View Single Post
Old 11-28-2012, 04:38 PM   #154 (permalink)
freebeard
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,500
Thanks: 8,060
Thanked 8,862 Times in 7,315 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
A SEARCH says it was a patent medicine...mostly alcohol?
Only 12%, but it sold well in 'dry' states. Wikipedia has it as Hadacol. It's a story that's more about advertising than it is medicine. Big Hollywood names on the Hadacol Caravan.

I'd heard about 20z/10gal of acetone but I haven't tried it. Do you see any difference in your mileage? Is the Xylol 'and' or 'or'? And what's the synth oil for? My digression bears fruit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
On the carbon sequestration front; this is yet another huge advantage of organic perennial agriculture - plants would improve the soil by sequestering carbon both in the soil and in the plants themselves.
Perennial? As in orchards? According to this article the Amazon basin was worked on that basis. To quote:
Quote:
1491——Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact
Cool Planet distinguishes C3 and C4 plants; the latter fix 10x the atmospheric carbon compared to C3, and the ones they use are all annuals—corn, sugar cane, sorghum and Giant Amaranthaceae.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy
Freebeard: I had read it, I had dismissed it as impractical. The ammount of biomass required to accomplish thier goals is just immense. Maybe as a partial solution, even if I am right it would improve the soil which is still a win.
Biochar is something anyone can do. Cool Planet is just monetizing the process to make it palatable to business.

Quote:
There still hasn't been any significant argument against my showing that base solar contribution is being compaired to the contribution of CO2 with feedbacks, the closest was the argument that the sun's intensity hasn't increased to which I posted documentation showing it had.
I'll admit I don't understand 'forcing', but I see you posted a Wikipedia link, so I will read that.

Last edited by freebeard; 11-28-2012 at 04:41 PM.. Reason: added link to The Atlantic