6 ms·

On your first point, that is not quite correct. While the CO2 released will eventualy come back, it takes an enormous amount of time. It may be a cycle but what

by revax 7y ago

On your first point, that is not quite correct. While the CO2 released will eventualy come back, it takes an enormous amount of time. It may be a cycle but what matters is the CO2 concentration in the athmosphere or more precisely the radiative forcing at a given time.

vpribish 7y ago
it takes one growing season for the rice, wheat, sugar cane, and soybean they were using.
Mirioron 7y ago
If I burn a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon and then grow a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon then in terms of carbon in the atmosphere it should be a net zero effect. Plants take carbon out of the atmosphere to grow after all.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > If I burn a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon and then grow a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon then in terms of carbon in the atmosphere it should be a net zero effect. No, because the plant you burned would have pulled more CO2 from the atmosphere if it had stayed alive, there's plenty of CO2 around already to feed other plants in the mean time. So the net effect is negative. If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    That plant would pull in more CO2 and increase its own biomass based on it. When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. >If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all. The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. Otherwise, the plant life returns on its own. Chernobyl is overrun by plants.
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. No. If it fully decomposes at some point, arguably. But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. > The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. No. Plants can also become extinct (= no seeds survive) or stop growing in some places due to more aggressive competition.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        >But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. That organism will soon die and decompose as well. Fossilization is rather uncommon nowadays. The only one of those where we could and do put a lot of carbon is buildings. However, even those end up rotting over time. Most of the coal formed at a time where lignin didn't break down. We don't live in such a time. We can't repeat the same process. It doesn't really matter whether the carbon is released back into the atmosphere in 2, 5, 50, 100 years. It'll still be released and contribute. Stashing carbon into those forms is not a solution.
  - doctor_eval 7y ago
    That’s ridiculous. We’re talking about plants specifically grown, using agricultural techniques, for biochar or food. The entire industry is predicated on growing a predictable mass of plants per unit area. If we can’t do that then we have much bigger problems than the CO2 cycle.
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > We’re talking about plants specifically grown, using agricultural techniques, for biochar or food. And you believe this can be done in a CO2-neutral way, even if we assume the CO2 is recovered quickly and never accumulates in the atmosphere? Ridiculous, modern agriculture is far from even "low emission"...

by revax 7y ago

vpribish 7y ago

it takes one growing season for the rice, wheat, sugar cane, and soybean they were using.

Mirioron 7y ago

If I burn a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon and then grow a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon then in terms of carbon in the atmosphere it should be a net zero effect. Plants take carbon out of the atmosphere to grow after all.

lazyjones 7y ago
> If I burn a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon and then grow a plant that contains 10 kg of carbon then in terms of carbon in the atmosphere it should be a net zero effect. No, because the plant you burned would have pulled more CO2 from the atmosphere if it had stayed alive, there's plenty of CO2 around already to feed other plants in the mean time. So the net effect is negative. If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  That plant would pull in more CO2 and increase its own biomass based on it. When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. >If you can't grasp the logic, think about what happens if you burn all the plants. Some will grow back, but not all. The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. Otherwise, the plant life returns on its own. Chernobyl is overrun by plants.
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > When that plant then dies two-three-five years later then all of that carbon gets back into the atmosphere anyway. No. If it fully decomposes at some point, arguably. But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. > The only way they don't grow back is if desertification happens or humans start using that area. No. Plants can also become extinct (= no seeds survive) or stop growing in some places due to more aggressive competition.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >But plants are eaten by various organisms (= C becomes part of the organism), are used for building houses, become fossilized. All of these make these "cycle" claims invalid. That organism will soon die and decompose as well. Fossilization is rather uncommon nowadays. The only one of those where we could and do put a lot of carbon is buildings. However, even those end up rotting over time. Most of the coal formed at a time where lignin didn't break down. We don't live in such a time. We can't repeat the same process. It doesn't really matter whether the carbon is released back into the atmosphere in 2, 5, 50, 100 years. It'll still be released and contribute. Stashing carbon into those forms is not a solution.
- doctor_eval 7y ago
  That’s ridiculous. We’re talking about plants specifically grown, using agricultural techniques, for biochar or food. The entire industry is predicated on growing a predictable mass of plants per unit area. If we can’t do that then we have much bigger problems than the CO2 cycle.
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > We’re talking about plants specifically grown, using agricultural techniques, for biochar or food. And you believe this can be done in a CO2-neutral way, even if we assume the CO2 is recovered quickly and never accumulates in the atmosphere? Ridiculous, modern agriculture is far from even "low emission"...