The article refers to sequestering carbon. I thought one of the core issues with global warming was excess carbon dioxide.

I understand that one of the solutions mentioned for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide gas spewn into the atmosphere was sequestering the carbon dioxide gas.

I could not discern from the article(s) how biochar sequesters carbon dioxide or otherwise reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is a great example of the technology based approach to CO2 which President Bush is calling for.

Rather than forcing useless draconian legislation upon ourselves, we need to find solutions to environmental problems which also improve our economy and our quality of life.

BTW - interesting that the AGW people aren't talking about the fact that arctic temperatures are running much below normal along the north slope of Alaska and Greenland during this warm season, and have yet to get above freezing in most places.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2007/5/30/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04320/2007/5/13/MonthlyHistory.html

Walt,

When plant matter grows, it removes carbon dioxide from the air and sequesters the carbon (in the form of sugars and starches) in biological materials. When that plant dies and decays, it releases carbon dioxide into the air. This process of pyrolysis (heating biomass in the absense of oxygen) captures the carbon in a substance - biochar or agrichar - before the plant matter decomposes. That biochar can be added to soil, where it improves fertility and traps carbon for potentially hundreds of years.

Laura,

Good explanation.

The organic portion of the soil is critical for both fertility and water holding capacity.

Maintaining and building up the organic portion of the soil is a good thing.

You gotta admire Patrick's cherry-picking skills. It doesn't matter if 90% of the Earth's surface is warmer than average. If there's any area that's below average -- even if it's the size of a pinhole -- our friend, Patrick, will surely find it.

Apparently the fact that global warming doesn't mean uniform warming across the entire planet is lost on Patrick.

Mark,

If you look at the maps of where global warming is supposed to be occurring, it is skewed mainly by data which showed a lot of night time temperature warming in the northern high latitudes.

The fact that much of the arctic is running well below normal temperatures during this short season when ice and permafrost can melt is not "cherry picking." It undermines the entire premise of AGW.

IOW, Patrick, any interannual climate variabliity is proof that there is no long-term climate trend. You don't even believe that.

SB,

Long Term Climate Trend? How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png for a long term climate trend. Pay close attention to 125,000 years ago, 240,000 ya, and 340,000 years ago. How about today? Are we in the warm period after a major glacial period? Check out eh Holocene Temp Variations graphic as well. We have been going up a degree and down a degree for 10,000 years with CO2 levels sitting at around 280 ppm. Please take a look at http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg as well. Notice that CO2 levels stay below 300 ppm yet temps for the last warm period are about 3 degrees higher than today.

Now I get it. CO2 must be the problem. Temps go up and down with CO2 staying steady and CO2 levels below what they are today yet temps were 3 degrees higher 125,000 BC. I can't believe I was so blind to CO2's effects on temps.

I have a prediction. When the Climate starts to cool, well within our lifetime, the same people that have their panties in a twist over AGW today will be whining about some other imaginary catastrophe. No wonder anti-depressant and anti-anxiety sales are at an all-time high.