[Terrapreta] CO2 rising

[lou gold]

Hi Brian, et al,

I think that lots of things "don't add up" because the picture is
oversimplified -- too linear, too static, too locked into location. I
suspect that it would take some very complex modeling to begin to grasp
what's going on.

Let me offer an example: tropical soils don't have much accumulated "stuff"
(carbon, etc) because of leaching into the water which deposits the "stuff"
elsewhere and elsewhere may indeed be a more effective sink -- a swamp, an
estuary, or the ocean. So, the location where the carbon is retrieved from
the atmosphere may not be the location where it is stored. Terra Preta in
Amazonia altered this in particular managed places, bringing the locations
of retrieval and storage closer together and leaving us something to
measure. I think that their agriculture both increased carbon retrieval and
localized its storage. But have no idea how to approximate the global
picture of cumulative impacts on land, air and water.

OK, it's complex. So I end with a plea for humility. We don't know much
other than when we remove carbon from longer-term storage (wood) or ancient
storage (fossil fuel) we dramatically increase the amount in the air.
Growing fuel and sequestering waste as char is but a step toward changing
this picture. I believe it's an important step.





On 9/23/07, Brian Hans <earthmimic at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Coal and other fossil fuels come from swamps and peatbeds. So unless the
> forest floats down the river and becomes a swamp... Im not sure where you
> going with this comment.
>
> And David, we are talking about sinks. So the question isnt how do I acct
> for the forest soils...its how much is sinking into those soils y/y? Biopact
> says 0%.
> Also to back this data up is the fact that Sean seems to think that
> forests sink 2+t/a/y of Carbon...yet the soils are only' inches to feet
> thick'. Over time...how do you square this? shouldnt the soils after only a
> few years be feet thick and over 1000's of years be meters thick? Yet as you
> noted...they arnt. Why is that?
>
> Brian Hans
> **
> *David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>* wrote:
>
> On 9/21/07, Brian Hans <bhans at earthmimic.com > wrote:
> > forests and especially old growth forests are not carbon sinks.
>
> if this is true, then how do we account for all the carbon stored in coal
> beds?
>
> and how do we account for the black humus under forests, ranging from
> several inches to a few feet thick?
>
>
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070923/a1fefdda/attachment.html