My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Moontanman]

I couldn't disagree more with the points you've raised above that if we address anthropogenic climate change that we will be "restricting technological progress."

 

This is a MAJOR opportunity for new economic growth into markets previously dormant. I actually earn my paycheck right now from a company who is profitting heavily from the recent demand in solar photovoltaics, so I just don't buy the "If we fix it, we will ruin the economy" line. It's not founded. The economy will change and new jobs will be created. It won't collapse, it will evolve, especially if we the people demand it.

 

 

 

 

Would you have rather we left the lies and half-truths being shared by the denialists remain without comment? That's just it. This really is simple, but we spend so much time debunking nonsensical claims that we can't help but get detailed.

 

I would be the last person to support, lies and half truths no matter where they come from. I'm not sure we are on the same page with the tecnology thing. I don't really think that 'saveing the planet" will destroy the economy. What I have problems with is the idea that the planet can be saved at all. I really think it's like planning to jump up at the instant of impact to avoid being hurt in a falling elevator. Better to try and get out of the elevator before it starts falling too fast to get out of.

[Essay]

MTM, ...too late to get out of this handbasket (elevator).

Well it sounds as if you do have a lot of familiarity with the gamut of forcers (and potential ones -hydrates).

One of the things that helped me a lot was learning the time scales involved, and where the continents were at which times.

Our "current climate" is largely a product of the recent (20 Mya) position of the continents and especially their associated mountain ranges; and of course, the development of the Atlantic Ocean. It's mainly for this reason that I don't think there is any "pre-Asteroid, Set-Point" that we could be returning to....

 

We cannot save the planet and continue to be a technological civilization.

I guess I can sum up my stance by saying that if we "save the planet" we will doom ourselves. What we need to do is move off planet but that is another discussion completely.

Should we try to restrict our activities to save the planet....

The ability for us to reach "type one status" for our civilization is directly tied to out ability to grow.

 

Your array of choices reminds me of those who dislike "Big Government" and only see "Less Govt." as the solution.

Why can't "Better Government" be an option; focusing on quality, rather than quantity.

 

Why only those choices? I think that unless we accelerate our development (for sustainability purposes, not greed), we will end up having the default solution ("...to leave the planet completely or go back to subsistence farming and cut the population of the earth by about 99%.")... that default solution externally enforced upon us by some cataclysm, before (or while) reaching Type 1 Status.

 

Climate has too much inertia and lag time for "The Market" to respond to it with sustainable results.

I'm not advocating a World Govt., but a generally global consensus and some overall advice & organization would go a long way toward helping "individual" markets make prudent, sustainable choices.

Or are you advocating that we create a lot of wealth (business as usual), so that we can build spaceships and leave?

 

I'll purposely leave open the question of Wisdom, but.... :eek_big:

Like an adolescent, we are at a point in our history where have the Skills to begin stepping up and attempting to be responsible for our future (as a Type 1 Civilization).

:doh:

[Zythryn]

Moon, I also should apologize as my response could have been more civil.

It is just that you used a number of the same illogical, weak points that are heard from a number of the 'AM radio nuts' and denialists that don't know the actual science.

This is another one:

...I do not think that restricting our technological progress to "save the planet" is a good thing for humanity as a whole. We cannot save the planet and continue to be a technological civilization.

 

Did we restrict our technological progress when we moved from wood to peat or coal?

This is the type of argument that the fanatics latch onto. Heck some of the extreme fanatics on the pro GW side also use that argument (that we have to return to nature).

 

There was a Scientific American article that discussed the solution to global warming. It split up the overall solution into 7 little solutions that would add up to reducing our carbon output to a 'safe' level.

If, in 30 years we could replace all carbon emmiting transportation and power generators, would you have less of an issue?

 

Essay, thank you so much for raising the issue of the postition of the continents. I do recall seeing some information on that. It was fascinating and made a lot of sense.

[REASON]

Excellent points all around Essay!

 

"Focusing on quality, rather than quantity." What a novel idea. :eek_big:

[InfiniteNow]

There was a Scientific American article that discussed the solution to global warming. It split up the overall solution into 7 little solutions that would add up to reducing our carbon output to a 'safe' level.

If, in 30 years we could replace all carbon emmiting transportation and power generators, would you have less of an issue?

For those interesting in learning more about this article Zythryn referenced, I believe he was talking about this one, which is well worth the read:

 

10 Solutions for Climate Change: Scientific American

 

The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called "wedges" for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels—there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.

 

 

:doh: :eek_big:

[Moontanman]

MTM, ...too late to get out of this handbasket (elevator).

Well it sounds as if you do have a lot of familiarity with the gamut of forcers (and potential ones -hydrates).

One of the things that helped me a lot was learning the time scales involved, and where the continents were at which times.

Our "current climate" is largely a product of the recent (20 Mya) position of the continents and especially their associated mountain ranges; and of course, the development of the Atlantic Ocean. It's mainly for this reason that I don't think there is any "pre-Asteroid, Set-Point" that we could be returning to....

 

 

 

Your array of choices reminds me of those who dislike "Big Government" and only see "Less Govt." as the solution.

Why can't "Better Government" be an option; focusing on quality, rather than quantity.

 

Why only those choices? I think that unless we accelerate our development (for sustainability purposes, not greed), we will end up having the default solution ("...to leave the planet completely or go back to subsistence farming and cut the population of the earth by about 99%.")... that default solution externally enforced upon us by some cataclysm, before (or while) reaching Type 1 Status.

 

Climate has too much inertia and lag time for "The Market" to respond to it with sustainable results.

I'm not advocating a World Govt., but a generally global consensus and some overall advice & organization would go a long way toward helping "individual" markets make prudent, sustainable choices.

Or are you advocating that we create a lot of wealth (business as usual), so that we can build spaceships and leave?

 

I'll purposely leave open the question of Wisdom, but.... :eek_big:

Like an adolescent, we are at a point in our history where have the Skills to begin stepping up and attempting to be responsible for our future (as a Type 1 Civilization).

:doh:

 

I wish I could really think that a choice as simple as big government vs Less government would really be a choice. Pinning down the differences between the two is like trying to nail jello to a tree. Everyone wants less government but no one can really deliver such a thing.

 

At one time when the so called cold war supposedly ended I really thought for a while that maybe mankind was on the verge of really making some gains. I guess old age has made a cynic out of me. I do know that it will take a phase change in human behavior as great or even greater than the phase change that we went through when we stopped making the same tools the same way and started making art, decorations, and making tools that were works of art as well as functional tools. Some say that happened about 50,000 years ago.

 

Now we occupy every inch of arable land on the earth as well as most of the least desirable land. Even if everyone on the earth lived in near poverty there would still not be enough to go around. We will kill the ecosystem of this planet if not with technology then with shear numbers.

 

I am of the opinion that intelligent technological beings and their civilizations can survive only by expanding. We have no place to expand except off planet. Unless of course the rich nations kill off the poor nations but that would only delay the inevitable at best and put into question our deserving to survive in the first place.

 

I know the climate we are living in is influenced greatly by the position of the continents. While the continents were in this position we have had ice ages and warm interglacial periods. One favored some animals and the other favored different ones. Who are we to chose one way or another or even which is best? Warm would at least seem to be better for us than an ice age for sure! We can't help but influence the Earth in one way or another so why shouldn't we do what is best for the human race instead the individual?

 

But the earth is going to get warmer no matter what we do. The sun is getting brighter, it will eventually extinguish life on the earth. It will be a long time before that happens but we will go away long before that if we stay here. Planning to stay here by putting most of our effort into saving the planet will take away the focus on the only real option.

 

Yes we should be looking for ways to make energy go further, developing better ways to produce energy but in the long run these are only delaying tactics. Humans will only get more numerous until it is impossible to do anything but take care of our own. At that point any escape is just a pipe dream.

 

By making real plans to go now we can do things that will take a great deal of the strain off the resources of the earth and at the same time allow our civilization to expand. Exploiting the resources of the solar system is far off the topic we were discussing. I expressed some of this in a poem in "the lounge" "poems of any length" "The Stars Beckon"

[Moontanman]

Moon, I also should apologize as my response could have been more civil.

It is just that you used a number of the same illogical, weak points that are heard from a number of the 'AM radio nuts' and denialists that don't know the actual science.

This is another one:

 

Did we restrict our technological progress when we moved from wood to peat or coal?

This is the type of argument that the fanatics latch onto. Heck some of the extreme fanatics on the pro GW side also use that argument (that we have to return to nature).

 

There was a Scientific American article that discussed the solution to global warming. It split up the overall solution into 7 little solutions that would add up to reducing our carbon output to a 'safe' level.

If, in 30 years we could replace all carbon emmiting transportation and power generators, would you have less of an issue?

 

Essay, thank you so much for raising the issue of the postition of the continents. I do recall seeing some information on that. It was fascinating and made a lot of sense.

 

Return to nature, we are already part of nature. Unfortunately in some respects we are to nature as a carcinoma is to your body. It's might be part of you but you will not survive unless it is gone from you. You say we need to stop carbon emissions with in thirty years. If we did the things that are necessary to do this without cutting our noses off to spite our faces then I would say yes. To me this means developing realistic power sources.

 

Currently we are using 1950's technology to produce nuclear energy. Modern reactor designs would produce far less waste (actually modern reactors could run on what we call waste) the waste produced by modern type reactors would be much less in volume and far less long lived than current reactors not to mention these reactors would be much safer, practically impossible to melt down or any way release radioactivity to the environment.

 

Do we do it? No we are too worried (and rightly so unfortunately) that nations or organizations or even individuals will use these reactors to make weapons. The so many things we could do that would make huge differences if we could trust each other but I don't see than happening anytime soon either.

 

A hydrogen economy (assuming that we could find a way to handle hydrogen without destroying the ozone layer) would rest on other power sources to produce hydrogen. The only technology that can do this now is nuclear.

 

There are people so opposed to this it's worse than immoral to them to use nuclear power no matter what happens. So sad they can't see past their own agenda's. No other technology hold so much promise and at the same time is so polarizing to people.

 

I know a guy that is so antinuclear he says he would almost kill to stop such a plant from being built near him. Yet he lives near a coal fired plant that releases more radioactive isotopes in a year that a nuclear power plant would in it's lifetime.

 

So few with foresight so many that are blind. To discuss this any further should really require the start of a new thread.

[Zythryn]

I am still looking for the info on that preventing an ice age I am almost sure I heard it on a science channel show that was talking about the feed back mechanisms that caused the little ice a couple of hundred years ago but I'll have to search some more.

 

While I was looking for the Scientific American with the multi solution approach, I came across the one you may have been thinking of:)

It is the March 2005 issue, I am re-reading it now and would be happy to discuss the idea after I do.

[Essay]

If, in 30 years we could replace all carbon emmiting transportation and power generators....

Last on that SciAm list is:

 

Experiment Earth—Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering, radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change.

 

Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form.

 

All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.

 

"Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment."

This refers to our past several thousand years of rapacious behaviour. IMO

 

"So-called geoengineering, radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change."

Like being a "Type 1 Civilization?"

 

"releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption"

NOOOOO!!:doh:

Much too irreversible!!

 

"placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight"

Well, better; but it needs to be controllable (so we could melt glaciers or ice-caps if needed).

 

"covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space"

:eek_big:OMG, I hope they mean snow!

I suppose "managing" a glacier with reflective film, locally, would be okay.

 

"increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form"

No. Too iffy, weird, unnatural, etc.; but maybe... locally....:eek_big:

 

fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon"

 

Now this last one has some potential. It could be done on very small scales and gradually with lots of monitoring, etc.

Hopefully in conjunction with overall "restoration of the oceans" plans.

 

They come close with this last suggestion, but NOBODY has mentioned

Sequestration in Soils! ...let alone Terra Preta. :doh:

 

allow me to repeat....

In its Second Assessment Report the IPCC, 1996 estimated that it might be possible, over the next 50 to 100 years, to sequester 40-80 Gt of C in cropland soils (Cole et al., 1996; Paustian et al., 1998; Rosenberg et al., 1998).

 

...agricultural soils alone could capture enough Carbon to offset any further increase in the atmospheric inventory for a period lasting between 12 and 24 years.

 

...there is also a very large potential for Carbon storage in the soils of degraded and desertified lands.

 

Soil Carbon sequestration alone could make up the difference between expected emissions and the desired trajectory in the first three or four decades of the 21st century, buying time for development of the new technological advances...[emission reduction/recycling].

 

40-80 Billion Tonnes of Carbon (just in cropland soils) + even larger potential sequestration by restoring "the soils of degraded and desertified lands" would be enough to return CO2 to pre-industrial levels within a few decades.

 

Why isn't this solution being implemented?

 

This mitigation option was set-aside in the Kyoto negotiations ostensibly because of the perceived difficulty and cost of verifying that Carbon is actually being sequestered and maintained in soils.

 

**Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils: A Multi-purpose Environmental Strategy

Edited by:

Norman J. Rosenberg and Roberto C. Izaurralde

Reprinted from Climatic Change, Vol.51, no.1, 2001

Kluwer Academic Publishers

ISBN 0-7923-7149-6

 

...and this isn't the high-cost, high-tech "carbon capture" CO2 sequestration schemes that energy companies are researching.

 

It's very low cost, requiring mainly organization and a change in culture and behaviour.

 

Becoming Type 1....

:)

[Essay]

Moontanman,

"You say we need to stop carbon emissions with in thirty years. If we did the things that are necessary to do this without cutting our noses off to spite our faces then I would say yes." -whoops, that Zythryn's

See soil sequestration above, #349

 

"Everyone wants less government but no one can really deliver such a thing."

No, I think you missed my point.

Not less government, but better (different?) government is needed.

 

"Now we occupy every inch of arable land on the earth as well as most of the least desirable land."

Now with modern medicine to combat River Blindness, whole river valleys have been recently populated.

More unsustainable growth.... :eek_big:

 

"Even if everyone on the earth lived in near poverty there would still not be enough to go around."

Actually, there is enough to support 9 Billion quite easily, if managed well and fairly. [Anybody know where I heard that?]

 

"We will kill the ecosystem of this planet if not with technology then with shear numbers. "

Yes, unless we change our ways (starting about 40 years ago...).

 

"While the continents were in this position we have had ice ages and warm interglacial periods."

Yes, but still more stable and habitable than in the more distant past.

 

"Warm would at least seem to be better for us than an ice age for sure!"

I completely disagree; but that's a whole 'nother Topic!

 

"We can't help but influence the Earth in one way or another so why shouldn't we do what is best for the human race instead the individual?" -MTM

 

Yes, we agree! I better stop there.

~Thanks Moon, I hope what I wrote above doesn't sound too self-righteous. I'm still open to discuss any point in detail.

:doh:

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

"You say we need to stop carbon emissions with in thirty years. If we did the things that are necessary to do this without cutting our noses off to spite our faces then I would say yes." -whoops, that Zythryn's

See soil sequestration above, #349

 

"Everyone wants less government but no one can really deliver such a thing."

No, I think you missed my point.

Not less government, but better (different?) government is needed.

 

"Now we occupy every inch of arable land on the earth as well as most of the least desirable land."

Now with modern medicine to combat River Blindness, whole river valleys have been recently populated.

More unsustainable growth.... :eek_big:

 

"Even if everyone on the earth lived in near poverty there would still not be enough to go around."

Actually, there is enough to support 9 Billion quite easily, if managed well and fairly. [Anybody know where I heard that?]

 

"We will kill the ecosystem of this planet if not with technology then with shear numbers. "

Yes, unless we change our ways (starting about 40 years ago...).

 

"While the continents were in this position we have had ice ages and warm interglacial periods."

Yes, but still more stable and habitable than in the more distant past.

 

"Warm would at least seem to be better for us than an ice age for sure!"

I completely disagree; but that's a whole 'nother Topic!

 

"We can't help but influence the Earth in one way or another so why shouldn't we do what is best for the human race instead the individual?" -MTM

 

Yes, we agree! I better stop there.

~Thanks Moon, I hope what I wrote above doesn't sound too self-righteous. I'm still open to discuss any point in detail.

:doh:

We are already too far down the road to ruin as it is, 9 billion people, would there be room for anything but people and croplands? Would we really want to allow things to go that far? Tell me what you mean by better government, too many people seem to think their way is better but it just works out to be different. The preponderance of North/South coast lines might be as much responsible for the increased habitability than warm or cold. It does make for more species diversity. Wouldn't exploiting the resources of the solar system be better than ripping off mountains for metals and drilling everywhere we can for hydrocarbons? Space could allow us to kill two birds with one stone, win/win situation to put it in corporate speak.

[freeztar]

While this thread has taken an interesting turn, I feel that most of the recent posts would be better suited for the thread, "The Solutions to Global Warming include...".

 

That being said...

 

It was mentioned that the climate change issue is simple, but is complicated by denialists and such. I disagree. I believe it's precisely the complexity of climate that leads to the "AM radio nuts" misunderstanding and propagation of skepticism in the face of facts. Indeed, we might not even be typing in this thread if the issue was so easy to digest.

 

As disturbing as I find the claims of the denialists, I find equal resentment in CC proponents that blindly follow scientific claims without fully understanding the studies and experiments conducted to reach their conclusions (this is not directed at anyone here btw).

 

So, when it's all said and done, education is the key.

As such, I view this thread as a forum where denialists can state their claims or objections (scientifically of course), and those that have more knowledge on the subject can refute these claims and guide these people towards the current scientific stance on the subject (which is never one-sided). So while it may be frustrating to continually deal with the same objections and naive assertions from denialists, I feel it is the duty of the scientific community to address these issues in the hope that education will spread and eventually the objections slow to a trickle.

 

Bring it on! :eek_big: :doh:

[Essay]

....it is the duty of the scientific community to address these issues in the hope that education will spread and eventually the objections slow to a trickle.

 

Bring it on! :) ;)

 

"We are already too far down the road to ruin as it is, 9 billion people, would there be room for anything but people and croplands?" -MTM

 

It's too late to google, but I think I recall hearing that you could fit 6 Billion people in Texas and they wouldn't be able to see each other (equally distributed).

Croplands is more of a problem, but there are ways. I hope someone else knows about this carrying capacity stuff (or I could try to find stuff later).

 

"Wouldn't exploiting the resources of the solar system be better than ripping off mountains for metals and drilling everywhere we can for hydrocarbons? Space could allow us to kill two birds with one stone, win/win situation to put it in corporate speak."

 

Yes, but right now....

What you're talking about is a mature Type 1 civilization; probably at least 500 years hence.

 

"The preponderance of North/South coast lines might be as much responsible for the increased habitability than warm or cold. It does make for more species diversity."

 

Very interesting observation; yep, that'll keep me lost in thought for a good while.

 

"Tell me what you mean by better government; too many people seem to think their way is better but it just works out to be different."

 

...ooops, too late; gotta run.

hahahaha :)

 

I've got some ideas such as more oversight and more local connections, but this is a whole 'nother Topic too.

"Better" would also refer to intergovernmental cooperation.

 

I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.

The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable, with efficient management of resources.

 

meanwhile... for those still feeling shakey....

 

Look at a new parameter of CC effects; see the anthropogenic component clearly demonstrated:

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

Note the "hockey stick" like shape of the graphs. :hihi:

:)

[Moontanman]

If indeed you could spread all those people out evenly it might work but not in Texas, nine billion people spread in Texas would mean 831 square feet per person. Yes I think you could still see each other. That would mean one person standing in a 28.82 feet on a side square. To become a type 1 civilization would require the use of the resources of the solar system. This is within our grasp now. It might take 500 years to exploit it all but even a type on civilization has to start somewhere. You can't wait until you are a type one to start doing it.

[Essay]

If indeed you could spread all those people out evenly it might work but not in Texas, nine billion people spread in Texas would mean 831 square feet per person. Yes I think you could still see each other. That would mean one person standing in a 28.82 feet on a side square. To become a type 1 civilization would require the use of the resources of the solar system. This is within our grasp now. It might take 500 years to exploit it all but even a type on civilization has to start somewhere. You can't wait until you are a type one to start doing it.

 

I wasn't suggesting we all move to Texas and try to make it work; it was just an example of how "crowded" the Earth really is (or isn't). Thanks for doing the math though.

 

Sounds as if we're both advocating a push forward to becomming Type 1; maybe it's just the goal or motive behind the push that is different?

 

~brb

 

But more on Topic....

 

What did you think of the "hockey stick?"

[Moontanman]

I wasn't suggesting we all move to Texas and try to make it work; it was just an example of how "crowded" the Earth really is (or isn't). Thanks for doing the math though.

 

Sounds as if we're both advocating a push forward to becomming Type 1; maybe it's just the goal or motive behind the push that is different?

 

~brb

 

But more on Topic....

 

You missed my point, the nine billion would fit in Texas for sure but how much of Texas is really suitable for humans? You would have to take away all the mountain sides and scrub deserts, all the unlivable areas. If you did that you would be quite crowed and still not have a means to obtain food. It works the same way on the earth. I am 53 years old. I can remember when the earth held about 4 billion or so people. Livable areas were much less crowed than they are today. Far more woodlands were empty. Now in the same area where I lived almost all the flat land is gone. Houses are every where. You have to travel more than a hundred miles just to approximate the same living conditions that were common when I was young. It's the same way on the Earth. People cannot live on every square inch of the earth. Huge areas are unlivable or taken by wildlife. Look at the countries like India, and China, everywhere you look you see over crowding. We need to reduce the population to about 1 billion to really have a chance at correcting the environmental problems we have. It's more correct to say how much land is necessary to support one human. I think you find that we are already very much over crowded and to say we could support nine billion is ludicrous. So how any square feet does it take to support a human? You have to ask how do you want to live, maybe in thousands of mile high towers? Or spread around the globe in impoverished ghettos? No, everyone wants decent life style. We don't have room for what we have for everyone to live at a level where poverty isn't the norm.

[Turtle]

...They come close with this last suggestion, but NOBODY has mentioned

Sequestration in Soils! ...let alone Terra Preta. ;)

 

allow me to repeat....

 

 

40-80 Billion Tonnes of Carbon (just in cropland soils) + even larger potential sequestration by restoring "the soils of degraded and desertified lands" would be enough to return CO2 to pre-industrial levels within a few decades.

This mitigation option was set-aside in the Kyoto negotiations ostensibly because of the perceived difficulty and cost of verifying that Carbon is actually being sequestered and maintained in soils.

Why isn't this solution being implemented?

 

 

 

**Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils: A Multi-purpose Environmental Strategy

Edited by:

Norman J. Rosenberg and Roberto C. Izaurralde

Reprinted from Climatic Change, Vol.51, no.1, 2001

Kluwer Academic Publishers

ISBN 0-7923-7149-6

 

...and this isn't the high-cost, high-tech "carbon capture" CO2 sequestration schemes that energy companies are researching.

 

It's very low cost, requiring mainly organization and a change in culture and behaviour.

 

Becoming Type 1....

:)

 

How could 'they' be so right about so much complexity, and so wrong about such simplicity? Mmmm...5th grade science; terra preta soil in the Amazon basin has charcoal mixed in it that has remained for hundreds of years. :) An asteroid/comet impact over North American ~11,0000 years ago left a layer of charcoal from the resulting burned forests that we find today. :D How do we get coal? :)

 

I agree this is a reasonble method for sequestering some carbon, and I think the best chance of implementing it is distributed small scale operations. Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required. :)