Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Next
Comments 8501 to 8550:
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
RedBaron @39
There's nothing inconsistent between my comments and your IPCC cut and paste, which doesn't define what the IPCC means by integrated. I mean its all fairly general but looks right in principle.
You are giving your understanding of what integrated means. But yes ok integrated farming with less monoculture and more mixed types of farming and regenerative farming might increase meat production potential. I would need to see some published research on that. I do think regenerative farming is the way to go in general principle anyway.
(I work in a design field, but I did a couple of years in quality assurance, and its made me very critical, sceptical and nit picky as I'm sure you would appreciate. But I make no apologies for that.)
I've gone back and read my comment here : "So given rotational grazing uses more land than intensive corn fed dairy farming, its rather looks like lower meat consumption to me rather than higher meat consumption." There is no fault with this all other things being equal. The integrated farming methods you propose would offset this to at least some degree, but it doesn't make my original statement wrong in any way.
I'm all for sustainably produced diets with some meat. The minimum recommendation is 60 grams of protein per adult per day and meat is a good source of protein. But many people in western countries eat far more than this, and perhaps some people in the third world dont get 60 grams but I'm guessing this would not be widespread. 60 grams is not very much, especially as a typical piece of fillet or sirloin steak is at least 100 grams.
Vegetarianism is at the other extreme and doesn't make sense to me environmentally because we have vast tracts of grasslands that only really do suit cattle, so they would be challenging to turn into crop lands.
The thing is we do need biofuels. They are about the only way to realistically get to carbon neutral air travel and shipping. Now I'm as nervous as you about vast areas of land being vacuumed up for biofuel crops, but at least some land looks like its needed.
If rotational grazing could be guaranteed to produce near miraculous levels of drawdown of atmospheric carbon, this might be a case to put "all our eggs in that basket" and say we dont even need biofuels and growing more forests, or things like BECCS, but the picture I get from all the weight of the research and commentary and articles on this website is that rotational grazing just has moderate benefits. I think higher than the harsher critics think, but less than you think.
-
nigelj at 05:32 AM on 6 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
OPOF @40, I agree that hard core denialists wont be more in denial by mistaken claims about warming, but we are not talking about those people. We are talking about middle ground people and fence sitters who in my experience very sensitive to hype. When they sense exaggeration or big mistakes, they loose confidence.
The research on tipping points is not an exaggerated or mistaken claim, as far as we know. I dont think you can compare that to Hansens claim about boiling oceans or AOC who said the world will end in 12 years. Both should have known these statements were wrong, and shouldn't have made them. Alternatively they could have been more nucanced and labelled them exreme possibilities, or something like that. This would get around your concern that there has to be a place for speculation.
Dont take it as a general criticism of AOC.
-
RedBaron at 04:47 AM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Since I have been accused of sloganeering and had my IPCC comment snipped...
Here is the IPCC report: IPCC Report: Climate Change and Land
The report states with high confidence that balanced diets featuring plant-based and sustainably produced animal-sourced food present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.
For context the entire paragraph
B6.2. Diversification in the food system (e.g., implementation of integrated production
systems, broad-based genetic resources, and diets) can reduce risks from climate change (medium
confidence). Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains,
legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient,
sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and
mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health (high confidence). By
2050, dietary changes could free several Mkm2
(medium confidence) of land and provide a
technical mitigation potential of 0.7 to 8.0 GtCO2e yr-1, relative to business as usual projections
(high confidence). Transitions towards low-GHG emission diets may be influenced by local
production practices, technical and financial barriers and associated livelihoods and cultural habits
(high confidence).This is integrated production models, not vegan diets and not as you said "reduced meat". It specifically says integrated which to a farmer has a very specific meaning. That means rather than monocropping and using those commodity feedgrains to supply the CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation more commonly called factory farm) system , instead the animals are returned to the farm and the land and there they can fulfill their ecosystem functions for the farmer, usually in some sort of rotational system. Also please note these changes in production and consumption "could free several Mkm2
(medium confidence) of land" This is because integrated farming systems yield much MORE food per acre, compared to the factory farming system. I will repeat, they yield more in terms of yields per acre, not less. Factory farms are only more productive in terms of yields per man hour. They do not yield more food per acre.Every one of those points Savory has repeatedly said over and over. And yet people with no knowledge of agriculture read the exact same paragraph and conclude meat consumption must drop.
The key here is sustainably produced balanced diets. Yes in some cases that might mean less meat, in many cases around the world it actually means we need more meat to make properly balanced sustainable diets. Overall globally there are many more people who would benefit from more meat in their diet, not less. And if we change to integrated sustainably produced plant and animal foods, it will actually reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, allowing large areas to be restored to the biomes present before human impact.
Exactly yet again what Savory both advocates and has proven in his award winning proof of concept.
“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory
PS There is an elephant in the room though. Right now we have all surplus commodity grains producing biofuels. Reducing land in food production by integration of sustainably produced plant and animal foods will not actually help at all if we continue to send all commodity surpluses for biofuel and other industrial uses. So even if you were right that reduce meat consumption was needed, it would not necessarily have the impact you envision. Land would still be deforested to fill this nearly unlimited demand. Even desertified land restored by holistic management would likely soon after be put to the plow to fill the demand for biofuels and desertify all over again.
In my opinion this sort of industrial use must be either eliminated or highly discouraged or else none of the other issues will improve at all. It will become so much "shifting deck chairs on a sinking titanic". That last part is my opinion based on the current market dynamic.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:56 AM on 6 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
nigelj @39,
It is highly likely that anyone showing little interest in pursuing more awareness and improved understanding of climate science 'because of comments made regarding the potential worst consequences of a lack of corrective action' actually has no interest in expanding their awareness and improving their understanding regarding this issue.
By the standard you set, the article I linked to at the end of my comment would be banned from publication. Even presenting the range of possible future consequences the way the IPCC does would not be allowed.
If the qualification is added that the near term range of climate change should be able to be presented, then why not the 'possible' longer term realities of a lack of correction, why stop at presenting the consequences in 2100? What about the consequences in 3000?
The approach you suggest, without opening it up to wider awareness, is like saying scientists should only report absolute certainty. And any science-minded individual understands the repugnant absurdity of that.
That demand for certainty is the main basis for resistance to correction of harmful developed activities. The claim is made that those activities (the people wanting to benefit from them), cannot be stopped or even be penalized unless there is a very high degree of certainty. Any question at all means nothing should be done to stop or discourage the activity. That is playing the game the way the likes of Singer want it played. And that is a dead-end game for humanity.
-
nigelj at 18:22 PM on 5 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
"Questioning scientific practice: linking beliefs about scientists, science agencies, and climate change (open access)" doesn't appear to be open access.
The informed opinion section is a great idea.
-
nigelj at 14:23 PM on 5 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Perhaps this websites main page could have a permanent link to Climate Adams Videos and Potholers videos and similar videos titled "Interesting Videos", or "Interesting Information". Their work goes to the heart of debunking myths. A brief description could indicate the basic differences in their approaches.
OPOF @38, maybe yes, maybe no. I think that when the average person hears about warmists exaggerated and incorrect and easily debunked claims, its never a good thing. We could debate forever whether this is so and whether it significantly alters their perception of things, but there's an easy answer: Do the homework and don't make exaggerated and mistaken claims. Don't give denialists even the slightest ammunition.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:17 PM on 5 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
I have just noticed that the item I linked to above is the basis for the "Climate Tipping Points Are Closer Than We Think, Scientists Warn" article that is included in "2019 SKS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:09 PM on 5 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
This recent Comment published Nov 27 in Nature "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against", may be appropriate for the new Informed Opinion and nudges catergory.
-
BaerbelW at 07:29 AM on 5 December 2019Cranky Uncle crowdfunding campaign launches!
TVC15 @2
Hopefully, yes! The plan is to up the ante to $25,000 to also get the Android version once the first goal of $15,000 for iPhone/iPad has been reached.
John listed this and additional stretch goals in last week‘s article about the scientific background of the app: http://sks.to/crankyscience
-
nigelj at 06:18 AM on 5 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Red Baron @29, I haven't kept a record of my calculation, but I was going by a smaller land area that I got off some website ( it looks like it was wrong), and I factored in an allowance for the fact that warming will cause some loss of soil carbon eventually as has been established in research. So my estimate was probably too low, however I doubt we would achieve your optimistic numbers either.
And like I said, there are huge competing requirements for land, and they are valid requirements. Realistically you are going to probably have to make the best of current grazing areas, and even that will be optimistic. So given rotational grazing uses more land than intensive corn fed dairy farming, its rather looks like lower meat consumption to me rather than higher meat consumption.
Savorys ideas about reclaiming desert look rather optimistic. This would not just happen in a market economy, there's not enough profit in it, and it would need massive tax payer subsidies. Again there are many competing requirements for tax payer subsidies.
However I do think theres a case for subsidising proper rotational grazing methods etc as best we can. Carbon taxes and cap and trade are too indirect to usefully promote your ideas.
So yeah the rotational grazing thing still looks very useful to me and would sequester significant carbon, but you have to be realistic about what can be achieved in the real world. Don't over hype it. Sometimes selling an idea effectively requires being just a little bit understated.
-
TVC15 at 05:56 AM on 5 December 2019Cranky Uncle crowdfunding campaign launches!
Hi,
Will this app also be availbe for Androids?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:45 AM on 5 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Different styles of communication will reach different people.
Any action that has a chance of changing the mind of an older person is helpful.
However, what is most important for the future of humanity is inoculating the younger generation against the temptations towards selfish interest that can convert a More Helpful Thoughtful Person into a More Defensive Correction Resistant Harmful Person.
Cranky Uncle and Climate Adam (and Greta) are likely better at that inoculation effort on the younger generation than Potholer54 (John Oliver seems to be better at providing a detailed inoculating presentation that appeals to younger people - cuz he effectively uses Hyperbole and cusses).
As for the 'tragedy of hyperbole' by the likes of Mann and AOC creating 'easy Wins' for the group wanting to resist corrections of harmful unsustainable developed human activity. Anyone easily impressed by the criticisms that are made-up based on those hyperbolic statements is unlikely to be moved to change their mind by a detailed presentation of the reasons to change their mind (nothing to do with the hyperbolic statement). Their lack of effort to investigate the merit of the criticism of the likes of AOC and Mann is likely due to a Powerful Developed Bias that would not be easily chipped through by attempts to appeal to their ability to be reasonable and helpful.
And this recent Comment published Nov 27 in Nature "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against" is more 'valid hyperbole' with a detailed presentation of current developed understanding that appears to indicate that Mann and AOC were only being 'a little bit hyperbolic'. The potential for passing significant climate change tipping-points by a failure to 'get control of what is going on and effectively correct things by 2030' appears to deserve to be a serious concern for the 'Future of the world that humanity hopes to continue to live in' even if some people will 'get popular support for claims that it is absurd hyperbole'.
-
RedBaron at 00:33 AM on 5 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
@michael Sweet,
I have back up all claims as well as debunked the false claims in the OP multiple times, if that's what you mean, sure.
And yes I have done this for years, and slowly the consensus of scientific opinion has been moving this direction too.
There are many many comming around, project drawdown being a great example: Project drawdown
Terraton initiative being another.
Even the IPCC admits it, but is under the mistaken notion that changing agriculture would lower yields, so makes the mistaken assumption relatively small acreage could be changed. In fact yields for increase substantially. So that is why although they agree it could be significant, they lowball it.
Now it is to the point that the OP position posted here is decidedly minority, Actually in my opinion it is actually a merchants of doubt talking point that somehow got past Skeptical Science..
I am not critical of Skeptical Science though, because the merchants of doubt used a shotgun approach and fired literally hundreds of obfuscation attempts and the fact you managed to debunk them all but one is pretty impressive actually.
I am just trying to help you tackle the one you missed.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
michael sweet at 23:46 PM on 4 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Red Baron,
You have been making the same claims here for years. I read your references and they do not support your wild claims. The OP here reviews the literature on this topic and clearly states that your claims are not supported. A review of the comments sees you repeating the same unsupported claims.
Better farming methods will help and fix a little carbon. Your claims that all released carbon can be sequestered are simply false. There is no magic bullet in graising.
New readers should read the OP for a more balanced evaluation of holistic grazing.
-
RedBaron at 23:42 PM on 4 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
There is approximately 3.5 billion ha of grazing land already. approximately 80% of it is currently over grazed or under grazed.
10 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr x 3.5 billion = 35 billion tonnes CO2e/yr
Global emissions are in that range as in 2018, global fossil CO2 emissions totaled 36.6 billion tons.
That is not counting restoring desertified land as Savory advises, nor does it count restoring farnland currently being used unwisely for commodity crops to fill a highly wasteful and unsustainable industrialised commodity system. That's about 320 million hecares worldwide that less than 1/2 of which actually feeds human beings. So another 1.6 billion tonnes CO2e/yr.
But wait there is more. Most the haber process fertilizers and fossil fuel usage for supplying these foolish production models all add up to approximately 15-20 % of emissions worldwide. Just fixing them alone potentially reduces emissions ~7.2 billion tonnes CO2/yr.
35+1.6+7.2 = roughly a potential of 43.8 billion tonnes CO2 offset against a total emissions of 36.6 billion tonnes emissions and already about 1/2 of that is already offset by natural systems!
We have the potential for drawdown. Maybe just by using holistic management to replace the commodity corn system and regenerate desertified lands.
So I am not sure at all how you obtained a potential of only 10% since you have not shown your figures.
Of course that's theorectical potential. Much like the potential for renewable energy, the actual numbers are fairly certain to fall short of the potential. Not everyone will change agriculture in a single year. It takes decades for training and infrastructure etc... and that's only after the actual commitment to make the change in the first place.
So of course reductions in fossil fuel use will need to be made to meet it 1/2 way in the middle somewhere. But certainly actual drawdown is possible. No other drawdown potential exists using any other technology currently available.
-
nigelj at 17:22 PM on 4 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
RedBaron @27
You have made a sweeping statement that I got everything wrong. You have learned literally nothing about my comments about diplomacy. Most people are going to react to that sort of comment by dismissing both you are your ideas. Fortunately for you I have a thick skin and control my temper.
It's also an immensely silly statement, because some things I said are what you have said, or close enough.
You have not answered my question in paragraph 5. Again, you show no diplomacy, and no respect.
You have mentioned one specific thing that you disagree with: that I think we should eat less meat. You think we should eat more meat, but this doesn't make sense to me, because it means we need even more land for cattle. Do you not realise there is competing demand for land for biofuels, and beccs and foresty, and crops to feed a population heading to 12 billion people at least, and urban development?
Meat is a very inefficient use of resources requiring enormous inputs of land, biomass and water for a small quantity ofprotein outputs. Obviously you must know this.
Yes I understand the "corn" issue in America, but that is only one component of land demand as I've outlined.
It's really unlikely we can or should expand areas of land for grazing. Given rotational grazing is land intensive, if anything per capita meat consumption probably thus needs to fall, although not drastically.
Now you would presumably argue that actually hugely expanding grasslands for cattle farming is a great thing, because it draws down atmospheric carbon, and so this should all take precedence over everything else. This would be a big claim so needs massive levels of proof. I have had a look at the numbers, and even taking your best numbers of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr, and using 10 tonnes, this gives something like a reduction in about 10% of our total current emissions per year It's still a good number - but as pointed out on this website about a year ago it falls well short of the sort of claims made by people like Savory no matter how you try to spin it. And this assumes literally all farms work regeneratively, ( a massive scaling up operation with huge challenges) and this soil carbon diminishes over time as soils heat up and upper layers become a net carbon source.
The whole rotational grazing proposal has merit, but would therefore take a very long time to make a dent in atmospheric concentrations of carbon, so its hard for me to see a case for scaling up your proposal above current land area.
I can however see a very good case for making better use of what land area we "currently" use for livestock farming, and using Savorys rotational grazing system.
If you think my maths is wrong, by all means check it and tabulate your own calculations in an ordered fashion but my rough boe calcs and conclusions are not much different from scientists who actually specialise in this area.
I think you are in danger of coming across as an obsessive scientific crank with their pet project somewhat like Killian over at realclimate.org! Now perhaps I'm not being too diplomatic myslelf :) Imjust giving you a bit of advice.
You have posted a lot of details and links on soil science. I'm not disputing that stuff in the main and never have. So if you want to post it don't do it for my benefit, but perhaps you are doing it for other people reading.
To summarise, I do accept there is a valuable looking pathway where properly grazed pastures encourage the glomalin pathway and leads to deeper carbon rich soils ultimately, and as such we should farm that way, but the process looks slow to me, and theres not exactly a scientific consensus on the effectiveness of the issue, and there are many competing uses for land. As such its hard for me to think we should actually expand grazing lands, but rotationally grazing what we have seems logical. I think you are right in general terms, but you may need to be more realistic.
-
RedBaron at 13:59 PM on 4 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
@Nigelj,
Glad we are talking again, but you are still completely wrong. I am not sure how overly simplified I need to make this....
If something is beneficial, we need more of it. If something is harmful, we need less of it. Is this simplified enough for you? I am proposing eliminating many harmful practises in agriculture, and increasing many beneficial practises.
It makes no sense at all to go through all the trouble of changing agriculture to regenerative practices, then reduce our usage of those beneficial systems. You got it backwards.
You said, "The solution is to reduce our meat consumption and plant trees and farm in ways that enhance the ability of soils to absorb carbon. Proper rotational grazing can enhance the ability of grasslands to absorb carbon, so there is no need to completely stop eating meat."
That's backwards. It makes sense only if we DONT change agriculture.
Actually we need to increase meat production significantly. Global hunger and cronic malnutrition affects 815 million people (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] et al., 2017) As developing nations pull themselves out of poverty, they can afford more meat in their diet and balance their nutritional requirements much better.
The thing that needs to be dramatically reduced is commodity crops used to make biofuels and supply feedlots and other factory farms, make high processed foods like high fructose corn syrup etc... Cornfields need switched to forests and grasslands depending on the biome that was destroyed to make the cornfield. We can then actually raise more animals than now, cheaper, healthier, and beneficial to the newly restored environments we are now raising them in instead of CAFOs.
This would increase the meat supply significantly and drive the price down too. Especially if the ranchers and farmers got paid for the increases of soil carbon.
Its a win win all around for everyone.
-
David Kirtley at 10:09 AM on 4 December 2019It's the sun
comeaukay @1280: Maybe you are looking for this: Is the CO2 effect saturated?
-
comeaukay at 09:42 AM on 4 December 2019It's the sun
Apology for bothering you, I have misplaced the web path leading to this discussion of the Heinz Hug claim that CO2 absorbs so much of the infrared very close to land surface that more CO2 would not matter. In other words, he claims it is such a potent absorber that the effect is already saturated. There was a nice rebuttal somehere and I could not locate it. The rebuttal included a figure, Australian style, with the planet "upside down". It also mentioned satellite data about infrared emissions over the last decades. Can anyone help me locate this discussion which exists somewhere in your blogs?
Moderator Response:[DB] Perhaps this one?
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 4 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I have to say I strongly support Eclectics and Billy Joes comments on the potholer videos, having watched a couple of them including the one linked by DC @28. I don't want to engage in too much mutual back slapping, but the comments are so close to my own reaction it needed to be said.
However potholer has a satirical / sarcastic style and sometimes people take it too literally. You have to read between the lines a bit at times. But I enjoy his style, and he's good at debunking myths and the fact that he confronts Hansens mistake (a rare thing) gives him credibility and objectivity.
Like eclectic says, the most important thing is to communicate in ways that appeal to the centre ground, and being objective appeals to these people. There's tons of commentary on that easily googled.
The hard right have stopped listening, in the main, and the lefties, hard core liberals and greenes already accept the climate consensus. We dont need to preach to the choir - we need to preach to the fence sitters in the centre and this means understanding what makes them tick. They do tend to like reasoned argument and not too much emotion, just a little bit of emotion. I'm repeating some of what Eclectic said, but its worth doing because he hit the nail on the head. It's the same issue as we get in election campaigns.
However a few hard core denialists have changed their minds, eg Richard Mueller. Theres always hope...
-
BillyJoe at 07:05 AM on 4 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Eclectic, I read your explanatipon for Potholer's take on "consensus science" and "climate denier". But, I'm surprised because he seems to be pretty blunt about everything else. I prefer to call all spades spades.
-
BillyJoe at 06:57 AM on 4 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Doug_C, when James Hansen said the seas could boil, he was wrong. It cannot be wrong to point that out. When AOC said the world will end in 12 years, she was wrong. She was wrong to say that even if she meant it as hyperbole. It cannot be wrong to point out that it is wron. The climate deniers have been using James Hansen's howler for decades and will probably use AOC's silly hyperbolic statement for decades to ridicule climate science. That is a bad outcome. And it cannot help to pretend that it didn't happen. Point out that it is wrong. Accept that it is wrong. That's the only way to help prevent the same sorts of errors happening again.
Also, I think you should watch Potholer's video on AOC again. He was spot on in his criticism about the negative effects of her hyperbole. It is all over the climate denying blogosphere. The have been blasting climate science as "catastrophism" for years and now they have proof. They are ridiculing her and the climate science in general.
You also misrepresented Potholer's "Science vs feelies" video. Please watch it again. It is not about not being emotional about the consequences of climate change. It is about not relying on intuition to come to conclusions such as "the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is just obvious". Yes, it is obvious, and wrong.
And I have to disagree with your general criticsm of Potholer. I quite enjoy Potholer looking down on the likes of Christopher Monckton and Steven Crowder and various other politcians and bloggers. They either don't have a clue or do have a clue and are blatantly lying. They deserve to be taken down on and ridiculed. But you can't then just dismiss errors by James Hansen and AOC.
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 4 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
RedBaron @25, apology accepted, but find the social graces man. Anyone can do it!
I have had to learn to be a bit diplomatic , because my job involved getting clients although I'm semi retired now. Yeah its tedious, and I prefer to get to the point myself, but if you want to criticise peoples comments, its useful to find at least some points of agreement etc, and smooth the waters, and be nice. If you don't, people will get annoyed and possibly dismiss you and your ideas. It's human nature.
I was basically supporting you, in the main.You said I was in denial about proper rotational grazing sequestering carbon when I plainly wasn't. I stated that poor farming practices contributed to higher emissions and we should graze cattle in ways that promote plant growth. I didn't have time to go into more details about liquid carbon pathways, and I thought this pathway was activated when grass growth was stimulated, but not over stimulated.
I was really looking for some confirmation that the reason the IPCC says we have a methane emissions problem with cattle, is because numbers of cattle have increased at the same time that poor farming practices have degraded soil sinks and we have deforstation. Is that broadly correct in your opinion?
Please note I said cattle grazing is carbon neutral "all other things being equal" and then went on to explain that they are not equal because we have farmed poorly and degraded natural sinks.
However in hindsight I do accept your point that carbon neutral was bad wording because the times it would be exactly carbon neutral are limited.
Perhaps I could have said it better, something like this: "Cattle emit methane that breaks down to carbon dioxide and this is normally absorbed by natural sinks such as grasses and trees, but in recent decades we have increased cattle farming and degraded natural sinks with deforestation and poor farming practices, thus leading to an excess of atmospheric CO2 . The solution is to reduce our meat consumption and plant trees and farm in ways that enhance the ability of soils to absorb carbon. Proper rotational grazing can enhance the ability of grasslands to absorb carbon, so there is no need to completely stop eating meat."This needs polishing up, but you have to keep it simple like this so the public get the big picture. You can then go on to explain the details of liquid carbon pathways. Hope that helps.
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:22 AM on 4 December 2019It's cosmic rays
jmh530, the best available evidence we have is that there is no direct linkage between the sun’s output and cosmic rays impacting the Earth’s climate. Now that’s a broad statement, but let’s examine some more in-depth evidence on those individual components.
Scientists use a metric called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to measure the changes in output of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun. And TSI, as one would expect given the meaning behind its acronym, incorporates the 11-year solar cycle AND solar flares/storms.
The reality is, over the past 4 decades of significant global warming, the net energy forcing the Earth receives from the Sun had been negative. As in, the Earth should be cooling, not warming, if it was the Sun.
The scientists at CERN designed an experiment called CLOUD to evaluate the potential impacts of cosmic rays on clouds and cloud nucleation (Cloud Condensing Nuclei = CCN).
Per CLOUD director Kirkby:
"At the present time we can not say whether cosmic rays affect the climate."
Looking at the results of CLOUD, if cosmic rays were a significant factor in affecting our climate, the Earth should have been cooling, not warming. Instead 8 of the warmest 10 years have all occurred in the most recent 10 years.
Erlykin et al 2013 - A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate
“The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.”
Modern CCN are pretty much insensitive to cosmic rays and changes in TSI from the Sun, compared to the very much larger anthropgenic and natural contributions (volcanoes, oceanic oscillations and wildfires):
"New particle formation in the atmosphere is the process by which gas molecules collide and stick together to form atmospheric aerosol particles. Aerosols act as seeds for cloud droplets, so the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere affects the properties of clouds. It is important to understand how aerosols affect clouds because they reflect a lot of incoming solar radiation away from Earth's surface, so changes in cloud properties can affect the climate.
Before the Industrial Revolution, aerosol concentrations were significantly lower than they are today. In this article, we show using global model simulations that new particle formation was a more important mechanism for aerosol production than it is now. We also study the importance of gases emitted by vegetation, and of atmospheric ions made by radon gas or cosmic rays, in preindustrial aerosol formation.
We find that the contribution of ions and vegetation to new particle formation was also greater in the preindustrial period than it is today.
However, the effect on particle formation of variations in ion concentration due to changes in the intensity of cosmic rays reaching Earth was small."
And
"...solar cycle variations of ion concentration lead to a maximum 1% variation of CCN0.2% concentrations. This is insignificant on an 11 year timescale compared with fluctuations due to, for example, the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, variations in wildfires, or volcanoes."
Gordon et al 2017 - Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres
And the coup de grace for cosmic rays, being proven to unable to significantly affect clouds and climate, is that CCN respond too weakly to changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays to yield a significant influence on clouds and climate.
Pierce 2017 - Cosmic rays, aerosols, clouds, and climate: Recent findings from the CLOUD experiment
Scientist Richard Alley pretty much killed the cosmic ray hypothesis here (the relevant part of the lecture starts at 42:00)
"We had a big cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And it is just about that simple! These cosmic rays didn’t do enough that you can see it, so it’s a fine-tuning knob at best."
To recap, the Laschamp excursion (the strongest cosmic ray event in the past 40,000 years) hammered climate for 2,550 years about 40,000 years ago. The flux of beryllium-10 produced by cosmic rays greatly increased as the Earth’s magnetic field weakened by 90%.
Here is the chart he’s referring to, showing how the flux of beryllium-10 produced by cosmic rays greatly increased as the Earth’s magnetic field weakened by 90% about 40,000 years ago.
From the AR5, WG1, Chapter 7, p. 573:
"Cosmic rays enhance new particle formation in the free troposphere, but the effect on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement). No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the event that such an association existed, a mechanism other than cosmic ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles would be needed to explain it. {7.4.6}"
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:15 AM on 4 December 2019Cranky Uncle crowdfunding campaign launches!
Took about 3 minutes to contribute. Easy and fast. 3 minutes spent contributing to this will be vastly more productive than 3 minutes spent complaining "why doesn't somebody do something?"
Be somebody. :-)
-
jmh530 at 03:11 AM on 4 December 2019It's cosmic rays
Does it matter that the earth's magnetic field is weakening? If the Earth's magnetic field is weakening, then the impact of cosmic rays should be stronger over time. If the argument is that cosmic rays should have a cooling effect, then it should have a greater effect over time.
-
RedBaron at 23:03 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
My reply was reposted to here as requested. Sorry for diverging from topic.
-
RedBaron at 23:00 PM on 3 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Redirected from: Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
@33 nigelj,
Yes I understand I am lacking in diplomatic social graces. I apologize. I also do understand you are trying as well. Again my fault for poor communication skills.
You still have it wrong though....fundamentally.
"graze cattle in ways that promote plant growth..." so therefore by obvious implication they sequester more carbon. Hello?"
Plant growth is good for primary productivity sure. However, biomass is not sequestered carbon. It is fixed carbon and sometimes stored carbon. Both of which really are near net neutral on the carbon cycle, especially when viewed in geological timeframes.
The sequestrated carbon in a grassland follows a completely different biochemical pathway. They both start with photosynthesis, but the pathway you descibe and the one most commonly known does indeed end in primary productivity of biomass. The other pathway is quite unknown by nearly everyone and was only just discovered in 1996 by Dr Sara F. Wright, a scientist at the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
Later termed the "Liquid Carbon Pathway" it starts with photosynthesis but approximately 40% of the total products of photosynthesis are diverted to root exudates to feed symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi who then build an underground communication network with newly discovered stable soil glue called glomalin.
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
Mycorrhizal Fungi: The World’s Biggest Drinking Straws And Largest Unseen Communication System
Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil
CarbonMore importantly when glomalin eventually degrades, rather than returning to the atmosphere as CO2, as much as 78% becomes humic polimers tightly bound to the soil mineral substrate. This carbon generally can not easily return to the active carbon cycle. It will over geological time either erode and become sedimentary rock or fossilize in situ.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The novel part to all this being the evolution of C4 perennial grasses that are up to 2-4 times as efficient at photosynthesis as C3 plants and yet have much less biomass than a forest or brushland. The mystery of where, when and why all that sequesters carbon in the soil is being worked out now. It's all very exciting new research. It turns out that under the right conditions more carbon is diverted into this newly discovered pathway than the total primary biomass productivity of a forest!
This is a case where people in the field like Voisin, Savory, and many ranchers observed a phenomenon they couldn't accurately descibe. No one knew why or how it was happening. The soil building qualities and increases in soil carbon were measurable, but until Dr Wright's breakthrough, no one even guessed how it happened. This is part of the reason for such strong pushback by scientists like Belsky and Briske. The phenomenon was observed for well over 100 years before we even had an idea what was going on in grassland soils.
So you see? What people are seeing as modest increases in grassland productivity when bison (or properly managed cattle) graze an area is actually for AGW mitigation purposes a sign that below the ground something very much more significant is happening unseen.
The methane cycle is equally as complex and also a net sink in upland oxic grassland soils! So that means properly managed cows actually reduce methane, they do not contribute to it at all. It's a complete myth that has become a Vegan talking point, but it does not reflect the science.
Soil microorganisms as controllers of atmospheric trace gases (H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO)
I actually very much appreciate your posts because when you get it wrong I then know I have somehow again poorly communicated this new information. So please don't take it personal.
-
nigelj at 18:01 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Red Baron @32, while you make some good technical comments over the years, you have to be one of the most frustrating of people at times. I was speaking generally in a way average people can quickly grasp. Cattle farmed using standard grass grazing techniques are roughly carbon neutral and that was was I was obviously referring to. I was making the point that people are wrong when they think cattle are a source of emissions when they belch methane and therefore we should not eat meat and stop farming cattle. You must surely be aware this is a common belief? Did you even read all my comments?
Yes badly grazed cattle are carbon positive, I never denied it, never said they weren't. Yes cattle can sequester soil carbon if farmed using certain rotational grazing techniques making them a net carbon sink. Please be aware I did say "So the answers are ..... graze cattle in ways that promote plant growth..." so therefore by obvious implication they sequester more carbon. Hello? Did you even bother to read that?
The science article on this website that you referred to claimed the effect was modest.
I think you need to read things a bit more carefully, and you need to not shoot from the hip and you need to respond to people more accurately and more diplomatically. That is if you want to be taken seriously.
-
RedBaron at 16:31 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
@26 nigelj,
You said, "Grazing cattle are part of a carbon neutral cycle, all other things being equal. This is non controversial science."
Wrong. This is a large carbon sink to the tune of at least 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.
I know I have mentioned this to you before with multiple citations from around the world. This site even brought in a well known top climate scientist to look over some of those citations about a year ago. I am sure you remember it.
So why once again in denial? Why are you pretending cattle and the grasslands are carbon neutral?
Grazed incorrectly or not grazed at all and they become a significant net emissions source.
Grazed correctly they become a significant net sink.
It is near impossible for them to be net neutral. It just won't happen.
Biological systems are self adjusting enough that any attempt to try and make it net neutral would most likely self adjust to a net sink in spite of your efforts. And purposely poorly grazing beyond the tipping point and grasslands rapidly deteriorate and desertify. You are highly unlikely to acheive net neutral even if you tried.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:58 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Eclectic @30,
AOC may have been clumsy by saying "12 years to the end of the world". But how are the Future Generations to be spoken for?
As was clearly identified in the opening statements of the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" the Status Quo Power Players get away with harming the future generations because the future generations have no vote, no ability to gerrymander in their favour, no legal power, no lobbying power, no buying power, no marketing/advertising power, ...
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (the 2030 targets) is the best understanding of what is required for The Future of Humanity (clumsily referred to by AOC as The World).
Had she said "the future of humanity requires all of the SDGs to be achieved in the next 12 years" would she have had more support? My guess is that the Status Quo Power Players would have just come up with different versions of their Harmful Self-Interest Protection Racket.
-
Eclectic at 13:05 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Doug_C , slow down a bit.
You say Potholer/Hadfield has a "lack of any apparent concern about this catastrophe" ~ but if that is so, why would he have made 50 (fifty) videos educating people about the scientific truth of AGW . . . and educating people about the falsehoods & propaganda of the Denialists. He has been working on this video series for over 10 years now. And I think you are wrong to suggest he should be a Fire-and-Brimstone preacher ~ that approach would have too much blowback.
Time for you to sit down (with a large mug of coffee) and actually look at all his videos, with as open a mind as you can manage. The total context shows Potholer is deeply concerned. But his ideas of how to be effective, are clearly different from yours.
Ultimately, the climate problem must be solved "top down" ~ by means of the politicians' policies. There are politicians who are already "on the side of the angels" . . . but there are many politicians who are "stuck" on the teat of Big Business/ Big Donor money, and they won't move very far or fast until they see a sufficiently big groundswell from the majority of voters.
To me, it seems Potholer is aiming to educate & persuade the centrists (since the 15% hard-right-wingers are always a lost cause). He doesn't need to persuade the left-wingers, since most of them already lean toward a realistic attitude to the climate science.
Yes, Potholer [video #50] criticizes AOC for her clumsy disservice to the cause of countering AGW. In making her "12 years to the end of the world" public statement, AOC was appealing to her Millennial base. It was only a brief comment: but it was a gift and a Gotcha moment for her opponents, and a moment which will forever be replayed by the science-denying right-wingers. She needs to learn to be more prudent and careful. And by pointing this out, Potholer gains credibility in the eyes of centrists . . . and that enhances his persuasiveness with centrists . . . who vote !
-
nigelj at 12:06 PM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Doug_C @28, sorry, but I watched the potholer (Peter Hadfield) video and I loved it! I guess I just connect with his sardonic, sarcastic, humorous style, but I can understand it might annoy some people. It's good that we have options.
Hes good at debunking denialist myths.
I don't see where potholer is downplaying the impacts of climate change. Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting all the sarcasm?
Hes also obviously a born sceptic, and is prepared to question fringe extremist and crazy warming claims as well as denialist claims.
You might enjoy the book "The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace Wells". This gets across the dangers of climate change quite graphically, and is evidence based and credible, and written in a different style to Potholer without all the sarcasm.
-
Doug_C at 11:22 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe kicked off this topic of discussion with stating in no uncertain terms how unpleasant he finds Adam based on his personal mannerisms and Potholer54 was presented as an option.
I tried that option and found exactly the same reaction, I have no desire at all to subject myself to that kind of exposition. I don't find it effective or even professional. Just highly annoying as Billyjoe claims he finds Adam.
Maybe Peter Hadfield knows his stuff, but the way he presents truly is ofputting for some of us. And when he makes claims as in the start of this video that the catastrophic impacts of climate change have been exaggerated and the scale contracted, I seriously question what planet Hadfield is on. Does he seriously think we have decades to proscrastinate as we've been doing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&t=28s
It has been six years since that video has come out and catastrophic wildfires are becoming a regular occurance for many of us. Or record hurricane seasons, massive flooding, killer heat waves and more. As I keep pointing out, half the Great Barrier Reef system died in two years directly from warming resulting in coral bleaching on a truly massive scale.
When you include all the reports of huge parts of the biosphere, many of them at the base, being threatened with extinction you'd think that a rational person would show some sense of urgency.
Hadfield's latest video is on how reckless a policy maker is for wanting to take emergency measures for what is in fact an emergency. I don't find Hadfield merely annoying, his very well communicated lack of any apparent concern about this catastrophe actually angers me.
-
nigelj at 11:22 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Doug_C, I've only read a couple of snippets somewhere by Potholer, but his comments seemed ok to me, and I get the same sort of impression as Eclectic that he is trying to communicate the dangers of climate change, but not come across as a very one sided fanatical warmist.
He understands his audience. There are denialists and some of them will never change their minds but a few might, and you also have people slightly sceptical and the fence sitters towards the middle of the bell curve, like swing voters in political elections. These people tend to respond best to cool reasoned argument and get suspicious of emotive argument, button pressing, and one sided rhetoric where one side can never do wrong.
-
nigelj at 11:10 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I agree with Red Baron to the extent that cattle are not the enemy and the public are getting an over simplified message on the issue.
Grazing cattle are part of a carbon neutral cycle, all other things being equal. This is non controversial science.
Now my understanding is things aren't equal, because we have increased cattle numbers while there has been deforestation, and grasslands degradation and erosion, so this means cattle contribute positively to climate change through their methane emissions, ie not all emissions are absorbed by natural sinks in a timely fashion.
So the answers are eat less meat, grow forests and graze cattle in ways that promote plant growth and dont damage the environment and that don't rely on vast quantities of corn feed. These things are not mutually exclusive. We should do all of them.
There is no need to become vegetarian, and this obviously means we loose the ability to graze cattle in useful ways.
I was watching a documentary on the symbiotic relationship between butterflies and plants. I can believe something like this evolved between grasslands cattle and grasses, so we can try to get back to that with careful rotational grazing. It's not clear to me how much it would achieve, but everything helps.
-
Eclectic at 10:35 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Addendum. Doug_C, you are completely missing the point of Potholer's "Science vs the Feelies" (his 28th video).
His choice of maudlin music etc is an effective counter to the intellectual laziness and utter stupidity of the denialists' Tiny CO2 line of denigration of real science.
Doncha gotta love the scene with the picture of the execrable Tim Ball (he of the fake Professorship in Climatology) sitting in an armchair, with an empty thought bubble over his head.
Not to mention the other gloriously humorous quips !
-
Eclectic at 10:19 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe @19 (onwards) .
BillyJoe, thank you for your comments on Potholer54.
I will act as an apologist for Potholer ~ to some extent. While using the term Climate-Denier very frequently myself, nevertheless I do see he has a strategic point in himself avoiding using the Denier label in his videos. As you know, the typical dyed-in-the-wool climate denier always protests and squawks about the use of that label, and tries to make that a deflection from the actual scientific issue. But that sort of person can never be reasoned with, anyway!!
Where I think Potholer is going, is that he is wishing to educate the waverers & uncommitted fence-sitters who don't have a strong emotional investment in science-denial . . . and who are open to persuasion via sweet reason. By avoiding such an emotion-charged term [though fully justified term] he simplifies his educational efforts and also makes himself a smaller target for hostile critics.
Likewise, by avoiding arguments around consensus ~ the abstract arguments, the "Galileo" arguments, the arguments over whether it's Consensus of opinion polls versus Consensus of scientific evidence in the journal literature . . . and so on. I think he is just picking his battles, and concentrating on his core messages.
If you read through some of the comments/replies below his videos (if you can bear with, and laugh at, some of the painful stupidities from The Usual Suspects ! ) . . . then you might be entertained & educated by the skill of Potholer's ripostes. And he continually says he is not giving his opinions, he is just giving the published science. (And I can't believe he was at the bottom of his class ~ that's probably simply an effective rhetorical line.)
Doug_C , you must have gotten out of bed on the wrong side, if you regard Potholer as "rude, condescending and supercilious". ClimateAdam and Potholer54 are on the same scientific team, but their styles are very, very different. ClimateAdam is more the zany loopy stand-up comedian type. Potholer is more toward the end of the spectrum where dry humorous barbs & icy scathing politeness are the valued method of take-down.
And you will note Potholer's meticulous attention to detail, and to sourced references.
-
Doug_C at 10:15 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe @21
After the literally decades of work that James Hansen has done, why include the comment at all if your intent is to inform. It totally misrepresents the massive contribution that James Hansen has made to science as a whole and climate change specifically. It was a cheap shot for pure entertainment value and nothing more.
Potholer's latest video is more meaningless nitpicking as he's going after Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for claiming that we have a very limited amount of time to deal with this crisis which is what all the information is saying, not just on climate change but as far as biodiversity and the presence of life itself on Earth.
Read the peer-reviewed article I linked above on how humans have killed half the life on Earth already. And as report after report is now indicating, this process is accelerating not slowing down. And climate change is a huge part of that. You'd expect someone concerned about that to be for bold ambitious plans that are now needed after decades of inaction.
I get absolutely no impression of that from Peter Hadfield, just petty shots at others who he apparently is convinced lacks his brilliance.
There was also a piece from 2013 all about how projections of negative impacts of climate change on a global scale are just one more myth. I can't turn on the news without the latest climate change linked disaster being reported on. I've been caught in several myself with weather so extreme and dangerous I feel like I'm in a disaster movie.
Watch Potholer's video on science vs. "feelies" to get a sense of the contempt that Hadfield shows for those who dare to be emotional at all about this catastrophe. Which he would probalby claim isn't a catastrophe at all.
Climate Adam has a constructive purpose, he is presenting what can often be difficult to understand concepts in a way that allows people otherwise not well versed in science to connect with. In some regards with the same sense of whimsy as employed by science communicators like Carl Sagan.
With Peter Hadfield I'm often left wondering if I'm not in the presense of a sociopath for the almost total lack of empathy he seems to have. Emotional intelligence is a real thing and Adam has heaps of it over Hadfield is my impression.
Eaxch to his own, I get value from the Climate Adam videos and think they teach more than talk down to his audience.
Potholer54 is a master class in how to talk down to literally everyone else on the planet.
-
RedBaron at 10:01 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
@ 17 Philippe Chantreau,
Here is what we are up against.
"no convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants." Belsky
The American Naturalist
Vol. 127, No. 6 (Jun., 1986), pp. 870-892Now I happen to agree with the Bison study you posted. It's nothing new though. That Belsky from 1986 was arguing against the very same observation made and scientifically quantified back in the 1950's. In fact the first truely modern use of biomimicry to develop a science based improvement in grazing was Grass Productivity (1957) André Voisin in France.
Much later Alan Savory began to see and develop his expansion of Voisin's work in Africa. He developed ways to help make the system more universal and include a much wider range of extreme environmental conditions where it can work.
But the Belsky-ites had all the power and repeatedly people continue to claim not only is the rotational grazing not working, the claim that it is biomimicry of observed coevolved symbiotic beneficial grazing found in wild herds was equally wrong. She published more than 45 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters on African and North American grasslands, many of them blaming livestock grazing for upsetting the delicate balance of native plants and wildlife in the arid Interior West. Now we have Briske taking up where Belsky left off.
The problem is that while she did identify the problems with overgrazing, she failed in understanding that undergrazing was equally or in some cases even more harmful.
In short if a person can't identify the wild symbiosis between grazers and grasslands, then clearly they have no chances at all of understanding biomimicry of that beneficial relationship using livestock. And so more and more livestock was removed from the West and the deserts spread and are still spreading because of this.
More importantly though is that the grasslands (and their symbiotic grazers) are the cooling system of the planet. So there is huge AGW mitigation potential in getting those grazers back out on the land.
-
BillyJoe at 09:14 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Doug_C, James Hansen's "boiling oceans" was a ridculous comment, as he himself has admitted. It even got into his book though he promised to amend it in the next edition. Apparently there would have to be 5 times the carbon reserves we actually have and it would all have to be burnt to produce enough CO2 to cause a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.
But Potholer simply shows a video of him making his claim and then says "I think we can safely say that the oceans won't boil" and then moves on. He doesn't get stuck into him. Elsewhere he put James Hansen in a favourable light though I can't remember where.
I'm surprised you say that you don't want entertainment but at the same time write in support of Climate Adam. He is almost all entertainment - if you like that type of entertainment. You do. I prefer Potholer. No problem. As I say, each to his own.
But, seeing that you made the claim, I would like to see you provide an example of where Potholer misrepresents someone's position. As for him not being a researcher, no he is not, and he is at pains to explain that he is not even clever having graduated bottom of the class. He is simply giving an account of climate change as advocated by climate scientists. I haven't been able to fault him except for some minor tangentially realted points mentioned above. But he gets the climate science right.
He also exposes frauds like Monckton and Crowder - who are blatantly misinforming the public about climate change - by tracing down their original sources and showing how those sources do not say what those climate deniers say they are saying. In fact, often the opposite. I have no problem him being "rude, condescending and supercilious" towards these frauds.
-
Doug_C at 08:39 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
BillyJoe @19
I'm not criticizing his production values, but the content. I'm not looking for entertainment in regards to fossil fuels and climate change. Like so many people I want an acceptance of the scale and threat on a policy level.
I don't need to see someone deriding James Hansen who has put out a great deal of peer-reviewed wotk on this subject over half a century for entertainment value at best and possibly to discredit Hansen at worst.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&t=27s
In the same way I don't like sound bites on the news that are often used to misrepresent someone's position, I find it highly disigenuous for Peter Hadfield to try and typify a genuine climate change researcher in this manner. If he has so much to offer then do it in peer-reviewed journals.
But that isn't whatHadfield is doing, he's a performer in this discussion, not a real researcher.
You kicked off this part of the discussion by making it clear how much you dislike Climate Adam based on his personal approach.
I find Peter Hadfield to be rude, condescending and supercilious. Maybe that plays well to his audience, but considering he's doing to it sell his viewpoint on what is an existential threat while quite possibly doing more harm than good, I see absolutely nothing of value from his work.
I do not feel that way about Climate Adam.
-
BillyJoe at 07:56 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Eclectic, yes Potholer seems to think that the more research that is done the more it looks like the MWP was global. But that was one of his earlier videos and, at present, the consensus is that the MWP was regional.
And, speaking of consensus, he is of the mistaken opinion that there is no such thing as a scientific consensus - because science is not a democracy or not the result of a vote. But that just illustrates that he does not understand the meaning of the term.
He also mentions the aluminium battery in a positive light whereas, in fact, is more of a scam than anything else. And solar panel roads, a venture that was always going to fail from the time it was proposed.
He also rejects the term "climate denier" even though he has a horde of them commenting on his videos. And "Louder with Crowder" on whom he did two videos is such an obvious climate denier it's not funny. Of course he may have changed his mind after this experience.
But I enjoyed the videos and they were very informative. I defintiely do not understand Doug_C's comment at all. A hell of a lot more thought and time has been put into Potholer's videos and they are both educational and entertaining. Each to his own, I guess.
-
Doug_C at 07:13 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
Philippe Chantreau @17
I agree. My first job was working on a ranch in the BC interior in the late 1970s where the cattle were grass fed and moved from area to area to preserve the resource. That is what real ranching is.
SInce then the feedlot system has expanded and like most industrial agriculture the main focus is on scale and profit. Smaller scale ranching that is focused on grassfed beef managed in a sustainable manner is completely different from filthy and polluting feedlots that use large amounts of grown feed. Much of the risk from things like e coli beef contamination has come from the highly unsanitary feedlots where cattle are packed into as little space as possible as they eat, defecate and emit methane. And are then shipped off to slaughter.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:52 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
I've been starting to think that Red Baron is on to something. This came out recently.
Problem is how to integrate a different way of doing things in the intensive argriculture model we have nowadays, where the operation is an industrial undertaking and the product is a commodity to be exchanged in order to maximize the profits of a few actors.
There is hardly such a thing left in the Western world as a farmer, agro-industrial conglomerates rule. They care less about the nutritional value of their product, the land, the sustainability, than they do about profits.
-
Doug_C at 04:29 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
RedBaron @15
That's a very interesting concept and something to look at seriously. There are concerns with having so many methane emitting livestock around, but all agriculture and ranching is not the same when it comes to net emissions and shouldn't be treated as such.
Personal beliefs towards diet and the consumption of meat is not a relevant perspective when it comes to something like climate change mitigation. Or restoring ecosystems to a much more robust state.
We're going to need every tool in the box to work through this growing catastrophe.
-
RedBaron at 04:14 AM on 3 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
The main problem I have with Climate Adam is he completely misses the boat on agriculture and thus has made inaccurate assessments on the potential of soil sequestration for reducing atmospheric CO2 and CH4.
He knows his specialty and has a PhD which I respect. But he really fell down the Vegan rabbit hole into fantasy world when it comes to agriculture. The problem being it is not his specialty, so he can't see where he is wrong and is so strongly biased by Vegan talking points he misses the single biggest climate mitigation potential there is....
RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING -
Doug_C at 20:02 PM on 2 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
After watching just a few Potholer54 climate change videos I can see his approach and attitude is not for people like me. It's like listening to a machine for all his concern for the billions of people caught in the cross hairs of this looming catastrophe.
I vastly prefer Climate Adam to the emotional blackhole I get sucked into trying to relate to someone like potholer.
-
Eclectic at 17:52 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Nyood,
to add to Philippe's and Nigelj's comments, I shall yet again be rather tiresome to readers, in once again pointing out your major errors.
Lindzen and Curry are intellectual failures. And it must be very sad (for any true skeptic) that you are forced into the corner of admitting they are "the best" of the opposition to mainstream science.
Dr Curry is a minimizer who goes outside of scientific truthfulness, in order to give her uncritical followers the impression that hardly any global warming is the result of the Greenhouse effect. She creates a cloud of confused ideas ~ rather like the way a squid creates a cloud of ink to conceal things.
Prof Lindzen was a scientific force in the 1980's , but in the past decades his (initially reasonable) Iris Hypothesis has proven to be wrong, and his future projections of global surface temperature have proven to be very wrong. Worse still , he seems to have fallen into a religious belief that Jehovah would not permit the Earth to warm by more than a fraction of 1 degree. Quite unscientific.
Please note that I am not saying Lindzen and Curry are unintelligent or legally insane. The question of their intellectual sanity is arguable.
Nyood , it must be disappointing for you, that you cannot suggest anyone 'better' than Lindzen or Curry. Nor am I aware of any 'better' contrarians, capable of providing even a small amount of evidence to challenge the mainstream science.
And I will not bother to detail all the falseness of your ideas about the Hockeystick. It is one more area where you seem very reluctant to educate yourself ~ likewise with Climategate !
-
nigelj at 16:40 PM on 2 December 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
nyood @56
"you accept the political behaviour by the "11" as legit and only consequent. "
Virtually all organisations have their office politics. I accept this isn't always a great thing, but the problem for me is you are not providing convincing evidence that the scientists in question have done anything significantly wrong. You are not being objective.
"In the end the IPCC is not researching itself but only analyzing and interpreting and they have a clear mandate, so even the egomaniac behaviour of M.Mann can be excused, he is only doing his job."
The only mandate is the IPCC have to review the science and see where it leads. You have provided no evidence otherwise. Careful you dont slander people. Real sceptics are clear about what they mean by 'mandate'
"It is just not fair, the IPCC is mising an organ that tries to falsify itself, here you will claim that they do that carefully, I will say: This is up to the skeptics that are cornered, shamed and excluded and people like Lindzen or Curry are no lunatics, just to name the best.
Its a interesting point you make and I agree we need sceptical points of view, but that does not mean I have to agree with what the sceptics say, and it does not mean its ok for a scientific journal to have a board completely dominated by sceptics and Mann was justified in being annoyed by this, and scientists were justified by being annoyed by the Soon / Balinaus paper as pointed out by PC above. You have to see things in context. This was one paper and scientists haven't taken the same stance over all sceptics papers. If they had, their might be cause for genuine concern.
"Sceptics cornered shamed and excluded?"
This is a wild exaggeration. Please note the IPCC goes out of its way to include sceptics in its review teams, eg Dr Vincent Grey. Please note the official investigations of climategate went out of their way to include sceptics. Please note that the scepetics have dozens of journals they can publish in, and they keep telling us how much research they publish.
Some sceptics deserve to be shamed: I have quoted a few examples such as Moncton and Soon, but you refuse to engage and discuss.
"9 separate investigations have completely exonerated all scientists of all charges"
"This might be true, at the same time they were scolding the "11" for a lack of ingenuousness and transparency"
There is no might be true about it. It is true.
"The "Hockestick" that you use in the OP is an audacity and always will be."
This is a composite of multiple detailed studies of the MPW. Not sure what more you would expect. How many studies would be enough for you?
Calling it an audacity doesn't make it an audacity. Perhaps it doesn't tell you want you want to see, so you throw mud at it.
"This is the political thinYou know this. You know that warming periods are missing. "
All I know is all the studies of the MPW I have seen show it was weak and I've seen dozens of studies. I have no particular reason to doubt their veracity. Manns analysis was criticised for some bad statstics or something but the shape of his graph has been replicated over and over by other scientists using different methods. Thats good enough for me. Why would that not satisfy you?
You sound like you are just angry that the science doesn't match how you want it to be, for whatever reason.
Prev 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Next
