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

Groups > sci.physics > #584851 > unrolled thread

Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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 jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-15 16:13 -0500
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-15 22:50 +0000
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 09:15 -0500
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 16:14 +0000
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:17 -0500
                            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 20:53 +0000
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 13:59 -0700
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:04 -0500
                    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 jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 17:43 -0500
                                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 23:08 +0000
                                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 19:27 -0500
                                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-17 00:49 +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 "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 02:16 -0700
      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-15 17:20 +0000
        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 07:33 -0500
          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 16:17 +0000
            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:53 -0500
              Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 20:55 +0000
                Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 16:30 -0500
                  Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 22:04 +0000
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 17:51 -0500
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 23:09 +0000
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 18:07 -0500
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 23:23 +0000
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 19:16 -0500
      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:21 -0500
        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 05:10 +0000
          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone cowbird <user@domain.invalid> - 2016-06-16 06:56 -0500
            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 16:23 +0000
              Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 13:53 -0500
                Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 20:58 +0000
                  Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 17:10 -0500
                    Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-16 22:35 +0000
                      Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-16 19:28 -0500
                        Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-17 00:50 +0000
                          Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> - 2016-06-17 08:32 -0500
                            Re: Scientists Turn Carbon Dioxide Emissions into Stone jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-17 16:23 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#585138

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]

#585142

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]

#585157

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]

#585274

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]

#585295

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]

#585163

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]

#585190

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]

#585194

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]

#585201

In sci.physics cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 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

Perhaps you meant "biochar", no hyphen, coined by Peter Read in 2009?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585207

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> 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
>
> Perhaps you meant "biochar", no hyphen, coined by Peter Read in 2009?

This is the original link I posted
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
In that article it references an article
on bio-char from 2006. It seems Peter Read is
pulling your leg.

"The technique of using charcoal to improve the fertility
of soils originated in the Amazon basin at least 2500
years ago. The native Indians of the region would create
charcoal and incorporate it in small plots of land from
1 - 80 hectares in size. Terra Preta, as it is known in
this area of Brazil, remains highly fertile until today,
even with little or no application of fertilizers. And
this is in a region of the world known for its highly
infertile soils."
http://www.biochar.info/biochar.terra-preta.cfml

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

#585213

jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Perhaps you meant "biochar", no hyphen, coined by Peter Read in 2009?
> 
> This is the original link I posted
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
> In that article it references an article
> on bio-char from 2006.

And within that article it appears as "biochar" with a link to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

See footnote 10.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585227

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Perhaps you meant "biochar", no hyphen, coined by Peter Read in 2009?
>>
>> This is the original link I posted
>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
>> In that article it references an article
>> on bio-char from 2006.
>
> And within that article it appears as "biochar" with a link to:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
>
> See footnote 10.

See footnote 43 in the original article
referencing an article on bio-char published
on 2006 and the article says it was first used
over 2000 years ago.

Maybe somebody took credit for
removing the  hyphen in 2009
leave it to one who is small-minded to
cling to a hyphen for dear life

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

#585230

jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you meant "biochar", no hyphen, coined by Peter Read in 2009?
>>>
>>> This is the original link I posted
>>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
>>> In that article it references an article
>>> on bio-char from 2006.
>>
>> And within that article it appears as "biochar" with a link to:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
>>
>> See footnote 10.
> 
> See footnote 43 in the original article

See this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(psychology)


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585220

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:43:41 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
wrote:

>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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel)

(The brackets and the word 'fuel' are part of the URL)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal

>
>>
>> And don't sign your name "dummy"
>> dummies will be offended by your ignorance
>>
>
>google "activated charcoal",  gummy, fummy, qummy, or pummy.

So, what have you found about activated charcoal?
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

#584980

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 5:53:23 AM UTC-7, nor...@googlegroups.com 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.

  Do you even know how photosynthesis works?


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#585014

nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 5:53:23 AM UTC-7, nor...@googlegroups.com 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.
> 
>   Do you even know how photosynthesis works?
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Nope, nor does he know what form carbon is in in plants nor how that
could later become a gas.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585125

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
> Nope, nor does he know what form carbon is in in plants nor how that
> could later become a gas.

That is an precise description of your ignorance.

Lets take your supposition that the only way plant
carbon compounds can be turned into CO2 is burning.
That supposition is absurd. If it were true the
entire production of plant matter would have to
be burned every year to keep the CO2 in the
atmosphere from being depleted by plants.
The reality is that little of it is burned and
most of it is consumed and turned back into CO2
by other critters that consume the carbon compounds
that plants produce.  Left alone nature will
consume all the plant matter that is produced
and flow of CO2 to the atmosphere will equal
the amount that plants remove. You don't need
any above ground herbivores or fire to make
this happen - the flux of CO2 from plants to
atmosphere will

The issue is not whether the soil gives
off CO2 to the atmosphere - it always does unless
the soil is dead and the land is turned into
sterile desert. The issue is at what level of
carbon content do you want that carbon flux
equilibrium to occur. Tillage is one factor
that causes the equilibrium point to
be at low carbon soil levels.

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

#585148

jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>
>> Nope, nor does he know what form carbon is in in plants nor how that
>> could later become a gas.
> 
> Lets take your supposition that the only way plant
> carbon compounds can be turned into CO2 is burning.

Not the only, but the major way.

If all, or even most of, the organic matterial in the soil were converting
to CO2, the soil would have major outgassing, which it doesn't.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585161

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>> >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com  wrote:
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Nope, nor does he know what form carbon is in in plants nor how that
>>> >>could later become a gas.
>> >
>> >Lets take your supposition that the only way plant
>> >carbon compounds can be turned into CO2 is burning.
> Not the only, but the major way.
>
> If all, or even most of, the organic matterial in the soil were converting
> to CO2, the soil would have major outgassing, which it doesn't.


I believe there is no bigger source of CO2
released into the atmosphere than soil respiration

"Here is what Wikipedia says.
"In 2008, the global total of CO2 released from the
soil reached roughly 98 billion tonnes, about 10 times
more carbon than humans are now putting into the
atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuel."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle



To put that in perspective:
I believe land plants pull about 120 billion tonnes
from the air each year.

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

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

#585191

cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
>>> >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com  wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Nope, nor does he know what form carbon is in in plants nor how that
>>>> >>could later become a gas.
>>> >
>>> >Lets take your supposition that the only way plant
>>> >carbon compounds can be turned into CO2 is burning.
>> Not the only, but the major way.
>>
>> If all, or even most of, the organic matterial in the soil were converting
>> to CO2, the soil would have major outgassing, which it doesn't.
> 
> 
> I believe there is no bigger source of CO2
> released into the atmosphere than soil respiration
> 
> "Here is what Wikipedia says.
> "In 2008, the global total of CO2 released from the
> soil reached roughly 98 billion tonnes, about 10 times
> more carbon than humans are now putting into the
> atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuel."
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

So burning fossil fuel isn't a problem.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web