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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#584851 — 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]

#584878

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]

#584889

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]

#584919

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]

#584942

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]

#584946

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]

#584950

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]

#584952

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]

#584956

<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]

#584999

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]

#585013

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]

#585035

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:


>>
>>> 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

No that's wrong. Normal biological activity converts
organic material into CO2. Tillage greatly accelerates
the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.


> 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

Tilling does in fact release CO2, CO and CH4.
But you know that, which is why you snipped
  the scientific study that quantifies how much
is released. Tilling under crop residue with a
conventional moldboard plow releases more carbon
into the air than is contained in the crop
residue.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1009766510274

The USDA reports that more than 1/3 of
US crop land is now planted with no tillage.

"A reduction in how often or how intensively the soil is
tilled allows the soil to retain more organic matter,
which stores or “sequesters” carbon, which then is not
available to contribute to global warming as carbon
dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. The adoption of less
intensive tillage practices on a large number of farms
could sequester substantial amounts of carbon"
www.ers.usda.gov/media/135329/eib70.pdf

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

#585056

In sci.physics jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:

Yet more silly screed.

Idiotic list of newsgroups trimmed.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585135

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 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,

>> >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,
> I told you that a couple of exchanges ago

You were showing stupidity at your first mention.
It shows a total ignorance of why soil carbon is
important.
And then you doubled down on your ignorance when you
contradicted yourself by saying that soil carbon
that was lost ended up in new crops.

Soil carbon is important because higher carbon
soils enable plants to extract more carbon
from the air with much less chemical inputs.
That means higher production at lower costs.
That is why carbon rich soils are more valuable
than carbon poor soils.

The fact is most of the carbon in soils gets there
by plant root exudation of carbohydrates.  Those
carbohydrates feed organism that build soil carbon
and in exchange deliver nutrients to the roots that
would otherwise not be available to the plant. This
allows the plant to produce more carbohydrates.

Plowing tomato vines under at the end of the season
as you suggested actually reduces soil carbon. It
is a stupid practice based on ignorance.

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

#585146

jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 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,
> 
>>> >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,
>> I told you that a couple of exchanges ago
> 
> You were showing stupidity at your first mention.

You were showing fixation and ignorance with your first post.

<snip screed>

BTW, your fat hero in the video with the "new" idea of crop rotation is
about 8,000 years late to the party and it is even mentioned in the
Bible: Leviticus 25.

Three-field crop rotation was the standard at the time of Charlemagne.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585156

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> You were showing fixation and ignorance with your first post.
>
>> Soil carbon is important because higher carbon
>> soils enable plants to extract more carbon
>> from the air with much less chemical inputs.
>> That means higher production at lower costs.
>> That is why carbon rich soils are more valuable
>> than carbon poor soils.




> BTW, your fat hero in the video with the "new" idea of crop rotation

He wasn't talking about crop rotation. he was talking
about growing different crops in the same ground in
the same season. The purpose was to provide year
round soil cover and maximum amount of living roots in
the ground during all of the growing season.

Any one of the things he recommends taken in isolation
does very little to increase soil carbon content. The
reason he has been able to increase the carbon in
his soil by 300% while his neighbors are continually
losing more more soil carbon is due to the combined
effect of  all the things he is doing.

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

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

#585189

cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> You were showing fixation and ignorance with your first post.
>>
>>> Soil carbon is important because higher carbon
>>> soils enable plants to extract more carbon
>>> from the air with much less chemical inputs.
>>> That means higher production at lower costs.
>>> That is why carbon rich soils are more valuable
>>> than carbon poor soils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> BTW, your fat hero in the video with the "new" idea of crop rotation
> 
> He wasn't talking about crop rotation. he was talking
> about growing different crops in the same ground in
> the same season.

AKA crop rotatation; there are numerous ways to do it.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#585031

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 7:49:20 AM UTC-7, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:
ned to 50%-80%

> Living plants get their carbon from the atmosphere

  Correct.

> and exude carbon from their roots.

  Bullshit.


  Mark L. Fergerson

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

#585073

nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 7:49:20 AM UTC-7, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> ned to 50%-80%
>
>> Living plants get their carbon from the atmosphere
>
>    Correct.
>
>> and exude carbon from their roots.
>
>    Bullshit.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_respiration#Rhizosphere_respiration
Roots continuously release substances, or exudates, into the soil. These 
exudates include sugars, amino acids, vitamins, long chain 
carbohydrates, enzymes and lysates which are released when roots cells 
break. The amount of carbon lost as exudates varies considerably between 
plant species. It has been demonstrated that up to 20% of carbon 
acquired by photosynthesis is released into the soil as root exudates.


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

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

#585136

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]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web