Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

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.

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.

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.


____________

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.

____________

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.

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.

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.

____________

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

the most bio-active zone.

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.

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.
____________

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

Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet
____________

Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet

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

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

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.

____________

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.

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.