Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #584851 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-14 07:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-06-17 16:23 +0000 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 59 — 6 participants |
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.
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | cowbird <user@domain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njv5st$174a$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #585191 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > 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. Its a problem that could be solved Depletion of carbon in the soil is a far bigger problem that could eventually lead to desertification of farm lands. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adkb3d-hbq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585196 |
cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> 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. > > Its a problem that could be solved If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel be a problem? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njvaia$us8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585204 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Its a problem that could be solved > > If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount > humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from > fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount > humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel > be a problem? > Its a problem only if humans act incompetently Of the rest of humankind is as incompetent ad you are - just about anything becomes a serious problem. As usual you have your facts wrong. And you don't seem to care that you are babbling misinformation. First you told us there were no CO2 emissions from soil now you are making up facts about volcanoes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 23:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q6ob3d-5pq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585210 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Its a problem that could be solved >> >> If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >> humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from >> fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >> humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel >> be a problem? >> > > > Its a problem only if humans act incompetently How about if humans burn fossil fuel competently? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 18:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njvbfd$1ph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585204 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Its a problem that could be solved > > If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount > humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from > fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount > humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel > be a problem? > Its a problem only if humans act incompetently Of the rest of humankind is as incompetent ad you are - just about anything becomes a serious problem. As usual you have your facts wrong. And you don't seem to care that you are babbling misinformation. First you told us there were no CO2 emissions from soil now you are making up facts about volcanoes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 23:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40pb3d-msq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585211 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Its a problem that could be solved >> >> If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >> humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from >> fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >> humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel >> be a problem? >> > > Its a problem only if humans act incompetently How about if humans burn fossil fuel competently? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 19:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njvfgo$brg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585217 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>Its a problem that could be solved >>> >> >>> >>If soil emmisions of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >>> >>humans generate by burning fossil fuel, and the emissions of CO2 from >>> >>fires and volcanoes are an order of magnitude greater than the amount >>> >>humans generate by burning fossil fuel, how can humans burning fossil fuel >>> >>be a problem? >>> >> >> > >> >Its a problem only if humans act incompetently > How about if humans burn fossil fuel competently? > Increased competence would result in burning less
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cowbird <user@domain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 20:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njsuug$8nd$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #584980 |
nuny@bid.nes 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? http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ All agricultural production originates from the process of plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving climate change today has come from land management practices that cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation practices exceed carbon losses. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 05:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gvo93d-f5k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585074 |
cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > nuny@bid.nes 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? > > http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ > All agricultural production originates from the process of > plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon > dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the > soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. > > Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling > the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As > much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving > climate change today has come from land management practices that > cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. > > On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to > centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon > sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices > that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from > the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil > organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains > resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation > practices exceed carbon losses. What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cowbird <user@domain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 06:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nju459$10pf$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #585098 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> nuny@bid.nes 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? >> >> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >> All agricultural production originates from the process of >> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >> >> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >> climate change today has come from land management practices that >> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >> >> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >> practices exceed carbon losses. > > What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? > In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - about 10 million dollars --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hc0b3d-4ao.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585119 |
cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>> nuny@bid.nes 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? >>> >>> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >>> All agricultural production originates from the process of >>> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >>> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >>> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >>> >>> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >>> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >>> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >>> climate change today has come from land management practices that >>> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >>> >>> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >>> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >>> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >>> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >>> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >>> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >>> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >>> practices exceed carbon losses. >> >> What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? >> > > In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre > more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - > about 10 million dollars > Humus, which is what is responsible for black dirt, is far more than carbon. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njuska$8o1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585149 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>> nuny@bid.nes 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? >>>> >>>> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >>>> All agricultural production originates from the process of >>>> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >>>> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >>>> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >>>> >>>> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >>>> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >>>> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >>>> climate change today has come from land management practices that >>>> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >>>> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >>>> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >>>> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >>>> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >>>> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >>>> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >>>> practices exceed carbon losses. >>> >>> What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? >>> >> >> In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre >> more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - >> about 10 million dollars >> > > Humus, which is what is responsible for black dirt, is far more than carbon. > Without carbon it is nothing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aggb3d-qvp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585162 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>> nuny@bid.nes 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? >>>>> >>>>> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >>>>> All agricultural production originates from the process of >>>>> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >>>>> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >>>>> >>>>> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >>>>> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >>>>> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >>>>> climate change today has come from land management practices that >>>>> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >>>>> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >>>>> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >>>>> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >>>>> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >>>>> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >>>>> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >>>>> practices exceed carbon losses. >>>> >>>> What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? >>>> >>> >>> In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre >>> more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - >>> about 10 million dollars >>> >> >> Humus, which is what is responsible for black dirt, is far more than carbon. >> > > Without carbon it is nothing And oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen and phosphorous and... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njv856$nka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585192 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> nuny@bid.nes 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >>>>>> All agricultural production originates from the process of >>>>>> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >>>>>> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >>>>>> >>>>>> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >>>>>> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >>>>>> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >>>>>> climate change today has come from land management practices that >>>>>> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >>>>>> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >>>>>> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >>>>>> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >>>>>> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >>>>>> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >>>>>> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >>>>>> practices exceed carbon losses. >>>>> >>>>> What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre >>>> more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - >>>> about 10 million dollars >>>> >>> >>> Humus, which is what is responsible for black dirt, is far more than carbon. >>> >> >> Without carbon it is nothing > > And oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen and phosphorous and... > Humus is About 60% carbon. And it is not created by plowing under tomato plants. That results in loss of humus. Humus is high molecular weight polymers that are created by organisms that work in conjunction with plant roots. The purpose of the techniques shown in the Gabe Brown video are to keep the humus creating organisms alive and healthy. Many conventional ag practices destroy these organisms and thus end up depleting soil carbon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc&feature=youtu.be
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p6mb3d-4iq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585203 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> cowbird <user@domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> nuny@bid.nes 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/carbon-farming/ >>>>>>> All agricultural production originates from the process of >>>>>>> plant photosynthesis, which uses sunshine to combine carbon >>>>>>> dioxide (CO2) from the air with water and minerals from the >>>>>>> soil to produce plant material, both above and below ground. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Common agricultural practices, including driving a tractor, tilling >>>>>>> the soil and grazing, result in the return of CO2 to the air. As >>>>>>> much as one third of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere driving >>>>>>> climate change today has come from land management practices that >>>>>>> cause loss of carbon, as CO2, from our working lands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, carbon can be stored long-term (decades to >>>>>>> centuries or more) in soils in a process called "soil carbon >>>>>>> sequestration." Carbon Farming involves implementing practices >>>>>>> that are known to improve the rate at which CO2 is removed from >>>>>>> the atmosphere and converted to plant material and/or soil >>>>>>> organic matter. Carbon Farming is successful when carbon gains >>>>>>> resulting from enhanced land management and/or conservation >>>>>>> practices exceed carbon losses. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's that carbon worth per acre on the open market? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In Iowa carbon rich black dirt goes for about $10000/acre >>>>> more than carbon poor tan dirt. So for a 1000 acre farm - >>>>> about 10 million dollars >>>>> >>>> >>>> Humus, which is what is responsible for black dirt, is far more than carbon. >>>> >>> >>> Without carbon it is nothing >> >> And oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen and phosphorous and... >> > > Humus is About 60% carbon. And it is not created by > plowing under tomato plants. That results in loss of > humus. Are the tractor drivers stealing it? Humus comes from decayed plant matter; it doesn't bubble up from within the Earth. Plowing non-harvested plant matter back into the ground provides more stuff to form humus, though you are always losing some stuff to the parts of the plants that are harvasted and taken away. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-16 19:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <njvg6m$e35$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585209 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Humus comes from decayed plant matter; No actually that's wrong Mostly the feedstock for humus is carbohydrates exuded from plant roots. That is CO2 the feedstock for the carbohydrates and the carbohydrates feed the organisms that create humus. No decayed plant matter needs to be involved. Decayed plant natter is not humus. Humus is stable and will last for decades while the carbon in decayed plants quickly decomposes back to CO2 > > Plowing non-harvested plant matter back into the ground provides more > stuff to form humus, If you are stupid you believe that and then end up with less humus than you started with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u2ub3d-6cr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585228 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Humus comes from decayed plant matter; > > No actually that's wrong Not according to the article on wiki. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nk0u5r$fse$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #585231 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Humus comes from decayed plant matter; >> >> No actually that's wrong > > Not according to the article on wiki. I didn't say humus can't be made from dead plants. Anything that can be decomposed into suitable feedstock for the organisms can feed the humification process but that is not how the many Gigatons of of humus were created that have been destroyed by doing stupid things like plowing under tomato plants. Humus mostly isn't made from dead plants. That's not how most of the existing humus was created by nature. And if humus is going to be restored it won't come from plowing under dead plants because that doesn't work. To find out what does work you have to look at the difference between farmers that are increasing their soil carbon and farmers that are doing the opposite. https://youtu.be/mUes6EPadZg?list=PLWlltQ6Oy0zqoB25RkSUkCx9XSTemrMwm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lpkd3d-0t3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #585277 |
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m@mwt.net"> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Humus comes from decayed plant matter; >>> >>> No actually that's wrong >> >> Not according to the article on wiki. > > I didn't say humus can't be made from dead > plants. Good because that would be stupic. <snip> > Humus mostly isn't made from dead plants. Dead plants, dead animals and animal shit are the only choices. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web