Remember me
▼ Content

What is Biogeochemistry?



Page 3 of 4<1234>
RE: "Phosphate is not phosphorous"02-05-2024 18:11
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
ITN wastes SO MUCH SPACE with these meaningless rants.

When plant nutritionists refer to "phosphorous", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorus.

When soil scientists refer to "phosphorous 'fixation'", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorous. It is understood by everyone, perhaps with the exception of scientifically illiterate Internet trolls, that phosphorous "fixation" refers to reactions with phosphate.

Elemental phosphorous is NEVER available in the environment as a nutrient for plants, as a reactant in soil chemistry, or anything else. So, only a fool would imagine that elemental phosphorous might be what is contained in "phosphorous" fertilizer, or what biogeochemists study as "phosphorous" cycling.

Ortho phosphate is the chemical form of phosphorous that accounts for almost all phosphorous in the environment. It is neither red nor white phosphorous, but rather phosphate phosphorous.

But organic phosphorous is also very important in biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling.

Organic phosphorous is phosphorous contained in a compound with organic carbon. Phytic acid, for example. Or phospho lipids in the cell membranes of every organism.

The organic phosphorous in phytic acid or phospho lipids must be mineralized to phosphate before plants can use it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS!

No such word.
Im a BM wrote:
True, most of the emphasis in biogeochemistry has been on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.

No such word.
Im a BM wrote:
Phosphorus hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

Phosphorus doesn't need attention. YOU do.
Im a BM wrote:
Nothing can live without it.

Phosphorus is toxic.
Im a BM wrote:
"Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink" from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner

Phosphorus is kind of like that.

Phosphorus is toxic.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a LOT of phosphorus in soil. Only the TINIEST fraction of it is in bioavailable form that organisms can acquire and use.

Phosphorus does not occur naturally.
Im a BM wrote:
Most phosphorus is bound up in rock minerals.

Phosphorus is not phosphate.
Im a BM wrote:
It can be slowly dissolved, especially when organisms put out siderophores or other chelating agents like citric acid to dissolve it.

Phosphorus does not dissolve in citric acid.
Im a BM wrote:
What happens to the phosphorus that farmers apply?

Farmers don't use phosphorus. It destroys crops.
Im a BM wrote:
Most of it gets bound up into forms that are NOT bioavailable.

Phosphorus is toxic.
Im a BM wrote:
Phosphorus "fixation" occurs at higher pH when phosphate precipitates out of solution as complexes of calcium or magnesium.

Phosphate is not phosphorus.
Im a BM wrote:
Phosphorus "fixation" occurs at lower pH when phosphate precipitates out of solution with ions of aluminum, iron, or manganese.

Phosphate is not phosphorus.
Im a BM wrote:
And phosphorus "fixation" occurs at lower pH when phosphate is specifically adsorbed to anion exchange sites on the surfaces of solid phase aluminum, iron, or manganese (oxy)hydroxides.

Phosphate is not phosphorus.
Im a BM wrote:
Plants and their associated symbiotic microorganisms fight hard to get the phosphorus while it is bioavailable.

Phosphorus is toxic.
Im a BM wrote:
Then they fight to release some of that "fixed" phosphorus by putting out metal complexing organic anions.

Phosphorus is not a metal.
Im a BM wrote:
The symbiotic partnership between plants and mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots is one reason plants don't die of thirst because there is

"water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink"

The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS! One of our heroes!

Phosphorus is toxic. It kills plants.
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.

No such word.
02-05-2024 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
ITN wastes SO MUCH SPACE with these meaningless rants.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
When plant nutritionists refer to "phosphorous", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorus.

Phosphorus is an element.
sealover wrote:
When soil scientists refer to "phosphorous 'fixation'", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorous. It is understood by everyone, perhaps with the exception of scientifically illiterate Internet trolls, that phosphorous "fixation" refers to reactions with phosphate.

Phosphate is not phosphorus. Phosphorus isn't broken.
sealover wrote:
Elemental phosphorous is NEVER available in the environment as a nutrient for plants, as a reactant in soil chemistry, or anything else. So, only a fool would imagine that elemental phosphorous might be what is contained in "phosphorous" fertilizer, or what biogeochemists study as "phosphorous" cycling.

No such word. Phosphorus is toxic to plants. It is not a fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
Ortho phosphate is the chemical form of phosphorous that accounts for almost all phosphorous in the environment. It is neither red nor white phosphorous, but rather phosphate phosphorous.

Ortho does not produce phosphorus. Phosphate is not phosphorus.
sealover wrote:
But organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
is also very important in biogeochemistry

No such word.
sealover wrote:
and nutrient cycling.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is toxic.
sealover wrote:
Organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
is phosphorous contained in a compound with organic carbon.

Phosphorus is not a compound. Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid, for example. Or phospho lipids in the cell membranes of every organism.

Phytic acid is not phosphorus.
sealover wrote:
The organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
in phytic acid or phospho lipids must be mineralized to phosphate before plants can use it.

Phytic acid is not phosphorus. Phosphate is not phosphorus.

You have a bad problem with false equivalencies.
An element is not a compound. It is not organic. It is not a proton. It is not lipid. Is it not an acid. It is not an alkaline.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: ortho phosphate is CHEMICAL not brand name.02-05-2024 20:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Damn, you waste a lot of thread space!

If you ever studied chemistry, you might have learned the definition of ortho phosphate, or orthophosphate.

NOT a brand name product.

Why bother trying to teach you ANYTHING?

You are unteachable.


---------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
ITN wastes SO MUCH SPACE with these meaningless rants.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems onto anybody else.
sealover wrote:
When plant nutritionists refer to "phosphorous", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorus.

Phosphorus is an element.
sealover wrote:
When soil scientists refer to "phosphorous 'fixation'", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorous. It is understood by everyone, perhaps with the exception of scientifically illiterate Internet trolls, that phosphorous "fixation" refers to reactions with phosphate.

Phosphate is not phosphorus. Phosphorus isn't broken.
sealover wrote:
Elemental phosphorous is NEVER available in the environment as a nutrient for plants, as a reactant in soil chemistry, or anything else. So, only a fool would imagine that elemental phosphorous might be what is contained in "phosphorous" fertilizer, or what biogeochemists study as "phosphorous" cycling.

No such word. Phosphorus is toxic to plants. It is not a fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
Ortho phosphate is the chemical form of phosphorous that accounts for almost all phosphorous in the environment. It is neither red nor white phosphorous, but rather phosphate phosphorous.

Ortho does not produce phosphorus. Phosphate is not phosphorus.
sealover wrote:
But organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
is also very important in biogeochemistry

No such word.
sealover wrote:
and nutrient cycling.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is toxic.
sealover wrote:
Organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
is phosphorous contained in a compound with organic carbon.

Phosphorus is not a compound. Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid, for example. Or phospho lipids in the cell membranes of every organism.

Phytic acid is not phosphorus.
sealover wrote:
The organic phosphorous

Phosphorus is not organic.
sealover wrote:
in phytic acid or phospho lipids must be mineralized to phosphate before plants can use it.

Phytic acid is not phosphorus. Phosphate is not phosphorus.

You have a bad problem with false equivalencies.
An element is not a compound. It is not organic. It is not a proton. It is not lipid. Is it not an acid. It is not an alkaline.
02-05-2024 21:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Im a BM wrote:
Damn, you waste a lot of thread space!

A thread is not space.
Im a BM wrote:
If you ever studied chemistry, you might have learned the definition of ortho phosphate, or orthophosphate.

You finally mentioned an actual chemical group. Too bad you don't know what 'organic' means.
Im a BM wrote:
NOT a brand name product.

Ortho is also a brand name. Perhaps you don't know how to garden.
Im a BM wrote:
Why bother trying to teach you ANYTHING?

You are unteachable.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project your problems on anybody else, Sock.


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 02-05-2024 21:50
02-05-2024 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
So far sealover/Im a BM (aka the Sock) has locked himself into a variety of paradoxes, which he keeps mindlessly repeating. His continued irrationality speaks for itself, along with his numerous buzzwords that he uses to try to puff himself up.

1) Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen).
2) Wetlands have reduced oxygen.

1) Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface waters' (itself!)
2) Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

1) Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury.
2) Wetlands are desirable.

1) Wetlands are not buildable.
2) Wetlands have wells.

1) Wells must be protected from groundwater according to code.
2) Wells tap groundwater.
RE: unteachable provides a teachable moment02-05-2024 23:35
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Into the Night wrote:
So far sealover/Im a BM (aka the Sock) has locked himself into a variety of paradoxes, which he keeps mindlessly repeating. His continued irrationality speaks for itself, along with his numerous buzzwords that he uses to try to puff himself up.

1) Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen).
2) Wetlands have reduced oxygen.

1) Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface waters' (itself!)
2) Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

1) Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury.
2) Wetlands are desirable.

1) Wetlands are not buildable.
2) Wetlands have wells.

1) Wells must be protected from groundwater according to code.
2) Wells tap groundwater.


-------------------------------------------

As unteachable as you may be, you have provided a teachable moment.

"1. Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen)."

yes, the above ground plant parts take in CO2 and emit O2.

"2. Wetlands have reduced oxygen."

yes, starting within centimeters of the surface of the waterlogged sediments, very low oxygen conditions prevail underneath the above ground biomass.

"1. Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface water' (itself!)"

Undisturbed wetlands do not. Drained wetlands export enormous amounts of sulfuric acid to surface waters.

Having established drainage ditches, levees, pumps, etc., the upper part of the (now disturbed) wetland becomes exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria take advantage of the pyrite, which is most abundant in wetland sediment, and oxidize it to sulfuric acid as a way to get energy. "Acid sulfate soils" is what they call the soils that are created by draining wetlands.

"2. Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

Yes, they do. Indeed, undisturbed wetlands are the most important source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, via submarine groundwater discharge.

Where drained wetlands export sulfuric acid to surface water, it is water from the drainage ditches pumped up into the adjacent river. The sulfuric acid drains down from the (now aerobic) surface soil, gets intercepted by tile drains, etc. and diverted to the drainage ditch.

Groundwater flows are deeper. However, drained wetlands produce much less alkalinity because the surface hydrology is so altered by tile drains, and the constant pumping of drainage water up to surface water. Otherwise, water from the surface would go down into groundwater and contribute to the submarine groundwater discharge flow.

"1. Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury."

Yes, they do, sort of. Undisturbed wetlands do not generate methyl mercury.

The arsenic "release" is only in shallow groundwater. Historically, nobody ever drank this water. Unfortunately, literally millions of people have been affected by arsenic poisoning in the deltas of the Ganges, Mekong, and Red River.

In a public "health" effort, to avoid the parasites and pathogens of river water, many thousands of shallow tube wells were installed. It was a big mistake.

The methyl mercury "release" issue is far more limited. It is exclusively where a new wetland has been constructed in a previously aerobic soil environment. And exclusively where that aerobic soil contained ferric-iron-bound mercury.

This is restricted to places downstream from mercury mines, or downstream from where mercury was used in gold mining operations.

"2. Wetlands are desirable."

Yes, they most certainly are.
03-05-2024 00:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
As unteachable as you may be, you have provided a teachable moment.

"1. Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen)."

yes, the above ground plant parts take in CO2 and emit O2.
"2. Wetlands have reduced oxygen."

yes, starting within centimeters of the surface of the waterlogged sediments, very low oxygen conditions prevail underneath the above ground biomass.

You still insist on this paradox. Irrational.
sealover wrote:
"1. Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface water' (itself!)"

Undisturbed wetlands do not. Drained wetlands export enormous amounts of sulfuric acid to surface waters.

Having established drainage ditches, levees, pumps, etc., the upper part of the (now disturbed) wetland becomes exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria take advantage of the pyrite, which is most abundant in wetland sediment, and oxidize it to sulfuric acid as a way to get energy. "Acid sulfate soils" is what they call the soils that are created by draining wetlands.

"2. Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

Yes, they do. Indeed, undisturbed wetlands are the most important source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, via submarine groundwater discharge.

Where drained wetlands export sulfuric acid to surface water, it is water from the drainage ditches pumped up into the adjacent river. The sulfuric acid drains down from the (now aerobic) surface soil, gets intercepted by tile drains, etc. and diverted to the drainage ditch.

Groundwater flows are deeper. However, drained wetlands produce much less alkalinity because the surface hydrology is so altered by tile drains, and the constant pumping of drainage water up to surface water. Otherwise, water from the surface would go down into groundwater and contribute to the submarine groundwater discharge flow.

Drained wetlands are not wetlands. You are still locked in this paradox.
sealover wrote:
"1. Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury."

Yes, they do, sort of. Undisturbed wetlands do not generate methyl mercury.

The arsenic "release" is only in shallow groundwater. Historically, nobody ever drank this water. Unfortunately, literally millions of people have been affected by arsenic poisoning in the deltas of the Ganges, Mekong, and Red River.

In a public "health" effort, to avoid the parasites and pathogens of river water, many thousands of shallow tube wells were installed. It was a big mistake.

The methyl mercury "release" issue is far more limited. It is exclusively where a new wetland has been constructed in a previously aerobic soil environment. And exclusively where that aerobic soil contained ferric-iron-bound mercury.

This is restricted to places downstream from mercury mines, or downstream from where mercury was used in gold mining operations.

"2. Wetlands are desirable."

Yes, they most certainly are.

You are still locked in these two paradoxes.

Repeating your paradoxes does not clear them.
You also seem to favor pathogens and mosquitoes as 'good for the environment' for some odd reason.


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: a bit of the science history behind it04-05-2024 06:16
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
I greatly appreciate that duncan61 started this thread.

It was in direct response to the "Biogeochemistry debunked" thread.

When I am asked, "what is biogeochemistry", I usually answer in the context of the science history behind it.

Biogeochemistry was not new at all, but it came of age as an identified discipline when researchers were struggling to understand the "acid rain" (aka acidic deposition) phenomenon.

As one example, conifer forests were displaying symptoms of both aluminum toxicity and calcium deficiency where they were exposed to acidic deposition.

Biologists alone could not make sense of it.

Chemists couldn't fully account for it either.

And there was very high correlation between underlying geology and the impacts observed, but geologists were baffled as well.

It was only through combined, interdisciplinary effort that they could even begin to understand it.

For any one individual to elucidate the phenomenon, they would need to have training in all three disciplines.

I was among the first generation of scientists to receive the interdisciplinary training required to be able to have the label "biogeochemist", as part of an acidic deposition research project.

But it went far beyond investigating "acid rain".

Paleobiogeochemistry, for example, is one of my favorites. This is the study of biogeochemistry in the Earth's ancient past.

Ask me about banded iron formations!

Anyway, it is neither fake, nor is it some religious cult.

---------------------------------------

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
04-05-2024 07:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
I greatly appreciate that duncan61 started this thread.

It was in direct response to the "Biogeochemistry debunked" thread.

When I am asked, "what is biogeochemistry", I usually answer in the context of the science history behind it.

There is no science history behind it. The word doesn't exist in science. It is only a religious artifact.
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemistry was not new at all,

It doesn't exist.
sealover wrote:
but it came of age as an identified discipline

Religious is not science.
sealover wrote:
when researchers were struggling to understand the "acid rain" (aka acidic deposition) phenomenon.

Rain is naturally acidic.
sealover wrote:
As one example, conifer forests were displaying symptoms of both aluminum toxicity and calcium deficiency where they were exposed to acidic deposition.

Rain is not aluminum nor causes any calcium deficiency.
sealover wrote:
Biologists alone could not make sense of it.

Sure they do.
sealover wrote:
Chemists couldn't fully account for it either.

Sure they do.
sealover wrote:
And there was very high correlation between underlying geology and the impacts observed, but geologists were baffled as well.

What impacts?
sealover wrote:
It was only through combined, interdisciplinary effort that they could even begin to understand it.

For any one individual to elucidate the phenomenon, they would need to have training in all three disciplines.

Rain is naturally acidic. It's easy to understand.
sealover wrote:
I was among the first generation of scientists to receive the interdisciplinary training required to be able to have the label "biogeochemist", as part of an acidic deposition research project.

No such word. Religion is not science.
sealover wrote:
But it went far beyond investigating "acid rain".

Rain is naturally acidic.
sealover wrote:
Paleobiogeochemistry, for example, is one of my favorites.

No such word.
sealover wrote:
This is the study of biogeochemistry in the Earth's ancient past.

No such word. You don't have a time machine. Omniscience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Ask me about banded iron formations!

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Anyway, it is neither fake, nor is it some religious cult.

It is fake, and it is a religious cult.


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: "Rain is naturally acidic"04-05-2024 18:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
"Rain is naturally acidic"

Yes, it is.

At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6

The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law.

If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3

That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification")

However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition)

"Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3.

"Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2.

When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact

Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur.

Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3)

When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985, "Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid. Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid. "Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid. Automobile engines were the main source of acid.
04-05-2024 18:42
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
itn,
It sounds like your filaments are acting up again.
04-05-2024 23:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
"Rain is naturally acidic"

Yes, it is.

At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6

The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law.

If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3

That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification")

However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition)

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

sealover wrote:
"Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3.

Argument from randU fallacy. Humans do not pump either sulfuric acid or nitric acid into clouds.
sealover wrote:
"Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2.

[/quote]
That's no sunburn! That's an acid tan!
sealover wrote:
When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact

All rain has a real impact.
sealover wrote:
Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3)

[/quote]
Hydrogen isn't nitrogen.
sealover wrote:
When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985,

When you joined your religion you mean.
sealover wrote:
"Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid.

You are making shit up again. Argument from randU fallacy. Rain is not a combination of sulfuric and nitric acid.
sealover wrote:
Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid.

Carbon is not acid.
sealover wrote:
"Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid.

You are making shit up again. Argument from randU fallacy. Rain is not a combination of sulfuric and nitric acid.
sealover wrote:
Automobile engines were the main source of acid.

Automobile engines are not acid.


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
08-05-2024 19:03
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
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
08-05-2024 19:04
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS!

True, most of the emphasis in biogeochemistry has been on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.

Phosphorus hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.

Nothing can live without it.

"Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink" from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner

Phosphorus is kind of like that.

There is a LOT of phosphorus in soil. Only the TINIEST fraction of it is in bioavailable form that organisms can acquire and use.

Most phosphorus is bound up in rock minerals.

It can be slowly dissolved, especially when organisms put out siderophores or other chelating agents like citric acid to dissolve it.

What happens to the phosphorus that farmers apply?

Most of it gets bound up into forms that are NOT bioavailable.

Phosphorus "fixation" occurs at higher pH when phosphate precipitates out of solution as complexes of calcium or magnesium.

Phosphorus "fixation" occurs at lower pH when phosphate precipitates out of solution with ions of aluminum, iron, or manganese.

And phosphorus "fixation" occurs at lower pH when phosphate is specifically adsorbed to anion exchange sites on the surfaces of solid phase aluminum, iron, or manganese (oxy)hydroxides.

Plants and their associated symbiotic microorganisms fight hard to get the phosphorus while it is bioavailable.

Then they fight to release some of that "fixed" phosphorus by putting out metal complexing organic anions.

The symbiotic partnership between plants and mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots is one reason plants don't die of thirst because there is

"water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink"

The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS! One of our heroes!
08-05-2024 19:05
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
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 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.

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!!!
08-05-2024 19:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
more fun facts about PHOSPHORUS.

The most familiar form of phosphorus is phosphate, a trivalent oxyanion.

Like many other elements, phosphorus has multiple oxidation states.

Phosphate is the most oxidized natural form of phosphorus.

What about those "fire breathing dragons"?

Maybe it was a COW burping up some reduced phosphorus gas, which ignited upon contact with atmospheric oxygen.

The trivalent oxyanion, phosphate, can be used as oxidant by microorganisms under low oxygen conditions.

In a cow's gut, there is plenty of labile organic carbon, just not much oxygen.

With phosphate around, the right bug could make a cow burp something explosive.

Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in terrestrial ecosystems.

Plants and microorganisms have evolved many tricks to get enough of it.

In SEA WATER, on the other hand, phosphorus is NOT a limiting nutrient.

Iron fertilization might get some response in the sea, but not phosphorus.

In FRESH WATER aquatic ecosystems, phosphorus IS a limiting nutrient.

Part of what inspired the environmental movement in the late 1960s was the impact of phosphates in detergents causing eutrophication, hypoxia, and fish kills in aquatic ecosystems.

The "dead zones" in the ocean are from agricultural NITROGEN, not phosphorus.
08-05-2024 19:07
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Arsenic, methyl mercury, hexavalent chromium, and lead.

Yes, biogeochemists have focused primarily on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.

But other element cycles are important too.

Over a long career, this particular biogeochemist got to research groundwater arsenic by reductive dissolution, generation of methyl by iron reducing bacteria, and generation of hexavalent chromium through abiotic oxidation of chromium(III) by manganese(VII). Was close to lead research, but not a direct participant. Did plenty of sulfate reduction research in groundwater of coastal wetland. But the work that got the most attention was nitrogen and carbon.
08-05-2024 19:10
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
So, with the NPK fertilizer, the N is nitrogen, the P is phosphorus, and the K potassium.

I had a brief gig as a consultant to a multimillion dollar growing operation.

The guy had one whole greenhouse full of sickly plants.

They had all the symptoms of too little nitrogen and too much phosphorus.

The guy had been fertilizing with the "bloom" formula, heavy on phosphorus but no nitrogen. Not something you use until they are nearly full grown.

It was a very quick job. Just give them some nitrogen.

So what does the "P" stand for on the fertilizer label?

Anyway, ORTHO PHOSPHATE is the form given to plants.

Organo phosphates are a class of pesticides.

Phytic acid is an ORGANIC phosphorus compound common in soil.
08-05-2024 19:15
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Iron IS an essential nutrient for plants.

Plants adapted to more acidic soils, such as citrus, have difficulty getting enough iron when planted in near neutral pH soil.

Ferrous sulfate can be applied. The ferrous iron(II) is in a form that is soluble at near neutral pH. Sulfate can form complexes with ferrous iron that enhance its solubility as well.

People sometimes apply elemental sulfur to help the citrus get enough iron.

When microorganisms use oxygen to oxidize the elemental sulfur added to the soil, they produce sulfuric acid. With the low pH created by sulfuric acid, the solubility of bioavailable iron increases exponentially. Ferric iron(III) is very insoluble at near neutral pH, but its solubility increases exponentially as pH decreases.

Another approach is to add aluminum sulfate. Sulfate forms complex ions with iron already in the soil, dramatically increasing iron bioavailability.

Or you can buy chelated iron. Chelating agents such as EDTA form strong complexes with iron that are soluble and stable and bioavailable.

Iron is a limiting nutrient in many marine ecosystems.

Significant increases in plankton productivity can be accomplished in many parts of the ocean by adding iron fertilizer.
08-05-2024 19:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Biogeochemistry of Iron - some key points.

With regard to both climate change and ocean "acidification", the biogeochemistry of iron is an important piece of the puzzle.

Large scale geoengineering schemes to fertilize large areas of the ocean with iron are being given serious consideration.

Smaller scale geoengineering schemes to fertilize smaller areas of the ocean with iron have already been implemented and monitored.

These plans generally employ zero valent iron in the smallest particle size possible.

Zero valent iron is what we build railroad tracks with. It is iron that has been chemically reduced from its oxidized ore form. Organic carbon is used as reductant to forge zero valent iron from trivalent ferric iron(III) iron ore.

Finely ground zero valent iron nano particles can be suspended in sea water long enough to fertilize plankton. It works. You can get plankton response.

Zero valent iron is NOT how Mother Nature supplies marine ecosystems with this essential nutrient element.

How does naturally occurring iron in sea water supply marine ecosystems if it is not zero valent iron powder applied by humans?

Besides zero valent steel, iron can be divalent ferrous iron(II) or trivalent ferric iron(III).

With pH just above 8, sea water is not a good solvent for ferric iron. Not at all.

If sea life depended on labile, ferric iron(III) to be soluble as ferric chloride, there would be no sea life.

On the other hand, ferric iron can be complexed by organic anions in solution.

Organically-complexed ferric iron IS soluble at sea water pH.

Ferrous iron(II) is plenty soluble at sea water pH as ferrous chloride.

However, ferrous iron(II) can be readily oxidized by iron oxidizing bacteria in the presence of oxygen. Upon oxidation to ferric iron(III) chloride, the iron precipitates out at sea water pH.

Ferrous iron(II) can be complexed by organic anions in solution.

With its reactive sites occluded through binding to organic ligands, organically complexed ferrous iron(II) cannot be oxidized to ferric iron(III).

In sea water, more than 99% of the iron is organically complexed ferric iron(III) or organically complexed ferrous iron(II).

Final fun fact.

Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands supplies much of the bioavailable iron to marine ecosystems.

About three fourths of the alkalinity in this submarine groundwater discharge is from bicarbonate ions or, to a much lesser extent, carbonate ions.

About one fourth of the alkalinity in the submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.

Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity supplied by organic anions.

The same organic anions that complex iron to keep it bioavailable.

And the same low oxygen biogeochemistry that generates bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity via sulfate reduction also generates dissolved iron via iron reduction.

So the submarine groundwater discharge from the coastal wetlands is a complete treatment supplying alkalinity and bioavailable iron to the sea.

Now, what happens when human activity effs up the hydrology of the coastal wetlands in a way that reduces their output of alkalinity and iron, causing them to instead export ACIDITY to the sea as pyrite oxidation generates sulfuric acid as per formation of acid sulfate soils?

Because that is what is happening. And it is EASY to FIX. VERY INEXPENSIVE.
08-05-2024 19:18
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Iron Fertilization of the Sea - The Carbon Connection.

So, why fertilize the sea?

The idea is that marine photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from sea water.

This effectively removes some of the carbonic acid from sea water and shifts the balance to allow higher concentrations of carbonate ion.

Of course, the marine plants die eventually and their organic carbon goes somewhere.

If there is oxygen available, the organic carbon in the dead plants will be oxidized into carbon dioxide. Back to square one.

On the other hand, if there is NO oxygen available, that organic carbon can still be oxidized by bacteria using sulfate or nitrate as oxidants.

This does NOT generate carbon dioxide.

Quite the contrary, sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction transform the organic carbon into inorganic carbon ALKALINITY - bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

This isn't back to square one. This is second win for neutralizing ocean "acidification".

Final thought: Even if we really DO fertilize the sea to remove a whole lot of carbon dioxide from the sea water, it will make very little difference to concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It WILL help with ocean acidification.

But there is fifty times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating as gas in the atmosphere.

We can't possibly fertilize enough plankton to remove enough CO2 from sea water to see atmospheric CO2 concentrations decline in the short run
08-05-2024 19:20
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
NPK Fertilizer Fun Facts.

Let's say the label says NPK 15-15-15.

What does that mean? What are the UNITS?

Supposedly the units are PERCENTAGE, but there is a catch.

Per cent based on WHAT UNITS?

Our local genius has already explained the units for phosphorus.

It is "a compound (salt) containing phosphorus" and supposedly they tell us WHICH SALT on the label.

WRONG!

In the case of phosphorus, the units are percent as PHOSPHATE. PO4.

That may be a specific name for an ion in a salt (phosphate), but the same units would be used if the fertilizer were pure organic compost with 100% of the phosphorus contained as REDUCED phosphorus in ORGANIC compounds (phospho lipids, etc.). They still have to report the units as "% as phosphate".

Let's try nitrogen and potassium, then get back to phosphorus. At least the units for nitrogen in fertilizer are "% as nitrogen". That doesn't mean that fertilizer contains nitrogen gas. The nitrogen is either nitrate, ammonium, or organic nitrogen (amino acids, etc.).

Lets say that we use PURE ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Would the label say NPK 100-0-0 Nitrogen = "100% as N"?

Actually, the label would say NPK 36-0-0 Nitrogen = "36% as N"

Because the formula for ammonium nitrate is NH4NO3. Nitrogen is only 36% of the mass of each molecule. The rest is oxygen and hydrogen.

Okay, what about POTASSIUM? the label says K = "(X)% as potash".

What the heck is POTASH? I thought I was buying potassium nitrate.

You DID buy potassium nitrate, but they report the potassium content as if you bought potash, K2O. Multiply % as potash by 0.83 to get % as potassium.

Or multiply your known % as potassium (since you have pure potassium nitrate) by 1.2 so you can put the proper label on the fertilizer K as "% as potash".

What if you buy one of those ridiculous ORGANIC fertilizers where nobody added any PHOSPHATE to it?

They are required by law to tell you the phosphorus content "% as phosphate".

But there is ZERO phosphate in the pure organic NPK 6-2-2 formula.

They measure the TOTAL phosphorus in the fertilizer. Then they convert to "% as phosphate" based on dividing the weight of PO4 by the weight of P.

So, NO they do NOT TELL YOU WHAT KIND OF PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND IT IS.

The formula tells you nitrogen "% as N", even though NOBODY applies pure nitrogen.

The formula tells you potassium "% as potash", even though potash, K2O, is rarely an ingredient in commercial fertilizer.

And the formula tells you NOTHING about the "compound (salt) of phosphorus" in the fertilizer, as it may not even have any. The label tells you the EQUIVALENT phosphorus content, "% as phosphate". .
08-05-2024 19:22
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
When plant nutritionists refer to "phosphorous", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorus.

When soil scientists refer to "phosphorous 'fixation'", OF COURSE they don't mean elemental phosphorous. It is understood by everyone, perhaps with the exception of scientifically illiterate Internet trolls, that phosphorous "fixation" refers to reactions with phosphate.

Elemental phosphorous is NEVER available in the environment as a nutrient for plants, as a reactant in soil chemistry, or anything else. So, only a fool would imagine that elemental phosphorous might be what is contained in "phosphorous" fertilizer, or what biogeochemists study as "phosphorous" cycling.

Ortho phosphate is the chemical form of phosphorous that accounts for almost all phosphorous in the environment. It is neither red nor white phosphorous, but rather phosphate phosphorous.

But organic phosphorous is also very important in biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling.

Organic phosphorous is phosphorous contained in a compound with organic carbon. Phytic acid, for example. Or phospho lipids in the cell membranes of every organism.

The organic phosphorous in phytic acid or phospho lipids must be mineralized to phosphate before plants can use it.
08-05-2024 19:24
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Into the Night wrote:
So far sealover/Im a BM (aka the Sock) has locked himself into a variety of paradoxes, which he keeps mindlessly repeating. His continued irrationality speaks for itself, along with his numerous buzzwords that he uses to try to puff himself up.

1) Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen).
2) Wetlands have reduced oxygen.

1) Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface waters' (itself!)
2) Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

1) Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury.
2) Wetlands are desirable.

1) Wetlands are not buildable.
2) Wetlands have wells.

1) Wells must be protected from groundwater according to code.
2) Wells tap groundwater.


-------------------------------------------

As unteachable as you may be, you have provided a teachable moment.

"1. Wetlands have greater photosynthesis (and oxygen)."

yes, the above ground plant parts take in CO2 and emit O2.

"2. Wetlands have reduced oxygen."

yes, starting within centimeters of the surface of the waterlogged sediments, very low oxygen conditions prevail underneath the above ground biomass.

"1. Wetlands export sulfuric acid to 'surface water' (itself!)"

Undisturbed wetlands do not. Drained wetlands export enormous amounts of sulfuric acid to surface waters.

Having established drainage ditches, levees, pumps, etc., the upper part of the (now disturbed) wetland becomes exposed to oxygen. Sulfur oxidizing bacteria take advantage of the pyrite, which is most abundant in wetland sediment, and oxidize it to sulfuric acid as a way to get energy. "Acid sulfate soils" is what they call the soils that are created by draining wetlands.

"2. Wetlands export 'alkalinity' to 'groundwater flows' (itself!)

Yes, they do. Indeed, undisturbed wetlands are the most important source of new alkalinity entering many marine ecosystems, via submarine groundwater discharge.

Where drained wetlands export sulfuric acid to surface water, it is water from the drainage ditches pumped up into the adjacent river. The sulfuric acid drains down from the (now aerobic) surface soil, gets intercepted by tile drains, etc. and diverted to the drainage ditch.

Groundwater flows are deeper. However, drained wetlands produce much less alkalinity because the surface hydrology is so altered by tile drains, and the constant pumping of drainage water up to surface water. Otherwise, water from the surface would go down into groundwater and contribute to the submarine groundwater discharge flow.

"1. Wetlands release arsenic and methyl mercury."

Yes, they do, sort of. Undisturbed wetlands do not generate methyl mercury.

The arsenic "release" is only in shallow groundwater. Historically, nobody ever drank this water. Unfortunately, literally millions of people have been affected by arsenic poisoning in the deltas of the Ganges, Mekong, and Red River.

In a public "health" effort, to avoid the parasites and pathogens of river water, many thousands of shallow tube wells were installed. It was a big mistake.

The methyl mercury "release" issue is far more limited. It is exclusively where a new wetland has been constructed in a previously aerobic soil environment. And exclusively where that aerobic soil contained ferric-iron-bound mercury.

This is restricted to places downstream from mercury mines, or downstream from where mercury was used in gold mining operations.

"2. Wetlands are desirable."

Yes, they most certainly are.
08-05-2024 19:26
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
I greatly appreciate that duncan61 started this thread.

It was in direct response to the "Biogeochemistry debunked" thread.

When I am asked, "what is biogeochemistry", I usually answer in the context of the science history behind it.

Biogeochemistry was not new at all, but it came of age as an identified discipline when researchers were struggling to understand the "acid rain" (aka acidic deposition) phenomenon.

As one example, conifer forests were displaying symptoms of both aluminum toxicity and calcium deficiency where they were exposed to acidic deposition.

Biologists alone could not make sense of it.

Chemists couldn't fully account for it either.

And there was very high correlation between underlying geology and the impacts observed, but geologists were baffled as well.

It was only through combined, interdisciplinary effort that they could even begin to understand it.

For any one individual to elucidate the phenomenon, they would need to have training in all three disciplines.

I was among the first generation of scientists to receive the interdisciplinary training required to be able to have the label "biogeochemist", as part of an acidic deposition research project.

But it went far beyond investigating "acid rain".

Paleobiogeochemistry, for example, is one of my favorites. This is the study of biogeochemistry in the Earth's ancient past.

Ask me about banded iron formations!

Anyway, it is neither fake, nor is it some religious cult.

---------------------------------------

[quote]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
08-05-2024 19:27
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
"Rain is naturally acidic" - ITN

Yes, it is.

At 400 ppm CO2, rainwater has a pH about 5.6

The pH of rainwater can be calculated using Henry's Law.

If the concentration of CO2 doubled to 800 ppm, the pH of rainwater would be about 5.3

That is because carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and some of it becomes carbonic acid (e.g. ocean "acidification")

However, this is not what is called "acid rain" (acidic deposition)

"Acid rain" is when sulfuric acid and nitric acid, from human activity, bring the pH down to 4 or even 3.

"Acid fog" can have pH as low as 2.

When the marble columns of ancient monuments started dissolving, etching little trails along the flow paths, people noticed that "acid rain" could have real impact

Sulfuric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning fossil fuel that contains sulfur.

Nitric acid in rainwater is primarily the result of burning ANYTHING. The high heat oxidizes some nitrogen (N2) to nitric acid (HNO3)

When I began my career as a biogeochemistry researcher at UC Berkeley in 1985, "Acid rain" on the East Coast was about 2/3 sulfuric acid, and 1/3 nitric acid. Coal burning power plants were the main source of acid. "Acid rain" on the West Coast was 2/3 nitric acid, and 1/3 sulfuric acid. Automobile engines were the main source of acid.
08-05-2024 19:31
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled in sequence, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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
08-05-2024 20:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS!
...
...
...
...

Stop spamming. Posting to hear yourself talk accomplishes nothing.


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
08-05-2024 21:27
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
I listen to him.
09-05-2024 04:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
keepit wrote: I listen to him.

You listen exclusively to people who are wrong, and you attack those who try to help you.

We've been over this.
09-05-2024 19:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

"Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change.


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
10-05-2024 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

"Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change.


There is no such thing as a biogeochemist (except as a religious title).
Science is not a paper.
Science does not use consensus.
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
10-05-2024 09:02
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled in sequence, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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
10-05-2024 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Stop spamming.
11-05-2024 05:03
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled in sequence, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist who was among the first generation of scientists to formally study this relatively new interdisciplinary field of science.

Beginning in 1985, investigating "acid rain" as a UC Berkeley grad student.


----------------------------------------------------------------
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
11-05-2024 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Stop spamming.
13-05-2024 19:50
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled in sequence, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist who was among the first generation of scientists to formally study this relatively new interdisciplinary field of science.

Beginning in 1985, investigating "acid rain" as a UC Berkeley grad student.


----------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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
13-05-2024 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Repetition fallacy. Stop spamming.
18-05-2024 11:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning about 1/2 way down page 3.

"Sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist whose published research is often cited in peer-reviewed scientific papers about carbon and nitrogen cycling, and implications for climate change.


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


Relevant posts of thread are compiled, beginning 1/2 way down page 3.
18-05-2024 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Stop spamming.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate What is Biogeochemistry?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Biogeochemistry Debunked3923-05-2024 05:23
Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads.3723-05-2024 04:24
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry32213-05-2024 22:26
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact