Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.environment > #97887 > unrolled thread

Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone

Back to article view | Back to sci.environment

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-14 07:53 -0500
    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-14 11:12 -0500
    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-14 17:59 +0000
      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-14 15:25 -0500
        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-14 23:52 +0000
          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-14 19:41 -0500
            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-15 01:29 +0000
              Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-14 21:44 -0500
                Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-15 03:28 +0000
                  Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-15 09:49 -0500
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-15 17:17 +0000
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-16 09:44 -0500
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 10:12 -0500
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-16 10:43 -0500
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:28 -0500
                            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-17 08:02 -0500
                              Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-17 12:27 -0500
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 13:54 -0500
                            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 20:54 +0000
                              Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 16:16 -0500
                                Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 21:57 +0000
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2016-06-17 11:47 +1200
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2016-06-16 11:50 -0400
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-21 18:34 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#97887 — Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone

Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>
> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
> June 10, 2016
>
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html

Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
pretty stupid.

The real problem is not that man has put too much
carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
agriculture production model has destroyed too
much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
world it would improve the quality of those soils
enormously but the quality of those soils would still
be well below their natural levels before farming
destroyed the carbon content of soil. .

https://youtu.be/QfTZ0rnowcc

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#97888

On 6/14/2016 7:53 AM, jim wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>
>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>> June 10, 2016
>>
>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>

> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
> pretty stupid.
>
> The real problem is not that man has put too much
> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
> agriculture production model has destroyed too
> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
> world it would improve the quality of those soils
> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
> be well below their natural levels before farming
> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .


but then all the plants would die as they would not have any life giving 
CO2 to breath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97889

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>
>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>> June 10, 2016
>>
>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
> 
> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
> pretty stupid.
> 
> The real problem is not that man has put too much
> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
> agriculture production model has destroyed too
> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
> world it would improve the quality of those soils
> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
> be well below their natural levels before farming
> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
> 

Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.

Slept through grade school biology I see.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97891

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> >Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>> >>Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>> >>
>>> >>bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>> >>June 10, 2016
>>> >>
>>> >>http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>> >
>> >Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>> >than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>> >pretty stupid.
>> >
>> >The real problem is not that man has put too much
>> >carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>> >agriculture production model has destroyed too
>> >much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>> >carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>> >were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>> >world it would improve the quality of those soils
>> >enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>> >be well below their natural levels before farming
>> >destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>> >
> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.

Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/

The current production model for agriculture is counter-
productive to both the goal of producing crops and livestock
and to the goal of sustaining life. Turning atmospheric
carbon into stone is just adding more of the same stupidity.

watch the video that you snipped and ran away from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97894

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>> >Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>> >>Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>>> >>
>>>> >>bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>>> >>June 10, 2016
>>>> >>
>>>> >>http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>> >
>>> >Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>>> >than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>>> >pretty stupid.
>>> >
>>> >The real problem is not that man has put too much
>>> >carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>>> >agriculture production model has destroyed too
>>> >much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>>> >carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>>> >were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>>> >world it would improve the quality of those soils
>>> >enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>>> >be well below their natural levels before farming
>>> >destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>>> >
>> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.
> 
> Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
> carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
> to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
> soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
> by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
> no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
> http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/
> 

That carbon in the soil is in the form of dead, decaying plants, not CO2.

Which do you think happens after all the tomatoes are picked for the season?

A: The farmer pays someone to pull out the plants and haul them away.

B: The farmer plows the plants back into the soil.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97896

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>>>>>> June 10, 2016
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>>>>> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>>>>> pretty stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real problem is not that man has put too much
>>>>> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>>>>> agriculture production model has destroyed too
>>>>> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>>>>> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>>>>> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>>>>> world it would improve the quality of those soils
>>>>> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>>>>> be well below their natural levels before farming
>>>>> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>>>>>
>>> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.
>>
>> Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
>> carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
>> to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
>> soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
>> by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
>> no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
>> http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/
>>
>
> That carbon in the soil is in the form of dead, decaying plants, not CO2.
>

In healthy soil a lot of it is living organisms

> Which do you think happens after all the tomatoes are picked for the season?
>
> A: The farmer pays someone to pull out the plants and haul them away.
>
> B: The farmer plows the plants back into the soil.
>


Plowing is the most destructive to soil carbon.
The soil loses more carbon into the atmosphere by
doing that then is gained. One third of man's
green house gas emissions comes from that
sort of counter productive agricultural practices.

Instead of snipping and running from it you might
listen to wisdom of a knowledgeable farmer
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97897

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>> June 10, 2016
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>>>>>> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>>>>>> pretty stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is not that man has put too much
>>>>>> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>>>>>> agriculture production model has destroyed too
>>>>>> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>>>>>> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>>>>>> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>>>>>> world it would improve the quality of those soils
>>>>>> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>>>>>> be well below their natural levels before farming
>>>>>> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>>>>>>
>>>> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.
>>>
>>> Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
>>> carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
>>> to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
>>> soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
>>> by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
>>> no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
>>> http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/
>>>
>>
>> That carbon in the soil is in the form of dead, decaying plants, not CO2.
>>
> 
> In healthy soil a lot of it is living organisms
> 
>> Which do you think happens after all the tomatoes are picked for the season?
>>
>> A: The farmer pays someone to pull out the plants and haul them away.
>>
>> B: The farmer plows the plants back into the soil.
>>
> 
> 
> Plowing is the most destructive to soil carbon.
> The soil loses more carbon into the atmosphere by
> doing that then is gained. One third of man's
> green house gas emissions comes from that
> sort of counter productive agricultural practices.
> 
> Instead of snipping and running from it you might
> listen to wisdom of a knowledgeable farmer
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be
 
A bunch of arm waving, hysterical screed fell of contradictions and
irrelevancies.

Things like ADD and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with crops.

Where do you think the organic matter he goes on about comes from?

No farmer pays crop dusters unless they have to.

The US is not North Dakota and the low population is a result of nothing
to do in the state but farm. Lately the population has increased slightly
mostly because of jobs in the oil industry and related fields.

He is fixated on the word diversity.

He never uses the word carbon.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97898

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> June 10, 2016
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>>>>>>> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>>>>>>> pretty stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real problem is not that man has put too much
>>>>>>> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>>>>>>> agriculture production model has destroyed too
>>>>>>> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>>>>>>> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>>>>>>> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>>>>>>> world it would improve the quality of those soils
>>>>>>> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>>>>>>> be well below their natural levels before farming
>>>>>>> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.
>>>>
>>>> Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
>>>> carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
>>>> to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
>>>> soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
>>>> by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
>>>> no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
>>>> http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/
>>>>
>>>
>>> That carbon in the soil is in the form of dead, decaying plants, not CO2.
>>>
>>
>> In healthy soil a lot of it is living organisms
>>
>>> Which do you think happens after all the tomatoes are picked for the season?
>>>
>>> A: The farmer pays someone to pull out the plants and haul them away.
>>>
>>> B: The farmer plows the plants back into the soil.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Plowing is the most destructive to soil carbon.
>> The soil loses more carbon into the atmosphere by
>> doing that then is gained. One third of man's
>> green house gas emissions comes from that
>> sort of counter productive agricultural practices.
>>
>> Instead of snipping and running from it you might
>> listen to wisdom of a knowledgeable farmer
>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be
>
> A bunch of arm waving, hysterical screed fell of contradictions and
> irrelevancies.
>
> Things like ADD and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with crops.
>

Lousy nutrition is irrelevant and paying enormous
medical bills is irrelevant we should all just pretend
these problems don't exist and are not related.

> Where do you think the organic matter he goes on about comes from?
>

More important what do you think happened to 50%-80%
of the organic matter that used to be in the soil?
Where do you think most of that carbon ended up?
The total amount of carbon depleted from the world's
farmland (including land that used to support farming)
is more carbon than exists in the atmosphere.

The point was that continual loss of carbon from
the soil due to the traditional agricultural practices
has decreased productivity of the soil while at the same
time continually increasing input costs. To
put it simply depleting soil carbon is in the
long run excessively stupid.


> No farmer pays crop dusters unless they have to.
>
The point was only the stupid have to and there
are a lot of farmers waking up to that fact.
Depleting carbon from the soil has put farming
in a hole and more chemical applications are only
digging that hole deeper.
http://rodaleinstitute.org/regenerative-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/




> The US is not North Dakota and the low population is a result of nothing
> to do in the state but farm.

Talk about hysterical arm waving. What does the
population of ND have to do with anything?


>
> He never uses the word carbon.


You weren't listening.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97899

<newsgroups trimmed to something less stupid>


In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>>> June 10, 2016
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2016/06/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turning carbon emissions to stone is even dumber
>>>>>>>> than doing nothing at all. And doing nothing is
>>>>>>>> pretty stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real problem is not that man has put too much
>>>>>>>> carbon into the atmosphere. The problem is man's
>>>>>>>> agriculture production model has destroyed too
>>>>>>>> much carbon from the world's soils. If all the
>>>>>>>> carbon that currently exists in the atmosphere
>>>>>>>> were sequestered in the farmland soils of the
>>>>>>>> world it would improve the quality of those soils
>>>>>>>> enormously but the quality of those soils would still
>>>>>>>> be well below their natural levels before farming
>>>>>>>> destroyed the carbon content of soil. .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plants absorb carbon from the air; very little from the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plants are the source of carbon in the soil. Increasing
>>>>> carbon content of the soil increases the ability of plants
>>>>> to remove more carbon from the air and store more in the
>>>>> soil. If this natural process were not being interfered with
>>>>> by counter producrive agricultural practices, there would be
>>>>> no problem with excess carbon in the atmosphere.
>>>>> http://regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/07/soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That carbon in the soil is in the form of dead, decaying plants, not CO2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In healthy soil a lot of it is living organisms
>>>
>>>> Which do you think happens after all the tomatoes are picked for the season?
>>>>
>>>> A: The farmer pays someone to pull out the plants and haul them away.
>>>>
>>>> B: The farmer plows the plants back into the soil.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Plowing is the most destructive to soil carbon.
>>> The soil loses more carbon into the atmosphere by
>>> doing that then is gained. One third of man's
>>> green house gas emissions comes from that
>>> sort of counter productive agricultural practices.
>>>
>>> Instead of snipping and running from it you might
>>> listen to wisdom of a knowledgeable farmer
>>>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> A bunch of arm waving, hysterical screed fell of contradictions and
>> irrelevancies.
>>
>> Things like ADD and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with crops.
>>
> 
> Lousy nutrition is irrelevant and paying enormous
> medical bills is irrelevant we should all just pretend
> these problems don't exist and are not related.

All irrelevant to farming, kook.

>> Where do you think the organic matter he goes on about comes from?
>>
> 
> More important what do you think happened to 50%-80%
> of the organic matter that used to be in the soil?

Some wound up in new crops, some washed away, some blew away to be
deposited somewhere else, kook.

> Where do you think most of that carbon ended up?
> The total amount of carbon depleted from the world's
> farmland (including land that used to support farming)
> is more carbon than exists in the atmosphere.

Where do you think it ended up, kook?

> The point was that continual loss of carbon from
> the soil due to the traditional agricultural practices
> has decreased productivity of the soil while at the same
> time continually increasing input costs. To
> put it simply depleting soil carbon is in the
> long run excessively stupid.

What is with your silly fixation on carbon. kook?

Carbon in soil is only relevant to crops when it is bound in organic
matter, i.e. dead decaying plants, kook.

>> No farmer pays crop dusters unless they have to.
>>
> The point was only the stupid have to and there
> are a lot of farmers waking up to that fact.

Farmers only spray when they have to, kook.

To do otherwise is a blazingly stupid waste of money, kook.

> Depleting carbon from the soil has put farming
> in a hole and more chemical applications are only
> digging that hole deeper.

Carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon.

>> The US is not North Dakota and the low population is a result of nothing
>> to do in the state but farm.
> 
> Talk about hysterical arm waving. What does the
> population of ND have to do with anything?

It was one of your fat heroes, who if so interested in health would lose
about 40 pounds, talking points, kook.

Did you not listen to the video, kook?

>>
>> He never uses the word carbon.
> 
> 
> You weren't listening.

Count the number of times he uses the word carbon by itself, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97900

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >Lousy nutrition is irrelevant and paying enormous
>> >medical bills is irrelevant we should all just pretend
>> >these problems don't exist and are not related.
> All irrelevant to farming, kook.

So all you have is name calling and zero evidence.
That's nice.

>
>>> >>Where do you think the organic matter he goes on about comes from?
>>> >>
>> >
>> >More important what do you think happened to 50%-80%
>> >of the organic matter that used to be in the soil?

> Some wound up in new crops, some washed away, some blew away to be
> deposited somewhere else

You say some ended up in new crops??? Did you not have
high school biology??? Crops don't take carbon
from the soil. Living plants get their carbon from
the atmosphere and exude carbon from their roots.

Plants are always adding nitrogen to the soil.
It takes an exceptional amount of stupidity to
grow plants and end up with less carbon in the soil.
And yet that is exactly what conventional agriculture
has managed to do for many centuries. The
total result is more soil carbon has been
destroyed by incompetent Ag practices than
exists in the atmosphere.

  With conventional tillage practices  most of
the soil carbon depletion is lost as carbon dioxide
floating up into the atmosphere. Mold board Plowing
is particularly destructive to soil carbon.
Here is one study that quantifies the losses that
result from plowing under crop residues:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1009766510274
"The carbon released as CO2 during the 19 days following
the moldboard plow, moldboard plow plus disk harrow, disk
harrow, chisel plow and not tilled treatments would account
for 134%, 70%, 58%, 54% and 27% respectively of the carbon
in the current year's crop residue...
The moldboard plow lost 13.8 times as much CO2 as the soil
area not tilled while different conservation tillage tools
lost only 4.3 times. "




>> >Where do you think most of that carbon ended up?
>> >The total amount of carbon depleted from the world's
>> >farmland (including land that used to support farming)
>> >is more carbon than exists in the atmosphere.

> Where do you think it ended up,
>
Most of the approximately 2000 or so Gigatons of
soil carbon that have been destroyed by centuries
of flawed agricultural practices has been released to
the atmosphere as volatile gasses.


>> >The point was that continual loss of carbon from
>> >the soil due to the traditional agricultural practices
>> >has decreased productivity of the soil while at the same
>> >time continually increasing input costs. To
>> >put it simply depleting soil carbon is in the
>> >long run excessively stupid.

> What is with your silly fixation on carbon.

Ask farmers and they will tell you that carbon rich
black soil is more valuable than carbon depleted soil.


> Carbon in soil is only relevant to crops when it is bound in organic
> matter,

  Carbon in the form of charcoal is actually the
most valuable soil amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97901

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> >Lousy nutrition is irrelevant and paying enormous
>>> >medical bills is irrelevant we should all just pretend
>>> >these problems don't exist and are not related.
>> All irrelevant to farming, kook.
> 
> So all you have is name calling and zero evidence.
> That's nice.
> 
>>
>>>> >>Where do you think the organic matter he goes on about comes from?
>>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >More important what do you think happened to 50%-80%
>>> >of the organic matter that used to be in the soil?
> 
>> Some wound up in new crops, some washed away, some blew away to be
>> deposited somewhere else
> 
> You say some ended up in new crops??? Did you not have
> high school biology??? Crops don't take carbon
> from the soil. Living plants get their carbon from
> the atmosphere and exude carbon from their roots.

No shit, kook?

I told you that a couple of exchanges ago, kook.

However, the subject was oranic matter, not carbon, kook.

> Plants are always adding nitrogen to the soil.

Some plants, not all, kook.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixation#Biological_nitrogen_fixation

> It takes an exceptional amount of stupidity to
> grow plants and end up with less carbon in the soil.

Carbon and nitrogen are two different elements, kook.

<snip silly raving about carbon>

>>> >Where do you think most of that carbon ended up?
>>> >The total amount of carbon depleted from the world's
>>> >farmland (including land that used to support farming)
>>> >is more carbon than exists in the atmosphere.
> 
>> Where do you think it ended up,
>>
> Most of the approximately 2000 or so Gigatons of
> soil carbon that have been destroyed by centuries
> of flawed agricultural practices has been released to
> the atmosphere as volatile gasses.

Only if the material containing the carbon gets burned and turned into
CO or CO2, kook.

Most of the carbon in soil is in the form of cellulose from dead decaying
plants. It does not break down into CO or CO2 due to tilling, kook.

<snip remaining idiocy>



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97902

On 6/15/2016 9:49 AM, jim wrote:
. Living plants get their carbon from
> the atmosphere and exude carbon from their roots.

WRONG.   as soot ?  as graphite ?   as charcoal ?
as CO2 ? as carbon atoms ?

>

>
>
>

>
>  Carbon in the form of charcoal is actually the
> most valuable soil amendment.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

    and charcoal comes from Coal, dummy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97903

Sergio wrote:
> On 6/15/2016 9:49 AM, jim wrote:
> . Living plants get their carbon from
>> the atmosphere and exude carbon from their roots.
>
> WRONG.

First he claims its wrong


   as soot ?  as graphite ?   as charcoal ?
> as CO2 ? as carbon atoms ?
>

And then he reveals  he doesn't have a clue
of its right or wrong.
Does nobody believe in honesty anymore???

Plant roots exude a wide range of carbon
based compounds. Some of them are natural
herbicides and pesticides.

But the most important root exudation for
building soil carbon are carbohydrates that
feed beneficial organisms that in return
deliver nutrients to the roots. Without
those beneficial organisms and the carbon
compounds they build in the soil,  the plants
require much higher inputs of fertilizer and
water and are much more susceptible to disease
and pests. And of course the stupid response
to that problem is to dump enormous amounts
of toxic chemicals on the plants which adds
to the problem of soil carbon depletion by
killing the beneficial organisms.

>>
>>  Carbon in the form of charcoal is actually the
>> most valuable soil amendment.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
>
>     and charcoal comes from Coal,

dummy.

Ah I think you better look that one up.
When you apply the process to coal it is
the product is called "coke"

And don't sign your name "dummy"
dummies will be offended by your ignorance





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97904

On 6/16/2016 10:12 AM, cowbird wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>> On 6/15/2016 9:49 AM, jim wrote:
>> . Living plants get their carbon from
>>> the atmosphere and exude carbon from their roots.
>>
>> WRONG.
>
> First he claims its wrong
>
>
>   as soot ?  as graphite ?   as charcoal ?
>> as CO2 ? as carbon atoms ?
>>
>
> And then he reveals  he doesn't have a clue
> of its right or wrong.
> Does nobody believe in honesty anymore???

honesty not problem, good information is.

>
> Plant roots exude a wide range of carbon
> based compounds. Some of them are natural
> herbicides and pesticides.

name them.

What carbon based substances come out of a living plants roots......

the clock is ticking........

>
> But the most important root exudation for
> building soil carbon are carbohydrates that
> feed beneficial organisms that in return
> deliver nutrients to the roots. Without
> those beneficial organisms and the carbon
> compounds they build in the soil,  the plants
> require much higher inputs of fertilizer and
> water and are much more susceptible to disease
> and pests. And of course the stupid response
> to that problem is to dump enormous amounts
> of toxic chemicals on the plants which adds
> to the problem of soil carbon depletion by
> killing the beneficial organisms.
>
>>>
>>>  Carbon in the form of charcoal is actually the
>>> most valuable soil amendment.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
>>
>>     and charcoal comes from Coal,
>
> dummy.
>
> Ah I think you better look that one up.
> When you apply the process to coal it is
> the product is called "coke"

and you get your charcoal by burning wood ?

why you think they call it char-coal ?
Comes from coal, after you roast the volitates out.

>
> And don't sign your name "dummy"
> dummies will be offended by your ignorance
>

google "activated charcoal",  gummy, fummy, qummy, or pummy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97906

Sergio wrote:

>> Plant roots exude a wide range of carbon
>> based compounds. Some of them are natural
>> herbicides and pesticides.
>
> name them.
>
> What carbon based substances come out of a living plants roots......
>
> the clock is ticking........

  carbohydrates dissolved in water. for instance sugars.
Basically the same stuff the plant is
producing by photosynthesis.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97912

On 6/16/2016 1:28 PM, cowbird wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>
>>> Plant roots exude a wide range of carbon
>>> based compounds. Some of them are natural
>>> herbicides and pesticides.
>>
>> name them.
>>
>> What carbon based substances come out of a living plants roots......
>>
>> the clock is ticking........
>
>  carbohydrates dissolved in water. for instance sugars.
> Basically the same stuff the plant is
> producing by photosynthesis.
>


not much;

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02859887

Conclusions

Although the quantities of organic compounds exuding from roots is not 
large, seldom exceeding 0.4% of the carbon photosynthesized, they do 
exert a very strong influence on the soil microorganisms and may be 
significant in affecting plant nutrient availability. There is evidence 
that exudates from the roots of some plants are toxic to roots of 
neighboring plants and to the germination of some seeds.

Most of our information on root exudates has been obtained from 
solution-grown plants so that there are still some important questions 
to be answered about root exudates from soil-grown plants: (a) How much 
organic material is exuded from roots into soil? (b) How far from roots 
do the compounds diffuse? (c) What concentration gradients exist? (d) 
What effects do soil properties have upon exudation? (e) What are the 
main sites of exudation? The application of C14-labeling techniques 
offers a powerful tool with which to answer these questions. Use of 
radioisotopes to investigate the sites of exudation along roots and the 
role of lateral roots in the exudation process should enable us to 
determine what part of the soil will be most affected by root exudates.

It has now been demonstrated conclusively that application of certain 
compounds to leaves affects the quantity and types of exudates. The use 
of foliar sprays to modify root exudation has important implications in 
the fields of plant nutrition, root hygiene, and control of plant-plant 
interactions. Thus, we have before us an exciting field of study 
involving the combined efforts of plant physiologists, microbiologists, 
and soil scientists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97913

Sergio wrote:
> On 6/16/2016 1:28 PM, cowbird wrote:
>> Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>> Plant roots exude a wide range of carbon
>>>> based compounds. Some of them are natural
>>>> herbicides and pesticides.
>>>
>>> name them.
>>>
>>> What carbon based substances come out of a living plants roots......
>>>
>>> the clock is ticking........
>>
>>  carbohydrates dissolved in water. for instance sugars.
>> Basically the same stuff the plant is
>> producing by photosynthesis.
>>
>
>
> not much;
>
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02859887
>
> Conclusions
>
> Although the quantities of organic compounds exuding from roots is not
> large, seldom exceeding 0.4% of the carbon photosynthesized,

What you have there  is evidence of incompetence, stupidity
  and ignorance and nothing more.
Of course the article is almost 50 years old so you can't
blame them too much for being 50 years behind in their
knowledge of soil science. The farming practices back
then were the real roots of the incompetence (pun intended)

Plants don't exude the valuable carbohydrates from
photosynthesis unless they're getting something
equally valuable in return. Typically with conventional
agricultural practices roots do not exude much
because the organisms that the exudation feed
don't exist in the soil. Plants don't
expend the energy if it is wasted.

The whole purpose of the expanding practice of
no-till combined with cover crops and root diversity
is to maximize humification fed by plant root exudation.
Here is a more modern take on root exudation
http://tinyurl.com/h2dod2s

Notice on page 6 it says:
Rhizodeposition - 20-60% photosynthate released into rhizosphere 
(depending on plant)

So if half the energy captured from the sun
is feeding the organisms that create humus
you can deliver a lot of carbon to the soil.

when you have humus you have carbon in a form that is
stable and can last for decades or even centuries.
Decayed plants are beneficial to soil health but
in that form most of the carbon is oxidized and
ends up back in the atmosphere as cO2 relatively
quickly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97907

Sergio wrote:
>>
>> dummy.
>>
>> Ah I think you better look that one up.
>> When you apply the process to coal it is
>> the product is called "coke"
>
> and you get your charcoal by burning wood ?

You get bio-char by pyrolysis of any organic matter.
  http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97908

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>> dummy.
>>>
>>> Ah I think you better look that one up.
>>> When you apply the process to coal it is
>>> the product is called "coke"
>>
>> and you get your charcoal by burning wood ?
> 
> You get bio-char by pyrolysis of any organic matter.

"bio-char"?

How new age.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97909

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> Sergio wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dummy.
>>>>
>>>> Ah I think you better look that one up.
>>>> When you apply the process to coal it is
>>>> the product is called "coke"
>>>
>>> and you get your charcoal by burning wood ?
>>
>> You get bio-char by pyrolysis of any organic matter.
>
> "bio-char"?
>
> How new age.
>
>

It is astonishing how one person
can be so proud of being ignorant

Bio-char is proven technology for soil improvement
that has existed for centuries.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.environment

csiph-web