Remember me
▼ Content

What is Biogeochemistry?



Page 1 of 212>
What is Biogeochemistry?09-04-2022 10:35
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
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


duncan61
09-04-2022 11:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
duncan61 wrote about biogeochemistry: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.

Really?

Give us all an example of specifically biogeochemistry science.

All science disciplines have science ... otherwise they wouldn't be science disciplines. So, providing one example would be in good order.

duncan61 wrote:In particular, biogeochemistry studies the cycles of crucial elements,

Too funny!

1) You are describing chemistry
2) Science is not a study

duncan61 wrote: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.


What Wikipedia has to say about biogeochemistry: In particular, biogeochemistry is the study of biogeochemical cycles, the cycles of chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space and time. The field focuses on chemical cycles which are either driven by or influence biological activity. Particular emphasis is placed on the study of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and phosphorus cycles.


... so how about that example of specifically biogeochemistry science?
09-04-2022 11:17
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
I wrote it was a copy and paste.Apparently its done at Woods hole.You have said there is no such thing yet you have posted What Wikipedia has to say about biogeochemistry:
09-04-2022 17:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
duncan61 wrote:I wrote it was a copy and paste.

That's a given. You can't think for yourself; you don't know how. Where's Pete Rogers when you need him to tell you what to believe? Well, you always have copy-paste as a fall-back and at least now you have squeal over to give you an unending supply of empty terms, none of which require any sort of thinking on your part.

duncan61 wrote:You have said there is no such thing yet you have posted What Wikipedia has to say about biogeochemistry:

I really don't think anybody expected you to grasp my comparison between what you copy-pasted and the content of the Wikipedia article. I really don't think anybody expected you to notice the similarity. In fact, I really don't think anybody expected you to be able to read my post in its entirety. Good on you for giving it a shot anyway and you get bonus points for getting some of the words, which was more than expected.
.
09-04-2022 17:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Basically, a super-volcano, or two erupting, would spew more planet-killing CO2, than mankind ever released from burning, or ever will... We aren't doing anything, that doesn't happen in nature. At 400 ppm, about half the ideal level for plants. Nature is tolerating human activity just fine. There couldn't be any alarming human caused global warming, if the natural (plants) are able to keep up with CO2 contributions, and have the capacity to use up a whole lot more. Quit being a bunch of alarmist, liberal-sissies. Just more evidence this is a political-crisis, and the only worry, is liberals gaining ground on their quest for an imposed nanny-state.

Biogeochemistry is a denomination Climatology, a doomsday cult/religion. Who's intent is to destroy society, and rebuild a world control by the cult.
RE: The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS!09-04-2022 20:36
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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!

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

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
RE: A magic moment: January 20, 198809-04-2022 20:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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!!!

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

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
RE: Check out Biogeochemistry. 1998. volume 42 pages 189-22009-04-2022 21:07
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Check out Biogeochemistry. 1998. volume 42. pages 189-220

The highly respected scientific journal, Biogeochemistry, offers a better definition for the term than can be found in wikipedia.

One particular paper in that journal is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the climate debate.

sealover is the author.

Note: it took TEN years from that magic moment in 1988 to finally get the comprehensive hypothesis published in 1998.

and this is why it is not unreasonable to imagine that actual scientists would want to come to this website to discuss these things with the author.

It would only take four to outnumber the trolls. Just ONE to outsmart them.

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

duncan61 wrote:
I wrote it was a copy and paste.Apparently its done at Woods hole.You have said there is no such thing yet you have posted What Wikipedia has to say about biogeochemistry:
RE: more fun facts about PHOSPHORUS09-04-2022 22:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

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
RE: "Snake and Nape" Reduced Phosphorus is EXPLOSIVE! And Deadly Poisonous.10-04-2022 01:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Snake and Nape" Reduced Phosphorus is EXPLOSIVE! And Deadly poisonous.

Ortho phosphate, PO4---, is our friend. It feeds plants which feed us.

More reduced forms of phosphorus are not so friendly.

"Snake and Nape" was the strategy in Viet Nam used where white phosphorus was used along with napalm.

The white phosphorus, highly reduced, exploded upon contact with oxygen.

Very high temperature burn.

The "snake" of "snake and nape" were white smoke trails from burning fragments of phosphorus.

And there was also white phosphorus IN THE NAPALM.

Napalm was a triple cocktail - gasoline for fuel, other ingredients to make it stick like shit to a blanket so you couldn't wipe it off, and WHITE PHOSPHORUS.

The white phosphorus reignited it if you succeeded at dousing the flames.

And if the napalm burns didn't kill you, the phosphorus poisoning DID.

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

sealover wrote:
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.

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

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
RE: Arsenic, methyl mercury, hexavalent chromium, and lead10-04-2022 01:54
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

For those who never met a biogeochemist of any kind, you can ask questions of a kind of jack-of-all-trades in biogeochemistry.

College rejects, drop outs, and flunk outs can make all the jokes they want about the fake gibber babble buzzwords that obviously don't mean anything.

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

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
10-04-2022 10:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
The biogeochemistry of PHOSPHORUS!

Buzzword fallacy. An element is not a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
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.

Sure it has. It makes great matches, for example.
sealover wrote:
Nothing can live without it.

So?
sealover wrote:
"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.

Phosphorous is extremely poisonous to plants.
sealover wrote:
Most phosphorus is bound up in rock minerals.

Nope. Phosphorous does not naturally occur. The stuff is highly reactive.
sealover wrote:
It can be slowly dissolved, especially when organisms put out siderophores or other chelating agents like citric acid to dissolve it.

Buzzword fallacies. You don't need to dissolve it.
sealover wrote:
What happens to the phosphorus that farmers apply?

They don't. It kills plants very quickly.
sealover wrote:
Most of it gets bound up into forms that are NOT bioavailable.

Phosphorous is an element and a chemical. It is not bound to anything.
sealover wrote:
Phosphorus "fixation" occurs at higher pH when phosphate precipitates out of solution as complexes of calcium or magnesium.

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

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

Phosphorus is extremely poisonous to plants.
sealover wrote:
Then they fight to release some of that "fixed" phosphorus by putting out metal complexing organic anions.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover 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!

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-04-2022 10:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Check out Biogeochemistry. 1998. volume 42. pages 189-220

The highly respected scientific journal, Biogeochemistry, offers a better definition for the term than can be found in wikipedia.

One particular paper in that journal is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the climate debate.

sealover is the author.

Note: it took TEN years from that magic moment in 1988 to finally get the comprehensive hypothesis published in 1998.

and this is why it is not unreasonable to imagine that actual scientists would want to come to this website to discuss these things with the author.

It would only take four to outnumber the trolls. Just ONE to outsmart them.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacies.
Science isn't a magazine, website, book, paper, or pamphlet.
A hypothesis doesn't need to be published. Science is not a hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


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
10-04-2022 10:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
more fun facts about PHOSPHORUS.

Learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The most familiar form of phosphorus is phosphate, a trivalent oxyanion.

Phosphorous is not phosphate. Phosphate is not a chemical. Phosphorus is.
sealover wrote:
Like many other elements, phosphorus has multiple oxidation states.

None. Phosphorus is an element.
sealover wrote:
Phosphate is the most oxidized natural form of phosphorus.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
What about those "fire breathing dragons"?

What fire breathing dragons?
sealover wrote:
Maybe it was a COW burping up some reduced phosphorus gas, which ignited upon contact with atmospheric oxygen.

A cow is not a reptile.
sealover wrote:
The trivalent oxyanion, phosphate, can be used as oxidant by microorganisms under low oxygen conditions.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
In a cow's gut, there is plenty of labile organic carbon, just not much oxygen.

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
With phosphate around, the right bug could make a cow burp something explosive.

No salt made up of a phosphate is explosive.
sealover wrote:
Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in terrestrial ecosystems.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.
sealover wrote:
Plants and microorganisms have evolved many tricks to get enough of it.

Phosphorus is poisonous to plants.
sealover wrote:
In SEA WATER, on the other hand, phosphorus is NOT a limiting nutrient.

It is not a nutrient at all.
sealover wrote:
Iron fertilization might get some response in the sea, but not phosphorus.

Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.
sealover wrote:
In FRESH WATER aquatic ecosystems, phosphorus IS a limiting nutrient.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient.
sealover wrote:
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.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
The "dead zones" in the ocean are from agricultural NITROGEN, not phosphorus.

Nitrogen is not a phosphate. Neither is phosphorus.
Define 'dead zone'.


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
10-04-2022 13:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
"Snake and Nape" Reduced Phosphorus is EXPLOSIVE! And Deadly poisonous.

Phosphorus is an element. It is not reduced.
sealover wrote:
Ortho phosphate, PO4---, is our friend. It feeds plants which feed us.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
More reduced forms of phosphorus are not so friendly.

Only two forms: white phosphorus and red phosphorus. The white variety is more reactive.
sealover wrote:
"Snake and Nape" was the strategy in Viet Nam used where white phosphorus was used along with napalm.

Yup. Nasty shit.
sealover wrote:
The white phosphorus, highly reduced, exploded upon contact with oxygen.

Phosphorus is an element. It is not reduced. It does not explode on contact with oxygen. It burns. The fire spits a bit.
sealover wrote:
Very high temperature burn.

About 5000 degF. Enough to burn iron. It can ignite at 86 degF.
sealover wrote:
The "snake" of "snake and nape" were white smoke trails from burning fragments of phosphorus.

And there was also white phosphorus IN THE NAPALM.

Yes. It was added to napalm at times, including in the Vietnam war. It's use is against the Geneva Convention.
sealover wrote:
Napalm was a triple cocktail - gasoline for fuel, other ingredients to make it stick like shit to a blanket so you couldn't wipe it off, and WHITE PHOSPHORUS.

No. Napalm itself contains no phosphorus at all. I will not describe it's formula here, but it's easy to make. I don't recommend making it unless you know what you are doing and know how to take appropriate precautions.
sealover wrote:
The white phosphorus reignited it if you succeeded at dousing the flames.

Napalm doesn't have phosphorus, though you can certainly add it.
sealover wrote:
And if the napalm burns didn't kill you, the phosphorus poisoning DID.


I suggest you stop cutting and pasting. You don't understand the material you are cutting and pasting.


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: "Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants."10-04-2022 20:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants."

So, with the NPK fertilizer, the N is nitrogen, the P is poo, 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.

I'm sure that there is no risk anyone will see the stupid parrot picture and read the stupid words and believe that phosphorus poisons plants.

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

Apparently there are only two kind of phosphorus, red and white. WTF??

Which color phosphorus do they use to make plant food?

Why does white phosphorus burn if it is not reduced and cannot be oxidized?

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.

Well, at least the part about cows not being reptiles is correct.

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


Into the Night wrote:


Phosphorous is not phosphate. Phosphate is not a chemical. Phosphorus is.

Phosphate is not a chemical.

A cow is not a reptile.

Phosphate is not a chemical.

Carbon is not organic.

No salt made up of a phosphate is explosive.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.

Phosphorus is poisonous to plants.

It is not a nutrient at all.

Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.

Phosphorus is not a nutrient.

Phosphate is not a chemical.

Nitrogen is not a phosphate. Neither is phosphorus.
RE: "Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants." - local genius10-04-2022 21:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Iron is not fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants."

There are many things that iron is NOT.

Iron is not science. Iron is not God. Iron is not the king.

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.

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.

Another approach is to add aluminum sulfate. Sulfate forms complex ions with iron, 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.

At high enough concentration, iron CAN be toxic to plants. RARELY HAPPENS.

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.

I'm trusting that nobody is dumb enough to take their fertilizer advice from someone who thinks that phosphorus and iron are NOT nutrients, but rather are POISONOUS to plants.

"Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants." NOT ACCURATE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
A cow is not a reptile.

Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
RE: Biogeochemistry of Iron - some key points.11-04-2022 00:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

sealover wrote:
"Iron is not fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants."

There are many things that iron is NOT.

Iron is not science. Iron is not God. Iron is not the king.

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.

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.

Another approach is to add aluminum sulfate. Sulfate forms complex ions with iron, 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.

At high enough concentration, iron CAN be toxic to plants. RARELY HAPPENS.

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.

I'm trusting that nobody is dumb enough to take their fertilizer advice from someone who thinks that phosphorus and iron are NOT nutrients, but rather are POISONOUS to plants.

"Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants." NOT ACCURATE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
A cow is not a reptile.

Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
RE: Iron Fertilization of the Sea - the Carbon Connection.11-04-2022 00:34
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

sealover wrote:
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.

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

sealover wrote:
"Iron is not fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants."

There are many things that iron is NOT.

Iron is not science. Iron is not God. Iron is not the king.

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.

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.

Another approach is to add aluminum sulfate. Sulfate forms complex ions with iron, 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.

At high enough concentration, iron CAN be toxic to plants. RARELY HAPPENS.

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.

I'm trusting that nobody is dumb enough to take their fertilizer advice from someone who thinks that phosphorus and iron are NOT nutrients, but rather are POISONOUS to plants.

"Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants." NOT ACCURATE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
A cow is not a reptile.

Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
11-04-2022 00:51
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Gee whiz... Nature already fertilizes the sea. Water evaporates, condenses, falls on the land, the mountains. Gravity 'forces' that water to run downhill, carrying a lot of nutrients, minerals, and crap (literal, feces) through lakes, rivers, and streams. Eventually dumping all kinds a fertilizer back into the ocean. You'll notice an abundance of sea life near the shores. Sea plants like the shallow water, for the sunlight. Works out pretty good. Been going on like that for a long time, I'd suspect. Mankind use to dump a lot of crap, and other things into the ocean. Cleaner than fouling the land we live on. But, some liberal, biogeochemists form a consensus, convincing liberal lawmakers that it was bad for the fishes. So, the fishes are back to the way things always was, and we bury our garbage, or burn it. Fire is good, landfills, not so much. Liberals even worse.
11-04-2022 01:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.[/b]

So, with the NPK fertilizer, the N is nitrogen, the P is poo, and the K potassium.

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

I don't believe you.
sealover wrote:
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.

I'm sure that there is no risk anyone will see the stupid parrot picture and read the stupid words and believe that phosphorus poisons plants.

Phosphorus is destructive to plants.
sealover wrote:
So what does the "P" stand for on the fertilizer label?

A compound (salt) containing phosphorus. It does not mean 'phosphorus'.
sealover wrote:
Apparently there are only two kind of phosphorus, red and white. WTF??

That's right. Only two.
sealover wrote:
Which color phosphorus do they use to make plant food?

Phosphorus isn't plant food. Phosphorus destroys plants. Use a compound containing phosphorus instead such as ammonium phosphate.
sealover wrote:
Why does white phosphorus burn if it is not reduced and cannot be oxidized?

Someday you might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.
sealover wrote:
Anyway, ORTHO PHOSPHATE is the form given to plants.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
Organo phosphates are a class of pesticides.

Not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid is an ORGANIC phosphorus compound common in soil.

Phytic acid is not organic. It is found in seeds, not in soil.
sealover wrote:
Well, at least the part about cows not being reptiles is correct.

So you have entered yet another paradox. Now you say that cows are not reptiles when earlier you said they were. Irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-04-2022 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
[quoteInto the Night wrote:Iron is not fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants.


There are many things that iron is NOT.

Iron is not science. Iron is not God. Iron is not the king.

Iron IS an essential nutrient for plants.[/quote]
Nope. Plants can't use iron. They can only make use of compounds containing iron.
sealover wrote:
Plants adapted to more acidic soils, such as citrus, have difficulty getting enough iron when planted in near neutral pH soil.

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

Sulfur is not iron.
sealover wrote:
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.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'bioavailable iron'.
sealover wrote:
Another approach is to add aluminum sulfate. Sulfate forms complex ions with iron, dramatically increasing iron bioavailability.

Buzzword fallacy. Ferric sulfate is not iron.
sealover wrote:
Or you can buy chelated iron. Chelating agents such as EDTA form strong complexes with iron that are soluble and stable and bioavailable.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
At high enough concentration, iron CAN be toxic to plants. RARELY HAPPENS.

Iron is toxic to plants.
sealover wrote:
Iron is a limiting nutrient in many marine ecosystems.

Iron isn't a nutrient.
sealover wrote:
Significant increases in plankton productivity can be accomplished in many parts of the ocean by adding iron fertilizer.

Iron isn't a fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
I'm trusting that nobody is dumb enough to take their fertilizer advice from someone who thinks that phosphorus and iron are NOT nutrients, but rather are POISONOUS to plants.

Neither phosphorus nor iron are fertilizers.
sealover wrote:
"Iron is not a fertilizer. It is also poisonous to plants." NOT ACCURATE.

Accurate. Iron is not a fertilizer. It is an element. It exists in small quantities in nature, but most iron is obtained by smelting an oxide of it.


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: To facilitate boastings of ignorance.11-04-2022 01:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
To facilitate boastings of ignorance.

It is impossible to have anything resembling a rational debate when utterly ABSURD unsupported contrarian assertions are repeated time after time.

Before long we'll be hearing from the target audience. The ones who look at this part of the thread will see the futility of attempting rational discourse.

So, it turns out that the P in NPK fertilizer does NOT stand for phosphorus.

In fact, it turns out that farmers would actually harm their plants if they applied phosphorus as some kind of pseudo science quackery "fertilizer".

Be sure not to kill your plants with toxic iron "fertilizer" either!

Good thing we got that straightened out.

I'm having trouble believing you ever even got to spend that one weekend at college.

Or maybe you're just the only one in the world who knows what words mean.

I promised myself I would ignore your heckling, but do you know how incredibly STUPID you sound?

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

Into the Night wrote:Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.[/b]

I don't believe you.

Phosphorus is destructive to plants.
sealover wrote:
So what does the "P" stand for on the fertilizer label?

A compound (salt) containing phosphorus. It does not mean 'phosphorus'.
sealover wrote:
Apparently there are only two kind of phosphorus, red and white. WTF??

That's right. Only two.
sealover wrote:
Which color phosphorus do they use to make plant food?

Phosphorus isn't plant food. Phosphorus destroys plants. Use a compound containing phosphorus instead such as ammonium phosphate.
sealover wrote:
Why does white phosphorus burn if it is not reduced and cannot be oxidized?

Someday you might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.
sealover wrote:
Anyway, ORTHO PHOSPHATE is the form given to plants.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
Organo phosphates are a class of pesticides.

Not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid is an ORGANIC phosphorus compound common in soil.

Phytic acid is not organic. It is found in seeds, not in soil.
sealover wrote:
Well, at least the part about cows not being reptiles is correct.

So you have entered yet another paradox. Now you say that cows are not reptiles when earlier you said they were. Irrational.
11-04-2022 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemistry of Iron - some key points.

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

You can't acidify an alkaline. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
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.

Iron isn't a fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
These plans generally employ zero valent iron in the smallest particle size possible.

Iron has eight valence electrons.
sealover wrote:
Zero valent iron is what we build railroad tracks with.

Railroad tracks are built with steel, not iron.
sealover wrote:
It is iron that has been chemically reduced from its oxidized ore form.

Iron isn't reduced.
sealover wrote:
Organic carbon

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
is used as reductant to forge zero valent iron from trivalent ferric iron(III) iron ore.

Iron has eight valence electrons.
sealover wrote:
Finely ground zero valent iron nano particles can be suspended in sea water long enough to fertilize plankton.

Iron isn't a fertilizer. Iron has eight valence electrons.
sealover wrote:
It works. You can get plankton response.

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

Iron is not a nutrient.
sealover wrote:
How does naturally occurring iron in sea water supply marine ecosystems if it is not zero valent iron powder applied by humans?

Iron has eight valence electrons.
sealover wrote:
Besides zero valent steel,

Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. Iron has eight valence electrons.
sealover wrote:
iron can be divalent ferrous iron(II) or trivalent ferric iron(III).

Nope. Iron is an element.
sealover wrote:
With pH just above 8, sea water is not a good solvent for ferric iron. Not at all.

Iron isn't soluble. There is no such thing as 'ferric iron'.
sealover wrote:
If sea life depended on labile, ferric iron(III) to be soluble as ferric chloride, there would be no sea life.

Iron is not ferric chloride. Ferric chloride is a compound containing iron.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, ferric iron can be complexed by organic anions in solution.

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

Iron is not organic. Ferric chloride is not organic. Ferrous chloride is not organic.
sealover wrote:
Ferrous iron(II) is plenty soluble at sea water pH as ferrous chloride.

Ferrous chloride is not iron.
sealover wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as ferrous iron. Iron is an element. Ferric chloride is soluble. Ferric chloride contains no oxygen.
sealover wrote:
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).
[quote]sealover wrote:
In sea water, more than 99% of the iron is organically complexed ferric iron(III) or organically complexed ferrous iron(II).

Iron is not organic. There is no such thing as ferric iron. There is no such thing as ferrous iron.
sealover wrote:
Final fun fact.

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

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

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
About one fourth of the alkalinity in the submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is comprised of ORGANIC alkalinity.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Organic alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity supplied by organic anions.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
The same organic anions that complex iron to keep it bioavailable.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
And the same low oxygen biogeochemistry that generates bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity via sulfate reduction also generates dissolved iron via iron reduction.

Iron isn't soluble.
sealover wrote:
So the submarine groundwater discharge from the coastal wetlands is a complete treatment supplying alkalinity and bioavailable iron to the sea.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
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?

Nothing.
Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-04-2022 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Iron Fertilization of the Sea - The Carbon Connection.

Iron isn't a fertilizer. Neither is carbon.
sealover wrote:
So, why fertilize the sea?

Iron isn't a fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
The idea is that marine photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from sea water.

No, it doesn't.
sealover wrote:
This effectively removes some of the carbonic acid from sea water and shifts the balance to allow higher concentrations of carbonate ion.

Carbonic acid remains unchanged...about 1% of the dissolved carbon dioxide in water.
sealover wrote:
Of course, the marine plants die eventually and their organic carbon goes somewhere.

Carbon isn't organic.
sealover wrote:
If there is oxygen available, the organic carbon in the dead plants will be oxidized into carbon dioxide. Back to square one.

Carbon isn't organic. Plants don't contain carbon. They are made up of carbohydrates and proteins.
sealover wrote:
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.

Carbon isn't organic. Sulfate isn't a chemical. Nitrate isn't a chemical.
sealover wrote:
This does NOT generate carbon dioxide.

Oxidized carbon is either carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Quite the contrary, sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction transform the organic carbon into inorganic carbon ALKALINITY - bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Nitrate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
This isn't back to square one. This is second win for neutralizing ocean "acidification".

You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
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.

Ignoring the buffering effects of water again, aren't you?
sealover wrote:
It WILL help with ocean acidification.

You can't acidify an alkaline.
sealover wrote:
But there is fifty times as much carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water as there is floating as gas in the atmosphere.

Wrong. You are ignoring partial pressures again.
sealover wrote:
We can't possibly fertilize enough plankton to remove enough CO2 from sea water to see atmospheric CO2 concentrations decline in the short run.

Why do you want to remove CO2? Why are you afraid of it?

Oh...right...that global warming thing again...

Sorry dude, no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


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: Is the element phosphorus red or white?12-04-2022 00:16
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Is the element phosphorus red or white?

Some of our remedial students are having difficulty with the definition of common terms such as "element" and "chemical".

Some of them are off their meds as well.

The word "Phosphorus" appears right on the fertilizer label!

"Labels are not science!"

P is the atomic symbol for phosphorus, but the word phosphorus is not limited to description of elemental phosphorus.

Elemental phosphorus does not exist in free form on earth, red OR white.

Ortho phosphate is the most highly oxidized form of phosphorus in nature.

Someday I might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.

Speaking of oxidation, do you even know what a "valence electron" IS?

Somehow, zero valent iron can be countered with some retarded thing about iron having eight valence electrons.

TRIvalent iron = ferric iron = iron(III) = fully oxidized iron.

DIvalent iron = ferrous iron = iron(II) = partially oxidized iron.

ZERO valent iron = Fe(zero) = fully REDUCED iron. Not oxidized at all.

And having "eight valence electrons" is kind of a... Meh.


So, the person who wrote the word "phosphorus" on the fertilizer label as an explanation for the 15% "P" content was SUPPOSED to write "a compound (salt) containing phosphorus"

Gotit!

When will all those idiots learn to start using the right words?

Science is not words.

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

Into the Night wrote:Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.[/b]

I don't believe you.

Phosphorus is destructive to plants.
sealover wrote:
So what does the "P" stand for on the fertilizer label?

A compound (salt) containing phosphorus. It does not mean 'phosphorus'.
sealover wrote:
Apparently there are only two kind of phosphorus, red and white. WTF??

That's right. Only two.
sealover wrote:
Which color phosphorus do they use to make plant food?

Phosphorus isn't plant food. Phosphorus destroys plants. Use a compound containing phosphorus instead such as ammonium phosphate.
sealover wrote:
Why does white phosphorus burn if it is not reduced and cannot be oxidized?

Someday you might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.
sealover wrote:
Anyway, ORTHO PHOSPHATE is the form given to plants.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
Organo phosphates are a class of pesticides.

Not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid is an ORGANIC phosphorus compound common in soil.

Phytic acid is not organic. It is found in seeds, not in soil.
sealover wrote:
Well, at least the part about cows not being reptiles is correct.

So you have entered yet another paradox. Now you say that cows are not reptiles when earlier you said they were. Irrational.
[/quote]
12-04-2022 00:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Is the element phosphorus red or white?

RQAA
sealover wrote:
Some of our remedial students are having difficulty with the definition of common terms such as "element" and "chemical".

That would be you.
sealover wrote:
Some of them are off their meds as well.

The word "Phosphorus" appears right on the fertilizer label!

There is no phosphorus in fertilizer.
sealover wrote:
"Labels are not science!"

Correct.
sealover wrote:
P is the atomic symbol for phosphorus, but the word phosphorus is not limited to description of elemental phosphorus.

P is a letter. The word phosphorus is limited to the element.
sealover wrote:
Elemental phosphorus does not exist in free form on earth, red OR white.

I already told you this.
sealover wrote:
Ortho phosphate is the most highly oxidized form of phosphorus in nature.

Phosphate is not phosphorus.
sealover wrote:
Someday I might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.

I doubt it. You are too full of yourself.
sealover wrote:
Speaking of oxidation, do you even know what a "valence electron" IS?

Yes.
sealover wrote:
Somehow, zero valent iron can be countered with some retarded thing about iron having eight valence electrons.

Iron has eight valence electrons. Iron isn't 'retarded'.
sealover wrote:
TRIvalent iron = ferric iron = iron(III) = fully oxidized iron.

That is not iron and not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
DIvalent iron = ferrous iron = iron(II) = partially oxidized iron.

Not iron and not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
ZERO valent iron = Fe(zero) = fully REDUCED iron. Not oxidized at all.

There is no such thing as 'valent' iron.
sealover wrote:
And having "eight valence electrons" is kind of a... Meh.

Too bad you don't know any chemistry.
sealover wrote:
So, the person who wrote the word "phosphorus" on the fertilizer label as an explanation for the 15% "P" content was SUPPOSED to write "a compound (salt) containing phosphorus"

They do. They even list the compound. In some places, it's required by law.
sealover wrote:
Gotit!

When will all those idiots learn to start using the right words?

They do.


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: NPK Fertilizer Fun Facts.12-04-2022 01:58
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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". No phosphate required.

It was a teachable moment for those who eventually read the thread with some interest in the theme of the thread... Some interest beyond a desire to heckle.

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









































sealover wrote:
Is the element phosphorus red or white?

Some of our remedial students are having difficulty with the definition of common terms such as "element" and "chemical".

Some of them are off their meds as well.

The word "Phosphorus" appears right on the fertilizer label!

"Labels are not science!"

P is the atomic symbol for phosphorus, but the word phosphorus is not limited to description of elemental phosphorus.

Elemental phosphorus does not exist in free form on earth, red OR white.

Ortho phosphate is the most highly oxidized form of phosphorus in nature.

Someday I might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.

Speaking of oxidation, do you even know what a "valence electron" IS?

Somehow, zero valent iron can be countered with some retarded thing about iron having eight valence electrons.

TRIvalent iron = ferric iron = iron(III) = fully oxidized iron.

DIvalent iron = ferrous iron = iron(II) = partially oxidized iron.

ZERO valent iron = Fe(zero) = fully REDUCED iron. Not oxidized at all.

And having "eight valence electrons" is kind of a... Meh.


So, the person who wrote the word "phosphorus" on the fertilizer label as an explanation for the 15% "P" content was SUPPOSED to write "a compound (salt) containing phosphorus"

Gotit!

When will all those idiots learn to start using the right words?

Science is not words.

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

Into the Night wrote:Phosphorus is not a nutrient. It is poisonous to plants.[/b]

I don't believe you.

Phosphorus is destructive to plants.
sealover wrote:
So what does the "P" stand for on the fertilizer label?

A compound (salt) containing phosphorus. It does not mean 'phosphorus'.
sealover wrote:
Apparently there are only two kind of phosphorus, red and white. WTF??

That's right. Only two.
sealover wrote:
Which color phosphorus do they use to make plant food?

Phosphorus isn't plant food. Phosphorus destroys plants. Use a compound containing phosphorus instead such as ammonium phosphate.
sealover wrote:
Why does white phosphorus burn if it is not reduced and cannot be oxidized?

Someday you might learn the chemistry of fire and oxidation.
sealover wrote:
Anyway, ORTHO PHOSPHATE is the form given to plants.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
Organo phosphates are a class of pesticides.

Not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Phytic acid is an ORGANIC phosphorus compound common in soil.

Phytic acid is not organic. It is found in seeds, not in soil.
sealover wrote:
Well, at least the part about cows not being reptiles is correct.

So you have entered yet another paradox. Now you say that cows are not reptiles when earlier you said they were. Irrational.
[/quote]
RE: And I forgot UREA.12-04-2022 02:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
And I forgot UREA.

Another major form of applied nitrogen is UREA.

Urea, O=C=(NH2)2 Two amino groups single bonded to a carbonyl carbon.

Pure urea contains a lot more than just nitrogen. Urea is 46% nitrogen.

Pure urea NPK = 46-0-0 N = 46% as nitrogen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: AND I forgot phytic acid.12-04-2022 02:36
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
AND I forgot phytic acid.

Yes, you can purchase commercial fertilizer with phytic acid as the primary or sole source of phosphorus.

Each molecule of phytic acid contains SIX phosphorus atoms.

This is NOT phosphate phosphorus.

But they are required by law to report it as "% as phosphate".

Don't believe me? Google "phytic acid as fertilizer" or something.

Or take the word of a reflexive naysayer who offers only unsupported contrarian assertions. TO EVERYTHING!

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.


BEST DEBATE EVER!

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

sealover wrote:
And I forgot UREA.

Another major form of applied nitrogen is UREA.

Urea, O=C=(NH2)2 Two amino groups single bonded to a carbonyl carbon.

Pure urea contains a lot more than just nitrogen. Urea is 46% nitrogen.

Pure urea NPK = 46-0-0 N = 46% as nitrogen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
12-04-2022 06:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
sealover wrote: AND I forgot phytic acid. Yes, you can purchase commercial fertilizer with phytic acid as the primary or sole source of phosphorus.


Proverbs 21:5 - The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want.



sealover wrote:Each molecule of phytic acid contains SIX phosphorus atoms.


Leviticus 24:6 - And thou shalt set them in two rows, SIX on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.

sealover wrote:Or take the word of a reflexive naysayer who offers only unsupported contrarian assertions. TO EVERYTHING!


Luke 13:3 - I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
12-04-2022 16:34
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:

You gotta admit, that is one good looking troll
12-04-2022 16:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote: AND I forgot phytic acid. Yes, you can purchase commercial fertilizer with phytic acid as the primary or sole source of phosphorus.


Proverbs 21:5 - The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want.



sealover wrote:Each molecule of phytic acid contains SIX phosphorus atoms.


Leviticus 24:6 - And thou shalt set them in two rows, SIX on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.

sealover wrote:Or take the word of a reflexive naysayer who offers only unsupported contrarian assertions. TO EVERYTHING!


Luke 13:3 - I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

There you go again, puffing up and strutting your atheism. Classic atheist move right there...
12-04-2022 17:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
GretaGroupie wrote:You gotta admit, that is one good looking troll

Psalms 96:6 - Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.

12-04-2022 18:18
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:

IBM, can you put Greta in there? Hmmmmm? That would be way cool - Greta Macho Troll!
12-04-2022 22:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
GretaGroupie wrote:IBM, can you put Greta in there? Hmmmmm? That would be way cool - Greta Macho Troll!

I don't think it would be appropriate to put Greta in the Bible Troll.

However, I could put Greta into the hands of all the people. like yourself, who have caught the Greta-bug.
Attached image:

12-04-2022 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
NPK Fertilizer Fun Facts.

Let's say the label says NPK 15-15-15.
[quote]sealover wrote:
What does that mean? What are the UNITS?

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

Per cent based on WHAT UNITS?

There are no units.
sealover wrote:
Our local genius has already explained the units for phosphorus.

Phosphorus has no units.
sealover wrote:
It is "a compound (salt) containing phosphorus" and supposedly they tell us WHICH SALT on the label.

Most times. In many places, that's required by law.
sealover wrote:
WRONG!

No. In many places, it's required by law.
sealover wrote:
In the case of phosphorus, the units are percent as PHOSPHATE. PO4.

Phosphate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
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".

Try English. It works better.
sealover wrote:
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.).

A percentage is not a unit.
sealover wrote:
Lets say that we use PURE ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

Okay.
sealover wrote:
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"

Incorrect. Ammonium nitrate is 34.99% nitrogen (by weight, sometimes listed as 34-0-0 or 35-0-0 on the bag). List number may be lower, depending on other inert material in the bag. You did specify pure ammonium nitrate.
sealover wrote:
Because the formula for ammonium nitrate is NH4NO3. Nitrogen is only 36% of the mass of each molecule. The rest is oxygen and hydrogen.
...deleted excess noise...

Incorrect. It is only 34.99% of the mass of each molecule.
So? It would also say that nitrogen in available in the from ammonium nitrate.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-04-2022 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
And I forgot UREA.
You forgot to pee? Hope the mess wasn't too large.
sealover wrote:
Another major form of applied nitrogen is UREA.

Urea, O=C=(NH2)2 Two amino groups single bonded to a carbonyl carbon.

Pure urea contains a lot more than just nitrogen. Urea is 46% nitrogen.

Pure urea NPK = 46-0-0 N = 46% as nitrogen.

46.665%, actually.

You know, cut and pasting is not helping you. You don't even understand the material you are cut and pasting.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-04-2022 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

You gotta admit, that is one good looking troll


Remind you of someone you know?



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
13-04-2022 07:40
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
AND I forgot phytic acid.

Yes, you can purchase commercial fertilizer with phytic acid as the primary or sole source of phosphorus.

Each molecule of phytic acid contains SIX phosphorus atoms.

This is NOT phosphate phosphorus.

But they are required by law to report it as "% as phosphate".

Don't believe me? Google "phytic acid as fertilizer" or something.

Or take the word of a reflexive naysayer who offers only unsupported contrarian assertions. TO EVERYTHING!

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.


BEST DEBATE EVER!

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

sealover wrote:
And I forgot UREA.

Another major form of applied nitrogen is UREA.

Urea, O=C=(NH2)2 Two amino groups single bonded to a carbonyl carbon.

Pure urea contains a lot more than just nitrogen. Urea is 46% nitrogen.

Pure urea NPK = 46-0-0 N = 46% as nitrogen.

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


I'm just not getting the connection between manure piles, and climate change. Is it the methane or CO2 released, that is destroying the planet, at an alarming rate?

Is it just farm animals that need to be destroyed, to save the planet. Or is it all mammals in general? Or could farmers just stop piling manure for compost?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate What is Biogeochemistry?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Tell your old college professors to check out climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry22125-05-2022 21:16
Biogeochemistry Debunked2016-05-2022 04:25
▲ 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