It doesn’t need to be one-time, if you add fine olivine grains to the soil. Helps to give poor acid soils a healthy pH, and provides magnesium at the same time (most important metal in chlorophyll), Olaf Schuiling
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David desJardins Sent: donderdag 12 februari 2015 17:25 To: Fred Zimmerman; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] A closer look at the flawed studies behind policies used to promote 'low-carbon' biofuels | University of Michigan News Certainly there's no question that we could have a big one-time (but large even though it's one-time) removal of carbon from the atmosphere if we convert large land areas from agriculture to be optimized carbon sinks. But if you want to use currently-agricultural land to remove carbon from the atmosphere, then it's probably even better to grow trees and cut those trees down and bury them and do that over and over again every 10-20 years, than to convert the land to a carbon-dense biome? That gives you ongoing carbon removal, not just a one-time effect. On Thu Feb 12 2015 at 8:16:40 AM Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A couple of weeks ago Greg Rau shared a Jan. 30 article from Science that discussed the difficulty of accurately characterizing biomes (land use/land cover maps are not perfect) and the pitfalls in targeting particular biomes for interventions. [Image removed by sender.]ᐧ On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Aines, Roger D. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: That seems like the important argument, John. Are there any simple metrics we can use to think about the best way to optimize soil carbon in a particular biome? And, are there realistic totals that we could say those optimized situations represent in the US, or even the world? -- Roger D. Aines Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader E Programs, Global Security Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mail Stop L-090 Livermore, CA 94551 925 423-7184<tel:925%20423-7184> 925 998-2915<tel:925%20998-2915> cell Administrative Contact Michelle Herawi [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 925 423-4964<tel:925%20423-4964> On 2/12/15 7:49 AM, "John Harte" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >Remember: forests = trees + soil + microbes +Š Much of the carbon is in >the soil and converting meadow/grasslands/prairie to some kinds of forest >or woody shrubland can result in net carbon loss even as the woody plants >grow. World wide 4 or 5 times as much carbon in soil as in all living >biomass. > > >John Harte >Professor of Ecosystem Sciences >ERG/ESPM >310 Barrows Hall >University of California >Berkeley, CA 94720 USA >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > >On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:37 AM, "Robert H. Socolow" ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >wrote: > >> Many second-growth forests are still increasing their carbon stocks. I >>think that's the argument being made. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 7:38 PM, David desJardins >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>wrote: >>> >>> forest has to be carbon-balanced, it isn't removing net carbon from >>>the atmosphere but essentially all of the carbon taken up by plants >>>eventually gets returned to the atmosphere when those >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>an email to >>[email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"geoengineering" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to >[email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. >To post to this group, send email to >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
