Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 33 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
anything inducing bone can be composted, but as a practical matter wood does not compost well and will not compost in a landfill. I didn't know were making fertilizer, I thought we were looking to sequester the most carbon possible. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19297 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
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. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
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. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20906 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Time to liven up this thread. 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: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
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 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. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
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 ? |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
if you had done your research you would know that prairie, not rain forest is 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 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. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Silphium laciniatum can send roots down 9-14 feet Still a far cry from the 30 to 90 feet you originally said. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
i have personally see greenbrier roots on an eroded bank go down more than 30 feet. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30903 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
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. 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. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19297 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
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. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.