ozone thinning.

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

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.

sealover wrote:
Variable Rate Technology: Farming by the Foot.

It is possible for farmers to use variable rate technology for application of agricultural chemicals.

Swan wrote:
Scared of an accurate and current radio conversation huh?

What makes you different than the Russians who have to believe and repeat what they are told?

So in other words the dog and I are 100% correct.

sealover wrote:
Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

sealover wrote:
Dyslexia made me miss a mistake, off by THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITURE.

The ozone layer is NOT "meters thick".

sealover wrote:
The ozone layer is MILLIMETERS thick. Just a few millimeters thick.

0.00006% of the atmosphere's chemical composition packed into a layer only a FEW MILLIMETERS THICK.

sealover wrote:
How is UV supposed to get through that?

sealover wrote:
That is some densely packed ozone.

sealover wrote:
It also confirms my suspicion that the critics around here have little basic knowledge, such as when they never even HEARD OF "global dimming".

sealover wrote:
The local scientific genius would have never noticed that my description of the thickness of the ozone layer was OFF BY THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

sealover wrote:
You see a GENUINE scientific debate is possible, but you wouldn't know it.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:
Correction: Ozone layer MILLIMETERS THICK, not METERS THICK.

It hadn't registered with me that most of the ozone layer was just millimeters thin. I believe you.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm still not convinced ozone is blocking much of the deadly "UVc" radiation from the Sun's corona.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But I am convinced that billions (probably more) of copper dipole antennas in orbit surrounding Earth would block "UVc" radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is apparently how the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory on behalf of the United States military in 1961 and 1963 created an artificial ionosphere above the Earth:

Spongy Iris wrote:
a ring of 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas (needles which were 1.78 centimetres (0.70 in) long and 25.4 micrometres (1.00 thou) [1961] or 17.8 micrometres (0.70 thou) [1963] in diameter) were placed in orbit to facilitate global radio communication.

A millimeters thin field of copper needles all around Earth would certainly block lots of radiation.

sealover wrote:
Ozone "thickness" based on sea level atmospheric pressure.

sealover wrote:
Important caveat.

The estimated ozone layer "thickness" of about 3 mm, a VERY WIDELY CITED number, is based on if it were at SEA LEVEL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.

sealover wrote:
This provides a number that can be compared to the thickness of other layers of the atmosphere closer to the surface.

sealover wrote:
I strayed too far from biogeochemistry.

sealover wrote:
I remembered that the ozone layer was tens of kilometers of extremely low pressure gas, the equivalent of what I thought I remembered was a few meters thick, compared to the lower atmosphere at STP.

sealover wrote:
The actual number is that it would be about 3 MILLIMETERS thick at STP.

sealover wrote:
A rocket has to pass through tens of kilometers of extremely low pressure ozone.

sealover wrote:
And I'll stick to biogeochemistry, but this was on my thread so...

sealover wrote:SEVEN CONSECUTIVE POSTS - Parrot Boy is NOT a troll, right?

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.

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

sealover wrote:SEVEN CONSECUTIVE POSTS - Parrot Boy is NOT a troll, right?

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.

Into the Night wrote:

AM is a frequency. FM is a frequency. Voice not good enough for audio.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:SEVEN CONSECUTIVE POSTS - Parrot Boy is NOT a troll, right?

Correct. Not a troll. He is directly responding to other posts. He is not spamming. He defines his terms. He is actively answering questions. He is not lying or otherwise being dishonest.

Now if you find someone who won't respond directly to others but who spams the board pretending to be addressing an "audience", who will not define the terms he uses and who lies as an excuse to hijack the board ... well, then you will have found a troll

sealover wrote:
Hans Jenny was one of the all time greatest geniuses in soil science.

His contributions are many, including the dramatic increases in corn harvests that followed his theoretical development of dry ammonia adsorption to soil.

Perhaps his greatest contribution was to help us understand what soil IS.

Soils are dynamic natural bodies having properties derived from the combined effect of climate and organisms acting on soil parent materials, as modified by topography, over finite periods of time.

An equation: soil = f(climate, organisms, parent material, topography, time)

Indeed, given sufficient information about the factors of soil formation, one can very accurately predict what the soil profile must look like.

Jack Major took Hans Jenny's theory one step further.

ECOSYTEMS have properties that can be predicted by a state factor model.

An equation: Ecosystem (organisms) = f(climate, soil, topography, time)

He just rearranged Jenny's equation.

Ecosystems have predictable properties derived from interactions between soil, climate, and organisms, modified by topography, over finite periods of time.

If you have enough information about climate, soil, topography, and AGE of the community in its succession cycle, you can accurately predict the details of the ecosystem adapted to it.

I had the good fortune of knowing both Hans Jenny and Jack Major.

It's fun to hang out with scientific geniuses!

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

Into the Night wrote:

AM is a frequency. FM is a frequency. Voice not good enough for audio.

seal over wrote:
If you are not part of that target audience, you are not required to expose your sensitivities to my improper presentation of things in a way you do not like.

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