Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
Comments 9051 to 9100:
-
BillyJoe at 12:38 PM on 7 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
OPOF: "So AOC...did not exaggerate".
AOC said: "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change".
Well, I guess I would have to agree that this is not an "exaggeration". But only if I'm allowed to call it a "lie". But let's just settle on "hyperbole" because that is what it was and I don't for a moment think she believed her statement was actually true.
And the effects have all been negative. Climate deniers are having no end of fun pointing out how ridiculous the statement was. And climate proponents are having a pretty hard time defending her statement as hyperbole (response by climate deniers: "yeah like all climate science!").
This was a fail for climate change. No question.
---------------
BTW:
Potholer's latest video on 5th Dec 2019 (not specifically about climate change) has over 35,000 views and over 2,000 comments.
Climate Adam on 28th Nov 2019: 732 views, and 10 comments.
-
John Hartz at 09:02 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
ed56@4: You wrote:
Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this?
If you carefully read the following article, you will understand why your global assertion is not accurate.
Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America, Opinion by Lee McIntyre, Newsweek, May 14, 2019
-
John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Doug @13: Here's the "About" statement posted on the website of MIT's Center for Global Change Science (CGCS). Note the final paragraph in particular:
The Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) at MIT was founded in January 1990 to address fundamental questions about the global environment with a multidisciplinary approach. In July 2006 the CGCS became an independent Center in the School of Science. The Center’s goal is to improve the ability to accurately predict changes in the global environment.
CGCS seeks to better understand the natural mechanisms in the ocean, atmosphere and land systems that together control the Earth’s climate, and to apply improved knowledge to problems of predicting global environmental change. The Center utilizes theory, observations, and numerical models to investigate environmental phenomena, the linkages among them, and their potential feedbacks in a changing climate.
The Center builds on existing programs of research and education in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT. The interdisciplinary organization fosters studies on topics as varied as, for example, oceanography, meteorology, hydrology, atmospheric chemistry, ecology, biogeochemical cycling, paleoclimatology, applied math, data assimilation, computer science, and satellite remote sensing.
CGCS sustains a program of discovery science with research on the natural processes in the global environment, concentrating on the circulations, cycles and interactions of water, air, energy, and nutrients in the Earth system.
Parallel CGCS activities incorporate the insight gained into climate prediction models, and climate policy analysis, with the aim of providing it in a useful way to decision-makers confronting the coupled challenges of future food, energy, water, climate and air pollution (among others). The CGCS also interacts with complementary MIT efforts in the Environmental Solutions Initiative, the Energy Initiative, and the Earth Resources Laboratory.
Given that cutting-edge research about carbon capture is occurring at MIT, you might want to nose around the CGS website to see if your question is being addressed.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 7 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
OPOF @, I do agree to the extent the middle grounds people need a bit of a shock or jolt. The tipping point paper does that nicely, but at least it is science based and makes it clear boiling oceans are just a possibility.
It's also interesting that the extinction rebellion people have resonated with the public in what looks like a largely positive way despite the scary and extreme name. I'm undermining my own argument a bit here, but I like to be open minded and not stubborn.
But mistakes, hype and exaggeration does annoy me. It's possibly because I did a couple of years in quality assurance, in a management role, and it cultivates a nit picking sceptical attitude. I make no apologies for that.
I think past a certain point exaggeration and stupid claims will have the reverse effect of whats intended. Ie self defeating. And while Manns claims are defensible, just, AOC was simply mistaken even if well intentioned and it undermines her many good contributions. The GND is definitely a big shock sort of policy, but that at least can be logically defended.
If people cry "fire" too often people eventually stop listening. But the tipping points research is the right sort of shock doctrine, because its evolving and has a good foundation.
Yes the slow steady kumbya style of the moderates is frustrating, but politics is politics. These people don't respond well when shouted at. They like to see evidence based reassoned argument, and not too much hype and emotional button pushing (like Trump does to people and it only really works well with his base).
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
ed56@9, scepticalscience is just a name. Names need to be short and calling the website "busting climate myths.org" is long and corny and could be interpreted in different ways leading to the need to write "busting the climate myths of the climate sceptics.org which is even longer.
Yeah maybe the intent in the name sceptical science was to fishook in a few climate sceptics. No big deal. Clever move.
But I get your point that Sceptical science implies scepticism should be broadly applied. I think it would be useful to have the occasional article looking at some of the extremist warming claims and dissecting them. Eg climate change will cause human extinction, and the ridiculous claims on arctic-news.blogspot.com.
This website is probably not the ideal venue for looking regularly at mitigation and adaptation and the pros and cons, ie a sceptical analysis, because it can't do everything, but it could look at the occasional mitigation issue such as the very science heavy ones. In fact it did that a year ago by taking a look at the claims made by Alan Savory about regenerative cattle farming being able to sequester vast quantities soil carbon, and took a sceptical position. Heres the article.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:53 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Not quite what I was thinking of, John, but it certainly covers the materal in more concentrated way.
I'm thinking more along the lines of what we do, something that can do better than the current Google results on a question such as "how does co2 capture via chemisorption compare iin cost to direct capture." If you try that query there's no obvious place to go.
I don't get out much, so I'm sure I'm missing something. :-)
-
John Hartz at 04:28 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
doug_bostrom @11: You opined:
Ed, your point about a site that collects and compares methods and mechansims for mitigation, adaptation etc. is a good one. There's a lot of redundant babble in the popular climate communications world and there could certainly be benefit from more specialization. Perhaps there is such a site— I don't know of it myself.
There are in fact many such sites. Carbon Brief is a prime example.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:25 AM on 7 December 2019Video: Is CO2 actually dangerous?
nigelj @40,
It would be great if 'moderates' could become passionate defenders of the future of humanity. But without a 'shock' many of the fence-sitters and by-standers are likely to remain neutralish and resist learning that developed ways of living that are popular and profitable are actually very harmful and need to be stopped.
The article about tipping-points indicates that there is the potential for 'the boiling of the oceans' (runaway hot-house earth) due to interactions between tipping-points. And it identifies that if dramatic corrective action is not taken during the next 12 years (now to 2030), the world of the future several 1000s of years that humanity could have been able to quite easily enjoy sustainably living is very likely to be Gone Forever, no possible fix to bring it back.
Climate Adam's video about the 'harm' of CO2 is valid. And the article about tipping-points indicates that limiting the impacts to 1.5 C is 'scientifically the requirement'. More than 1.5 C warming impact is unacceptably risking harm to the future of humanity, potentially bringing about more rapid changes that are far more challenging to adapt to.
The excuse seekers like to hear that 2 C is OK (and even warmer would be OK you know - to be fair to current day people). They are likely to be turned off by any attempt to get them to understand that more than 1.5 C warming impact is unacceptable, because that understanding actually leads to admitting they need to sacrifice some of their developed ways of enjoying living, and stop trying to profit from fossil fuels.
So AOC and Mann did not exaggerate. They stated 'shocking' potential future consequences. Some people succeeded in getting Others to believe that the statements were reasons to be dismissive of the concerns being raised by climate science (just like the Climate-gate email scandal was abused).
I still maintain that anyone 'significantly doubtful and reluctant to learn' because of what they 'perceive' to be an exaggeration is 'just looking for excuses' and they will always be able to find excuses.
The problem is not the attention-getting claims made by AOC and Mann. The problem is people who are looking for excuses to be less interested in paying attention to the issue and learning about the issue.
Unfortunately, current day politicians respond to unreasonable popular passion (that is what a system that rewards based on popularity and profit will develop). I wish that would change. But until it does "Shocking people into paying attention" is likely a helpful action. Climate matters are definitely in the News more (even in the Fake News more), potentially because of those 'shocking comments' (and Angry Teenage Greta).
Anyone resisting learning about the corrections that are required 'because they do not like to be shocked' is likely not genuinely interested in being helpful even if they claim to be. Many people can claim to be very concerned about climate change, maybe even saying it is their highest concern, but would still vote for a party that definitely acts contrary to that concern because of Other Concerns (often based on made-up claims and unjustified beliefs targeting status quo tribal selfishness) that tempt them to like that party.
The slow and steady, 'Kumbaya style - Let's all just get along' approach of the moderates has been a damaging failure through the past 30 years. Sadly, the new generation being significantly angry and motivated to vote (along with the adults who care about the future) may be the solution. That can be expected to be viciously resisted. But the future of humanity is actually at stake.
CO2 is potentially very Harmful.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:05 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Ed, your point about a site that collects and compares methods and mechansims for mitigation, adaptation etc. is a good one. There's a lot of redundant babble in the popular climate communications world and there could certainly be benefit from more specialization. Perhaps there is such a site— I don't know of it myself.
But as to whether or not SkS is useful, site access statistics show a clear result: some half a million persons per month arrive here and land on specific articles debunking various climate change myths. It's a very purposeful and objective use of the site. These people are on personal fact-checking missions and we're here when they need us. There's no other such resource available.
Skeptical Science is specialized on providing factual corrections to climate misunderstandings. That's our stock-in-trade, our raison d'etre. We're a climate myth debunking encyclopedia.
Perusing the "Humans dealing with our global warming" section above suggests several other available specialty communications slots. A site focusing on popular conveyance of human cognition of hazards and risks would certainly be good. Much of our problem in dealing with climate lies in our poor mental faculties for that.
-
John Hartz at 00:27 AM on 7 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
ed56 @9:
If you click on the About button on this website's Home Page, you will find the following statement:
Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers.
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.
This has been the mission of Skeptical Science since its inception and will continue to be its mission in the future.
-
RedBaron at 21:45 PM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Biofuels are not good and part of the reason for AGW.
-
ed56 at 21:00 PM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Ok, so some people misuse the word 'skeptical' by pretending to have scientific arguments objecting the AGW explanation, while actually they have only misinformation based on political motives.
Now by calling this website 'Skeptical' you trap them and make them read the truth. Does is work? I doubt.
Why not be clear: The scientific facts about AGW are not debatable, the political conclusions are. Let's classify them and collect pro and con arguments for each. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:22 PM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Ed: "...why does the world need a website like this?"
Some of us "lifers" on this project are sincerely wishing for the day when this site becomes truly obsolete. :-)
That's not yet the case. The public is still being fed a rich fare of toxic mental fodder, for later regurgitation.on social media etc. Here's an example published only a few days ago (put your brain in protective wrapping before reading because research suggests we're all more or less susceptible to infection):
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201912011077447053-eu-parliaments-climate-emergency-will-lead-to-disastrous-consequences---former-un-expert/
Sputnik of course is an O&O organ of a country with an utterly desperate, urgent dependence on fossil fuel revenues, so it figures they'd need to debase themselves by publishing such garbage. Many variations on this theme having the common tune of money vector preservation make SkS still necessary. We could wish it was otherwise.
-
nigelj at 12:34 PM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Actually I did say biofuels, forestry and beccs, to be accurate. But they form a similar group of things and are different from the renewable energy issue.
-
Daniel Bailey at 12:30 PM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Being a skeptic is not being given a license to lie. The science underlying AGW is almost 2 centuries old, and has been independently researched and validated as accurate by the fossil fuel companies themselves.
I understand that pretend-skeptics don't like actual science that runs counter to their preselected opinions, but then, that's not skepticism. It's flagrant denial: denial of facts, physics and history.
Time and history are not on the side of pretend-skeptics, for the time for denial is long over.
All that is left is to stand up and be counted, either as someone who understands science...or someone who doesn't.
-
nigelj at 12:24 PM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Red Baron @36, my reference to all the eggs in one basket only suggested that a miraculous (like really dramatic) level of results from rotational grazing would mean not needing biofuels. I made no reference to not needing anything beyond that, like not needing renewable energy. I think I was clear. And theres no evidence of miracles being likely but there is evidence of something useful.
Since you at least appear to concede we need biofuels, this will place firm limits on land areas available for grazing, which was always my point.
I agree with the rest of your comments. I tend to think there are questions about the long term sustainability of the industrial and corporate farming model, and also intensive dairy farming, particularly using feed crops. Something looks like it has to change, and the benefits to the climate might almost be a side effect of this broader level of change, if that makes sense. When there are a lot of reasons to do something, we should mostly just do that thing. We might be looking at a longer term agricultural transformation that goes well beyond 2050.
I will leave it there, and I probably wont comment more on all this for now.
-
nigelj at 11:54 AM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
ed56 @4, I hear you, but read the mission statement for this website at the top of the home page "This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism." Having read much of the so called global warming scepticism myself, there is much to be sceptical about their claims. This website can't be all things to all people, and it focuses on getting sceptical about what the climate sceptics / denialists like to claim.
However there is published science from time to time that takes a sceptical position on mainstream climate science positions, and you sometimes see this in the weekly list of research papers.
The greenhouse effect is established science, so there's no particular reason to be sceptical about it, in the same way theres no reason to be sceptical about the earth orbiting the sun. The things in genuine doubt include the exact effects of clouds and this gets discussed from time to time.
And "warmists" argue with each other quite frequently for example look at the comments posted on the article "Video:Is CO2 dangerous" in the list of recent articles. So theres plenty of scepticism if you have your eyes open.
-
scaddenp at 09:56 AM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
Scientists the true skeptics - demanding evidence for everything. Pseudo-skeptics are only skeptical about positions that offend what they would like to beleive, swallowing garbage without a blink if it backs their preferrences
"Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this?"
If that true, then sure, the site could shut down. However, visitor no.s suggest otherwise. If you think there is no refusal of AGW anymore, then just peruse back through the "comments" link at top for a few pages and see whether you still think so. There is a very strong science consensus but not so much among the voting public who clearly prefer to convenient lies.
-
ed56 at 09:42 AM on 6 December 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #48, 2019
The author and the project may be 100% right in their scientific positions, but why the 'Skeptical' in the title?
There is not skeptic attitude anywhere in this article or the whole website. You report that the mainstream finding is the mainstream finding, you repeat over and over that consensus has been reached and that there are no AGW denial positions.
So why not change the name to 'Truescience.com'?
Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this? -
RedBaron at 07:40 AM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
No nigelj no one ever said we should put all eggs in one basket. Not IPCC Not Holistic management and not me.
This apparently is a lack of communication.
Potential for a sink size and rate does not mean that will be the actual any more than a 8 oz glass of water holds exactly 8 oz of water. This is the potential should all agriculture world wide adopt holistic management.
Clearly the herculean task is in changing to regenerative practises. Very likely most the agricultural infrastructure will not change any time soon.
But it is important to understand the potential, so when we say change maybe 10% of agriculture, a very reasonable and fairly easy thing to do, then we have 10% of that total potential we can count on.
Too often people misuse the reports like the IPCC and others have put out and take numbers that have already been adjusted due to probable % of adoption, and adjust them once again! So rather than 10% we end up with people thinking 10% of 10%.
The potential is as large as total emissions and could put us in drawdown if all was changed, but it won't be all changed any more than all fossil fuel emissions eliminated.
Neither one is going to happen.
But if we meet somewhere in the middle with dramatically reduced fossil fuel emissions, the soil sink is plenty large enough and the rate of sequestration fast enough that we could reach a draw down scenaio.
-
michael sweet at 07:33 AM on 6 December 2019Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
Red Baron,
Replying to your comment at 31:
As I said before, your links do not support your wild claims. For example, your link to Project Drawdown. To start off the page you linked does not talk about grazing at all. It is your responsibility to provide correct links.
After searching the site I found this page on managed grazing. They claim that it might be possible to remove 16.34 gigatons of CO2 by the year 2050 using managed grazing. At comment 29, you claim that managed grazing could remove 35 gigatons of CO2 per year every year until 2050. Thus you claim approximately 65 times as much carbon dioxide fixed as your reference.
The teraton initiative you linked appears to be a new project by a journalist and author. He claims that the advantages of regenerative agriculture have not been systematically measured in the past and is trying to measure how much carbon is actually fixed. All the pages I saw were about general agriculture. I could not find a page on grazing. Their calculations were all back of the napkin with no supporting science.
The teraton initiative and you both make the mistake of claiming that if you remove the extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere the problem will be solved. Reality is worse than that. If you start to remove carbon from the atmosphere, carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean will outgas making the problem bigger. Good luck.
You made the wild claim at the start of this discussion (lost because it was posted on another thread off topic) that in the past year or two scientists have come around to your ideas in mass. You have provided no link to even a review article, much less a summary report, to support this wild claim, not even one that does not support your claim. The references in the OP are so recent it is unimaginable that scientists would have changed their minds en masse.
We all wish that argiculture would be a magic bullet to solve AGW. Agriculture might provide a wedge or two, but many other actions will be required to turn back the problem of CO2 pollution. It does not help to motivate people to act if you falsely claim there is an easy way to solve the problem.
-
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.
Prev 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Next
