[Terrapreta] What does Carbon Sequestration really mean?

[Robert Klein]

Hi Sean and list

Good god, we can't have you turn fickle on us!!!

I will make it absolutely simple.  Carbon is
sequestered if you can see it.

What is more, and these are hardly based on an anal
review of the numbers, a ton of living carbon above
ground has a like ton of living carbon below ground.

Terra preta converts a lot of that living carbon mass
into charcoal which does not not readily get taken up
in to the biomass but still acts as a huge stimulant
to plant growth and vigor.  work your way through my
blog to learn more than you ever wished to know about
this.

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com

regards

bob 

--- "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

> Hi Kevin & the terrapreta list,
> 
> This discussion we all have been having about
> increased plant growth with increased CO2
> concentration and the supposed increased microbial
> growth with charcoal in the soil, etc. has had me
> thinking very hard this morning.   I've been digging
> a trench out in the yard for four hours now.  Its
> amazing what looking at dirt and mud and rocks can
> do for cerebral activity.
> 
> What I have been pondering is how Terra Preta could
> possibly do anything to change the CO2 concentration
> in the atmosphere.
> I've spent some time in these recent few days,
> typing postings to this list, trying to say that I
> do not think increased plant growth is going to
> reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.  Plants grow faster
> with higher CO2 concentrations.  I knew this.  I
> agreed with this when people were trying to beat me
> over the head about it.  Nonetheless, even with all
> the increased growth that increased CO2
> concentration in the atmosphere could bring, I do
> not see that it can reduce the atmospheric
> concentration of CO2.  Plants live finite lives. 
> Then they decompose.  Decomposers expire CO2. 
> Decomposition of a living tree occurs at a higher
> rate than a tree grows.
> Ergo more outgo.  Get it?
> 
> Focus for a bit on an observation that the living
> ecology of plants, animals, microbes, and soil
> actually expires CO2 into the atmosphere as well as
> inspires it.  There is a graph of continuous
> atmospheric CO2 readings.  It has been made rather
> famous by Al Gore, in his movie, "An Inconvenient
> Truth".  One of his college professors had started
> and been recording atmospheric CO2 levels since some
> time in the early 60s.  The graph has a SAWTOOTH
> appearance and an overall rising slope.  The
> sawtooth is clear evidence that the influx and
> outflux of CO2 to/from the atmosphere follows a
> seasonal pattern.  He said this in the movie.  Brian
> and Jon have both pointed out recently, that CO2
> probably cycles diurnally as well.  The rising slope
> of the graph indicates that there is more carbon in
> the atmosphere than there was previously.  Feel free
> to argue any of these points with me.
> 
> CO2 is part of the living respiration of the Earth. 
> If there is more carbon available to the living
> Bipsphere, then I think the concentrations of carbon
> in ALL parts of the overall system will increase. 
> The living systems just kind of push carbon around,
> passing it in and out of the atmosphere.   Plants
> are always performing photosynthesis in the spring
> and early summer, combining CO2 and H2O, with energy
> from the sunlight, to get at some of that energy,
> and they build carbohydrate structures (made with
> carbon bearing molecules) to get at more of that
> energy.  They slow at this in the fall and winter,
> releasing CO2 and/or not inspiring so much as at
> other times.  Animals and microbes are always
> pulling off the energy that is carried in complex
> carbon bearing molecules.  We all eat carbohydrates
> and expire CO2.  Humans "burn" hydrocarbons and
> expire CO2, also.
> 
> Now, I come to something Kevin Chisholm said some
> time ago.  He was saying that carbon has to be
> removed from the Biosphere in order to be
> sequestered.  I hope this is an acceptable
> paraphrasing of your statement, Kevin?  I understood
> this to mean that carbon could not be sequestered,
> if it was still somehow involved in the living
> systems.  In light of this recent discussion about
> CO2 off-gassing by soil fauna and animals and CO2
> uptake (and/or off-gassing) by flora, I have begun
> to believe that we cannot just invest carbon (in the
> form of charcoal) into living soil, and hope that it
> will somehow reduce atmospheric concentrations of
> CO2.
> 
> It may force carbon to reside for a while in soil,
> but the overall affect of TP soil to increase both
> plant growth and soil microbiological growth, may
> not necessarily change the flux of carbon into/out
> of the atmosphere.  It is not absolutely clear,
> either, that charcoal stays permanently in the soil.
>  It seems to have a much longer half-life in soil
> than carbohydrates, though.
> 
> Fossil carbon fuels are the difference.  The carbon
> they contain (in complex hydrocarbon molecules) had
> once been in the Biosphere.
> Fossil fuels are fossils of plants that grew on the
> Terra Firma once.  But, they have been buried, very
> deep, in the subsoil, below the livng soil, and out
> of the living Biosphere for a very long time (circa
> 300 million years).  Does everyone realize that
> humans have actually SET the half-life of fossil
> fuel carbon in the ground at circa ~300,000,150
> years?!  Here it is now, with us and the rest of the
> animals and the plants, up here, above the lifeless
> subsoil ground, and all participating again in the
> global climatic cycling of carbon.
> 
> Methinks, that putting it only as deep as Terra
> Preta, only as deep as the living part of the soil,
> IS NOT going to change the concentration of it in
> any part of the living Biosphere.  The living soil
> and the atmosphere, and the plants and animals are
> all part
> of the Biosphere together.  The carbon
> concentrations are up.   They are likely to increase
> everywhere.
> 
> We CANNOT "Sequester Carbon", if we sequester it
> where there is life.  This is just my considered
> opinion.  You people can kick it all apart, as many
> of you are want to do.  This realization of mine has
> diminished my enthusiasm somewhat for Terra Preta.
> I hope to hell someone soon will be able to prove
> that Terra Preta soils do not need as much
> fertilizer as other soils to grow productive crops. 
> This may be its only redeeming value.  I am
> retracting my staunch statements of belief that
> Terra Preta can "Sequester Carbon".  I don't believe
> it can provide "carbon negative" energy, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> SKB> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469