Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

[rangerx]

Don't put it there in the first place.

[Area54]

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The main point I was making is that not as much carbon would be released from cutting the grass.

But still you will not concede that this is essentially a one time hit. Earlier you referenced making a saving every time the grass was cut, but the root system grows to saturation point and after that your one time hit is over. It does not repeat on every grass cut.

 

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I wasn't trying to convey where the carbon would go once it got to the roots.

Then why did you tell me to google soil carbon sequestration? By that act you  were implicitly telling me where the carbon was going. Yet previously you had made no mention of this. You appeared to think the roots would just go on growing indefinitely, capturing more and more carbon. I kept trying to get you to understand all you got was a more voluminous root system that traped more carbon than at presence . . . once. And once only!

28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Simply stating it was headed to the roots was sufficient for that point

No, it wasn't.

28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I still have no idea whether you're criticizing the idea, or if you're criticizing me fact-checking it

I started out with the former. As you have begun to offer up more detail I have started criticising the latter.

Warning - Patronising Remark Approaching.

At your age I wasn't half as smart or half as ambitious or half as concerned as you are. You are to be complimented on all of that. However, that doesn't make you right, or on the best track for your goals.

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

More like a filter. Eventually, it will fill up and it'll stop, yes.

After centuries.

Hardly a one time hit

If you believe this, cite the peer reviewed literature that supports a significantly sized available soil reservoir below the planet's lawns. Deeper roots (which are the only practical root to grabbing more carbon from your GE grass) will rarely be going into virgin territory. There is capacity, but you need to demonstrate that this is significant. It's a one time hit.

38 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I know, it's not of the norm to ask people to fact check you before digging yourself in and refusing to accept you might be wrong, but big dea

I thought asking for comments was an excellent idea, but the detail you offered of your notion was so sketchy there were no significant facts to check.

 

40 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You provided 7 points, I answered them all, and you're accusing me of doing Gish Galloping?

I don't follow.

Your original statement was very clear. We'll sequester carbon in the roots. When the fact that this was a one time hit, you switched to soil sequestration. Gish Gallop may have been a little harsh, so I'll rever to "moving the goalposts".

And, no - I'm not going to check the facts for you. I'm going to give you an opinion based on my knowledge such as it is. That opinion will tell you where I think you are most likely to have errors. This is is a one time hit. By pulling soil sequestration you may have extended the length of that one time hit from two or three growing seasons to a decade or (at Most) two. But it remains a one time hit. And it's still a pretty small one. Your 35 million acres is less than 2% of the total.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So removing carbon after putting carbon in the atmosphere is a stupid idea why?

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with sea water creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

Edited March 22, 2018 by rangerx

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Don't put it there in the first place.

It's put there everytime something dies.

It's natural.

What else are we suppose to do with it? Bottle it up and launch it into space?

[rangerx]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

It's put there everytime something dies.

It's natural.

What else are we suppose to do with it? Bottle it up and launch it into space?

You obviously missed the part about carbon neutrality of natural ecosystems.

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

You obviously missed the part about carbon neutrality of natural ecosystems.

It's not exactly carbon neutral if you're dragging it from the ground and burning it again.

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with sea water creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

Photosynthesis. It will carbon, combine it with energy gained from sunlight, to produce food for itself. 

That's what plants do. 

 

[rangerx]

I said natural, not artificial.

[Area54]

What's the carbon footprint of the debate in this thread?

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I said natural, not artificial.

Sigh. What makes you think it's natural if we've made it artificial?

 

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not exactly carbon neutral if you're dragging it from the ground and burning it again.

Photosynthesis. It will carbon, combine it with energy gained from sunlight, to produce food for itself. 

That's what plants do. 

 

Now you're just blowing out your ass. Learn some chemistry before speaking on a science forum.

FYI, it binds with carbonate, hence neutralizing the ions thus PREVENTING life forms from developing.

[Raider5678]

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

If you believe this, cite the peer reviewed literature that supports a significantly sized available soil reservoir below the planet's lawns. Deeper roots (which are the only practical root to grabbing more carbon from your GE grass) will rarely be going into virgin territory. There is capacity, but you need to demonstrate that this is significant. It's a one time hit.

I had an entire replied laid out for you an it dissappeared. I'm just gonna give you the links and you can read it yourself.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706104000266

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5677/1623

 

Anyways, around 40 gigatons of capacity worldwide. 

But those articles do point out, due to the large capacity from basically any soil, the sequestration will be entirely possible.

The roots won't have to grow, they won't become saturated because you're putting it into the soil in the form of SOC,  and the soil won't become saturated for hundreds of years.

Since every time you cut your grass you release the carbon again, the carbon would be saved everytime you cut the grass, meaning the benefit would compound.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Sigh. What makes you think it's natural if we've made it artificial?

 

You are the one who suggested an artificial setting is natural, not me. Dense or what?

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Now you're just blowing out your ass. Learn some chemistry before speaking on a science forum.

FYI, it binds with carbonate, hence neutralizing the ions thus PREVENTING life forms from developing.

No I'm not blowing it out of my ass.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

I said SEAWATER.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You are the one who suggested an artificial setting is natural, not me. Dense or what?

What was the point of this then:

You obviously missed the part about carbon neutrality of natural ecosystems.

 

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

I said SEAWATER.

No, you didn't. 

 

21 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I thought asking for comments was an excellent idea, but the detail you offered of your notion was so sketchy there were no significant facts to check.

1

Is it possible for genetically engineered plants to help prevent global warming?

 

I took your posts as a resounding "No."

I'm taking RangerX's posts as a resounding "No, fuck you."

And I took Ken Fabians as "No, here's why."

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

No, you didn't.

Then you don't read very well.

 

22 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with sea water creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

 

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

Then you don't read very well.

 

My bad, I used the ctrl+f function and it didn't show up.

Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything.

The plant does not mix it with sea water, so it's a moot point.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 1 acre absorbs around 4kg of Co2 per day. 35 million acres, at let's give a ballpark figure of double efficiency, would be around 280,000 tons of co2 every day. You can safely assume that's an additional amount of Co2, because every time we cut the grass, virtually all the co2 automatically releases back into the atmosphere as of now. The GE grass would push it into the soil. 

Why would it do that? The article says more carbon into the roots, not all carbon into the roots. You wouldn't have anything but roots if that happened.

I like that you've attempted a quantitative analysis, since that's so often missing in these discussions, but I think you need to be more realistic in your assumptions and goals.

That said, you've chosen a very conservative number for the area. Having a larger value would offset the overly aggressive carbon values to some extent.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

The U.S. released 6.8 billion metric tons, so this would take away around 102 million metric tons or a decrease by 1.5%.

 Say you could increase the carbon efficiency by 400%, you'd take away around 204 million metric tons or a decrease by 3%.

As of now, we've successfully engineered plants to do it 10 times more effectively:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/#692d0d6a7944 and making fuel out of it as well. 

Those are bacteria, not plants.

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 It wouldn't be a one time fix. Every time we cut the grass, the benefit would be additional.

Not seeing how that works.

 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

My bad, I used the ctrl+f function and it didn't show up.

Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything.

The plant does not mix it with sea water, so it's a moot point.

Ocean acidification from carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything?

You're in way over your head.
 

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Because sequestering carbon after burning sequestered carbon is a stupid idea.

But arguably less stupid than not sequestering it after burning it, as we do now.

[Raider5678]

 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not seeing how that works.

 

Okay, grass growing has carbon in it correct?

Due to how decomposing plants work, the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere everytime it's cut right?

If the GE grass is more efficient at releasing excess co2 back into the soil as SOC(Soil Organic Carbon), then not as much carbon would be in the grass when it's cut.

Since less carbon is in the cut grass, when it does decompose less carbon will be released.

Every time you cut your grass, the additional amount of carbon that would have been released wouldn't be there.

Over time, that amount adds up, albeit in small amounts.

 

If I'm completely wrong then I am, however, I keep googling it and reading stuff that says this is what can happen, and if it can happen the GE can make it more efficient.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What part of carbon dioxide mixing with sea water creating carbonic acid don't you understand?

I, too, seem to have missed why sea water has entered the conversation.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Ocean acidification from carbon dioxide doesn't mean anything?

You're in way over your head.

 

Where did I say it didn't mean anything?

Additionally, ocean acidification from carbon dioxide happens even without plants, due to the large surface area of the ocean absorbing Co2.

This will happen with or without me doing anything, so I fail to see how it's relevant nor why it means I'm in over my head.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Due to how decomposing plants work, the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere everytime it's cut right?

Not if we bury it...

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would it do that? The article says more carbon into the roots, not all carbon into the roots. You wouldn't have anything but roots if that happened.

I like that you've attempted a quantitative analysis, since that's so often missing in these discussions, but I think you need to be more realistic in your assumptions and goals.

That said, you've chosen a very conservative number for the area. Having a larger value would offset the overly aggressive carbon values to some extent.

1

More carbon to the roots would mean less carbon being released when the grass is cut though right?

 

Which number was conservative? 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Those are bacteria, not plants.

They call it a leaf. I mean, I understand now that it's bacteria, but that threw me way off.