New paper on the lifetime of char from forest fires


Ron Larson
 

List:

1.  A friend sent this new cite re lifetimes of char (here called BC):

2.  The paper's title is 

"Global-scale evidence for the refractory nature of riverine black carbon"

and black carbon (BC) seems pretty much the same as biochar, which name doesn't appear.
.  
The actual journal site is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0159-8 and there is a fee on this one.   Dated yesterday,  it is not yet up at "Google Scholar", so I couldn't see if there is a free version anywhere.

3.  But I could read the supplemental at:

4.  Looking at some of the references cited and a little from the 3 above sites,  I think these authors are aware of biochar, but made no real mention of it. (one article listed by Johannes Lehmann et al)  My conclusion is that this article helps sell biochar a bit;  there now can be a longer lifetime assumed, from a global (not local) perspective. 

5.   Anyone able to give us more quantitative insight on how this paper should influence a sales pitch for biochar - based on CDR = carbon dioxide removal?  I think it doesn't really help much in today's biochar markets.

Ron


ALAN PAGE
 

Hi Ron,
Your citation in the first line of the note appears to be an honest assessment of what is actually happening along river channels and particularly regarding the age of the char (BC) found regularly in river waters. They mention 17000 years.

I have no real credibility to express an opinion, but this fits with the findings of Japanese char on volcanoes in the order of 55000 years if memory serves.

From a forest point of view in the NE uSA , I expect that most of the char that results from a forest fire stays where it was formed until there is some major flooding event that actually removes soil to well below grade as opposed to wind erosion. Forest burns are quickly revegetated with wind blown seed or resident heat tolerant or buried seed so that neither wind or  normal surface flows will move char very far.
 
Alan C. Page, Ph.D., Research Forester - MA License #184
Green Diamond Systems
125 Blue Meadow Road
Belchertown, MA 01007

Phone: 413-323-4401
Cell: 413-883-9642



From: "Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson@... [biochar]"
To: biochar
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 12:14 PM
Subject: [biochar] New paper on the lifetime of char from forest fires



List:

1.  A friend sent this new cite re lifetimes of char (here called BC):

2.  The paper's title is 

"Global-scale evidence for the refractory nature of riverine black carbon"

and black carbon (BC) seems pretty much the same as biochar, which name doesn't appear.
.  
The actual journal site is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0159-8 and there is a fee on this one.   Dated yesterday,  it is not yet up at "Google Scholar", so I couldn't see if there is a free version anywhere.

3.  But I could read the supplemental at:

4.  Looking at some of the references cited and a little from the 3 above sites,  I think these authors are aware of biochar, but made no real mention of it. (one article listed by Johannes Lehmann et al)  My conclusion is that this article helps sell biochar a bit;  there now can be a longer lifetime assumed, from a global (not local) perspective. 

5.   Anyone able to give us more quantitative insight on how this paper should influence a sales pitch for biochar - based on CDR = carbon dioxide removal?  I think it doesn't really help much in today's biochar markets.

Ron





David Yarrow
 

one issue i am hot & curious about that these researchers likely didn't give the necessary special attention & assay to is the presence of extremely low molecular weight biocarbons in the ocean waters.  and in river water.  "fulvic acid," to pin an existing label on this very mobile carbon.  nearly nano-carbon size.  i'm guessing, based on humic/fulvic data, complex biocarbons with less than 200, or 15 carbon atoms.  given this multi-millennium lifetime of "black carbon," this extremely lightest fraction of biocarbon must be accumulated to significant levels in the sea, altho undoubtedly, like on land in soils, the microbiotic life finds many uses for this ultra-fine stuff.  but i've never seen any assessment or quantification for these remarkable biocarbons, or a discussion about its implications for water structure & charge, mineral ionization states & associations, or the biotic activities of life.

my own observations of the interactions of biochar and water in the process of making char, blending it and using it in soils & sprays is that this ultra-fine, nearly-nanocarbon is being created in significant amounts, and much more of it can be deliberately created.  and we let it runs off with the quench water, or whatever rinse water is applied.

just idlely askin'....

~david

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:08 AM Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 

List:


1.  A friend sent this new cite re lifetimes of char (here called BC):

2.  The paper's title is 

"Global-scale evidence for the refractory nature of riverine black carbon"

and black carbon (BC) seems pretty much the same as biochar, which name doesn't appear.
.  
The actual journal site is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0159-8 and there is a fee on this one.   Dated yesterday,  it is not yet up at "Google Scholar", so I couldn't see if there is a free version anywhere.

3.  But I could read the supplemental at:

4.  Looking at some of the references cited and a little from the 3 above sites,  I think these authors are aware of biochar, but made no real mention of it. (one article listed by Johannes Lehmann et al)  My conclusion is that this article helps sell biochar a bit;  there now can be a longer lifetime assumed, from a global (not local) perspective. 

5.   Anyone able to give us more quantitative insight on how this paper should influence a sales pitch for biochar - based on CDR = carbon dioxide removal?  I think it doesn't really help much in today's biochar markets.

Ron


4RDKBTATWOF4I7VUHH2D2CLOXA@...
 

Ron,

I think that, combined with research on the soil recalcitrance of biochar, it could help refine upward approximations of longevity by helping to resolve doubts about the carbon sequestration efficacy of biochar exported by runoff from agricultural lands. I know Dr. Caroline Masiello, et al have studied this aspect of natural pyrogenic carbon, but am not sure if this further informs their conclusions. The fact that it is not a biochar-specific study would seem to add unbiased support to claims made for biochar's longevity. 

One bullet point to take away from the abstract is,

The flux-weighted 14C average age of particulate black carbon exported to oceans is 3,700 ± 400 14C years. 

to make the point that biochar exported by erosion to rivers is still a win for carbon sequestration.  

Robert W. Gillett


Ron Larson
 

Robert  cc List:

I agree with all your comments.  I may have sounded a bit negative - but only because the report does little to sell more biochar this year.   We need carbon credits to use BC lifetime data.

I spent part of yesterday at our state capitol, listening to talk about the horrible wildfire season Colorado is experiencing this year.   Here, as of yesterday, the state has already spent more than any previous year.  Seems likely this year will double any prior year wild-fire fighting expense total.  Virtually no money being spent in creating healthy forests;  almost all money goes to putting out fires - almost always as quickly as possible.

If there was money (Federal or state) for wildfire mitigation,  biochar could be the main beneficiary, and potentially save money now spent in putting fires out..  The carbon measurements of this paper would perhaps be even larger, because biochar put back on land from which the source was taken to pyrolyze would have been much larger than the black carbon (BC) being reported in this paper.  The BC lifetime would probably have been larger as well - biochar being more recalcitrant.  And biochar would be carbon negative, whereas wildfires are not.

Again, thanks.

Ron

On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:31 PM, 4RDKBTATWOF4I7VUHH2D2CLOXA@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

Ron,


I think that, combined with research on the soil recalcitrance of biochar, it could help refine upward approximations of longevity by helping to resolve doubts about the carbon sequestration efficacy of biochar exported by runoff from agricultural lands. I know Dr. Caroline Masiello, et al have studied this aspect of natural pyrogenic carbon, but am not sure if this further informs their conclusions. The fact that it is not a biochar-specific study would seem to add unbiased support to claims made for biochar's longevity. 

One bullet point to take away from the abstract is,

The flux-weighted 14C average age of particulate black carbon exported to oceans is 3,700 ± 400 14C years. 

to make the point that biochar exported by erosion to rivers is still a win for carbon sequestration.  

Robert W. Gillett



ALAN PAGE
 

Ron, and "allies" of Alan Page,
Please review the email thread below this note for some background to the TRAGIC situations discussed below. Please reply to the group if you care to add anything.

Ron, I agree that the situation in Colorado is tragic! I apologize that this note does not seem to have much to do with carbon, but you are wasting your time with the directions now being taken:

The reason why we have the situations we do are laid out in great detail in the following!


The findings of the Paradigm Report, written by Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf, are summarized in two short paragraphs:

"[From page 15] PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION OF INVESTIGATION, TESTING AND FINDINGS:
1. The judicial house (system) is corrupt through its elite and privileged mentality and profit making, ordered, fostered and encouraged by the private banking system, filtered and maintained by the bar.
2. Law enforcement is an order taker, and generally speaking, they turn a blind eye to the crimes their “superiors” are committing. Law enforcement is not corrupt in general terms, and they see what is happening, they just need support, and orders, to re-ignite their stamina and courage to enforce true justice."


WE HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED TO DEATH - real farmers probably never attended a single football game!

William Casey supposedly said that when everything that the general public understands to be true is FALSE the CIA will have done its job. Is this where we are?

The situation is compounded by a failure of us all to recognize that we get what we accept. The current funding system for everything is tragically controlled by those most dedicated to maintenance of power and greed and they have compromised those that we are naively trying to influence for the good of our humanitarian and planetary concerns.

All of the "science" we think we know is based on work that got funded in the past and we forget that there were individuals like JP Morgan who destroyed N. Tesla to keep his energy crew in business. This is still going on with the US Patent Office activities:


The ramifications of removing this bottleneck would change things very quickly if my information is correct?

Is it possible that we have two different societies - one earth based and the other a breakaway group that does not believe that they are constrained to the life maintenance system we seek to protect with the use of carbon retention practices and fertility enhancement with biochar? If so what will it take to bring this elite group of thieves back to earth? Or will the release of these suppressed systems allow us all to have such "freedom"?

So the question might be how do we stop asking compromised individuals (politicians, bankers, lawyers...) to do something that they do not see will be in their best interest?

Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf is now in jail awaiting sentencing next week for trying to correct the above situation and we are ignoring the fraud that is being perpetrated all around us and is delivering the lack of real information because the powerful want us to continue to buy oil, coal, gas, and electricity while we spoil every thing that is needed for life on the surface of this our home.

IS ANYONE AWARE OF E.O. 13818? This executive order should be used to stop the above situation by removing the basis for most of the compromising activity (human trafficking, illegal drug sales, occult practices? ...) but its application is being delayed because the level of awareness in the US is so low that the removal of the criminals that maintain the current system will touch people we believe to be our guardians and leaders.

Could this dedicated group of talented practitioners demand a fair public review of the findings that led to the formation of OPPT and the reasons why the efforts to remove the current monetary powers have been stalled?

If the OPPT findings and UCC filings that resulted are the appropriate process they need the unflinching support of groups like IBI etc. Once these systems are cleaned up implementation of funding practices that remove us from the dependence on the damaging systems we now enjoy will be much easier.

Is there something more pressing? Maybe listening to another legislative session? You may note that I sent this to my Federal "allies" - would you send something similar to yours? My "allies" are all "Democrates" and are probably more interested in removal of the current administration than in draining the swamp - which is what may be needed? It will be interesting to see if either of them reply.

Alan C. Page, Ph.D., Research Forester - MA License #184
Green Diamond Systems
125 Blue Meadow Road
Belchertown, MA 01007

Phone: 413-323-4401
Cell: 413-883-9642



From: "'Ronal W. Larson' rongretlarson@... [biochar]"
To: biochar
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [biochar] Re: New paper on the lifetime of char from forest fires



Robert  cc List:

I agree with all your comments.  I may have sounded a bit negative - but only because the report does little to sell more biochar this year.   We need carbon credits to use BC lifetime data.

I spent part of yesterday at our state capitol, listening to talk about the horrible wildfire season Colorado is experiencing this year.   Here, as of yesterday, the state has already spent more than any previous year.  Seems likely this year will double any prior year wild-fire fighting expense total.  Virtually no money being spent in creating healthy forests;  almost all money goes to putting out fires - almost always as quickly as possible.

If there was money (Federal or state) for wildfire mitigation,  biochar could be the main beneficiary, and potentially save money now spent in putting fires out..  The carbon measurements of this paper would perhaps be even larger, because biochar put back on land from which the source was taken to pyrolyze would have been much larger than the black carbon (BC) being reported in this paper.  The BC lifetime would probably have been larger as well - biochar being more recalcitrant.  And biochar would be carbon negative, whereas wildfires are not.

Again, thanks.

Ron

On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:31 PM, 4RDKBTATWOF4I7VUHH2D2CLOXA@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

Ron,

I think that, combined with research on the soil recalcitrance of biochar, it could help refine upward approximations of longevity by helping to resolve doubts about the carbon sequestration efficacy of biochar exported by runoff from agricultural lands. I know Dr. Caroline Masiello, et al have studied this aspect of natural pyrogenic carbon, but am not sure if this further informs their conclusions. The fact that it is not a biochar-specific study would seem to add unbiased support to claims made for biochar's longevity. 

One bullet point to take away from the abstract is,

The flux-weighted 14C average age of particulate black carbon exported to oceans is 3,700 ± 400 14C years. 

to make the point that biochar exported by erosion to rivers is still a win for carbon sequestration.  

Robert W. Gillett