Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands



Page 2 of 3<123>
16-03-2022 06:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
A wetland is constantly aggrading - gaining more and more organic carbon and storing it as peat. Year after year....Does that help?


Yes! That helps a lot. I suspected it might be more complex with a wetland which was why I used a dry forest as an example.

I do remember surfs would burn peat so that's some legit carbon source.

Does a pin forest "aggrade" though?

"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
16-03-2022 06:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why are we so worried about a warmer climate, ...


If we take 60 million years to gradually bring the Earths climate back to where it was in the age of dinosaurs no one is worried about that Harvey.

We know that if an ecosystem changes too rapidly it can be catastrophic.

Ever had a fish tank?

"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
Edited on 16-03-2022 06:51
RE: forests aggradation changes with time16-03-2022 07:00
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
A wetland is constantly aggrading - gaining more and more organic carbon and storing it as peat. Year after year....Does that help?


Yes! That helps a lot. I suspected it might be more complex with a wetland which was why I used a dry forest as an example.

I do remember surfs would burn peat so that's some legit carbon source.

Does a pin forest "aggrade" though?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer depends on where the forest is in the long time line of community succession.

Lets say that a landslide exposes a bunch of soil parent material, having taken the top soil clean off.

For centuries that system will aggrade, accumulating more and more organic carbon.

Pines can certainly be there while its aggrading.

Pines will likely still be there when it starts losing soil organic carbon and biomass carbon faster than it can build more.

FUN FACT Increased CO2 has caused many forests to start aggrading again.

The reduced losses to photorespiration, thanks to higher CO2, means the trees get to keep more of the carbon they "fix" during photosynthesis.

"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
16-03-2022 07:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why are we so worried about a warmer climate, ...


If we take 60 million years to gradually bring the Earths climate back to where it was in the age of dinosaurs no one is worried about that Harvey.

There is no such thing as a global climate. How do you know what the the weather was in the 'age of the dinosaurs'? How do you know when that age was, or even if? Is this another one of your omniscient claims because you had a time machine?
tmiddles wrote:
We know that if an ecosystem changes too rapidly it can be catastrophic.

Who is 'we'? How many personalities do you have?
tmiddles wrote:
Ever had a fish tank?

In winter here temperatures got as low as 5 deg F. In just six months, temperatures here will probably reach the mid to high 90's. That's an increase in temperature of 90 degrees in just six months!

So...where's the catastrophe???


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: You're funny!16-03-2022 07:22
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Thanks for the comic relief before I go to bed.

You're funny!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why are we so worried about a warmer climate, ...


If we take 60 million years to gradually bring the Earths climate back to where it was in the age of dinosaurs no one is worried about that Harvey.

There is no such thing as a global climate. How do you know what the the weather was in the 'age of the dinosaurs'? How do you know when that age was, or even if? Is this another one of your omniscient claims because you had a time machine?
tmiddles wrote:
We know that if an ecosystem changes too rapidly it can be catastrophic.

Who is 'we'? How many personalities do you have?
tmiddles wrote:
Ever had a fish tank?

In winter here temperatures got as low as 5 deg F. In just six months, temperatures here will probably reach the mid to high 90's. That's an increase in temperature of 90 degrees in just six months!

So...where's the catastrophe???
16-03-2022 07:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
Thanks for the comic relief before I go to bed....
Into the Night wrote:..
There is no such thing as a global climate. ...
If you can't win an argument you can try to not have it at all!

That's the game the trolls here play "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!"

except for some select bat shit crazy stuff of course.
16-03-2022 07:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Thanks for the comic relief before I go to bed....
Into the Night wrote:..
There is no such thing as a global climate. ...
If you can't win an argument you can try to not have it at all!

Take your own advice.
tmiddles wrote:
That's the game the trolls here play "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!"

It can. The temperature of the Earth is not one of them.
tmiddles wrote:
except for some select bat shit crazy stuff of course.

You are describing yourself again.


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: What if we are NOT liars who don't understand science?17-03-2022 22:07
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
Thanks for the comic relief before I go to bed....
Into the Night wrote:..
There is no such thing as a global climate. ...
If you can't win an argument you can try to not have it at all!

Take your own advice.
tmiddles wrote:
That's the game the trolls here play "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN!"

It can. The temperature of the Earth is not one of them.
tmiddles wrote:
except for some select bat shit crazy stuff of course.

You are describing yourself again.

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

My very first post got a lot of angry responses.

Apparently, they could see from my very first words that I was a "liar".

And plenty of insults that I was too scientifically illiterate to be taken seriously.

Perhaps if anything I said was really a "lie", it would have made me insecure.

Perhaps if I was pretending to understand science that I really did not, it would have made me insecure.

It was kind of hilarious. So many times I was told to "go learn some chemistry"

Perhaps it would have hurt my feelings, if I had any reason to be insecure.

Perhaps it would have provoked fear that my cover had been blown, if I had any reason to fear being exposed as a "liar."

What if it turns out that we're NOT lying about ANY of it?

What if it turns out that we really DO understand the science?

Well, we're probably Communists anyway, so we deserved the insults.
17-03-2022 22:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:...What if it turns out that we really DO understand the science?...
Ad hominem attacks and intentional logical fallacies are all that's left to someone intent on winning an argument in which they are wrong.

That's the bottom line. There are two things you're running into with the clown car here.

1- It's about winning, not learning/teaching/discovering
And if you can't "win" just don't "lose" so you have them ducking out entirely.
2- They WANT an unresolvable argument

This 2nd point is the one really ruling much of US civics today. You cannot solve someone's problem when what they want IS a problem.

It always reminds me of the truly excellent ARGUMENT CLINIC from Monty Python.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqn9

"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
Edited on 17-03-2022 22:23
RE: unambiguous definition of "falsifiable hypothesis"17-03-2022 22:54
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...What if it turns out that we really DO understand the science?...
Ad hominem attacks and intentional logical fallacies are all that's left to someone intent on winning an argument in which they are wrong.

That's the bottom line. There are two things you're running into with the clown car here.

1- It's about winning, not learning/teaching/discovering
And if you can't "win" just don't "lose" so you have them ducking out entirely.
2- They WANT an unresolvable argument

This 2nd point is the one really ruling much of US civics today. You cannot solve someone's problem when what they want IS a problem.

It always reminds me of the truly excellent ARGUMENT CLINIC from Monty Python.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqn9

"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


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

It has been fun, in a slightly sadistic kind of way, to turn their "logic" against them.

Turns out they don't even know what a "falsifiable hypothesis" is.

I'm going to stick with chemistry for a while.

Someday, I'll have a treasure cove of quotes about the underlying philosophy of science.

They can play the part of Ignoramus in the famous story.

The absurdity of their position provides a context for presenting something a little less absurd to make sense of it.

I appreciate your insights about the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required for them to be able to continue "winning".
17-03-2022 23:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
sealover wrote:
It has been fun, ...
It's kinda the Troll formula.

You are being duped into engaging with them so they can waste your time.

A quote from Trump to Bill Barr was telling. He said do you know what makes the perfect tweet? Just the right amount of "crazy".

Trolls say outrageous things for attention.

Sadly you are wasting your time if you think you can ever actually get anywhere talking to them. Once you have them dead to rights they just disappear.
18-03-2022 00:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Turns out they don't even know what a "falsifiable hypothesis" is.

It turns out that you don't know who knows what "falsifiable" means and who does not.

sealover wrote:I'm going to stick with chemistry for a while.

When did you ever "do" chemistry? When you were visiting the spetic tank or when you were lamenting the demise of the coral reef that never met any demise?

sealover wrote:Someday, I'll have a treasure cove of quotes about the underlying philosophy of science.

Nope. Science doesn't have any underlying philosophy. Each science model stands on its own.

18-03-2022 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
My very first post got a lot of angry responses.

A few. That's because we've seen people like you show up here before spewing nonsense gibberish and calling it 'science'. We've seen how people like try to use that gibberish to justify a paranoid fear of CO2.
sealover wrote:
Apparently, they could see from my very first words that I was a "liar".

Yup. You are lying to yourself, mostly. You somehow think that by spewing something about a PhD or any other credential is a proof of some kind. You somehow think you can ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics and blame CO2 for adding thermal energy to the Earth. You think you can spew random numbers and call them 'data'. You think that by showing off more and more buzzwords that it somehow shows you are smart or actually meaningful to anyone.
sealover wrote:
And plenty of insults that I was too scientifically illiterate to be taken seriously.

You are illiterate. You don't know chemistry. You don't know physics. You don't know mathematics. You don't know logic. You don't know philosophy.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps if anything I said was really a "lie", it would have made me insecure.

Nah. You are quite comfortable in your illiteracy.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps if I was pretending to understand science that I really did not, it would have made me insecure.

Nah. You are quite comfortable in your illiteracy.
sealover wrote:
It was kind of hilarious. So many times I was told to "go learn some chemistry"

Because you deny chemistry. You think your buzzword bullshit is chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps it would have hurt my feelings, if I had any reason to be insecure.

Perhaps it would have provoked fear that my cover had been blown, if I had any reason to fear being exposed as a "liar."

What if it turns out that we're NOT lying about ANY of it?

What if it turns out that we really DO understand the science?

Well, we're probably Communists anyway, so we deserved the insults.

Who is 'we'? Are you talking to your other personalities again?


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
18-03-2022 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:...What if it turns out that we really DO understand the science?...
Ad hominem attacks and intentional logical fallacies are all that's left to someone intent on winning an argument in which they are wrong.

That's the bottom line. There are two things you're running into with the clown car here.

1- It's about winning, not learning/teaching/discovering
And if you can't "win" just don't "lose" so you have them ducking out entirely.
2- They WANT an unresolvable argument

This 2nd point is the one really ruling much of US civics today. You cannot solve someone's problem when what they want IS a problem.

It always reminds me of the truly excellent ARGUMENT CLINIC from Monty Python.


Describing yourself again. I already know what you are.


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
18-03-2022 01:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
It has been fun, in a slightly sadistic kind of way, to turn their "logic" against them.

You deny logic.
sealover wrote:
Turns out they don't even know what a "falsifiable hypothesis" is.

No such thing.
sealover wrote:
I'm going to stick with chemistry for a while.

You deny chemistry.
sealover wrote:
Someday, I'll have a treasure cove of quotes about the underlying philosophy of science.

You deny science.
sealover wrote:
They can play the part of Ignoramus in the famous story.

The absurdity of their position provides a context for presenting something a little less absurd to make sense of it.

I appreciate your insights about the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics required for them to be able to continue "winning".

Winning what?


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
18-03-2022 01:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
It has been fun, ...
It's kinda the Troll formula.

You are being duped into engaging with them so they can waste your time.

A quote from Trump to Bill Barr was telling. He said do you know what makes the perfect tweet? Just the right amount of "crazy".

Trolls say outrageous things for attention.

Sadly you are wasting your time if you think you can ever actually get anywhere talking to them. Once you have them dead to rights they just disappear.

You are describing yourself again. I already know what you are.


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: You will be the VERY LAST ONE to get the joke, Ignoramus!24-03-2022 07:47
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
You will be the VERY LAST ONE to get the joke, Ignoramus!

It was ALL LIES.

You could PROVE it!

Lying about the coral reef.

Lying about scientific credentials.

Cutting and pasting material I didn't understand.

On the orders of sinister masters.

Obviously none of what I posted was genuine science.

Obviously none of the words I used had any real meaning.

Obviously not one single one of my posts or threads could be legitimately described as a science lesson.

Don't forget that I'm a Marxist liar seeking to establish a CHURCH OF DELUSION

You are going to be the VERY LAST ONE to get the joke, Ignoramus!

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





















IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Turns out they don't even know what a "falsifiable hypothesis" is.

It turns out that you don't know who knows what "falsifiable" means and who does not.

sealover wrote:I'm going to stick with chemistry for a while.

When did you ever "do" chemistry? When you were visiting the spetic tank or when you were lamenting the demise of the coral reef that never met any demise?

sealover wrote:Someday, I'll have a treasure cove of quotes about the underlying philosophy of science.

Nope. Science doesn't have any underlying philosophy. Each science model stands on its own.

RE: When Wetlands Succumb to Wildfire.29-03-2022 22:23
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
When Wetlands Succumb to Wildfire.

Anthropogenic Global Weirding is causing a lot of things to happen in nature that nobody saw before.

How about those "firenados".

The tornado-like columns of flame seen in the last few years with the wildfires.

The only time we saw that before was when Hamburg, Dresden, or Tokyo got firebombed during WWII and it created a "firestorm".

One of the "wild cards" among the vicious feedbacks of Anthropogenic Global Weirding is that wetlands are now succumbing to wildfires.

Wetlands used to be where a whole lot of the atmospheric carbon dioxide got sequestered and stored as stable organic matter.

Now wetlands are just another huge deposit of pre-fossil fuel.

We drain them so oxygen can reach in and decompose the organic matter into carbon dioxide.

We cause the air to get warmer and the wetlands to become drier.

Some of them have started burning already.

Peat fires are hard to put out!

Many of them are just getting dry enough now to start burning soon.

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

sealover wrote:
Wetlands are among the world's most productive ecosystems. High rates of photosynthesis sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide to become organic carbon in the live biomass. Waterlogged wetland soils create low oxygen conditions that prevent aerobic decomposition of organic carbon in dead biomass. Wetland soil organic matter has centuries long mean residence time, piling up year after year.

Undisturbed wetlands act as a net sink for carbon, sequestering more of it from the atmosphere than they emit by respiration or decomposition.

When wetlands are drained, stored organic carbon is exposed to oxygen and aerobic decomposition. Drained wetlands act as a net source for carbon, emitting more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than they sequester from it. Indeed, they emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which they sequester it.

This seems like a good place to start the discussion
15-04-2022 17:52
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Your ugly clown pictures will be missed too.




IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Turns out they don't even know what a "falsifiable hypothesis" is.

It turns out that you don't know who knows what "falsifiable" means and who does not.

sealover wrote:I'm going to stick with chemistry for a while.

When did you ever "do" chemistry? When you were visiting the spetic tank or when you were lamenting the demise of the coral reef that never met any demise?

sealover wrote:Someday, I'll have a treasure cove of quotes about the underlying philosophy of science.

Nope. Science doesn't have any underlying philosophy. Each science model stands on its own.

RE: NBC News Mangrove Story Missed the Mark20-04-2022 21:44
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
NBC News Mangrove Story Missed the Mark.

Tuesday night, April 18, NBC news ran a story about carbon sequestration in mangroves.

They tried, but the story missed the mark.

I had high hopes when the graphic showed "5x as much carbon as rainforests"

Yes, mangroves have higher net primary productivity than rainforests, but no way is it FIVE times as much.

Then the story implied that mangroves "piped" carbon dioxide underground through the roots. Seemed to imply that it was stored underground in the form of carbon dioxide.

Still, I had hope when they said that there was ANOTHER important role of mangroves in global ecology.

I couldn't wait for them to mention alkalinity exported to marine ecosystems from mangrove swamps via submarine groundwater discharge.

But then, their "5x as much carbon" would have had to be "30-40x as much carbon", compared to rainforest export of alkalinity from the same land area.

But then, the story went on to discuss WHALE MIGRATION and the importance of mangroves.

I love whales as much as the next guy, but...

So, there IS public awareness that natural ecosystems, such as mangrove swamps, can sequester carbon dioxide and this could be important.

Good start.

But the presentation of numbers involved was misleading.

And furthermore, there are MANY kinds of ecosystems that cover much larger land area than mangroves, including agroecosystems.

What mangroves do that is so desperately needed is to act as a MAJOR SOURCE
of ALKALINITY to marine ecosystems.

Someday the news stories will finally pick up on it.

And, hopefully, stop talking about ocean "acidification" as if pH rather than depletion of acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) were the issue.

With the sea's enormous buffering capacity from the carbonate system, pH shifts from anthropogenic acid inputs are TINY compared to alkalinity losses.

At least mangrove finally got some attention in the news.

The more we clear mangrove swamps and drain them, the less alkalinity they can provide to the sea. Indeed, a drained swamp becomes a net source of ACID to the sea, as pyrite is exposed to oxygen and oxidized to sulfuric acid.

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


sealover wrote:
Wetlands are among the world's most productive ecosystems. High rates of photosynthesis sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide to become organic carbon in the live biomass. Waterlogged wetland soils create low oxygen conditions that prevent aerobic decomposition of organic carbon in dead biomass. Wetland soil organic matter has centuries long mean residence time, piling up year after year.

Undisturbed wetlands act as a net sink for carbon, sequestering more of it from the atmosphere than they emit by respiration or decomposition.

When wetlands are drained, stored organic carbon is exposed to oxygen and aerobic decomposition. Drained wetlands act as a net source for carbon, emitting more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than they sequester from it. Indeed, they emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which they sequester it.

This seems like a good place to start the discussion
RE: Annual Ammonification of Dead Microbial Biomass in Drained Wetlands.20-04-2022 22:27
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Annual Ammonification of Dead Microbial Biomass in drained wetlands.

Acid neutralizing processes in wetlands include sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction.

However, other nitrogen transformations can have a tremendous, although only very brief, impact on alkalinity and pH.

Many places where wetlands have been drained have a pronounced annual wetting and drying cycle.

During the dry season, microbial biomass in the upper topsoil dries out and dies off.

When the rains come again, that dead biomass gets rewetted and a feeding frenzy begins.

Dead microbial biomass has a C:N ratio of about 10:1. One atom of nitrogen for every ten atoms of carbon.

Microorganisms only need a little of the nitrogen, but they want to burn up the organic carbon.

First, they have to ammonify it. Amino groups have to be torn away from carbon, to get access to the energy rich material. Ammonium and very high pH are generated. The pH can go as high as 11, for a little while.

In the presence of oxygen, some of that ammonium starts to get oxidized to nitric acid almost immediately.

By the time that nitrate leaches down into the subsoil and groundwater, all the associated organic carbon has generated low oxygen conditions.

Nitrate reduction down below generates alkalinity in the groundwater.

But timing is everything.

If the first rains of the season are not heavy, not enough water will pile up to drive any down into groundwater. Ammonification, etc., all occur above, without any of the products entering the subsoil. By the time the rains get heavy enough to drive it into groundwater, it is no longer such a high energy mix.

When the first rains of the season are HEAVY, high loads of dissolved organic carbon induce reductive dissolution of ferric-iron-bound arsenic. Groundwater arsenic skyrockets, at least temporarily.

When the first rains are LIGHT, low loads of dissolved organic carbon enter the groundwater, and arsenic concentrations remain lower.

I like to compare it to deliberately setting a wildfire at a time of year when the fuel is moist enough to support only a low intensity burn.

We can lightly irrigate the drained wetland field in ADVANCE of the first heavy rain, for a dissolved organic carbon "fuel" load that supports only a low intensity "burn" when it enters groundwater. Less arsenic, less manganese, cleaner groundwater.

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

sealover wrote:
Wetlands are among the world's most productive ecosystems. High rates of photosynthesis sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide to become organic carbon in the live biomass. Waterlogged wetland soils create low oxygen conditions that prevent aerobic decomposition of organic carbon in dead biomass. Wetland soil organic matter has centuries long mean residence time, piling up year after year.

Undisturbed wetlands act as a net sink for carbon, sequestering more of it from the atmosphere than they emit by respiration or decomposition.

When wetlands are drained, stored organic carbon is exposed to oxygen and aerobic decomposition. Drained wetlands act as a net source for carbon, emitting more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than they sequester from it. Indeed, they emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which they sequester it.

This seems like a good place to start the discussion
RE: Temporary Extreme High pH with Ammonification - the numbers added up20-04-2022 22:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Temporary Extreme High pH with Ammonification - the numbers added up.

It was December, 2005. The rains finally came, and they came in force with a record setting storm.

I had to go to the field to get samples while they were fresh, and conditions were miserable.

I couldn't believe the pH readings. 10. 10.5 11 WTF?

There was an equipment screw up and one sample bottle only got half full.

It had way too much air and oxygen for proper protocols and was set aside rather than immediately put on ice.

We already had field data for the sample (pH, redox, salinity, temperature, etc).
This particular sample had the highest pH of all. 11.3

Upon arrival to the lab, a last minute decision was made to go ahead and include the messed up sample, just to find out what was in it.

It would not be a "reportable" result because proper protocols were not followed, but it could shed light on an unexpected phenomenon.

By the time the lab analyzed it, the oxygen in the air space of the sample bottle had already reacted with it.

The pH went from 11.3 in the field to just above 3 in the lab.

Ammonium had been oxidized by bacteria to nitric acid.

The nitrate values explained it all. Highest ever seen in any related sample.

Indeed, the numbers added up perfectly to explain why pH 3 would be expected from that much nitrification.

The other samples, which had no air space and were immediately put on ice, had virtually no nitrate. Just ammonium.

So, the wetland soil acid-base puzzle includes multiple interactions between multiple players.

Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction may be the largest sources of alkalinity in wetland groundwater discharged to the sea.

But other processes, such as the ammonification of dead microbial biomass, can also have important short-term impacts on pH and alkalinity.
RE: Thermogenic Bacteria - Hot Ground Water20-04-2022 23:06
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Thermogenic Bacteria - Hot Ground Water

December, 2005, when a record-setting storm brought the first real rain of the year.

When I arrived to the field to meet up with T, I noticed a lot of local places with ground level fog. Then I noticed that the fog was billowing up from the ground in a few places. They weren't peat fires. What was it?

T had already started collecting at the newest monitor well. Steam was coming off the sample.

I pointed out how odd it was. He told me that the water was even hotter when he purged the well to collect the sample. The new samples were barely above body temperature. Still way too hot for groundwater.

This one was the brand new well. Could it be a chemical reaction from the bentonite used to seal the well?

But then all the OTHER wells had warm steamy groundwater too.

What is the perfect niche for a thermogenic bacteria?

Well, they need a truly ABUNDANT food supply, because they are going to spend a whole lot of energy to heat up their surroundings.

Dead microbial biomass is the most nutritious energy-rich food out there.

Go ahead and waste a lot of calories to generate heat. This will bake off the competition who can't take the heat.

I had never seen them do that outside of a compost pile before.

That was the ONLY sampling event when thermogenic bacteria made themselves evident while I was there to see it.

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

sealover wrote:
Temporary Extreme High pH with Ammonification - the numbers added up.

It was December, 2005. The rains finally came, and they came in force with a record setting storm.

I had to go to the field to get samples while they were fresh, and conditions were miserable.

I couldn't believe the pH readings. 10. 10.5 11 WTF?

There was an equipment screw up and one sample bottle only got half full.

It had way too much air and oxygen for proper protocols and was set aside rather than immediately put on ice.

We already had field data for the sample (pH, redox, salinity, temperature, etc).
This particular sample had the highest pH of all. 11.3

Upon arrival to the lab, a last minute decision was made to go ahead and include the messed up sample, just to find out what was in it.

It would not be a "reportable" result because proper protocols were not followed, but it could shed light on an unexpected phenomenon.

By the time the lab analyzed it, the oxygen in the air space of the sample bottle had already reacted with it.

The pH went from 11.3 in the field to just above 3 in the lab.

Ammonium had been oxidized by bacteria to nitric acid.

The nitrate values explained it all. Highest ever seen in any related sample.

Indeed, the numbers added up perfectly to explain why pH 3 would be expected from that much nitrification.

The other samples, which had no air space and were immediately put on ice, had virtually no nitrate. Just ammonium.

So, the wetland soil acid-base puzzle includes multiple interactions between multiple players.

Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction may be the largest sources of alkalinity in wetland groundwater discharged to the sea.

But other processes, such as the ammonification of dead microbial biomass, can also have important short-term impacts on pH and alkalinity.
20-04-2022 23:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted talking to yourself spam...
sealover wrote:
NBC News Mangrove Story Missed the Mark.

What mark? Oh, that's right. It's NBC putting out another piece of scripture for the Church of Green. Guess they hit the mark after all.
sealover wrote:
Tuesday night, April 18, NBC news ran a story about carbon sequestration in mangroves.

Mangrove trees are not carbon.
sealover wrote:
They tried, but the story missed the mark.

No. It hit the intended mark just fine. You are now spewing their scripture.
sealover wrote:
I had high hopes when the graphic showed "5x as much carbon as rainforests"

You get off on pretty graphics, do you?
sealover wrote:
Yes, mangroves have higher net primary productivity than rainforests, but no way is it FIVE times as much.

Define this 'productivity'.
sealover wrote:
Then the story implied that mangroves "piped" carbon dioxide underground through the roots. Seemed to imply that it was stored underground in the form of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is underground. It's in the air, it's in the water, and it's underground. No need to store any more there. Did you know that volcanoes emit large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air when they erupt?
sealover wrote:
Still, I had hope when they said that there was ANOTHER important role of mangroves in global ecology.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'global ecology'.
sealover wrote:
I couldn't wait for them to mention alkalinity exported to marine ecosystems from mangrove swamps via submarine groundwater discharge.

You want NBC to use your buzzwords? You don't want to use theirs?
sealover wrote:
But then, their "5x as much carbon" would have had to be "30-40x as much carbon", compared to rainforest export of alkalinity from the same land area.

But then, the story went on to discuss WHALE MIGRATION and the importance of mangroves.

Whales don't care about mangrove trees.
sealover wrote:
I love whales as much as the next guy, but...

Let me guess. You think Greenpeace actually saved the whales.
sealover wrote:
So, there IS public awareness that natural ecosystems, such as mangrove swamps, can sequester carbon dioxide and this could be important.

Only to the religious that don't know any better.
sealover wrote:
Good start.

But the presentation of numbers involved was misleading.

And furthermore, there are MANY kinds of ecosystems that cover much larger land area than mangroves, including agroecosystems.

What mangroves do that is so desperately needed is to act as a MAJOR SOURCE
of ALKALINITY to marine ecosystems.

Someday the news stories will finally pick up on it.

Dreaming that NBC will actually choose YOUR buzzwords over theirs. Dream on, dude.
sealover wrote:
And, hopefully, stop talking about ocean "acidification" as if pH rather than depletion of acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) were the issue.

Buzzword fallacies. You still don't get acid-base chemistry.
sealover wrote:
With the sea's enormous buffering capacity from the carbonate system, pH shifts from anthropogenic acid inputs are TINY compared to alkalinity losses.

There is no such thing as a 'carbonate system'. You don't know what buffering is.
Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
At least mangrove finally got some attention in the news.

Probably because 'mangrove' is a cooler sounding word than 'tree'. It also associates it with Everglades, a swamp in Florida that most residents avoid due to it's creepy nature.
sealover wrote:
The more we clear mangrove swamps and drain them, the less alkalinity they can provide to the sea.

No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Indeed, a drained swamp becomes a net source of ACID to the sea, as pyrite is exposed to oxygen and oxidized to sulfuric acid.

Pyrite does not turn into sulfuric acid upon exposure to oxygen. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and chemistry again. Pyrite is found pretty much anywhere. It was used a spark producing material in older guns (particularly the wheel lock mechanism), hence the name of the material.

Wheel lock guns were a lot better than the match lock guns, since it was more resilient to wet weather. This complicated mechanism, however, was eventually replaced by a flint lock mechanism (a far simpler mechanism), trading pyrite for flint.

In both guns, the advantage was a relatively light trigger action.

Today, percussion actions are used. Single and double action revolvers have the trigger working against the main spring, making the triggers very stiff, ruining your aim.

Semi-automatic pistols now use a striker action or automatic cocking of the hammer, which only needs to be released. Such pistols have a much lighter trigger, making them more accurate (and faster reload times). They are the preferred pistol of the day now.

Old cannons used a version of a flint lock, called a gun lock. The trigger was operated by a lanyard, by a gunner that stood behind the gun when he triggered it (although outside of it's recoil range), giving him a better sighting during aiming. Even older cannons used a match lock (you touched fire to the breech hole using a slow match, or type of punk, made of cotton soaked in potassium nitrate).

Modern cannons now use percussion locks, just as pistols and rifles do. In some cases, these locks are electrically operated.

Percussion lock mechanisms are typically breech loaded weapons, unlike the match, wheel, and flint lock mechanisms (which were muzzle loaded).


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
20-04-2022 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Temporary Extreme High pH with Ammonification - the numbers added up.

It was December, 2005. The rains finally came, and they came in force with a record setting storm.

I had to go to the field to get samples while they were fresh, and conditions were miserable.

I couldn't believe the pH readings. 10. 10.5 11 WTF?

There was an equipment screw up and one sample bottle only got half full.

It had way too much air and oxygen for proper protocols and was set aside rather than immediately put on ice.

We already had field data for the sample (pH, redox, salinity, temperature, etc).
This particular sample had the highest pH of all. 11.3

Upon arrival to the lab, a last minute decision was made to go ahead and include the messed up sample, just to find out what was in it.

It would not be a "reportable" result because proper protocols were not followed, but it could shed light on an unexpected phenomenon.

By the time the lab analyzed it, the oxygen in the air space of the sample bottle had already reacted with it.

The pH went from 11.3 in the field to just above 3 in the lab.

Ammonium had been oxidized by bacteria to nitric acid.

The nitrate values explained it all. Highest ever seen in any related sample.

Indeed, the numbers added up perfectly to explain why pH 3 would be expected from that much nitrification.

The other samples, which had no air space and were immediately put on ice, had virtually no nitrate. Just ammonium.

So, the wetland soil acid-base puzzle includes multiple interactions between multiple players.

Sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction may be the largest sources of alkalinity in wetland groundwater discharged to the sea.

But other processes, such as the ammonification of dead microbial biomass, can also have important short-term impacts on pH and alkalinity.

There is no chemical called 'ammonium', 'nitrate', 'nitrite', 'sulfate'. Buzzword fallacies.
There is no such thing as 'aklalinity' in chemistry. You still don't understand even simple chemistry, not even acid, alkaline, pH, or buffering.

All your crap (other than your embellishment of it) is pasted from Wikipedia, which is wrong.


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
21-04-2022 00:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
squeal over wrote:I had high hopes when the graphic showed "5x as much carbon as rainforests"

Yes, mangroves have higher net primary productivity than rainforests, but no way is it FIVE times as much.

Were you ever going to explain what "carbon sequestration" is? Apparently, the only people who truly understand what you mean, i.e. your rapidly approaching army of followers, don't actually exist. There isn't anyone who knows what "carbon sequestration" means yet you continue to use the term as an empty buzzword. Is that your intention?

squeal over wrote:Still, I had hope when they said that there was ANOTHER important role of mangroves in global ecology.

Was that role one of saving the planet and humanity from a global climate catastrophe? When I look at mangroves, that's absolutely what I presume they're doing. I don't see how our planet would stand any realistic chance without mangroves doing all the global climate "heavy lifting."



Face it, you can't argue with direct scientific observations.

squeal over wrote:I couldn't wait for them to mention alkalinity exported to marine ecosystems from mangrove swamps via submarine groundwater discharge.

I bet, just like I bet you couldn't wait to confuse "logarithmic" with "exponential" and to use entirely incorrect terms like "acidification" with the excuse that you are simply "dumbing down" your explanation to the level of your audience of science geniuses who are on their way to revel in your library. How do I get in on this and how do I join your fan club? Do you have plans to establish a "Foundation"?

squeal over wrote:But then, their "5x as much carbon" would have had to be "30-40x as much carbon", compared to rainforest export of alkalinity from the same land area.


From The MANUAL

The Data: proper noun
According to Global Warming mythology, The Data is the rumored proof of Global Warming, the mere mention of which has the magical superpower to end all debate on questions of Global Warming faith. Note: Often Climate Scientists fabricate data and claim that it comes from The Data. As long as the fabricated/cooked/tweaked/modified/fudged/altered/fiddled data support the truth of Climate Science then it is the Climate Scientists' duty to present that data. This duty is analogous to Taqiya in Islam.



squeal over wrote:But then, the story went on to discuss WHALE MIGRATION and the importance of mangroves.

If we're not saving the whales, then why do we even bother?

squeal over wrote:So, there IS public awareness that natural ecosystems, such as mangrove swamps, can sequester carbon dioxide and this could be important.

You say that like there is some doubt, as though it isn't thettled thienth. Look, the debate is over. 97% of climate scientists agree that without mangroves, we'd have been history long ago. You take your crap "doubting-Thomas" attitude and check it at the door.

squeal over wrote:And furthermore, there are MANY kinds of ecosystems that cover much larger land area than mangroves, including agroecosystems.

Of course. Those agroecosystems need to be discussed separately lest they be confused with regular ecosystems.

squeal over wrote:What mangroves do that is so desperately needed is to act as a MAJOR SOURCE of ALKALINITY to marine ecosystems.

I KNOW! ... that's what Sven and I keep saying but nobody listens to us. I tried explaining this to GasGuzzler the other day and he just kept copy-pasting from his chemsitry textbook propaganda about "buffers" and never deviated from the strict party line: BUFFERS. Of course that grew old very quickly.

squeal over wrote:And, hopefully, stop talking about ocean "acidification" as if pH rather than depletion of acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity) were the issue.

I don't know how there are even any deniers on this issue because it's "what we know." After all, we measured the ocean with advanced NOAA satellites and nobody can argue with "The Data." It's what we know.

squeal over wrote:With the sea's enormous buffering capacity from the carbonate system,

I know, right? Sven and I tried to explain this to GasGuzzler but it was in one ear and out the other. He kept asking about the "carbonate system" like it wasn't totally obvious and self explanatory. I wasn't about to play definition word games with him. If he wants to call it "another empty buzzword" well fine, let him. Maybe when the army of your followers arrive they can explain our scientific consensus to GasGuzzler and put him back in his place.

squeal over wrote:pH shifts from anthropogenic acid inputs are TINY compared to alkalinity losses.

All anyone has to do is look at The Data and all anyone needs to do is to believe that one has looked at The Data to be able to speak about The Data.

squeal over wrote:At least mangrove finally got some attention in the news.

It's about fuqq'n time!

.
Attached image:

21-04-2022 00:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
The carbonate system is simple. You just pop the top, it fizzes a little, you enjoy, a cool, bubbly beer. The CO2 is later capture by the Hops, sequestered in a whole new batch of beer.
21-04-2022 03:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
HarveyH55 wrote:The carbonate system is simple. You just pop the top, it fizzes a little, you enjoy, a cool, bubbly beer. The CO2 is later capture by the Hops, sequestered in a whole new batch of beer.

You didn't give squeal over a chance to address the pilsner carbon sequestration cycle and how it restores alkalinity to hexavalent chromium-laced soils and pioneer tree-killing fern fields.

Just give him a chance; I'm sure he's getting to it.
Attached image:

RE: Placer Mining and First US Environmental Regulations22-04-2022 19:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Placer Mining and First US Environmental Regulations.

Society didn't always agree that government needed to impose environmental regulations.

The California Gold Rush was one of wildest chapters in the wild wild west.

The "yellow metal that drives the white men crazy" brought a lot of fortune seekers to California.

They were willing to do ANYTHING to get it.

By the 1870s, large scale placer mining was blasting away the hillsides of the Mother Lode.

The waterways of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta became clogged with sediments washed down from the Mokelumne River.

The shipping channels could no longer be used for shipping.

Draconian government overreach was agreed upon, even by the wealthiest.

Laws were put in place to protect the waterways.

No more placer mining.

Even more draconian government overreach to make the waterways navigable again for shipping.

A whole system of levees and drains, still maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Those USACE guys are actually pretty cool. I worked with many of them.

They were the indirect source of my paychecks while I investigated the biogeochemistry of the dredged sediments, ground water, and surface water.

But until the 1870s, people were allowed to trash the environment legally.
22-04-2022 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
By the 1870s, large scale placer mining was blasting away the hillsides of the Mother Lode.

That is not placer mining.
sealover wrote:
The waterways of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta became clogged with sediments washed down from the Mokelumne River.

No. It has always had sediments. That's why it's a delta in the first place.
sealover wrote:
The shipping channels could no longer be used for shipping.

There weren't any.
sealover wrote:
Draconian government overreach was agreed upon, even by the wealthiest.

Laws were put in place to protect the waterways.

No more placer mining.

Placer mining is still legal in the SDTC. There are even tourist attractions along popular rivers to give people a try at it.
sealover wrote:
Even more draconian government overreach to make the waterways navigable again for shipping.

A whole system of levees and drains, still maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Not the purpose of the levees and drains. They are there to prevent flooding.
sealover wrote:
Those USACE guys are actually pretty cool. I worked with many of them.

Bullshit. You are making shit up again.
sealover wrote:
But until the 1870s, people were allowed to trash the environment legally.

Placer mining does not trash the environment.

You have now demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about mining.


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: Deliberate Massive Erosion in Dark Ages Italy22-04-2022 20:23
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Deliberate Massive Erosion in Dark Ages Italy.

During the "Dark Ages", after the fall of the Roman Empire, people deliberately caused massive erosion in some of the hilly regions of Italy.

They would build a small dam at the outlet of a small valley.

They would cut down all the trees on the hillsides upstream.

Let the fuel get nice and dry, then torch it.

The next big rainfall event would fill the small valley with nutrient rich sediment.

The valley became HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE cropland.

What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

As Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, they didn't even need to pass any laws for environmental regulation to stop the large scale slash and burn operations.

Deliberate Massive Erosion in Dark Ages Italy. People figured out it was bad.
22-04-2022 20:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
Placer Mining and First US Environmental Regulations.

Society didn't always agree that government needed to impose environmental regulations.

The California Gold Rush was one of wildest chapters in the wild wild west.

The "yellow metal that drives the white men crazy" brought a lot of fortune seekers to California.

They were willing to do ANYTHING to get it.

By the 1870s, large scale placer mining was blasting away the hillsides of the Mother Lode.

The waterways of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta became clogged with sediments washed down from the Mokelumne River.

The shipping channels could no longer be used for shipping.

Draconian government overreach was agreed upon, even by the wealthiest.

Laws were put in place to protect the waterways.

No more placer mining.

Even more draconian government overreach to make the waterways navigable again for shipping.

A whole system of levees and drains, still maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Those USACE guys are actually pretty cool. I worked with many of them.

They were the indirect source of my paychecks while I investigated the biogeochemistry of the dredged sediments, ground water, and surface water.

But until the 1870s, people were allowed to trash the environment legally.


Californians use the rivers as a sewer? (why else call in a biogeochemist) Filthy bastards. So, if the waterways are so well managed, and maintained. Why are so many drying up. Use most of it on wildfires, which could have been mitigated, or some eliminated, had the spent some of their federal funding, on actually removing underbrush, access roads, an permanent firebreaks. Or is that even though they are known for droughts, they still spray water on their lawns, and exotic, water hunger landscape plants. Guessing you California job was decades ago, and got defunded anyway. Your biogeochemical analysis convinced them everything was good, and no need to waste money on it anymore.
22-04-2022 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Deliberate Massive Erosion in Dark Ages Italy.

During the "Dark Ages", after the fall of the Roman Empire, people deliberately caused massive erosion in some of the hilly regions of Italy.

They would build a small dam at the outlet of a small valley.

They would cut down all the trees on the hillsides upstream.

Let the fuel get nice and dry, then torch it.

The next big rainfall event would fill the small valley with nutrient rich sediment.

The valley became HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE cropland.

What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

Your wacky idea that highly productive land is 'erosion' and 'bad'.

Your cut and paste is not science. It is speculation.


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 22-04-2022 21:58
RE: Rice Paddies and Anabaena azollae Cyanobacteria.23-04-2022 03:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Rice Paddies and Anabaena azollae Cyanobacteria.

Humans have terraformed by constructing rice paddies, for thousands of years.

These agroecosystems sustained productivity without anthropogenic inputs of agricultural chemicals, for thousands of years.

A large, coordinated social network was required to maintain the system of dikes and canals. This made people work together under a central government.

One reason these rice paddies work so well is due to the presence of azolla water ferns.

The aquatic azolla fern lives in symbiosis with a nitrogen fixing bacteria, Anabaena azollae.

This "blue green algae" is also photosynthetic, like the fern it lives with.

Atmospheric nitrogen can be "fixed" by these cyanobacteria, into a form that eventually becomes bioavailable to the rice in the paddies.

It costs a lot of energy to "fix" nitrogen. Legumes have to provide carbohydrate to the nitrogen fixing bacteria in the nodules on their roots to be able to do it.

These water ferns and their bacterial partners make rice production possible without humans having to apply nitrogen fertilizer.

Rice paddies take a lot of work to build.

Perhaps the most impressive can be found on steep mountain slopes of Bali.

Far more difficult to build than the rice paddies of Southeast Asian deltas, these are on steep hillsides.

It would have been much easier to build them on lower land, irrigated with river water.

But the groundwater on the slopes of these mountains in Bali is special.

It is highly enriched in phosphorus.

It was worth the effort to build the rice paddy infrastructure with such fertile water coming in.

Because they also have the azolla fern with its cyanobacteria to supply nitrogen.

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


Into the Night wrote:

Your wacky idea that highly productive land is 'erosion' and 'bad'.

Your cut and paste is not science. It is speculation.[/quote]
23-04-2022 04:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:Humans have terraformed by constructing rice paddies, for thousands of years.

Great. When you aren't inventing buzzwords and gibber-babble, you sneak in redefinitions of existing words.

Now irrigation is terraforming. Wonderful.

sealover wrote:These agroecosystems sustained productivity without anthropogenic inputs of agricultural chemicals, for thousands of years.

Translation: Farming has been around a very long time.

sealover wrote:A large, coordinated social network was required to maintain the system of dikes and canals.

Translation: Infrastructure requires organized maintenance.


sealover wrote: This made people work together under a central government.

Translation: Marxism! Death to capitalism!

sealover wrote:One reason these rice paddies work so well is due to the presence of azolla water ferns.

Translation: Bad news for pioneer trees.

sealover wrote:The aquatic azolla fern lives in symbiosis with a nitrogen fixing bacteria, Anabaena azollae.

Translation: The sulphate reduction in low-oxygen mangrove zones practically eliminates the hexavalent chromium enriched soil's ability to prevent alkalinity depletion in salted desert water, leaving ferns to kill the pioneer trees with arsenic-laced wells that evade detection by the gamma-spec.

I absolutely HATE when that happens.

.
sealover wrote:It costs a lot of energy to "fix" nitrogen.

Element repair. It's a booming business.
23-04-2022 05:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
So, constructing a highway is terraforming. The Hoover Dam is terraforming. The house I live in terraforming... Any alteration to the natural landscape, for a human purpose is terraforming. Let's play word games with the liberals. That's why you must define your terms. You don't like that, because it reveals your word games.
23-04-2022 05:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(888)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, constructing a highway is terraforming. The Hoover Dam is terraforming. The house I live in terraforming... Any alteration to the natural landscape, for a human purpose is terraforming. Let's play word games with the liberals. That's why you must define your terms. You don't like that, because it reveals your word games.


Look at your own picture Harvey. It's disturbing and represents your point of view.
23-04-2022 07:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, constructing a highway is terraforming. The Hoover Dam is terraforming. The house I live in terraforming... Any alteration to the natural landscape, for a human purpose is terraforming. Let's play word games with the liberals. That's why you must define your terms. You don't like that, because it reveals your word games.


If a beaver makes a dam, I suppose that's terraforming as well.

Terraforming is the new way to say the verb "to do."
Attached image:

23-04-2022 07:41
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
IBdaMann wrote:
The sulphate reduction in low-oxygen mangrove zones practically eliminates the hexavalent chromium enriched soil's ability to prevent alkalinity depletion in salted desert water, leaving ferns to kill the pioneer trees with arsenic-laced wells that evade detection by the gamma-spec.

I absolutely HATE when that happens.


Yes, I totally hate it too. However, it does prove that terraforming was being performed in the Garden of Eden by the original trolls, Adam, Eve and Sven. Did you know they didn't actually eat the forbidden fruit? They actually and factually cut down the forbidden fruit tree, lit it on fire, and caused massive amounts of organic carbon rich soil to erode down into the valley where they collected genetically engineered seeds. Some of the seeds they planted, but the majority were sent to a galaxy far far away via catapult for future generations.
Edited on 23-04-2022 07:48
23-04-2022 16:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
James_ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, constructing a highway is terraforming. The Hoover Dam is terraforming. The house I live in terraforming... Any alteration to the natural landscape, for a human purpose is terraforming. Let's play word games with the liberals. That's why you must define your terms. You don't like that, because it reveals your word games.


Look at your own picture Harvey. It's disturbing and represents your point of view.


You probably still have snow on the ground, little depressing. Since, Florida is enjoying summer weather... Least covid mask restrictions have been dropped. You don't have to worry about mistaking your mask, for your sack anymore...
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems42018-05-2022 18:45
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
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change4612-04-2022 18:09
"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith9308-12-2021 19:31
▲ 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