What is Biogeochemistry?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > What is Biogeochemistry? > Page 7

Page 7 of 7

22-04-2026 20:28
Swan★★★★★ (7892)	Im a BM wrote: 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. The same idiots who smoke 380 million cigarettes a day think that you make sense 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
23-04-2026 19:14
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: 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. The same idiots who smoke 380 million cigarettes a day think that you make sense Science is not a cigarette. Cigarettes are not a chemical. You deny science. No smoke is capable of creating energy out of nothing. Smoke is not an idiot. You ignore the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You are a nothing. A NOTHING! Science is not a nothing. Nothing is not a chemical. Wait...
26-05-2026 22:51
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	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 Apparently, "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.". Therefore, if what I am is a "biogeochemist", that means that I simply do not exist. *Please do not ever* stop spamming!**
30-05-2026 01:16
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	"Acid Rain" and the Protonation of Organic Anions Reducing Solubility My master's thesis research at UC Berkeley was all about protonation by acid and how it affects the solubility of phenolic compounds such as lignin. Phenol, carboxylic acids (tannins) are mostly deprotonated as they sit in the litter of the forest floor. They are soluble, and wash down into the soil when it rains. They retain calcium and magnesium against leaching loss and mitigate aluminum toxicity to vegetation. "Acid Rain" protonates the organic anions of phenol carboxylic acids in the forest floor, reducing their solubility and capacity to form complexes with calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, or manganese. The biggest harm of acid rain was to protonate the organic anions, preventing them from retaining calcium and magnesium or mitigating aluminum toxicity. 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.
30-05-2026 08:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Im a BM wrote: "Acid Rain" and the Protonation of Organic Anions Reducing Solubility Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Anion is not a chemical. Void solution. Im a BM wrote: My master's thesis research at UC Berkeley was all about protonation by acid and how it affects the solubility of phenolic compounds such as lignin. There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Void solution. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Phenol, carboxylic acids (tannins) are mostly deprotonated as they sit in the litter of the forest floor. They are soluble, and wash down into the soil when it rains. They retain calcium and magnesium against leaching loss and mitigate aluminum toxicity to vegetation. "Acid Rain" protonates the organic anions of phenol carboxylic acids in the forest floor, reducing their solubility and capacity to form complexes with calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, or manganese. There is no such thing as 'depronation'. Tannin is not a chemical. Void solution. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. There is no such thing as ''protonation'. anion is not a chemical. phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Complex is not a form. Im a BM wrote: The biggest harm of acid rain was to protonate the organic anions, preventing them from retaining calcium and magnesium or mitigating aluminum toxicity. Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'protonate'. Anion is not a chemical. [quote]Im a BM wrote: The "Extended" Phenotype of Polyphenol-Rich Forest Trees Polyphenol is not a chemical. ".. so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution..?" - IBdaMann Im a BM wrote: 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. Science is not a funding program or government agency. Im a BM wrote: Following that, I will describe more reasons it is significant well beyond theoretical evolutionary biology with multiple applications in agronomy, forestry, and environmental remediation. Religion is not science. Im a BM wrote: 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. Science is not a government agency. Science is not funding. Science is not research There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Random phrases. Im a BM wrote: 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. Religion is not science. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'. There is no such thing as 'acidic deposition'. Rain is normally acidic. Void argument fallacy. Im a BM wrote: 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. Aluminum is not a salt. Aluminum is not aluminum chloride. Im a BM wrote: 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. Aluminum is not organic. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Tannin is not a chemical. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: 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. Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Calcium is not a salt. Magnesium is not a salt. Void solution. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'. Im a BM wrote: 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. Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: 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. There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity'. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote: Polyphenols provide the substrate to form the humic acids that provide most of the cation exchange capacity in most forest soils. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity'. Im a BM wrote: 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. Why do you insist that it's carbolic acid, then? Im a BM wrote: "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. It is not possible to measure the pH of the Earth's rain. Im a BM wrote: 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. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'protonate'. There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Hydrogen is not a proton. Im a BM wrote: 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. There is no such thing as 'deprotonated'. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Void solution. Complex is not a form. Metal is not organic. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote: 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. What 'additional acid input'? Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'protonated'. Void solution. Metal is not organic. Calcium is not a complex. Magnesium is not a complex. Im a BM wrote: 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. Religion is not science. Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote: 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. Science is not funding. Science is not a government agency. Science is not a welfare program. [b]Im a BM wrote: 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. Science is not a government agency. Science is not funding. Science is not a welfare program. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: 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. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Rather than repeat that here, you can easily find it in the "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread. [/b] There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'. There is no such thing as 'agroecosystems'. Your BS and buzzwords ain't gonna cut it, 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

30-05-2026 16:35
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	By deleting the spam of the original post, the reply by YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) stands alone as a MASTERFUL CHEMISTRY LESSON Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Anion is not a chemical. Void solution. Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) ITN: There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Void solution. [quote]Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) There is no such thing as 'depronation'. Tannin is not a chemical. Void solution. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. There is no such thing as ''protonation'. anion is not a chemical. phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Complex is not a form. Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) ITN: Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'protonate'. Anion is not a chemical. [quote]Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam)[/b] ITN: Polyphenol is not a chemical. ".. so why would this be of any significance except to support a theory of evolution..?" - IBdaMann Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) Science is not a funding program or government agency. Im a BM wrote: (deleted spam) Religion is not science. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Science is not a government agency. Science is not funding. Science is not research There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Random phrases. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Religion is not science. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'. There is no such thing as 'acidic deposition'. Rain is normally acidic. Void argument fallacy. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Aluminum is not a salt. Aluminum is not aluminum chloride. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Aluminum is not organic. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Tannin is not a chemical. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Calcium is not a salt. Magnesium is not a salt. Void solution. There is no such thing as 'ecosystem'. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity'. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Polyphenol is not a chemical. Humic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'cation exchange capacity'. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Why do you insist that it's carbolic acid, then? Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) It is not possible to measure the pH of the Earth's rain. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'protonate'. There is no such thing as 'protonation'. Hydrogen is not a proton. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) There is no such thing as 'deprotonated'. Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. Void solution. Complex is not a form. Metal is not organic. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) What 'additional acid input'? Phenol carboxylic is not a chemical. There is no such thing as 'protonated'. Void solution. Metal is not organic. Calcium is not a complex. Magnesium is not a complex. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Religion is not science. Rain is naturally acidic. There is no such thing as 'leaching loss'. Im a BM wrote: PART TWO (deleted spam) Science is not funding. Science is not a government agency. Science is not a welfare program. [b]Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Science is not a government agency. Science is not funding. Science is not a welfare program. Polyphenol is not a chemical. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam) Polyphenol is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote:(deleted spam)[/b] There is no such thing as 'carbon sequestration'. There is no such thing as 'agroecosystems'. Your BS and buzzwords ain't gonna cut it, Robert.
30-05-2026 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Stop spamming.
31-05-2026 17:15
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	"Acid Rain" and the Protonation of Organic Anions Reducing Solubility My master's thesis research at UC Berkeley was all about protonation by acid and how it affects the solubility of phenolic compounds such as lignin. Phenol, carboxylic acids (tannins) are mostly deprotonated as they sit in the litter of the forest floor. They are soluble, and wash down into the soil when it rains. They retain calcium and magnesium against leaching loss and mitigate aluminum toxicity to vegetation. "Acid Rain" protonates the organic anions of phenol carboxylic acids in the forest floor, reducing their solubility and capacity to form complexes with calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, or manganese. The biggest harm of acid rain was to protonate the organic anions, preventing them from retaining calcium and magnesium or mitigating aluminum toxicity. 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. *Please do not ever* stop spamming.**
31-05-2026 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Stop spamming.
03-06-2026 06:16
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	Into the Night wrote: Stop spamming. As you don't even believe that there is such a thing as "biogeochemistry", it is puzzling that you feel compelled to comment so much about it. Once again, I make you this offer. I promise I will NEVER post ANYTHING on ANY thread where I am not welcome. With perhaps three exceptions, this would restrict me to posting ONLY on those threads that I started myself. You are not required to troll them or spam them up. Otherwise, I feel like you are inviting me to point out your INCOMPETENCE in all things related to chemistry. Supposedly, you are a "chemist" at a paper mill somewhere. Somehow, you don't know the names to the two main chemicals used. You have NO IDEA what pH or buffering are, and your "RQAA" bluffs are not even slightly convincing. "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind" - Into the Night "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night You do not "deny science", only because you don't even know what it IS. I wonder if IBdaMann will back you up and reject the validity of the "white papers" about what REAL paper mills do, chemically, to extract lignin. Do you have any opinions about the "LignoBoost" process used at many of the largest paper mills? Do you have ANY IDEA what "chemicals" they use? I already know that you do not. But you don't HAVE to troll my every post with your stupid bullshit. You are not heroically defending any righteous cause about lignin chemistry. You obviously have no idea what kind of "chemical" lignin is. IBdaMann's convoluted word game obfuscation about the enigmatic nature of lignin won't help you.
03-06-2026 06:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15377)	Im a BM wrote:You obviously have no idea what kind of "chemical" lignin is. You don't either. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann's convoluted word game obfuscation about the enigmatic nature of lignin won't help you. That's a long-winded way of admitting that you don't know what lignin is, and that you are hoping Into the Night will teach you.
03-06-2026 07:37
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:You obviously have no idea what kind of "chemical" lignin is. You don't either. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann's convoluted word game obfuscation about the enigmatic nature of lignin won't help you. That's a long-winded way of admitting that you don't know what lignin is, and that you are hoping Into the Night will teach you. The guy who claims to be a "chemist" at a "paper mill" really ought to know what the NAMES are of the two most important chemicals used. IBdaMann, do YOU agree that Into the Night's claims are accurate, that sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are NOT used in paper mills for lignin extraction? I am very familiar with the use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to distinguish lignin from tannin, where they are equally insoluble in acid and equally soluble in alkali. NMR characterizes which chemical bonds are present. Many different specific chemical compounds are produced by plants that are all called "lignin" because they are all very similar polymers of aromatic alcohols, differing in total size, presence of dihydric or trihydric subunits, etc. Your convoluted lignin word game revealed zero comprehension of lignin chemistry. But do you believe ITN that they do NOT use NaOH and Na2S as the most important reagents for the "LignoBoost" method or similar methods used in virtually all paper mills. If ITN's "paper mill" is an exception, shouldn't its "chemist" know what makes it different and maybe even the name of ONE actual chemical they use?
03-06-2026 08:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Im a BM wrote: The guy who claims to be a "chemist" at a "paper mill" really ought to know what the NAMES are of the two most important chemicals used. All the chemical used a paper have equal importance. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, do YOU agree that Into the Night's claims are accurate, that sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are NOT used in paper mills for lignin extraction? Neither is used. Im a BM wrote: I am very familiar with the use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to distinguish lignin from tannin, where they are equally insoluble in acid and equally soluble in alkali. NMR characterizes which chemical bonds are present. Many different specific chemical compounds are produced by plants that are all called "lignin" because they are all very similar polymers of aromatic alcohols, differing in total size, presence of dihydric or trihydric subunits, etc. Your convoluted lignin word game revealed zero comprehension of lignin chemistry. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. Im a BM wrote: But do you believe ITN that they do NOT use NaOH and Na2S as the most important reagents for the "LignoBoost" method or similar methods used in virtually all paper mills. There is no such thing as "LignoBoost". All chemicals used at pulp mills are important. Im a BM wrote: If ITN's "paper mill" is an exception, shouldn't its "chemist" know what makes it different and maybe even the name of ONE actual chemical they use? A paper mill is not a pulp mill. 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
03-06-2026 08:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Im a BM wrote: The guy who claims to be a "chemist" at a "paper mill" really ought to know what the NAMES are of the two most important chemicals used. All the chemical used a paper have equal importance. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, do YOU agree that Into the Night's claims are accurate, that sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are NOT used in paper mills for lignin extraction? Neither is used. Im a BM wrote: I am very familiar with the use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to distinguish lignin from tannin, where they are equally insoluble in acid and equally soluble in alkali. NMR characterizes which chemical bonds are present. Many different specific chemical compounds are produced by plants that are all called "lignin" because they are all very similar polymers of aromatic alcohols, differing in total size, presence of dihydric or trihydric subunits, etc. Your convoluted lignin word game revealed zero comprehension of lignin chemistry. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. Im a BM wrote: But do you believe ITN that they do NOT use NaOH and Na2S as the most important reagents for the "LignoBoost" method or similar methods used in virtually all paper mills. There is no such thing as "LignoBoost". All chemicals used at pulp mills are important. Im a BM wrote: If ITN's "paper mill" is an exception, shouldn't its "chemist" know what makes it different and maybe even the name of ONE actual chemical they use? A paper mill is not a pulp mill. Both may be on the same site, however. 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
03-06-2026 10:41
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: The guy who claims to be a "chemist" at a "paper mill" really ought to know what the NAMES are of the two most important chemicals used. All the chemical used a paper have equal importance. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, do YOU agree that Into the Night's claims are accurate, that sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are NOT used in paper mills for lignin extraction? Neither is used. Im a BM wrote: I am very familiar with the use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to distinguish lignin from tannin, where they are equally insoluble in acid and equally soluble in alkali. NMR characterizes which chemical bonds are present. Many different specific chemical compounds are produced by plants that are all called "lignin" because they are all very similar polymers of aromatic alcohols, differing in total size, presence of dihydric or trihydric subunits, etc. Your convoluted lignin word game revealed zero comprehension of lignin chemistry. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. Im a BM wrote: But do you believe ITN that they do NOT use NaOH and Na2S as the most important reagents for the "LignoBoost" method or similar methods used in virtually all paper mills. There is no such thing as "LignoBoost". All chemicals used at pulp mills are important. Im a BM wrote: If ITN's "paper mill" is an exception, shouldn't its "chemist" know what makes it different and maybe even the name of ONE actual chemical they use? A paper mill is not a pulp mill. Both may be on the same site, however. "There is no such thing as 'LignoBoost'." - Into the Night As I am accustomed to finding, Google AI agrees with the scientific information that I already know to be true. Inquiry for Google: "Is there such a thing as 'LignoBoost?" Google AI has a reply in the upper left that says: "Yes, LignoBoost is a real thing! It is an industry-leading, patented technology used to extract and purify high-quality, solid lignin from black liquor, which is a liquid by-product generated during the pulping process. ..owned and supplied globally by the technology company Valmet." Big surprise that Into the Night is unaware that such a thing exists. The guy insists that lignin is a CARBOHYDRATE, after all. What a "chemist"!

03-06-2026 20:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15377)	Im a BM wrote:The guy insists that lignin is a CARBOHYDRATE, after all. What a "chemist"! You claim to know the structure of lignin. What a "chemist".
25-06-2026 01:28
sealover ★★★★★ (2157)	<--- 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. --------------------------------------------------------- The first post in this thread by duncan61, on page 1, is an excellent summary of a working definition of what is biogeochemistry. It highlights the significance of global cycles of carbon and nitrogen and their relevance to greenhouse gases and feedbacks in climate change. 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
25-06-2026 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	sealover wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". ...deleted spam... There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Stop spamming. 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
25-06-2026 14:26
sealover ★★★★★ (2157)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". ...deleted spam... There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Stop spamming. "Biogeochemistry" is one of those big words you never learned, and still don't know how to look up. You couldn't wrap you head around it because there are THREE words you would have to learn: Biology, geology, and chemistry. Obviously, you don't even know what CHEMISTRY is, let alone biology/geology. "Spamming" is something that YOU do more than anyone else here. Heck, if even just one in ten of your posts are spam (and I suggest that the percentage is much higher than that), that means you racked up... AT LEAST 2400 posts of SPAM by Into the Night.
25-06-2026 16:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15377)	sealover wrote:Biogeochemistry is a relatively new field of science. You really blow chunks here. sealover wrote:"Biogeochemistry" is one of those big words ... there are THREE words you would have to learn: Biology, geology, and chemistry. Neither biology, geology nor chemistry are relatively new. sealover wrote: I was among the first generation of graduate students formally trained as "biogeochemists". "biogeochemist" is only one word, not three, and it is pure fabrication for the discipline of religious devotion to a WACKY Climate religion. The correct term for the certification you completed is "Gamma-Spec Technician". sealover wrote: Heck, if even just one in ten of your posts are spam If we could eliminate all but 10% of your spam, that would clear Climate-Debate back up to be presentable.
25-06-2026 19:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	sealover wrote: "Biogeochemistry" is one of those big words you never learned, and still don't know how to look up. You couldn't wrap you head around it because there are THREE words you would have to learn: Biology, geology, and chemistry. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. I don't need to 'look up' buzzwords. No word is defined by any book. 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
25-06-2026 19:51
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3895)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: "Biogeochemistry" is one of those big words you never learned, and still don't know how to look up. You couldn't wrap you head around it because there are THREE words you would have to learn: Biology, geology, and chemistry. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. I don't need to 'look up' buzzwords. No word is defined by any book. If you put enough lipstick on that PIG, someone might be drunk and horny enough to fall for it. But NOBODY is going to believe that it is really a CHEMIST!
25-06-2026 22:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (24425)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: "Biogeochemistry" is one of those big words you never learned, and still don't know how to look up. You couldn't wrap you head around it because there are THREE words you would have to learn: Biology, geology, and chemistry. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. I don't need to 'look up' buzzwords. No word is defined by any book. If you put enough lipstick on that PIG, someone might be drunk and horny enough to fall for it. But NOBODY is going to believe that it is really a CHEMIST! Try English. It works better. 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
26-06-2026 16:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15377)	sealover wrote: LIKE A BOLT OF LIGHTENING! How much lighter did the bolt make it? At least you didn't have to worry about any lightning.

Page 7 of 7

Join the debate What is Biogeochemistry?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry	409	01-09-2026 21:05
Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads.	113	01-09-2026 20:40
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