Recent Comments

Prev  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  Next

Comments 6501 to 6550:

6501. RedBaron at 17:46 PM on 19 October 2020
      A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration
      

      Nigel,

      As a general rule of thumb, no-till increases yields over tillage systems. There are a few exceptions though. For example organic production with reduced tillage does beat conventional no-till usually. But focusing narrowly on those two would also be misleading, because no-till organic beats both long term. There are very good long term trials proving both those controversial claims. 

      Yields from a long-term tillage compareson study

      The Farming systems trial

      Even focusing on that would be misleading though, because farming is a science and a skill too. There is a learning curve. And in both the cases above when people first switched, they generally lost yields per acre at first. Only after they became more skilled at it did they see the gains. Soil health also does not rebound immediately either. So the yield increases seen by improving the soil, even with experienced farmers, can take three years or more. A novice farmer could take decades to really gain the knowlege required.

      For those two reasons and more, it is also easy to find shorter term trials that have the opposite result.

      If you really want to be a skeptic, you need to always check your premises first. Next step is to check context.

      Trust but verify

6502. Doug Bostrom at 12:59 PM on 19 October 2020
      A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration
      

      It may be a matter (and I have a completely superficial exposure to this topic so emphasis on "I dunno") that  this is a bit akin to other sustainable technologies: no, it's not economically optimal according to some framings, but economics as they're understood from our history don't predict economics we may expect in the future, economics that are dominated by "we've filled the space available and we now need. a plan for how to occupy the available space in perpetuity."

      Our history and experience of economics is very short and very warped by circumstances.   

      One thing I _know_ (and yeah, I have my thumb heavily on the scale here I freely admit) is that more understanding of capacities is what we need, and Scott is offering a means to expand that understanding, help to set brackets on what we can expect.

6503. nigelj at 12:30 PM on 19 October 2020
      A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration
      

      I think this experiment sounds very useful, so good luck. I also think some form of regenerative agriculture has merit, and is the way of the future. I haven't always agreed with RB (aka Scott Strough), possibly because I'm a born sceptic (I drove my parents crazy) but I agree on many of the basics.

      I came across the following discussion some time ago. No till farming is good for soils, but it reduces productivity and this is apparently why farmers are a little bit reluctant to use it. However  reduced till farming hits a sweet spot of significant soil benefits and improved productivity according to this research. 

      www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/9378-reducing-tillage-improves-soil-yields

6504. wayne19608 at 09:29 AM on 19 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      one planet @ 15 much of what you said may be true, but is irrelevant if people are going to continue to promote these energy/methane/CO2eq numbers that are beyond questionable. But I guess it makes people feel better when they are eating their "organic" baby carrots and rice, and that's all that matters right!?!

6505. Tom Dayton at 07:09 AM on 19 October 2020
      Climate's changed before
      

      Hal Kantrud, you wrote that you thinks you read that changes in Earth's axis of rotation may be involved in the Little Ice Age. You might well have read that, because misunderstanding is widespread. But the "Little Ice Age" was not actually an ice age. Indeed, what popularly are called "ice ages" actually are glacial periods nested within actual "ice ages." Within each actual ice age there is a series of glacial periods and "interglacial periods." Currently we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. The Little Ice age in fact was merely a short period of regional cooling within the current interglacial period. See this relevant post--first the Basic, then the Intermediate, and finally the Advanced tabbed pane.

      "Wobbles" in the Earth's axis are so slow that they operate on the time scale of triggering the glacial and interglacial periods.  See this post about Milankovich cycles.

6506. Philippe Chantreau at 05:52 AM on 19 October 2020
      Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
      

      MIchael,

      I searched valve issues for MSR and found mostly publications centered around the freze valve problem,  but nothing specifically relating to the availability of alloys up to the task. Can you be more specific?

      As for myself, I believe that there is immense potential in the TWR model, and I find it hard to understand that a prototype would not already be underway in the US. If construction times can be kept at the necessary levels, it is the only solution that I know about with the potential to solve the energy problem of civilization at the short and medium term. If this was given the public attention it deserves, working plants could be generating commercial electricity even before ITER would start delivering useful data.

6507. Hal Kantrud at 05:07 AM on 19 October 2020
      Climate's changed before
      

      "n more depth, human activities have been modifying the climate system for far longer than most people realize. Evidence exists that humans have been doing so since the development of agriculture more than 10,000 years ago, contributing as much as 25 ppm to existing, preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels.'"

      But even from the Antarctic ice data it looks like a gradual rise began about 7000 years ago. This could correlate with the increased use of the high-carbon content grassland soils for cultivation of annual crops such as small grains and also for pasturage.

      "During periods of previous pandemics, reforestation of formerly cultivated lands have drawn down atmospheric carbon dioxide levels enough to measurably lower global temperatures."

      I see no dips in atmospheric CO2 following any of the world's worst pandemics. "Reforestation" probably means abandonment of cropland where forests once stood, where weeds and annual grasses quickly become dominant. So this perhaps accounts for the lack of dips. I doubt if large scale abandonment of cropland occurred in fire-derived ecosystems like grasslands where forests did not originally exist as these areas would be the first to be returned to agiculture or for domestic livestock by the survivors. Unlike grasslands, forests are shallow rooted and store little carbon, other nutrients, or water underground, so I would think long-term effects of reforestation on atmospheric CO2 would be quite low.

      "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity."

      Thought I read where regular changes in Earth's axis of rotation ("wobble") may also be involved here.

      "This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation."

      Whew! Now you are saying that Amerindians had more land under cultivation and overgrazed more acreage than European man?

      "it demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."

      I agree with that, but believe the recent upward blip was caused as much by convesion of New World grasslands to cropland as it was by the industrial hydrocarbons used to accompish that task.

6508. One Planet Only Forever at 02:08 AM on 19 October 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
      

      nigelj,

      I agree with your assessment and would add that a significant part of the problem is that 'Future people' will be the ones to suffer from what 'current day people' do that they can understand, but resist understanding, are causing harmful consequences for 'future people'.

      This harmful misunderstanding, or resistance to learning to be less harmful and be more helpful, is an expected result of the human made-up artificial games of competition for impressions of superiority relative to Others. Those games have boosted the tendency for humans to be selfish rather than helpful, and developed the belief that 'Harm Done is justified by Benefit Obtained or Money Made'.

      An insidious aspect of the current socioeconomic-political environment is that the more harmful someone can get away with acting the more competitive advantage they can have over more caring and considerate people - including people in the general population who do not need to care about the harm done by their purchasing or vote choices or the choices of how they will enjoy their lives.

      Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" is only helpful if the economic-political games are Dominated or Governed by requirements to eliminate harm done, with related constant learning by everyone, especially by people in leadership roles in everything (business, politics, social institutions). Without that Helpful Governing, the "Invisible Hand of Competition" is bound to be Very Harmful.

      The solution requires systemic changes that make consideration of impacts on Others, including future generations, an essential part of the evaluation of acceptability of an activity. And the pursuers of benefit should not be the ones to determine the harm done by their actions.

      People hoping to benefit from an activity can be biased against ensuring that no harm is done. They may even try to claim that what they want to benefit from is acceptable by comparing their perception of the benefit obtained to their perception of harm done and as long as there is a Net-Positive it must be acceptable. They ignore the undeniable understanding that unsustainable harmful activity must be eliminated in order for sustainable improvements to be developed. That type of selfish evaluation insidiously makes it appear as if "Harm Done is justified by the Benefit Obtained by the people benefiting from the harm being done".

      Harmful activity will likely always have a competitive advantage, including the way it can get people to make-up evaluations that justify continuing the unsustainable harmful activity. Those incorrect justifications for actions harmful to future generations include 'discounting the underestimated costs of future impacts' and comparing that 'level of harm done to the future of humanity' to over-stated costs of eliminating the harm being done.

      The measure of acceptability needs to be "No Harm Done". And that understanding is resisted because the current developed ways of living are very unsustainably harmful. That understanding illuminates the reality that the socioeconomic-political systems that have developed need to be significantly changed in order for sustainable improvements to develop.

      Profit and popularity have failed miserably as means of developing sustainable improvements. In fact, games of popularity and profit have made it harder to limit the harm done by human activity. And being able to get away with misleading marketing, especially in politics, is the major impediment to humanity developing a sustainable improving future.

      As a final note I would add that fossil fuels should be kept in reserve for a real future emergency, like keeping people warm after something like a tragic asteroid impact, or using a little bump of CO2 to get through a future period of significant reduced solar energy input.

6509. michael sweet at 01:02 AM on 19 October 2020
      Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
      

      Apparently the NRC has approved the NuScale modular reactor design.  They are set to build a reactor on the Idaho Falls DOE site.  A pro-nuclear article in Forbes said:

      "NuScale is building its modular SMR on the DOE’s Idaho Falls site and has a contract to sell the electricity to a consortium of rural electric cooperatives, two of which recently dropped out because of spiraling cost projections. This is dampening SMR enthusiasm and attention is returning to the large reactors of 1,000 MWe and above."

      Apparently even nuclear supporters are losing enthusiasam for small modular reactors.   Nuclear supporters move the goal posts again because the current designs have failed.

      The Forbes article supports a molten salt start-up.  As I understand it, the alloys necessary to build the valves in a molten salt reactor have not been invented yet.  Perhaps they have a supply of "unobtainium".  A major cost savings was the claim that a containment structure is not needed.

      This peer reviewed article finds that countries that build out nuclear power plants do not reduce carbon pollution while countries that build out renewable power plants reduce carbon polllution.  If nuclear is built out than the amount of renewable energy is reduced.  It is only a correlation study, more research will be necessary to confirm the conclusions.

6510. Daniel Bailey at 09:44 AM on 18 October 2020
      Climate's changed before
      

      Hal Kantrud, 

      Atmospheric CO2 levels reached about 265 ppm about 11,000 years ago, near the end of the last glacial phase and the start of the current Holocene interglacial.  From then until just before preindustrial (1850), CO2 levels slowly increased to about 280 ppm, an increase of 15 or so ppm.  

      

      (bigger image here)

      What this doesn't take into account is that human activities starting around the development of agriculture until preindustrial times added about 25 ppm to those atmospheric levels.  This implies that, without the human impacts, atmospheric CO2 levels would have naturally dropped by some 10 ppm over the same interval.
      
      In more depth, human activities have been modifying the climate system for far longer than most people realize. Evidence exists that humans have been doing so since the development of agriculture more than 10,000 years ago, contributing as much as 25 ppm to existing, preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels. During periods of previous pandemics, reforestation of formerly cultivated lands have drawn down atmospheric carbon dioxide levels enough to measurably lower global temperatures.

      "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.

      This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation. It demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."

      Link1
      Link2
      Link3
      Link4
      Link5
      Link6
      Link7
      Link8
      Link9
      Link10
      Link11
      Link12

6511. nigelj at 09:05 AM on 18 October 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
      

      And it would be better to keep remaining fossil fuel reserves for use as petrochemicals. Make them spin out as long as possible and the CO2 they generate can be released at a much slower pace or buried in landfill.

6512. nigelj at 09:01 AM on 18 October 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
      

      Studies trying to evelauate the costs of climate change and  putting a price on  carbon,  like Nordhaus's study have been heavily criticised as understating the costs of climate change and the price on carbon. It looks like a very difficult exercise to be definitive about any of this.

      liu.se/en/news-item/liu-forskare-riktar-skarp-kritik-mot-ekonomipristagare

      I would look at it the whole thing a different way. What we know is the very worst case scenario includes as much as 6 degrees c of warming this century, and 12 degrees c of warming, by about the year 2200 - 2300, from the IPCC studies, which would obviously be genuinely catastrophic. Only a fool would think otherwise or need to do nit picking studies. The risk of this is probably small, but the consequences are very grave, so this should be considered. Its not worth taking the risk. Its the entire planet we are talking about.

      An immediate plan of infrastructure spending and regulations would stop the worst of this problem eventuating, without strangling the economy and in fact studies show it would create jobs.

      Doing nothing will mean being forced at some future date to suck CO2 out of the air, a technology that would cost a fortune to scale up, if its even possible. Wind and solar power along with other policies prevents the problem and provides a tangible benefit with electricity generation. Throw some nuclear power into the mix if it can become economic and built quickly enough, but right now it has to prove that.

      Doing nothing also has a huge irony. In about 50 - 100 years time we will be running out of economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves. These are absolutely finite reserves. So we will have no option but to consider things like wind and solar power, so this strengthens the case for more immediate action.

6513. Hal Kantrud at 04:45 AM on 18 October 2020
      Climate's changed before
      

      Has there been a gradual rise in atmospheric C0s during the last 10 millenia followed by a spike following the industrial revolution?  Does the gradual rise correlate with human agiculture and pastoralism?  Does the spike correlate with conversion of North American grasslands to agriculture and pastoralism with the aid of machinery powered by fossil fuels?  This makes sense to me because grassland soils contain more carbon than soils of forestland or brushland. 

6514. Hal Kantrud at 04:26 AM on 18 October 2020
      Climate's changed before
      

      As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

6515. John Hartz at 03:39 AM on 18 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      I concur with Philippe Chantreau @12's statement:

      I see numerous valid points from all contributors so far, suggesting that this is a complex problem and indeed it is.

      The complexity of the agriculture's contribution to manmade climate change extends beyond CO2 and methane emissions. For example. it includes the use of nitrogen fertilizer as addressed in:

      Nitrogen fertiliser use could ‘threaten global climate goals’ by Daisy Dunne, Science, Carbon Brief, Oct 7, 2020 

6516. One Planet Only Forever at 02:05 AM on 18 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      wayne,

      I am inclined to agree with you about non-cattle food production needing to be better understood and helpfully corrected to be more sustainable. But I am less inclined to disagree with the opportunity, and the need, to dramatically reduce cattle rearing. Correcting how cattle are reared is indeed required, along with reducing how much beef people eat and the resulting reduction of cattle reared for human eating.

      The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals always need to be kept in mind. They are based on massive amounts of research and improved understanding that, like all improved understanding, is open to further improvement (the 2030 update will incorporate those improvements and recognize the progress made toward achieving the 2015 SDGs).

      The SDGs point to the need to reduce the unsustainable harm done by all human activity, not just food consumption. And they identify the need to address the way that economic competition for popularity and profit has a history of creating harmful results, including creating Desperate Poverty as measures of wealth increase faster than the population.

      Some people may claim that the real problem is the total global population increase. I do not disagree. But it is important to remember that harm being done, including the creation of Poverty, has happened while wealth increased faster than the population. And the recent global population study published in the Lancet indicates that achieving the SDGs will reduce the peak global population. So achieving the SDGs, all of them, is the answer to almost everything humanity needs to have a lasting improving future on this one amazing planet we are certain that humanity can thrive on as a part of the robust diversity of life that had developed.

      The harm done to the robust diversity of life on this planet, including harm by actions related to rearing massive numbers of cattle for wealthier humans to eat, is harm done to the future of humanity.

      A lame but common claim that also needs to be addressed is the claims that reduction of harmful environmental impacts can only be done by having increased wealth. The counter-argument is simple. "Harm Done does not justify Money Made and is certainly not excused by a portion of the money made being applied to partially correct the harm that was done by activities that created the appearance that money was made".

      Economics are an unnatural game made up by humans. The economic game can be responsibly governed to limit the harm done and increase the helpfulness achieved by the players in the game. That results in the understanding that the Libertarian Free Market thinking that some people want to promote are actually some of the most harmful ideas humans have ever come up with. It is undeniably incorrect to believe that Good Results will be developed if there is more freedom for people to believe whatever they want and behave however they wish in competition for Superiority relative to Others. All human actions need to be governed by the need to not be harmful and the desire to be more helpful. The economic games would need to be dominated, governed, by people who think and behave that way in order for Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" to be Helpful rather than Harmful.

      Humans have been coming up with different versions of those unjust justifications for Superiority of Some relative to Others (including those Political Nationalists), including beliefs that humans are separate from, and Superior to, the rest of life on this planet, for a very long time.

      Humanity needs to pursue expanded awareness and improved understanding and apply what is learned to develop a robust diversity of ways for the diversity of humans (more complex than the binary belief) to live as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life.

      Advancement of humanity is not necessarily indicated by technological achievements or measures of wealth. It is measured by how sustainable global human activity is, and its harmlessness.

6517. jadaasa12 at 18:02 PM on 17 October 2020
      It's not bad
      

      Almost any scientist looking at a new idea views it with deep skepticism and doubts it, and that skepticism is only overcome by a consistent preponderance of the evidence that keeps supporting the idea that that might be important - that global climate change driven by humans might actually be occurring. As that evidence has been accumulated, skeptic after skeptic among the scientists has decided, "Well, I'd better pay more attention to this." The physics of this is much more well understood. The models that incorporate all of our known aspects of physics and atmospheric chemistry and climatology and so on, all predict that what we're doing is going to lead to climate change. All these bits of evidence keep falling into place. They all keep saying, "Gee, we'd better pay more attention to this global climate change idea," because when we look at some data that maybe would have rejected it, it doesn't. It supports that idea. I guess what I would say is that the idea is so real now. There have been so many attempts to test it, so many attempts to reject the idea that we might be causing climate change which has not been successful, which keep supporting that hypothesis. I think it is now incumbent upon us to take it seriously and to do things to help slow the rate of climate change and hopefully stop it. If we find out in the long-term that climate change is not going to happen, we won't have done much to harm ourselves. But if we don't act now, we could have a runaway climate change that could basically greatly decrease the livability of the earth. The science is now solid enough that any reasonable person examining the scientific evidence would decide, "We have to pay attention to it. It's time to have some action."

6518. wayne19608 at 08:36 AM on 17 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      I find it hard to agree with the premise on a lot of this. Cattle don't need grain fed to them, only forage and maybe hay if you have a dry season or winter. Thus you only need to cut and bale the forage, and that's it no more inputs required. The cattle can even cut and bale the forage themselves if you're so inclined. It is a little harder to manage sheep(and to a lesser extent goats). But raising chickens and pigs without grain inputs is a huge amount of work. Grain cropping requires huge energy investment even with no-till. Rumination is one of the greatest evolutionary advancements, so maybe don't just pick on cattle as there a lot of ruminants walking the earth. The non ruminant/livestock methane production just comes out after digestion as their feces breaks down. And for anyone like myself who has stood in a rice paddy in Thailand, let me tell you it reeked, so I question the methane numbers there as well

6519. nigelj at 07:19 AM on 17 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      PC @12 says "A big question is: Is it possible to have the 987.5 millions cattle in the current World inventory all graze in sustainable fashion? "

      I don't think you can. I can briefly describe the scenario in New Zealand. In recent decades, intensive dairy farming has expanded to the point our soils are degrading and most of our rivers have become seriously polluted unfit for wading let alone swimming.

      Some of these problems have been mitigated by keeping stock away from rivers by fencing and planting trees near rivers to reduce runoff etcetera, and this has reduced bacteria levels significantly, but has hardly even dented nitrate levels. It appears the only way to truly control the problem is to reduce stocking density, so absolute numbers of cattle. Its hard to see why it would be different in other countries.

      It's not viable to resolve the problem by increasing areas for dairy farming to reduce stocking ratios. There are numerous competing requirements for land including massive government schemes to plant trees as carbon sinks. And its hard to get beyond the fact that meat requires vastly more resources for a given quantity of calories compared to grains and vegetables.

      Of course it depends on how one defines sustainability, another hellishly difficult problem but theres a general consensus in the country that turning our rivers into open sewers that are unfit for wading let alone swimming isnt terribly sustainable and certainly isn't acceptable. The debate is about how much pressure, rules and costs its acceptable to put on farmers to fix the issues.

      Then there is less intensive cattle farming on open grasslands where density ratios aren't so high and feedstock is primarily grass as opposed to grains. This is more sustainable, but only to a degree. To get the sort of carbon sequestration RB talks about requires rotational grazing, and quite low stocking rates, lower than presently. There was a research paper on this in one of your weekly research summary columns some months ago.

      As you rightly say its a really complicated issue. People also don't like being told what to eat. Theres a lot of conflicting advice even before you get to the climate issue. However a couple of things stand out to me. The trend in some countries like the UK seems to be just starting to move towards eating less meat, especially red meat, and towards more plants and maybe fish for a range of different reasons, not just climate issues.

      It's this range of issues that appears to be combining and leading to change. I think  looking at history, that change often seems to happen when a number of things suggest change is appropriate, not just one causative factor. It adds up. Lower meat consumption may spread to other countries eventually. But it seems unlikely to me this will be particularly quick, or lead to global vegetarianism, so that leaves a lot of space for getting grazing systems and chicken farming as sustainable as possible. I'm not sure how sustainable battery cage farming is. I doubt that the chickens would consider it particularly sustainable, if they could be consulted :)

6520. Philippe Chantreau at 01:34 AM on 17 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      I see numerous valid points from all contributors so far, suggesting that this is a complex problem and indeed it is.

      A big question is: Is it possible to have the 987.5 millions cattle in the current World inventory all graze in sustainable fashion? Immense areas of tropical forests have been destroyed to make room for cattle, what is the full analysis on that? Even if we can have close to a billion sustainable heads of cattle, can you then add to that all the other livestock and still have a sustainable system?

6521. nigelj at 08:32 AM on 16 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      RedBaron @8

      Thank's for the technical information. There's some good stuff there, but I have a few criticisms about a couple of things.

      Firstly I did indeed not say cattle are 'the' problem as BL points out. Clearly many things contribute to the increase in atmospheric methane in recent decades, not only cattle. Many studies have confirmed that.

      "If cattle numbers are dropping and methane levels are rising, it is a probable falsification of the hypothesis that cattle emissions were the problem."

      Cattle numbers are not dropping overall globally which is obviously what matters. Both the links provided by Alan Russel and myself showed that.
      
      "Cattle properly raised on grasslands restore degraded land, they do not "use" those limited resources, they are part of a system that generates those limited resources...."

      Strawman. The statement I posted was cattle use a lot of land compared to crop farming. This is a simple fact. Nothing you have said changes that. It's something we have to consider. You appear to be looking at it from quite a narrow perspective.

      But I don't disagree about the positive relationship you describe between cattle and resources. I did say I think grazing cattles on open grasslands has value. I agree cattle farming properly done can improve the land and sequester carbon, to an extent. Theres some good evidence. The trouble is so many things operate in the opposite direction. Warming causes soils to release carbon over time and also nitrogen oxides so dont get carried away with what can be achieved.

      On balance I go along with lower red meat consumption for climate and other reasons. Obviously fewer cattle equals less of a methane problem. And properly managed environmentally sustainable grasslands farming requires low cattle density so probably lower numbers than currently, assuming the same area of land is used for cattle grazing. Its certainly unlikely to increase in area. This is consistent with a lower red meat diet.

      That said, it seems to me that its really unlikely the entire world would go vegetarian, and some grasslands aren't very suitable for cropping or forestry, so we should clearly graze them in the most environmentally sustainable way possible as per your general prescription.

6522. Doug Bostrom at 05:36 AM on 16 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      Regarding Alan's remark (fling) regarding Skeptical Science promoting misunderstanding of animal husbandry and consumption of meat contributing to GHG, I feel complled to point out that we've covered this elsewhere and that the conclusions of that effort belie Alan's claim:

      How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?

      This is one of our more popular debunkings (or in this case perhaps "calibration improvement"). 

6523. Bob Loblaw at 01:48 AM on 16 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      Red. Nigel did not say that cattle are the problem, he said that cattle are a problem. And that there contribution to the overall problem will be a function of how many there are. I don't see that as "nonsense".

      As you point out, not all cattle will contribute the same amount, as other factors come into play, but you've made a strawman out of Nigel's comment.

6524. RedBaron at 21:20 PM on 15 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      @6 7 Nigel, 

      That's not the only nonsensical thing you said Nigel.

      "Firstly this is a tacit admission that cattles methane emissions are a problem, and less cattle equals less of a problem."

      That statement is pretty wrong too. If cattle numbers are dropping and methane levels are rising, it is a probable falsification of the hypothesis that cattle emissions were the problem. There are plenty of other sources of methane that actually are the problem, natural gas leaks are the most likely culprit. However, grain production is way up there on the list because in the overwhelming majority of cases it destroys the ecosystem function of grasslands, which are a net sink for methane. Haber process nitrogen made from natural gas, commonly used to raise grains, is also rising. Cattle raised properly on grasslands can restore ecosystem services, and do not need haber process nitrogen to do it.

      You also said, 

      "Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources."

      Also wrong. Cattle properly raised on grasslands restore degraded land, they do not "use" those limited resources, they are part of a system that generates those limited resources. We all know they generate food. But commonly misunderstood is they generate water too.

      Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

      Notice that the best result for soil moisture is properly grazed land? Even better than no grazing at all? What do you suppose would happen if we plowed that land to grow grain? In case you didn't know, Google "dust bowl images" for a graphic explanation.

      The proper use of animals, especially ruminants, generates new fertile land, food for human use, and water cycles. It does not use them up, it generates more of each.

      Feedlots are a different matter. This is why I have asked multiple times on this forum that people use their words carefully. It's not the animals that is the problem, it's the way we raise or food that matter. Actually animals are a great help in this regard.

      “As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard

       

6525. nigelj at 16:23 PM on 15 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      I said @6 above "It should be very obvious we could get all the calories we need from much less volume of grain and vegetables etcetera than volume of meat." This is nonsensical. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Please just ignore it.

6526. nigelj at 10:23 AM on 15 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      Alan Russel @5

      Regarding your comments:

      "Note that the amount of cattle in Europe and North America is actually lower than it was in the 1960's whilst India has fewer cattle than it did in the 1980s, (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA/visualize), so their associated methane emissions have actually dropped. This is a classic bit of information that is often unknown/ignored by those pushing the line "the importance of keeping animal products – particularly red meat, such as beef, and dairy – to a minimum". Even professional scientists like Mike Berners-Lee do this."

      Firstly this is a tacit admission that cattles methane emissions are a problem, and less cattle equals less of a problem.

      Secondly, although the numbers of cattle have decreased in some places, the production of cattle overall globally have increased in recent decades according to your charts. The charts below also show numbers of cattle globally increasing from 1890 - 2014. If you click on things you can get the exact numbers each year.

      https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

      "From what I have seen, if you're trying to eat to maximise the sustainability of society, you'd probably be best to try and focus on nutrient density, meaning that most people would probably eat more eggs, fibrous veg, fish, and meat, and less flours, cereals, added fats and oils (mostly the unsaturated ones)....."sugars, and grains, which are much lower in nutrient density and satiety than meat, and are significant contributors to the obesity and diabetes problems we face, and are also responsible for most of the agricultural monocultures and (fossil fuel dependent) fertiliser and pesticide use. Maximising nutrient density and satiety means that you need to eat less (LINK, Marty Kendall also has a lot of good information on his Optimising Nutrition site), so reducing your impact and you'd probably waste less food (http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/). "

      I disagree. The core problem is expressed in this commentary:

      Conversation LINK

      "Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal ( and clearly huge areas of grass) – and roughly 15,000 litres of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still....The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around 30% of the earth’s land surface is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources."

      This just isnt sustainable with a growing population and multiple demands on uses for land. If we lived mostly on grains, fruits and vegetables we would need far less land. It should be very obvious we could get all the calories we need from much less volume of grain and vegetables etcetera than volume of meat.

      The lower nutrient density of grains and vegetables doesn't matter because they require less land to farm despite us needing to eat a larger volume, and we can largely get what we need from eating them.

      Diabetes is not caused by eating grains or fruits. Its caused by eating too many grains and fruits to the point it causes obesity. Vegans as a group do not appear to have diabetes problems.

      Your comment neglects to mention the vast numbers of cattle fed on grains that require fertilisers.

      And we dont absolutely need artificial fertilisers to grow grains for our own direct consumption, although productivity would fall.

      That said, red meat is a good source of iron and protein and cattle fed just on grass doesn't require fertilisers and is quite a sustainable option in that specific sense, so there is probably a place for some level of open grasslands cattle farming. I think its actually intensive dairy farming that is the least sustainable option because its so inefficient by requiring so many grains and so much piped water and it also typically pollutes local water ways quite badly.

      I think the best solution is just to reduce red meat consumption to about one half or one quarter of what developed countries typically consume. There are many reasons and its the combination that are compelling. consumption of red meat has already declined in the UK.

      "The other really good thing you could do is support regenerative systems of food production ..."

      Regenerative farming in general terms mostly make sense, and is supported by good evidence.

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Activated hyperlinks and shortened those breaking page formatting.

6527. Alan Russell at 07:49 AM on 15 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      As Anne Mottet (Livestock Development Officer at the FAO) has said: "people are continually exposed to incorrect information about livestock and the environment that is repeated without being challenged", however it is disappointing to see Skeptical Science contributing to this.

      To a degree, this is fairly understandable as if you're looking at reports on the environmental impact of foods, it can be hard to find good, objective information, as even reports from professional scientists sometimes seem to verge closer to advocacy than science, but here are some things to look out for:
      - Does it use 100 year carbon dioxide equivalent emissions factors to account for short-lived atmospheric emissions? If so, this is a red flag and you should probably stop paying attention to the author(s) other than being wary of further misinformation from them, see LINK1, and LINK2. Methane has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 10 years, so if cattle herd sizes remain the same over the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere they will maintain the same amount of additional methane in the atmosphere year on year. In simplistic terms, their contribution to warming is equivalent to a closed power station. Note that the amount of cattle in Europe and North America is actually lower than it was in the 1960's whilst India has fewer cattle than it did in the 1980s, (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA/visualize), so their associated methane emissions have actually dropped. This is a classic bit of information that is often unknown/ignored by those pushing the line "the importance of keeping animal products – particularly red meat, such as beef, and dairy – to a minimum". Even professional scientists like Mike Berners-Lee do this.
      - Does it count rainfall as a water consumption i.e. does it distinguish between green water and blue water? For animals grazing on grass, the blue water consumption is pretty much zero: LINK3.
      - Are the soil benefits of grazing accounted for? "Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338) along with the provision of organic fertiliser, which reduces dependence on and impacts of fertiliser production and use.
      - Does it compare indirect emissions with direct emissions in a flawed comparison? This error was committed in the 'Livestock's Long Shadow' report and despite a lot of effort to correct it, the damage it caused still persists (LINK4).
      - Do reports which link beef to land clearing accurately represent the process that they are reporting on? Often they misrepresent a more complex process in which livestock farming plays a part by associating all of the impacts with livestock (LINK5).
      - Do the reports accurately represent what livestock eat, the vast majority of which is stuff that we can't eat? See LINK6.

      From what I have seen, if you're trying to eat to maximise the sustainability of society, you'd probably be best to try and focus on nutrient density, meaning that most people would probably eat more eggs, fibrous veg, fish, and meat, and less flours, cereals, added fats and oils (mostly the unsaturated ones), sugars, and grains, which are much lower in nutrient density and satiety than meat, and are significant contributors to the obesity and diabetes problems we face, and are also responsible for most of the agricultural monocultures and (fossil fuel dependent) fertiliser and pesticide use. Maximising nutrient density and satiety means that you need to eat less (LINK7, Marty Kendall also has a lot of good information on his Optimising Nutrition site), so reducing your impact and you'd probably waste less food (http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/). The other really good thing you could do is support regenerative systems of food production - focussing on best practice and the appropriateness of where crops are grown can make a huge difference. From the 2017 FAO study that I've linked above, it was calculated that a 21% increase in world meat production could require 95m hectares more land (an increase of 4%). This is an increase in land demand however note that it is based on the following conservative assumptions:
      - up to 15% improvement in feed conversion ratio, which compares to, for example, the halving of feed conversion ratios over the last thirty years for poultry and pigs in Brazil, Thailand, and Europe;
      - constant yields on grasslands, i.e. no improvements from regenerative agriculture (https://www.rootsofnature.co.uk/regenerative-agriculture-subsidy/).

      If you're trying to maximise your chances of food security, then reducing livestock farming, which contributes to food security by producing some of the most nutrient dense food we can eat from stuff we can't eat, on land where nothing else could be produced seems a bad idea.

      If you're trying to find the best thing to do to maximise the sustainability of society, and you're in the richest 10% in the world, you should probably try to cut back on burning stuff. There are some excellent resources on Gapminder on this. If you haven't seen it already, this is a good place to start: LINK8. Most of the environmental communications against meat seem to me to be misdirection, either consciously or subconsciously. This seems to be for one of two reasons. It seems to be used as a means to look as if effective action is taking place whilst avoiding discussion and implementation of more effective actions e.g. what's an easier sell - you don't need to change your consumptive lifestyle and can have food that looks, tastes, and feels pretty similar to what you eat now but is "plant-based" (whatever the marketers choose that to mean) and therefore doesn't have the impacts of animal products, which may be fine if you don't look too closely at the nutrient density or impacts of whatever is in what you are eating, and the benefits of animal products, or you have to consume less (don't buy/build that thing, don't go that trip, switch that off)? It can also be the case that those propagating the information are so blinded by their anti-animal agriculture ideology, and so disconnected from nature, that they are unable to objectively reason. This is bad enough in itself, but when this is present amongst scientists, it borders on an abuse of their position - people are depending on them for rigorous, objective analysis, and if they are unable to do this, then they are unable to do their job pretending that they are causes more harm than good.

      From all that I have seen and read over the last few years, a nutrient dense omnivorous diet produced using regenerative agriculture is the most sustainable for us as a species. I am just an enthusiastic amateur however, so if you have better information, I'd be interested in seeing it, though all of the publications I have seen that promoted reductions in animal product consumption have been based on the kinds of misinformation I've highlighted above.

      Apologies for the long post but I've seen this kind of misinformation a lot and I think it's important that information like this is represented as accurately as possible as I think that people generally want to aid the sustainability of society, but are too busy to spend much time researching, so misinformation is believed if it is repeated often enough or people trust the source. Decisions based on bad information are dangerous as the consequences are often worse than the problem you tried to solve.

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Activated hyperlinks and shortened those breaking page formatting.

6528. BaerbelW at 04:13 AM on 15 October 2020
      The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
      

      Update Oct. 14, 2020:
      The Debunking Handbook is now available in an extensively updated version written by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Ulrich Ecker and 19 co-authors. Read about this new edition in this blog post: The Debunking Handbook 2020: Downloads and Translations

6529. One Planet Only Forever at 02:41 AM on 15 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      nigelj,

      It is important to keep the discussion on the recommendations suggested by the studies and reports that this article is based on.

      The recommendations are for a shift of diets 'towards' vegetarian. There is an extensive history of Vegetarians living full healthy lives. The Vegan diet does not have as much real life case history, but the Vegan diet is not relevant to the issue being discussed.

      One thing I learned about exercise and strength training nutrition is that it is well established that the human body will only process the protein benefit from about 4 oz (100 gm) of meat in a meal. So eating more than 4 oz of meat in a meal is wasteful. And unless you are into muscle-mass building you do not need to eat meat as part of every meal. So there is lots of opportunity for people to change their diet to limit the harm they are doing.

      Even the lower-income portion of the population in wealthier nations could likely change their diet significantly in the recommended direction without any special mineral or vitamin supplements and without needing to develop the increased food awareness and understanding of a Vegetarian (though increased food awareness and understanidng would be great for everyone to have). And the wealthier portion of the population could dramatically change their diet in climate change helpful ways.

      What also needs to be mentioned is that any meat that is consumed needs to be produced in less harmful, more helpful ways, because achieving all of the Sustainable Development Goals is required, not just Climate Action.

6530. RedBaron at 08:54 AM on 14 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      @Doug_Bostrom,

      Eat what you want, just make sure it is produced on land increasing in soil carbon rather than decreasing in soil carbon.

      If it is decreasing in soil carbon, meat multiplies the effect by using more acreage. You should eat less or go completely vegetarian.

      On the other hand, if it is increasing in soil carbon, the multiplier works in your favor and you'd actually be beneficial to increase your intake of meat and decrease your grain consumption.

      Unless of course the farmer was using an integrated system growing both grains/vegetables and animals on the same land at the same time, then we get to go back to the first statement. Eat whatever you want!

      Why pasture cropping is such a big deal.

6531. Doug Bostrom at 07:14 AM on 14 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      Diet really touches a nerve for many people (myself as well if I'm honest). 

      It feels a little bit like the same "third rail" effect of accepting population limits. Immediate humid emotionality swiftly leading to various avoidance mechanisms. 

6532. nigelj at 17:40 PM on 13 October 2020
      What does the global shift in diets mean for climate change?
      

      Humans are omnivores after millenia of evolution, eating a wide variety of food groups in rough balance, so extreme diets go against our nature whether vegetarian, or atkins and paleo high meat diets, so I would need very good science based proof they are good for us. They all look like quackery to me.

      I see the merit it lower red meat consumption for climate, efficiency, cost and health reasons, but some land looks like it only really suits cattle grazing so eliminating all red meat seems unrealistic. I think a mixed diet of some red meat, some fish, some chicken and also beans for protein and grains and fruits makes sense and its what I eat and enjoy. Humans are omnivores, so don't reinvent that wheel.

6533. Doug Bostrom at 10:36 AM on 11 October 2020
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #40, 2020
      

      Thanks Nigel. Very interesting, particularly as it agrees with my intuitions. :-)

      Climate communications for a popular audience are substantially worthless because they mostly reach only people who don't need persuading. 

      Meanwhile our preferred lexicon and methods are littered with landmines, starting with loud and frequently irrelevant semaphoring of political alignment and continuing with hopeless moon shot attempts at complete value reeducation.  

      There's a whole other language left largely fallow. Stable energy supply. Jobs that last forever, multigenerational livelihoods. Cars that are more fun to drive and with engines that never become an oily mess. All true, and all appealing to folks who don't share our concerns. 

      Some people don't care about polar bears. We'll likely never be able to make them care. On a 100 million year time scale, why should they? Bears come and bears go. The vast majority of us don't even think 50 or 100 years ahead. 

      But they do care about things that overlap with our own parochial concerns.  And there are enough of 'em to really gum up the works of modernization, as we've seen.

6534. Philippe Chantreau at 23:04 PM on 10 October 2020
      Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
      

      Michael Sweet,

      You're right, but unfortunately cost evaluation is becoming as tricky in energy as it has become in health care, because of the crooks liers and cheats infesting the muddy legislative waters. 

      LINK

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Shortened and activated link breaking page formatting.

6535. michael sweet at 18:51 PM on 10 October 2020
      Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
      

      Doug Cannon:

      Your claims are simply false.  The OP documents that renewable energy will be cheaper to build out than fossil fuels. Since renewable energy is cheaper, utilities that use renewable energy will provide cheaper energy to their customers.

      I cannot locate your numbers in the EIA report you cite.  It appears that you are citing the cost to build renewable energy plants compared to building out fossil fuel plants.  You are not counting the cost of fuel to run the plants.  This is the largest cost for fossil fuel plants.  For renewable energy the wind and sun are free.  Your cost comparison is deliberately misleading.

      This EIA report compares the actual cost of energy from various sources.  That is called the levelized cost of energy.  As described in the OP video, renewable energy with storage is currently comparable to the cost of gas energy.  (renewable energy is already cheaper than coal, nuclear and oil). It is expected that in a few years the renewable costs will decrease and become the cheapest energy.

      I will note that the cost of gas in the USA is substantially cheaper than the world price of gas.  This is due to the availability of cheap fracked gas in the USA.  The fracking industry has never made a profit and has hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that they cannot repay.  This sugests that once investors stop throwing away their money the price of gas will increase in the USA.

      You provide no references to support your wild claims.  You are simply repeating fossil fuel propaganda.  The OP documents that renewable energy is the cheapest way to supply energy today.  Utilities will make more money if they invest in renewable energy than if they build gas plants.  

6536. BaerbelW at 17:06 PM on 10 October 2020
      Critical Thinking about Climate - a video series by John Cook
      

      nigelj @12

      Thanks & corrected, now it works (but the video is available in the blog post as well)

6537. nigelj at 11:31 AM on 10 October 2020
      Critical Thinking about Climate - a video series by John Cook
      

      BaerbelW @11, the link doesn't work.

6538. Philippe Chantreau at 04:33 AM on 10 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      JoeZ:" It takes a lot of resources to fight the fires too"

      True, and these resources come from the same pool as those for management and prevention. So, repeated catastrophic seasons deplete the resources for prevention.

6539. nigelj at 15:43 PM on 9 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      Daniel Bailey, I've actually reposted your comment over at Realclimate, because it backs up some points I have just made, and it might be of general interest. So many thanks.

6540. ubrew12 at 11:38 AM on 9 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      JoeZ@1 said: "We don't hear of huge wild fires in the American southeast, where forestry is a huge industry..."  Is the Southeast drying up?  If not, then there's the likely cause of the huge wild fires you didn't hear.

6541. nigelj at 08:46 AM on 9 October 2020
      Why a climate vote for Biden means the Earth
      

      doug_bostrom @2, I agree and for the record Im definitely not an anti tax zealot, which can be seen in my comment on this page (nigelmjo). 

6542. nigelj at 08:31 AM on 9 October 2020
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #40, 2020
      

      Some interesting research: "Why telling people how to save the planet may backfire".

6543. Doug Bostrom at 08:23 AM on 9 October 2020
      Why a climate vote for Biden means the Earth
      

      "Tax" has been turned into a dirty word which we should remember started as "bill for services rendered."

      "This contractor wants to tax me for paving my driveway! Never!" So let the driveway erode to become a gully. Etc. 

6544. nigelj at 07:34 AM on 9 October 2020
      Why a climate vote for Biden means the Earth
      

      Good points, although I think it could have been stated a bit more simply.

      There is some evidence here that efforts to date with renewable energy and declining use of coal and better data on actual remaining coal reserves mean we have already stopped the most extreme and destructive warming scenario of RCP 8.5 (5 - 6 degrees c). Of course we still have a huge problem at lower warming rates, even at 2 degrees, but the point its not too late to  make a difference.

      I think Biden is pushing a credible plan to keep warming under 2 degrees. He doesn't come across as a huge self promoting ego, he listens to experts, hes rational, hes not a rigid thinker, and his spending plan on renewable energy projects is probably the best political option in a country that is very suspicious of taxes.

6545. Daniel Bailey at 03:42 AM on 9 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      Philippe, repost away! 

      What's important is the public understanding of the science and that comes best with widespread dissemination.

6546. Philippe Chantreau at 03:20 AM on 9 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      Daniel,

      While wildouglscountry argument is not without merit, reducing you post to the descriptive of "impressive statistics" seems a rather underhanded way to belittle what is one of the most comprehensive examination of the problem I have seen. Would you agree for others to repost, copy/paste with proper attribution?

6547. Doug Cannon at 02:40 AM on 9 October 2020
      Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
      

      michael sweet.

      I guess I didn't make myself clear. Of course we have to take into account the costs of global warming.  But we can't lie to ourselves about the fact that decarbonizing will require a huge investment up front.

      Don't just look at the video and its carefully couched claims. Read the report and the NREL references. They show the cost of wind at $25/Mwhr now, dropping to $15/Mwhr by 2035. The cost of solar at $20/Mwhr now, dropping to $13Mwhr by 2035.

      The cost of a new gas utility is $6.26/Mwhr now (U.S. Energy Information Administration {EIA} Annual Energy Outlook 2019 AEO2019.....by the way, this reference agrees with Berkel;ey's current cost of wind and solar.) These comparison are all based on a 30 year life span. The story would be a lot different comparing to coal, but we're not building coal plants anymore. Renewables just can't compete with natural gas.

      But we have to look beyond that analysis because we're not really talking about expanding our electrical output, we're talking about replacing existing fossil generation with renewables.

      What we're doing today is using wind and solar to partially cut back on using the installed fossil generation when wind and solar are available (about 25% of the time for solar and 35% for wind). The $20-$25/ Mwhr cost for the renewables is offset by the reduction in variable cost for fossil which is about $2/Mwhr for gas and $4/Mwhr for coal. The capital cost for fossil is already sunk cost so we can't save that cost. It's costing us the difference of $20-25 minus $2-4 to reduce CO2 emmisions.

      The Berkeley Report is going a step further and actually replacing 90% of the fossil plants by shutting them down. They recognize that shutting down most of the fossil  results in a need for battery storage, which we avoid with the current "cherry picking" strategy. This is even more expensive than our current strategy. How much is a little vague; they don't breakout the cost of storage.

      I won't even go into the lost opportunity cost resulting from the diversion of resources into such a program. I'll assume we could find the resources and we could live with the reduction in our standard of living. But we have to get over this idea that requiring more manpower to get the same output is a good thing. The logic that this program is good because of more jobs is like saying we should go back to building highways with picks and shovels even though it would cost an order of magnitude more.

      So to get rid of fossil will take a major up front investment. The cost savings from reducing CO2 are well down the road. I doubt you could find a climate scientist to agree we would see any effect this century. But what we do now will help in the centuries to come. CO2/temperature is such a slow, long term issue I wonder if cutting back fossil to 90% in 15 years is any significant advantage over doing it in 30 years as the old fossil plants are retired.

6548. BaerbelW at 01:45 AM on 9 October 2020
      Critical Thinking about Climate - a video series by John Cook
      

      Update: Part 7 - 23 ways to mislead (41 minutes) added to the list. Happy watching!

6549. RedBaron at 00:00 AM on 9 October 2020
      Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing
      

      What is the rate a new regenerative agricultural method sequesters carbon in the soil?

      34% funded and 20 days left. Thanks so much for those who helped!

6550. wilddouglascounty at 23:55 PM on 8 October 2020
      What Tucker Carlson gets wrong about causes of wildfires in U.S. West
      

      Daniel B,

      What your very impressive statistics points out is that the window for safe controlled burns has shrunk and in some years has disappeared altogether. This has occurred in other parts of the country as well. But that doesn't mean that safe controlled burns should be abandoned as a management tool since fire is a central component of most terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, it makes the increased risk of catastrophic scale fires due to aridification makes controlled burns even more important than ever because of the alternatives.  A wildfire season in Kansas in 2016 burned over 400,000 acres of mostly grassland that was being invaded by woody species such as highly flammable eastern red cedar, Juniperus virginiana. Had controlled burns been used in those areas during wetter years to control the fuel supply, the damage would have been far less, and as folks found out in following years, the pastures were greatly improved by the removable of the woody invasives. So the trick is to adapt the controlled burn regimen to actively seek out the shrinking windows of opportunity that climate change has created.

Prev  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  Next