Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 35 · Next
Author Message
Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1341207 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 7:13:52 UTC - in response to Message 1341164.

anything inducing bone can be composted, but as a practical matter wood does not compost well and will not compost in a landfill.

partiality burning to make biochar is quicker and other trash can be burned as well just no heavy metals.

I didn't know were making fertilizer, I thought we were looking to sequester the most carbon possible.

____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8630
Credit: 23,730,717
RAC: 19,156
United Kingdom
Message 1341212 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 7:22:48 UTC

Wood actually composts quite well, it just takes longer. But it has other benefits as well a it provides "accomodation" for bugs and creepy crawlies.

And partially composted wood can be used as a mulch. Benefical in areas with clay soils. Clay soils compact quickly, causing rain to run off rather that sink into the ground, a top dressing of partially composted wood stops the rain compacting the soil and keeps it open, allowing better irrigation.

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1341218 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 9:33:55 UTC

yes wood can be composted but it takes about 18 months if the pieces are small

and longer if they are large.

1/3 of trash going into land fills is burnable wood included I am simply saying

that this could be burned to first provide energy reducing oil imports and

secondly to be plowed under on farms to increase the bioactivity of said soil.

biochar is not fertilizer in the conventional since in the nooks and cranny's of

partially burned carbon there is a much larger surface area for bacteria to form

cause much more biological action in the same amount of space.


____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1341286 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 16:23:02 UTC

I see we have several people who can't grasp that the solution is to maximize the carbon sequestered. Instead, they propose releasing more carbon. That kind of post belongs in the denial thread.

The question is does not char sequester more carbon? Logically it seems it should. So why would you propose to char stuff that could be left alone? Do you want a hot earth?

Remember biochar was studied to reduce CO2 as opposed to total combustion that occurs when you slash and burn virgin rain forest to get crop land. My original comment was why do we convert rain forest at all if we are seeking to maximize the sequester of carbon.

____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2521
Credit: 1,175,675
RAC: 112
United States
Message 1341303 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 16:51:30 UTC - in response to Message 1341286.
Last modified: 27 Feb 2013, 16:52:27 UTC

Time to liven up this thread.

Suppose we could agree that the Earth is currently undergoing warming.

Then suppose that we eliminated all other possible causes except CO-2 such as solar activity, water vapor, heat from combustion, rotation axis precession etc..

Then tell me what you would you would specifically do to significantly lower the concentration in the atmosphere and the annual increase in CO-2 production.

Be sure to put a dollar figure on your plan and then opine on how we could eliminate all other possible causes of warming, if it exists as a non-cyclical phenomenon.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8377
Credit: 4,106,628
RAC: 1,032
United Kingdom
Message 1341431 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 23:16:35 UTC - in response to Message 1341303.

Time to liven up this thread.

Suppose we could agree that the Earth is currently undergoing warming.

Then suppose that we eliminated all other possible causes except CO-2 such as solar activity, water vapor, heat from combustion, rotation axis precession etc..

Then tell me what you would you would specifically do to significantly lower the concentration in the atmosphere and the annual increase in CO-2 production.

Be sure to put a dollar figure on your plan and then opine on how we could eliminate all other possible causes of warming, if it exists as a non-cyclical phenomenon.

Also of great interest is to compare the dollar figure of NOT doing anything...

All on our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1341452 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 23:59:45 UTC - in response to Message 1341286.

I see we have several people who can't grasp that the solution is to maximize the carbon sequestered. Instead, they propose releasing more carbon. That kind of post belongs in the denial thread.

The question is does not char sequester more carbon? Logically it seems it should. So why would you propose to char stuff that could be left alone? Do you want a hot earth?

Remember biochar was studied to reduce CO2 as opposed to total combustion that occurs when you slash and burn virgin rain forest to get crop land. My original comment was why do we convert rain forest at all if we are seeking to maximize the sequester of carbon.

==================================================================================
the point being made is what is possible, and cheap, not what is optimal and damn the cost.

bio-char once plowed in will stay in the ground a long time while increasing

farm production reducing the amount of farmland needed.

if you had done your research you would know that prairie, not rain forest is

the most bio-active zone.

when you slash and burn rain forest it is gone because all the bio activity is above ground.

if you burn prairie it just grows back because the root systems go down 30 to 90

feet not counting the trees which can go much deeper.

____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2521
Credit: 1,175,675
RAC: 112
United States
Message 1341498 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 2:18:24 UTC - in response to Message 1341431.
Last modified: 28 Feb 2013, 2:21:03 UTC

Also of great interest is to compare the dollar figure of NOT doing anything...


Be my guest. That is precisely what is needed from those seeing a threat and surmising it's cause.

I have conceded Global Warming and it's cause to be CO-2 concentrations in the Atmosphere---now what ?

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1341512 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 4:23:44 UTC - in response to Message 1341498.

Do what you individually can, co2 is neither the entire problem or answer.

educate your self as to what we collectively know choose a piece that you

think you can enjoy working on and dive in.

If you do not enjoy what you are doing it will be much harder to stick to it long

enough to make any difference.

the science of modeling weather far enough out to model climate remediation is

not here yet, but it is coming.

until we know what will work starting massive projects to change things is silly.

if you are good with your hands do the things you can around the house to waste

less.

if your are not good with your hands learn.

if you are really not good with your hands garden and trade vegetables to a

neighbor how is.

you can increase your quality of life while using less they are not mutually

exclusive.

the big thing here is to think about what you are doing, think about what you

want to do and figure out how not only how to do it best but with less.

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1341514 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 4:32:40 UTC - in response to Message 1341452.

if you had done your research you would know that prairie, not rain forest is

the most bio-active zone.

What does bioactivity zone of prairie vs. rain forest have to do with maximizing the sequestration of carbon in South America where rainforest is being converted to farmland?

if you burn prairie it just grows back because the root systems go down 30 to 90

feet not counting the trees which can go much deeper.

A grass root 90 feet, 27 meters, down? I haven't heard of that species. Can you give a cite for it?

I also note you say prairie so you are confining yourself to Central North America. Wiki says >99% has already been converted to farmland. Many people are more interested in converting farmland back to prairie than the other way around.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1341517 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 4:46:18 UTC

the grasses can send roots down 30 feet or ten meters, some shrubs and small

trees 60 to 90 feet down, for red oak and cottonwood up to 300 feet down

returning bad farmland to prairie is happening is a lot of places as the prairie

is more productive for grazing than it was as farmland.

there are a number of federal and state programs to assist in this as well as a

few foundations.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1341520 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 5:00:39 UTC - in response to Message 1341517.

the grasses can send roots down 30 feet or ten meters,

Deepest I can find in a quick search of prairie grass is 2.0 meters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

That seems to square with what I've heard about prairie dogs.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1341637 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 15:24:03 UTC - in response to Message 1341520.

Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1341674 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 16:55:01 UTC - in response to Message 1341637.

Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet

Still a far cry from the 30 to 90 feet you originally said.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1342287 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 3:36:38 UTC

i have personally see greenbrier roots on an eroded bank go down more than 30 feet.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1342292 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 4:06:04 UTC - in response to Message 1342287.

i have personally see greenbrier roots on an eroded bank go down more than 30 feet.

The range map for smilax rotundifolia a/k/a greenbrier does not match the prairie grasslands areas. You were claiming 30 to 90 feet for the prairie so it could be burned, none of the common species in the prairie has nearly that depth, never mind it is all already converted into farmland.


____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2521
Credit: 1,175,675
RAC: 112
United States
Message 1342398 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 15:51:54 UTC - in response to Message 1342292.
Last modified: 2 Mar 2013, 15:55:42 UTC

To weigh in on this debate. I lived in Central Illinois for almost 20 years. This is the great grain producing region that could feed most of the world. This land is flat prairie--it is drained by a system of canals (sloughs). The farmers have to drain their fields as well with field tile.

At the bank or edge of these drainage canals you can see the roots of corn that can go down about a dozen feet or so. Its topsoil all the way down. In the past it was grassland with enormously tall foliage. This would burn off from time to time and support herds of large numbers of ruminants.

This is the richest and most productive soil in the world. One year in Champaign county 300 bushel per acre corn was not uncommon. That year I got over 400 lbs of tomatoes from only 6 plants in my garden--gave most of them to a food bank.

I don't know if the topsoil goes down 30 feet but i can vouch for ten feet or so --this is not the case in Southern Illinois where I once owned a farm myself; but surely was in the Central part of Illinois/Indiana.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,713,980
RAC: 8,788
United States
Message 1342432 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 17:57:43 UTC

Corn is not a native plant on the prairie, and wont grow at all without man's help. It is also a very inefficient way to get ethanol.

I'm sure the top soil was much deeper before the invention of the disc harrow and the subsequent dust bowl.

____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,093,724
RAC: 852
United States
Message 1342879 - Posted: 4 Mar 2013, 5:49:48 UTC - in response to Message 1342432.

Corn is not a native plant on the prairie, and wont grow at all without man's help. It is also a very inefficient way to get ethanol.

I'm sure the top soil was much deeper before the invention of the disc harrow and the subsequent dust bowl.


silly where do you think corn came from

Many thousands of years ago, the Pawnees and the Apaches planted corn, beans,

squash, melons, and tobacco.

both tribes known to inhabit south to Midwest

corn was unknown in Europe until after Columbus.
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8630
Credit: 23,730,717
RAC: 19,156
United Kingdom
Message 1342904 - Posted: 4 Mar 2013, 7:22:46 UTC - in response to Message 1342879.

Maize is a native plant from Central America, but once cultivated had spread to most of the America's by 2500 BC.

Therefore it couldn't have been known in Europe until after 1492, unless someone else got there first.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 35 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Copyright © 2014 University of California