Bruce, I will definitely be thinking about this more.
However, the example of modern agriculture and the loss of biomass is an argument for the lack of biodiversity leading to the loss of biomass. Modern agricultural practices support monocultures rather than polycultures. There are more labor (and knowledge) intensive practices, permaculture, that rely on the synergy between many species of organisms to support intensive agriculture. It would be interesting to weigh the biomass content of these systems. Thank you for the dialogue. Josh J. On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM Bru Pearce <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joshua, > > > > I agree that is the conventional wisdom, but I have concluded that it is > just plain wrong! It only holds true where you have a growth medium with > available water and nutrients, reduce these and you reduce the amount of > life. > > > > Take the image in my article 1000 BC to A.D. 1500 and consider what the > A.D. 2000 image would look like. Clearly there is hugely less biomass. > > > > Then take a look at Sev Clarke’s work on ocean fertilisation and consider > that vast areas of the oceans are now nutrient deficient. > http://www.envisionation.co.uk/index.php/sev-clark making a once > available growth medium unviable for life. > > > > Another area of evidence to look at is all work on live carbon in soils it > is quite clear that modern agricultural practices greatly reduce the amount > of biomass and gradually turn soil into dirt, with a colossal loss of > organic carbon. > > > > I hope I have got you thinking? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Bru Pearce > > > > > > [image: envisionation name only] > > > > Salcombe UK > > Web www.envisionation.co.uk > > E-mail [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Skype Name brupearce > > Work +44 20 8144 0431 > > Mobile +44 7740 854713 > > Grenada Mobile +1 473 415 0870 > > > > *From:* Joshua Jacobs [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 23 July 2015 15:27 > *To:* geoengineering > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Biomass > > > > Bruce, > > > > Thank your for your article. I enjoyed reading it. > > > > I definitely agree with you on the need to sequester carbon in the form of > biomass, both living and dead. However, I posit (at times without evidence) > that biodiversity and biomass stocks are intimately related. Over long > stretches of time, the diversity of life expands to fill in niches created > by the presence of other forms of life. Within this increasing complexity > is the opportunity for more carbon to sequestered both up the trophic > pyramid and down the through a myriad of decomposers before it is again > released into the atmosphere. > > > > Again, > > Thank you for your thoughts. > > > > Josh J. > -- 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.
