O2C predicted to rise in the future?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In the future the world is crowded, poor, chaotic, dystopian, so no money for wind turbines and solar panels. As depicted in Idiocracy, main source of energy is burning fossil fuel. So that means, O2C will rise dramatically in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leyn-oS5ASI

James___ wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In the future the world is crowded, poor, chaotic, dystopian, so no money for wind turbines and solar panels. As depicted in Idiocracy, main source of energy is burning fossil fuel. So that means, O2C will rise dramatically in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leyn-oS5ASI

Tai, You are right my friend. Burning fossil fuels and being dependent on it does not lead to innovation in the future. That is what we need to consider.

Into the Night wrote:Fossils don't burn.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In the future the world is crowded, poor, chaotic, dystopian, so no money for wind turbines and solar panels. As depicted in Idiocracy, main source of energy is burning fossil fuel. So that means, O2C will rise dramatically in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leyn-oS5ASI

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Fossils don't burn.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame certainly burned.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Fossils don't burn.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame certainly burned.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Fossils don't burn.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame certainly burned.

Burned more than 11 hours, releasing a considerable quantity of CO2...

Seems really odd, how quickly the determined it was cause by faulty wiring. An old structure, of such great historical value, would have been better maintained, and kept up to all the latest safety codes and equipment.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't see how they would of had a problem finding the money to keep such a treasure safe.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Every detail of the structure has been studied many times, all work done, carefully documented. Never been to france, but don't get the impression they are cheap and lazy over there. An accident just seems a little convient.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd expect them to find a reputable firm of professionals to do the work, who fully understood the task, and the value, insured and bonded. Accidents around here, are mostly the companies that employ day laborers. Some are skilled enough, just have a few personal issues, like drugs and alcohol. Others, might have the basic skills and aptitude to learn the job, but suffer from language issues. France is a different culture, likely have different standards and practices. We don't leave extension cords plugged in, when not in use, and we unplug our tools, when done as well. It helps reduce other kinds of accidents, besides fire.

My point was that they determine the cause kind of quick, probably still warm. It's a very large building, lot of damage to look over. Have to admit, there would be little benefit to burn it deliberately, other than donation money. A terrorist would have claimed victory, and would have tried to kill a bunch of people, beside destroying an icon.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd expect them to find a reputable firm of professionals to do the work, who fully understood the task, and the value, insured and bonded.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Accidents around here, are mostly the companies that employ day laborers.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some are skilled enough, just have a few personal issues, like drugs and alcohol.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Others, might have the basic skills and aptitude to learn the job, but suffer from language issues.

HarveyH55 wrote:
France is a different culture, likely have different standards and practices.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't leave extension cords plugged in, when not in use, and we unplug our tools, when done as well.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It helps reduce other kinds of accidents, besides fire.

HarveyH55 wrote:
My point was that they determine the cause kind of quick, probably still warm.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a very large building, lot of damage to look over.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Have to admit, there would be little benefit to burn it deliberately, other than donation money.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A terrorist would have claimed victory, and would have tried to kill a bunch of people, beside destroying an icon.

Into the Night wrote:The spire, which was of steel lattice construction, couldn't take the heat and likewise collapsed.

HarveyH55 wrote: Never been to france, but don't get the impression they are cheap and lazy over there. An accident just seems a little convient.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The spire, which was of steel lattice construction, couldn't take the heat and likewise collapsed.

What version of "heat" could it not take?

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The spire, which was of steel lattice construction, couldn't take the heat and likewise collapsed.

What version of "heat" could it not take?

convective and conductive.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The spire, which was of steel lattice construction, couldn't take the heat and likewise collapsed.

What version of "heat" could it not take?

convective and conductive.

At least it handled the radiative "heat." That and the political heat as well. Cathedrals have traditionally been good at that.

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Spongy Iris wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas are great for reducing the weight of the atmosphere to mitigate the risk of climate change.

Check out the conversation here at climate-debate.com:

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/burn-gasoline-and-natural-gas-to-fight-against-climate-change-d6-e4756.php#post_111262

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas are great for reducing the weight of the atmosphere to mitigate the risk of climate change.

Check out the conversation here at climate-debate.com:

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/burn-gasoline-and-natural-gas-to-fight-against-climate-change-d6-e4756.php#post_111262

At 0.04% CO2, very little of the weight of the atmosphere arises from CO2.

However, it is a weight GAIN when atmospheric O2 combines with fossil fuel to become CO2. The weight of the O2 was already in the atmosphere before combustion, but after combustion it returns as CO2, more than a third heavier than it was before. And still in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis can ever so slightly reduce the weight of the atmosphere, taking out CO2 and putting out O2 instead. But we're talking about much less than a tenth of a percent of total atmospheric weight.

On the other hand, warming the atmosphere increases its pressure. Warmer air exerts more pressure than colder air.

Perhaps one could say that fossil fuels are "great" for increasing the pressure of the atmosphere by increasing its temperature.

According to the Ideal Gas Law, increasing atmospheric temperature by one degree will increase the pressure far more than increasing weight by less than a tenth of a percent.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas are great for reducing the weight of the atmosphere to mitigate the risk of climate change.

Check out the conversation here at climate-debate.com:

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/burn-gasoline-and-natural-gas-to-fight-against-climate-change-d6-e4756.php#post_111262

At 0.04% CO2, very little of the weight of the atmosphere arises from CO2.

However, it is a weight GAIN when atmospheric O2 combines with fossil fuel to become CO2. The weight of the O2 was already in the atmosphere before combustion, but after combustion it returns as CO2, more than a third heavier than it was before. And still in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis can ever so slightly reduce the weight of the atmosphere, taking out CO2 and putting out O2 instead. But we're talking about much less than a tenth of a percent of total atmospheric weight.

On the other hand, warming the atmosphere increases its pressure. Warmer air exerts more pressure than colder air.

Perhaps one could say that fossil fuels are "great" for increasing the pressure of the atmosphere by increasing its temperature.

According to the Ideal Gas Law, increasing atmospheric temperature by one degree will increase the pressure far more than increasing weight by less than a tenth of a percent.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas are great for reducing the weight of the atmosphere to mitigate the risk of climate change.

Check out the conversation here at climate-debate.com:

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/burn-gasoline-and-natural-gas-to-fight-against-climate-change-d6-e4756.php#post_111262

At 0.04% CO2, very little of the weight of the atmosphere arises from CO2.

However, it is a weight GAIN when atmospheric O2 combines with fossil fuel to become CO2. The weight of the O2 was already in the atmosphere before combustion, but after combustion it returns as CO2, more than a third heavier than it was before. And still in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis can ever so slightly reduce the weight of the atmosphere, taking out CO2 and putting out O2 instead. But we're talking about much less than a tenth of a percent of total atmospheric weight.

On the other hand, warming the atmosphere increases its pressure. Warmer air exerts more pressure than colder air.

Perhaps one could say that fossil fuels are "great" for increasing the pressure of the atmosphere by increasing its temperature.

According to the Ideal Gas Law, increasing atmospheric temperature by one degree will increase the pressure far more than increasing weight by less than a tenth of a percent.

If the weight of water added is counted, it is an increase.

But if just the weight of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) added is counted, it is a decrease.

Because water doesn't rise very high in atmosphere, I don't count its weight as adding to the risk of climate change.

Because my position is that Heaven and Earth are a terrarium, water does not pose a risk of pushing its weight against Heaven's glass. But carbon dioxide and oxygen do.

Consider an extreme example:

A bottle of 7up is half full, then a water ice cube is dropped in it, then the bottle is sealed. There will barely be any reaction.

But try the same experiment with a cube of frozen carbon dioxide. The bottle will quickly explode.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas are great for reducing the weight of the atmosphere to mitigate the risk of climate change.

Check out the conversation here at climate-debate.com:

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/burn-gasoline-and-natural-gas-to-fight-against-climate-change-d6-e4756.php#post_111262

At 0.04% CO2, very little of the weight of the atmosphere arises from CO2.

However, it is a weight GAIN when atmospheric O2 combines with fossil fuel to become CO2. The weight of the O2 was already in the atmosphere before combustion, but after combustion it returns as CO2, more than a third heavier than it was before. And still in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis can ever so slightly reduce the weight of the atmosphere, taking out CO2 and putting out O2 instead. But we're talking about much less than a tenth of a percent of total atmospheric weight.

On the other hand, warming the atmosphere increases its pressure. Warmer air exerts more pressure than colder air.

Perhaps one could say that fossil fuels are "great" for increasing the pressure of the atmosphere by increasing its temperature.

According to the Ideal Gas Law, increasing atmospheric temperature by one degree will increase the pressure far more than increasing weight by less than a tenth of a percent.

If the weight of water added is counted, it is an increase.

But if just the weight of oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) added is counted, it is a decrease.

Because water doesn't rise very high in atmosphere, I don't count its weight as adding to the risk of climate change.

Because my position is that Heaven and Earth are a terrarium, water does not pose a risk of pushing its weight against Heaven's glass. But carbon dioxide and oxygen do.

Consider an extreme example:

A bottle of 7up is half full, then a water ice cube is dropped in it, then the bottle is sealed. There will barely be any reaction.

But try the same experiment with a cube of frozen carbon dioxide. The bottle will quickly explode.

The weight of water does not warm the atmosphere.

Climate cannot change. There is nothing that can change. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A marine climate is always a marine climate. Climate has not temperature, precipitation, wind direction or speed, barometric pressure, or any other measurement.

Earth is not a terrarium. The atmosphere is not in a closed container.

An ice cube will simply melt to liquid, diluting the 7up.

A dry ice cube (frozen co2) will quickly sublimate into co2 gas when dropped in 7up at room temperature. This is the 'reaction' you see. If you seal the bottle quickly enough, you will exceed the bottle's strength, and you get an explosion. If you don't, you get a cloud coming out of the 7up. The dry ice appears to 'boil'.

(CO2 gas is colorless and odorless. The cloud is condensed water from the air and the soda formed into a fog.)

Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, warming the atmosphere increases its pressure. Warmer air exerts more pressure than colder air.

Im a BM wrote:According to the Ideal Gas Law, increasing atmospheric temperature by one degree will increase the pressure far more than increasing weight by less than a tenth of a percent.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I said Heaven & Earth are a terrarium.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The atmosphere is largely enclosed by Heaven and Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some air does escape to space, but not much.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The container is what keeps the air down to Earth.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gravity would scatter the air all across the Universe if there was no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually no air could even be produced without the container as nothing could survive on Earth without it.

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
I said Heaven & Earth are a terrarium.

The Earth is not a terrarium.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The atmosphere is largely enclosed by Heaven and Earth.

There is no enclosure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some air does escape to space, but not much.

None. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The container is what keeps the air down to Earth.

There is no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gravity would scatter the air all across the Universe if there was no container.

There is no container. Gravity would do no such thing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually no air could even be produced without the container as nothing could survive on Earth without it.

Air is not 'produced'. It simply exists. There is no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
I said Heaven & Earth are a terrarium.

The Earth is not a terrarium.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The atmosphere is largely enclosed by Heaven and Earth.

There is no enclosure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some air does escape to space, but not much.

None. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The container is what keeps the air down to Earth.

There is no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gravity would scatter the air all across the Universe if there was no container.

There is no container. Gravity would do no such thing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually no air could even be produced without the container as nothing could survive on Earth without it.

Air is not 'produced'. It simply exists. There is no container.

There is glass wrapped around Earth. It is a wind shield. Without it, the wind from Earth spinning would be too destructive for life to exist.

Nitrogen is produced from dead plants and animals. Oxygen is produced by living plants. Carbon dioxide is produced by living animals.

We can see that oxygen gets past the bottom layer of Heaven's glass because of the blue color of the sky. It doesn't look like much or any nitrogen gets past Heaven's glass.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrogen is produced, but dead plants and animals are not a direct source. Some nitrogen gas gets produced geologically, baked and squeezed out of rocks exposed to metamorphosis with high temperature and pressure. Most nitrogen gas in the atmosphere was produced by denitrifying bacteria, using nitrate ion as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Plants and animals contain virtually no nitrate ion. Fertilizers, such as ammonium nitrate, provide most of the nitrate that becomes nitrogen gas.

Im a BM wrote:
There is a gas that comprises about 1% of the atmosphere, and it is heavier than O2, N2, or CO2. ARGON is heavier than the other gases you invoke. For every molecule of CO2 in the air, there are about 250 argon atoms floating around. How does argon react with Heaven's glass?

Im a BM wrote:
But air IS "produced".

Im a BM wrote:
The two main ingredients are either the product of photosynthesis or anaerobic microbial metabolism. Life makes air!

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
I said Heaven & Earth are a terrarium.

The Earth is not a terrarium.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The atmosphere is largely enclosed by Heaven and Earth.

There is no enclosure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some air does escape to space, but not much.

None. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The container is what keeps the air down to Earth.

There is no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gravity would scatter the air all across the Universe if there was no container.

There is no container. Gravity would do no such thing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually no air could even be produced without the container as nothing could survive on Earth without it.

Air is not 'produced'. It simply exists. There is no container.

There is glass wrapped around Earth. It is a wind shield. Without it, the wind from Earth spinning would be too destructive for life to exist.

Nitrogen is produced from dead plants and animals. Oxygen is produced by living plants. Carbon dioxide is produced by living animals.

We can see that oxygen gets past the bottom layer of Heaven's glass because of the blue color of the sky. It doesn't look like much or any nitrogen gets past Heaven's glass.

Nitrogen is produced, but dead plants and animals are not a direct source. Some nitrogen gas gets produced geologically, baked and squeezed out of rocks exposed to metamorphosis with high temperature and pressure. Most nitrogen gas in the atmosphere was produced by denitrifying bacteria, using nitrate ion as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Plants and animals contain virtually no nitrate ion. Fertilizers, such as ammonium nitrate, provide most of the nitrate that becomes nitrogen gas.

There is a gas that comprises about 1% of the atmosphere, and it is heavier than O2, N2, or CO2. ARGON is heavier than the other gases you invoke. For every molecule of CO2 in the air, there are about 250 argon atoms floating around. How does argon react with Heaven's glass?

But air IS "produced". The two main ingredients are either the product of photosynthesis or anaerobic microbial metabolism. Life makes air!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
I said Heaven & Earth are a terrarium.

The Earth is not a terrarium.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The atmosphere is largely enclosed by Heaven and Earth.

There is no enclosure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some air does escape to space, but not much.

None. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The container is what keeps the air down to Earth.

There is no container.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Gravity would scatter the air all across the Universe if there was no container.

There is no container. Gravity would do no such thing.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually no air could even be produced without the container as nothing could survive on Earth without it.

Air is not 'produced'. It simply exists. There is no container.

There is glass wrapped around Earth. It is a wind shield. Without it, the wind from Earth spinning would be too destructive for life to exist.

Nitrogen is produced from dead plants and animals. Oxygen is produced by living plants. Carbon dioxide is produced by living animals.

We can see that oxygen gets past the bottom layer of Heaven's glass because of the blue color of the sky. It doesn't look like much or any nitrogen gets past Heaven's glass.

Nitrogen is produced, but dead plants and animals are not a direct source. Some nitrogen gas gets produced geologically, baked and squeezed out of rocks exposed to metamorphosis with high temperature and pressure. Most nitrogen gas in the atmosphere was produced by denitrifying bacteria, using nitrate ion as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Plants and animals contain virtually no nitrate ion. Fertilizers, such as ammonium nitrate, provide most of the nitrate that becomes nitrogen gas.

There is a gas that comprises about 1% of the atmosphere, and it is heavier than O2, N2, or CO2. ARGON is heavier than the other gases you invoke. For every molecule of CO2 in the air, there are about 250 argon atoms floating around. How does argon react with Heaven's glass?

But air IS "produced". The two main ingredients are either the product of photosynthesis or anaerobic microbial metabolism. Life makes air!

If I recall correctly from the last time you schooled me on the nitrogen cycle:

Dead plants and animals are first reduced to ammonia, by a bacteria, then ammonia is reduced to nitrogen, by another bacteria, yes?

Oh wait, was there another cog in the cycle you discovered?

***

Argon is heavy and inert and does not easily escape to space.

Im a BM wrote:
Most of the nitrogen contained in plants and animals is organic nitrogen, as protein. Very little of the nitrogen contained in any given organism becomes nitrogen gas. Only when nitrate ion finds its way to a low oxygen environment with organic carbon present will it be added to the atmosphere as nitrogen gas. And only then if a denitrifying bacteria gets it first, rather than a competing bacteria that will reduce the nitrate ion back to ammonium.

Im a BM wrote:
To correct the understanding of the nitrogen cycle you stated, the step you left out is when ammonium gets oxidized to nitrate. Ammonium is not "reduced" to anything, chemically. It is as reduced as nitrogen can get.

Im a BM wrote:
Step one - ammonification. Organic nitrogen transformed to ammonium. Step Two - nitrification. Oxygen-dependent (aerobic) oxidation of ammonium to nitrite by one bacteria, and then nitrite is oxidized to nitrate by another bacteria. Nitrate is the mobile ion that can be reduced to nitrogen gas or ammonium by bacteria, generating some by product nitrous oxide by either process.

Im a BM wrote:
But this wasn't the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle". MY "cog" in the nitrogen cycle was about organic nitrogen short circuiting it. Plants were getting the nitrogen from the decaying organic matter as organic nitrogen, rather than nitrate ion or ammonium ion. They did so with the assistance of symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on their roots.

Im a BM wrote:
"The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

Im a BM wrote:
That was the first sentence of my new-cog-related paper in Nature.

Not only were other scientists unaware that the nitrogen cycle was being short circuited, they weren't even accounting for dissolved organic nitrogen as a vehicle of nitrogen transport in soil and water. They weren't even measuring it until I helped bring it to their attention. In many rivers, most of the nitrogen in the water is transported as dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than NO3- or NH4+.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps the single most important impact of my work was to alert water chemists to measure organic nitrogen. It was immediately discovered in many places that nitrogen fluxes had been seriously underestimated because water samples were being measured only for nitrate and ammonium. In more nitrogen limited ecosystems, dissolved organic nitrogen accounted for most of the nitrogen moving in soil and water.

And I was among the first to develop the persulfate oxidation procedure as a better way to measure organic nitrogen than the classic Kjeldahl digest, which uses concentrated acid at extremely high temperature for many long hours.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Nitrogen is produced, but dead plants and animals are not a direct source. Some nitrogen gas gets produced geologically, baked and squeezed out of rocks exposed to metamorphosis with high temperature and pressure. Most nitrogen gas in the atmosphere was produced by denitrifying bacteria, using nitrate ion as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon under low oxygen conditions. Plants and animals contain virtually no nitrate ion. Fertilizers, such as ammonium nitrate, provide most of the nitrate that becomes nitrogen gas.

There is a gas that comprises about 1% of the atmosphere, and it is heavier than O2, N2, or CO2. ARGON is heavier than the other gases you invoke. For every molecule of CO2 in the air, there are about 250 argon atoms floating around. How does argon react with Heaven's glass?

But air IS "produced". The two main ingredients are either the product of photosynthesis or anaerobic microbial metabolism. Life makes air!

If I recall correctly from the last time you schooled me on the nitrogen cycle:

Dead plants and animals are first reduced to ammonia, by a bacteria, then ammonia is reduced to nitrogen, by another bacteria, yes?

Oh wait, was there another cog in the cycle you discovered?

***

Argon is heavy and inert and does not easily escape to space.

Most of the nitrogen contained in plants and animals is organic nitrogen, as protein. Very little of the nitrogen contained in any given organism becomes nitrogen gas. Only when nitrate ion finds its way to a low oxygen environment with organic carbon present will it be added to the atmosphere as nitrogen gas. And only then if a denitrifying bacteria gets it first, rather than a competing bacteria that will reduce the nitrate ion back to ammonium.

To correct the understanding of the nitrogen cycle you stated, the step you left out is when ammonium gets oxidized to nitrate. Ammonium is not "reduced" to anything, chemically. It is as reduced as nitrogen can get.

Step one - ammonification. Organic nitrogen transformed to ammonium. Step Two - nitrification. Oxygen-dependent (aerobic) oxidation of ammonium to nitrite by one bacteria, and then nitrite is oxidized to nitrate by another bacteria. Nitrate is the mobile ion that can be reduced to nitrogen gas or ammonium by bacteria, generating some by product nitrous oxide by either process.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Most of the nitrogen contained in plants and animals is organic nitrogen, as protein. Very little of the nitrogen contained in any given organism becomes nitrogen gas. Only when nitrate ion finds its way to a low oxygen environment with organic carbon present will it be added to the atmosphere as nitrogen gas. And only then if a denitrifying bacteria gets it first, rather than a competing bacteria that will reduce the nitrate ion back to ammonium.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a protein. Nitrate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not nitrogen. Ammonium is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
To correct the understanding of the nitrogen cycle you stated, the step you left out is when ammonium gets oxidized to nitrate. Ammonium is not "reduced" to anything, chemically. It is as reduced as nitrogen can get.

Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Step one - ammonification. Organic nitrogen transformed to ammonium. Step Two - nitrification. Oxygen-dependent (aerobic) oxidation of ammonium to nitrite by one bacteria, and then nitrite is oxidized to nitrate by another bacteria. Nitrate is the mobile ion that can be reduced to nitrogen gas or ammonium by bacteria, generating some by product nitrous oxide by either process.

Nitrogen is not organic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not oxygen. Nitrite is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
But this wasn't the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle". MY "cog" in the nitrogen cycle was about organic nitrogen short circuiting it. Plants were getting the nitrogen from the decaying organic matter as organic nitrogen, rather than nitrate ion or ammonium ion. They did so with the assistance of symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on their roots.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:
"The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated."

Nitrogen is not organic. Nutrient is not a flux.

Im a BM wrote:
That was the first sentence of my new-cog-related paper in Nature.

Not only were other scientists unaware that the nitrogen cycle was being short circuited, they weren't even accounting for dissolved organic nitrogen as a vehicle of nitrogen transport in soil and water. They weren't even measuring it until I helped bring it to their attention. In many rivers, most of the nitrogen in the water is transported as dissolved organic nitrogen, rather than NO3- or NH4+.

Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrogen is not a transport.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps the single most important impact of my work was to alert water chemists to measure organic nitrogen. It was immediately discovered in many places that nitrogen fluxes had been seriously underestimated because water samples were being measured only for nitrate and ammonium. In more nitrogen limited ecosystems, dissolved organic nitrogen accounted for most of the nitrogen moving in soil and water.

And I was among the first to develop the persulfate oxidation procedure as a better way to measure organic nitrogen than the classic Kjeldahl digest, which uses concentrated acid at extremely high temperature for many long hours.

Buzzwords aren't work. Nitrogen is not organic. Nitrate is not a chemical. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrogen is not a limit or an ecosystem. Nitrogen is not a transport. Persulfate is not a chemical.

Stop pretending you're a chemist. Buzzwords don't cut it, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
An amazing display of chemistry knowledge!

"Nitrogen is not organic." ITN wrote this sentence again and again and again.

Im a BM wrote:
"(name of ion) is not a chemical." ITN wrote this about every ion identified in the original post.

Im a BM wrote:
In water chemistry, chemists save time by just saying "carbonate", rather than "the carbonate ion" or "carbonate ions". This holds true for all the ions measured in water chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
The pointless recitation of words that, alone, are not specifically a "chemical" displays no comprehension of chemistry. It just fills up a post with meaningless contrarian assertions.

Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, viewers can learn a LOT of chemistry from ITN's posts!

Im a BM wrote:
Anyone who takes an introductory college course in organic chemistry knows what "organic nitrogen" means.

Im a BM wrote:
Inorganic nitrogen, also known as "mineral" nitrogen, does not have nitrogen atoms attached to an atom of organic carbon. Nitrogen gas, nitrate, and ammonium are all inorganic (mineral) forms of nitrogen.

Im a BM wrote:
Organic nitrogen has nitrogen atoms attached to atoms of organic carbon. Such as the amino group on amino acids and proteins. That atom of amino nitrogen is attached to an organic carbon atom.

Im a BM wrote:
Urea has two amino groups attached to a carbon atom, but it is INORGANIC carbon. It is a carbon atom double bonded to oxygen (oxidized). So, urea does not contain organic nitrogen, despite its carbon content. Wrong kind of carbon.

Spongy Iris wrote:

I researched a bit, and found ammonium nitrate has only been used as a fertilizer for about 400 years, and is rarely found in nature.

But I think, 1,000 years ago, the atmosphere had basically the same amount of N2 as today.

So seems rocks have been a much greater source of atmospheric nitrogen than plants and animals in Earth's history.

Im a BM wrote:

AriaMorris wrote:
You're right in a resource-constrained dystopia, investment in renewables like wind and solar would be limited. However, even small-scale solar projects could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Accurate solar takeoffs are essential for planning and budgeting these projects efficiently, ensuring every panel counts toward energy needs without overspending.

Greetings, AriaMorris!

You are the newest member to post at climate-debate.com

It has been a very long time since any new members have joined and posted.

AriaMorris, this may turn out to be your one and only post here. Most new members who joined in the past either never posted or only posted once.

Most new members in the past found this website using Google as a search engine for climate discussion websites.

AriaMorris, if you are willing to post twice, would you be willing to share how it was that you found this website?

It has been characterized by some as "dead".

Im a BM wrote:
And another one bites the dust..

For the first time in years, a new member posted.

Just once, apparently.

Most new members post only once, if they post at all.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I researched a bit, and found ammonium nitrate has only been used as a fertilizer for about 400 years, and is rarely found in nature.

But I think, 1,000 years ago, the atmosphere had basically the same amount of N2 as today.

So seems rocks have been a much greater source of atmospheric nitrogen than plants and animals in Earth's history.

Ammonium nitrate was not widely used as a fertilizer until after WW2. It was first synthesized in 1659 by a German chemist. Due to it's hygroscopic nature, it's not found naturally except in very dry deserts, where it can appear as a white crust, often mixed with other substances.

The Haber-Bosch process ends by making ammonia. From there it's a fairly simple process to treat the ammonia to produce ammonium nitrate.

It's first use was as an ingredient for explosives (type B explosive). It had to be isolated from water (even water vapor) to store it or it would go bad.

As an oxidizer, it leaves a lot to be desired. Any composition you make with it tends to turn to mush and become useless upon storage.

A much better oxidizer of the same general power is potassium nitrate. It is not hygroscopic and stores well for considerable time. It's biggest problem is that it cakes and becomes rocklike. It can be broken up and used normally, however. Using this to make black powder produces a type A conflagration explosive (low expolosive).

A common explosive made with ammonium nitrate uses mineral oil as the fuel. This explosive is called ANFO. Farmers use to make this stuff to dig out holes or even scare away pests. The McVeigh truck bomb was a large amount of ANFO, set off using an M80 firecracker on a long fuse. (ANFO is a high explosive requiring sudden shock to initiate the detonation). ANFO burns like a campfire if you just light it.

Combining with charcoal and sulfur makes a type B conflagration explosive. Not recommended for anything but immediate use.

Ammonium nitrate can be a bit tricky to handle. If exposed to some types of fuel, it can become dangerous. Since it likes to absorb water, unwanted exchange reactions with other chemicals in a composition can have dangerous side effects.

By itself it can be irritating to handle. It does not burn by itself, but anything combustible combined with ammonium nitrate can get real exciting real fast, and not in a good way.