Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems > Page 10

Page 10 of 21

RE: Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture. Whendee Silver and Kate Scow.28-04-2022 22:43
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture. Whendee Silver and Kate Scow. This thread isn't ALL about condoms. Whendee Silver, of UC Berkeley, and Kate Scow of UC Davis have done groundbreaking work into breaking ground for more soil carbon storage. Back in the day they said it took a thousand years to build an inch of topsoil. Whendee and Kate have been showing that soil can be built up with added organic matter MUCH more rapidly than that. Historically, throughout the world, many agricultural practices already did it. Many variations of the "plaggen epipedon". An ANTHROPOGENIC top soil. Farmers collected high carbon:nitrogen ratio organic matter to use as bedding for livestock. Wheat straw, pine needles, crop residues, deciduous leaf fall.. The livestock enriched the high C:N material with nitrogen and other nutrients. The chemical nature of the bedding immobilized those nutrients into stable slow release form. When the bedding was changed out, the old stuff was put out into the field as nutrient-rich compost. Over time it built up a HIGHLY productive, organic-carbon-rich topsoil, unlike anything nature can make without human intervention. People who care about climate change will want to ask about the work being done by Whendee Silver and Kate Scow. People who hope that practical and inexpensive solutions exist will be happy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: A Gretadom - how cool - does it come in any flavors? I believe there is quite an assortment.
28-04-2022 23:38
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote: IBdaMann wrote: A Gretadom - how cool - does it come in any flavors? I believe there is quite an assortment. Stop yer cracking me up more than normal Edited on 28-04-2022 23:44
29-04-2022 04:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	IBdaMann wrote: GretaGroupie wrote:A Gretadom - how cool - does it come in any flavors? I believe there is quite an assortment. Attached image:
RE: Poor Greta G is Gonna be SO BORED with the Party29-04-2022 22:20
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Poor Greta G is Gonna be SO BORED with the Party. The attempt to discuss science was just BORING, thought Greta G. Don't let this happen to your party. Don't let this happen to your thread. Bring in some sex talk. REAL RAUNCHY stuff. She's the life of the party now! But the big boys started talking about natural selection and genetic mutation and.. BORING. Yawn... This party SUCKS now. It's supposed to be about how SHE sucks the wink wink tee hee and eff it if you can't take a joke. Cause Greta G isn't a BULLY. She just likes to tease real hard. Poor Greta G is Gonna be SO BORED with the Party. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Never used a condom here, but then I am married. You on the other hand do not need condoms because you never have sex. What about Greta? Does she use condoms? Does she use Gretylactics?
RE: The politics of peasant farming. Plan Sierra.30-04-2022 01:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	The politics of peasant farming. Plan Sierra. In the late 1970s, Plan Sierra was established as an integrated rural development project in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic. The brainchild of a slightly Marxist agricultural economic professor at UC Berkeley. Technically, an NGO, it had heavy buy in and support from the Dominican government. It was phenomenally successful. Rural clinics and schools were built in many villages that didn't have them before. Reforestation prevented the big hydroelectric reservoirs from silting up. Clean river flow was restored year round where deforestation had caused it to dry up part of the year, and then have muddy floods when it rained. Agricultural cooperatives were established to assist peasant farmers. They were phenomenally successful. Traditionally, farmers had to pay profiteers to process their coffee, for example. No farmer could afford their own coffee depulper. But the cooperative could afford one, and they could all share it, and charge themselves a fair price for the service. Same with purchase of many other tools needed for farming. And seeds. And fertilizers. And transport vehicles. etc. etc. Given seed money, the cooperative of farmers could own their own stuff, and not get gouged for the products or services. And have a better chance to name their own price for sales or services. The Berkeley ag economist who thought of it was only SLIGHTLY Marxist. He knew that there was no good reason to try to collectivize land or labor. It had led to massive starvation when it was tried before in the Soviet Union and China. But he didn't realize it would be the same problem for fish ponds. Aquaculture was part of the program, and every farm collective built at least one fish pond, for tilapia mostly. They all failed, at first. Everyone was going to get an equal cut of the fish, no matter how much or little they contributed to the fish farming effort. Soon enough, entrepeneurs started making secret deals to work the ponds. Wink wink from the collective. Then the aquaculture program also became a phenomenal success. It's almost comical to see propaganda the film footage of the land collectivization efforts in the Communist countries that did it. A hundred peasants, all dressed in their Sunday-best clothes, standing shoulder to shoulder to hoe the newly collectivized farmland. Millions of them later starved to death as a result.
RE: A Land Title for Slash-and-Burn Squatters.30-04-2022 02:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	A Land Title for Slash-and-Burn Squatters. The world's poorest people do not live in urban slums. They are subsistence farmers who own no land. It is a most difficult way to survive. Slash-and-burn farmers have little incentive to make improvements to the land for soil erosion control. If they do, the landowner will discover it, thank them for the favor, and kick them off so he can pay his own people to farm it. He's going to find out soon enough that they cleared it, anyway. He will kick them off so he can bring in cattle to graze it. So, the slash-and-burn squatters just get what they can get while they can get it. What happens if you offer them a land title? In exchange for farming it in the way they would have preferred to in any case. They take much better care of the land, get better yields, and don't have to keep packing up their families to move on to slash and burn more forest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: The politics of peasant farming. Plan Sierra. In the late 1970s, Plan Sierra was established as an integrated rural development project in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic. The brainchild of a slightly Marxist agricultural economic professor at UC Berkeley. Technically, an NGO, it had heavy buy in and support from the Dominican government. It was phenomenally successful. Rural clinics and schools were built in many villages that didn't have them before. Reforestation prevented the big hydroelectric reservoirs from silting up. Clean river flow was restored year round where deforestation had caused it to dry up part of the year, and then have muddy floods when it rained. Agricultural cooperatives were established to assist peasant farmers. They were phenomenally successful. Traditionally, farmers had to pay profiteers to process their coffee, for example. No farmer could afford their own coffee depulper. But the cooperative could afford one, and they could all share it, and charge themselves a fair price for the service. Same with purchase of many other tools needed for farming. And seeds. And fertilizers. And transport vehicles. etc. etc. Given seed money, the cooperative of farmers could own their own stuff, and not get gouged for the products or services. And have a better chance to name their own price for sales or services. The Berkeley ag economist who thought of it was only SLIGHTLY Marxist. He knew that there was no good reason to try to collectivize land or labor. It had led to massive starvation when it was tried before in the Soviet Union and China. But he didn't realize it would be the same problem for fish ponds. Aquaculture was part of the program, and every farm collective built at least one fish pond, for tilapia mostly. They all failed, at first. Everyone was going to get an equal cut of the fish, no matter how much or little they contributed to the fish farming effort. Soon enough, entrepeneurs started making secret deals to work the ponds. Wink wink from the collective. Then the aquaculture program also became a phenomenal success. It's almost comical to see propaganda the film footage of the land collectivization efforts in the Communist countries that did it. A hundred peasants, all dressed in their Sunday-best clothes, standing shoulder to shoulder to hoe the newly collectivized farmland. Millions of them later starved to death as a result.
30-04-2022 03:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	squeal over wrote:The politics of peasant farming. Plan Sierra. It's the same Marxist appeal to a large group of poor people to voluntarily become some oligarchy's slave labor force. Tell me, what's sticks out as odd about this particular ecological/ environmental problem: 1. 43% of the 115,000 inhabitants live below the critical poverty line 2. 70% were considered "extremely poor" It sure sounds like a Climate problem to me. So what is this solution called Plan Sierra? The Official Answer: A group of academics, in conjunction Catholic Church and private sector leaders, reconstituting the social order of La Sierra to more closely align its function with the needs of the country. It sure sounds like Climate Justice to me. Please notice that the academics brought in Catholic Church leaders in order to use the religion of the people to more easily manipulate them. "The Bible says that I can be happy with the little I have." Awesome. squeal over wrote:In the late 1970s, Plan Sierra was established as an integrated rural development project in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic. The brainchild of a slightly Marxist agricultural economic professor at UC Berkeley. No question. squeal over wrote:It was phenomenally successful. In what way? "Plan Sierra" is like Climate Change in the sense that it is totally undefined, completely unfalsifiable and no claim that you make can possibly be verified. Was Plan Sierra "successful" because it successfully conned the impoverished of the region out of their labor and other valuable resources? Otherwise, there are no remaining vestiges of Plan Sierra; the cabal came in, set up shop and still operates as a very profitable private tyranny. squeal over wrote:Rural clinics and schools were built in many villages that didn't have them before. That's what villages do ... entirely on their own. squeal over wrote:Agricultural cooperatives were established to assist peasant farmers. ... to ultimately own them lock, stock and barrel. squeal over wrote:They were phenomenally successful. Again, in what way? What could I examine today were I there to arrive at the conclusion of "success" for Plan Sierra? squeal over wrote:Traditionally, farmers had to pay profiteers to process their coffee, for example. So one thing you can add to your list of "successes" for Plan Sierra was the elimination of the availability of processors for the farmers' coffee. The cabal wanted the monopoly. Previously, a farmer could hire a processor to process the coffee so that the farmer could then sell the more valuable product at an increased profit. Plan Sierra eliminated the local processors so the peasant farmers would have to pay the cabal if they wanted their coffee processed. Otherwise they would have to sell their unprocessed coffee to the Plan Sierra cabal for pennies, and the cabal would process the coffee and sell it for a huge profit. They would take it all. squeal over wrote:No farmer could afford their own coffee depulper. ... so all Plan Sierra had to do was to eliminate the last remaining ability of the farmers to process their coffee and the oppression of the peasant farmers would be complete. ... and as you mentioned, they were phenomenally successful. squeal over wrote: But the cooperative could afford one, and they could all share it, and charge themselves a fair price for the service. The cabal owned the processor, not the peasant farmers. The peasant farmers had to pay the cabal if they wanted their coffee processed, now that the community processors had been put out of business and effectively prevented from feeding their families. The only other option was to sell the unprocessed coffee to the cabal for pennies and then buy back the processed coffee at a huge markup. Obviously that's not workable. squeal over wrote:Same with purchase of many other tools needed for farming. And seeds. And fertilizers. And transport vehicles. etc. etc. The cabal put the squeeze on all the farmers across the board in all areas. The cabal owned them. They called this arrangement a "private public alliance." You have to love the sense of humor. squeal over wrote:Given seed money, the cooperative of farmers could own their own stuff, and not get gouged for the products or services. The cabal told the peasant farmers that because the cabal owned everything that they, the peasant farmers, therefore owned everything ... and they did their best to keep from laughing out loud. When the cabal totally gouged the peasant farmers, the cabal assured them that this way they would never be gouged by anyone ... and they did their best to keep from laughing out loud. squeal over wrote: And have a better chance to name their own price for sales or services. ... except the cabal had all the peasant farmers lumped together and would buy unprocessed goods for pennies from the cheapest seller. All peasant farmers had to compete with each other to further reduce their prices lest they be the farmers that don't sell anything and make no money. squeal over wrote:The Berkeley ag economist who thought of it was only SLIGHTLY Marxist. He had every reason to try to collectivize land and labor. It had led to massive starvation ... of the farmers ... when it was tried before in the Soviet Union and China and Cambodia ... but the oligarchy/cabal in charge never suffered at all. ... so he left Berkeley for the Dominican Republic and had himself a ball. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-05-2022 01:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	sealover wrote: The politics of peasant farming. Plan Sierra. In the late 1970s, Plan Sierra was established as an integrated rural development project in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic. [quote]sealover wrote: The brainchild of a slightly Marxist agricultural economic professor at UC Berkeley. Technically, an NGO, it had heavy buy in and support from the Dominican government. It was phenomenally successful. Tyranny being successful...no thanks. sealover wrote: Rural clinics and schools were built in many villages that didn't have them before. Run by government doctors that didn't give a shit about their patients, and schools with teachers spewing the government propaganda and little else. sealover wrote: Reforestation prevented the big hydroelectric reservoirs from silting up. They don't silt up. sealover wrote: Clean river flow was restored year round where deforestation had caused it to dry up part of the year, and then have muddy floods when it rained. What reforestation? sealover wrote: Agricultural cooperatives were established to assist peasant farmers. Farmers can do that themselves. sealover wrote: They were phenomenally successful. Tyranny successful...no thanks. sealover wrote: Traditionally, farmers had to pay profiteers to process their coffee, for example. I guess you don't know how coffee is made. sealover wrote: No farmer could afford their own coffee depulper. You don't buy them. You build them. sealover wrote: But the cooperative could afford one, and they could all share it, and charge themselves a fair price for the service. Any of them could afford it. sealover wrote: Same with purchase of many other tools needed for farming. And seeds. And fertilizers. And transport vehicles. etc. etc. Farmers do that themselves. sealover wrote: Given seed money, the cooperative of farmers could own their own stuff, and not get gouged for the products or services. And have a better chance to name their own price for sales or services. At the price of having everything the create taken from them. sealover wrote: The Berkeley ag economist who thought of it was only SLIGHTLY Marxist. No such thing. sealover wrote: He knew that there was no good reason to try to collectivize land or labor. It had led to massive starvation when it was tried before in the Soviet Union and China. But he didn't realize it would be the same problem for fish ponds. Aquaculture was part of the program, and every farm collective built at least one fish pond, for tilapia mostly. They all failed, at first. Everyone was going to get an equal cut of the fish, no matter how much or little they contributed to the fish farming effort. Soon enough, entrepeneurs started making secret deals to work the ponds. Wink wink from the collective. Then the aquaculture program also became a phenomenal success. It's almost comical to see propaganda the film footage of the land collectivization efforts in the Communist countries that did it. A hundred peasants, all dressed in their Sunday-best clothes, standing shoulder to shoulder to hoe the newly collectivized farmland. Millions of them later starved to death as a result. The result of theft of wealth and tyranny. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Women in agroforestry goes way back in time.01-05-2022 07:49
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Women in agroforestry goes way back in time. Men, as in males, have being practicing field crop agriculture for at least ten or twelve thousand years. Women were practicing agroforestry in rain forests long before that. Given the choice of any territory to conquer, rain forests were some of the best. If you could defend enough area for your tribe to share maybe five or ten square kilometers per person, you could enjoy abundance. Men only had to work a few hours a day, on average. Put in long overtime hours on expeditions, but plenty of R and R when they get back to the settlement. Women didn't leave the settlement, at least not very far. They figured out how to plant small gardens in the small openings under the forest canopy they created. They figured out how to select for more of the fruit trees or other plants around that provided their needs. Over time, they changed the composition of the local forest plant community. To this day, one can walk into a traditional agroforestry cropping system and be unaware that it is not a natural forest. Then someone points out that every single plant of every size you see is one that has been deliberately cultivated for its value to the farmers. To this day, one can visit a rain forest tribe and find that only the women know how to take care of the plants. Women in agroforestry goes way back in time.
01-05-2022 08:37
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	sealover wrote: Women in agroforestry goes way back in time. Men, as in males, have being practicing field crop agriculture for at least ten or twelve thousand years. Women were practicing agroforestry in rain forests long before that. Given the choice of any territory to conquer, rain forests were some of the best. If you could defend enough area for your tribe to share maybe five or ten square kilometers per person, you could enjoy abundance. Men only had to work a few hours a day, on average. Put in long overtime hours on expeditions, but plenty of R and R when they get back to the settlement. Women didn't leave the settlement, at least not very far. They figured out how to plant small gardens in the small openings under the forest canopy they created. They figured out how to select for more of the fruit trees or other plants around that provided their needs. Over time, they changed the composition of the local forest plant community. To this day, one can walk into a traditional agroforestry cropping system and be unaware that it is not a natural forest. Then someone points out that every single plant of every size you see is one that has been deliberately cultivated for its value to the farmers. To this day, one can visit a rain forest tribe and find that only the women know how to take care of the plants. Women in agroforestry goes way back in time. You're only showing a distinction in what tribes allow for. You're almost making a case for why men today are manimals while women are... Even in ancient Greece women were servants of the Gods while men waged war. And now women are goddesses that men desire and men still wage war. I have no understanding why you think this matters. Attached image:
RE: Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine?02-05-2022 01:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine? Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi. Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly. Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not. The soil and climate were right for it. Why was it growing so poorly (at first). Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi. After a disastrous start for the pine plantations and some research to figure out what went wrong... They brought over some California soil that contained the fungi. After inoculation with the fungal partners, the pine plantations thrived. Why is coca restricted to the Andes? Couldn't it grow in the Himalayas or some other high mountain range with similar soil and climate? I'm sure that many have tried and failed. Good thing they don't know fungus. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming. Well done! You picked up on the fact that seal over is just cutting and pasting. When he discovers that he posted something erroneous, he follows up with a post to the effect of: "Ooops, my bad, I made a 37-word typo. Instead of my fingers hitting the keys for 'sunlight creates ozone per the Chapman Cycle', my fingers slipped and hit the keys for 'CFCs bled the ozone for twelve years' It's a good thing I noticed! My error is not citable." You might also have noticed that there is no easy way to verify independently seal over's claim that Rush Limbaugh said what is being claimed. Seal over has not posted any sort of link to assist in that regard.
02-05-2022 02:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	squeal over wrote:Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi. Which "scientists"? I know scientists who don't find mycorrhizal fungi important. squeal over wrote:Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly. Scientists don't care. squeal over wrote:Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not. Foresters are idiots. Look what happened to California when foresters were put in charge. squeal over wrote:The soil and climate were right for it. Nope. They were all wrong. Foresters always get it wrong. squeal over wrote: Why was it growing so poorly (at first). Foresters. It's always their fault. squeal over wrote:Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi. You just had to bring up California. Enough said. squeal over wrote:Why is coca restricted to the Andes? Purely political reasons.
02-05-2022 05:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	...deleted long boring pointless story squeal over wrote: They all failed (because)...Everyone was going to get an equal cut of the fish, no matter how much or little they contributed to the fish farming effort... This, right here, is the unsustainable bullshit the democrats have been selling and it's bringing our country to it's knees. Plenty of stories just like this and ZERO end well. General Bradford tried that same BS with a community store house. Damn near wiped out the pilgrims. When each man was responsible for his own ass and family, things turned around in drastic fashion. Bountiful harvest and the first Thanksgiving. Wake up people! If you didn't earn it you probably don't deserve it! That includes you and your lousy "education" there gamma boy. Edited on 02-05-2022 05:46
02-05-2022 07:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	GasGuzzler wrote:That includes you and your lousy "education" there gamma boy. Attached image:
02-05-2022 08:14
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	[quote]sealover wrote: Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine? Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi. Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly. Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not. The soil and climate were right for it. Why was it growing so poorly (at first). Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi. After a disastrous start for the pine plantations and some research to figure out what went wrong... They brought over some California soil that contained the fungi. After inoculation with the fungal partners, the pine plantations thrived. Why is coca restricted to the Andes? Couldn't it grow in the Himalayas or some other high mountain range with similar soil and climate? I'm sure that many have tried and failed. We grow Norfolk pine here The pine species from the Pacific Ocean territory of Norfolk Island was planted on Australian coasts for sailing ships' masts and spars in the 19th century. duncan61
RE: A tale of two coffee plantations.02-05-2022 21:02
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	A tale of two coffee plantations. Coffee is, by far, the biggest cash crop in the central highlands of the Dominican Republic. Most coffee farmers still use the traditional agroforestry method to grow it. There is an overstory of Inga vera trees. These tall trees have nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with their roots. Inga vera litterfall provides the nitrogen fertilizer to the coffee bushes. Throughout the plantation are also mid sized trees, usually citrus. All throughout the ground level are smaller crops, typically root crops such as cassava. There is no harm tearing up a small patch of soil to dig out the roots. Inga vera litter is everywhere to cover it up and protect from erosion. In addition to Inga vera, there are often other tall trees. Usually precious wood, like mahogany. Every plant on the farm is of economic value. Inga vera eventually provides wood as well, though not so precious. Great for firewood or charcoal. But much of the sunlight in the plantation is supporting plants that are not coffee bushes. The coffee yield per hectare is low, compared to a monocrop system. The monocrop coffee plantations (a pleno sol) have ALL the sunlight supporting coffee bushes, and only coffee bushes. The yield of these monocrop plantations is much lower than the agroforestry version for coffee production. The monocrop coffee plantations must be provided with exogenous nitrogen fertilizer to produce well. Not the case with agroforestry. The monocrop coffee plantations have declining yield over the years, and are subject to runoff and erosion, while being less resistant to drought. Not the case with agroforestry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rethinking coffee processing as a source of biofuel. Coffee berries are sweet. Lots of sugar that often ferments to alcohol. When the coffee berries are harvested, they are taken elsewhere to be depulped and have the coffee seeds dry out in the sun. A mechanical "despulpador", electric or gasoline powered, removes the sweet berry pulp, which is discarded. The seeds are then laid out in the sun to dry. The discarded pulp is eventually collected and used as nutrient rich compost. By then, the sugar is all gone. Coffee berry wine is easy to make, but not very palatable. However, if the coffee berry pulp were first used to make wine, it could be distilled to make ethanol biofuel. Later, the nutrient rich compost can be used. It would be one extra step in the coffee processing process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Into the Night wrote: [quote] What reforestation? I guess you don't know how coffee is made. [quote][b]
03-05-2022 03:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine? Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi. Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly. Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not. The soil and climate were right for it. Why was it growing so poorly (at first). Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi. After a disastrous start for the pine plantations and some research to figure out what went wrong... They brought over some California soil that contained the fungi. After inoculation with the fungal partners, the pine plantations thrived. Why is coca restricted to the Andes? Couldn't it grow in the Himalayas or some other high mountain range with similar soil and climate? I'm sure that many have tried and failed. We grow Norfolk pine here The pine species from the Pacific Ocean territory of Norfolk Island was planted on Australian coasts for sailing ships' masts and spars in the 19th century. White pine is usually the preferred wood, but sitka spruce is better for the purpose if you can find it. White pine grows pretty much anywhere pine trees will grow. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-05-2022 19:23
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:That includes you and your lousy "education" there gamma boy. Thank you sir IBdaMann for the new home screen! It's on my shop computer. It has already been a great conversion starter. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image:
RE: Some called me "Nature Boy" in junior high.04-05-2022 04:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Some called me "Nature Boy" in junior high. Not because I ran around naked. They knew I cared about the environment. Gamma Boy is pretty cool, though. You DO have talent as an artist. I can respect that. Maybe you could do a naked troll and call him "Nature Boy". Give him a chromium-6 wee wee that leaks alkalinity... I don't know. Use your imagination. Don't forget the arsenic and put in some ferns or something. I guess seals are out now. Or maybe a seal named "squeal". Or a squealing seal. Gotta get the gamma in there to make it complete. That will prove how wrong I am about all things scientific. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:That includes you and your lousy "education" there gamma boy.
04-05-2022 06:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	squeal over wrote:Some called me "Nature Boy" in junior high. You expect us to believe that you were awake in junior high to hear it? squeal over wrote: They knew I cared about the environment. Who? The fourth-graders? squeal over wrote:Gamma Boy is pretty cool, though. It has that certain ring to it that facilitates imagining that you are a superhero. I totally get it. That's why I created the GAMMA BOY pic to honor you in that regard. squeal over wrote:You DO have talent as an artist. I can respect that. I am more of an art engineer. I reuse Climate I find on the internet. There really is no mystery. GIMP has all the tools that do all the work. I just tell the software what I want it to do. But I appreciate the compliment as it was intended. squeal over wrote:Maybe you could do a naked troll and call him "Nature Boy". Great idea. Let's honor you further. Attached image: Edited on 04-05-2022 07:10
RE: Tribute art offering04-05-2022 12:36
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Meh. You kind of just phoned it in this time, didn't you? I'm not saying I'm disappointed, but... Well, it's the thought that counts, and I don't want to discourage you from trying again. Your tribute is accepted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: squeal over wrote:Some called me "Nature Boy" in junior high. You expect us to believe that you were awake in junior high to hear it? squeal over wrote: They knew I cared about the environment. Who? The fourth-graders? squeal over wrote:Gamma Boy is pretty cool, though. It has that certain ring to it that facilitates imagining that you are a superhero. I totally get it. That's why I created the GAMMA BOY pic to honor you in that regard. squeal over wrote:You DO have talent as an artist. I can respect that. I am more of an art engineer. I reuse Climate I find on the internet. There really is no mystery. GIMP has all the tools that do all the work. I just tell the software what I want it to do. But I appreciate the compliment as it was intended. squeal over wrote:Maybe you could do a naked troll and call him "Nature Boy". Great idea. Let's honor you further.
05-05-2022 06:06
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Until hydrocarbons are death wished, er, dealt with, what then? sealover wrote: Meh. You kind of just phoned it in this time, didn't you? I'm not saying I'm disappointed, but... Well, it's the thought that counts, and I don't want to discourage you from trying again. Your tribute is accepted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: squeal over wrote:Some called me "Nature Boy" in junior high. You expect us to believe that you were awake in junior high to hear it? squeal over wrote: They knew I cared about the environment. Who? The fourth-graders? squeal over wrote:Gamma Boy is pretty cool, though. It has that certain ring to it that facilitates imagining that you are a superhero. I totally get it. That's why I created the GAMMA BOY pic to honor you in that regard. squeal over wrote:You DO have talent as an artist. I can respect that. I am more of an art engineer. I reuse Climate I find on the internet. There really is no mystery. GIMP has all the tools that do all the work. I just tell the software what I want it to do. But I appreciate the compliment as it was intended. squeal over wrote:Maybe you could do a naked troll and call him "Nature Boy". Great idea. Let's honor you further.
05-05-2022 07:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James_ wrote:Until hydrocarbons are death wished, er, dealt with, what then? I guess we'll just have to rely on your Bassler wheel to provide energy to our world. By the way, we're overdue for an update on your research.
05-05-2022 16:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote:Until hydrocarbons are death wished, er, dealt with, what then? I guess we'll just have to rely on your Bassler wheel to provide energy to our world. By the way, we're overdue for an update on your research. I just want to know how climate crisis has been affecting the Norwegian Jet Stream. I'd hate for anything to happen to it because of Trumplicans, a small fringe minority of people who wish to destroy our democracy and ban women from receiving healthcare. They also want to ban interracial marriage you know!! Stupid bible-thumping ****s... They won't wear a mask, they won't get a vaccine. That is a safety hazard that disproportionately affects black people, you know... Damn whitey!!! They should be more tolerant and more inclusive, like I am.
RE: Symbiotic Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance CO2 Sequestration.07-05-2022 05:00
sealover ★★★★☆ (1248)	Symbiotic Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance CO2 Sequestration. The post below is not the first of the thread, but rather one of many that eventually can be found. If the new site visitor is looking the find these more easily, it is easy. The sealover avatar is plain without an image selected. Virtually every avatar with a more flamboyant image is one whose posts should be scrolled past as quickly as possible. Stop for the plain ones with no ugly image. I welcome new members to ask questions or offer comments by PM. You have to become a site member to PM me, but it would allow for communication that doesn't attract a long tail of ridiculous public comment. ================================================= sealover wrote: Shifting Soil Carbon with Global Warming - The Mycorrhizal Connection There is an underground network of fungal hyphae FAR more extensive than the root systems of the plants. About 50 times as much soil surface area is in contact with fungal hyphae, rather than plant root. Some of these fungi are independent operators, just looking for a food source. Most of these fungi are in symbiotic partnership with the plants, connected to their root systems. There are multiple connections to global warming, only a few of which will fit into this post. One big change with global warming is that taiga is expanding northward into tundra. The southern tundra has warmed up enough that taiga forest can now move in to out compete the tundra. One big difference between taiga and tundra, besides average size of the plants, is the makeup of the mycorrhizal fungi community. Ericoid mycorrhiza dominate the tundra. Ectomycorrhiza and some vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza dominate the taiga. When warmer conditions permit taiga to overtake tundra, there begins a net LOSS of soil organic matter. Net EMISSION of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ericoid mycorrhiza did a much better job storing carbon in the soil than do ectomycorrhiza. The taiga is still pumping carbon underground via mycorrhizal fungi, but not nearly as much as the tundra did. And the former tundra soil has thawed enough to allow the massive reservoir of organic carbon to decompose and release carbon dioxide. Similar shifts occur without the confounding variable of frozen soil thawing in other places. Where nitric acid in "acid rain" caused fast growing weeds to take over heathlands in Europe's "low" countries (barely above sea level), this brought about a net loss of soil organic matter. Again, the new species that moved in did NOT have the ericoid mycorrhiza that dominated the heathland before their arrival. In these cases, it was more clear that the loss of soil carbon was due to shift in mycorrhizal fungi, and not influenced by a new thawing of the underlying soil.
07-05-2022 05:41
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	And now I feel like Alex on McCleod's Daughter's. CO2 isn't the problem mate. It's the hydrocarbons associated with CO2. Might be best if you guys clean up your own mess, eh? Edited on 07-05-2022 05:43
07-05-2022 20:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	sealover wrote: Symbiotic Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance CO2 Sequestration. The post below is not the first of the thread, but rather one of many that eventually can be found. If the new site visitor is looking the find these more easily, it is easy. The sealover avatar is plain without an image selected. Virtually every avatar with a more flamboyant image is one whose posts should be scrolled past as quickly as possible. Stop for the plain ones with no ugly image. I welcome new members to ask questions or offer comments by PM. You have to become a site member to PM me, but it would allow for communication that doesn't attract a long tail of ridiculous public comment. Still spamming and trying to flap your ego, eh? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: "You will know them by their fruits." - famous old book10-05-2022 21:14
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Symbiotic Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance CO2 Sequestration. The post below is not the first of the thread, but rather one of many that eventually can be found. If the new site visitor is looking the find these more easily, it is easy. The sealover avatar is plain without an image selected. Virtually every avatar with a more flamboyant image is one whose posts should be scrolled past as quickly as possible. Stop for the plain ones with no ugly image. I welcome new members to ask questions or offer comments by PM. You have to become a site member to PM me, but it would allow for communication that doesn't attract a long tail of ridiculous public comment. Still spamming and trying to flap your ego, eh? "You will know them by their fruits." As Squeal Over's sock, it is my job to call out IBM's pathetic little sidekick. With something like 18,000 posts, Parrot Boy provides the extreme case study for "spamming". As Parrot Boy constantly asserts, "You are a nothing." IBM's pathetic little sidekick specializes in rules of debate. "Fallacies" are identified, tens of thousands of times. Parrot Boy never participated in genuine debate. She would have learned that ad hominem attacks are a major PARTY FOUL. She would know that they are the desperate last refuge of a debater who cannot support any valid assertions, and seek only to enrage. Ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of a scoundrel. If she ever participated in a valid debate before judges, she would know that neither IdaBM nor Parrot Boy has any authority for cross examination. Debaters are supposed to make some kind of point. There is no room in the "rebuttal" portion for them to demand answers to their questions. There is NEVER a time where the judges would require "unambiguous definition" for ANYTHING. Each debater is free to make their point and offer rebuttals to the other's point. Each debater is allowed to use their own language, with no dumbass demands for pre authorized justification of terminology. Debaters have no authority to cross examine. But this isn't about "debate" at all. It is about a handful of trolls who seem to believe that it is their mission to obnoxiously derail every discussion, to ensure that nobody gets to say anything about... Climate change, for example.
11-05-2022 06:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Symbiotic Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance CO2 Sequestration. The post below is not the first of the thread, but rather one of many that eventually can be found. If the new site visitor is looking the find these more easily, it is easy. The sealover avatar is plain without an image selected. Virtually every avatar with a more flamboyant image is one whose posts should be scrolled past as quickly as possible. Stop for the plain ones with no ugly image. I welcome new members to ask questions or offer comments by PM. You have to become a site member to PM me, but it would allow for communication that doesn't attract a long tail of ridiculous public comment. Still spamming and trying to flap your ego, eh? "You will know them by their fruits." As Squeal Over's sock, it is my job to call out IBM's pathetic little sidekick. With something like 18,000 posts, Parrot Boy provides the extreme case study for "spamming". As Parrot Boy constantly asserts, "You are a nothing." IBM's pathetic little sidekick specializes in rules of debate. "Fallacies" are identified, tens of thousands of times. Parrot Boy never participated in genuine debate. She would have learned that ad hominem attacks are a major PARTY FOUL. She would know that they are the desperate last refuge of a debater who cannot support any valid assertions, and seek only to enrage. Ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of a scoundrel. If she ever participated in a valid debate before judges, she would know that neither IdaBM nor Parrot Boy has any authority for cross examination. Debaters are supposed to make some kind of point. There is no room in the "rebuttal" portion for them to demand answers to their questions. There is NEVER a time where the judges would require "unambiguous definition" for ANYTHING. Each debater is free to make their point and offer rebuttals to the other's point. Each debater is allowed to use their own language, with no dumbass demands for pre authorized justification of terminology. Debaters have no authority to cross examine. But this isn't about "debate" at all. It is about a handful of trolls who seem to believe that it is their mission to obnoxiously derail every discussion, to ensure that nobody gets to say anything about... Climate change, for example. Insult fallacies. Trolling. Spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Northern California coastal pines in Australia and New Zealand11-05-2022 22:27
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Northern California coastal pines in Australia and New Zealand Two pine species from the coast of northern California were used for large scale forest plantations in Australia and New Zealand. Monterrey pine taken to Australia in the 1940s provided major evidence for the indispensable role of mycorrhizal fungi. Bishop pine (Pinus muricata) introduced in more recent decades to large scale plantations in New Zealand provided major evidence for another important factor to consider. Bishop pines use much less water than the native vegetation that was cleared to make room for them. This altered hydrologic conditions significantly. Much less soil water was being consumed by evapotranspiration. Much more soil water was going downslope as subsurface flow. This created new wetlands at the bottom of the slopes, messed up a lot of farmland, and created a need to intervene with engineering to facilitate drainage. On the other hand, foresters have long known that they could introduce more water demanding species to let trees help drain swampy areas through increased evapotranspiration of subsurface flow coming in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: Mycorrhizal fungi - Is coca like Monterrey pine? Monterrey pine helped scientists realize just how important mycorrhizal fungi. Without the symbiotic fungi associated with their roots, they grow very poorly. Foresters thought Monterrey pine would do well in Australia. It did not. The soil and climate were right for it. Why was it growing so poorly (at first). Well, they took the pine seeds from California, but they didn't think to bring along the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi. After a disastrous start for the pine plantations and some research to figure out what went wrong... They brought over some California soil that contained the fungi. After inoculation with the fungal partners, the pine plantations thrived. Why is coca restricted to the Andes? Couldn't it grow in the Himalayas or some other high mountain range with similar soil and climate? I'm sure that many have tried and failed. Good thing they don't know fungus. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:More random cut and pasted BS, buzzwords, and no apparent purpose to the post. Void argument fallacy. Spamming. Well done! You picked up on the fact that seal over is just cutting and pasting. When he discovers that he posted something erroneous, he follows up with a post to the effect of: "Ooops, my bad, I made a 37-word typo. Instead of my fingers hitting the keys for 'sunlight creates ozone per the Chapman Cycle', my fingers slipped and hit the keys for 'CFCs bled the ozone for twelve years' It's a good thing I noticed! My error is not citable." You might also have noticed that there is no easy way to verify independently seal over's claim that Rush Limbaugh said what is being claimed. Seal over has not posted any sort of link to assist in that regard.
11-05-2022 23:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Im a BM wrote: Northern California coastal pines in Australia and New Zealand Two pine species from the coast of northern California were used for large scale forest plantations in Australia and New Zealand. Monterrey pine taken to Australia in the 1940s provided major evidence for the indispensable role of mycorrhizal fungi. Bishop pine (Pinus muricata) introduced in more recent decades to large scale plantations in New Zealand provided major evidence for another important factor to consider. Bishop pines use much less water than the native vegetation that was cleared to make room for them. This altered hydrologic conditions significantly. Much less soil water was being consumed by evapotranspiration. Much more soil water was going downslope as subsurface flow. This created new wetlands at the bottom of the slopes, messed up a lot of farmland, and created a need to intervene with engineering to facilitate drainage. On the other hand, foresters have long known that they could introduce more water demanding species to let trees help drain swampy areas through increased evapotranspiration of subsurface flow coming in. ...deleted excess spam... Gibber babble. Buzzword fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Root:shoot ratio versus belowground allocation of carbon12-05-2022 05:28
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Root:shoot ratio versus belowground allocation of carbon. I had the incredible good fortune of being a friend and colleague to Hans Jenny, the world's preeminent soil scientist. I wish he had lived long enough to find out that I followed his advice and conducted research to test my hypothesis in his favorite ecosystem of all the world, northern California's pygmy forest. In 1985, the first presentation of his that I attended was to open up the John Muir House in Martinez, California as a museum. Hans Jenny spoke of one the adverse environmental impacts of the "Green Revolution". The new breeds were able to produce such phenomenal above ground yields because they were allocating very little carbon below ground to acquire nutrients. The result was continuous net loss of soil organic matter, as it was decomposing faster than it was being replaced. This made the soil a net source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. By spoon feeding our crops concentrated nutrients in mineral form, they could produce minimal root systems and thrive. However, if one only measures the root:shoot ratio of the crop, one would conclude that the new breeds were putting no less carbon underground than their ancestors. How much carbon a plant allocates underground is not the same as how much root mass the plant produces. Nearly all plants allocate a substantial fraction of their photosynthate below ground to feed symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi on their roots. Some plants, such as legumes, allocate carbon below ground to feed symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria. Such allocations of photosynthate to symbiotic underground organisms are made to acquire nutrients from the soil. The plants won't do it if they don't have to. One of the most common mycorrhizal association is the vessicular arbuscular variety. The plant roots are actually smaller when these are present. Root tips are short and stubby. Instead, the hyphae network of the symbiotic fungi extend out everywhere, contacting about fifty times as much soil surface as the roots of the plant. The plant generously feeds its fungal partner in exchange for nutrients that the fungi acquires from the soil. Shifting back to pre "Green Revolution" breeds would result in smaller yields. On the other hand, it would enable the organic matter content to rebuild, with all the associated soil productivity benefits. This would then enable our agricultural soils to become, once again, a net sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rather than being net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere, farm soils could be a major net sink to sequester CO2 and transform it into soil organic matter. With much higher nutrient use efficiency, less fertilizer would be needed, and far less excess fertilizer would enter waters or emit nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.
12-05-2022 05:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Im a BM wrote: Root:shoot ratio versus belowground allocation of carbon. ...deleted excess fiction and spam... This would then enable our agricultural soils to become, once again, a net sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Rather than being net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere, farm soils could be a major net sink to sequester CO2 and transform it into soil organic matter. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: With much higher nutrient use efficiency, less fertilizer would be needed, and far less excess fertilizer would enter waters or emit nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Peasant agricultural science and agroforestry12-05-2022 06:58
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Peasant agricultural science and agroforestry In the 1980s, agronomists began the effort to understand peasant agricultural science in a new way. I had the fortune of knowing Miguel Altieri, of UC Berkeley, and Gerardo Budowski, of Costa Rica's CATIE. Gerardo took us on a tour to see multiple agroforestry practices among the minority of farmers who still knew how to manage them. With all the diversity of a natural forest, one might not know that they had stumbled on to somebody's farm. Multiple canopies of multiple plant species, all of value to the farmer. The local agronomists on the tour were as different from their compatriot peasants as I was. They were city boys who had undergone two years of training in at the ag school in the big city. They knew how to apply all the chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc. They had no idea what they were looking at on the agroforestry farm. Their training would have been to advise the farmer to mow it all down and switch to monocrop, mechanized agriculture using lots of chemicals. "Rendimiento sostenible" (sustainable yield) was possible when the peasant agricultural science was applied. Declining yield, declining soil organic matter content, increased erosion, and runoff of chemicals into water supplies was possible when the trained agronomists came in to fix the inefficient system.
12-05-2022 18:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Im a BM wrote: Peasant agricultural science and agroforestry In the 1980s, agronomists began the effort to understand peasant agricultural science in a new way. ...deleted fiction and spam... Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'peasant agricultural science'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Is there such a thing as organic carbon?15-05-2022 23:00
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Into the Night wrote: [quote Lignin is a carbohydrate. Prosecutor's fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Ignoring the carbohydrates that make up the plant is not going to help you.[/quote] Parrot Boy makes the absurd assertion that lignin is a carbohydrate. An easily debunked falsehood. But carbon cycling is far more pertinent to climate change than the organic chemistry definitions for carbohydrate versus lignin. Parrot Boy keeps insisting that there is no such thing as organic carbon. Apparently, there is a major field of chemistry based on a buzzword. It matters to discussion of depletion of the sea's alkalinity, because inorganic carbon (bicarbonate and carbonate) provides the overwhelming majority of the acid neutralizing capacity, which is synonymous with alkalinity. At the same time, the third form of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, is the dominant source of acidity causing ocean "acidification" (a very bad misnomer for depletion of alkalinity while pH remains well above 7). It matters to discussion of global warming, because the transformation of organic carbon to inorganic carbon, as fossil fuel is combusted with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, is the dominant source of additional (beyond historic norms) greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
15-05-2022 23:52
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Root:shoot ratio versus belowground allocation of carbon. ...deleted excess fiction and spam... This would then enable our agricultural soils to become, once again, a net sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Rather than being net emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere, farm soils could be a major net sink to sequester CO2 and transform it into soil organic matter. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: With much higher nutrient use efficiency, less fertilizer would be needed, and far less excess fertilizer would enter waters or emit nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat? Are you really silly boo boo
16-05-2022 01:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat? Swan, you really should learn what heat is. Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored. Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't. The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually. .
16-05-2022 01:27
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat? Swan, you really should learn what heat is. Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored. Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't. The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually. . And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity such as F = Gm1m2/r^2 It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even a baby quits suckling its mother.
16-05-2022 01:52
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat? Swan, you really should learn what heat is. Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored. Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't. The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually. . Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk Edited on 16-05-2022 02:05

Page 10 of 21

Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	96	23-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'	8	21-06-2023 12:55
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	52	16-06-2023 09:44