Your comments are right and wrong at the same time. The carbon situation on mollisols, the deep prairie soils of Iowa and the like, are indeed more impacted by management and the organic carbon (humus) content is the key there for carbon storage and for nitrogen. Biochar may enhance this, but the full proof is not in, though research at Iowa State and USDA may soon close in on better answers.
In older soils in wetter climates, the ultisols of Georgia or the Oxisols of the Amazon, soil organic carbon is simply oxidized to fast even in areas with little or no management, so biochar does have greater impact. We have more certainty about biochar's positive effects in the tropics and on poor quality soils in general (with the possible exception of acidic spodosols) than we do in rich temperate soils. As with most things in ecological/environmental science, generalizations seldom work and we have to do the research with all the variables.
] on behalf of back40 [back40@...
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.
You might seek a "reasoned account" of nitrogen too Erich rather than parroting the gleeful narrative of superstitious activists. The nitrogen cycle is every bit as complex as the carbon cycle. Both have been altered from the pre-industrial state and it would be foolish to attempt to intervene in a system without understanding the system a little bit first. That's just poking and hoping and usually makes things worse.
You do not need biochar to increase soil sequestration of carbon. Reducing tillage will do as much or more. One could do both, but if one must choose just one then it is organic carbon that is of most value. Just to twist the thought knife, 90% of soil nitrogen is in soil organic matter. It's a two-fer, carbon and nitrogen.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Erich Knight <erichjknight@...<mailto:erichjknight@...>> wrote:
Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;
Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link
I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.
The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
This recent research on man's effects on aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass). Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...<mailto:back40@...>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...<mailto:kchisholm@...>> wrote:
.Following is an interesting Article:
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."
It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."
This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.
Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.