Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands

Page 1 of 3

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands11-03-2022 00:13
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	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
11-03-2022 00:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote:This seems like a good place to start the discussion I'll start the discussion. Ummmmm, ... did you make any sort of argument in there anywhere or was your intent to rattle off some trivia? I'll assume the latter. Here's my contribution: Dust, grime, and mineral scales build up on condenser coils. sometimes the AC will not be able to cool sufficiently, heating at a much faster rate than thermal energy can be removed. The condenser itself can be forced to run continuously to cool its designated volume. One of the most common condenser failures is caused by leaks, within seals, in faulty tubes, or refrigerant containers. Tubes can get pinched and suffer from wear and tear, especially after a long period of usage. The condenser is connected to the indoor evaporator through a line that circulates the vital refrigerant between different units. Enjoy.
11-03-2022 00:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	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 First question: Why are you so concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide? 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
11-03-2022 01:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:First question: Why are you so concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide? Were we supposed to ask questions? I didn't read any "point" against which to ask any questions. Should I ask if management of wetlands and nutrients requires a tax increase? For a while there I was certain that sealover was going to try to wiggle the discussion over to "externalities" but that hasn't happened yet. I have a bunch of questions should that ever occur. Oh, oh... I know ... @sealover, how can increased government oversight of wetlands mitigate Climate Change? Enjoy!
RE: chemical pitfalls of new wetlands11-03-2022 01:02
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. The more widespread risk is for arsenic. It is abundant many soil parent materials where new wetlands might be established. The risk, however, is only if wells tap shallow groundwater for human consumption. Otherwise, its benign where it is. The more dangerous risk, with bitter lessons having already been learned, is that the newly constructed wetland becomes a source of methyl mercury to surface water and aquatic life, and on up the food chain. In relatively rare sites where human activity has caused iron-bound mercury to accumulate under aerobic conditions (downstream from mercury mines or gold mining activities), creating a new wetland carries great risk. Under aerobic conditions, most solid-phase arsenic that contacts soil solution and groundwater is ferric-iron-bound arsenate. It is stable and benign under aerobic conditions. However, if it becomes waterlogged and low oxygen conditions prevail, that arsenic can be unleashed into solution through reductive dissolution of the ferric iron it is bound to. Toxic levels of arsenic in groundwater can be generated. However, this water is generally too salty to use for agriculture or human consumption anyway. Mercury mines generate acidic discharge. Pyrite oxidation generates sulfuric acid and ferric iron. Cinnabar oxidation generates sulfuric acid dissolved mercury. Ferric iron is soluble at high concentration in the strongly acidic mine discharge. As soon as the acid mine discharge hits near neutral pH stream water, iron floc begins to form as ferric iron forms oxyhydroxide precipitates. Dissolved mercury is sequestered and bound into the iron floc, removing nearly all of it from the stream water. Mercury-bearing iron floc then accumulated downstream in aerobic soil conditions. When folks decide to "remediate" the old mercury mine sites, they discovered the hard way that installing a new wetland downstream is a very bad idea. When mercury-bearing iron oxyhydroxide floc in aerobic soil is flooded into a low oxygen condition, iron reducing bacteria use ferric iron as oxidant to get energy from oxidation of organic carbon. This dissolves the solid-phase ferric iron, releasing it as soluble ferrous iron. Reductive dissolution of the ferric iron also releases the mercury that was bound to it. Under such conditions, the only way that iron-reducing can access the ferric iron for use as oxidant is to come into close contact with mercury. Iron reducing bacteria methylate mercury. Where the old mercury mine waste deposits had been benign for a century and a half, they had now become a source of methyl mercury for the food chain.

11-03-2022 01:10
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: This seems like a good place to start the discussion First question: Why are you so concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide?[/quote] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who is concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide. It's kind of a big deal to a lot of people I know. I figure it would be incredibly redundant to go back to square one on that one. Those who don't already know the answer wouldn't be interested in this discussion anyway, don't you think?
RE: government oversight was the problem11-03-2022 01:14
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	IBdaMann wrote: Oh, oh... I know ... @sealover, how can increased government oversight of wetlands mitigate Climate Change? Enjoy! ----------------------------------------------------------- It was actually government oversight that f****d up the situation to release methyl mercury from the wetland they required the landowner to construct. That how they "remediate" by the book.
11-03-2022 01:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote:It was actually government oversight that f****d up the situation to release methyl mercury from the wetland they required the landowner to construct. That how they "remediate" by the book. Then what is to be done?
11-03-2022 01:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote:First question: Why are you so concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who is concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide. As far as I can tell, yes, you are the only one on this site who is concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide. Regardless, you were not asked about the quantity of people who might share your concern. The question that was asked was "Why" are you so concerned about carbon and carbon dioxide? I would certainly like to know as well. sealover wrote:It's kind of a big deal to a lot of people I know. You don't know that because you can't read anyone's mind ... nor do you get to speak for other people, but you do get to speak for yourself and explain why you personally are concerned about carbon and carbon dioxide. Should I be concerned as well? sealover wrote:I figure it would be incredibly redundant to go back to square one on that one. Nope. We have never discussed why you are concerned about carbon and carbon dioxide or why I should be concerned as well. Please explain. sealover wrote:Those who don't already know the answer wouldn't be interested in this discussion anyway, don't you think? I don't already know the answer and I am eager to hear/read what you have to say. Please elucidate. .
11-03-2022 06:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: This seems like a good place to start the discussion First question: Why are you so concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who is concerned about carbon or carbon dioxide.[/quote] So you are not going to answer. Gotit. sealover wrote: It's kind of a big deal to a lot of people I know. So you are not going to answer. Gotit. sealover wrote: I figure it would be incredibly redundant to go back to square one on that one. So you are not going to answer. Gotit. sealover wrote: Those who don't already know the answer wouldn't be interested in this discussion anyway, don't you think? You are not having a discussion. You don't want to answer the question. Maybe you can't. I understand. 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
11-03-2022 06:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? 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 do they construct new wetlands?11-03-2022 06:44
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. Because wetlands generate alkalinity. The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" Because they neutralize acidity.
RE: so what is to be done?11-03-2022 06:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:It was actually government oversight that f****d up the situation to release methyl mercury from the wetland they required the landowner to construct. That how they "remediate" by the book. Then what is to be done? -------------------------------------------------------------------- So, what is to be done? In this case, they did the right thing to correct the mistake. First, they contracted some of the world's most respected biogeochemists (tee hee!) to investigate what went wrong. They recognized the limits of their own knowledge and sought information and advice from experts. They followed that advice. Success story. They broke the dam to allow aerobic conditions to reestablish. Reductive dissolution, methylation and release of the mercury from the sediment ceased.
11-03-2022 08:09
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The failure, is that the IPCC collects/encourages papers from any field, that wants grants, and willing to include something Climate Change related to their specific interest. They are basically specialists, ignorant in any other field, and don't really care. They only want some free-money. They write some creative, compelling BS. Wetlands are a biological process, not a chemistry lab. Bacteria mold, and fungus breakdown a lot of 'crap' in the environment, emitting gasses in the process. Methane is one of the major ones. Which, is also claimed to be a more potent 'greenhouse' gas, than CO2. Your proposal, is to substitute a more deadly 'poison', for one that at least has benefits for all life on the planet. Life is a delicate balance, but usually fairly tolerant. We need both acid, and alkaline in our environment, and our diets. Too much, or too strong of either, isn't healthy, but fortunately it tends to stay balanced naturally, over time. Humans tend to overdo things, in the interest of urgency. Doing more harm than good. 'Experts' are knowledgeable in their fields, but fail to see the beyond what they know best. They set one thing in motion, until they realize it's doing more harm, than good. Which, at that point, it's too late, the damage is already done. They created a new crisis, that urgently needs to be corrected... Before man discovered a use for oil, it use to just seep up through the ground, where it would just pool. A wildfires would occasionally set these pools on fire, and they'd burn, until exhausted (long time). Our pump oil out, and actually using it does some good, with little difference to the environment. Basically, the same thing that would have happened anyway. Humans have a limited lifespan, where a planet it is basically timeless. A human, needs to control and 'fix' everything, in an extremely short period. Any problems they create, are the next generations problems, so who cares... In nature, we survive, by adapting to changes, not trying to correct them. We either migrate, or mitigate, but the planet keeps on course, regardless of what we want.
11-03-2022 08:21
James_ ★★★★★ (2215)	HarveyH55 wrote: The failure, is that the IPCC collects/encourages papers from any field, that wants grants, and willing to include something Climate Change related to their specific interest. And Trump whose grandparents were illegal immigrants and whose children have an immigrant mother doesn't support immigration in any form. American politics at its finest.

RE: poetic but somewhat puzzling11-03-2022 08:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	HarveyH55 wrote: Wetlands are a biological process, not a chemistry lab. Bacteria mold, and fungus breakdown a lot of 'crap' in the environment, emitting gasses in the process. Methane is one of the major ones. Which, is also claimed to be a more potent 'greenhouse' gas, than CO2. Your proposal, is to substitute a more deadly 'poison', for one that at least has benefits for all life on the planet. I am a little puzzled by the characterization of (my?) proposal. I'm not sure how it substitutes a more deadly poison for anything. Perhaps this refers to methane emissions from wetlands? In any case, I want to reassure. I am not aware of any reason to believe that there is a risk of not having enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to support productive plant growth. I love plants very much, by the way.
11-03-2022 10:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am enjoying reading your posts but feel I have to go back to the Genesis.Are all your solutions based on CO2 allegedly making the planet hotter and hotter till we all die or is there another reason for fighting the dreaded CO2 emissions I am not aware of Edited on 11-03-2022 10:49
11-03-2022 10:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? 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: Excess CO2 depletes sea alkalinity11-03-2022 11:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	duncan61 wrote: I am enjoying reading your posts but feel I have to go back to the Genesis.Are all your solutions based on CO2 allegedly making the planet hotter and hotter till we all die or is there another reason for fighting the dreaded CO2 emissions I am not aware of I'd like to believe that you are well aware of another urgent reason to fight the dreaded CO2 emissions. They have severely depleted the alkalinity of the ocean. I guess this thread didn't have "alkalinity" or "acidification" in the title.
RE: was it really that cryptic?11-03-2022 11:16
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Acid Mine Discharge" or AMD is a real thing. This was a mine that was closed about 150 years ago. They were not interested in trying to collect any more ore. Cinnabar is the main mercury ore. Comprised entirely of mercury and sulfur. Another way to name it is mercury pyrite. Like any other pyrite, its sulfide content can be oxidized by sulfur oxidizing bacteria, using oxygen, to generate sulfuric acid. They can really do that. But there would have been no cinnabar to find in the mercury-enriched iron floc downstream. What acid mine drainage? The strongly acidic drainage that came out of the mine. Dissolved in water kind of thing. That's why they construct the wetlands - to remediate AMD. Because wetlands do the impossible - they "generate alkalinity".
11-03-2022 12:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: duncan61 wrote: I am enjoying reading your posts but feel I have to go back to the Genesis.Are all your solutions based on CO2 allegedly making the planet hotter and hotter till we all die or is there another reason for fighting the dreaded CO2 emissions I am not aware of I'd like to believe that you are well aware of another urgent reason to fight the dreaded CO2 emissions. They have severely depleted the alkalinity of the ocean. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans. Ocean water is, however, generally alkaline. You cannot deplete alkaline. sealover wrote: I guess this thread didn't have "alkalinity" or "acidification" in the title. You can't acidify an alkaline 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 Edited on 11-03-2022 12:32
11-03-2022 12:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Acid Mine Discharge" or AMD is a real thing. What acid mine discharge? Answer the question put to you. Don't evade. sealover wrote: This was a mine that was closed about 150 years ago. They were not interested in trying to collect any more ore. Cinnabar is the main mercury ore. Comprised entirely of mercury and sulfur. Another way to name it is mercury pyrite. Like any other pyrite, its sulfide content can be oxidized by sulfur oxidizing bacteria, using oxygen, to generate sulfuric acid. They can really do that. But there would have been no cinnabar to find in the mercury-enriched iron floc downstream. What acid mine drainage? I am asking you. sealover wrote: The strongly acidic drainage that came out of the mine. Dissolved in water kind of thing. What mine? What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: That's why they construct the wetlands - to remediate AMD. I like AMD. They make great processors. sealover wrote: Because wetlands do the impossible - they "generate alkalinity". You can't generate alkalinity. 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: I'm glad we got that straightened out11-03-2022 22:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Acid Mine Discharge" or AMD is a real thing. What acid mine discharge? Answer the question put to you. Don't evade. sealover wrote: This was a mine that was closed about 150 years ago. They were not interested in trying to collect any more ore. Cinnabar is the main mercury ore. Comprised entirely of mercury and sulfur. Another way to name it is mercury pyrite. Like any other pyrite, its sulfide content can be oxidized by sulfur oxidizing bacteria, using oxygen, to generate sulfuric acid. They can really do that. But there would have been no cinnabar to find in the mercury-enriched iron floc downstream. What acid mine drainage? I am asking you. sealover wrote: The strongly acidic drainage that came out of the mine. Dissolved in water kind of thing. What mine? What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: That's why they construct the wetlands - to remediate AMD. I like AMD. They make great processors. sealover wrote: Because wetlands do the impossible - they "generate alkalinity". You can't generate alkalinity. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'm glad we got that straightened out.
RE: What acidity? What me worry?12-03-2022 22:30
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- One way to "solve" a problem is to simply redefine it. It's not an oil spill. It is marine hydrocarbon enrichment. It is not a greenhouse gas. It is a life giving fertilizer we can't live without. But sometimes it doesn't work. It's not something that forms acid. It is... Sometimes the only escape is pure denial. What acidity?
13-03-2022 02:29
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:This seems like a good place to start the discussion I'll start the discussion. Ummmmm, ... did you make any sort of argument in there anywhere or was your intent to rattle off some trivia? I'll assume the latter. Here's my contribution: Dust, grime, and mineral scales build up on condenser coils. sometimes the AC will not be able to cool sufficiently, heating at a much faster rate than thermal energy can be removed. The condenser itself can be forced to run continuously to cool its designated volume. One of the most common condenser failures is caused by leaks, within seals, in faulty tubes, or refrigerant containers. Tubes can get pinched and suffer from wear and tear, especially after a long period of usage. The condenser is connected to the indoor evaporator through a line that circulates the vital refrigerant between different units. Enjoy. Actually you did not start the discussion, however you need to feel important you may choose to believe that you did
13-03-2022 03:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:Actually you did not start the discussion, however you need to feel important you may choose to believe that you did Yawn. Yes, I need to feel important. LOL Yes, I did start the discussion. LOL. seal over merely set some trivia on the table for people to read. LOL Yawn. Moraines.
13-03-2022 03:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	sealover wrote: But sometimes it doesn't work. It's not something that forms acid. It is... Sometimes the only escape is pure denial. What acidity? Cool! What language is this? It looks very English-like but with the solid understandability of Mandarin.
13-03-2022 04:21
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:This seems like a good place to start the discussion I'll start the discussion. Ummmmm, ... did you make any sort of argument in there anywhere or was your intent to rattle off some trivia? I'll assume the latter. Here's my contribution: Dust, grime, and mineral scales build up on condenser coils. sometimes the AC will not be able to cool sufficiently, heating at a much faster rate than thermal energy can be removed. The condenser itself can be forced to run continuously to cool its designated volume. One of the most common condenser failures is caused by leaks, within seals, in faulty tubes, or refrigerant containers. Tubes can get pinched and suffer from wear and tear, especially after a long period of usage. The condenser is connected to the indoor evaporator through a line that circulates the vital refrigerant between different units. Enjoy. My central AC is 26 years old, failed several times. The number one cause, has been run capacitors, specially on the outside unit. On my third one. The fan motor failed last year. Had to replace the contactor as well, some sort of greasy crap was making it get stuck on. I guess I was fortunate, and got this one installed, before the 'green' units became mandatory. If I do have a major failure, that I can't fix myself. I'll have to by an entire new system. They don't replace just the inside, or outside units, they have to be a match set. If yours is made any more, you have to replace both. Anything 15 years, or older needs replaced. What a scam... Gotten 26 years out of mine, and fortunately been able to repair myself. Capacitor costs about $12. Costs $70, just to get someone to come look at it. Never went that far, knowing they are going to tell me I have to replace it all. I had to do some shopping last year, since it was making a lot of noise, fear the worst. My system has out lived my expectations. Could believe the crap I was finding. Was even more shocked, that it turned out to be relatively cheap and simple to fix myself. Really thought the compressor was going bad...
14-03-2022 04:07
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Actually you did not start the discussion, however you need to feel important you may choose to believe that you did Yawn. Yes, I need to feel important. LOL Yes, I did start the discussion. LOL. seal over merely set some trivia on the table for people to read. LOL Yawn. Moraines. This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, which is not you, never was or will be. Seriously how many gallons of Vaseline do you go thru in a year
14-03-2022 05:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, Yawn. You need to learn to read English better. LOL The original poster did not start any discussion LOL. He merely posted a post. LOL, He merely created a thread. LOL He did not start any discussion. I did that. All seal over did was list some trivia. Yawn. Vaseline. Yawn. LOL

14-03-2022 09:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Better management of drained wetlands can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, decrease their export of sulfuric acid to surface waters, and increase their export of alkalinity in groundwater flows. There you go on about carbon dioxide. You haven't yet explained the problem with it. sealover wrote: Establishing new wetlands is easy, but there are some potential chemical pitfalls to be aware of - potential release of arsenic and potential generation of methyl mercury. Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Why do you hate plants? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why establish new wetlands? To limit carbon dioxide? Downstream from the mercury mine, nobody was trying to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So? They are interested in collecting mercury ore. sealover wrote: For decades already, people had been constructing wetlands for the sole purpose of neutralizing acid mine drainage. What acid mine drainage? sealover wrote: Because wetlands generate alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The problem was that it had become so routine a prescription, they thought they had to do it where the actual acid discharge had nearly ceased more than a century before. Acid is not a discharge. sealover wrote: So, if you ask an environmental engineer "Why establish new wetlands?", the answer would often be because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? sealover wrote: If you ask someone such as myself, in the context of ocean acidification, "Why establish new wetlands?" You can't acidify an alkaline. There is no such context. sealover wrote: Because they neutralize acidity. What acidity? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- One way to "solve" a problem is to simply redefine it. Define The Problem. sealover wrote: It's not an oil spill. It is marine hydrocarbon enrichment. It is not a greenhouse gas. It is a life giving fertilizer we can't live without. But sometimes it doesn't work. It's not something that forms acid. It is... Sometimes the only escape is pure denial. What acidity? Semantics fallacy. Void context. 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
14-03-2022 09:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:This seems like a good place to start the discussion I'll start the discussion. Ummmmm, ... did you make any sort of argument in there anywhere or was your intent to rattle off some trivia? I'll assume the latter. Here's my contribution: Dust, grime, and mineral scales build up on condenser coils. sometimes the AC will not be able to cool sufficiently, heating at a much faster rate than thermal energy can be removed. The condenser itself can be forced to run continuously to cool its designated volume. One of the most common condenser failures is caused by leaks, within seals, in faulty tubes, or refrigerant containers. Tubes can get pinched and suffer from wear and tear, especially after a long period of usage. The condenser is connected to the indoor evaporator through a line that circulates the vital refrigerant between different units. Enjoy. My central AC is 26 years old, failed several times. The number one cause, has been run capacitors, specially on the outside unit. On my third one. The fan motor failed last year. Had to replace the contactor as well, some sort of greasy crap was making it get stuck on. I guess I was fortunate, and got this one installed, before the 'green' units became mandatory. If I do have a major failure, that I can't fix myself. I'll have to by an entire new system. They don't replace just the inside, or outside units, they have to be a match set. If yours is made any more, you have to replace both. Anything 15 years, or older needs replaced. What a scam... Gotten 26 years out of mine, and fortunately been able to repair myself. Capacitor costs about $12. Costs $70, just to get someone to come look at it. Never went that far, knowing they are going to tell me I have to replace it all. I had to do some shopping last year, since it was making a lot of noise, fear the worst. My system has out lived my expectations. Could believe the crap I was finding. Was even more shocked, that it turned out to be relatively cheap and simple to fix myself. Really thought the compressor was going bad... Bad capacitors on a motor can be really frustrating. Fortunately, they are easy to replace. 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
14-03-2022 09:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Actually you did not start the discussion, however you need to feel important you may choose to believe that you did Yawn. Yes, I need to feel important. LOL Yes, I did start the discussion. LOL. seal over merely set some trivia on the table for people to read. LOL Yawn. Moraines. This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, which is not you, never was or will be. Seriously how many gallons of Vaseline do you go thru in a year Random phrases. No apparent coherency. 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
14-03-2022 14:13
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, Yawn. You need to learn to read English better. LOL The original poster did not start any discussion LOL. He merely posted a post. LOL, He merely created a thread. LOL He did not start any discussion. I did that. All seal over did was list some trivia. Yawn. Vaseline. Yawn. LOL Yes little boy, everything revolves around you. Did your Mommy bake you cookies yet today?
14-03-2022 18:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, Yawn. You need to learn to read English better. LOL The original poster did not start any discussion LOL. He merely posted a post. LOL, He merely created a thread. LOL He did not start any discussion. I did that. All seal over did was list some trivia. Yawn. Vaseline. Yawn. LOL Yes little boy, everything revolves around you. Did your Mommy bake you cookies yet today? Denial of history. Insult fallacy. 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
14-03-2022 23:51
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:This discussion was started by the lead poster in the thread, Yawn. You need to learn to read English better. LOL The original poster did not start any discussion LOL. He merely posted a post. LOL, He merely created a thread. LOL He did not start any discussion. I did that. All seal over did was list some trivia. Yawn. Vaseline. Yawn. LOL Yes little boy, everything revolves around you. Did your Mommy bake you cookies yet today? Denial of history. Insult fallacy. No argument presented. Ys know you almost seem deluded enough to be working for the NSA
15-03-2022 00:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:Yes little boy, everything revolves around you. That's why my mother was so very tempted to name me Barry Senter. Swan wrote: Did your Mommy bake you cookies yet today? No. My wife cooked up a frying pan full of Eggs Purgatory with mozzarella and pepperjack cheeses, served with toasted Italian bread slices. Ooooh, YES! I am one happy camper right now. But enough about your transparent envy ... let's return the attention to me.
16-03-2022 06:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote:wetlands...they emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which they sequester it. Isn't it a fixed amount? Like to keep it simple let's say there is a small forest. It grows to be a certain size and the biomass contains let's say a million tons of CO2. If the forest stops getting larger the death of trees would equal the growth and it would stop being a net absorber of CO2. If the whole forest burns, or rots, the entire million tons is released. If you bury the forest and plant a new one on top of it, that million tons is now sequestered underground and you can grow another million. Sound about right? "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: excellent question16-03-2022 06:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote:wetlands...they emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which they sequester it. Isn't it a fixed amount? Like to keep it simple let's say there is a small forest. It grows to be a certain size and the biomass contains let's say a million tons of CO2. If the forest stops getting larger the death of trees would equal the growth and it would stop being a net absorber of CO2. If the whole forest burns, or rots, the entire million tons is released. If you bury the forest and plant a new one on top of it, that million tons is now sequestered underground and you can grow another million. Sound about right? [u] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent question. If I understand your question, it is based on misinterpreting a little which fluxes were referred to. A wetland is constantly aggrading - gaining more and more organic carbon and storing it as peat. Year after year. In this condition, the amount of CO2 released by decomposition is less than the amount sequestered by photosynthesis. After draining and exposure to oxygen, the amount of CO2 released by decomposition is orders of magnitude greater than CO2 sequestered by photosynthesis. But the values are rate. CO2 fluxes per unit time. Not total fluxes. Does that help?
16-03-2022 06:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Why are we so worried about a warmer climate, and more CO2? Seems like many years ago, from fossil findings, there were some massive lizards, and other things living on the planet. The size of the critters would require an abundant food supply, and regularly available. Plants are the primary food, ans initial source of dietary carbon, from CO2 exclusively. We know that plants grow bigger, and faster with lots of CO2 (800 ppm). Plants like a warmer, humid climate as well. So do reptiles. At some point in our planet's past, it was warmer than modern times, and a lot more CO2. I think we are just returning to normal. Climate change is just a grab for your freedom, and your wallet.

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	827	09-02-2024 03:41
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'	8	21-06-2023 12:55
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	52	16-06-2023 09:44