What is Biogeochemistry?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > What is Biogeochemistry? > Page 6

Page 6 of 7

10-04-2025 20:44
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Biogeochemistry is the study of how essential elements that support life—such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)—move, or cycle, through different components of the ecosystem. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
10-04-2025 21:36
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Biogeochemistry is the study of how essential elements that support life—such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)—move, or cycle, through different components of the ecosystem. It has been my experience that Into the Night, with more than 23,000 posts, often makes the assertion that there is "no such thing..." as something that I'm pretty sure actually exists in reality. In defense of his position that "Water itself is a buffer for acid.", because "Dilution is buffering, moron." Into the Night negated the existence of pH buffering by carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions. "You cannot buffer against pH change upon addition of acid with something that doesn't even exist." "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'." "Biogeochemistry" is a pretty stubborn term which refuses to go away just because you choose to pretend it doesn't even exist. Unless Swan and I are one, sharing the same delusion, in the same rabbit hole where Google and Merriam-Webster are all in on the disinformation conspiracy.
11-04-2025 10:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Biogeochemistry is the study of how essential elements that support life—such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)—move, or cycle, through different components of the ecosystem. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. No such branch 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
11-04-2025 10:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: It has been my experience that Into the Night, with more than 23,000 posts, often makes the assertion that there is "no such thing..." as something that I'm pretty sure actually exists in reality. Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'reality' means and how it's defined. Im a BM wrote: In defense of his position that "Water itself is a buffer for acid.", because "Dilution is buffering, moron." Into the Night negated the existence of pH buffering by carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. [b]Im a BM wrote: "You cannot buffer against pH change upon addition of acid with something that doesn't even exist."[/b] "There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'." "Biogeochemistry" is a pretty stubborn term which refuses to go away just because you choose to pretend it doesn't even exist. No such branch in science. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Unless Swan and I are one, sharing the same delusion, in the same rabbit hole where Google and Merriam-Webster are all in on the disinformation conspiracy. False authority fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. 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: The "Extended" Phenotype of Polyphenol-Rich Forest Trees14-04-2025 03:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	The "Extended" Phenotype of Polyphenol-Rich Forest Trees ".. so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution..?" - IBdaMann I will address this in two parts. First, I will describe how it was directly relevant to the mission of the research into acidic deposition ("acid rain"), being funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), at the expense of the US taxpayers. Following that, I will describe more reasons it is significant well beyond theoretical evolutionary biology with multiple applications in agronomy, forestry, and environmental remediation. The National Science Foundation was funding basic research into the biogeochemistry (yes, there IS "such a thing") of how acidic deposition was provoking aluminum toxicity and deficiency of calcium and magnesium. In addition to helping explain their adaptive value in evolution, it helped explain the damage that was being done to ecosystems by acidic deposition (aka "acid rain"). And it offered a recipe for mitigation of that damage. When dissolved aluminum ions, Al3+, are "free" in solution as inorganic salts (aluminum chloride, etc.), they can be taken up by roots and cause aluminum toxicity. Aluminum is of no nutritional value to plants and it can be toxic. When dissolved aluminum ions are present as organometallic complexes of phenol carboxylic acids (tannins, polyphenols), roots can exclude that aluminum from uptake and prevent aluminum toxicity. When calcium and magnesium ions, Ca2+ and Mg2+, are present in solution as salts of sulfate or nitrate, CaSO4, MgSO4, Ca(NO3)2, or Mg(NO3)2, they can easily be leached past the rooting zone and lost from the ecosystem, provoking deficiency of calcium and magnesium. The sulfate in sulfuric acid and the nitrate in nitric acid supply the sulfate and nitrate in "acid rain" that causes loss of calcium and magnesium from the soil. When the soil has CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC), those calcium and magnesium ions can then adsorb to a soil surface and be held tight against leaching loss. Polyphenols provide the substrate to form the humic acids that provide most of the cation exchange capacity in most forest soils. Natural rain has pH about 5.6 from the carbonic acid that forms in equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 This is CARBONIC acid, not "carbolic acid" as the trolls insist. "Acid rain" has pH closer to 4 or 3, because of the sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3) in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. The additional acidity of "acid rain", compared to the slight acidity of natural rain, causes anions of phenol carboxylic acids to protonate. Hydrogen ions, H+ are referred to as "protons", and "protonation" is when a hydrogen ion attaches. Deprotonated anions of phenol carboxylic acids are soluble and quite capable of forming strong complexes with any calcium or magnesium they encounter. These organometallic chelation complexes of calcium and magnesium readily attach to soil surfaces to prevent their leaching loss. With additional acid input, those phenol carboxylic anions become protonated, making them FAR LESS SOLUBLE. And far less capable of forming organometallic complexes with calcium and magnesium. This was more than something of passing interest to evolutionary biologists. The impact of "acid rain" was to prevent the polyphenols produced by the plants from ameliorating aluminum toxicity and preventing leaching loss of calcium and magnesium in forests growing on inherently acidic soils. PART TWO As mentioned, among the items on the list compiled as I burned the midnight oil to justify more NSF funding for the research were carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling. "Acid rain" wasn't harming the nitrogen or phosphorus nutrition of the forests, nor was the carbon cycle of great immediate interest to solving the puzzle of aluminum toxicity, and deficiency of calcium and magnesium. It would not serve as justification for NSF "acid rain" research money to elaborate on the role of polyphenols in carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. However, ecologists, agronomists and foresters have taken keen interest in these applications of the knowledge acquired from the research that came of it. After completing a master's at Berkeley, I was able to continue polyphenol research in a doctoral program at Davis. No longer constrained to "acid rain" related funding, I was able to go a long way with the other applications. Particularly in regard to nitrogen cycling. Rather than repeat that here, you can easily find it in the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread.
RE: Taxpayer funded scientific research17-04-2025 20:38
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Taxpayer funded scientific research In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. The Trump Administration probably isn't going to go for many of these "grants." My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. What was your justification for an organization providing a grant for this research? They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. ... so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution, which would be a little late to the ball game, yes? A lot of other scientists have agreed with me that it is a whole lot more significant than that. The National Science Foundation uses US federal taxes to support scientific research. At least they USED TO! Elon Musk and his chainsaw may have already eviscerated it. At the beginning of my career and at the end of my career, my scientific research was funded by US federal taxes. In the middle of my career, there was private sector consulting and college science teaching as the source of funding for my scientific research. Toward the end of my career, it was back to the feds to get research funding. In the recession of 2008, Obama helped me get federal funding with extended unemployment benefits. This financed the first round of my scientific research into paleobiogeochemistry, anoxygenic photosynthesis, and banded iron formations. Disabled and retired, the feds continue to sponsor my scientifc research. Each month I get a federal social security payment. And that's all the federal funding I need to continue my scientific research.
18-04-2025 01:18
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Biogeochemistry is the study of how essential elements that support life—such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)—move, or cycle, through different components of the ecosystem. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. No such branch in science. Chapter Biogeochemical Models Introduction The field of biogeochemistry deals with the effect of biological organisms on the chemistry of the Earth. Since there are numerous living organisms, all of which affect the chemistry of their environment in multiple ways, biogeochemistry is a large subject area covering many processes. One process that receives a lot of attention is the emission of CO2 by humans and the associated global increase in atmospheric CO2. However, biogeochemistry also deals with the effect of other organisms on the global carbon cycle, like the conversion of CO2 to organic carbon by marine phytoplankton. Biogeochemical processes can also be of subglobal scale, like the respiration of O2 by bacteria at the bottom of a lake. Biogeochemistry encompasses all types of chemicals. Nitrification, the conversion of ammonia to nitrate, by bacteria in soils is a biogeochemical process. So is the reduction of sulfate to sulfide by bacteria in groundwater. Also, the chemistry of minor elements is included, like the methylation of mercury by bacteria in sediments. Further, although the field of biogeochemistry traditionally focuses on naturally occurring elements and compounds, it also includes the effect of organisms on the chemistry of manmade chemicals, like the biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by bacteria. Biogeochemical models are abstract and simplified representations of biogeochemical processes. This includes qualitative models in the form of narratives or diagrams that describe how a process works and convey mechanistic information. It also includes quantitative models in the form of mathematical equations that predict chemical concentrations and fluxes. Quantitative biogeochemical models are used as research tools to test hypotheses, and as management tools to evaluate 'what if' scenarios (e.g., nutrient load reduction to prevent eutrophication of lakes). In application, biogeochemical models are typically smaller components of larger models that describe the biogeochemical cycling of elements at various scales ranging from a small volume of soil to the globe. As such, biogeochemical models have to be compatible with other models, including physical models that describe the transport of chemicals in the environment (advection, diffusion, and dispersion) and ecological models that describe population dynamics. The purpose of this article is to present an overview of biogeochemical modeling. A thorough review of this subject would necessitate covering the effect of every biological organism on the chemistry of all affected compounds, which is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, this article focuses on how the transformation of chemicals by organisms is modeled in general, with applicable references to actual processes. Microorganisms constitute the bulk of the biomass and they have a higher turnover rate than organisms at higher trophic levels. They are therefore generally considered to be the main drivers of biogeochemistry and this article will focus on them. Also, consistent with the scope of this encyclopedia, the article focuses on naturally occurring substances, rather than manmade ones (e.g., PC . Often, the effect of organisms on chemistry is indirect (e.g., via the redox potential), but that is, strictly speaking, a chemical problem, and this article therefore focuses on the direct effect of organisms on the chemistry. First, basic modeling approaches are reviewed, including conceptual and descriptive models, mechanistic chemistry- and biology-type models, and empirical models. Then the integration of ecology and biogeochemistry models is discussed, including their role, methods of integrating them, examples of integrated aquatic and terrestrial models, and the past, present, and future of those models. Following that, is a description of one of the grand challenges of biogeochemical modeling, the scaling problem. Then, the transformation of arsenic by phytoplankton is presented as a case study. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: Taxpayer funded scientific research18-04-2025 23:34
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Taxpayer funded scientific research In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. The Trump Administration probably isn't going to go for many of these "grants." My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. What was your justification for an organization providing a grant for this research? They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. ... so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution, which would be a little late to the ball game, yes? A lot of other scientists have agreed with me that it is a whole lot more significant than that. The National Science Foundation uses US federal taxes to support scientific research. At least they USED TO! Elon Musk and his chainsaw may have already eviscerated it. At the beginning of my career and at the end of my career, my scientific research was funded by US federal taxes. In the middle of my career, there was private sector consulting and college science teaching as the source of funding for my scientific research. Toward the end of my career, it was back to the feds to get research funding. In the recession of 2008, Obama helped me get federal funding with extended unemployment benefits. This financed the first round of my scientific research into paleobiogeochemistry, anoxygenic photosynthesis, and banded iron formations. Disabled and retired, the feds continue to sponsor my scientifc research. Each month I get a federal social security payment. And that's all the federal funding I need to continue my scientific research.
02-05-2025 00:52
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	Taxpayer funded scientific research In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. The Trump Administration probably isn't going to go for many of these "grants." My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. What was your justification for an organization providing a grant for this research? They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. ... so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution, which would be a little late to the ball game, yes? A lot of other scientists have agreed with me that it is a whole lot more significant than that. The National Science Foundation uses US federal taxes to support scientific research. At least they USED TO! Elon Musk and his chainsaw may have already eviscerated it. At the beginning of my career and at the end of my career, my scientific research was funded by US federal taxes. In the middle of my career, there was private sector consulting and college science teaching as the source of funding for my scientific research. Toward the end of my career, it was back to the feds to get research funding. In the recession of 2008, Obama helped me get federal funding with extended unemployment benefits. This financed the first round of my scientific research into paleobiogeochemistry, anoxygenic photosynthesis, and banded iron formations. Disabled and retired, the feds continue to sponsor my scientifc research. Each month I get a federal social security payment. And that's all the federal funding I need to continue my scientific research.
18-09-2025 20:57
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. --------------------------------------------------------- Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". Applied biogeochemistry is at the heart of needed environmental remediation. A magic moment: January 20, 1988 Biogeochemistry is awesomely COOL! Take one magic moment, for example. In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. We had been examining the role of organic anions, particularly those of phenol carboxylic acids such as tannins, in forest soil biogeochemistry. My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. I was compiling a simple list. They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. HOLY COW! BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IS EFFING AWESOME!!! It would take another seven years before the discovery finally made a big splash in the journal NATURE. The joy of that discovery gave me some insight into why Archimedes went running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!" The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down page 3
23-09-2025 00:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	sealover wrote: ...removed advertisement... Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. sealover wrote: Applied biogeochemistry is at the heart of needed environmental remediation. Environment is not a remediation. sealover wrote: A magic moment: January 20, 1988 Biogeochemistry is awesomely COOL! There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. sealover wrote: Take one magic moment, for example. In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. Science is not a grant. sealover wrote: We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. Rain is naturally acidic. Science is not a foundation, government agency, grant, or 'project'. sealover wrote: We had been examining the role of organic anions, particularly those of phenol carboxylic acids such as tannins, in forest soil biogeochemistry. Organic is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. sealover wrote: My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. Acid is not a chemical. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Forests are not a leachate. sealover wrote: I was compiling a simple list. They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). Cations are not a capacity. sealover wrote: They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. Aluminimum is aluminimum. It is the same. sealover wrote: They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. Calcium is not an ion. Magnesium is not an ion. sealover wrote: They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. Nitrogen cannot decompose. sealover wrote: They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Phosphorous cannot decompose. sealover wrote: Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. HOLY COW! BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IS EFFING AWESOME!!! There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. sealover wrote: It would take another seven years before the discovery finally made a big splash in the journal NATURE. Science isn't a journal or magazine. sealover wrote: The joy of that discovery gave me some insight into why Archimedes went running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!" Archimedes didn't speak English. sealover wrote: ...removed advertisement... Stop advertising. 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
23-10-2025 18:02
sealover ★★★★★ (2123)	<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. --------------------------------------------------------- Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". Applied biogeochemistry is at the heart of needed environmental remediation. A magic moment: January 20, 1988 Biogeochemistry is awesomely COOL! Take one magic moment, for example. In January, 1988, I was helping write the new grant proposal. We wanted to justify to the National Science Foundation why they should provide additional funding for the NSF-funded acidic deposition ("acid rain") research project in progress. We had been examining the role of organic anions, particularly those of phenol carboxylic acids such as tannins, in forest soil biogeochemistry. My master's thesis research was specifically about how acidic deposition influenced the solubility and behavior of phenol carboxylic anions in forest floor leachate. I was compiling a simple list. They provide cation exchange capacity (CEC). They ameliorate aluminum toxicity. They facilitate retention of nutrient cations such as calcium and magnesium. They maintain nitrogen in a form that cannot be lost from the ecosystem. They prevent phosphorus fixation and release "fixed" phosphorus in soil. Then it hit me. LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! All of these were feedbacks that benefitted the plants that produced them. HOLY COW! BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IS EFFING AWESOME!!! It would take another seven years before the discovery finally made a big splash in the journal NATURE. The joy of that discovery gave me some insight into why Archimedes went running naked into the street shouting "Eureka!" The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down page 3
30-10-2025 23:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	sealover wrote: ...deleted spam... Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". Applied biogeochemistry is at the heart of needed environmental remediation. ...deleted spam... There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry' or a 'biogeochemist'. You deny chemistry. You think chemistry is just a bunch of buzzwords. The environment doesn't need 'remediation'. The Earth doesn't need 'remediation'. It's quite big enough to take care of itself. 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
01-04-2026 19:19
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline that explores the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and reactions that govern the composition of and changes to the natural environment. In particular, biogeochemistry studies the cycles of crucial elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with other substances and organisms as they move through Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere (water and ice), biosphere (life), and lithosphere (rock). The field focuses especially on the diverse and interlinked chemical cycles that are either driven by or have an impact on biological activity, in particular carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. A prime example is carbon, the building block of life on Earth, and the planet-encompassing carbon cycle. Photosynthetic plants on land and sea take carbon dioxide (a form of inorganic carbon) from the atmosphere and convert it into the organic forms of carbon they need to live and grow. Animals that consume the plants incorporate the organic carbon into their own bodies. Microbes eventually decompose dead plants and animals, and their carbon is recycled into soils and groundwater or swept into the oceans, where it becomes available to microbes and phytoplankton at the base of the marine food chain or it sinks and is buried in seafloor sediments. Over millions of years, carbon that is buried on land or at the bottom of the ocean becomes incorporated into rocks or hydrocarbons, where it might remain for tens to hundreds of millions of years. Ultimately, volcanoes return some of this carbon to the air as gas, where its heat-trapping properties affect Earth's climate, or else the rocks containing carbon are uplifted onto continents and gradually weathered, releasing their carbon back to the environment and making it available to organisms once again. Why is it Important? In a sense, chemicals are like currency, and biogeochemistry is the study of the nearly limitless "transactions" that drive the entire planetary system, including life on Earth. Understanding these fundamental processes provides crucial insights into how life formed, has evolved, is sustained, and is threatened on our planet, and how the various chemical cycles govern and regulate Earth's climate and environment. Such knowledge enhances our ability to find ways to adapt to climate change and its impacts, enhance agriculture and food production, manage fisheries, mitigate pollution, develop alternative and renewable energy, prevent diseases and create new drugs, and spur innovations that can drive economic prosperity and improve our quality of life. Straight copy and paste.Have at it Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change.
01-04-2026 22:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline ... Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. 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
01-04-2026 22:29
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline ... Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. Stop spamming.
02-04-2026 07:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline ... Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. Stop spamming. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert. 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
15-04-2026 17:32
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline ... Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. Stop spamming. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert. Anyone can blame their problems on anyone they want. Is it intended as a statement of scientific fact that I am not physically capable of blaming my problems on someone else? Is it another ROYAL DECREE about what people are ALLOWED TO SAY? I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU.
15-04-2026 18:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15313)	Im a BM wrote:I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Into the Night is the one who acknowledges that water evaporates. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-04-2026 18:49
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Into the Night is the one who acknowledges that water evaporates. . This seems to imply that others do NOT acknowledge the obvious fact that water evaporates. Into the Night claims that water forms "carbolic acid" with carbon dioxide, and that "Water itself is a buffer for acid". No invocation of evaporation. Just chemical stupidity. Maybe ITN specifically addressed the evaporation question, but I don't remember even one post by him about ocean acidification with ANY reference to "evaporation" or anything equivalent. Let's pretend that Into the Night is the ONLY ONE "who acknowledges that water evaporates." It still doesn't change the fact that pH = -log(H+) or that pH buffering arises from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids (e.g. carbonate ions). These are basic facts that Into the Night does NOT acknowledge. He doesn't even know the difference between carbonic acid and carbolic acid.
15-04-2026 21:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert. Anyone can blame their problems on anyone they want. Insisting on an inversion fallacy is only stubbornness for the sake of stubbornness. Im a BM wrote: Is it intended as a statement of scientific fact that I am not physically capable of blaming my problems on someone else? Logic, which you are now denying. Im a BM wrote: Is it another ROYAL DECREE about what people are ALLOWED TO SAY? Logic is not a king. Im a BM wrote: I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Science is not a post. You continue to deny chemistry and theories of science. Inversion fallacy. 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
15-04-2026 21:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert. Anyone can blame their problems on anyone they want. Insisting on an inversion fallacy is only stubbornness for the sake of stubbornness. Im a BM wrote: Is it intended as a statement of scientific fact that I am not physically capable of blaming my problems on someone else? Logic, which you are now denying. Im a BM wrote: Is it another ROYAL DECREE about what people are ALLOWED TO SAY? Logic is not a king. Im a BM wrote: I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Science is not a post. You continue to deny chemistry and theories of science. Inversion fallacy. 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
15-04-2026 22:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Into the Night is the one who acknowledges that water evaporates. . This seems to imply that others do NOT acknowledge the obvious fact that water evaporates. The implication is correct. You have denied that water evaporates. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night claims that water forms "carbolic acid" with carbon dioxide, and that "Water itself is a buffer for acid". No invocation of evaporation. Just chemical stupidity. Water doesn't form anything. Water is a buffer for acid. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Maybe ITN specifically addressed the evaporation question, but I don't remember even one post by him about ocean acidification with ANY reference to "evaporation" or anything equivalent. Go back and read it. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that Into the Night is the ONLY ONE "who acknowledges that water evaporates." Why? IBdaMann also understands this. So do others. Apparently you have a lot of trouble understanding this simple principle. Im a BM wrote: It still doesn't change the fact that pH = -log(H+) or that pH buffering arises from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids (e.g. carbonate ions). Carbonate is not a chemical. Looks like you are going to try to demonstrate your inability to understand pH again. Im a BM wrote: These are basic facts that Into the Night does NOT acknowledge. He doesn't even know the difference between carbonic acid and carbolic acid. Carbonic acid: H2CO3; an unstable acid that often occurs in small amounts when CO2 is dissolved in water. Often less than 1% equilibria vs dissolved CO2. Carbolic acid: C6H5OH; a toxic substance used in industry to make plastics and as a specialized antiseptic. Found in coal tar. Hazards include absorption through the skin and chemical burn. Sufficient dose may cause death due to multiple organ failure. Causes chemical burn both externally and internally. Can be handled safely with appropriate PPE. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-04-2026 17:42
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Into the Night is the one who acknowledges that water evaporates. . This seems to imply that others do NOT acknowledge the obvious fact that water evaporates. The implication is correct. You have denied that water evaporates. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night claims that water forms "carbolic acid" with carbon dioxide, and that "Water itself is a buffer for acid". No invocation of evaporation. Just chemical stupidity. Water doesn't form anything. Water is a buffer for acid. Im a BM wrote: Maybe ITN specifically addressed the evaporation question, but I don't remember even one post by him about ocean acidification with ANY reference to "evaporation" or anything equivalent. Go back and read it. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that Into the Night is the ONLY ONE "who acknowledges that water evaporates." Why? IBdaMann also understands this. So do others. Apparently you have a lot of trouble understanding this simple principle. Im a BM wrote: It still doesn't change the fact that pH = -log(H+) or that pH buffering arises from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids (e.g. carbonate ions). Carbonate is not a chemical. Looks like you are going to try to demonstrate your inability to understand pH again. Im a BM wrote: These are basic facts that Into the Night does NOT acknowledge. He doesn't even know the difference between carbonic acid and carbolic acid. Carbonic acid: H2CO3; an unstable acid that often occurs in small amounts when CO2 is dissolved in water. Often less than 1% equilibria vs dissolved CO2. Carbolic acid: C6H5OH; a toxic substance used in industry to make plastics and as a specialized antiseptic. Found in coal tar. Hazards include absorption through the skin and chemical burn. Sufficient dose may cause death due to multiple organ failure. Causes chemical burn both externally and internally. Can be handled safely with appropriate PPE. I'm pretty sure I never "denied water evaporated". But you will win every debate if you only respond to your own straw men. Like when everyone insists that something is a "chemical", you can knock down your own straw men by telling them it is NOT a chemical. Checkmate! You don't need a more complete explanation than an unsupported contrarian assertion. It's true because you say so. You obviously never actually studied science in a way that society would recognize as qualifying you to be called a "scientist" and certainly not a "chemist". A "chemist" who doesn't even know what biogeochemistry is!
16-04-2026 22:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: I'm pretty sure I never "denied water evaporated". DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: But you will win every debate if you only respond to your own straw men. YARP. Fallacy fallacy. No strawmen, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Like when everyone insists that something is a "chemical", You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: you can knock down your own straw men by telling them it is NOT a chemical. Checkmate! You don't need a more complete explanation than an unsupported contrarian assertion. It's true because you say so. Reversal fallacy. Im a BM wrote: You obviously never actually studied science in a way that society would recognize as qualifying you to be called a "scientist" and certainly not a "chemist". A "chemist" who doesn't even know what biogeochemistry is! Science isn't a 'study' or 'research'. Science is not a society. Science is not a title, degree, license, or any other sanctification. Biogeochemistry does not exist. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-04-2026 22:45
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Im a BM wrote:I blame your 24,500 posts of anti scientific crap on YOU. Into the Night is the one who acknowledges that water evaporates. . This seems to imply that others do NOT acknowledge the obvious fact that water evaporates. The implication is correct. You have denied that water evaporates. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night claims that water forms "carbolic acid" with carbon dioxide, and that "Water itself is a buffer for acid". No invocation of evaporation. Just chemical stupidity. Water doesn't form anything. Water is a buffer for acid. Im a BM wrote: Maybe ITN specifically addressed the evaporation question, but I don't remember even one post by him about ocean acidification with ANY reference to "evaporation" or anything equivalent. Go back and read it. You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: Let's pretend that Into the Night is the ONLY ONE "who acknowledges that water evaporates." Why? IBdaMann also understands this. So do others. Apparently you have a lot of trouble understanding this simple principle. Im a BM wrote: It still doesn't change the fact that pH = -log(H+) or that pH buffering arises from the presence of conjugate bases of weak acids (e.g. carbonate ions). Carbonate is not a chemical. Looks like you are going to try to demonstrate your inability to understand pH again. Im a BM wrote: These are basic facts that Into the Night does NOT acknowledge. He doesn't even know the difference between carbonic acid and carbolic acid. Carbonic acid: H2CO3; an unstable acid that often occurs in small amounts when CO2 is dissolved in water. Often less than 1% equilibria vs dissolved CO2. Carbolic acid: C6H5OH; a toxic substance used in industry to make plastics and as a specialized antiseptic. Found in coal tar. Hazards include absorption through the skin and chemical burn. Sufficient dose may cause death due to multiple organ failure. Causes chemical burn both externally and internally. Can be handled safely with appropriate PPE. I'm pretty sure I never "denied water evaporated". But you will win every debate if you only respond to your own straw men. Like when everyone insists that something is a "chemical", you can knock down your own straw men by telling them it is NOT a chemical. Checkmate! You don't need a more complete explanation than an unsupported contrarian assertion. It's true because you say so. You obviously never actually studied science in a way that society would recognize as qualifying you to be called a "scientist" and certainly not a "chemist". A "chemist" who doesn't even know what biogeochemistry is! I forgot to ask... Since you apparently discovered what carbolic acid actually is, why did you perpetually refer to "carbolic acid" in your posts related to ocean "acidification"? You insisted that the natural pH buffering capacity of water itself would neutralize all the "carbolic acid" formed from dissolved carbon dioxide. Check out "Into the Night's Comments" on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread. ITN spells out how "carbolic acid" forms from carbon dioxide. But says "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'", which is pretty basic to understanding sea water alkalinity. But, "You cannot acidify an alkaline"... whatever an "alkaline" is supposed to be. Sea water alkalinity is not measured as pH. The pH buffering capacity arising from the conjugate bases of the weak carbonic acid in sea water is measured as moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents of acid neutralizing capacity.
16-04-2026 23:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: I forgot to ask... Since you apparently discovered what carbolic acid actually is, why did you perpetually refer to "carbolic acid" in your posts related to ocean "acidification"? You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: You insisted that the natural pH buffering capacity of water itself would neutralize all the "carbolic acid" formed from dissolved carbon dioxide. A buffer doesn't neutralize anything, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Check out "Into the Night's Comments" on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread. ITN spells out how "carbolic acid" forms from carbon dioxide. This was YOUR confusion, Robert. You cannot blame YOUR confusion on me or anybody else. Im a BM wrote: But says "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'", which is pretty basic to understanding sea water alkalinity. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no 'system' called 'carbonate'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But, "You cannot acidify an alkaline"... whatever an "alkaline" is supposed to be. I am not going to teach chemistry to you. Im a BM wrote: Sea water alkalinity is not measured as pH. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The pH buffering capacity arising from the conjugate bases of the weak carbonic acid in sea water is measured as moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents of acid neutralizing capacity. Carbonic acid does not neutralize acid, Robert. pH does not measure moles. pH is not 'neutralizing capacity'. There is no such thing. 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
17-04-2026 15:02
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I forgot to ask... Since you apparently discovered what carbolic acid actually is, why did you perpetually refer to "carbolic acid" in your posts related to ocean "acidification"? You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: You insisted that the natural pH buffering capacity of water itself would neutralize all the "carbolic acid" formed from dissolved carbon dioxide. A buffer doesn't neutralize anything, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Check out "Into the Night's Comments" on the "Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean" thread. ITN spells out how "carbolic acid" forms from carbon dioxide. This was YOUR confusion, Robert. You cannot blame YOUR confusion on me or anybody else. Im a BM wrote: But says "There is no such thing as the 'carbonate system'", which is pretty basic to understanding sea water alkalinity. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no 'system' called 'carbonate'. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: But, "You cannot acidify an alkaline"... whatever an "alkaline" is supposed to be. I am not going to teach chemistry to you. Im a BM wrote: Sea water alkalinity is not measured as pH. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: The pH buffering capacity arising from the conjugate bases of the weak carbonic acid in sea water is measured as moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity, or grams per liter calcium carbonate equivalents of acid neutralizing capacity. Carbonic acid does not neutralize acid, Robert. pH does not measure moles. pH is not 'neutralizing capacity'. There is no such thing. It's too bad you never learned how to look up the definitions for scientific terms. It is so EASY to find the meaning of those "buzzwords" you don't understand. So many words you could add to your vocabulary. So many things you could read and understand if you only knew what those "buzzwords" meant. For some reason, you felt compelled to tell "Robert", specifically, that "Carbonic acid does not neutralize acid, Robert." "Robert" never implied that it might. "I am not going to teach chemistry to you." - Into the Night No shit, Sherlock! You can't teach chemistry to ANYONE because you never learned any. Not ONE of your posts actually teaches ANY chemistry. Long lists of everything that is "not a chemical", but that's as close as you get. It's fine if you want to pretend you're a "chemist", but your problem is you insist on telling OTHERS that THEY don't understand chemistry. You wouldn't know. It's all just "buzzwords" to you. And you REFUSED to learn how to look up the definitions, so they register in your feeble mind as nothing more than "meaningless buzzwords" Real scientists know how to use those "buzzwords" for effective communication of concepts you can't begin to comprehend.
17-04-2026 19:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: It's too bad you never learned how to look up the definitions for scientific terms. Science isn't 'terms'. Im a BM wrote: It is so EASY to find the meaning of those "buzzwords" you don't understand. So many words you could add to your vocabulary. So many things you could read and understand if you only knew what those "buzzwords" meant. Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert. Im a BM wrote: For some reason, you felt compelled to tell "Robert", specifically, that "Carbonic acid does not neutralize acid, Robert." "Robert" never implied that it might. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: "I am not going to teach chemistry to you." - Into the Night No shit, Sherlock! There is simply too much for you to learn, Robert; and one cannot teach anything to a closed mind. Im a BM wrote: You can't teach chemistry to ANYONE because you never learned any. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Not ONE of your posts actually teaches ANY chemistry. You don't want to learn chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Long lists of everything that is "not a chemical", but that's as close as you get. None of the buzzwords you use are chemicals. Im a BM wrote: It's fine if you want to pretend you're a "chemist", but your problem is you insist on telling OTHERS that THEY don't understand chemistry. You wouldn't know. It's all just "buzzwords" to you. Chemistry is not buzzwords. Buzzwords have no meaning. Im a BM wrote: And you REFUSED to learn how to look up the definitions, so they register in your feeble mind as nothing more than "meaningless buzzwords" Buzzwords have no definition. Buzzwords have no meaning. Im a BM wrote: Real scientists know how to use those "buzzwords" for effective communication of concepts you can't begin to comprehend. Buzzwords are not communication. Buzzwords have no meaning. Buzzwords have no concepts. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-04-2026 18:24
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: It's too bad you never learned how to look up the definitions for scientific terms. Science isn't 'terms'. Im a BM wrote: It is so EASY to find the meaning of those "buzzwords" you don't understand. So many words you could add to your vocabulary. So many things you could read and understand if you only knew what those "buzzwords" meant. Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert. Im a BM wrote: For some reason, you felt compelled to tell "Robert", specifically, that "Carbonic acid does not neutralize acid, Robert." "Robert" never implied that it might. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: "I am not going to teach chemistry to you." - Into the Night No shit, Sherlock! There is simply too much for you to learn, Robert; and one cannot teach anything to a closed mind. Im a BM wrote: You can't teach chemistry to ANYONE because you never learned any. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Not ONE of your posts actually teaches ANY chemistry. You don't want to learn chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Long lists of everything that is "not a chemical", but that's as close as you get. None of the buzzwords you use are chemicals. Im a BM wrote: It's fine if you want to pretend you're a "chemist", but your problem is you insist on telling OTHERS that THEY don't understand chemistry. You wouldn't know. It's all just "buzzwords" to you. Chemistry is not buzzwords. Buzzwords have no meaning. Im a BM wrote: And you REFUSED to learn how to look up the definitions, so they register in your feeble mind as nothing more than "meaningless buzzwords" Buzzwords have no definition. Buzzwords have no meaning. Im a BM wrote: Real scientists know how to use those "buzzwords" for effective communication of concepts you can't begin to comprehend. Buzzwords are not communication. Buzzwords have no meaning. Buzzwords have no concepts. BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS Scientists don't call them "buzzwords". Scientists use them to communicate and understand each other. I feel sad that most people don't have enough scientific training to get much out of the conversation. But they should not be allowed to PREVENT the conversation, just because they don't have a clue what everyone else is talking about. If someone doesn't even know what climate change IS, they may not have a lot to contribute to a discussion about the topic. If someone doesn't even know what the "buzzwords" MEAN, they may not have much of value to say in response to them.
18-04-2026 20:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS BUZZWORDS You love them! Im a BM wrote: Scientists don't call them "buzzwords". Scientists use them to communicate and understand each other. You deny science. Buzzwords are not communication. Im a BM wrote: I feel sad that most people don't have enough scientific training to get much out of the conversation. Science is not 'training'. Science is not a title. Im a BM wrote: But they should not be allowed to PREVENT the conversation, just because they don't have a clue what everyone else is talking about. You aren't talking about anything. You are just posting endless buzzwords to try to impress people. It won't work. Your denial of science and chemistry is obvious. Im a BM wrote: If someone doesn't even know what climate change IS, they may not have a lot to contribute to a discussion about the topic. You still haven't described what is 'changing' with climate. Buzzword fallacy. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: If someone doesn't even know what the "buzzwords" MEAN, they may not have much of value to say in response to them. Buzzwords have no meaning, Robert. 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 18-04-2026 20:47
19-04-2026 12:45
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	duncan61 wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline that explores the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and reactions that govern the composition of and changes to the natural environment. In particular, biogeochemistry studies the cycles of crucial elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with other substances and organisms as they move through Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere (water and ice), biosphere (life), and lithosphere (rock). The field focuses especially on the diverse and interlinked chemical cycles that are either driven by or have an impact on biological activity, in particular carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. A prime example is carbon, the building block of life on Earth, and the planet-encompassing carbon cycle. Photosynthetic plants on land and sea take carbon dioxide (a form of inorganic carbon) from the atmosphere and convert it into the organic forms of carbon they need to live and grow. Animals that consume the plants incorporate the organic carbon into their own bodies. Microbes eventually decompose dead plants and animals, and their carbon is recycled into soils and groundwater or swept into the oceans, where it becomes available to microbes and phytoplankton at the base of the marine food chain or it sinks and is buried in seafloor sediments. Over millions of years, carbon that is buried on land or at the bottom of the ocean becomes incorporated into rocks or hydrocarbons, where it might remain for tens to hundreds of millions of years. Ultimately, volcanoes return some of this carbon to the air as gas, where its heat-trapping properties affect Earth's climate, or else the rocks containing carbon are uplifted onto continents and gradually weathered, releasing their carbon back to the environment and making it available to organisms once again. Why is it Important? In a sense, chemicals are like currency, and biogeochemistry is the study of the nearly limitless "transactions" that drive the entire planetary system, including life on Earth. Understanding these fundamental processes provides crucial insights into how life formed, has evolved, is sustained, and is threatened on our planet, and how the various chemical cycles govern and regulate Earth's climate and environment. Such knowledge enhances our ability to find ways to adapt to climate change and its impacts, enhance agriculture and food production, manage fisheries, mitigate pollution, develop alternative and renewable energy, prevent diseases and create new drugs, and spur innovations that can drive economic prosperity and improve our quality of life. Straight copy and paste.Have at it Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. And someone tell Into the Night to STOP SPAMMING!
19-04-2026 19:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline that explores the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and reactions that govern the composition of and changes to the natural environment. In particular, biogeochemistry studies the cycles of crucial elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with other substances and organisms as they move through Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere (water and ice), biosphere (life), and lithosphere (rock). The field focuses especially on the diverse and interlinked chemical cycles that are either driven by or have an impact on biological activity, in particular carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science is not buzzwords. Carbon is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Sulfur is not a cycle. Phosphorus is not a cycle. Im a BM wrote: A prime example is carbon, the building block of life on Earth, and the planet-encompassing carbon cycle. Photosynthetic plants on land and sea take carbon dioxide (a form of inorganic carbon) from the atmosphere and convert it into the organic forms of carbon they need to live and grow. Animals that consume the plants incorporate the organic carbon into their own bodies. Carbon is not a cycle. Carbon is not photosynthesis. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a plant. Carbon is not an animal. Im a BM wrote: Microbes eventually decompose dead plants and animals, and their carbon is recycled into soils and groundwater or swept into the oceans, where it becomes available to microbes and phytoplankton at the base of the marine food chain or it sinks and is buried in seafloor sediments. Over millions of years, carbon that is buried on land or at the bottom of the ocean becomes incorporated into rocks or hydrocarbons, where it might remain for tens to hundreds of millions of years. Ultimately, volcanoes return some of this carbon to the air as gas, where its heat-trapping properties affect Earth's climate, or else the rocks containing carbon are uplifted onto continents and gradually weathered, releasing their carbon back to the environment and making it available to organisms once again. Carbon is not a microbe. Carbon is not a 'recycle'. Carbon is not a food chain. Carbon doesn't sink in water. Carbon is not a rock. Carbon is not 'weathered'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: Why is it Important? In a sense, chemicals are like currency, and biogeochemistry is the study of the nearly limitless "transactions" that drive the entire planetary system, including life on Earth. Understanding these fundamental processes provides crucial insights into how life formed, has evolved, is sustained, and is threatened on our planet, and how the various chemical cycles govern and regulate Earth's climate and environment. Chemicals are not a currency. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science isn't a religion. Therer is no 'regulator'. Earth is not a climate. Earth is not an environment. Im a BM wrote: Such knowledge enhances our ability to find ways to adapt to climate change and its impacts, enhance agriculture and food production, manage fisheries, mitigate pollution, develop alternative and renewable energy, prevent diseases and create new drugs, and spur innovations that can drive economic prosperity and improve our quality of life. I ask again, Robert...what is 'changing' in climate? Climate is not agriculture. Climate is not food production. Climate is not a fish. What 'pollution' are you talking about? What is it 'polluting'? There is no such thing as 'alternative energy'. Oil is a renewable fuel. Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Both are cheap methods of generating energy. Nuclear fuel is not renewable, but it requires so little to build a power plant that uses it that it is a practical and reliable method of generating energy. Wind is not reliable. It is also the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity there is. Solar is not available during peak demand (at night). It is the most expensive method of generating electricity there is. Any ballasting system added to wind or solar only makes them more expensive. Im a BM wrote: Straight copy and paste.Have at it. Just did, copy-paste idiot. Im a BM wrote: Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. NONE of what you provided here has anything to do with science, Robert. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics is denying science. Im a BM wrote: And someone tell Into the Night to STOP SPAMMING! You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. 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
19-04-2026 22:29
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline that explores the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and reactions that govern the composition of and changes to the natural environment. In particular, biogeochemistry studies the cycles of crucial elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with other substances and organisms as they move through Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere (water and ice), biosphere (life), and lithosphere (rock). The field focuses especially on the diverse and interlinked chemical cycles that are either driven by or have an impact on biological activity, in particular carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science is not buzzwords. Carbon is not a cycle. Nitrogen is not a cycle. Sulfur is not a cycle. Phosphorus is not a cycle. Im a BM wrote: A prime example is carbon, the building block of life on Earth, and the planet-encompassing carbon cycle. Photosynthetic plants on land and sea take carbon dioxide (a form of inorganic carbon) from the atmosphere and convert it into the organic forms of carbon they need to live and grow. Animals that consume the plants incorporate the organic carbon into their own bodies. Carbon is not a cycle. Carbon is not photosynthesis. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Carbon is not inorganic. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not a plant. Carbon is not an animal. Im a BM wrote: Microbes eventually decompose dead plants and animals, and their carbon is recycled into soils and groundwater or swept into the oceans, where it becomes available to microbes and phytoplankton at the base of the marine food chain or it sinks and is buried in seafloor sediments. Over millions of years, carbon that is buried on land or at the bottom of the ocean becomes incorporated into rocks or hydrocarbons, where it might remain for tens to hundreds of millions of years. Ultimately, volcanoes return some of this carbon to the air as gas, where its heat-trapping properties affect Earth's climate, or else the rocks containing carbon are uplifted onto continents and gradually weathered, releasing their carbon back to the environment and making it available to organisms once again. Carbon is not a microbe. Carbon is not a 'recycle'. Carbon is not a food chain. Carbon doesn't sink in water. Carbon is not a rock. Carbon is not 'weathered'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: Why is it Important? In a sense, chemicals are like currency, and biogeochemistry is the study of the nearly limitless "transactions" that drive the entire planetary system, including life on Earth. Understanding these fundamental processes provides crucial insights into how life formed, has evolved, is sustained, and is threatened on our planet, and how the various chemical cycles govern and regulate Earth's climate and environment. Chemicals are not a currency. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Science isn't a religion. Therer is no 'regulator'. Earth is not a climate. Earth is not an environment. Im a BM wrote: Such knowledge enhances our ability to find ways to adapt to climate change and its impacts, enhance agriculture and food production, manage fisheries, mitigate pollution, develop alternative and renewable energy, prevent diseases and create new drugs, and spur innovations that can drive economic prosperity and improve our quality of life. I ask again, Robert...what is 'changing' in climate? Climate is not agriculture. Climate is not food production. Climate is not a fish. What 'pollution' are you talking about? What is it 'polluting'? There is no such thing as 'alternative energy'. Oil is a renewable fuel. Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Both are cheap methods of generating energy. Nuclear fuel is not renewable, but it requires so little to build a power plant that uses it that it is a practical and reliable method of generating energy. Wind is not reliable. It is also the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity there is. Solar is not available during peak demand (at night). It is the most expensive method of generating electricity there is. Any ballasting system added to wind or solar only makes them more expensive. Im a BM wrote: Straight copy and paste.Have at it. Just did, copy-paste idiot. Im a BM wrote: Excellent summary about an important field of science that is highly relevant to discussion of climate change. NONE of what you provided here has anything to do with science, Robert. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics is denying science. Im a BM wrote: And someone tell Into the Night to STOP SPAMMING! You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Robert. Gosh, I learned so much from this HIGHLY INFORMATIVE post by Into the Night. Of course, I learned that there is simply NO SUCH THING as biogeochemistry. And I feel so much smarter now because now I FINALLY have been informed that carbon is NOT a cycle, carbon dioxide, photosynthesis, inorganic, organic, plant, animal, microbe, "recycle", food chain, rock, or "weathered". And it only required a dozen sentences to convey these important facts. I'm not sure I even know what carbon IS anymore, if it is NOT all those things. This is the kind of thing you can learn when you have a REAL "chemist" around to teach REAL chemistry.
20-04-2026 01:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: Gosh, I learned so much from this HIGHLY INFORMATIVE post by Into the Night. You haven't learned a damn thing. Of course, I don't expect you to. Your mind is closed and incapable learning anything. You want to continue to deny science and spew your meaningless buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: Of course, I learned that there is simply NO SUCH THING as biogeochemistry. And I feel so much smarter now because now I FINALLY have been informed that carbon is NOT a cycle, carbon dioxide, photosynthesis, inorganic, organic, plant, animal, microbe, "recycle", food chain, rock, or "weathered". And it only required a dozen sentences to convey these important facts. Mantra 3. Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure I even know what carbon IS anymore, if it is NOT all those things. It is obvious you have no idea what carbon is. Im a BM wrote: This is the kind of thing you can learn when you have a REAL "chemist" around to teach REAL chemistry. True Scotsman fallacy. Chemistry is not a title. You don't want to learn. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2026 19:48
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Gosh, I learned so much from this HIGHLY INFORMATIVE post by Into the Night. You haven't learned a damn thing. Of course, I don't expect you to. Your mind is closed and incapable learning anything. You want to continue to deny science and spew your meaningless buzzwords. Im a BM wrote: Of course, I learned that there is simply NO SUCH THING as biogeochemistry. And I feel so much smarter now because now I FINALLY have been informed that carbon is NOT a cycle, carbon dioxide, photosynthesis, inorganic, organic, plant, animal, microbe, "recycle", food chain, rock, or "weathered". And it only required a dozen sentences to convey these important facts. Mantra 3. Im a BM wrote: I'm not sure I even know what carbon IS anymore, if it is NOT all those things. It is obvious you have no idea what carbon is. Im a BM wrote: This is the kind of thing you can learn when you have a REAL "chemist" around to teach REAL chemistry. True Scotsman fallacy. Chemistry is not a title. You don't want to learn. What would happen to us, all of us, if it suddenly became quite clear what we are doing and why? I didn't use quotation marks, because I don't know if I got Wilfred Owen's words memorized correctly. Within the scientific community, my discoveries about the carbon cycle get praise. At climate-debate.com, the local troll "chemist" tells me I don't even know what carbon is.
21-04-2026 00:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: What would happen to us, all of us, if it suddenly became quite clear what we are doing and why? 42. Im a BM wrote: I didn't use quotation marks, because I don't know if I got Wilfred Owen's words memorized correctly. YARP Im a BM wrote: Within the scientific community, my discoveries about the carbon cycle get praise. Science isn't a 'community'. Carbon is not a cycle. Im a BM wrote: At climate-debate.com, the local troll "chemist" tells me I don't even know what carbon is. You don't, obviously. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-04-2026 19:57
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: What would happen to us, all of us, if it suddenly became quite clear what we are doing and why? 42. Im a BM wrote: I didn't use quotation marks, because I don't know if I got Wilfred Owen's words memorized correctly. YARP Im a BM wrote: Within the scientific community, my discoveries about the carbon cycle get praise. Science isn't a 'community'. Carbon is not a cycle. Im a BM wrote: At climate-debate.com, the local troll "chemist" tells me I don't even know what carbon is. You don't, obviously. What is "carbon", and how can I become "carbon neutral"? DO NOT USE A DICTIONARY! It will only LIE to you about what "carbon" is. The word "carbon" is ONLY ALLOWED TO MEAN pure carbon atoms, such as in a diamond. EXCELLENT! I am already "carbon neutral" in that case. I have never owned a diamond and I do not intend to acquire any. All those scientifically illiterate morons use the word "carbon" in all the wrong ways. There is no "carbon" in the atomsphere, according to the ONLY "chemist" in the world who knows these things (and keeps his sources SECRET). "Carbon cycle"? Diamonds don't "cycle"! "Carbon credits"? Most diamond dealers offer EASY CREDIT, so that one makes sense. "Carbon tax"? That's what they try to evade by illegally smuggling diamonds. Of course, all those fake "scientists" throw around fake terms like "carbon sequestration". Nobody KIDNAPS diamonds! They get bought, sold, lost, stolen, but nobody goes around "sequestering" diamonds. The more rigidly we define the term, the more information we can exclude from our consciousness. There ain't much room in there for anything new anyway, so let's keep this "carbon" thing EXTRA simple. Carbon = diamonds But are DIAMONDS a "chemical"? Because if they are not a "chemical", we can't even talk about them.
21-04-2026 21:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (24251)	Im a BM wrote: What is "carbon", and how can I become "carbon neutral"? Carbon is an element. 'Carbon neutral' doesn't mean anything. Im a BM wrote: DO NOT USE A DICTIONARY! It will only LIE to you about what "carbon" is. Dictionaries do not define any word. [quote]Im a BM wrote: The word "carbon" is ONLY ALLOWED TO MEAN pure carbon atoms, such as in a diamond. Carbon can take several forms. Most commonly as graphite or as amorphous carbon. It can also, of course, take the form of a diamond. Im a BM wrote: EXCELLENT! I am already "carbon neutral" in that case. I have never owned a diamond and I do not intend to acquire any. 'Carbon neutral' does not mean anything. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: All those scientifically illiterate morons use the word "carbon" in all the wrong ways. There is no "carbon" in the atomsphere, according to the ONLY "chemist" in the world who knows these things (and keeps his sources SECRET). There isn't. Carbon is heavier than air. It can temporarily float in the air as soot (fine particulates), but it eventually comes out of the air, particularly after a rain. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon cycle"? Diamonds don't "cycle"! No. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon credits"? Most diamond dealers offer EASY CREDIT, so that one makes sense. People that sell diamonds generally want cash. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon tax"? That's what they try to evade by illegally smuggling diamonds. Redefinition fallacy. A 'carbon tax' is a tax levied by a government that embraces the Church of Global Warming as a state religion. It is typically levied on petroleum products such as gasoline. Im a BM wrote: Of course, all those fake "scientists" throw around fake terms like "carbon sequestration". Nobody KIDNAPS diamonds! They get bought, sold, lost, stolen, but nobody goes around "sequestering" diamonds. Science is not religion. 'Carbon sequestration' is a meaningless buzzword. Im a BM wrote: The more rigidly we define the term, the more information we can exclude from our consciousness. There ain't much room in there for anything new anyway, so let's keep this "carbon" thing EXTRA simple. Carbon = diamonds Carbon takes several forms. Diamonds are only one of them. Im a BM wrote: But are DIAMONDS a "chemical"? Yes. Carbon is also a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Because if they are not a "chemical", we can't even talk about them. Carbon is a chemical. 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
22-04-2026 20:09
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3714)	I have appointed myself to speak for the SILENT MAJORITY of climate-debate.com viewers who are NOT obnoxious, scientifically illiterate trolls. Given the fact that old biogeochemistry threads keep picking up new "views", by the hundreds each week until they rack up tens of thousands... I confidently assert that the overwhelming majority of viewers of this thread believe that there probably IS "such a thing as biogeochemistry". Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: What is "carbon", and how can I become "carbon neutral"? Carbon is an element. 'Carbon neutral' doesn't mean anything. Im a BM wrote: DO NOT USE A DICTIONARY! It will only LIE to you about what "carbon" is. Dictionaries do not define any word. [quote]Im a BM wrote: The word "carbon" is ONLY ALLOWED TO MEAN pure carbon atoms, such as in a diamond. Carbon can take several forms. Most commonly as graphite or as amorphous carbon. It can also, of course, take the form of a diamond. Im a BM wrote: EXCELLENT! I am already "carbon neutral" in that case. I have never owned a diamond and I do not intend to acquire any. 'Carbon neutral' does not mean anything. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: All those scientifically illiterate morons use the word "carbon" in all the wrong ways. There is no "carbon" in the atomsphere, according to the ONLY "chemist" in the world who knows these things (and keeps his sources SECRET). There isn't. Carbon is heavier than air. It can temporarily float in the air as soot (fine particulates), but it eventually comes out of the air, particularly after a rain. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon cycle"? Diamonds don't "cycle"! No. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon credits"? Most diamond dealers offer EASY CREDIT, so that one makes sense. People that sell diamonds generally want cash. Im a BM wrote: "Carbon tax"? That's what they try to evade by illegally smuggling diamonds. -------------------------------------------------------- Science is not a tax. Carbon is not a credit. Cash is not a chemical. Science is not air. Soot is not air. Air is not a chemical. Science is not gasoline. Global is not a Warming. Science is not a state. Religion is not a chemical. Shall I go on? Because more elucidation of the fact that something is not something else that it is not.. That will make everyone SO MUCH SMARTER! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Redefinition fallacy. A 'carbon tax' is a tax levied by a government that embraces the Church of Global Warming as a state religion. It is typically levied on petroleum products such as gasoline. Im a BM wrote: Of course, all those fake "scientists" throw around fake terms like "carbon sequestration". Nobody KIDNAPS diamonds! They get bought, sold, lost, stolen, but nobody goes around "sequestering" diamonds. Science is not religion. 'Carbon sequestration' is a meaningless buzzword. Im a BM wrote: The more rigidly we define the term, the more information we can exclude from our consciousness. There ain't much room in there for anything new anyway, so let's keep this "carbon" thing EXTRA simple. Carbon = diamonds Carbon takes several forms. Diamonds are only one of them. Im a BM wrote: But are DIAMONDS a "chemical"? Yes. Carbon is also a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Because if they are not a "chemical", we can't even talk about them. Carbon is a chemical.

Page 6 of 7

Join the debate What is Biogeochemistry?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads.	108	13-07-2026 21:29
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry	392	11-07-2026 21:49
Biogeochemistry Debunked	101	25-06-2026 16:17
Robert R. Northup, PhD, Biogeochemistry discussion archived here, now at Facebook.	11	12-05-2026 19:06
Biogeochemistry Related Thread List	83	06-12-2025 21:19