[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

Tue Mar 11 01:08:52 CDT 2008

Dan-------If I understand your question regarding "exist(ing) pre- 
carbon sequestration", you are referring to oil or gas extraction  
being a normal part of the biological process and why is it bad for  
the atmosphere now. I have also wondered about that historic carbon,  
also. My first thought is that we were very fortunate to have that  
carbon sequestered deep in the earth less we might not have this  
conversation now. I do have a question, about you not understanding  
that there is a problem to our use of buried hydrocarbons. Most of my  
information is off the internet. It is very easy to digest  
information from commercial radio and television and not hear any of  
these events except in recent months there have been increasingly  
more articles.

For example, this article, "Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert  
Danger,  New Studies Say", what is significant is the change in  
concern for what is happening in the atmosphere over two or three  
years ago. As new field reports and research papers are released the  
trend is that we need to act, increasingly so, with each new report.  
We will be a carbon-free society in far less than 2050 or in the hot  
house. I would be glad to dialog with you or anyone else on this  
list, privately if you like.

Do know that the pre-industrial level for CO2 was around 280 ppm and  
last year it was 383 ppm.

 From my perspective, we need to radically cut our carbon-negative  
activities or the weather disasters that have occurred in increasing  
frequency in recent decades will continue. The larger corporations  
are talking about being carbon neutral while the bottom line is more  
important than reality. Carbon neutral means that mankind will be  
required to adapt to today's existing weather disturbances or if we  
achieve carbon neutral at some time in the future we can use the CO2  
ppm to gage the strength of the weather storms and witness our folly.

Those future weather patterns of drought, flood, tornadoes, melting  
ice, as examples, will continue to devastate humankind. Keep in mind  
that we are nowhere near being carbon neutral. Do you have much time  
to read or watch on-line videos? I can supply you with a range of  
articles and papers.

Buried charcoal is carbon negative and is the longest term storage  
that we are able to demonstrate. High tech toys cannot produce enough  
charcoal to effectively lower the atmosphere's CO2 percentages. They  
are to expensive to produce the quantity that is needed. Would you  
call it a poor return on investment or the dollar to char deal? One  
scientific paper (section: ANCIENT AND MODERN FUEL USE) refers to the  
lost of 50% of the worlds forests in the last 10,000 years. Sean  
Barry has given some figures on the amount of wood needed to extract  
CO2 from the atmosphere. An earlier posting contains his figures.  
What he didn't mention was when were the forest areas calculated. I  
see the potential of reclaiming seasonal  water courses in those  
deserts. See "Harvesting the Water" - Geoff Lawton and Greening the  
Desert (Sustainable Agriculture). Especially, where there are incised  
dry stream beds.

But hey, I like to grow plants and they need water and if I grow a  
plant then I can make charcoal and you, what's your pleasure?------- 
Larry

P.S. Most of this article was written when I read your request to end  
this topic. Although, I started this article with your comments in  
mind, a larger question about the different reasons for being on this  
list came up. So with due respect to your request and not to focus on  
your first posting but to focus on the larger question of different  
reasons for being on the Terra Preta list I forward my posting to  
all. Most importantly, because we have 50% less forests than 10,000  
years ago, the use of the concept,Terra Preta fashioned into Terra  
Preta nova, needs to be practiced in desert regions of the world.  
Thanks for the question and the responses that followed. May you hold  
Peace in your thoughts tonight, one and all...

---------------------------
On Mar 10, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dan Culbertson wrote:

> ...from a planetary perspective I mean.  Didn't all that carbon  
> used to be in the atmosphere long ago?  So, other than making us  
> humans extinct (probably a very good thing for the planet) wouldn't  
> releasing all stored carbon back to the atmosphere just return the  
> environment to the way things used to be long long ago?  Can  
> someone explain why we are supposedly making the planet  
> uninhabitable for all species if all we are apparently doing is  
> making it alternately habitable for the types of species that used  
> to exist pre-carbon sequestration in fossil fuels?  Is there  
> something else that needs to be sequestered other than carbon that  
> wasn't around long ago making planetary catastrophe imminent?  Or  
> is all our concern centered around us humans not liking a planet no  
> longer habitable by us?  Not that I personally want to become  
> extinct don't-ya-know.  I am just curious about it.  Will  
> roachasaures take over after it is too hot for us?  Or will Earth  
> just be a hot sterile rock?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080310/c0ac8beb/attachment.html 