Scientists say CO2 emissions NOT the cause of climate change

Any questions or comments you have about Natural Sequence Farming processes. These could include general questions or ones about your personal problems.

PLEASE NOTE :
We do not endorse any answers from anyone in this forum except Peter Andrews himself.

Please remember, Natural Sequence Farming has to be tailored for your specific problem and to follow general advice may create more problems for you.

Moderator: webmaster

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Scientists say CO2 emissions NOT the cause of climate change

Post by duane » Fri May 30, 2008 11:41 pm

The efficiencies of the Australian floodplains and their capacity to mitigate local climate and sequester carbon dioxide

By Dr. Jan Pokorný and Professor Wilhelm Ripl

Large areas of the Australian continent have been subject to intense grazing, clearing, drainage and to traditional, authorised and unauthorised burning. The result of these activities has been a reduction in BOTH living and dead biomass and aridisation or desertification. The Australian landscape has a HUGE capacity to sequestrate carbon dioxide into plant biomass very quickly. And any increase in plant biomass brings about the following positive synergistic effects:

· Improvement of the DAILY water cycle (water recycling as ‘dew’ and mitigation of local climate)

· An increase in agricultural production

· Sequestration of carbon into biomass

· Prevention of erosion

· Increase in biodiversity

The Natural Sequence Farming (NSF) methods developed by Peter Andrews has been applied to a scale of tens km2 on numerous farms in the last 3 decades. The NSF system is based on the stimulation of plant growth by the management of the local water cycle-retention of water in the landscape and the restoration of acquifers. The subsequent increase in plant production and the increase in biodiversity has been proven in every case. To illustrate the above statement: an increase in primary production of 0.1kg of plant biomass (dry mass) per m2 annually represents sequestration of 0.145kg of carbon dioxide (or 0.04 kg of carbon). Living biomass retains water and also recycles water via transpiration.

There is a powerful effect that living biomass has on climate which can be both felt and measured- plants evaporate water and by doing so produce a cooling effect. An increase of evaporation of about 1 litre represents an air conditioning effect of 0.7kWh. Put more simply one willow tree has a cooling effect per day equivalent to 28 reverse cycle air conditioners. To put it more scientifically, an increase in evapo-transpiration of 1m2 per day represents a locally cooling effect of between 50-100 W.

The large floodplains of Australia a have great natural potential to increase plant production and accumulate biomass. The storage of plant biomass can be achieved by water management under NSF techniques. Under this regime it has the potential to accumulate an amazing 145 metric tonnes of CO2 per 1km2.

Using the EFFICIENCES of the Australian floodplains, there is an tremendous opportunity to accumulate vast quantities of plant biomass very quickly, which can sequester much atmospheric CO2. On top of this, the increase in plant production and the accumulation of organic material (carbon) in soil will bring all of the aforementioned synergistic positive effects and show the way to achieving the sustainable management of our now eroding landscape.


Addendum
The sequestration of carbon has not been shown in nature to mitigate global warming and climate change. Far more involved in climate change is the overheating of the landscape due to the lack of evaporable water and cooling strategies due to live processes.

The safest and most effective measures to combat climate change and global warming is in vegetative cover, thereby, reintroducing the water cycling and cooling capacity of living plants. The primary cooling caused by evapo-transpiration, from vegetation, will strengthen the land-sea balance in Australia i.e., the cooling of the landscape by vegetation will bring more rain back to the landscape.

There is NO other process of carbon sequestration which could improve the net water flow from the sea to the landscape than by the implementation of evaporating plants /trees vegetation.

We both agree that this way could be a tedious process, however, the efficiency of Australia’s floodplain systems shows it seems to be the only feasible and realistic way to improve water circulation, to dampen or cool the thermodynamics of the atmosphere and to localise the water climate and matter-flow processes.

NSF, therefore, is the most superior stabilisation process for climate and sustainable development in the Australian landscape. Peter Andrews has put forward a method we believe is the ONLY way out of a national and world disaster. The sequestration of carbon is the subalternate effect of improving the superior water cycle process and hence the vegetative cover.

***THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ONLY CARBON SEQUESTRATION, WITHOUT REPAIRING THE WATER BALANCE, RESTORING VEGETATION AND MATTER-FLOW PROCESSES, COULD IN ITSELF, LEAD TO THE MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.***

JP and WR March 26th 2008
Last edited by duane on Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Fri May 30, 2008 11:43 pm

Any comments?????

brettmtl
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:42 am
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Post by brettmtl » Sat May 31, 2008 11:30 am

Thanks for the update Duane :D

I have noticed the difference between standing under a tree in a paddock and then walking 15 meters to be in the full sun. Definitely a 8 - 15 degree difference on a 30 plus day.

It makes a lot of sense that tree cover will help cool the planet, I suppose it is given more authority when science backs it up, but one only has to do some bushwalking to discover that plants are the guardians of the environment and in effect life.

Without plants there would be no life, ever. We wouldn't have soil, oil, coal, food, there would be nothing.

I also believe that they do something far greater, which as yet has not been scientifically proven. They anchor the frequency of life to earth. If you look at a tree they appear as antennas/aerials. Look at the Moon or Mars, there is limited life, maybe some bacteria, but there are none of the glorious forests that appear on earth and thus no life.

Acting as antennas, trees take universal energy/prana from above and anchor it into the earth. If you view a drought ravaged farm, it appears dead. The contrast would be to go to old growth rainforest in the Great Divide and you can feel and see this energy.

So when we clear forest, not only does it warm the land, deplete nutrients, animal extinction, create floods and all of the other scientifically proven attributes, but it depletes the energy/life force of our land and hence the planet.

My tree nature

Brett :wink:

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:51 pm

Prince Charles: Help me save the rainforests
By the Prince of Wales with kind permission of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0502.xml

Today is World Environment Day, a day that should remind us that there is just the smallest window left for us to act to stop catastrophic climate change. The frightening reality is that the consequences of global warming are being felt far more rapidly than most scientists predicted even 18 months ago.


The polar ice caps are melting faster, the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is diminishing and our weather patterns are ever more erratic and more extreme. But we do still have a chance to stop the worst excesses of climate change, so long as we act now.

And one of the most effective ways to do this is by halting the destruction of the rainforests, one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

Today I am launching the website for my Rainforests Project. On it are three films, together with the findings of some new research. The films, which The Daily Telegraph is hosting on its website today, and which can also be viewed at www.princesrainforestsproject.org, make use of compelling images from the world's rainforests, as well as animation, to describe some of the stark facts and implications of tropical deforestation.

In a little less than my lifetime, we have lost 50 per cent of the world's rainforests. Every year, 32 million acres - an area the size of England - is destroyed or degraded. The message is clear: our world is in grave danger of losing its life-support system.

These forests, which straddle the equator in a belt around the world, contain not only some of the richest biodiversity known to science, which is crucial to human health and survival in the future, but are also home to millions of the world's poorest people, whose livelihoods depend on them. They also play a crucial role in cooling and cleaning the atmosphere and providing fresh water and rainfall.

At a time when shortages of food are being experienced the world over and population continues to rise, this rainfall is more important than ever before. Amazonia's forests alone, for instance, help to store the largest body of flowing freshwater on the planet, and they release 20 billion tonnes of water vapour into the atmosphere every day.
At the same time, and of vital importance, these forests store carbon on a giant scale; when they are cut down and burnt, the carbon is released into the atmosphere in vast quantities. That is why stopping deforestation is one of the quickest and most certain ways of slowing climate change and thus purchasing a breathing space.

Many people are pinning their hopes on new technologies. But while the search for these is gathering momentum, whether it be carbon capture and storage, third-generation biofuels or hydrogen systems, so is global warming. And these technologies, however quickly they can be developed, are unlikely to make a significant contribution in time. Yet, in the world's tropical rainforests, nature has given us an infinitely more effective and cheaper system of storing carbon.

I was much encouraged by the research that my Rainforests Project is publishing today, which shows an astonishing level of public consensus in the developed world that tropical rainforest destruction must be stopped if we are serious about reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Nearly half of Americans questioned and more than half of those in the United Kingdom and France, together with a staggering 70 per cent of Germans, know that the destruction of the rainforests contributes more greenhouse gas emissions annually than the entire global transport sector. And when asked what would have the greatest practical potential in reducing the rate of climate change, preserving the rainforests was put second only to switching to renewable energy across all four countries.

But, while research shows that people in developed countries understand how rainforests matter, do we truly understand how we are, in large part, the problem? The cause of deforestation does not lie with the rainforest nations. Too often it is demand from developed countries for palm oil, beef and soya which is driving the destruction of the rainforests and making them worth far more dead than alive.

In his ground-breaking report in 2006, Lord Stern identified avoiding deforestation as a "relatively cost-effective" measure to mitigate climate change. He estimated it would cost $10-15 billion a year to halve deforestation by 2030. Although the recent increase in demand for food commodities may have altered this estimate, tackling deforestation is still one of the cheapest and quickest routes to fight climate change.

But we need to halt deforestation, not halve it. If this were to cost, say, $30 billion, it would represent just under one per cent of the approximately $3,500 billion spent on insurance premiums every year - insurance that often ends up paying for the damage caused by climate change.

What seems to be lacking, however, is what Martin Luther King described as "the fierce urgency of now" and that is why I have set up my Rainforests Project, with the support of some of the world's biggest businesses and leading experts, and working with countries around the world, including the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.

The project's objective is to find innovative ways of paying the countries that are the custodians of the tropical rainforests an appropriate price for the eco-system services they provide and so out-compete the drivers of deforestation. Put simply, our aim is to make the rainforests worth more alive than dead. It is worth remembering, perhaps, that it has become accepted throughout the developed world that people pay for utilities such as gas, water and electricity.

The rainforests are probably our greatest natural utility, providing huge and irreplaceable benefits. It is time we started to pay for them, too.

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:54 pm

Many scientists are reporting that CO2 is NOT the causal agent for climate change and global warming.

Dr David Evans who advised Government for six years at the Greenhouse Office offered a challenge to Senator Wong on the release of the Green Paper " What evidence do you have that CO2 is responsible for global warming/climate change?"

He stated on Radio 2GB that there is NO evidence to support the theory that increasing CO2 is the causal agent....a fact supported by many people including Peter Andrews.

Listen to the interview with Jason Morrison at www.2gb.com/index.php

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:01 pm

I think it timely that this blog posted earlier be linked in here. I would urge everyone to read this book!

This is a summary from a new book released by Dr. Jan Pokorny ( a member of the International Reference Panel on NSF).

SUMMARY

The circulation of water in nature takes place through the large and small water cycles. Humanity, through its activities and systematic transformation of natural land into cultured land, accelerates the runoff of rainwater from land. Limiting evaporation and the infiltration of water into the soil decreases the supply of water to the small water cycle. The equilibrium of the water balance in the small water cycle is thus disturbed and it gradually starts to break down over land.



If there is insufficient water in the soil, on its surface and in plants, immense flows of solar energy cannot be transformed into the latent heat of water evaporation but are instead changed into sensible heat. The surface of the ground soon overheats, and as a result, a breakdown in the supply of water from the large water cycle arises over the affected land. Local processes over huge areas inhabited and exploited by human beings are changed into global processes and with processes that occur without the assistance of human beings; together they create the phenomenon known as global climate change. The part of global climate change caused by human activities then is largely based on the drainage of water from the land, the consequent rise in temperature differences triggering off mechanisms which cause a rise in climatic extremes. The disruption of the small water cycle is accompanied by growing extremes in the weather, a gradual drop in groundwater reserves, more frequent flooding, longer periods of drought and an increase in the water shortage in the region.



The part of climatic change which is the result of human activities (draining of a region), can be reversed through systematic human activity (the watering of a region). The watering of land can be achieved through saturation of the small water cycle over land by ensuring comprehensive conservation of rainwater and enabling its infiltration and evaporation. This can help achieve the renewal of the small water cycle over a region and fundamentally change the trend of changing climatic conditions: it can—to reverse the trend of regional warming—temper extreme weather events and ensure a growth in water reserves in the territory.



The renewal of the small water cycle over an area, however, depends not only on the extent to which the area has been damaged but also on a number of other factors. In the case of Slovakia, we can expect visible results relatively soon (10 to 20 years) after implementation of these measures. The financial costs of these specific measures are moderate sums which can be allocated from state, public and private budgets. Support for the implementation of far-reaching measures should be linked pro rata to each 1 m3 of reservoir volume built in the ground or to anti-erosion measures carried out. The implementation of water conservation measures should, until the renewal of the small water cycle and the maximalization of a stable water balance in a region, replace previous investment measures, which only served to accelerate the runoff of water from a region.

The conservation of rainwater on land "in situ" and the conducting away only of the natural surplus of water in a region is "condicio sine qua non"—a condition essential for ensuring environmental security, global stability and the sustenance of economic growth. Fulfilling these conditions should be of interest to each individual and each community. This is the first time in the history of human civilization when the impact of mankind's activities on the water cycle and the decrease of amount of water in it will have to be evaluated. The statement of the Srí Lankan king, Parakramabahu the Great—"Not even a single raindrop should be allowed to flow into the sea without it first having been used for the benefit of the people..." —is the best summing up of the new water paradigm, a statement which, in the coming decades, should become a slogan for mankind calling for the preservation of civilization.

The English version of the book, Water for the Recovery of Climate, A New Water Paradigm, is available to download in Zip files at http://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/?indexen.p ... omean.html

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:24 am

One of our nsf supporters took the time to write to Dr Roger Pielke Sr Colarado Climate Centre, USA.
Here is Ray's blog and Dr Piekle's response....taken from http://climatesci.org/

July 22, 2008
Integrated Land Use Approach - An Example Of Applying The “Vulnerability Paradigm”[/b]Filed under: Vulnerability Paradigm — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am

There is an interesting concept in land management that relates directly to the integrated approach Climate Science has recommended with respect to the reduction of vulnerability (e.g. see) [and thanks to Ray Soper for alerting us to this!].

As Ray has written

“A pioneer in this part of the world is Peter Andrews. A website www.naturalsequencefarming.com.au presents Peter’s ideas, and a forum for discussion. Peter’s main proposition is that farming practices over the past 150 years in Australia have progressively dehydrated and degraded much of the country. He argues that ploughing the soil, draining swamps, taking willows out of the rivers, monoculture farming practices, construction of dams everywhere has led to the systematic dehydration of the landscape.


He has developed strategies for rehydration, principally by restoring wetlands, swamps, floodplains by slowing down the water flows and keeping more of the water in the landscape. As well, he respects nature’s strategies to rehabilitate degraded areas, and welcomes all vegetation (including what many of us call weeds) as part of that process.

Channel 9 presented a program on Peter that shows directly the beneficial results of his approaches. I think that this work adds an important new angle to the ways in which mankind can assist in managing climate, which allied to the new findings that show that trees, like animals, have ‘thermostat’ systems that maintain temperatures within a close range, can change the way we approach the problems.

As written on a website that describes Natural Sequence Farming,

Peter Andrews is a grazier and race horse breeder from Bylong in the Upper Hunter Valley. He is a man who many believe is way ahead of his time. Peter has gained fundamental insights to the natural functioning of the Australian landscape that leave him almost without peer. He has applied these insights in restoring his and other properties to fertility levels that he says existed upon European arrival in this country.

The model that Peter Andrews set up at Tarwyn Park was based on the principle of reintroducing natural landscape patterns and processes as they would have existed in Australia prior to European settlement. This included:

reintroduction of a natural valley flow pattern, reconnecting the stream to its flood plain, which would reintroduce a more natural hydrological and fertility cycle to that landscape.

and that through a managed succession of the vegetation (mostly weeds back then), the natural fluvial pattern could be ‘regrown’, so that then nutrients and biomass harvested on the flood plain could be redistributed throughout the property and obviously through the stock. "....RS

This type of integrated approach to reduce vulnerability to environmental threats, including from climate variability and change, is to be commended and encouraged. Rather than relying exclusively on controlling atmospheric concentrations of CO2, a much more scientifically integrated approach is needed, as exemplified by the work of Peter Andrews.....Dr Roger Pielke Sr

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Post by ColinJEly » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:02 pm

Duane
Here! Here!
This is an interesting take on the causes of global warming http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I believe the current program of carbon sequestration is wrong and potentially deadly for mankind. There are two oxygen atoms to every carbon atom in CO2. If you are going to sequester it for 100's of 1000's of years underground it is going to be lost to mankind. Without Oxygen we will die!
I believe it is far better to use those natural sequesters of carbon- PLANTS!
They will freely sequester the carbon from CO2 for us and spit out their useless by-product- OXYGEN! :lol:

Cheers

Col.

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:53 pm

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun has a blog site running questioning CO2 as the causal agent to global warming and climate change.

No doubt the climate is changing but CO2 is not the bogeyman.

See our blogs at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... oling/P20/

and I urge any of Peter's NSF supporters do do likewise.

nik
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:19 pm

Post by nik » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:36 am

Andrew Bolt's blog is typical of people who have practically no scientific understanding of the GW issue. If you believe that our cimate will not be affected by digging up and burning back into the atmosphere all of the carbon that was sequestered naturally over millions of millions of years so many millions of years ago in the space of just over a couple of centuries then you are not living on planet earth.

I don't believe CO2 geosequestration is an answer at all either. the oxygen issue is not so much a problem with its removal from the atmosphere but more a molecule size issue. CO2 is more mass than just carbon so you can barely get any of it back in the spaces they got it from.

I definitely feel nsf has a major role in addressing the issue, the more organic matter going into the soil and staying there the better.

The main thing about GW for Australia is get used to less water and more unpredictable weather. Sticking our heads in the sand will just result in burning our bums off.

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:07 pm

There is no doubting that climate change and global warming ARE occuring.

There is DOUBT, however, that CO2 is THE main causal agent.

Landuse practices in the past have turned fertile productive land into deserts. The removal of the planets green vegetative cover and therefore the Earth's air-conditioners and the subsequent drying out of the landscape have far greater implications for the globes climate.

If we are to solve the problem of GW, we need to agree on the EXACT causes, if we are to work out a proper strategy.

The globes termite populations produces and releases carbon dioxide at a rate estimated to be ten times that of burning fossil fuels.

Why haven't the greenhouse gasses that have been produced over thousands of years raised global temperature? Because the earth has
counter-processes that tend to keep temperature around an equilibrium.
One of these mechanisms is the latent heat of evaporation where water turns from a liquid state to a gaseous state in transpiration using immense amounts of energy. This moderates the daily temperature and at night it condenses and releases heat thereby moderating the nighttime temp. Go to a desert....its stinking hot during the day and freezing cold at night because there are no plants to moderate the climate. Lovelocks theory of Gaia states that plants are the worlds aircon.

All plants by photosynthesis inhale carbon dioxide which they convert into oxygen during respiration. The plants require enormous energy to change water from a liquid into a gas....ie water vapour. Those who did physics know that this produces a cooling effect over the landscape where there is a green vegetative cover. In this way plants dispose of vast quantities of carbon dioxide.

Many parts of the world have been undergoing extensive deforestation, and land clearing for agriculture. Many of these cleared areas remain fallow for many months without a plant on them. This can cause huge heat thermals over land and heat always travels from hot areas to cold areas. As the landscape heats up due to a lack of vegetation the rain will fall where it is cooler i.e., out to sea. When the landscape is COOL(ER) than the sea thermals will bring the warmer air into the cooler landscape and rain will fall on the land. The more we desertify the landscape as is happening the less rainfall we will get. The faster the we allow all plants to grow including weeds and replanting of all types of vegetation go, the greater will be the reduction of carbon dioxide.

I would recommend the reading of the English version of the book, Water for the Recovery of Climate, A New Water Paradigm, available to download in Zip files at http://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/?indexen.p ... omean.html for a more scientific and authoritive description to what I am alluding to.
Last edited by duane on Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

nik
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:19 pm

Post by nik » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:49 pm

"Why haven't the greenhouse gasses that have been produced over thousands of years raised global temperature?"

This is due to the carbon cycle which for the most part involves photosynthesis and respiration. The biggest contributors to photosynthesis side is algae which produce approximately 70% of the oxygen in the cycle leaving plants to do the other 30% there abouts.

The natural carbon cycle which for the most part has been a closed system (volcanoes add to the system), but we have disrupted the system by digging up carbon (coal, oil and gas) that has not been in the system for many millions of years and burnt them and therefore have put them straight back into the cycle.

The problem now is that there are not enough plants and algae to soak it back up and lock it up in a non accessible form at a rate that will keep CO2 levels stable in our atmosphere. To add to the problem the oceans are absorbing the majority of the CO2 which is causing acidification of the water (carbonic acid) which is further disrupting the growth of algae alone and their symbiotic relationships with other life forms.

We have pumped so much carbon back into the system by fossil fuel use that it will take a very long time to get it back out and lock it up out of the system.

So this is where NSF can help but it is only a partial help because the carbon is not locked up in a form that can't be easily used by organisms and thus converted back into CO2 by respiration by aerobic organisms such as those pesty termites.

I definitely agree that the world needs to aggressively re-green the planet (to address the water imbalance issues) and Peter’s methods are wonderful for that, particularly here in Australia. But we can’t continue to blur the issue on CO2. It is a redundant idea to focus on energy from fossil fuel and sequester the CO2 as CO2. Just as we have been ignoring Peter’s ideas that can be implemented immediately to achieve stunning results we are ignoring renewable energy (in particular solar thermal) in this country which is abundant and clean. We are stealing a precious resource from our descendants and using it up as though it will never end. Well as they say all good things come to an end and I think we are starting to see the end of cheap energy (and including fertilizers and pesticides) which will make Peter’s methods even more relevant.

But there is another answer which can be used in conjunction with NSF but that is for another post.

Nik

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Post by ColinJEly » Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:59 pm

Nik

And the CO2 which has been produced since the 'Industrial Revolution' has increased global temperatures by how much?? And how much 'climate change' have we had since then? :oops:

Col.

nik
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:19 pm

Post by nik » Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:21 pm

Cars, factories, and power plants pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Since 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased 35 percent, while temperatures have gone up between 0.6°C and 0.9°C. Scientists have very high confidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

Only now are scientists beginning to really study how much acidification is occurring to our oceans from CO2 absorption.

The thing about this is that there is no straight forward answer to this situation. But addressing CO2 production can be of the most amazing benefit to our lives.

I would have thought that most people would rather have their electrical energy coming from highly efficient solar thermal power plants in the desert than from coal and gas burning plants. this after all the sunniest country on the planet. Sure it will cost a bit more but so would coal if the subsidies were removed.

Every farmer would love to earn money by sequestering carbon in the ground through NSF.

Either way it won’t matter that much as pretty much all our energy comes from finite sources of fossil fuels and we are fast reaching the point of maximum extraction. So whether we like it or not we will have to turn to renewable energy sources now if we are to avoid a massive strain on the current system which could collapse our economic systems.
[/img]

duane
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Post by duane » Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:14 pm

We are all aware that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

The forests that laid down the worlds current coal seams were done in Carboniferous times. I can only assume that all that CO2 taken out of the atmosphere way back when and sequested as coal and oil shows that plants have an enormous capacity for C sequestration.

My thoughts are telling me that yes coal and oil is finite and yes it would be great to have 'greener' sustainable energy...in fact, an absolute necessity.

However, for billions of years the Earth has been a dynamic place. Viewed as 'Gaia', a single living organism, it is subject to the same laws of Nature as the rest of the universe. A dynamic state is constantly changing and evolving.

If the so called coal deposits were all dug up today and the CO2 re-released, could we not see an opportunity for the evolved animals of the future, in say 120m years, to find the new coal seams laid down by plants in the present Quartenary period, using NSF principles, providing all the energy needs?

It's possible I guess but alas I wont be able to test my hypothesis.

Post Reply