5 ms·

I agree with your statement and would like to add to your comment: I don't understand when people point to bio mass that could absorb the carbon. This is based

I agree with your statement and would like to add to your comment: I don't understand when people point to bio mass that could absorb the carbon. This is based on my understanding of carbon history on this planet, which is far from detailed or complete. We already had the earth covered in biomass before human populations increased explosively. Back then, a looooooong time ago, what as far as I know brought the carbon levels (CO2) down was when dying bio mass was getting buried instead of being recycled. That means most carbon is underneath the earth. We just spend the last few centuries busily getting it back out from there though. So as I understand it (someone correct me please if it is wrong), how can we possibly hope that a biomass cycle could keep enough carbon trapped? The past shows that it has to be buried deep inside the earth! That would mean biomass cannot be the solution, even at full capacity it could not bind enough. I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.

saalweachter 8y ago
You can get a certain amount out of growing additional live biomass where there isn't any now. There was a supposition that one of the causes of the Little Ice Age was reforestation of the Americas after plagues wiped out 90% of the inhabitants. I don't know what the current state of that conjecture is, but I recall the amount of carbon taken up in the process was significant. If you found a way to eg forest the Sahara, it would be significant on a global scale. Not a one-and-done fix, but significant. Then you would either have to find new land to plant or cut down the trees and not burn them/mulch them to sequester more carbon, but a living forest holds a good bit on its own.
- bonesss 8y ago
  There is a fascinating project to turn around desertification of the Sahara: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
pjc50 8y ago
For the "short" term (next century or so) it's sufficient to take it out of the atmosphere and bury it either as solid carbon in the soil or as gaseous compressed CO2 in fairly shallow rock formations. There are other geologic-time processes which can stabilise things over a longer time period, but it's the short time scale that makes it hard to adapt.

saalweachter 8y ago

You can get a certain amount out of growing additional live biomass where there isn't any now. There was a supposition that one of the causes of the Little Ice Age was reforestation of the Americas after plagues wiped out 90% of the inhabitants. I don't know what the current state of that conjecture is, but I recall the amount of carbon taken up in the process was significant. If you found a way to eg forest the Sahara, it would be significant on a global scale. Not a one-and-done fix, but significant. Then you would either have to find new land to plant or cut down the trees and not burn them/mulch them to sequester more carbon, but a living forest holds a good bit on its own.

bonesss 8y ago
There is a fascinating project to turn around desertification of the Sahara: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall

pjc50 8y ago

For the "short" term (next century or so) it's sufficient to take it out of the atmosphere and bury it either as solid carbon in the soil or as gaseous compressed CO2 in fairly shallow rock formations. There are other geologic-time processes which can stabilise things over a longer time period, but it's the short time scale that makes it hard to adapt.