"Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,... Even in Mollisols,... Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Erich Knight

unread,
May 26, 2016, 2:25:25 AM5/26/16
to Soil Age, biochar, se-bi...@googlegroups.com, Keith Paustian, pete....@abdn.ac.uk, ag...@usda.gov, steven...@ars.usda.gov, Novak, Jeff, la...@osu.edu, David Laird, Laird, David, E Philip Small, T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk, Bob Wolfe, James Hansen, James Hansen, Frank Shields, karl j. frogner
Dear Soils & Char Advocates
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,...

Farmland Could Play Key Role in Tackling Climate Change
In this article the authors miss accounted the Earth's soil-C sink saying up to 2.4 trillion metric tons C ,when these are old numbers for just surface soils. Go down 5 feet and the soil sink bank holds 3 Trillion Tons C.

Then to the most "realistic' potential", let me add this to  Dr. Keith Paustian
concerns;

With the 4/1000 policy in place and 196 countries in Paris submitting plans to reduce CO2 via agriculture, forestry and placing soil carbon into their programmes,
http://4p1000.org/understand

The policy Soil-C value is established. So on to implementation.

My best Conservative Ballpark on land use change potential, based on the many studies & studies posted & discussed by folks subscribed to these Soil-Age & Biochar forums is;

A combination of Best Management Practices, (BMPs), for Agriculture, Grazing & Forestry with bioenergy systems which build soil carbon can deliver the giga-tons of carbon necessary into the soil sink bank.

Ag BMPs; 1 GtC,

New Forest & BMPs; 1 GtC

Pyrolitic Bioenergy, (simple technology), Cook Stoves; nearly 1/2 GtC  http://fb.me/38njVu2qz

Industrial Pyrolitic Bioenergy, (If one leading char company, Cool Planet makes your car into an air cleaning appliance with Bio-Gasoline & Char, add 1/2 GtC); 2 GtC

Holistic Grazing; (aka, Mob Grazing, Intensive Paddock Management, and given the 2012 UGA study showing 3.5 Tons C/Ac/am, potential could be twice this),  2+ GtC

Over 6 GtC,
So soils & biota can do more than half the 10 GtC reduction job, feeding carbon to life instead of death.

Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth

Carbon has been fundamental to life since the birth of our planet. It’s the source of all wealth and the conduit of all joy. Carbon cycles among and between billions of interconnected earthlings, whose fates teeter on the element’s return trip to the soil. Only the generous reciprocity inherent to life macro-cycles can restore abundance and harmony to the planet of the living. May we celebrate a happy Intended Anthropocene, anointed in water & Soil rather than Oil and Blood.

Soil Biology is our only way to rapidly and massively draw down CO2 from the air to offset our ongoing and past carbon emissions, It Can safely and naturally restore the hydrological cycles by increasing biogenic aerosols and cloud albedo that can readily cool the planet by the 3 watts/m2 needed to offset the now locked in greenhouse warming effects and avoid the Storms of Our Grandchildren.

On encouraging farmers:
May I add Hansen's Fee & Dividend, (revenue neutrality even Republicans can swallow.)

A government Carbon Soil Standard, for incentives' baseline, or more vocal & more collaborative support for the French getting these aggregate balls rolling. (Hear me TOM V.?)

On supply-chain initiatives, have a look at the Carbon Negative Cool-Vege program in Japan;
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/forebiom/WS2lectures/01-02-ASHIBATA.pdf

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Even in Mollisols,...

N retention & aggregate stability.says it all to me.

Biochar Improves Soil Aggregate Stability and Water Availability in a Mollisol after Three Years of Field Application
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0154091

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...

Torpor is argued, as a key way for animals to survive disasters. may have even given mammals the edge they needed to survive in the aftermath of the dinosaur-killing asteroid that struck Earth 66 million years ago

These creatures have superpower that allows them to survive fire
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/these-weird-creatures-have-superpower-allows-them-survive-fire

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Cheers,

Erich

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840
  540-289-9750   

Policy & Community Chairman
2013 North American Biochar Symposium
Harvesting Hope: The Science & Synergies of Biochar
October 13-16, 2013 at UMASS Amherst
http://pvbiochar.org/2013-symposium/

Walter Jehne

unread,
May 26, 2016, 3:30:08 AM5/26/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com
Erich 

Fully support your analysis but want to raise the stakes on what we can and must bio-sequester, a bit higher.

Your carbon sequestration cascade is totally valid; but a more powerful force multiplier than most realize.

As one gram of soil carbon can retain up to 8 g of extra soil water and support 10g of additional green carbon plus 10 g of fungal white carbon we can accept that 50% of the 20 g of carbon this first gram generates may end up as stable soil carbon in both humates and glomalin. A 10 fold or up to 1000% increase under wise regenerative soil management.

Given that the Earth's residual vegetation (some 50% of that pre civilization) comprises some 3.5 bHa or forest, 6 bha of grassy woodland, rangelands and cropland and 5 bHa of man-made desert and wasteland (UNEP), if we catalyse wise regenerative soil management and this 10 fold carbon bio-sequestration multiplier effect over even half of these residual vegetation classes our evidence from the draw down rates achieved in leading field studies (3-10tC/ha/an) suggest that we should be able to bio-sequester up to 20 btC/an from this enhanced biomass growth and soil carbon sequestration. 

This is some 3 times your 6 btC/an estimate due to the potential of your 'carbon sequestration cascade' x10 multiplier.

This would of course more than offset our current net emissions deficit of some 10 btC/an plus draw down legacy emissions to get us to negative net emissions safely and practically within decades while securing essential water, food, bio-material (bio-char) and habitat values fundamental to the social stability and survival of our 10 billion. 

However the issue is not how much carbon what system or who can sequester; but simply everyone doing it pronto.     

We may have less than 10 years to initiate the widespread regeneration of our soil carbon sponges, and thus the hydrology and safe hydrological cooling (ref Tufts papers) before climate extremes limit this and our future. Regards
Walter    


From: Erich Knight <erichj...@gmail.com>
To: Soil Age <soil...@googlegroups.com>; biochar <bio...@yahoogroups.com>; "se-bi...@googlegroups.com" <se-bi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Keith Paustian <Keith.P...@ColoState.edu>; pete....@abdn.ac.uk; ag...@usda.gov; "steven...@ars.usda.gov" <steven...@ars.usda.gov>; "Novak, Jeff" <Jeff....@ars.usda.gov>; "la...@osu.edu" <la...@osu.edu>; David Laird <dal...@iastate.edu>; "Laird, David" <la...@nstl.gov>; E Philip Small <e.phili...@gmail.com>; "T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk" <T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk>; Bob Wolfe <bob....@georgesinc.com>; James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>; James Hansen <je...@columbia.edu>; Frank Shields <fra...@cruzio.com>; karl j. frogner <patta...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: [soil-age] "Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,... Even in Mollisols,... Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...

--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/CAEO_ii-dLFSWjLmq2txPGGq4WG%2BjwxAT8toaTiduOHPHQZFgXg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Ronal W. Larson

unread,
May 26, 2016, 3:39:27 PM5/26/16
to Soil Age
Walter and list;

Can you (anyone) cite papers on this question of multipliers - which is hugely important and generally not mentioned at all in biochar studies?

Ron


Walter Jehne

unread,
May 26, 2016, 9:31:48 PM5/26/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com
Ronal

There is an abundant uncontested scientific evidence and literature over decades confirming;

1. How increasing soil organic matter can increase the structure and water holding capacity of soils.
2. How this additional soil water can sustain plants and photosynthesis for longer to fix more carbon.
3. How much of this fixed carbon may be bio-degraded by fungi in different eco-systems.
4. How soil microbial conditions govern the production of humic substances and glomalin by key fungi.
5. How these conditions can lead to natural and agricultural soils bio-sequestering up to 10 tC/ha/an.

While Erich's 'Carbon Sequestration Cascade'  is based on this sequence of processes, each step and the sequence of course generates strong positive feedback processes which can be seen and communicated as a 'force multiplier'.

The ecology literature from Odum and others clearly recognized these multipliers as the drivers of pedogenesis and soil and vegetation successions and extensions all over the Earth. Just as Carbon is the building block of microbial life it is these microbial processes and their detritus and their positive feedbacks that is the building block of soils and through them the Earth's hydrology, cooling, atmospheric composition, vegetation, bio-systems, resilience, buffering and future.   

Given the scale and urgency off our global regeneration challenge, and the reality that dangerous climate extremes are accelerating via positive feedback processes, suggest that we can not fix them by simple linear processes responses. 

We also need to engage safe natural positive feedbacks that can buffer and limit the impact of these climate extremes.
Hence we need to not just draw down carbon to linearly offset the CO2 rise, but draw on its 10 fold positive feedback multiplier potential to both;
1. Bio-sequester ever more carbon into soils by restoring rates of up to 10 tC/ha/an and regenerating bio-systems, but more importantly;
2. Restore the Earth's natural hydrology and thus hydrological cooling dynamics discussed at out Tufts conference, (papers attached) as these, to my knowledge, are now the only way we can now avoid climate crises within decades. 

Suggest that we need to engage our own logic and critical discussion, not just rely on the past literature, to reinforce why we need such natural positive multipliers and how to manage them to safely cool and regenerate our viable future. It may be lonely, but we should not lose purpose just because this identifies and advocates a new better way through the maze. 

Certainly these processes were critical in nature creating our bio-systems and we can expect nature will again use them safely to restore our mess, either with our help, or after our collapse. Cheers
Walter  

From: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: Soil Age <soil...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2016, 5:37
Subject: Re: [soil-age] "Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,... Even in Mollisols,... Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...

Tufts 3.docx

Ronal W. Larson

unread,
May 31, 2016, 6:14:39 PM5/31/16
to Soil Age, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Walter,  Erich,  List

This responding from five days ago.  Apologies for the delay.  I have snipped a bunch to keep this to just one topic  (and so have also changed the thread name).

1.   I mostly agree with Walter’s response to my request for citing papers.  But I could not find this factor of ten I was asking for anywhere in Walter’s response (and I apologize in advance if it is there).  I hope that the voluminous material sent (see Walter’s attachment) will eventually have a cite or two. 

2.  It took me quite a while to figure out that Walter was using Erich as a source.  Erich said, also last Thursday (and repeated below):

"Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth”

3.  If read as a “cascade” this could mean a multiplying factor much larger than 10.  But I think Walter took (and I take) this to mean:

Each Black Carbon gram of biochar (along with the later new humus) can do three things in parallel:
a)  increase water retention by 8 grams
b)  support 10 grams of Green Carbon
c)  feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth (and added microbe weight)

So Erich - is this a correct interpretation of the factor of ten soil multiplier?  I have to ask also for a cite - or is this three different ball park figures that can sometimes be obtained - based on your experience and readings?

4.  I would be satisfied if only the third multiplying factor was (on average) as large as two (2).  The reason - that would put biochar ahead of BECCS, which most analysts believe (incorrectly) as providing more sequestration than biochar for the same input biomass.    Of course I’d be delighted to find a citation giving any large number on average.

I have been looking for an average multiplier for ten years now - and seen nothing that I could cite - including Terra Preta literature - where some of the world’s worst soils have been turned into (it is claimed) the world’s best.   But there are soils worse than the Amazonian soils;  I can imagine a multiplier greater than 10 in the many cases where recovering dead soils provides the best economics.   What multiplier should we be suggesting as reasonable when we are placing (for example) 1 Gt biochar/yr in the soil (from about 2 Gt C/yr biomass)?   Should the multiplier (for convincing those who believe in BECCS) be 2?  3?  I find it hard to believe this out-year multiplier should be as large as ten - even when combining above and below ground multipliers.

5.   In fooling around with this I found a helpful Table (will expand if clicked) showing productivities and soil carbon content for different types of soils and bodies of water at:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth


The final column seems to include carbon both above and in the ground.  It must exclude inorganic carbon.

I was surprised to see that for land vs ocean the total GPP ratio (in Gt C/yr) was about 2:1 (115/55), but the global biomass (Gt C) itself about 470:1 (1837/3.9).  The ratio of these important fundamental global parameters is more than 300:1.   I bring up ocean biomass as I think we will need it for soil improvement;  algal beds show up as good as tropical rain forests on a per unit area GPP basis.

Anyone know of a better such table? (Wanting to separate out above and below ground carbon.)

Ron


On May 26, 2016, at 7:31 PM, 'Walter Jehne' via soil-age <soil...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ronal

There is an abundant uncontested scientific evidence and literature over decades confirming;
  <snip>

Certainly these processes were critical in nature creating our bio-systems and we can expect nature will again use them safely to restore our mess, either with our help, or after our collapse. Cheers
Walter  

From: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: Soil Age <soil...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2016, 5:37
Subject: Re: [soil-age] "Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,... Even in Mollisols,... Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...
Walter and list;

Can you (anyone) cite papers on this question of multipliers - which is hugely important and generally not mentioned at all in biochar studies?

Ron

On May 26, 2016, at 1:30 AM, 'Walter Jehne' via soil-age <soil...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Erich 

  <snip>

This is some 3 times your 6 btC/an estimate due to the potential of your 'carbon sequestration cascade' x10 multiplier.
   <snip>
From: Erich Knight <erichj...@gmail.com>
To: Soil Age <soil...@googlegroups.com>; biochar <bio...@yahoogroups.com>; "se-bi...@googlegroups.com" <se-bi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Keith Paustian <Keith.P...@ColoState.edu>; pete....@abdn.ac.uk; ag...@usda.gov; "steven...@ars.usda.gov" <steven...@ars.usda.gov>; "Novak, Jeff" <Jeff....@ars.usda.gov>; "la...@osu.edu" <la...@osu.edu>; David Laird <dal...@iastate.edu>; "Laird, David" <la...@nstl.gov>; E Philip Small <e.phili...@gmail.com>; "T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk" <T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk>; Bob Wolfe <bob....@georgesinc.com>; James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>; James Hansen <je...@columbia.edu>; Frank Shields <fra...@cruzio.com>; karl j. frogner <patta...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2016, 16:25
Subject: [soil-age] "Climate-smart" Value & Potentials,... Even in Mollisols,... Cooling it Gave us the Edge,...
Dear Soils & Char Advocates
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<snip>

So soils & biota can do more than half the 10 GtC reduction job, feeding carbon to life instead of death.
Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth
 
<Snip>

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840
  540-289-9750   
   <snip>

Thomas Goreau

unread,
May 31, 2016, 6:57:25 PM5/31/16
to Soil Age, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Erich is right that there is no doubt that the increased growth and storage of biomass above ground, biomass below ground, and of soil organic carbon (not including elemental black carbon) should all increase with biochar addition, some very considerably, but that the multiplier will vary with intrinsic soil fertility and climate, so that there is no single multiplier for all habitats and ecosystems, but many that must be determined experimentally. No matter how you slice it, it will be way ahead of BECCS!

The table you cite shows a lot that people are still confused comparing ocean and land carbon cycles. Not only is terrestrial biomass much higher than marine biomass, but it also captures far more carbon despite the much faster growth rate of algae than trees. In fact when you compare productivity on a unit area basis, the land is capturing around twice as much CO2 as the ocean, even though the latter is nearly 5 times larger in area, so carbon sequestration on land is potentially up to 10 times greater per unit area. 

The point of my 1987 Nature letter on The Other Side of the Global CO2 Problem (expanded in later papers) was that rapid cycling on land, and restoration of tropical biomass and soil carbon in particular, could prevent CO2 and climate overshoot in as little as decades, while the ocean takes 1600 years to turn over its dissolved inorganic carbon, and longer for dissolved organic carbon, based on C-14 age measurements. That 1987 Nature paper led to Richard Grantham calling me and asking me to join him planning the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon. 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

On May 31, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net> wrote:

Walter,  Erich,  List

This responding from five days ago.  Apologies for the delay.  I have snipped a bunch to keep this to just one topic  (and so have also changed the thread name).

1.   I mostly agree with Walter’s response to my request for citing papers.  But I could not find this factor of ten I was asking for anywhere in Walter’s response (and I apologize in advance if it is there).  I hope that the voluminous material sent (see Walter’s attachment) will eventually have a cite or two. 

2.  It took me quite a while to figure out that Walter was using Erich as a source.  Erich said, also last Thursday (and repeated below):

"Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth”

3.  If read as a “cascade” this could mean a multiplying factor much larger than 10.  But I think Walter took (and I take) this to mean:

Each Black Carbon gram of biochar (along with the later new humus) can do three things in parallel:
a)  increase water retention by 8 grams
b)  support 10 grams of Green Carbon
c)  feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth (and added microbe weight)

So Erich - is this a correct interpretation of the factor of ten soil multiplier?  I have to ask also for a cite - or is this three different ball park figures that can sometimes be obtained - based on your experience and readings?

4.  I would be satisfied if only the third multiplying factor was (on average) as large as two (2).  The reason - that would put biochar ahead of BECCS, which most analysts believe (incorrectly) as providing more sequestration than biochar for the same input biomass.    Of course I’d be delighted to find a citation giving any large number on average.

I have been looking for an average multiplier for ten years now - and seen nothing that I could cite - including Terra Preta literature - where some of the world’s worst soils have been turned into (it is claimed) the world’s best.   But there are soils worse than the Amazonian soils;  I can imagine a multiplier greater than 10 in the many cases where recovering dead soils provides the best economics.   What multiplier should we be suggesting as reasonable when we are placing (for example) 1 Gt biochar/yr in the soil (from about 2 Gt C/yr biomass)?   Should the multiplier (for convincing those who believe in BECCS) be 2?  3?  I find it hard to believe this out-year multiplier should be as large as ten - even when combining above and below ground multipliers.

5.   In fooling around with this I found a helpful Table (will expand if clicked) showing productivities and soil carbon content for different types of soils and bodies of water at:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth

<PastedGraphic-6.tiff>
--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.

David Yarrow

unread,
May 31, 2016, 8:01:22 PM5/31/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com
Regarding Ron's #3 below, this concept, language & numbers are from 3 slides in my Carbon-Smart training. One depicts Dr. Christine Jones' idea of "liquid carbon pathway" (I call it Green Carbon, from sugar photosynthesis in leaves). Another slide in my Microbes section mentions this biotic carbon multiplier. My favorite shows a soil profile view of perennial prairie plant roots 15 feet deep and thick.

None of which I show you, since I have no internet here, no way to get my laptop online. Maybe I'll use them in my talk at USBI 2016 (yes, another shameless plug).

Very important if you're counting carbon to account all forms of carbon, and to understand their cascading multiplier effects. My current favorite is Blue Carbon - water with a blush of black. Fulvic Acid is the current poster boy for Blue Carbon, but I make it from biochar.

~from David Yarrow's cell: 573-818-4148
From: Ronal W.Larson
Sent: ‎5/‎31/‎2016 5:14 PM
To: Soil Age; Walter Jehne; Erich Knight
Subject: [soil-age] Biochar's carbon sequestration multiplier

[The entire original message is not included.]

Thomas Goreau

unread,
May 31, 2016, 8:17:09 PM5/31/16
to Soil Age, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
There is a serious gap in these numbers, the traditional marine carbon figures and the traditional terrestrial carbon figures both miss the transitional coastal marine ecosystems that are the most effective and rapid carbon sinks, namely seagrass, salt marsh, and mangrove, which build up the richest carbon soils of all. 

All these ecosystems are now being rapidly destroyed, releasing CO2, but our research group has developed new methods of rapidly restoring all of these ecosystems using the low-voltage Biorock method, that will be the fastest and cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

Ronal W. Larson

unread,
Jun 1, 2016, 12:39:00 AM6/1/16
to Soil Age, Thomas Goreau, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Tom:

Maybe there are patent issues here on “new methods”, but I hope you can clarify this sentence from http://www.globalcoral.org/faq/#sink:

"Is limestone (or Biorock) an atmospheric CO2 sink. No! It is a source.”

with the emphasized statement (your last) below, which seems to say the opposite..

" Biorock method, that will be the fastest and cheapest way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. 

Ron


Thomas Goreau

unread,
Jun 1, 2016, 7:41:29 AM6/1/16
to Lloyd Helferty, Biochar-Policy, Entire Group, Soil Age
Dear Lloyd,

Restoring coastal mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses (all highly threatened by sea level rise) will provide the largest carbon storage per unit area, but their total area is relatively small on a global scale. 

About half the carbon storage in the entire ocean is in these fringing coastal plant communities, covering less than 1% of the Earth!

About half the world soil carbon is in wetland soils, and about half of that is in marine wetlands.

Traditionally these ecosystems have been ignored in both terrestrial and marine accounting. 

To have the global impacts needed to prevent runaway warming that will last for millions of years, all ecosystems must be involved, as even small increases in large, but biomass-poor ecosystems (like grasslands) will add up to a lot of carbon. 

Increased carbon storage in all agricultural, pasture, and forest ecosystems are needed, but some of the largest gains can come from restoration of lands that have been ruined and abandoned as useless, so there is no competing with food production.

In the 1980s Norman Myers and I calculated that there was enough deforested and abandoned land in Brazil alone to absorb CO2 buildup by tree planting at a cost of a few dollars per ton of carbon, hundreds of times cheaper than CCS!

Best wishes,
Tom

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

On May 31, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Lloyd Helferty <lhel...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Cross-posting to Biochar-Policy group...  Excellent info from Dr. Tom Goreau regarding opportunities for "large-scale" carbon sequestration.

 It seems that our focus really should be on coastlines and islands.

Regards,
  
  Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
  Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
  www.biochar-consulting.ca
  System Leader and Sector Expert for the "Climate Smart" Platform
  & Project Development Director, Energime University
  http://energimeuniversity.org/
  A member of The Energime Family of Companies
  "Education, training, knowledge and empowerment for responsible environmental management and resource sustainability."
  Not-for-profit Tax Exempt Status: 501(3C) DLN 17053330310044
  lloydh...@energime.com
  48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
  905-707-8754
  CELL: 647-886-8754
  Skype: lloyd.helferty
--
  Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
  http://www.prsi.ca/
--
  Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
   * LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND *
  http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com
  http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture
  https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248
--
  Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
  http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
--
  Steering Committee coordinator, Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
  www.biochar.ca
  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
--
  Chair, Community Sustainability (CoSWoG), A working group of Science for Peace
  President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
  http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
  http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario
  http://www.biocharontario.ca
--
  Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
--
  Advisory Committee Member, International Biochar Initiative (IBI)
  www.biochar-international.org

"Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out."
 -John Wooden
On May 31, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Thomas Goreau wrote:

Erich is right that there is no doubt that the increased growth and storage of biomass above ground, biomass below ground, and of soil organic carbon (not including elemental black carbon) should all increase with biochar addition, some very considerably, but that the multiplier will vary with intrinsic soil fertility and climate, so that there is no single multiplier for all habitats and ecosystems, but many that must be determined experimentally. No matter how you slice it, it will be way ahead of BECCS!

The table you cite shows a lot that people are still confused comparing ocean and land carbon cycles. Not only is terrestrial biomass much higher than marine biomass, but it also captures far more carbon despite the much faster growth rate of algae than trees. In fact when you compare productivity on a unit area basis, the land is capturing around twice as much CO2 as the ocean, even though the latter is nearly 5 times larger in area, so carbon sequestration on land is potentially up to 10 times greater per unit area. 

The point of my 1987 Nature letter on The Other Side of the Global CO2 Problem (expanded in later papers) was that rapid cycling on land, and restoration of tropical biomass and soil carbon in particular, could prevent CO2 and climate overshoot in as little as decades, while the ocean takes 1600 years to turn over its dissolved inorganic carbon, and longer for dissolved organic carbon, based on C-14 age measurements. That 1987 Nature paper led to Richard Grantham calling me and asking me to join him planning the First Geotherapy Conference in Lyon. 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

On May 31, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Walter,  Erich,  List

This responding from five days ago.  Apologies for the delay.  I have snipped a bunch to keep this to just one topic  (and so have also changed the thread name).

1.   I mostly agree with Walter’s response to my request for citing papers.  But I could not find this factor of ten I was asking for anywhere in Walter’s response (and I apologize in advance if it is there).  I hope that the voluminous material sent (see Walter’s attachment) will eventually have a cite or two. 

2.  It took me quite a while to figure out that Walter was using Erich as a source.  Erich said, also last Thursday (and repeated below):

"Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth”

3.  If read as a “cascade” this could mean a multiplying factor much larger than 10.  But I think Walter took (and I take) this to mean:

Each Black Carbon gram of biochar (along with the later new humus) can do three things in parallel:
a)  increase water retention by 8 grams
b)  support 10 grams of Green Carbon
c)  feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growth (and added microbe weight)

So Erich - is this a correct interpretation of the factor of ten soil multiplier?  I have to ask also for a cite - or is this three different ball park figures that can sometimes be obtained - based on your experience and readings?

4.  I would be satisfied if only the third multiplying factor was (on average) as large as two (2).  The reason - that would put biochar ahead of BECCS, which most analysts believe (incorrectly) as providing more sequestration than biochar for the same input biomass.    Of course I’d be delighted to find a citation giving any large number on average.

I have been looking for an average multiplier for ten years now - and seen nothing that I could cite - including Terra Preta literature - where some of the world’s worst soils have been turned into (it is claimed) the world’s best.   But there are soils worse than the Amazonian soils;  I can imagine a multiplier greater than 10 in the many cases where recovering dead soils provides the best economics.   What multiplier should we be suggesting as reasonable when we are placing (for example) 1 Gt biochar/yr in the soil (from about 2 Gt C/yr biomass)?   Should the multiplier (for convincing those who believe in BECCS) be 2?  3?  I find it hard to believe this out-year multiplier should be as large as ten - even when combining above and below ground multipliers.

5.   In fooling around with this I found a helpful Table (will expand if clicked) showing productivities and soil carbon content for different types of soils and bodies of water at:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth

<PastedGraphic-6.tiff>

The final column seems to include carbon both above and in the ground.  It must exclude inorganic carbon.

I was surprised to see that for land vs ocean the total GPP ratio (in Gt C/yr) was about 2:1 (115/55), but the global biomass (Gt C) itself about 470:1 (1837/3.9).  The ratio of these important fundamental global parameters is more than 300:1.   I bring up ocean biomass as I think we will need it for soil improvement;  algal beds show up as good as tropical rain forests on a per unit area GPP basis.

Anyone know of a better such table? (Wanting to separate out above and below ground carbon.)

Ron
<snip>

Thomas Goreau

unread,
Jun 1, 2016, 7:57:19 AM6/1/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Dear Ron,

Thanks for raising this question! 

In one case I was referring to restoring coral reefs, in the other to restoring coastal marine wetlands (seagrass, salt marsh, mangrove).

The difference is that coral reefs store carbon as limestone rock, not as organic carbon, and limestone precipitation by coral reefs is a small natural source of CO2, about 0.1% of what we put into the atmosphere each year from fossil fuels.

Coastal wetland soil organic carbon, on the other hand, is a major global CO2 sink.

We have developed electrical methods to restore all marine ecosystems, which is needed for different reasons. 

We need to save coral (and oyster) reefs for their ecological services: biodiversity, shore protection, sand supply, fisheries, and tourism.

We need to save marine wetlands primarily for carbon storage, shore protection, and essential habitat for juvenile fish and migratory birds.

Best wishes,
Tom


Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

Thomas Goreau

unread,
Jun 1, 2016, 9:19:33 AM6/1/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
There are no patent issues with our technology, we want the technology to be accessible to all who need it, we believe in freeware and copyleft, not copyright.

But it takes proper materials and training to do it correctly, and those imitating our methods without our help inevitably make fundamental mistakes, so those wishing to apply them should contact me. We’ll work with all serious partners who have a site, permission, & funding.


Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Coordinator, Soil Carbon Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

The Green Disc, New Technologies for a New Future: Innovative Methods for Sustainable Development

No one can change the past, everyone can change the future

Erich Knight

unread,
Jun 2, 2016, 12:37:54 AM6/2/16
to Thomas Goreau, se-bi...@googlegroups.com, biochar, Soil Age, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Paul Hepperly, kristine...@rodaleinstitute.org, la...@osu.edu, Jim Titus, James Hansen, Timothy LaSalle, David Laird, Novak, Jeff
Dear All,

As Ron said "Combining above and below ground multipliers", is the sticky, multidisciplinary wicket.
Aerosols in particular. Counter intuitive effects of sulfates, both reflective & scattering light, cooling yet growing more biomass. Biogenic Aerosol's new found etiology in conglomeration/aggregation of carbonaceous particles to rainmaking size.

All the "above and below ground multipliers", are life, are the biosphere are Gaia, so I can't discount hydrology now knowing how the Fungal kingdom calls for the rain. for trees to make the sugars feeding them & the microbes.
No wonder IPCC, computer climate modeling, disregard such a big ball of wax. We don't know all the players much less the intricacy of how they play together.
We can see the results of their work. The 10 tons C per Hectare/am, (4 tons/ac/am), by Carbon farmers in Oz. Mega-Ungulates & the Mollisols, TP soils, and as Walter points out the speed of this cascade. The 3.5 tons C per ac/am generated by Mob Grazing.

I pretty much stole the "Carbon Cascade" from Walter.

And as I said my total LUC Potentials were CONSERVATIVE ballpark figures.

At these rates of Soil-C building, a pedeogenissis of inches per decade over inches per century, basically solves all our problems.

Cheers,

Erich


Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840
  540-289-9750   

Policy & Community Chairman
2013 North American Biochar Symposium
Harvesting Hope: The Science & Synergies of Biochar
October 13-16, 2013 at UMASS Amherst
http://pvbiochar.org/2013-symposium/

Walter Jehne

unread,
Jun 2, 2016, 2:07:45 AM6/2/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com, Entire Group, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Hi.
What Tom says is very important. Nature works via symbioses and process interactions not prescriptions so we have to be aware and wary of people claiming they have magic bullets and quick fixes. Microbial Ecology is far more intricate, sophisticated, balanced and can have us for dinner anytime it chooses. Indeed, it may not want to be patented, when we learn how to ask it politely.   

Hence we need to foster our collective documentation and understanding of what works when, where, how and why and bring this knowledge together as a forensic collage like a big 3D jig saw puzzle. This should help us add more questions, experiences, experimental data and insights into how this system may work and what to try and document in different situations. We wont get there from people pretending to know it all or models based on narrow process assumptions.

The knowledge can only grow, as does soil, from the activity of grass roots enthusiasts, farmers and innovators and our collective documentation, discussion, verification and extension of it to catalyse the needed changes. 

If we do our target to draw down 20 billion tonnes carbon per annum, while aspirational, is totally doable and essential with every tonne og green biomass and soil carbon and every square meter and acre regenerated contributing. The planets residual (50%) terrestrial green bio-systems currently fix some 60 btC/an, so simply regenerating and extending the health, area and longevity of green growth of these by regenerating the Earth's soil carbon sponge will help restore the hydrological and nutritional dynamics that is currently limiting this regeneration. Just as nature can, so can we.  

Leading farmers not just is OZ but in the US, EU and globally confirm we can do this practically and profitable, doubly so if we can confirm the carbon accounting, verification, trading and price incentives being progressed via the 4/1000 initiative beyond COP21 at COP22 in Marrakech in November. We can, we must and we will, hopefully in time so the issue is just do it. Cheers
Walter   


From: Thomas Goreau <gor...@bestweb.net>
To: soil...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Entire Group <biocharst...@wiggiomail.com>; Walter Jehne <Walte...@da2.so-net.ne.jp>; Erich Knight <erichj...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016, 23:19
Subject: Re: [soil-age] Biochar's carbon sequestration multiplier

Dave Pennington

unread,
Jun 2, 2016, 8:32:29 AM6/2/16
to soil Age
Hi Tom,
I spent an hour yesterday talking to Eric Engler about the Bahamas project, do you have time to discuss it?
That sounds like a good application for EPIC, thank you for getting us together.

Also, what resources (papers and or video) are available to teach people your biochar technology?
Is Eric doing anything biochar related? Seems like he could be using HTC to convert landfill garbage to recalcitrant carbon and possibly extract fuel for electrical generation. He says the power there is 10x the cost on the mainland is that accurate?

Thanks
Dave


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/soil-age/65F99D87-97BE-4C0F-9626-18B2D35F2664%40bestweb.net.

Walter Jehne

unread,
Jun 2, 2016, 10:39:37 PM6/2/16
to soil...@googlegroups.com, Walter Jehne, Erich Knight
Ronal
Hi. Been bush so also apologize for the delay. With regard to references and as Tom highlighted there was a lot published on the former, current and potential terrestrial carbon fixation and soil bio-sequestration in the earlier climate analysis and response literature. This has been neglected in more recent IPCC and media reports so as to focus policies on reducing fossil fuel use and thus CO2 emissions rather than restoring natural emissions and sequestration balances.

There is also a vast amount of scientifically verified but not readily academically accessible data from forestry yield tables and studies eg IUFRO that often focus on merchantable timber increments but can be adjusted based on known fixed; crown, root and exudate relativities. Similarly on pedogenesis rates in the regeneration of natural and degraded mineral substrates such as following mining. Our studies in for example the natural regeneration of sand dunes by rainforests in Queensland (CSIRO Soils) confirmed not just such rates but the high positive feedback multipliers that enabled this. 

However we always need to qualify general statements by reinforcing that soils can bio-sequester UP TO 10 tC/ha/an via UP TO 10 fold multiplier 'cascades' and not mislead that all systems can or will operate at these rates initially or long-term. 

Have also focused on the UNEP estimates of the residual global terrestrial carbon fixation and bio-sequestration rates rather than those in marine environment which can be higher in some areas due to their lower oxidation. Hope this helps.
Walter


From: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: Soil Age <soil...@googlegroups.com>; Walter Jehne <Walte...@da2.so-net.ne.jp>; Erich Knight <erichj...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2016, 8:14
Subject: [soil-age] Biochar's carbon sequestration multiplier

--
Also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Soil4Climate/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.

Erich Knight

unread,
Jul 22, 2016, 3:07:19 AM7/22/16
to Soil Age, biochar, se-bi...@googlegroups.com

Aerosols in the atmosphere have several important environmental effects. They are a respiratory health hazard at the high concentrations found in urban environments. They scatter and absorb visible radiation, limiting visibility. They affect the Earth's climate both directly (by scattering and absorbing radiation) and indirectly (by serving as nuclei for cloud formation). They provide sites for surface chemistry and condensed-phase chemistry to take place in the atmosphere. Fine aerosol particles originate almost exclusively from condensation of precursor gases.

A wide range of biogenic aerosols are needed to coalesce micro-droplets into H2O condensing size by coagulation to >1 micron.

Full bore bio-diverse systems feed this cycling of H2O & nutrients, Bio-mimicking with diverse integrated farming & husbandry is the task at hand.

A lot of positive feedbacks and A task fulfilled at 4 Tons Carbon/Acre/Year.

Cheers,

Erich

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA. 22840
  540-289-9750   

Policy & Community Chairman
2013 North American Biochar Symposium
Harvesting Hope: The Science & Synergies of Biochar
October 13-16, 2013 at UMASS Amherst
http://pvbiochar.org/2013-symposium/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages