[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

[lou gold]

Amen!

And it's important to note the exponential way the process has accelerated.
For example, half of the remaining natural forests on earth were lost during
the the last half of the 20th Century and some current models suggest that
half of the Amazon forest will be gone in the next 20 years.

Surely this forum is a good place to talk about such things.

I understand the core issue of soil productivity but general consciousness
simply does not intuitively "get it" for dirt in the same way that they do
for air.
The linkage between the carbon cycle and global warming is precisely the
thing that has propelled Terra Preta do Indgio into the spotlight of
awareness. And this IS the education that will reconnect the broken linkage
between what is above and what is below. It's a linkage that is intuitively
understood in most indigenous cultures and largely ignored in the Industrial
Age. We are now attempting to heal this wound. And that is why we must
discuss global warming and its causes.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com> wrote:

> 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<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html?wpisrc=newsletter>",
> 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<http://www.wsu.edu/%7Evillage/Johnson%2520et%2520al.%2520AA%25202005.pdf>
>  (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<http://www.permaculture.org.au/harvesting_water/HarvestingWater.html>"
> - Geoff Lawton and Greening the Desert<http://www.sustainableagriculture.org/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://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: /attachments/20080311/8f8be003/attachment.html