Terra Preta trials to begin next year

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 07 Dec 2008, 01:04

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55700.html

Excellent news

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 07 Dec 2008, 09:50

There has been no increase in global surface temps for 10 years

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ap ... ls_off.htm

If you match the rise in global temps against the solar activity it seems to match.

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 07 Dec 2008, 10:52

Ziggy - Spare us this ham-science.

Do you think you know better than the world's greatest climate scientists,
whose work is affirmed in the IPCC reports on a regular basis by scientists employed by the 187 signatory govts' around the world,
including US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Irag, Iran, India, Brazil, Kuwait and even Belgium. . . .

Or are you actually claiming that all 187 of these govts, and all of their scientists, and all of their civil servants,
are colluding in the greatest most leak-proof conspiracy the world has ever seen,
just to try and fool us,
but we're too clever for them ?

Have a look at the discussions on Real Climate if you'd like to learn more about the issue.

Please note: if I sound terse, it is because I've seen thirty years of spurious, irresponsible and often corrupt denialism,
which has landed us in the position of facing widespread famines as the climate becomes increasingly unstable.

Simple compassion for the children of Africa, and elsewhere, quite apart from common sense,
demands that the scientific consensus be respected.

Regards,

Billhook

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 07 Dec 2008, 17:18

If nothing else, reducing atmospheric co2 levels to reverse the acidification of the oceans is essential. A recent report estimates that ocean zooplankton content is down around 73% since 1960.

Atmospheric co2 content must be brought down, for the sake of the planetary ecosystem.

Post by **clv101** » 07 Dec 2008, 18:37

ziggy12345 wrote:There has been no increase in global surface temps for 10 years

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ap ... ls_off.htm

If you match the rise in global temps against the solar activity it seems to match.

urm... what relevance does the 1998 spike have to any trend analysis you're attempting to perform here?

As for temperature correlation with solar activity this has now been comprehensively 'debunked' and shown not to explain current warming so I wonder why you even mention it?

See these two recent papers:
Schiermeier, Quirin, No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a
T Sloan et al, Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3 024001 (6pp) doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 07 Dec 2008, 19:08

ziggy12345 wrote:There has been no increase in global surface temps for 10 years

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ap ... ls_off.htm

If you match the rise in global temps against the solar activity it seems to match.

If you knew anything about solar activity, Ziggy, you would know that for the last five or six years we have been on the downward trend of the Solar Sunspot Cycle. This means that there has been declining solar activity and, consequently, radiation. So, yes, the earth may have been cooler.

Indeed, the latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earth's upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have not been warming for the last four years.

This has been a particularly low cycle as well but despite this the Arctic has continued to melt to record summer low levels, even this year when we are in the trough. The summer Arctic ice area may have increased this year over last year but the volume has again decreased. The wind didn't blow the ice together this year as it did last year.

Next year we start on the increasing side of the solar cycle for the next five or six years so solar radiation will increase again. By how much will the Arctic Ice melt then? Will the Greenland Ice Cap quicken its demise as well? We'll just have to wait and see how much global Warming adds to this natural cycle.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 07 Dec 2008, 19:25

[quote="ziggy12345"]

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 07 Dec 2008, 20:42

Ziggy - should the juxtaposition of your post after Keiran's news of more Terra Preta trials in the UK
be read as meaning that you see no need for Terra Preta ?

If so, then you'd maybe be interested by that option's potential output of (carbon negative) liquid fuels,
as well as its multiplication of tropical agriculture's yeilds
without a need for massive annual inputs of chemical or organic fertilizers.

So beyond offering the planet's cheapest carbon sequestration option,
the secondary benefits of the option could actually make both that sequestration,
and the necessary worldwide reforestation,
profitable.

The best of it is that land totalling more than the area of Spain & France
were treated to become Terra Preta aeons ago,
so, with this scale of "Prior Art"
no sneerling little neo-con profiteer will seize a patent on the idea,
nor licence its use so as to exclude all those unable to add to the patent holder's profits.

Given this factor, it may be that commercial entities are somewhat slow in the uptake;
i.e. this may well become a "grassroots-led" development strategy.

The nearest to US commercialization that I've heard of is by a firm called Eprida,
who hope to provide production capacity for a multi-element charcoal-based soil amendment.

Regards,

Billhook

MisterE · Post by **MisterE** » 07 Dec 2008, 21:29

Ziggy, chin up bud, your not on your own. I'm a Big Alex Jones fan. Along with our own http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org ... g/spyblog/.

I do not know what Terra Preta is, sounds like a pasta, not interested but will have a read. But thats not the point, everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of how right or wrong it is. So you post anything you like on the subject as I like to read from a wider perspective than just the government funded garbage that passes for science these days

Post by **clv101** » 08 Dec 2008, 01:21

The main advantage of Terra Preta and other related techniques is to increase soil organic carbon content. This is absolutely vital for the future agricultural productivity of our oils. A nice side effect is the drawdown of a few tenths of a GT carbon each year - but enabling ourselves to grow enough food is the main point of carbon sequestration in soils.

revdode · Post by **revdode** » 08 Dec 2008, 06:52

Billhook wrote:so, with this scale of "Prior Art"

Terra Preta looks like it could prove immensely valuable and on that basis I think one or more of the large petro/agro businesses will try to find some way of fencing it in.
Unfortunately prior art is not as easy to prove in all countries as it should be, I'm sure someone will try and patent it in some obscure corner of the world then leverage that through international agreements on intellectual property.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Dec 2008, 08:05

MisterE wrote:I do not know what Terra Preta is

If you're looking for the silver bullet to solve all humankind's problems, Terra Preta is probably as close as you'll get.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 08 Dec 2008, 11:16

As I understand it, adding carbon to the soil helps to retain nutrients at a level where they can be reached by crop roots and just as importantly by the fungi that exist in symbiotic relationships with the crops.

If it performs this function and prevents nutrient run-off from polluting our oceans then consider me a big fan.

Agro fertilisers are getting more expensive, so it makes sense to hold them where they are needed.

As far as I can see there is no downside to this, and ecoworrier will be able to report his results next year, after we've put 50 gallons of charcoal on half of his allotment.

MisterE · Post by **MisterE** » 08 Dec 2008, 13:35

Had a read, dead simple like most of the best ideas, seems more like common sense than science. Chances are just planting lots, damn lots more trees globally would sort the problem out - after all they are meant to be the lungs of the planet. Chopping, charc and burying to lock in the carbon and get good soil is an added bonus. Sadly the powers to be would probably prefer that Europe and the states, go to war with China (all prearranged of course) and have a massive downsize in population. Nonetheless, learnt a bit more now and thats a good thing

sounds like an idea defo worth trying

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 08 Dec 2008, 15:50

Chances are just planting lots, damn lots more trees globally would sort the problem out - after all they are meant to be the lungs of the planet.

Not sure about the logic, but I have no problem with planting trees on every bit of scrap land, why not? Everyone likes trees.
Send every house in the country an apple tree