Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity

Page 1 of 3

Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity12-03-2022 01:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium are the two major pathways of microbiological nitrate reduction. Both pathways use nitrate as oxidant to get energy from oxidation of organic carbon. Both pathways generate alkalinity, rather than carbon dioxide, as the oxidized inorganic carbon product. Both pathways generate nitrous oxide as a by product. Denitrification transforms nitrate-nitrogen into nitrogen gas. For better or worse, that nitrogen leaves the system. Dissimilatory reduction of nitrate to ammonium transforms the highly mobile and easily leached nitrate-nitrogen into ammonium, which can be adsorbed to cation exchange sites and held in place against leaching. Furthermore, ammonium cannot be lost from the system by denitrification.
12-03-2022 01:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming.
RE: Try to improve the quality of your questions12-03-2022 02:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. -------------------------------------------------------------- Some basic scientific facts were presented. Many questions might be asked. How large are the global fluxes of alkalinity generation or nitrous oxide emission from nitrate reduction? Why would these basic scientific facts matter? No, wait... Define your terms, define your terms, define your terms. I want to encourage you to improve the quality of your questions.
12-03-2022 04:27
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. I got stuck on how a trace gas blankets the entire planet, 'trapping' heat. If the 'heat can get out, how does it get to the surface in the first place? CO2 is truly a miracle-molecule. It does so many things, good and bad. Mostly good stuff though. I can imagine life without CO2. A lat beer, just isn't worth drinking...
12-03-2022 05:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	HarveyH55 wrote:I got stuck on how a trace gas blankets the entire planet, 'trapping' heat. If the 'heat can get out, how does it get to the surface in the first place? CO2 is truly a miracle-molecule. It does so many things, good and bad. Mostly good stuff though. I can imagine life without CO2. A lat beer, just isn't worth drinking... You are like many people who see the obvious contradiction that wamizombies assert with a straight face. You are aware that people such as me immediately jump to the chase and remind everyone that no atmospheric gas has any such magic superpower to defy physics and that Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be circumvented. Wamizombies, however need to push the magical superpowers of greenhouse gases for their dogma to have any basis for plausibility. As such they must constantly emphasize that some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Oh, the doctrinal answer to your question is that greenhouse gas allows short wave infrared in, converts it to long wave infrared, reradiates half downward toward the surface and traps the other half from escaping into space. That not only takes magical superpowers, it takes a lot of dexterity and practice. .

12-03-2022 05:46
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN wrote You are like many people who see the obvious contradiction that wamizombies assert with a straight face. You are aware that people such as me immediately jump to the chase and remind everyone that no atmospheric gas has any such magic superpower to defy physics and that Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be circumvented. Wamizombies, however need to push the magical superpowers of greenhouse gases for their dogma to have any basis for plausibility. As such they must constantly emphasize that some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Oh, the doctrinal answer to your question is that greenhouse gas allows short wave infrared in, converts it to long wave infrared, reradiates half downward toward the surface and traps the other half from escaping into space. That not only takes magical superpowers, it takes a lot of dexterity and practice. . That is the best short statement that covers it.Well done I am sure it is UV that comes in and IR or heat is what goes out and the claim is CO2 sends it back from some mythical place in the atmosphere. Slight problem being heat rises in the air and in the water. There is no heat hiding in the bottom of the ocean waiting to get us like a big demented squid.I am done with Sealover as he keeps starting new stuff before completing the last and all of the topics could be rolled in to one thread.I am satisfied he is a climate warrior and we should give him a medal for his valiant fight to save humanity
RE: you might have learned something12-03-2022 06:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote You are like many people who see the obvious contradiction that wamizombies assert with a straight face. You are aware that people such as me immediately jump to the chase and remind everyone that no atmospheric gas has any such magic superpower to defy physics and that Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be circumvented. Wamizombies, however need to push the magical superpowers of greenhouse gases for their dogma to have any basis for plausibility. As such they must constantly emphasize that some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Oh, the doctrinal answer to your question is that greenhouse gas allows short wave infrared in, converts it to long wave infrared, reradiates half downward toward the surface and traps the other half from escaping into space. That not only takes magical superpowers, it takes a lot of dexterity and practice. . That is the best short statement that covers it.Well done I am sure it is UV that comes in and IR or heat is what goes out and the claim is CO2 sends it back from some mythical place in the atmosphere. Slight problem being heat rises in the air and in the water. There is no heat hiding in the bottom of the ocean waiting to get us like a big demented squid.I am done with Sealover as he keeps starting new stuff before completing the last and all of the topics could be rolled in to one thread.I am satisfied he is a climate warrior and we should give him a medal for his valiant fight to save humanity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I love the last sentence. It may not have been meant as praise, but it fills me with pride. Well, nobody is going to force you to respond to me. I'd hate to see what would happen if a credible scientist ever tried to join the discussion.
12-03-2022 06:59
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have spoken to scientists many times and the consensus was if you are not 100% certain do not make claims.Journalists do not have this issue.No human no matter what can tell what the weather will be next week let alone in 10 years
12-03-2022 06:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	duncan61 wrote:I am done with Sealover as he keeps starting new stuff before completing the last and all of the topics could be rolled in to one thread. You are correct, although better wording would be that sealover creates an entirely new thread for each item of pointless trivia that he wishes to share. Of course they should all be rolled together. duncan61 wrote:I am satisfied he is a climate warrior and we should give him a medal for his valiant fight to save humanity You should be careful. sealover doesn't quite have a handle on your sense of humor and will likely misunderstand your comment as a compliment, i.e.a testament to his strength of faith and his commitment to doing Climate's work. sealover wrote:I love the last sentence. It may not have been meant as praise, but it fills me with pride. Ooops, I didn't get to Duncan in time. sealover wrote:I'd hate to see what would happen if a credible scientist ever tried to join the discussion. There's a very good reason you'd hate it. .
12-03-2022 19:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. ...deleted remaining gibber-babble... You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. You cannot generate alkalinity. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics 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
12-03-2022 19:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. -------------------------------------------------------------- Some basic scientific facts were presented. Science isn't facts. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. sealover wrote: Many questions might be asked. How large are the global fluxes of alkalinity generation or nitrous oxide emission from nitrate reduction? You cannot generate alkalinity. You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. sealover wrote: Why would these basic scientific facts matter? Science isn't facts. You deny chemistry and science. Void question based on buzzword. sealover wrote: No, wait... Define your terms, define your terms, define your terms. Do so. Still waiting for you to define 'climate change', 'greenhouse gas', etc. sealover wrote: I want to encourage you to improve the quality of your questions. Inversion fallacy. Take your own advice. 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
12-03-2022 19:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:I got stuck on how a trace gas blankets the entire planet, 'trapping' heat. If the 'heat can get out, how does it get to the surface in the first place? CO2 is truly a miracle-molecule. It does so many things, good and bad. Mostly good stuff though. I can imagine life without CO2. A lat beer, just isn't worth drinking... You are like many people who see the obvious contradiction that wamizombies assert with a straight face. You are aware that people such as me immediately jump to the chase and remind everyone that no atmospheric gas has any such magic superpower to defy physics and that Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be circumvented. Wamizombies, however need to push the magical superpowers of greenhouse gases for their dogma to have any basis for plausibility. As such they must constantly emphasize that some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Oh, the doctrinal answer to your question is that greenhouse gas allows short wave infrared in, converts it to long wave infrared, reradiates half downward toward the surface and traps the other half from escaping into space. That not only takes magical superpowers, it takes a lot of dexterity and practice. . It also takes ignoring the definition of 'heat', along with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 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
12-03-2022 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote You are like many people who see the obvious contradiction that wamizombies assert with a straight face. You are aware that people such as me immediately jump to the chase and remind everyone that no atmospheric gas has any such magic superpower to defy physics and that Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be circumvented. Wamizombies, however need to push the magical superpowers of greenhouse gases for their dogma to have any basis for plausibility. As such they must constantly emphasize that some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Oh, the doctrinal answer to your question is that greenhouse gas allows short wave infrared in, converts it to long wave infrared, reradiates half downward toward the surface and traps the other half from escaping into space. That not only takes magical superpowers, it takes a lot of dexterity and practice. . That is the best short statement that covers it.Well done I am sure it is UV that comes in and IR or heat is what goes out and the claim is CO2 sends it back from some mythical place in the atmosphere. Slight problem being heat rises in the air and in the water. There is no heat hiding in the bottom of the ocean waiting to get us like a big demented squid.I am done with Sealover as he keeps starting new stuff before completing the last and all of the topics could be rolled in to one thread.I am satisfied he is a climate warrior and we should give him a medal for his valiant fight to save humanity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I love the last sentence. It may not have been meant as praise, but it fills me with pride. Well, nobody is going to force you to respond to me. I'd hate to see what would happen if a credible scientist ever tried to join the discussion. Two already have. 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
12-03-2022 19:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	duncan61 wrote: I have spoken to scientists many times and the consensus was if you are not 100% certain do not make claims.Journalists do not have this issue.No human no matter what can tell what the weather will be next week let alone in 10 years Consensus is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. 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: nitrate reduction some term definitions13-03-2022 11:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defining some terms The term "greenhouse gas" came from the term "greenhouse effect". Remember the movie "Soylet Green"? In the opening scene it is mentioned in the dialog how "greenhouse effect" had created such conditions of climate change. To the point that humanity had unknowingly already resorted to cannibalism! A "greenhouse" allows visible light in, but not much infrared. It doesn't let much infrared escape either. Much of the visible light entering the greenhouse is transformed into heat when it is absorbed by a surface of low albedo. The heat in the form of infrared radiation does not escape the greenhouse. It is much warmer in the greenhouse than it is outside. How alkalinity generated? Well, let's start by defining alkalinity itself. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. The alkalinity generated by nitrate reduction is anionic inorganic carbon. When organic carbon is oxidized by microrganisms, it is transformed into carbon dioxide or into inorganic carbon anions, depending on the oxidant. When nitrate, like with sulfate, is used as oxidant, their anionic charge cannot simply disappear. The oxidized carbon product becomes an anion. Oxygen has no anionic charge to transfer to organic carbon during oxidation. Carbon dioxide is not an anion.

RE: Nitrate versus Sulfate Reduction13-03-2022 12:00
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Into the Night wrote: You cannot generate alkalinity. You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. Whether by denitrification to nitrogen gas, or dissimilatory reduction to ammonium, nitrate reduction by bacteria is an acid neutralizing process. It generates alkalinity in much the same way that sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity. The difference is in anion charge. Nitrate is a monovalent oxyanion. It has one negative charge to transfer along with its oxygen to the organic carbon. It can generate one mole of inorganic carbon anion charge when it is reduced. One mole of alkalinity Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion. It has two negative charges (electrons) to transfer along with its oxygen to the organic carbon. It can generate two moles of inorganic carbon anion charge when it is reduced. Two moles of alkalinity.
13-03-2022 16:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	sealover wrote: ...nitrate reduction by bacteria is an acid neutralizing process. It generates alkalinity in much the same way that sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity. Aaaaah, because you are the consummate chemistry genius, you totally understand that adjusting a solution's pH towards 7.0 is "alkalinization" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... just as you were taught that the adjustment of sea water pH towards 7.0 is correctly called "acidification" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... Right? Of course one can "generate alkalinity", it just takes the right wording, that's all. I really wish Into the Night would get on board.
RE: don't you wish you understood?13-03-2022 17:57
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: ...nitrate reduction by bacteria is an acid neutralizing process. It generates alkalinity in much the same way that sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity. Aaaaah, because you are the consummate chemistry genius, you totally understand that adjusting a solution's pH towards 7.0 is "alkalinization" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... just as you were taught that the adjustment of sea water pH towards 7.0 is correctly called "acidification" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... Right? Of course one can "generate alkalinity", it just takes the right wording, that's all. I really wish Into the Night would get on board. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't you wish you understood what I was talking about? Don't you wish you actually knew what the terms meant so you wouldn't have to call it gibber babble buzzword communist catchphrase... anything but science? Don't you wish you knew how to make meaningful assertions using the language that real scientists understand? Is it really rewarding to take every discussion back to define your terms. None of my colleagues need me to define my terms. They read my gibber babble and see that I have correctly used real terms in a meaningful manner. In a revealing manner. Clear and concise. They can criticize in a meaningful way because they know what the words mean. Don't you wish you could understand it?
13-03-2022 17:59
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defining some terms The term "greenhouse gas" came from the term "greenhouse effect". Remember the movie "Soylet Green"? In the opening scene it is mentioned in the dialog how "greenhouse effect" had created such conditions of climate change. To the point that humanity had unknowingly already resorted to cannibalism! A "greenhouse" allows visible light in, but not much infrared. It doesn't let much infrared escape either. Much of the visible light entering the greenhouse is transformed into heat when it is absorbed by a surface of low albedo. The heat in the form of infrared radiation does not escape the greenhouse. It is much warmer in the greenhouse than it is outside. How alkalinity generated? Well, let's start by defining alkalinity itself. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. The alkalinity generated by nitrate reduction is anionic inorganic carbon. When organic carbon is oxidized by microrganisms, it is transformed into carbon dioxide or into inorganic carbon anions, depending on the oxidant. When nitrate, like with sulfate, is used as oxidant, their anionic charge cannot simply disappear. The oxidized carbon product becomes an anion. Oxygen has no anionic charge to transfer to organic carbon during oxidation. Carbon dioxide is not an anion. Soylent Green is a work of fiction. So Climate Change, is also a work of fiction? Greenhouse is warmer inside, because the walls prevent the inside air from mixing with the cooler outside air. But, you did bring up an interesting concept though. You can construct two identical greenhouses sides-by-side. Augment on with CO2, leave the other at atmospheric level. Oddly though, there is no significant difference in temperature between the two. The plants in the CO2 augmented greenhouse grow faster, and are healthier, larger...
RE: My 13-C greenhouse effect13-03-2022 18:25
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	HarveyH55 wrote: Soylent Green is a work of fiction. So Climate Change, is also a work of fiction? Greenhouse is warmer inside, because the walls prevent the inside air from mixing with the cooler outside air. But, you did bring up an interesting concept though. You can construct two identical greenhouses sides-by-side. Augment on with CO2, leave the other at atmospheric level. Oddly though, there is no significant difference in temperature between the two. The plants in the CO2 augmented greenhouse grow faster, and are healthier, larger...[/quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me see if I understand. The "greenhouse effect" isn't even true in a greenhouse? Well, I once worked in a very tightly sealed greenhouse. We were labeling wild oats with 13-C (stable isotope) carbon dioxide. The labeled carbon we were feeding them was very expensive, so everything was very tightly controlled. One of the things controlled was temperature. An air conditioner kept it constant. Sensitive thermostat. I had to sit in there with them for the whole process as we turned on the flow of stable isotope 13-C carbon dioxide. Same thing happened every time. The air conditioner would start turning on more frequently. I can't say the greenhouse got warmer, because the AC didn't let it. I can say that every time the CO2 was high, the AC turned on and off about twice as freguently. Didn't matter what time of day. It was artificial lighting. Whole thing was indoors. A ceiling light over a small sealed greenhouse.
13-03-2022 18:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium? Both types put out a lot of heat in infrared... A sealed room doesn't allow convection with cooler outside air. Greenhouses usually have fans and vents to regulate inside temperature too...
13-03-2022 20:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	sealover wrote:Let me see if I understand. The "greenhouse effect" isn't even true in a greenhouse? Not by anything you have unambiguously defined, so no, it's not. sealover wrote:Well, I once worked in a very tightly sealed greenhouse. Let me guess, the greenhouse was located at a Dominican coral reef and now you are lamenting its demise even though there are a bazillion tourist videos of it on YouTube. Yes? Are you claiming that there is some sort of greenhouse effect that is somehow increasing earth's average global temperature above what it otherwise would be without said greenhouse effect? Hint: this is a "Yes" or "No" question.
RE: You're a funny guy13-03-2022 23:08
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Let me see if I understand. The "greenhouse effect" isn't even true in a greenhouse? Not by anything you have unambiguously defined, so no, it's not. sealover wrote:Well, I once worked in a very tightly sealed greenhouse. Let me guess, the greenhouse was located at a Dominican coral reef and now you are lamenting its demise even though there are a bazillion tourist videos of it on YouTube. Yes? Are you claiming that there is some sort of greenhouse effect that is somehow increasing earth's average global temperature above what it otherwise would be without said greenhouse effect? Hint: this is a "Yes" or "No" question. ------------------------------------------------------ I'll give you 9 for wit, because you do make me laugh. On a scale 1 to 10, I'd say you rate about half.
13-03-2022 23:27
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Living near the tropics (Florida), we should be feeling all that 'warming' pretty much every day here. So, what happened yesterday? Winter should have been over by now, oak leaves fell, pollen crap spread. Then yesterday, it's dark, wet, and gloomy. But most importantly, the temperature fell rapidly. Woke up this morning in the low 40's F. The 'F' here represents a censored word, mostly. Seldom gets that cold, even in the middle of winter. But, to be honest, our weather has been getting milder over the past 30 or so years. Not a fan of the cold, but it's only for a few months, and only occasionally drops below 60 F. We don't see triple digits during the summers anymore. Our severe storms aren't much to get excited about. Tornado warnings are rare, where decades ago, at least weekly, sometimes every afternoon/evening. If sea levels are rising, why do people keep building beach-side homes and resorts?
14-03-2022 01:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defining some terms The term "greenhouse gas" came from the term "greenhouse effect". Void definition. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword. sealover wrote: Remember the movie "Soylet Green"? In the opening scene it is mentioned in the dialog how "greenhouse effect" had created such conditions of climate change. Define 'climate change'. What is actually changing? Climate has no value associated with it. sealover wrote: To the point that humanity had unknowingly already resorted to cannibalism! A "greenhouse" allows visible light in, but not much infrared. Sure it does. Now you are ignoring Plank's laws. sealover wrote: It doesn't let much infrared escape either. Sure it does. Now you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. sealover wrote: Much of the visible light entering the greenhouse is transformed into heat when it is absorbed by a surface of low albedo. Heat is not energy. You cannot create or destroy energy. Light absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy. sealover wrote: The heat in the form of infrared radiation does not escape the greenhouse. Infrared light easily passes through the walls and ceilings of a greenhouse. sealover wrote: It is much warmer in the greenhouse than it is outside. Because a greenhouse reduces heat. sealover wrote: How alkalinity generated? You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: Well, let's start by defining alkalinity itself. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. There's that wacky phrase again. Buzzword fallacy. You still have no clue what an acid or an alkaline is. sealover wrote: The alkalinity generated by nitrate reduction is anionic inorganic carbon. You can't generate alkalinity. You can't reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. A nitrate doesn't have carbon. sealover wrote: When organic carbon is oxidized by microrganisms, it is transformed into carbon dioxide or into inorganic carbon anions, depending on the oxidant. Carbon isn't organic. A microorganism isn't an oxidizer (I think what you mean by 'oxidant'). sealover wrote: When nitrate, like with sulfate, is used as oxidant, their anionic charge cannot simply disappear. The oxidized carbon product becomes an anion. Neither nitrate nor sulfate has carbon. sealover wrote: Oxygen has no anionic charge to transfer to organic carbon during oxidation. Carbon isn't organic. You cannot oxidize oxygen. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide is not an anion. It's unusual, but there's no real reason it couldn't be. 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 14-03-2022 02:14
14-03-2022 02:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot generate alkalinity. You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. Whether by denitrification to nitrogen gas, or dissimilatory reduction to ammonium, nitrate reduction by bacteria is an acid neutralizing process. Not an acid. sealover wrote: It generates alkalinity in much the same way that sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity. You can't generate alkalinity. sealover wrote: The difference is in anion charge. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: Nitrate is a monovalent oxyanion. It has one negative charge to transfer along with its oxygen to the organic carbon. It can generate one mole of inorganic carbon anion charge when it is reduced. Unit error. Charge is not measured in moles. sealover wrote: One mole of alkalinity Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles. sealover wrote: Sulfate is a divalent oxyanion. It has two negative charges (electrons) to transfer along with its oxygen to the organic carbon. It can generate two moles of inorganic carbon anion charge when it is reduced. Unit error charge is not measured in moles. sealover wrote: Two moles of alkalinity. Unit error. Alkalinity is not measured in moles. Buzzword fallacies. Unit errors. Gibber-babble. 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 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: ...nitrate reduction by bacteria is an acid neutralizing process. It generates alkalinity in much the same way that sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity. Aaaaah, because you are the consummate chemistry genius, you totally understand that adjusting a solution's pH towards 7.0 is "alkalinization" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... just as you were taught that the adjustment of sea water pH towards 7.0 is correctly called "acidification" and not as laymen refer to it colloquially as "neutralizing" ... Right? Of course one can "generate alkalinity", it just takes the right wording, that's all. I really wish Into the Night would get on board. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't you wish you understood what I was talking about? You aren't talking about anything. Use of buzzwords as a subject forms a void argument fallacy. sealover wrote: Don't you wish you actually knew what the terms meant so you wouldn't have to call it gibber babble buzzword communist catchphrase... anything but science? Science is not buzzwords. sealover wrote: Don't you wish you knew how to make meaningful assertions using the language that real scientists understand? True Scotsman fallacy. What language? Your meaningless buzzwords? Science is not buzzwords nor scientists. sealover wrote: Is it really rewarding to take every discussion back to define your terms. Until you do, you are saying nothing. sealover wrote: None of my colleagues need me to define my terms. What colleagues? Are you making them up as well? sealover wrote: They read my gibber babble and see that I have correctly used real terms in a meaningful manner. In a revealing manner. Clear and concise. They can criticize in a meaningful way because they know what the words mean. Who are 'they'? Meaningless buzzwords mean nothing. Define your terms. sealover wrote: Don't you wish you could understand it? Understand what? You aren't saying anything. 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 02:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Soylent Green is a work of fiction. So Climate Change, is also a work of fiction? Greenhouse is warmer inside, because the walls prevent the inside air from mixing with the cooler outside air. But, you did bring up an interesting concept though. You can construct two identical greenhouses sides-by-side. Augment on with CO2, leave the other at atmospheric level. Oddly though, there is no significant difference in temperature between the two. The plants in the CO2 augmented greenhouse grow faster, and are healthier, larger... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me see if I understand. The "greenhouse effect" isn't even true in a greenhouse?[/quote] RQAA. sealover wrote: Well, I once worked in a very tightly sealed greenhouse. We were labeling wild oats with 13-C (stable isotope) carbon dioxide. The labeled carbon we were feeding them was very expensive, so everything was very tightly controlled. One of the things controlled was temperature. An air conditioner kept it constant. Sensitive thermostat. I had to sit in there with them for the whole process as we turned on the flow of stable isotope 13-C carbon dioxide. Same thing happened every time. The air conditioner would start turning on more frequently. I can't say the greenhouse got warmer, because the AC didn't let it. I can say that every time the CO2 was high, the AC turned on and off about twice as freguently. Didn't matter what time of day. It was artificial lighting. Whole thing was indoors. A ceiling light over a small sealed greenhouse. Another piece of fiction. Attempted proof by anecdote. That's a fallacy, dude. Carbon dioxide has no labels. 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: no reason lead couldn't be gold14-03-2022 02:08
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defining some terms The term "greenhouse gas" came from the term "greenhouse effect". sealover wrote: Remember the movie "Soylet Green"? In the opening scene it is mentioned in the dialog how "greenhouse effect" had created such conditions of climate change. sealover wrote: To the point that humanity had unknowingly already resorted to cannibalism! A "greenhouse" allows visible light in, but not much infrared. [quote]sealover wrote: It doesn't let much infrared escape either. [quote]sealover wrote: Much of the visible light entering the greenhouse is transformed into heat when it is absorbed by a surface of low albedo. [quote]sealover wrote: The heat in the form of infrared radiation does not escape the greenhouse. [quote]sealover wrote: It is much warmer in the greenhouse than it is outside. [quote]sealover wrote: How alkalinity generated? [quote]sealover wrote: Well, let's start by defining alkalinity itself. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. There's that wacky phrase again. Buzzword fallacy. You still have no clue what an acid or an alkaline is. sealover wrote: The alkalinity generated by nitrate reduction is anionic inorganic carbon. You can't generate alkalinity. You can't reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. A nitrate doesn't have carbon. sealover wrote: When organic carbon is oxidized by microrganisms, it is transformed into carbon dioxide or into inorganic carbon anions, depending on the oxidant. Carbon isn't organic. A microorganism isn't an oxidizer (I think what you mean by 'oxidant'). sealover wrote: When nitrate, like with sulfate, is used as oxidant, their anionic charge cannot simply disappear. The oxidized carbon product becomes an anion. Neither nitrate nor sulfate has carbon. sealover wrote: Oxygen has no anionic charge to transfer to organic carbon during oxidation. Carbon isn't organic. You cannot oxidize oxygen. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide is not an anion. It's unusual, but there's no real reason it couldn't be. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Carbon isn't organic. You cannot oxidize oxygen." I think most folks with a high school education would be suspicious about the first statement. "Carbon isn't organic." Are you kidding me? Well, you're right on a global level. Most of the carbon on earth is inorganic. The largest reservoir of carbon on earth is in the form of solid calcium carbonate. On the other hand "organic" chemistry is the study of "organic" carbon compounds. "You cannot oxidize oxygen." I hope that's not a new rule. It will bring photosynthesis to a stop. Oxygenic photosynthesis oxidizes water. Oxygen gas is the oxidized oxygen product. Oxygen gas then gets reduced by carbon into carbon dioxide. But if it is now officially declared that oxygen cannot be oxidized, I guess we'll just have to adapt.
14-03-2022 02:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]sealover wrote:Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. What is a greenhouse gas" Specifically, what makes one greenhouse gas more powerful than another? sealover wrote:Denitrification and dissimilatory reduction Are you using these terms because everybody knows what they mean? sealover wrote:Both pathways generate alkalinity How is alkalinity generated? Great trivia. Keep it coming. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defining some terms The term "greenhouse gas" came from the term "greenhouse effect". sealover wrote: Remember the movie "Soylet Green"? In the opening scene it is mentioned in the dialog how "greenhouse effect" had created such conditions of climate change. sealover wrote: To the point that humanity had unknowingly already resorted to cannibalism! A "greenhouse" allows visible light in, but not much infrared. [quote]sealover wrote: It doesn't let much infrared escape either. [quote]sealover wrote: Much of the visible light entering the greenhouse is transformed into heat when it is absorbed by a surface of low albedo. [quote]sealover wrote: The heat in the form of infrared radiation does not escape the greenhouse. [quote]sealover wrote: It is much warmer in the greenhouse than it is outside. [quote]sealover wrote: How alkalinity generated? [quote]sealover wrote: Well, let's start by defining alkalinity itself. Alkalinity is acid neutralizing capacity. There's that wacky phrase again. Buzzword fallacy. You still have no clue what an acid or an alkaline is. sealover wrote: The alkalinity generated by nitrate reduction is anionic inorganic carbon. You can't generate alkalinity. You can't reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. A nitrate doesn't have carbon. sealover wrote: When organic carbon is oxidized by microrganisms, it is transformed into carbon dioxide or into inorganic carbon anions, depending on the oxidant. Carbon isn't organic. A microorganism isn't an oxidizer (I think what you mean by 'oxidant'). sealover wrote: When nitrate, like with sulfate, is used as oxidant, their anionic charge cannot simply disappear. The oxidized carbon product becomes an anion. Neither nitrate nor sulfate has carbon. sealover wrote: Oxygen has no anionic charge to transfer to organic carbon during oxidation. Carbon isn't organic. You cannot oxidize oxygen. sealover wrote: Carbon dioxide is not an anion. It's unusual, but there's no real reason it couldn't be. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Carbon isn't organic. You cannot oxidize oxygen." I think most folks with a high school education would be suspicious about the first statement. You don't get to speak for most folks. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: "Carbon isn't organic." Are you kidding me? No. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: Well, you're right on a global level. Most of the carbon on earth is inorganic. None. Carbon isn't organic. It is an element. sealover wrote: The largest reservoir of carbon on earth is in the form of solid calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate isn't carbon. The largest reservoir of carbon on Earth is coal. sealover wrote: On the other hand "organic" chemistry is the study of "organic" carbon compounds. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: "You cannot oxidize oxygen." I hope that's not a new rule. It will bring photosynthesis to a stop. Photosynthesis doesn't oxidize anything. sealover wrote: Oxygenic photosynthesis oxidizes water. You cannot oxidize water. It already has oxygen. The formula for water is H2O. sealover wrote: Oxygen gas is the oxidized oxygen product. You cannot oxidize oxygen. sealover wrote: Oxygen gas then gets reduced by carbon into carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis doesn't produce carbon dioxide. sealover wrote: But if it is now officially declared that oxygen cannot be oxidized, I guess we'll just have to adapt. To what? Your ineptitude? You still haven't dealt with your ignoring Plank's laws or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or your ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 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 14-03-2022 02:21

RE: oxyanion charged passed along with oxygen to carbon14-03-2022 04:10
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. ...deleted remaining gibber-babble... You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. You cannot generate alkalinity. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Actually, you can reduce a nitrate. With explosive consequences even. Saltpeter used in the old school gun powder contained potassium nitrate. The nitrate is a powerful oxidant. The elemental sulfur they used in the old school gun powder is a reductant. Bring the two together with a spark and bang. The elemental sulfur was oxidized to SOx. The nitrate was reduced to NOx. Or when ammonium is used as reductant and nitrate as oxidant. BOOM! You cannot reduce a nitrate? Too bad you didn't put that rule in place before it took out the port of Beirut. But when bacteria use nitrate as oxidant, it's less explosive. Oxygen contained in the nitrate molecule is attached to organic carbon during nitrate reduction. With oxygen attached, the carbon officially becomes inorganic. Nitrate is a negatively charged ion. During nitrate reduction, that negative charge is passed along with the oxygen onto the organic carbon. The inorganic carbon generated by aerobic oxidation of organic carbon is CO2. The inorganic carbon generated by nitrate reduction is anionic (carbonate or bicarbonate) This is alkalinity.
RE: What Colleagues? My Peer-review Peers.14-03-2022 06:49
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: [quote] None of my colleagues need me to define my terms. What colleagues? Are you making them up as well? . It is reasonable for you to doubt that I have colleagues. In my glory days I was hounded with requests from journal editors who wanted me to review some new paper that was being submitted. Most times I said "no", but I was still a reviewer for plenty of papers. Who are my colleagues? My peer-review peers!
14-03-2022 08:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	sealover wrote:Most times I said "no", but I was still a reviewer for plenty of papers. Who are my colleagues? My peer-review peers! Suffice to say that you stand in solidarity with your Marxist congregation in the bizarre belief that " peer review somehow is involved in determining science, and that publications, and perhaps universities, somehow own science and make those final determinations. You have a great deal of deprogramming to undergo.
RE: Carbon Dioxide DOES Have Isotope "labels"14-03-2022 08:28
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Into the Night wrote: Carbon dioxide has no labels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon dioxide can be "labeled", using the distinct isotopes of carbon. About 99% of the earth's carbon is in the stable 12-C carbon isotope. About 1% of the earth's carbon is in the stable 13-C carbon isotope. 13-C is ever so slightly heavier than 12-C. The other carbon isotope is not so stable. 14-C. Carbon 14 is radioactive. Carbon 14 was at only the tiniest concentrations in the earth's atmosphere (as 14-C CO2) for most of earth's history up until a little more than 60 years ago. Nuclear weapons testing "labeled" a whole bunch of atmospheric carbon by turning it into radioactive carbon 14. As "labeled" carbon goes, carbon 14 is most familiar. You don't need a fancy instrument to determine it's there because it weighs the tiniest bit more than the rest of the carbon. You just need to measure radioactivity to measure the labeled carbon. 13-C is a harder one to measure, but a safer one to work with. If you label the carbon in plants in a greenhouse with 100% 13-C CO2, you can track the carbon in them later because it has been labeled.
14-03-2022 09:36
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I always thought alkaline is a measurement of substance or can you buy a bottle of alkaline?
14-03-2022 09:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions generates alkalinity and it generates nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. ...deleted remaining gibber-babble... You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. You cannot generate alkalinity. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Actually, you can reduce a nitrate. With explosive consequences even. Nope. You cannot reduce a nitrate. It's already reduced. sealover wrote: Saltpeter used in the old school gun powder contained potassium nitrate. Potassium nitrate isn't black powder. sealover wrote: The nitrate is a powerful oxidant. Maybe, maybe not. sealover wrote: The elemental sulfur they used in the old school gun powder is a reductant. There is no such thing as 'old school' gun powder. Black powder still has the same recipe as always. I make it myself regularly. sealover wrote: Bring the two together with a spark and bang. The elemental sulfur was oxidized to SOx. The nitrate was reduced to NOx. Not black powder. Apparently you don't know how to make that either. Leave such things to someone that knows how to do it, like me. You are going to hurt yourself. sealover wrote: Or when ammonium is used as reductant and nitrate as oxidant. BOOM! Nope. Not explosive at all. sealover wrote: You cannot reduce a nitrate? Nope. It's already reduced. sealover wrote: Too bad you didn't put that rule in place before it took out the port of Beirut. It didn't. sealover wrote: But when bacteria use nitrate as oxidant, it's less explosive. Oxidizer, the correct term is oxidizer. sealover wrote: Oxygen contained in the nitrate molecule is attached to organic carbon during nitrate reduction. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: With oxygen attached, the carbon officially becomes inorganic. It never was. sealover wrote: Nitrate is a negatively charged ion. During nitrate reduction, that negative charge is passed along with the oxygen onto the organic carbon. There is no carbon in a nitrate. sealover wrote: The inorganic carbon generated by aerobic oxidation of organic carbon is CO2. You can't oxidize CO2. sealover wrote: The inorganic carbon generated by nitrate reduction is anionic (carbonate or bicarbonate) CO2 is not a carbonate or bicarbonate. sealover wrote: This is alkalinity. Carbon is not an alkaline. 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 09:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: [quote] None of my colleagues need me to define my terms. What colleagues? Are you making them up as well? . It is reasonable for you to doubt that I have colleagues. In my glory days I was hounded with requests from journal editors who wanted me to review some new paper that was being submitted. Most times I said "no", but I was still a reviewer for plenty of papers. Who are my colleagues? My peer-review peers! Your voting bloc? Science doesn't have one. 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: common misconception BATTERIES14-03-2022 09:40
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	duncan61 wrote: I always thought alkaline is a measurement of substance or can you buy a bottle of alkaline? Yes, this is a common misconception. It's the BATTERIES. Alkaline batteries. Alkalinity is how much voltage they put out.
14-03-2022 09:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Most times I said "no", but I was still a reviewer for plenty of papers. Who are my colleagues? My peer-review peers! Suffice to say that you stand in solidarity with your Marxist congregation in the bizarre belief that " peer review somehow is involved in determining science, and that publications, and perhaps universities, somehow own science and make those final determinations. You have a great deal of deprogramming to undergo. That he does. 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: Black powder also has organic carbon reductant14-03-2022 09:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1778)	Black Powder - Two kinds of reductants To clarify the reaction between S zero (yellow, elemental sulfur) and nitrate I did not include the fact that black carbon was also a reductant. I also didn't clarify what all the NOxs or SOxs were. I would have had to show too many reactions and two many products. I just wanted to make the point that nitrate is a powerful oxidant. Second only two oxygen as the one most coveted by microorganisms to get the most energy from oxidizing organic C. So, nitrate provide all the oxidant. All the oxygen that might attach to carbon or sulfur. Sulfur and carbon are the two reductants. Sulfur is the far stronger reductant. Partial list of products - carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen gas. I was trying to keep it simple and I neglected to bring the black part of the black powder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sealover wrote: Saltpeter used in the old school gun powder contained potassium nitrate. Potassium nitrate isn't black powder. sealover wrote: The nitrate is a powerful oxidant. Maybe, maybe not. sealover wrote: The elemental sulfur they used in the old school gun powder is a reductant. There is no such thing as 'old school' gun powder. Black powder still has the same recipe as always. I make it myself regularly. sealover wrote: Bring the two together with a spark and bang. The elemental sulfur was oxidized to SOx. The nitrate was reduced to NOx. Not black powder. Apparently you don't know how to make that either. Leave such things to someone that knows how to do it, like me. You are going to hurt yourself. sealover wrote: Or when ammonium is used as reductant and nitrate as oxidant. BOOM! Nope. Not explosive at all. sealover wrote: You cannot reduce a nitrate? Nope. It's already reduced. sealover wrote: Too bad you didn't put that rule in place before it took out the port of Beirut. It didn't. sealover wrote: But when bacteria use nitrate as oxidant, it's less explosive. Oxidizer, the correct term is oxidizer. sealover wrote: Oxygen contained in the nitrate molecule is attached to organic carbon during nitrate reduction. Carbon isn't organic. sealover wrote: With oxygen attached, the carbon officially becomes inorganic. It never was. sealover wrote: Nitrate is a negatively charged ion. During nitrate reduction, that negative charge is passed along with the oxygen onto the organic carbon. There is no carbon in a nitrate. sealover wrote: The inorganic carbon generated by aerobic oxidation of organic carbon is CO2. You can't oxidize CO2. sealover wrote: The inorganic carbon generated by nitrate reduction is anionic (carbonate or bicarbonate) CO2 is not a carbonate or bicarbonate. sealover wrote: This is alkalinity. Carbon is not an alkaline.[/quote]

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	472	20-03-2025 09:40
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean	654	19-03-2025 23:18
COW GAS! New Solutions for Earth's Oldest Line of Bacteria	166	11-03-2025 20:08
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	314	19-01-2025 05:49
Greenhouse gasses	83	18-07-2024 21:32