Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems



Page 1 of 13123>>>
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems10-03-2022 22:45
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.
10-03-2022 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
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.

Buzzword fallacies. You're going to have to use English to get anywhere here.
sealover wrote:
The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world.

Tell that to a tea farmer.
sealover wrote:
To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots.

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.
sealover wrote:
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.

Guess you decided to have a cup of tea while you make up strings of useless buzzwords to say nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2022 23:52
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[quote][b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"
11-03-2022 00:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 11-03-2022 00:53
RE: even vegetable oil is a carbohydrate?11-03-2022 08:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.
11-03-2022 20:14
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.


You never named any specific plants, so we default to the basic/generic description. Not all plants produce the same things, in useful quantities. Some have species specific properties. Lot of plants are kind of selective of the climate and environment the grow in as well. We have no clue which plants, or species you are thinking of, but it assured that it's not a one fit solution.

There thousands of peer-reviewed, preliminary studies to choose from. The mean nothing, other than some researchers want government funding. Where they just need to fill out a form every year, to continue getting a check. No one really expects results, or checks to see how the money gets spent.
11-03-2022 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.

Now you want to quibble over what a carbohydrate is???

Sorry dude, plants are primarily carbohydrates and proteins.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: why quibble over vocabulary?11-03-2022 21:16
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.

Now you want to quibble over what a carbohydrate is???

Sorry dude, plants are primarily carbohydrates and proteins.


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

Apology accepted.

Let's not quibble over vocabulary.

"Primarily" versus "The entire plant.." It's all the same thing..

How dare they call it "fossil fuel"!


Let's
12-03-2022 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.

Now you want to quibble over what a carbohydrate is???

Sorry dude, plants are primarily carbohydrates and proteins.


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

Apology accepted.

Let's not quibble over vocabulary.

"Primarily" versus "The entire plant.." It's all the same thing..

How dare they call it "fossil fuel"!


Let's
What apology??? You are hallucinating.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Ignoramus Phallicy12-03-2022 22:13
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


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

Prosecutor's fallacy.

Semantics fallacy.

Ignoramus phallicy.
RE: Let's not quibble over definitions!14-03-2022 21:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.

Now you want to quibble over what a carbohydrate is???

Sorry dude, plants are primarily carbohydrates and proteins.


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

Case closed, I guess.
RE: ALL plants contain more than carbohydrate16-03-2022 00:46
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
[b]

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.
[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, this is another "debate" I lost.

My fallacies were exposed.

But don't get me started on all those other non-carbohydrates in the plant.

It will be fun to tell you what they are, how they are measured, and why they matter in chemical ecology or biogeochemistry.

You won't even have to ask.
16-03-2022 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Apparently, this is another "debate" I lost.

My fallacies were exposed.

But don't get me started on all those other non-carbohydrates in the plant.

It will be fun to tell you what they are, how they are measured, and why they matter in chemical ecology or biogeochemistry.

You won't even have to ask.

Why do you feel you need to list chemicals that are not carbohydrates?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-03-2022 02:05
RE: chemical ecology and biogeochemisty16-03-2022 01:47
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.


Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


It will be fun to tell you what they are, how they are measured, and why they matter in chemical ecology or biogeochemistry.

You won't even have to ask.

Why do you feel you need to list chemicals that are not carbohydrates?[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's that whole "chemical ecology" and "biogeochemistry" thing.

Believe it or not, there is a difference between carbohydrates and all the other organic compounds in a plant.

Believe it or not, the different chemical properties that different compounds have makes a difference.

For example "iron" is an element. It is also present in many different chemical Believe it or not, they are not all the same.

Believe it or not, whether iron is present as ferric iron, an oxidant, or ferrous iron, a reductant....

Believe it or not, they're not all the same.

You would be more likely to believe it if you had the slightest clue in your comprehension of chemistry.

You don't need to respond, as far as I'm concerned.

You have already provided me with a treasure trove of quotes to use as introductions for little science lessons.

I don't need you any more.

Someone interested in understanding environmental science
16-03-2022 02:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
...repairing severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.


Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


It will be fun to tell you what they are, how they are measured, and why they matter in chemical ecology or biogeochemistry.

It's easy to measure lignin. Weigh it.
There is no such thing as 'chemical ecology' or 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Why do you feel you need to list chemicals that are not carbohydrates?

Well, there's that whole "chemical ecology" and "biogeochemistry" thing.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Believe it or not, there is a difference between carbohydrates and all the other organic compounds in a plant.

Believe it or not, the different chemical properties that different compounds have makes a difference.

For example "iron" is an element. It is also present in many different chemical Believe it or not, they are not all the same.

Believe it or not, whether iron is present as ferric iron, an oxidant, or ferrous iron, a reductant....

Believe it or not, they're not all the same.

Why do you feel the need to list chemicals that aren't carbohydrates?
sealover wrote:
You would be more likely to believe it if you had the slightest clue in your comprehension of chemistry.

You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.
sealover wrote:
You don't need to respond, as far as I'm concerned.

You have already provided me with a treasure trove of quotes to use as introductions for little science lessons.

You deny science.
sealover wrote:
I don't need you any more.

So you felt needy before? Now, when faced with having to define your buzzwords and the theories of science you are ignoring, you are not needy anymore?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 06:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. ...


So is this a slowing of organic rotting?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
RE: Is lignin a carbohydrate? Is tannin a carbohydrate?24-03-2022 06:59
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Is lignin a carbohydrate? Is tannin a carbohydrate?

Provide an unambiguous definition for carbohydrate that includes lignin and tannin.

Or just run away from a common word you do not understand.

"carbohydrate" = "buzzword"

NOBODY ANYWHERE COULD POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT A CARBOHYDRATE IS!

At least nobody who I know, and they all still believe I know what I'm talking about.

Nobody in the whole world could possibly understand the gibber babble buzzwords.

Nobody could possibly tell if I use them in an absurd display of ignorance.

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins.

[/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulose is a carbohydrate. So that alone accounts for at least half the organic carbon in the entire plant. And some proteins, yes.

But lignin is not a carbohydrate. Woody plants often have about a fourth of the organic carbon in the entire plant comprised of lignin.

Lignin is a carbohydrate.
sealover wrote:
Tannin is not a carbohydrate. Some plants are extremely rich in tannin.

Terpenes and terpenoids are not carbohydrate. Some plants are terpene-rich.

The list goes on...

Is it possible to construe the definition of "carbohydrates" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Is it possible to construe the definition of "some proteins" to include lignin, tannin, and terpenes?

Or maybe we just need to modify the definition of " The entire plant"

Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try again.

Maybe YOU need to provide a definition of your terms.

Maybe you are aware of carbohydrate chemistry in a way that defies classic models.

Us simpletons only know what they taught us in O chem at college.

"The entire plant is carbohydrates and some proteins."

Us simpletons thought there were many other kinds of organic compounds in plants, let alone the water content.

Is there more than one valid definition for "carbohydrates"?

Does that mean that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate? Or it's just not part of the entire plant?

I don't mean to be petty, but you would have flunked classic O chem or botany.

And it's fine if you didn't know. But to stubbornly insist, after having the error exposed, that lignin is actually a carbohydrate. Tannins, terpenes, oil, wax... they don't even need to be acknowledged.

I'm trying to assess if you're teachable.

You certainly provide teachable moments with your posts, so keep it up.

Now you want to quibble over what a carbohydrate is???

Sorry dude, plants are primarily carbohydrates and proteins.


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

Apology accepted.

Let's not quibble over vocabulary.

"Primarily" versus "The entire plant.." It's all the same thing..

How dare they call it "fossil fuel"!


Let's
What apology??? You are hallucinating.
24-03-2022 19:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Is lignin a carbohydrate? Is tannin a carbohydrate?

RQAA
sealover wrote:
Provide an unambiguous definition for carbohydrate that includes lignin and tannin.

RQAA.

Why do you feel the need to ask the same question over and over mindlessly. It's already been answered.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Carbon Sequestration and Allelopathy in Rainforest Fern Thickets.26-03-2022 02:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Carbon Sequestration and Allelopathy in Rainforest Fern Thickets.

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

Rainforest fern thickets are very effective at sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it as organic carbon, preserved against decomposition under aerobic conditions by high vegetation tannin content.

Fern thickets are specialists at taking over disturbed sites in rainforest.

Where the canopy has been cleared and sunlight can reach the ground, a first wave of pioneer species moves in. Fast growing trees and brush exploit the available sunlight, and enhanced soil nutrient availability typically associated with site disturbance.

The pioneer species get off to a good start, but then the ferns start creeping in.

Their trick isn't to grow tall faster than anyone to get the sun.

In fact, the ferns are relatively slow growers as they creep up like vines to cover the pioneer trees.

The lower lying brush hasn't got a chance. The ferns just climb over and pile on top of it.

The pioneer trees haven't got a chance. The ones that were tall enough to avoid being overtopped are now being poisoned by manganese toxicity.

Within a decade, 2 meters thick accumulation of fern litter overlies the mineral soil surface. 2 meters tall ferns form a dense thicket on top of the litter.

Pioneer trees are now dead trunks or sickly things with purple leaves displaying manganese toxicity.

The conditions are wet, warm, and well aerated. Perfect for aerobic decompositon.

Yet, in less than a decade a huge amount of organic carbon has piled up on top of the mineral soil, decomposing ever so slowly.

A huge amount of carbon dioxide got sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored in a thick litter layer above the soil.

The fern has total phenolic content, from tannins, that are among the very highest among all plant species in the world.

This makes it hard for microorganisms to degrade the fern litter.

Tannins form complexes with proteins, making protein hard to degrade, and making other enzymes (proteins) needed for decomposition useless.

Tannins also reduce manganese(IV) to manganese(II).

The insoluble manganese(IV) in the solid phase soil was harmless to the plants.

The soluble manganese(II) was released by abiotic reduction of manganese(IV) by fern tannins.

Manganese(II) was released at such high concentration that it killed the plants that had roots in the mineral soil.

The fern was immune to its own venom.

Its entire root system is spread laterally among the litter above the mineral soil.

The ferns never had to taste their own medicine.

They are vicious competitors.

Monospecific fern thickets can impede forest succession for decades.

But they sure can sequester that carbon!

And they are excellent ground cover to prevent erosion from disturbed sites.

And that thick fern litter layer is like a giant sponge during downpours.

Plenty of time for the rain to slowly trickle into the soil and groundwater without any surface runoff.

Tree huggers don't like the fern thickets because they are lacking in biodiversity.

Just one or two species of fern completely dominate the community.

After displacing a far more diverse pioneer community.

But the forest will eventually grow back in and shade the ferns out.

Meanwhile, the fern thickets protected the soil and water supply, and built up a whole lot of soil organic matter for the next community.

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


Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Is lignin a carbohydrate? Is tannin a carbohydrate?

RQAA
sealover wrote:
Provide an unambiguous definition for carbohydrate that includes lignin and tannin.

RQAA.

Why do you feel the need to ask the same question over and over mindlessly. It's already been answered.
26-03-2022 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Carbon Sequestration and Allelopathy in Rainforest Fern Thickets.

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

Why do you fear carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not a carbohydrate either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-03-2022 03:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:Wetlands are very effective at sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it as organic carbon

Presuming you have friends, do you ask them if they would like to join you to eat lunch ... or do you ask them if they'd like to sequester food with you and store it as organic matter?

I'm just curious. Does the phrase "sequester food" help you bring the lunch invitation down to your layman audience?

sealover wrote: preserved against decomposition by low oxygen conditions.

When you go to lunch, do you specify "conditions of sufficient oxygen"? Have you ever suffered a low-oxygen ordeal that left you unpreserved against decomposition?

sealover wrote:Rainforest fern thickets are very effective at sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it as organic carbon, preserved against decomposition under aerobic conditions by high vegetation tannin content.

... so does my lawn.

sealover wrote:Fern thickets are specialists at taking over disturbed sites in rainforest.

... so are real estate developers.

sealover wrote: Where the canopy has been cleared and sunlight can reach the ground, a first wave of pioneer species moves in. Fast growing trees and brush exploit the available sunlight, and enhanced soil nutrient availability typically associated with site disturbance.

I'm glad that you are willing to discuss the upside to urban sprawl. Most people won't even go there.

sealover wrote:The pioneer species get off to a good start, but then the ferns start creeping in.

I typically hire an illegal immigrant to do weeding and to perform landscaping odd jobs. There, I said it. I confess. I hire illegal immigrants, and I don't even require them to speak English. What can I say? When I need some work done, it seems like illegal immigrants are the only ones who don't refuse because the fair market price that I am offering is too far below the artificially inflated union wage. "If you want an American to do the work who speaks English, you've got to pay through the nose ... and then cover health care."

So you think that ferns give you the right to mandate some artificial minimum wage?

sealover wrote:Their trick isn't to grow tall faster than anyone to get the sun. In fact, the ferns are relatively slow growers as they creep up like vines to cover the pioneer trees. The lower lying brush hasn't got a chance. The ferns just climb over and pile on top of it. The pioneer trees haven't got a chance. The ones that were tall enough to avoid being overtopped are now being poisoned by manganese toxicity.

Ferns ... bloody assassins they are.

sealover wrote:Within a decade, 2 meters thick accumulation of fern litter overlies the mineral soil surface. 2 meters tall ferns form a dense thicket on top of the litter.

If we should ever discuss Arctic ice accumulation, you'll be the first to whine and complain about my use of the word "accumulation" which happens to be exactly as you use it. You'll claim that I am totally distorting the meaning of the word. I can't wait.

sealover wrote:Pioneer trees are now dead trunks or sickly things with purple leaves displaying manganese toxicity.

I so totally get it. Mental imagery of dead old-growth forests. The sadness. The sorrow. The despondency I feel. Alas, to whom can I write a check?

... except that nobody seems to be having this problem. This is kind of an invented issue.

... but I still want to write a check.

sealover wrote:A huge amount of carbon dioxide got sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored in a thick litter layer above the soil.

Surely you have to know that your absurd imagery only sparks concern in those uneducated few who somehow believe that CO2 is poison/pollution. I'm reading what you are writing and wondering "Is he ever going to get to some sort of point?"

sealover wrote:The fern has total phenolic content, from tannins, that are among the very highest among all plant species in the world.

Your lay audience will thank you for bringing the discussion down to their level.

sealover wrote:This makes it hard for microorganisms to degrade the fern litter.

Cry me a river.

sealover wrote:Monospecific fern thickets can impede forest succession for decades. But they sure can sequester that carbon!

... But the forest will eventually grow back in and shade the ferns out.

Meanwhile, the fern thickets protected the soil and water supply, and built up a whole lot of soil organic matter for the next community.

Everybody loves a happy ending. Next time just jump to it.
Attached image:

RE: Synchronized Canopy Dieback in Manganese-rich Island Arc Rainforests.26-03-2022 03:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Synchronized Canopy Dieback in Manganese-rich Island Arc Rainforests.

Fern thickets can induce manganese toxicity in island arc rainforests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synchronized canopy dieback.

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

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

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

Then the bad luck of unusually wet weather.

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

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

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

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

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

In synchronized canopy dieback, nobody wins.

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

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



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

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

Why do you fear carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not a carbohydrate either.[/quote]
RE: Fall of the Dinosaurs and Rise of the Angiosperms - Hydrolysable Tannins.26-03-2022 05:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Fall of the Dinosaurs and Rise of the Angiosperms. Hydrolysable Tannins.

Tony Swain, a chemical ecologist, was brilliant.

But his most famous hypothesis was a flop.

It was before we knew about the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs.

Tony Swain observed that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs coincided with the rise of the angiosperm family of plants as the dominant vegetation on earth.

Angiosperms did something no plants did before.

They made a new kind of tannin.

Most of the old school plants made condensed tannins.

Angiosperms were good enough at making plenty of condensed tannins.

But angiosperms also made HYDROLYSABLE tannins.

A far more soluble form of tannin than condensed tannin.

Whereas condensed tannins stayed stuck in place within plant litter, hydrolysable tannins traveled into the soil a bit before becoming attached to organic matter on a soil surface.

Tony Swain figured it out.

Hydrolysable tannins were poisonous to dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs had never evolved to tolerate such poisons.

A bunch of angiosperm plants took over rapidly.

Everybody, including the predators, went extinct when the plants turned toxic.

No, Tony, that's not how it happened.

But plants DID evolve a new way to regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling, tie up preexisting soil nitrogen and not just that in the plants own litter, and get more phosphorus from the soil.

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

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.
26-03-2022 06:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Synchronized Canopy Dieback in Manganese-rich Island Arc Rainforests.
...deleted excess noise...

Random buzzwords and phrases. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Trolling. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-03-2022 06:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Fall of the Dinosaurs and Rise of the Angiosperms. Hydrolysable Tannins.
...deleted excess noise...

Random buzzwords and phrases. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Talking to yourself. Trolling. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Oxidative Coupling of Phenol Carboxylic Acids. Humus and Humic Acid Formation.27-03-2022 12:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Oxidative Coupling of Phenol Carboxylic Acids. Humus and Humic Acid Formation.

Soil humus and soil humic acids are very important in soil fertility and ecology.

Soil humic acids are VERY large, insoluble molecules which are polymers of phenol carboxylic acids, such as those that comprise tannins.

It was known theoretically how it must happen, but collecting a field sample and measuring it in the lab to prove it was hard.

It required going out into the forest during a rainstorm with a slurry of grain alcohol and dry ice to quickly freeze any water sample collected.

Forest floor leachate sample collectors buried beneath the forest floor could be flushed out and allowed to refill with an absolutely fresh sample of rainfall that had passed through the needle litter of the forest floor.

Some samples were immediately frozen in the field.

Other samples were extracted with ethyl acetate, and they were frozen in the field as well.

Thawing the fresh-frozen-in-the-field samples upon return to the lab revealed what nobody had ever seen before.

The forest floor leachate showed high concentrations of identifiable monomeric phenol carboxylic acids - salicylic acid, protocatechuic acid, cinnamic acid, etc.

Usually all you got were a bunch of amorphous, larger fulvic acids and humic acids.

Usually the monomeric phenol carboxylic acids had already linked up into polymers through oxidative coupling.

Fulvic acids and humic acids form anions with metal complexing capacity, among the many other things they do of benefit to soil productivity.

It was fun to be the first to catch them in the act of forming in field-fresh samples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------












Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Fall of the Dinosaurs and Rise of the Angiosperms. Hydrolysable Tannins.
...deleted excess noise...

Random buzzwords and phrases. No apparent coherency. Spamming. Talking to yourself. Trolling. No argument presented.
27-03-2022 15:12
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4327)
How long have these time-travel machines existed? Why are there no consumer versions. I'm betting that time-tourism would be quite popular... A whole lot of species went extinct, besides the giant lizards. Fossil didn't form for every thing that died, since they need to be covered/preserved, before rot and decay set in. Just because a plant is toxic, doesn't mean it will kill everything. Most animals learn not to eat stuff that makes them sick. We all have the capacity to build a tolerance to low level toxins. Not everything eaten gets metabolized. Lot of stuff just passes through. What we have growing today, doesn't mean it was exactly the same back then. Without a time-machine, you can only guess. Faith isn't science. Fiction, isn't fact, until someone comes up with a better story. If you can observe it first hand, test it, repeatedly, it's fantasy.
27-03-2022 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Oxidative Coupling of Phenol Carboxylic Acids. Humus and Humic Acid Formation.
...deleted excess noise...

More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "so this is a slowing of organic rotting?" YES! Excellent choice of words.28-03-2022 00:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"so this is a slowing of organic rotting?" YES! Excellent choice of words.

Yes, it is indeed "a slowing of organic rotting."

Apologies to tmiddles that I failed to answer the question until now.

ONE part of it is a slowing of organic rot action.

ANOTHER part is the Nitrogen Cycle, preventing mineralization of organic nitrogen, and preventing nitrification of ammonium.

TWO important ways to bring about "a slowing of organic rotting".

ONE is the waterlogged condition of a wetland. Lack of oxygen slows organic rotting. Straightforward enough, right?

TWO is the high polyphenol content of vegetation on well drained soils.

Microorganisms have a hard time degrading it. The mean residence time of polyphenol rich organic matter in soil can be centuries.

"organic rotting" is an EXCELLENT choice of words.

It includes the microbiological aspect of "rotting", and the proper identification of the carbon transformation involved.

"organic rotting" takes "organic carbon" and turns it into "inorganic carbon".

Organic carbon is carbohydrates, hydrocarbons, and all the other stuff of organic chemistry - long, long, long list of unique organic carbon compounds.

Inorganic carbon is oxidized, has oxygen attached: carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate. VERY short list of inorganic carbon players. One weak acid. Two oxyanions that supply alkalinity.

And YES, with polyphenols, it's ALL ABOUT "a slowing of organic rotting."

Thank you for a legitimate and useful question. Thank you for being decent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. ...


So is this a slowing of organic rotting?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
28-03-2022 00:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Into the Night wrote:More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming.

Well done! You picked up on the fact that seal over is just cutting and pasting. When he discovers that he posted something erroneous, he follows up with a post to the effect of:

"Ooops, my bad, I made a 37-word typo. Instead of my fingers hitting the keys for 'sunlight creates ozone per the Chapman Cycle', my fingers slipped and hit the keys for 'CFCs bled the ozone for twelve years' It's a good thing I noticed! My error is not citable."

You might also have noticed that there is no easy way to verify independently seal over's claim that Rush Limbaugh said what is being claimed. Seal over has not posted any sort of link to assist in that regard.
RE: I will NEVER post ANY LINKS or images here.28-03-2022 01:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
I will NEVER post ANY LINKS or images here.

I'm glad that I couldn't figure out how to upload any images when I first posted on this website. I don't intend to learn how.

Let's see...

Wasn't there a very specific reference to a 1998 article in Nature?

Perhaps that article has a date to narrow down the time period to the week when a radio talk show host would have commented on its publication.

I will never open up any links on anyone else's post. EVER.

I will never include links or images or previously prepared drafts of ANYTHING.

I have given you four different specific publications or presentations you could look up if you had any research skills.

Why don't you attack the paper in Nature (1998)?

Can't you find it?

It's not my job to provide you with links or otherwise cater to your special needs as a disabled student.

You should tear apart the sentences from the specific paper in Nature!

You should display your scientific genius with a BETTER explanation for the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills in the reservoir that Rush Limbaugh is on public record speaking about.

If you don't know how to find a paper in Nature, what qualifies you to ask me ANY questions about biogeochemistry?

Go ahead and shred up my discovery. Prove it was a hoax or conspiracy.

Get your Nobel prize with a far better scientific explanation.

Tell Rush's fans not to believe their own lying ears about what he said.

But don't tell me that you win because I failed to do your homework for you.

This stuff is EASY TO FIND!

Why don't you try actually DEBATING about SCIENCE?

Why don't you start with the Nature (1998) paper you seem to think I'm hiding?

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

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming.

Well done! You picked up on the fact that seal over is just cutting and pasting. When he discovers that he posted something erroneous, he follows up with a post to the effect of:

"Ooops, my bad, I made a 37-word typo. Instead of my fingers hitting the keys for 'sunlight creates ozone per the Chapman Cycle', my fingers slipped and hit the keys for 'CFCs bled the ozone for twelve years' It's a good thing I noticed! My error is not citable."

You might also have noticed that there is no easy way to verify independently seal over's claim that Rush Limbaugh said what is being claimed. Seal over has not posted any sort of link to assist in that regard.
28-03-2022 01:28
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I am a plumber and well drained soil is the complete opposite of wetland.Which is it?
RE: Another falsifiable hypothesis I published.28-03-2022 01:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Another falsifiable hypothesis I published.

As I run away from every question, I offer another published falsifiable hypothesis for you to shred up with your superior scientific knowledge and with your superior debating skills.

1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. pages 369-380. IN Inderjit (ed.) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press.

Or you could go with EITHER paper from Nature, 1995 or 1998.

It should be easy for a scientific genius such as yourself to expose my scientific fraud using published words of my own that I simply cannot run away from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------





























IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming.

Well done! You picked up on the fact that seal over is just cutting and pasting. When he discovers that he posted something erroneous, he follows up with a post to the effect of:

"Ooops, my bad, I made a 37-word typo. Instead of my fingers hitting the keys for 'sunlight creates ozone per the Chapman Cycle', my fingers slipped and hit the keys for 'CFCs bled the ozone for twelve years' It's a good thing I noticed! My error is not citable."

You might also have noticed that there is no easy way to verify independently seal over's claim that Rush Limbaugh said what is being claimed. Seal over has not posted any sort of link to assist in that regard.
28-03-2022 06:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
"so this is a slowing of organic rotting?" YES! Excellent choice of words.

Yes, it is indeed "a slowing of organic rotting."


Organic rotting in landfills is sealedover.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-03-2022 06:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
...deleted severe quoting damage...
sealover wrote:
I will NEVER post ANY LINKS or images here.

Because you can't figure out how. You are not only a nothing, you are a lame nothing. Heck, you still haven't figured out how to handle the quoting system on a forum.
sealover wrote:
I'm glad that I couldn't figure out how to upload any images when I first posted on this website. I don't intend to learn how.

QED
sealover wrote:
Let's see...

Wasn't there a very specific reference to a 1998 article in Nature?

Science isn't a magazine.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps that article has a date to narrow down the time period to the week when a radio talk show host would have commented on its publication.

Science isn't a talk show host.
sealover wrote:
I will never open up any links on anyone else's post. EVER.

I will never include links or images or previously prepared drafts of ANYTHING.

Because you don't know how.
sealover wrote:
I have given you four different specific publications or presentations you could look up if you had any research skills.

Science isn't a magazine.
sealover wrote:
Why don't you attack the paper in Nature (1998)?

Science isn't a paper or a magazine.
sealover wrote:
Can't you find it?

It's not my job to provide you with links or otherwise cater to your special needs as a disabled student.

You should tear apart the sentences from the specific paper in Nature!

You should display your scientific genius with a BETTER explanation for the eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills in the reservoir that Rush Limbaugh is on public record speaking about.

If you don't know how to find a paper in Nature, what qualifies you to ask me ANY questions about biogeochemistry?

Buzzword fallacies. False authority fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Go ahead and shred up my discovery. Prove it was a hoax or conspiracy.

What discovery? Void argument fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Get your Nobel prize with a far better scientific explanation.

Science is not a prize or award.
sealover wrote:
Tell Rush's fans not to believe their own lying ears about what he said.

Science is not a talk show host.
sealover wrote:
But don't tell me that you win because I failed to do your homework for you.

This stuff is EASY TO FIND!

Why don't you try actually DEBATING about SCIENCE?

You aren't discussing any science. You deny science.

You keep insisting that some magick gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. It doesn't. You can't create energy out of nothing.

You keep insisting on using meaningless buzzwords to try to impress someone. You are a nothing. You keep claiming 'credentials' that are just buzzwords. You are a nothing. You keep cutting and pasting shit from Wikipedia and other propaganda sites and even claiming it as your own. You are a nothing. You keep making up stories about how important you are. You are a nothing.

sealover wrote:
Why don't you start with the Nature (1998) paper you seem to think I'm hiding?

Science is not a magazine or a paper.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-03-2022 06:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
sealover wrote:
Another falsifiable hypothesis I published.

As I run away from every question, I offer another published falsifiable hypothesis for you to shred up with your superior scientific knowledge and with your superior debating skills.

1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. pages 369-380. IN Inderjit (ed.) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press.

Or you could go with EITHER paper from Nature, 1995 or 1998.

It should be easy for a scientific genius such as yourself to expose my scientific fraud using published words of my own that I simply cannot run away from.


Quoting random papers and books means nothing. Science isn't a paper, book, website, magazine, or pamphlet.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "Quoting random papers and books means nothing."28-03-2022 06:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"Quoting random papers and books means nothing."

This is absolutely TRUE, but...

This is an anonymous forum.

On the other hand, these are hardly "random" papers and books.

I do not intend to "quote" them.

"sealover" can give first person defense as an AUTHOR of the RANDOM PAPER in such a RANDOM journal as NATURE.

I won't have to quote them.

The target audience will quite easily find them by themselves.

The target audience will UNDERSTAND them.

If you feel left out, it's okay for you to stop heckling.

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

Oh, the RANDOM book is NOT "sealover". Inderjit is the editor. sealover can only defend ONE chapter of that book in this debate, as AUTHOR.

Again, if this is just a boring waste of your time, there must be far more intelligent threads to post on than seal over my dead body I'm leaving my library after all those posts...

Come on!

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

Yeah, "random papers and books".

Ignoramus will be the VERY LAST ONE TO GET THE JOKE!

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Another falsifiable hypothesis I published.

As I run away from every question, I offer another published falsifiable hypothesis for you to shred up with your superior scientific knowledge and with your superior debating skills.

1999. Effect of plant polyphenols on nutrient cycling and implications for community structure. pages 369-380. IN Inderjit (ed.) Principles and Practices in Chemical Ecology. Allelochemical Interactions. CRC Press.

Or you could go with EITHER paper from Nature, 1995 or 1998.

It should be easy for a scientific genius such as yourself to expose my scientific fraud using published words of my own that I simply cannot run away from.


Quoting random papers and books means nothing. Science isn't a paper, book, website, magazine, or pamphlet.
28-03-2022 07:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
sealover wrote:I do not intend to "quote" them.

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

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

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

There is no audience.

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

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

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

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

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

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: there is audience28-03-2022 08:08
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
there is audience



IBdaMann wrote:
You give the appearance that you speak for someone who knows what he is talking about.

You are going to fool target audience by themselves.

There is a random journal such as Nature.

You are the one making you wish to keep your "references" a clear sign.

It's for you to be allowed to hijack the board and to declare who can post what.

Now, you can have your own little pond.

[/quote]
28-03-2022 10:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I do not intend to "quote" them.

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

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

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

There is no audience.

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

After all, the kiddie pool section reserved for sealover is just the same path that trafn took, and trafn eventually got banned for spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 1 of 13123>>>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Remember me

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

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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