When it comes to the debate on Global Warming, I continue to be informed by the extremely clear fact that we are continuing to operate within the incredibly stable range established with the onset of Holocene some 12,000 years ago.
It really does look like a global half degree switching back and forth between the two hemispheres that operates on a thousand year cycle or so. Just think. The last high was around 1000 AD and perhaps also 0 AD and the rise of the Roman Empire in Europe. The little Ice Age hit with a vengeance around 1500 AD and the Western Roman Empire fell around 500 AD when the Rhine froze over. What little we know of the prior millennium suggests that the same cycle showed itself there to. And that half degree is more than sufficient to give us all the currently experienced warming effects in the north.
As has been said, this is actually a cause for celebration. Agricultural productivity in the Northern hemisphere will increase. The Arctic will be clear of ice every summer for at least two months and this should happen even in the next decade. This will naturally create a huge fishery. So shut up already.
And absolutely none of this needs to be linked to the production of excess CO2 on the basis of the record of the past 12,000 years.
That still leaves us with the ongoing problem of the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is for sure a human created problem and must be ameliorated. What we have burned so far has forced a thirty percent gain. What exists in the ground is sufficient to make this a 100 % gain. What is more, it is a reasonable assumption that man will burn all available fossil fuels no matter what else is done and even if it is dragged out over a thousand years. It is simply too efficient as a feedstock to not be used.
As we have shown, the best solution to that problem is carbon sequestration by way of the global production of terra preta soils. It really is that simple. Of course the chatterers will try to obstruct the solution as usual, but they all die out eventually and it will simply become mandatory traditional practice.
As was true in the Amazon for at least a thousand years.
It really does look like a global half degree switching back and forth between the two hemispheres that operates on a thousand year cycle or so. Just think. The last high was around 1000 AD and perhaps also 0 AD and the rise of the Roman Empire in Europe. The little Ice Age hit with a vengeance around 1500 AD and the Western Roman Empire fell around 500 AD when the Rhine froze over. What little we know of the prior millennium suggests that the same cycle showed itself there to. And that half degree is more than sufficient to give us all the currently experienced warming effects in the north.
As has been said, this is actually a cause for celebration. Agricultural productivity in the Northern hemisphere will increase. The Arctic will be clear of ice every summer for at least two months and this should happen even in the next decade. This will naturally create a huge fishery. So shut up already.
And absolutely none of this needs to be linked to the production of excess CO2 on the basis of the record of the past 12,000 years.
That still leaves us with the ongoing problem of the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is for sure a human created problem and must be ameliorated. What we have burned so far has forced a thirty percent gain. What exists in the ground is sufficient to make this a 100 % gain. What is more, it is a reasonable assumption that man will burn all available fossil fuels no matter what else is done and even if it is dragged out over a thousand years. It is simply too efficient as a feedstock to not be used.
As we have shown, the best solution to that problem is carbon sequestration by way of the global production of terra preta soils. It really is that simple. Of course the chatterers will try to obstruct the solution as usual, but they all die out eventually and it will simply become mandatory traditional practice.
As was true in the Amazon for at least a thousand years.
1 comment:
The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.
On the Scale of CO2 remediation:
It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons of carbon.
The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.
Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel CO2 emissions as stable charcoal in the soil.
As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "
Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X FertilityToo
This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.
The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.
Post a Comment