Recent Comments

Prev  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  Next

Comments 11401 to 11450:

11401. Nick Palmer at 23:05 PM on 19 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       I have quite a good knowledge of this area. I'll just state my opinions to start... Allan Savory's rhetoric and claims are rather over the top - and this rebuttal is rather 'under the top'. It throws the baby out with the bath water.

       The 'climate myth' as stated is (probably) still a myth but strip the hyperbole away from the myth-as-stated and there is still a useful technique left which I think this rebuttal unfairly denigrates.

       Much of the substance of these rebuttals uses straw man arguments and fallacious analogising. I think it should be removed from Skepticalscience.com because it is rather 'denialist' in the way that it argues. Post Vegan @5 gives a good explanation of why this rebuttal is mostly invalid.

       It is no doubt true that just holistically managed grazing alone can not be enough to suck all that excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Similarly, increasing soil organic carbon in agricultural crop fields - I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that our industrial agriculture has not greatly reduced 'natural' levels of SOM - is also not (using accepted figures from such as Lal) enough to do the job. We already know that greatly reducing fossil fuel emissions is also not enough, on its own, to do the job. I think we need all three, plus extras!

11402. SirCharles at 22:39 PM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Global spike in methane emissions over last decade likely due to US shale

11403. MA Rodger at 21:28 PM on 19 March 2019
       The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
       

       ThinkingMan @17,

       The concept of a natural unforced climate cycle is part of the denialist armoury and is usually presented as a 60-year cycle. I think it gets lengthened to allow more abiguity when fitting it to data.

       The sole basis of it is the global temperature record which can been seem as having peaks in 1880, 1940 & 2000 and dips in 1910 & 1970. Thus a 60-year cycle is proposed as causing these peaks and dips.

       

       Those proposing the existence of such a 60-year natural cycle have failed to take the idea forward. Further the peaks and dips can be understood without the existence of some grand natural wobble.

       Thus the so-called 'hiatus' of recent years can be explained by the impact of ENSO which is a natural wobble-maker. Yet such a natural wobble does not explain the slight cooling post-1940. This has more to do with a slowing of AGW positive forcings through those years and a massive increase in the rate of anthropogenic SO2 emissions. The 1940 peak is more of a challenge but over half of it results from forcing, most of this anthropogenic. And back to the 1880 dip, the volcanism during the latter part of the 19th century easily privide the dip without any 60-year wobble.

       Another approach to finding a 60-year wobble is to seek evidence for the wobble within the known natural oscillation. As set out above, ENSO (& thus PDO) are not powerful enough to be a source of the size of wobble being talked about. One other candidate is AMO mentioned @16. AMO is an interesting phenomenon. It was fisrt identified within a proxy reconstruction of North Atlantic temperatures. This were part of the work that resulted in the famous 'hockeystick' reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. And here's a thing - the AMO is not seen in the 'hockeystick',  suggesting it too has not the power to provide a significant 60-year global wobble (IPCC AR5 also demonstrate the lack of power) although there is much work now showing the AMO is a true oscillation of roughly 60-year pitch.

11404. RedBaron at 19:59 PM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       @17 nigelj,

       I discussed this with Dr. Teague myself in person last year, as he was kind enough to visit here in Oklahoma and make a presentation to the State soil conservation society. I can very confidently reply that you have this wrong actually. Teague told me that actually we can sequester much more carbon than Savory claimed in his famous TedTalk.

       What Nordborg calls (NPP) and what Jones calls fixed carbon is the same. Net Primary Productivity (NPP), or the production of plant biomass, is equal to all of the carbon taken up by the vegetation through photosynthesis (called Gross Primary Production or GPP) minus the carbon that is lost to respiration. Here is a simple guide for students on how to calculate NPP and convert it to CO2e fixed.[1] 

       None of this is soil yet. What we have at this stage is sugars and proteins that flow as sap and become either root exudates to feed soil microbial colonies, or flows to other plant tissues to become plant biomass. In essense then NPP becomes live biomass. This is fixed carbon.

       Later this carbon becomes via, one pathway or the other, dead biomass. At this point it can start to become part of the soil stored carbon. The O-Horizon in the soil is almost all decaying biomass and the biology that recycles dead biomass, Saprophytes. A small % eventually can become soil.

       Labile carbon is the fraction of dead biomass in the soil that eventually decomposes into CO2, CH4 and trace minerals. Stable carbon is the fraction of the dead biomass in the soil that turns into stable humic polymers tightly bound to the soil mineral substrate.

       Only this last fraction of Stable carbon can be considered Sequestered  for the purposes of AGW mitigation.

       Jones claims 30-40% of fixed carbon becomes root exudates feeding AMF which then produce glomalin, a soil glue. She further claims to have measured a stable fraction to labile fraction for this pathway of 78% sequestered carbon. [2] She doesn't count O-horizon carbon at all assigning it nearly 0% stable fraction, assuming nearly all of it eventually returns to the atmosphere as CO2 or CH4. Teague and Jones are generally in agreement regarding soil function. He told me this personally when we met. I asked directly.

       Nordborg assigns an astonishingly high maximum potential of 10% stable fraction of soil carbon from the O-horizon as sequestered and completely ignores the LCP entirely. It's not even in the calculations.

11405. nigelj at 18:25 PM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Red Baron @13, thanks. I'm a bit relentless at getting to the bottom of things, please excuse me. My impression is as follows.The Nordburg calculations (under the advanced tab) are that improved grazing systems could sequester an additional 3.8 tonnes carbon / hectare / year, and well short of the claims by Savory. The Nordberg calculation seems to be based on 10% of this carbon content actually go into soil carbon and declining over time.

       The Teague et alia paper you quote appears to say properly managed grazing can sequester an additional 4 tonnes carbon / hectare / year and all of this in the soil itself. This would be a lot more promising than the Nordberg result, but I'm not sure if I have understood Teague correctly. I'm not a soils expert by a long way. 

       I would appreciate a comment from the experts, particularly the writer of the article as to the Teague paper.

       The general impression I get is soils could sequester significant carbon but short of what Savory claims. 

11406. RedBaron at 15:52 PM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       @14 Nigelj,

       You are asking for a copy paste? 

       "These sources report the sequestration of extra C from
       regenerative management of between –2 and –4 t C ha–1 y–1 (–0.89 and –1.78 tn C ac–1 yr–1) compared to current management alternatives so we calculate GHG emission mitigation by regenerative, conservation grazing and cropping at –3 t C ha–1 y–1 (–1.2 tn C ac–1 yr–1; figures 1 and 2)" 

       The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America  W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byck JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2016 —VOL. 71, NO. 2

       To convert that to CO2e we multiply by 44/12 or 3.67 so just to clean this formatting and scale up a bit for comparison we get  11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average.

       That is dead center of what was reported by Dr Jones or 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average.

       Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and
       rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per
       hectare per year.

       Liquid Carbon Pathway Unrecognized By Christine Jones, Australian Farm Journal
       Edition 338, 3/07/2008

       You can go right down the list actually. You can find much smaller and larger too. What this rebuttal claims is impossible has been done and measured repeatedly. These are conservative numbers for many holistic managed agricultural systems. Some people are at the low end and some have exceeded even these rates. But it certainly has been proven it is possible, since it has been done and repeated.

       There are more but I really don't like copy pasting cherry picks of papers that include much more information regarding when, where and why these sorts of carbon sequestration rates can be found and what methods succeed where others fail. Like everything else, the devil is in the details. Carbon farming could be described as knowledge intensive farming. A farmer really does need to understand how this functions and frequently monitor and apply this to adapt to changing conditions in order to get these results. That really is the secret to Holistic management. It really isn't just some prescribed grazing plan. That's just a superficial resemblance. In fact in my personal research animal impact is only optional and currently not even used.

       But most importantly from my view is the biophysical possibilty is proven. Next it is up to people like me to find ways to integrate this biophysical knowledge into a system that works in context with our own abilities and facilities, goals and community. This is the context in which HM has meaning. 

11407. John Hartz at 11:37 AM on 19 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       citizenschallenge: 

       Based on the analyses of the issue presented in the Climate Feedback's post and on other articles I have read on the topic over the years, I conclude that there is no scientiifc consensus at this point in time about the relationship between man-made climate change and the frequency and intensity of tornados in the US. If I am correct, it plays right into the climate deniers' hands to assert otherwise.   

11408. nigelj at 11:15 AM on 19 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       Daniel Mocsny @8, 9

       "Because people are clever and resourceful, they have an almost unlimited number of ways to resist coercion.

       Some people will try to do this yes.

       "This makes it almost impossible to structure any system of incentives that causes immoral people to behave morally. See for example the War on Drugs."

       No with respect I think you are wrong, and on the basis of obvious, clear evidence. Criminal and property law are coercive legislation, by attempting to make people behave better or in a certain way. They certainly work because in countries with diminished criminal law and / or the related enforcement of the same law , you have high rates of crime and sometimes total anarchy and chaos, or criminal gangs take over running of those countries. Other regulations and environmental regulations are no different "in principle".

       Remember there are also tools like carbon taxes, and there is evidence they work. The UK is a good example.

       Your war on drugs analogy is flawed. Firstly it does work ok if implimented with a very heavy brutal punishments as in places like Singapore, not that I'm promoting that! However the core problem in countries like America is 1) its very hard to enforce drugs laws, harder than for example enforcing the road rules and 2) large numbers of the public probbaly see drug use as largely a victimless crime, so they simply don't support drug laws in the same way they support other criminal laws.

       "In contrast, when people are moral, they don't need outside coercion to do the right things."

       Agreed. But many people are moral, to a reasonable degree anyway. They will do thje right thing without the need of coercion. They won't commit crimes, take drugs or the like. The problem is how to deal with the rather substantial minority that are not moral? I think that only the law can realistically do this.

       To think otherwise would require we make fundamentally and deeply immoral people moral. How do you propose we do this? I don't think we know how. 

       We probably make people more moral with education, but clearly it hasn't been enough to obviate the need for laws and punishments, and I would think it never will be.

       "To solve climate change, we must increase the number of people who believe contributing to climate change is wrong."

       Yes, but again how?

       "To abolish slavery, for example, we first had to get a substantial number of people who voluntarily freed their slaves, or refrained from ever buying slaves. "

       Yes. But getting to the climate issue, a substantial majority of the public already want more done about the climate issue, including building of wind farms etcetera and they are ignored by politicians. Now ask yourself why? I would say it's the pressure of lobby groops and campaign donors. Look at how politiicans are petrified of annoying the NRA gun lobby.

       People won't do much to change their personal carbon footprints until they see a big change at the top of society in government policy. There is no point changing lifestyles unless there is confidence that others will do the same starting with the leadership otherwise you are unlikely as an individual to make a significant difference. This does not make individuals immoral it's simply understandable economic rationalism.

       Don't interpret me the wrong way. I'm all for people acting in a more moral way, and ideally without coercion, but I just dont think we have simple effective ways to do that. It's very idealistic.

11409. Post Vegan at 10:56 AM on 19 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       Might actually help if you understood what holistic management is before you critique it. Hint: It isn't short duration or rotational grazing. Might also help if you referenced more current soil science.

       Carbon sequestration, utilztion and sequestration is driven by photosynthesis, plant diversity and soil biology. The more soil biology, and specifically arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (especially relative to bacteria), the more carbon capture and utilzation. Soil microbial science has had a major paradigm shift since more new metagenomic tools have been developed to gene microbial DNA. Sadly your paper references a lot of soil science pre-paradigm shift that doesn't account for the roll of soil microbiology, which pretty much drives everything including the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles (1,Paul et al 2018).

       There are two pathways for carbon utilzation: one the decompostion pathway, and the second the microbial carbon pump [MCP] (2.Liang et al 2017). The decomposition pathway is what's respires. This is labile carbon. The microbical carbon pump store carbon as deep as roots tips go. This is "deep carbon" that is what's sequestered and doesn't respire. As long as there is ground cover, respired carbon is what actually leads to more photosynthensis than atmospheric carbon so respired carbon is NOT lost to the atmosphere (3). Respire labile carbon is recycled with more of it being exuded by the roots as deep carbon. Diversity contributes a diversity of root depths and different exudates to a wider array of soil microbes. (4,5 Eisenhauer et al. 2017 and Zhalninal et al. 2018)

       The carbon saturation argument fails to acknowledge that via photosynthesis and the MCP more soil is formed. Soil too is formed from the top via decomposition and from the bottom (a-b horizon) via microbial necromass (6. Kallenbach et al 2016). As long as photosynthesis is occuring with diverse plant feeding microbes those microbes die and form more soil organic matter (SOM). More SOM contains more soil organic carbon (SOC) . So soil may reach equilibrium, but more soil is always accumulating from the top and bottom that can capture more carbon. The key for this to occur is to keep root mass in the soil.

       This is where grazing management comes into play. Contrary to what you wrote, holistic management and short duration grazing are NOT the same thing. Nordborg relies on Briske and Holechek both of whom looked at short duration grazing systems. Holistic Management is actually a comprehensive system to evaluate land to determine goals and paths for both ecosystem and economic restoration that may or may not involve holistic grazing based on the appropriateness of cattle (or other ruminants) in that ecosystem. So, it helps to actually understand what one is critiquing before actually makes a critique or relying on others' critiques. Dr. Richard Teague also wrote a response to the critique of Briske called "Deficiencies in the Briske et al rebuttal of the Savory method" (6). In this response Teague also notes that Briske is comparing grazing systems and doesn't seem to understand what holistic management is.

       In subsequent research, due to prejudice against Savory, in order to get published Teague coined the term AMP management. AMP stands for "adaptive multi-paddock" and is sometimes shorted further to adaptive grazing or adaptive management. Many of the more recent crtics in doing there analysis seem to be unaware that holistic and AMP management are the same thing, so they exclude papers are AMP management when they proclaim that there is no research to back up holistic management. This is a common, though mistaken, refrain. The body of research supporting AMP and HM actually continues to grow (plus is supported by a lot of the more recent soil science). Here's a stack of more recent range science papers supporting HM/AMP aggregated on Defending Beef's ISSUU page: issuu (dot) com/defendingbeef/stacks/c2202fc5e40d4766902627af9453909b

       Now holistic management that includes holistic grazing, unlike short duration or rotational grazing, isn't a prescribed system. When cattle or other ruminants are moved, they are monitored and not allowed to eat more than half the forage. Why half? Because anything more than half drastically reduces the amount of root mass. When root mass is maintain, the microbial carbon pump is also maintained, thus carbon exudates are continuously pumped into the soil. Extra plant growth not consumed is trampled down where that forage decompose and becomes part of the decompostion pathway and providing valaublae ground cover which reduces evaporation. The carbon pumped into the soil also improves the soil structure, allowing for more water to infiltrate and be retained, and ths allow for more plant growth. The area just grazed may not be regrazed for anywhere up to six months to a year depending on regrowth of plants. Again this is closely monitored , and animal movement is based on 'reading the land" through careful observation...again NOT a prescriptive system like SDG or rotational grazing.

       Curious, author have you ever been on a ranch of any kind? How about one that uses holistic managament? My guess is that you're only reading literature and have no real idea how any of this works. You should take a page from author Barry Estabrook's recent article on Savory. In this article, Estabrook listened to both advocates and critiques. Then Estabrook went and visited a Savory hub for himself and saw the results. which were undeniable....

       Now as for methane, using your logic, we should drain all the remaining wetlands and peat bogs plus kill all beavers since wetlands emit copious amounts of biogenic methane as do beaver ponds. Now the argument as to whether there were or were not more wild ruminants is a silly one since there's no real real accounting to prove either side. In North America, we have guestimates of bison, elk, pronghorn, moose, deer, big horn sheep, etc population that may or may not exceed current domesticated populations of domesitcated ruminants both in number and in mass. In Asia and Europe, the ecological memory is much more distant since the large herds of auroch, bison, stepped bison, irish elk, etc were exterpated a much much longer time ago. What's much easier to argument is that we had much greater regions of wetlands than we do have today as well as a lot more beavers making ponds full of methanogens making methane. Microbial, thermogenic and pyrogenic methane comes from a multitude of places like cockroaches, shellfish, coal bed gas, fracking, centipedes, burning biomass, decomposing organic mass, landfills, etc. Despite all of these emissions, the vast majority of this methane is oxidized by hydroxyl radicals in the troposphere (and to a lesser exent in the stratosphere). A small amount is oxidized by methanotrophs in the soil. The geosink though is very small.

       But here's the thing, Carbon flows, and shift forms.....

       Due to hydroxyl radical oxidation, enteric and most other forms of microbial methane really are part of the carbon cycle so it's a constant amount. CO2 from the atmosphere is converted to sugars plant use to make cellulose, lignan and exudates. Cattle eat the cellulose. A quorum of bacteria/archae including methanogens in the rumen convert that cellulose to H2, short chained fatty acids and CH4. The SFCA's are used for energy, and the CH4 is burped. That CH4 collides with OH (hydroxyl radicals) which steals a hydrogen atom and thus breaks down to H2O and eventually back to Co2 which again then goes to photosynthesis to make the grasses and twigs cattle and other ruminants eat. It's a cycle ...loop. ...not an aggregating process. If cattle or ruminants don't eat the grasses, those grasses still oxidize or decompose back to CO2 directly or to CH4 which then is oxidized in the geosphere by methanotrophs or the troposphere by hydroxyl radicals back to CO2 which then also cycles.

       Or, in other words, enteric methane from ruminants and other microbial sources is part of respiration. It's just a few extra steps from CO2 to cellulose to CH4 back to CO2 back to cellulose. So these sources of CH4 are not what are causing methane levels to rise again after 2007. What is? Natural gas from fracking which confused some researchers in their top down analysis becuause fracked gas has a C12 isotope signature. (Thermogenic -fossil fuel- methane sources typically have only C13 heavier isotope signatures). So if you really want to reduce methane levels, switch electrical generation to green energy ...and get rid of fracked natural gas and coal generation of electricity.

       Anyway, sorry got lazy with my references in the second half of this response. My references for methane include Prinn, Rigby, Howarth, etc.

       1). Paul, D et al. 2018. Molecular Genomic Techniques for Identification of Soil Microbial Community Structure and Dynamics
       2).. Liang, c et al 2017 the importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage
       3). Farming the CO2 Factor, Eco-Farming Daily 10/10/2018
       4). Eisenhauer et al. 2017. root biomass and exudates link plant diversity with soil bacterial and fungal biomass
       5). Zhalnina1, K et al. 2018. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly
       6). Kallenbach et al. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls

11410. citizenschallenge at 10:44 AM on 19 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       Who's kidding whom, this handwringing about tornado trends is nothing but cyncial political score keeping intend on distractiung.  Just like that ludicrous obsession with the nonexistant "global warming hiatus."  That's politics in action not science, even though it deeply impacts science.

       I did read it all - and again just now for you.  It spends more time focusing on uncertainties, lossing the opportunity to explain some fundamentals.  Of course, it's all accurate, I'm not disputing that.

       It's the messaging that fails, as it has for decades!  You may not admit it, but words in that FactCheck were all about playing second-fiddle to the contrarian storyline, rather than taking the moment to refocus on the important stuff. But, no, instead, repeat it, underscore it, get lost in more details that fly by people's heads - because the headline will have already told them all they need to know:

       'oh still no connection between tornadoes and global warming.  When will the climate scientists finally figure out this global warming thing?

       Please, the worst part of those write ups, none of them helped convey any fundamental gut level understanding of what our global heat and moisture distribution is all about.  

        

       Perhaps it wouldn't be the worst for you to read with a bit less prejudgementn yourself - and a bit more attention on what I've actually written?

       My question:

       Why continue spending our time focusing on the inconsequential uncertainties, while ignoring the huge certainties and what they have to tell us for certain.  

       Why not actively steer the dialogue alway from the cynical distractions and back to the real world basic fundamentals that few seem to grasp.

       I invite you to show me where my above statement is factually wrong?  I'll take any lesson you want to teach me.

       ______________________________________

       Here's an offering for you, a different perspective perhaps, but definately based on down to Earth facts as revealed by science and learned about over a life time.

       a) Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant? 2018

       d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue in 14 verses.

       e) Map v Territory Problem, Statistical Certainty vs Geophysical Realities

       also - 

       https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-missing-key-gould.html

11411. Bob Loblaw at 10:42 AM on 19 March 2019
       The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
       

       The 80-year period for climate cycles was riniging bells, and I managed to find a bit of support to the idea:

       "On the basis of 200 years of data, Willett (1964) notes that sunspot activity, as indicated by the Zurich relative sunspot number (Fig. 48), has cyclic variations of 80 and 11 years, with the latter being composed of alternating maxima of high and moderate intensities (the double sunspot cycle).

       (Sellers, W.D., 1965, Physical Climatology, U Chicago Press, p221)

       The reference to Willett is H.C. Willett, 1964 "Evidence of Solar-Climatic Relationships", pp123-51, in Weather and our Food Supply, Iowa State University, Ames.

       Mind you, I first read that when Sellers' book was not much more than a dozen years old. It is, shall we say, a bit dated now.

11412. Post Vegan at 10:36 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Might actually help if you understood what holistic management is before you critique it. Hint: It isn't short duration or rotational grazing. Might also help if you referenced more current soil science.

       Carbon sequestration, utilztion and sequestration is driven by photosynthesis, plant diversity and soil biology. The more soil biology, and specifically arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (especially relative to bacteria), the more carbon capture and utilzation. Soil microbial science has had a major paradigm shift since more new metagenomic tools have been developed to gene microbial DNA. Sadly your paper references a lot of soil science pre-paradigm shift that doesn't account for the roll of soil microbiology, which pretty much drives everything including the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles (1,Paul et al 2018).

       There are two pathways for carbon utilzation: one the decompostion pathway, and the second the microbial carbon pump [MCP] (2.Liang et al 2017). The decomposition pathway is what's respires. This is labile carbon. The microbical carbon pump store carbon as deep as roots tips go. This is "deep carbon" that is what's sequestered and doesn't respire. As long as there is ground cover, respired carbon is what actually leads to more photosynthensis than atmospheric carbon so respired carbon is NOT lost to the atmosphere (3). Respire labile carbon is recycled with more of it being exuded by the roots as deep carbon. Diversity contributes a diversity of root depths and different exudates to a wider array of soil microbes. (4,5 Eisenhauer et al. 2017 and Zhalninal et al. 2018)

       The carbon saturation argument fails to acknowledge that via photosynthesis and the MCP more soil is formed. Soil too is formed from the top via decomposition and from the bottom (a-b horizon) via microbial necromass (6. Kallenbach et al 2016). As long as photosynthesis is occuring with diverse plant feeding microbes those microbes die and form more soil organic matter (SOM). More SOM contains more soil organic carbon (SOC) . So soil may reach equilibrium, but more soil is always accumulating from the top and bottom that can capture more carbon. The key for this to occur is to keep root mass in the soil.

       This is where grazing management comes into play. Contrary to what you wrote, holistic management and short duration grazing are NOT the same thing. Nordborg relies on Briske and Holechek both of whom looked at short duration grazing systems. Holistic Management is actually a comprehensive system to evaluate land to determine goals and paths for both ecosystem and economic restoration that may or may not involve holistic grazing based on the appropriateness of cattle (or other ruminants) in that ecosystem. So, it helps to actually understand what one is critiquing before actually makes a critique or relying on others' critiques. Dr. Richard Teague also wrote a response to the critique of Briske called "Deficiencies in the Briske et al rebuttal of the Savory method" (6). In this response Teague also notes that Briske is comparing grazing systems and doesn't seem to understand what holistic management is.

       In subsequent research, due to prejudice against Savory, in order to get published Teague coined the term AMP management. AMP stands for "adaptive multi-paddock" and is sometimes shorted further to adaptive grazing or adaptive management. Many of the more recent crtics in doing there analysis seem to be unaware that holistic and AMP management are the same thing, so they exclude papers are AMP management when they proclaim that there is no research to back up holistic management. This is a common, though mistaken, refrain. The body of research supporting AMP and HM actually continues to grow (plus is supported by a lot of the more recent soil science). Here's a stack of more recent range science papers supporting HM/AMP aggregated on Defending Beef's ISSUU page: issuu (dot) com/defendingbeef/stacks/c2202fc5e40d4766902627af9453909b

       Now holistic management that includes holistic grazing, unlike short duration or rotational grazing, isn't a prescribed system. When cattle or other ruminants are moved, they are monitored and not allowed to eat more than half the forage. Why half? Because anything more than half drastically reduces the amount of root mass. When root mass is maintain, the microbial carbon pump is also maintained, thus carbon exudates are continuously pumped into the soil. Extra plant growth not consumed is trampled down where that forage decompose and becomes part of the decompostion pathway and providing valaublae ground cover which reduces evaporation. The carbon pumped into the soil also improves the soil structure, allowing for more water to infiltrate and be retained, and ths allow for more plant growth. The area just grazed may not be regrazed for anywhere up to six months to a year depending on regrowth of plants. Again this is closely monitored , and animal movement is based on 'reading the land" through careful observation...again NOT a prescriptive system like SDG or rotational grazing.

       Curious, author have you ever been on a ranch of any kind? How about one that uses holistic managament? My guess is that you're only reading literature and have no real idea how any of this works. You should take a page from author Barry Estabrook's recent article on Savory. In this article, Estabrook listened to both advocates and critiques. Then Estabrook went and visited a Savory hub for himself and saw the results. which were undeniable....

       Now as for methane, using your logic, we should drain all the remaining wetlands and peat bogs plus kill all beavers since wetlands emit copious amounts of biogenic methane as do beaver ponds. Now the argument as to whether there were or were not more wild ruminants is a silly one since there's no real real accounting to prove either side. In North America, we have guestimates of bison, elk, pronghorn, moose, deer, big horn sheep, etc population that may or may not exceed current domesticated populations of domesitcated ruminants both in number and in mass. In Asia and Europe, the ecological memory is much more distant since the large herds of auroch, bison, stepped bison, irish elk, etc were exterpated a much much longer time ago. What's much easier to argument is that we had much greater regions of wetlands than we do have today as well as a lot more beavers making ponds full of methanogens making methane. Microbial, thermogenic and pyrogenic methane comes from a multitude of places like cockroaches, shellfish, coal bed gas, fracking, centipedes, burning biomass, decomposing organic mass, landfills, etc. Despite all of these emissions, the vast majority of this methane is oxidized by hydroxyl radicals in the troposphere (and to a lesser exent in the stratosphere). A small amount is oxidized by methanotrophs in the soil. The geosink though is very small.

       But here's the thing, Carbon flows, and shift forms.....

       Due to hydroxyl radical oxidation, enteric and most other forms of microbial methane really are part of the carbon cycle so it's a constant amount. CO2 from the atmosphere is converted to sugars plant use to make cellulose, lignan and exudates. Cattle eat the cellulose. A quorum of bacteria/archae including methanogens in the rumen convert that cellulose to H2, short chained fatty acids and CH4. The SFCA's are used for energy, and the CH4 is burped. That CH4 collides with OH (hydroxyl radicals) which steals a hydrogen atom and thus breaks down to H2O and eventually back to Co2 which again then goes to photosynthesis to make the grasses and twigs cattle and other ruminants eat. It's a cycle ...loop. ...not an aggregating process. If cattle or ruminants don't eat the grasses, those grasses still oxidize or decompose back to CO2 directly or to CH4 which then is oxidized in the geosphere by methanotrophs or the troposphere by hydroxyl radicals back to CO2 which then also cycles.

       Or, in other words, enteric methane from ruminants and other microbial sources is part of respiration. It's just a few extra steps from CO2 to cellulose to CH4 back to CO2 back to cellulose. So these sources of CH4 are not what are causing methane levels to rise again after 2007. What is? Natural gas from fracking which confused some researchers in their top down analysis becuause fracked gas has a C12 isotope signature. (Thermogenic -fossil fuel- methane sources typically have only C13 heavier isotope signatures). So if you really want to reduce methane levels, switch electrical generation to green energy ...and get rid of fracked natural gas and coal generation of electricity.

       Anyway, sorry got lazy with my references in the second half of this response. My references ofr methane include Prinn, Rigby, Howarth, etc.

       1). Paul, D et al. 2018. Molecular Genomic Techniques for Identification of Soil Microbial Community Structure and Dynamics
       2).. Liang, c et al 2017 the importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage
       3). Farming the CO2 Factor, Eco-Farming Daily 10/10/2018
       4). Eisenhauer et al. 2017. root biomass and exudates link plant diversity with soil bacterial and fungal biomass
       5). Zhalnina1, K et al. 2018. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly
       6). Kallenbach et al. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls

11413. ThinkingMan at 10:15 AM on 19 March 2019
       The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
       

       To the moderator:  Your request for documentation encourages confidence in  "skepticalscience".

       To Ari:  Thank you for providing relevant docs and related comments.

       To all:  A hypothesis consistant with my 18 Mar. post is:  Anthropogenic warming countered the cooling phase of the current 60-80 year temperature cycle.  The answer may be there is no such cycle, as the moderator suggests.

       If, however, such a cycle does exist, the fact a downward temperature trend has not started since 2000 may give credence to the concept human caused releases of greenhouses are affecting temperatures.  Man's influence may have offset natural forces driving the cooling phase.  This possibility should be welcome by AGW advocates.  The proposal should not be viewed suspiciously as a Trojan Horse deployed by deniers.

        

11414. nigelj at 10:01 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Red Baron, you have claimed on several occasions that improved grazing and soil management can sequester an additional  5- 20 tonnes carbon / hectare / year. This would seem to be a key issue. The article mentions 3 tonnes / hecate / year. Can you please provide details of your claim.

       I don't really want a list of research papers to wade through because we are talking hundreds of pages. Can you please provide the name of the research paper, and copy and paste of the relevant text to substantiate your claim, and your commentary on it if you want.

11415. Daniel Mocsny at 08:51 AM on 19 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       "Talking about all the negatives we want to avoid isn't exactly the most hopeful thing."

       That's why we need morality. A moral person isn't motivated by hope. For example, if the moral person chooses to avoid murdering his neighbor, for purely moral reasons, the moral person doesn't require any "hope" for a better world or any other extraneous motivation. The moral person refrains from committing murder because murder is wrong. No further justification or icing on the cake is necessary. Even if everybody else commits murder, the moral person won't. The moral person doesn't care about popularity, efficacy, larger goals, or anything else when contemplating an action - only about what is right and what is wrong.

       Imagine having to come up with some idealistic picture of a future society to persuade people not to kill their neighbors. We don't want to just focus on how horrible murder is. Let's find something else to make the message positive and hopeful. Could humanity have ever gotten past the Stone Age if that were necessary? Before the scientific revolution, material progress was negligible. Most people could look forward to a life not much different or better than their grandparents'. There was no message of hope for most people based on any expectation of material progress or political progress. For most of human history, people had to manage without hope. And they did.

       To solve climate change, we must increase the number of people who believe contributing to climate change is wrong. So they start by cutting the contributions they can control. Initially those will be their own personal contributions. Once they exhaust that low-hanging fruit (it's far easier to cut your own carbon footprint than to cut anyone else's) they can look for ways to persuade and if necessary coerce others to cut their carbon footprints. As well as organize to get government help to cut their remaining emissions that are difficult to cut.

       Pretending we can skip the vital first step of cutting our own carbon footprints is to imagine climate change will be unlike all previous moral revolutions. To abolish slavery, for example, we first had to get a substantial number of people who voluntarily freed their slaves, or refrained from ever buying slaves. Those who continued to own slaves were never going to be part of the constituency to abolish slavery. To think that people who like to fly around the world on jets to climate conferences are going to abolish fossil fuels is like pretending slave owners would ever abolish slavery.

11416. Daniel Mocsny at 08:33 AM on 19 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       The free market also has the awesome ability to compare the cost (to self) of complying with regulations to the cost (to self) of buying political influence and overturning the regulations. Because people are clever and resourceful, they have an almost unlimited number of ways to resist coercion. This makes it almost impossible to structure any system of incentives that causes immoral people to behave morally. See for example the War on Drugs.

       Donald Trump has been gutting environmental regulations and torpedoing policy responses to climate change, proving that the resistance strategy works and it is an effective investment. It was presumably cheaper for polluting interests to install Trump than to comply with the regulations that Trump has destroyed. To solve climate change with policy, you must first somehow change democracy to insure that nobody like Donald Trump can get elected ever again. And remove all the judges he has appointed to lifetime terms.

       In contrast, when people are moral, they don't need outside coercion to do the right things. They will prioritize the moral aim above their own short-term benefits and desires. For example, a moral person would never consider flying for entertainment (such as on holiday). The moral person would proactively learn about carbon footprinting, and change his/her behavior to cut his/her carbon footprint as far as possible. This would occur in a tiny fraction of the time that any conceivable policy change would require to force the same reduction.

       Expecting policy to solve climate change requires imagining people are nothing more than passive chess pieces who can be moved around any which way. But these chess pieces fight back. As long as most people place a higher value on, to pick just one example, the benefits to self from jetting around on holiday, than they care about minimizing their personal contributions to climate genocide, humanity will remain firmly on its current trajectory to cook civilization out of existence and keep the Fermi paradox intact.

11417. RedBaron at 06:15 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Daniel,

       That source you gave on Methane seems pretty good, even to the point of reasonably discussing this point:

       "There are large potential benefits in dietary change (e.g., Ritchie et al., 2018), especially reduction in intense factory farming of cattle, but the net cut in methane emission from taking pastureland out of food production is not easily quantified. Replacing organic beef from rocky Scottish hills with soya grown intensively on former tropical rainforest or cerrado is not necessarily advantageous."

       However, they fall short of firmly taking a stand here. The lectures on methane and CO2 sequestration given by the USDA-SARE for farmers that I have attended says it quite a bit more firmly. Although the USDA conclusions are often only based on ongoing case studies and soil sample data rather than peer reviewed journal publishing.

11418. Kevin C at 06:10 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Hi RB. We're keen to make this rebuttal as representative of the peer reviewed literature as possible. I've contacted Seb, however term has just ended here, so I am not sure if he is available. I'd like to give him a couple of days to respond, otherwise I'll try and comment. He reviewed I think more than 50 papers on this topic, I'm afraid I've only read only a handful, so we will probably have to wait for his input.
       Regards, Kevin

11419. John Hartz at 05:58 AM on 19 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       citizenschallenge: 

       Climate Feedback's review of Bernie Sander's claim about the link between tornados and climate change is not about scorekeeping as you have asserted.

       Here is Climate Feedback's statement on the matter:

       It is likely that a warmer, moister world would allow for more frequent instability as measured by the convective available potential energy which is fueling tornadoes[3]. However, it is also likely that a warmer world would lessen chances for wind shear, leading to fewer tornadoes. Climate change also could shift the timing of tornadoes or the regions that are most likely to be hit, with less of an impact on the total number of tornadoes. 

       You would do well to carefully read Climate Feedback's entire review of this matter — especially the Scientist's Review section of it.

       Senator Sanders’ claim that climate change is making tornadoes worse isn’t supported by published research, Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Mar 8, 2019

11420. RedBaron at 05:24 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Robert,

       I have no idea where you learned logic, but your false premise is not the logic flaw I pointed out from rebuttal.

       The premise, "They are at risk of completely drying out because of increasing temperatures and more at risk to the detrimental effect of mismanaged grazing (Lal, 2004)." is actually true. It is not a false premise like your green cheese analogy.

       The logic flaw is in claiming that because this true statement of fact, thus the second part, "This makes it unreasonable to apply Holistic Management to such dry areas, where the intense grazing would no doubt leave soils further damaged."

       It is a formal logic fallacy called a non sequitur, one does not follow the other. You can not determine the validity of Holistic management by observing mismanagement of any sort, Holistic or not. This is especially important for native grasslands deteriorating due to undergrazing, where the mismanagement is actually due to abandonment. (after previously removing all the animal impact from wild animals)

11421. robert test at 04:28 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       RedBaron would make his argument coherent if he would not confuse false statements with invalid inferences. Statements are false, true or meaningless. Arguments and inferences are valid or invalid, i.e., logical or illogical.

       A statement such as 'the moon is made of green cheese' might be false but it is not illogical. There is no logical flaw in the statement. Nor is there a logical flaw in an argument such as:

       All bodies that reflect light are made of green cheese.

       The moon reflects light.

       Therefore, the moon is made of green cheese. 

       RedBaron has not shown any logical flaws in the article he is crticizing. Perhaps he is correct in saying there are false claims in the article but he throws around the term 'logic flaw' without any understanding of the term.

11422. michael sweet at 03:51 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Red Baron anbd others,

       I have found that if I take a long time to write a response I time out of Skeptical Science and when I post the response it disappears.  The screen on my computer does not indicate when I time out.  

       If you know a response will be long you can write it in Word and then copy paste it so that it does not get lost.  You can also copy a post in the SkS box so that if it disappears you have a copy.

11423. Daniel Bailey at 02:37 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       "Melting clathrates and permafrost releases fit that description. There is bubbling methane increasing in the arctic. That is well established. How much it is increased above what would be expected as natural increases and from what source is somewhat controversial. I am actually of the opinion most of it is from melting permafrost"

       So you continue to speculate.  Understood.

       As to sources of the recent rise in atmospheric fraction of methane, it seems to be sourced primarily from the tropics and mid-latitudes, mostly from natural sources and a small but non-zero contribution from fugitive emissions from fracking and agriculture.

       SOURCE

       "The rise in atmospheric methane (CH4), which began in 2007, accelerated in the past four years. The growth has been worldwide, especially in the tropics and northern mid‐latitudes. With the rise has come a shift in the carbon isotope ratio of the methane. The causes of the rise are not fully understood, and may include increased emissions and perhaps a decline in the destruction of methane in the air."

       Nisbet et al 2019 - Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the four years 2014‐2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement

11424. RedBaron at 01:35 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       It's controversial. Sorry for the lack of clarity on a side issue. 

       Methane being part of the natural short biological cycles is not part of anthropogenic climate change. This includes all methane releases from termites and other insects, decaying compost and leaf litter on forest floors, the normal rate it bubbles from peat boggs and swamps, and yes, this includes ruminates. 

       When discussing why the methane is increasing, the need is to show a changed increase over the natural cycle. Most of this is natural gas leaks. There is also a component that is a reinforcing feedback.

       Melting clathrates and permafrost releases fit that description. There is bubbling methane increasing in the arctic. That is well established. How much it is increased above what would be expected as natural increases and from what source is somewhat controversial. I am actually of the opinion most of it is from melting permafrost. However, what ever % is clathrates and what % is from melting permafrost, or whatever % is from Natural gas, all these are fossil methane, and thus NOT part of the normal methane cycle.

       Whereas a cow grazing on a properly managed grassland actually reduces net methane because of the action of methanotrophs in the grassland soils when properly managed.

11425. Daniel Bailey at 01:08 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       So your claim about clathrates being part of "most of the issue" lacks foundation. 

       Got it.

11426. Ari Jokimäki at 00:58 AM on 19 March 2019
       The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
       

       The 60-80 year cycle refers to AMO/AMV, I think. One of the first papers discussing it was Schlesinger & Ramankutty (1994): An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. See also my paperlist on the subject.

       At least one of the hiatus papers (in the paper sample of our paper 1 linked in the post above) mentions that there was a switch to cooling in Atlantic at around 1995. There aree some other papers also that discuss the role of Atlantic relating to the global warming hiatus. I think the answer to ThinkingMan is that the cooling phase might already have made an appearance but in the presence of long term warming, it doesn't show so clearly in the global mean surface temperature. While AMO's effect is strong around Atlantic, it's effect to GMST might not be so strong.

11427. RedBaron at 00:58 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Clathrates melting are a hypothesis and mostly controversial outcome from oceans warming beyond the range they are stable. While there are fossil methane releases from arctic waters, most of these are actually thought to be methane released from melting permafrost rather than clathrates.

       The key of course not being any chemical difference, but rather how long the Methane was outside the short term carbon cycle. Is it new? or fossil? That's what matters. 

11428. Daniel Bailey at 00:39 AM on 19 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       "Most of the issue is Natural gas leaks and clathrates"

       What's your evidence for your claim about clathrates?

11429. RedBaron at 00:15 AM on 19 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       Thanks David, but no. That is also a pretty basic answer. I wrote out a long version that took about 3 or 4 hours to write. It vanished. Unfortunately I did not save a draft.  So I'll not be doing that again. Anyone with questions just ask and I'll handle them one at a time instead.

11430. David Kirtley at 23:21 PM on 18 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       RedBaron, your other comment is to the "blog post" announcing this new "rebuttal" here: https://skepticalscience.com/holistic-management-rebuttal.html

11431. RedBaron at 22:57 PM on 18 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       I wrote a rather long detailed explanation why this rebuttal is flawed. But unfortunately it never posted.

       I don't know why? Maybe it was too long? 

       Anyway the short version is this. Oxic soils under grasslands are net sinks not sources.

       What reaction can you do to remove methane?

       So that part is completely flawed and actually improving and expanding grasslands would help lower methane, not increase it.

       The other mistake made here is in not understanding the difference between the catabolic processes of decay in the O-horizon of the soil profile and the anabolic processes of soil building in the A and B horizons of the soil profile.

       One is biomass and primarily a function of saprophytic fungi (SF) vs the other which is the liquid carbon pathway of root exudates and glomalin and primarily a function of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF).

       This makes the Roth C model not applicable at all. It simply doesn't apply in this case. It is a very good model for biomass decay, but it and any other biomass decay model are all flawed when trying to use them for the LCP.

       Here is evidence from the past of this ecosystem function:

       Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

       Gregory J. Retallack doi: 10.1086/320791

       And here is a review of how we can apply the paleo record of this ecosystem function to modern times and near future AGW mitigation.

       Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

       Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001

       And here is empirical evidence of carbon sequestration rates in the field under various agricultural techniques and systems. A careful examination of the evidence with an understanding of how the Liquid Carbon Pathway functions makes it very clear which systems use the LCP and why the difference in rates seen. It also confirms that the average sequestration rate of ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr holds true in environments tested around the world.

       Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

       Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

       Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

       Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003

       Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming

       Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Matthias Haeni, Colin Skinner, Andreas Fliessbach, Nina Buchmann, Paul Mäder, Matthias Stolze, Pete Smith, Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, and Urs Niggli doi/10.1073/pnas.1209429109

       Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security

       Rattan Lal doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8

       The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

       W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156

       Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

       W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi:/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009

       Please note that all of these have published results higher than this so called rebuttal claims is impossible. That's measured results. So right there is enough to show this rebuttal is empirically wrong.

       Of course they all show other measured results much lower too. And those also have strong reasons why.

       If they are primarily using biomass decay, then the carbon sequestration is positive but much smaller than when the primary biological pathway is the LCP. So there is your empirical evidence and also your explanation why.

11432. RedBaron at 20:40 PM on 18 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       "They are at risk of completely drying out because of increasing temperatures and more at risk to the detrimental effect of mismanaged grazing (Lal, 2004).This makes it unreasonable to apply Holistic Management to such dry areas, where the intense grazing would no doubt leave soils further damaged." 

       This is a false demostrably illogical statement. Land that has mismanaged grazing neither proves nor disproves properly managed grazing. It's ridiculous to claim there is no doubt that even using Holistic management would result in the same outcome as mismanaged grazing. It's so ridiculous a statement I shouldn't even need to refute it. But I can easily. 

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

       As can be seen clearly, Holistic planned grazing significantly increases water content of soils over mismanaged grazing and critically even shows improvement over the control with no grazing at all!

       Most of the rest of that section has nothing to do with Holistic planned grazing and only describes yet again demostrably mismanaged grazing. We can agree that overgrazing and undergrazing both result in desertification and the release of carbon rather than the sequestration of carbon. Ironically the main reason for the term "holistic" comes from a series of management techniques designed to prevent these sorts of mistakes from happening by closely monitoring and proactive adaptation. Holistic management provides a management framework that dramatically helps prevent these negative results from happening. Simply proving that the land can easily be mismanaged really is not a rebutal of Savory at all. It's more a critique of the status quo Savory is trying to change.

       Methane is my pet peeve here. I have already discussed this in some detail here. Most of the issue is Natural gas leaks and clathrates, not cows at all. But I would agree that removing the livestock from grazing and instead using feedlots to fatten them also has cause some of the problem.

       See upland oxic soils is the only biome on the planet that is a net sink for methane primarily due to the action of methanotrophes. Part of maintaining a healthy population of methanotrophes is indeed proper animal impact. Rather than repeat this yet again, I wrote a quora answer off thread you can use as a reference as to why. 

       What reaction can you do to remove methane?

        

       So once again it is mismanagement of the land that does have some negative impact, and once again Savory's methods are designed to reduce and/or eliminate these sorts of management mistakes. This is once again not a criticism of Holistic planned grazing, but rather a critique of mismanaged livestock. I would agree that this is part of the problem, but the conclusion of this article is one huge logic fallacy. Just because mismanaged land and livestock is indeed a problem, does not say anything at all about what Savory proposes, nor does it refute the 10's of millions of acres already showing quantifiable improvement due to following his work. That does indeed include published results too by the way.

       Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

        

       Once again, this time regarding soil carbon, we see marked improvement over mismanaged grazing of several sorts, and critically an improvement over the control of no animals at all.

       "Because of the complex nature of carbon storage in soils, increasing global temperature, risk of desertification and methane emissions from livestock, it is unlikely that Holistic Management, or any management technique, can reverse climate change."

       I would agree with that. It's possible but very unlikely. Instead we need to do both fossil fuel reductions and changing agricultural systems both. There is no single silver bullet. And just because fossil fuel reductions is not enough alone, and soil sequestration also probably wouldn't be enough alone, doesn't mean we freeze up and do nothing. It means we must do both! Again with the logic flaws. Astonishing really.

       "Studies of several grazing techniques and carbon storage have produced no ground-breaking results to suggest that Savory’s idea is doable."

       This is a demonstrably false statement actually. In fact Savory won the Buckminster Fuller award for proving the breakthrough in rather dramatic fashion. Not to mention repeatability on every continent and the aformentioned 10's of millions of acres already showing dramatic improvement. So this part of the conclusion actually borders on an outright lie.

       "With increasing temperature, the ability of soil to store carbon will decrease"

       Exactly true. And in fact part of the monitoring of Holistic management involves making sure soil temps stay low so they stop losing carbon and water both. So this part of the conclusion yet again can not be assigned to holistic management, but rather mismanagement. The logic flaws continue.

       "and grazing will likely speed up the process of desertification. "

       Again the logic flaw. Is this mismanaged grazing? Then the statement is true. Is this properly managed grazing? Then demostrably false. See above.

       "Finally, methane emissions from cattle are currently too high, and their effect on global warming cannot be ignored."

       Actually methane emissions mean nothing. this is as false as the merchant of doubt argument regarding CO2 emissions from animals. see argument # 34 for more information. When calculating these, of which methane is but a small part, the entire biological cycle must be considered, not just emissions. Thus it is the net that matters not gross emissions like when we deal with fossil fuels including fossil methane.

       "Adding more livestock to the planet will not help this."

       Alone no. Of course not. The thing that mitigates AGW is increasing our depleted biological systems, and livestock can indeed be a tool for doing that, as Savory so amazingly proved on many millions of acres across the globe. Mismanaged livestock are part of the problem now. Not nearly as big a part as the plow and agrochemicals, but a part yes. Especially when the plow and agrochemicals are used to raise grains for cows and sheep, which is ridiculous mismanagement even worse than mismanaged grazing. So we can easily start there and stop this wasteful use of land to grow excess grains. That will free up so much land we indeed might need to uncrease either livestock or wild herbivores just to keep it all pruned properly. To avoid it going to desert like so much is already doing now. However, that is determined later by how much arable land we can take out of production and rest. Got the horse before the cart on that one.

       “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

        

       In total this basic rebuttal is not very convincing at all. I will work on the advanced rebuttal next to see if it is any better.

11433. citizenschallenge at 16:07 PM on 18 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       John, thanks for the heads up,  Great example of the point I keep trying to make.  ;- )

       Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Mar 8, 2019

       {hat tip to skepticalscience.com - https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/03/climatefeedbackorg-factcheck-fails.html}

       
       CLAIM
       "The science is clear, climate change is making extreme weather events, including tornadoes, worse.” SOURCE: Bernie Sanders, Facebook, 4 March 2019
       ClimateFeedback.org's fact checking verdict was misleading.
       Overstates scientific confidence: Research clearly shows that certain types of weather extremes are increasing as a result of climate change, but it is not clear how tornadoes are responding to a warming climate.
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ClimateFeedback misses the point.

       It’s not about tornadoes and score keeping, it’s about learning to appreciate how our climate engine operates.

       Take back the narrative !

       Research clearly shows us that our global heat and moisture distribution engine has accumulated a degree Centigrade worth of extra heat since the advent of the steam engine.

       Weather's job is to circulate this heat (and moisture) from the broiling equator to the poles.

       This warming also increases the moisture holding capacity of air.

       Physics tells us this added energy gets circulated throughout the global weather system.

       This extra heat is now available to be released through various destructive forms, not limited to tornadoes, consider destructive macrobursts, microbursts, downbursts, derechos, bomb cyclones, hurricanes and others.

       It doesn’t much matter which particular climatological conditions come together, the point is when they do, they now have increasingly more energy, heat and moisture available, meaning more intense events must to be expected.

       It’s elementary. It's physics. It's certain as people can be about anything.

       It’s about establishing an appreciation for what’s happening within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Well that and learning to appreciate the fragility of the biosphere upon who's health we all depend on for everything.

11434. scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 18 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       If the only thing we used petroleum for was manufacture of plastics, then CO2 emissions from petroleum would not be much of an issue. On the other hand, if they go onto choose frequent flying, petrol SUVs, and coal-based electricity, then you could call them hypocrites.

       However, individual action only goes so far, and especially if it is only inacted by a relative few. Government action is needed  deal with the main problems:

       • transition away from coal and gas for electricity (priority no 1 for most countries and the biggest way to make a difference)
       • transition away from petroleum-based transport

       If you can solve these quickly without government intervention, then we are all ears. In my opionion, cynism and name-calling dont do much.

11435. nigelj at 13:35 PM on 18 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Related research from last year: The vast reservoir of carbon stored beneath our feet is entering Earth's atmosphere at an increasing rate, most likely as a result of warming temperatures, suggest observations collected from a variety of the Earth's many ecosystems.

11436. JWRebel at 13:21 PM on 18 March 2019
       New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
       

       Unaddressed is the interaction between climate and desertification, as in the Amazon where reevaporation infuences the climate futher inland. So it's not just that the dry climate makes the desert, but destroying grassland and forest can also lead to a drier climate. Not saying the critique is not right, just that it seems the interplay should be mentioned.

       Also, there seems to be some discussion about where the increased methane is coming from, so the attribution to cattle for meat has some margin of uncertainty.

11437. nigelj at 12:50 PM on 18 March 2019
       Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
       

       Related research from last year : The vast reservoir of carbon stored beneath our feet is entering Earth's atmosphere at an increasing rate, most likely as a result of warming temperatures, suggest observations collected from a variety of the Earth's many ecosystems.

11438. DrC at 06:59 AM on 18 March 2019
       Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records
       

       Not really. I did a lot of background reading over the last two days, and this issue is far from settled. The CO2 dissolved both as gas and bicarbonate do act as a buffer to atmospheric CO2, but also the deeper ocean layers contain higher concentrations and occasionally fume CO2, especially when the surface winds are in play. Furthermore, there is very little data from the Southern Hemisphere oceans during the colder weather, because of he harshness of the conditions for those vessels that collect and analyze ocean gas samples for the last 3 decades. The dynamic is much more complicated and the simplifications are just inadequate to the data.

11439. graymoment1 at 06:46 AM on 18 March 2019
       Skeptical Science now an Android app
       

       Is anyone working on developing a new version of this software? Is it a funding issue? How many other readers out there would gladly donate for an updated Android app? I would. After all, 80+% of all mobile phones run on Android.

11440. ThinkingMan at 03:26 AM on 18 March 2019
       The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future
       

       Rather than debate again & again the hiatus or slower warming issue, I respectfully suggest researching & discussing a related issue.  Has anthropogenic warming offset natural cooling forces since 2000 or so?

       The annual average global temperature has NOT trended downwards since 2000, 2015 or some year in between.  EVERYONE concedes this point.  One might reasonably expect a downwards trend since then because of a routine, recurring, widely acknowledged 60-80 temperature cycle.  The cycle's most recent warming phase started 1970-1975, or so.  The cooling phase should have started 30-40 years later, which would place the start date between 2000 & 2015.

       So, why has the cooling phase NOT made an appearance?  The answer should profoundly influence expectations for climate.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] I am not aware of any scientific basis for a 60-80 cycle though I aware of pseudo-skeptic pundits pushing the idea. Can you please provide references to support this "widely acknowledged" cycle? (especially interested to know where in the natural world, this extra energy is supposed to come from).

11441. Eclectic at 14:54 PM on 17 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Gribble @53 ,

       you refer to a paper by Nikolov & Zeller (2016).   Essentially, N & Z have performed a "curve-fitting exercise", and have not used basic physics.  Their ideas are pseudo-science.

       Similar ideas were put forward by Gerlich & Tscheuschner ["G &T"] about a decade ago, and were shot down in flames.  [Refer to discussion at "Science of Doom" and elsewhere.]   Also check SkS's Most Used Climate Myths number #63 , accessed via top left corner of this page (mostly about G & T , see "intermediate version" with well over a 1000 comments, though all prior to 2015, and largely concerning thermodynamic laws ~ a fertile area of misunderstanding, especially by people who repeatedly confuse semantics with physics).

       You should also note some publication of ideas by "Volokin & ReLlez" [= Nikolov and Zeller spelt backwards].

       (B)  Is there an inverse relationship between solar activity and [global] warming?   The short answer is: No .

11442. gribble.eric3 at 13:32 PM on 17 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       I have added a link to a paper that states that there is an inverse relationship between solar activity and warming. Reduced activity causes atmospheric shrinking and the increased density causes warming (Just like the coolant circulating around in your refrigerator). Attached is the link. 

       https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

       Has this paper been adequately rebutted. If the paper has substance the inverse relationship suggested here between solar activity and warming would explain why no correlation has been observed.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] You might like to look at further discussion here or here. It is also "published" in a sham journal. (Detail here)

11443. jef12506 at 12:06 PM on 17 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #11
       

       Just wait until those kids learn the truth. Unfortunately there are still many layers of lies and hopeium yet to be thrown at them before the truth comes out.

       We need to stop all of it and just make sure everyone is ok, help them through what is coming, work together, mutual aid.

11444. John Hartz at 05:52 AM on 16 March 2019
       CO2 is plant food
       

       @ remmons 31: 

       The NASA article that you reference was published on April 26, 2016. It has been susequently updated by the following article:

       Human Activity in China and India Dominates the Greening of Earth, NASA Study Shows, NASA, Feb 11, 2019

       The concluding/summary paragraphs of the update article:

       The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world and dominated by India and China does not offset the damage from loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia. The consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems remain.

       Overall, Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. “Once people realize there’s a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 70s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss wasn’t good; in the 90s, people realized it; and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”

       This research was published online, Feb. 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.

        The moral of the story: Science is a continuous process. 

11445. remmons at 04:44 AM on 16 March 2019
       CO2 is plant food
       

       According to NASA, the earth is greening, and it is 70% due to anthropogenic CO2.

       https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

11446. Nick Palmer at 23:45 PM on 15 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       nigelj@6
       "At the very least we need a semi market based mechanism like carbon taxes or cap and trade"
       
       As a minimum. The main problem with the version of the free market we have, and which got exponentially worse since the international deregulation in the 80s, is that it does not really fit the the parameters for what basic economics says is necessary for a free market to run efficiently and safely - full and open knowledge of all aspects of it for all participants and, importantly, costs of doing business should end up on the accountants' bottom lines.

       Externalities - the cost of avoiding acid rain, polluted rivers, sickened people, altered climate, degraded land and habitat etc. should be accounted for as a cost of doing business. Carbon taxes would be a big start. With this 'environmental economics', the awesome power of the free market to achieve things and supply goods and services would be unleashed. Those goods and services which were cleaner and greener and/or less damaging would become the same price or less than the 'dirty versions' and the great mass of the public would vote with their wallets. 'Bad' products, and the corporations that made them would be less profitable, investment in them would wither away.
       
       Doing it this way means virtually no environmental legislation, which so many kickback against, would be required
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

11447. nigelj at 16:33 PM on 15 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       Neoliberalism.

       Neoliberalism has huge implications for the climate issue. Some quick background. According to Wikipedia : "Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[4] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[12] .....Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"[20] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people[21][22] as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[5] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including democracy.[23]"

       It's obvious to me that neoliberalism is a reaction against keynsian policies of the 1970's of protectionist trade and extensive state ownership going into industry and banking.

       Free trade is pretty much embraced by almost everyone in developed countries, left and right alike. The battle ground is over how far privatisation should go into core infrastructure and how much we should deregulate. I think only the fanatics and the irrational would think everything should be privatised and deregulated. This seems as ridiculous and irrational as communists thinking the state should run everything. Neoliberalism is tiresome like all ideologies.

       It's particularly frustrating because environmental problems are hard to solve with purely market based mechanism's such as "self regulation" (does that ever actually work?). At the very least we need a semi market based mechanism like carbon taxes or cap and trade (I prefer the former fwiw its more transparent).

11448. PBRoger at 07:25 AM on 15 March 2019
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Good discussion.
       The link  "The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen" 
       is broken. It's just been moved, not removed. It is now at

       https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/lo03000u.html

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Thanks very much for that. Link updated.

11449. SirCharles at 06:05 AM on 15 March 2019
       Hopes for our climate future
       

       "we don't have to worry about global warming"???

       WTF

       

       => Global warming will happen faster than we think

11450. One Planet Only Forever at 02:48 AM on 15 March 2019
       Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
       

       Eclectic,

       Rereading your comment @53, I understand that you may have clarified the goal posts regarding your initial comment @45 (which only asked for Prominent names incorrectly used to gain credibility). You may be seeking 'very frequently used Prominent names'.

       I agree that Darwin is not frequently used, though there actually are cases where Darwin has been abused by climate science denial promoters like Monckton (as the DeSmogBlog item I provided a link to showed).

       What I see related to Darwin that is frequently abused (by the likes of Monckton) are the many suggestions that it is acceptable for current day people to not give up some of their developed perceptions of prosperity and comfort just to reduce the harm done to future generations because 'those future generations will be able to adapt, the incorrect Darwin link'.

       Examples of this incorrect link to Darwin are the economic claims that the artificial developed perceptions of wealth, prosperity, or reduction of poverty that are the result of the unsustainable and harmful burning of fossil fuels will somehow be sustained into the future (perceived positive results of unsustainable harmful behaviour are very unlikely to be sustained positives in the future).

       Similarly incorrect are the related claims that the perceptions of loss of status by portions of the current generation if 'they had to adapt' to the reality of the unacceptability of harming the future generations must over-rule the fundamental understanding of the need to minimize the required 'adaptation to the harmful future consequences of the current generation dragging its feet about correcting what has developed (foot dragging because they - collectively - do not want to correct their incorrectly developed perceptions, they want to allow everyone to continue pursuing 'their happiness any way they have developed a liking for'.

       Efforts to improve the awareness, understanding and acceptance of climate science cannot be separated from the related need for increased acceptance of the need to achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals (not just the minimization of climate change harm), which cannot be separated from the related reality that some people will have to lose developed perceptions of status relative to others (not just the coal barons). That is a lot of incorrect developed popularity and profitability to over-come, but the future of humanity needs the corrections to be done, and be done by the current generation because they are the only ones doing anything and everything, including creating the future for humanity through their actions (or lack of correction).

Prev  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  Next