Comments 1 to 42:

1. nowhearthis at 17:22 PM on 22 February, 2019

   There's a lot of talk about "solutions".  Is there any PROVEN solutions?  Can anyone point me to the validation?  I don't count 'appears-could-can-seems-may-projected-opinion-etc." as validation.  I'm looking for something that is absolute and confirmed.

   0 0
2. MA Rodger at 18:56 PM on 22 February, 2019

   nowhearthis @1,

   Could you describe what you mean by "solutions"? There may be "a lot of talk" on the subject but they are not using the word "solutions" on this page.

   0 0
3. Eclectic at 19:01 PM on 22 February, 2019

   @1

   "absolute and confirmed"  is possible only in retrospect.

   A realist avoids the trap of impossible expectations.

   Simply aim to do your best.

   0 0
4. Postkey at 00:28 AM on 23 February, 2019

   No 'solutions'?

   “ The level of fossil fuel consumption globally is now roughly five times higher than in the 1950s, and one-and-half times higher than in the 1980s, when the science of global warming was confirmed and governments accepted the need to act on it. This is a central feature of the “great acceleration” of human impacts on the natural world. . . .
   CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, man made greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
   https://piraniarchive.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/pirani-helsinki-wern2018-paper.pdf

   0 0
5. RedBaron at 02:33 AM on 23 February, 2019

   @1 nowhearthis,

   Very little in science is absolute. However, yes indeed there are solutions, but to understand this you must go back to basics.

   This problem is not only about emissions. This is a carbon cycle. Trying to fix this by eliminating carbon emissions is tackling the problem with one hand tied behind our backs. It won't work, and several researchers have made the claim we already passed the point where that alone it actually can’t work.[1] There are two sides to this and BOTH must be improved, less emissions and more sequestration.

   You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with.

   1. We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.[2]
   2. We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.[3][4] (mostly grasslands[5])
   3. By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess.[6] (roughly 1/2)
   4. That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect.[7] (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)

   So this leads directly to the way we must reverse AGW:

   1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.[8]
   2. Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.[9][10]
   3. Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.[11][12][13]
   4. In short we need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.

   

   Currently at our technology and manufacturing capacity today, we have several technologies that can reduce fossil fuel use. Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Nuclear, and even Natural gas as a replacement for coal all helps reduce CO2. It would squash economies to 100% absolutely eliminate all fossil fuels and cement emissions, but we can right now, at a profit, with current manufacturing capacity and technology, dramatically reduce fossil fuel emissions of CO2 and CH4.

   So this alone is not enough though. reducing fossil fuel emissions is not a panacea.

   However, there is only one thing we humans do at scale large enough to geoengineer the other side of the carbon cycle, and that is agriculture. We have been doing that poorly for ~5-10 thousand years, but we know how to fix that side of the carbon cycle too. And sure enough, if we first reduce fossil fuel emissions, then change agriculture to these more modern science based organic methods, the two combined is more than enough to yield a net negative carbon footprint at an actual profit. No net cost at all actually.

   Here is the outline of how we can balance the carbon cycle with the new scientific developments in regenerative organic agriculture.

   Can we reverse global warming?

    

   There is a hold up though. In the energy sector there is a huge misdirection and obfuscation campaign paid for by the fossil fuel companies. A book was written about this called "The merchants of Doubt".

   What is less known is that a similar campaign exists in agriculture to protect the massive agribiz conglomerates dependant on fossil fuel based haber process nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas, cheap oil to run tractors and fuel grain dryers, centralized refrigerated storage, and thousands of miles long distribution and shipping logistics networks. The whole "Green Revolution" system is massively energy inefficient, as it was designed long ago when fossil fuels were cheap and abundant.[14]

   So the solution is easy actually, although so far no countries politicians have had the balls to tackle this full Monte except the Aussies.[15] No absolutes are needed, just everyone chipping in the best they can bring to the table. And unfortunately, as soon as the Aussies did, the next election cycle the Merchants of Doubt won and it was canceled.

   1 0
6. MA Rodger at 19:46 PM on 23 February, 2019

   RedBaron @5,

   Where you say "You need to go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with," I find your second point is highly controversial and not supported by the three references you present.

   Eswaran et al (2001) talks of soil degradation and makes not mention of lost carbon sequestration. Retallack (2013) talks of carbon uptake over millions of years and this as a potential mechanism for carbon sequestration. Bockheim (2014)[Abstract] appears to discuss only this millions-of-years carbon sink and its degradation.

   Nowhere is there any suport for your assertion that there exists "environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere," at least no such mechanism existing that ever did so at a rate significant for AGW or could do so without the hand of man assisting it.

   0 0
7. RedBaron at 16:14 PM on 24 February, 2019

   @6 MA Rodger,

   It's been measured. I have been trying to push the point again and again because precisely this is what is being missed.

   In soil science we knew for over 100 years there was this mysterious rapid accumulation of stable carbon, in large amounts, over long periods of time, deep in certain soils under certain conditions. But besides that it was associated with grasslands, no one knew precisely what was going on. It was counter-intuitive.

   Dr Sarah Wright, a soil scientist for the USDA discovered the missing link in 1996, Glomalin. It is such a fundamental breakthrough, literally there has been no Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry that has ever made a more important discovery, in my opinion. But because this is a rather obscure field that very few understand, she isn't recognized as much for it as she should be.

   Glomalin is the missing link, but the whole chain is what matters. It has been called the liquid carbon pathway and it is a completely natural carbon pump into the soil and is a primary forcing along with Milankovitch cycles explaining rapid decreases in excess CO2 between each and every glaciation period since this ecosystem function became mature. 

   Remember, this is a self regulating complex system. The biosphere is a major, if not the major, feedback in that system.

   More CO2 means more LCP which sequesters deep in the soil profile. Thus the CO2 spikes are evened out quickly by this feedback.

   Mankind has not created this feedback, we simply unknowingly destroyed it with our plows and pesticides mostly and somewhat also the mass extirpation of the megafauna. It does not need man's assistance except in restoring a healthy soil food web and the rest is done naturally.

   We never knew about this biological function because it was largely destroyed before we even started looking! However, we do know about it now. We know what it is, how it works, and most importantly, how to mimick this natural biome function with agriculture.

   When we use biomimicry to design an agricultural system to mimic the function of the grasslands biomes, including their many biodiverse species and even large grazers as the primarary ecosystem engineers, vast tonnes of soil carbon builds up deep in the A and B soil horizons.

   Until 1996, it was thought the primary source of A and B horizon carbon was degrading organic matter in the O-horizon. And sure enough, in forests this is true. But in Grasslands the primary source for A and B horizon carbon is the LCP by at least 2 orders of magnitude or more. It is that big a deal. I can't emphasize this enough. It is and will continue to be a huge impact on agriculture for many years to come, even if climate scientists never catch up to the soil science. 

   Remember, my main purpose for taking climate science course was to communicate this knowledge to climate scientists who might have a different silo of knowledge. Please don't be fooled by the same merchants of doubt that are plagueing the energy side of climate science. We have our fully funded merchants of doubt too.

   Now here is some info as to why many times you may see a study that even today misses the LCP. See we use chemical fertilizers to supply NPK. Unknowingly this bypasses the function of the soil food web in general and glomalin producing AMF in particular.

   Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Rhizophagus irregularis Increased Potassium Content and Expression of Genes Encoding Potassium Channels in Lycium barbarum

    

   and

   Substantial nitrogen acquisition by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from organic material has implications for N cycling

    

   but more importantly, when we fertilize the soil with large quantities of NPK fertilizers, it shuts down this function.

   Phosphorus and Nitrogen Regulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Petunia hybrida

    

   Something else too. Unlike saprophytic fungi which cause decay of organic matter in the O horizon releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, AMF need a living root at all times to survive. So not only does using NPK fertilizers shut down the LCP, so does herbicides and plowing and even some fungicides.

   In fact pretty much everything industrialized ag does now as common GAP unknowingly shuts down the LCP. It's no wonder it took so long to discover. Any time you see a study making claims of the potential rate of soil carbon sequestration, you need to look deeper and see if either standard green revolution methods are being used, or improved no till green revolution methods defined by the USDA as GAP (Good Agricultural Practises)

   Turns out GAP was defined PRIOR to the discovery of glomalin and the LCP. So right now all those are being reviewed as we speak by the USDA-NRCS and the USDA-SARE. But already they are beginning to teach it to farmers voluntarily. Seminar on it in two days here in OKC. Was one last year too.

   But it is a hugely political issue too with equally big players who are interfering with the denialism side of mitigation potential. All I ask is learn how to spot these so called "reviews" and see for yourself if the methods studied shut down the LCP or not. If they shut down the LCP, then the optimum sequestration rate is much lower and well modeled by the  Roth C model.

   However, the Roth C model is useless at modeling the LCP.

   0 0
8. MA Rodger at 18:44 PM on 24 February, 2019

   RedBaron @7,

   Your contention @5 is "We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere." Yet, as I pointed out @6, the references you cited do not support the contention that we have trashed a CO2 sequestration mechanism.

   Now you say "It's been measured." Has it? You give no numbers for this lost CO2 sequestration. I would not be surprised if there were CO2 sequestration mechanisms that have been trashed by humanity but to suggest their loss is significant in the short term. Such lost CO2 sequestration may become significant over centuries. But decades?

   If this issue is your raison d'être for rubbing shoulders in the climatological web-discourse, I would suggest you talk the right language. How much CO2 per hectare per year would be sequestrated by restoring these lost CO2 sinks?

   1 0
9. Philippe Chantreau at 04:10 AM on 25 February, 2019

   RedBaron, I looked for LCP and Christine Jones. I found a lot of talks, her book, multiple sites dedicated to new agricultural methods but no peer-reviewed publications. Can you point us in the right direction?

   0 0
10. RedBaron at 01:19 AM on 26 February, 2019

    @8 MA Rodger 

    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 LCP 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.org/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.org/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.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009

    Some of these have paywalls, so if you have difficulty getting past them, message me for a private copy for personal use only.

    @9 Philippe Chantreau The best I have for Dr Christine Jones is a short CV I posted here a while back: Christine Jones - short CV

    2 0
11. nowhearthis at 07:08 AM on 28 February, 2019

    Special thanks to Red Barron for an extensive discussion on the issue.   I'm still studying it and your links.

    While this page may not specifically state "solutions", much of the debate revolves around things purported as "solutions".   Before making major changes to society, perhaps we should validate they are worthwhile.   I beleve those affected will demand that.  Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference.  All I hear are promises and avoidance - THAT IS A PROBLEM.

    We see policies proffered by "progressive" politicians, promoting taxpayer funded projects (rail, transit, bike paths, fuel source shifts) with no proof they are effective.  The issue has become a religion and an us vs them sinkhole.   Until skeptics and supporters alike can be shown proof these sacrifices work without question, the debate will continue.

    Red Barron brings up a powerful point:  The remediation equation is more complex than what politicians promote and much of the answer exists outside the developed societies.  Further, those who believe the problem is anthropogenic, must acknowledge our massive planetary population increases, offset those 1st world sacrifices sold as "solutions".  Planetary population is 7.5b and has doubled in my lifetime, the U.S. represents a little over 4% of that.  Big players like China, India, Pacific Rim, Middle East, etc. aren't making the sacrifices sold to us as "solutions".  We can't do it alone and the Paris framework wasn't a realistic answer IMO.

    Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts)  we can reverse climate change?  -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises?  DOUBTFUL!

    This needs to be figured out; wars have started over much less.  Raising the question: What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?

    0 0
12. scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 28 February, 2019

    If you look at who is creating the problem however, the population problem is about the too many rich westerners rather than too many africans. It is the affluent west which are largely responsible for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

    

    Source:

    It could become too many rich Chinese, but the important part of the equation is the extent to which increasing affluence leads to increased FF use.

    You can prove things in mathematics but not science. Do you demand the  such nonsensical certainty before you take a doctors advice? Demanding absolute certainty before any action is taken is an impossible criteria and is frankly a rhetorical excuse for inaction.

    There is some fundimental physics at work here. We directly measure the increase in irradiation of the globes surface from increased GHG. If you decrease GHG, that radiation goes down. Now in summer your hemisphere gets more radiation at surface than at winter. Do you need proof that decreasing radiation in winter will make it cooler? Ditto for decreasing GHG. Supporting evidence without resorting to physics, would be to note that in other times when GHG levels have been lower, then the climate got colder and warmed again when they rose.

    I am guessing "promoting taxpayer funded projects" is an idealogical beef. By all means suggest an effective alternative way to reduce FF consumption which is compatiable with your ideology. This thread is a good place to do it.

    0 0
13. scaddenp at 08:55 AM on 28 February, 2019

    "Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference."

    Draconian is rhetoric. What makes ending FF subsidies, transition to renewables "draconian". We havent seen any CO2 reductions to make a difference but the IPCC reports WG1 and WG3 are full of peer-reviewed papers on why increased CO2 is causing warming; why changes of GHG have changed climate in past; and what effectiveness of mitigation strategies IPCC wG3. I am guessing that you didnt look very hard. Since you have come to this site, then hopefully you are not just looking for some shallow excuse for inaction.

    0 0
14. Daniel Bailey at 09:07 AM on 28 February, 2019

    "What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?"

    Sigh.  From 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.

    

    Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.

    For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
    Annex B Report from 2008
    http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pages/RadioPDF/unscear_artificielle.pdf
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
    https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html

    0 0
15. scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 28 February, 2019

    Well nuclear war could be beneficial for climate - removes a lot of FF users and the associated fire and dust have option for massive (if short term) aerosol load in the atmosphere (aka nuclear winter) while contributing comparatively very little heat.

    Personally I would have rather thought the point of climate solutions was to improve the lot for humanity so I dont think this one stacks up.

    The increase in CO2 since pre-industrial works results in the equivalent of 4 hiroshimo bombs per second. I suspect nowherethis was expecting a different number.

    0 0
16. MA Rodger at 10:17 AM on 28 February, 2019

    scaddenp @12,

    I'm not sure that graphic is up-to-date or even accurate. The US emitting close to the UK per capita figures? Germany per capita lower than the UK? China's total emissions less than the US?

    This one seems a better representaion.

    

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] The image is not displaying for some reasons.  Link to it added.

    Image display issues fixed.

17. scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 28 February, 2019

    MA rodgers - different quantity - it is not CO2 per capita but historical contribition to CO2 emissions (ie integrated from pre-industrial). Which countries have contributed most to our currently elevated CO2. UK got an early start in the industrial revolution.

    0 0
18. MA Rodger at 18:19 PM on 28 February, 2019

    scaddenp @17,

    Certainly, if it were Cumulative Emissions it would have a very different shape from the Current  Emissions graph. It doesn't help itself by labelling its y-axis "Average pollution rate (tons CO2/y per person)" and no title.

    But even with that I struggle. I note from the source (where it's Figure 12) that it dates back to 2008. (I haven't found a web-page using the graph that may better put it in context.) Cumulative Per-Capita CO2 are in excess of 300 tons(carbon) by 2010 for UK US & Germany. (A graphic based on CDIAC data is here - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') Integrating over, say since 1750, 260 years would put all three over 10t(C)/year/capita. And the UK would be ahead of US. Mind, China would be a tenth the level, about 1t(C)/year/capita which is about what is shown.

    So it remains all rather odd to me.

    0 0
19. MA Rodger at 18:25 PM on 28 February, 2019

    Correction to #18.

    Of course a 1750-2008 integration would be 'above 1t(C) not 10t(C). That does allow the possibility for it being, say, an integration over a shorter period, perhaps since 1900, and showing tons(CO2) not tons(C).

    0 0
20. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 1 March, 2019

    MA Rodgers - I grabbed the "Sustainable Energy without all the hot air" graph primarly because I knew it existed and was in a hurry. Unfortunately, the graph is developed over several pages to explain all its subtlety. This page has similar data (to 2011) but lacks the population-perspective.

    0 0
21. nowhearthis at 15:23 PM on 1 March, 2019

    I believe people in Africa (or any country for that matter) consume food and require crops to meet that demand.  You also must understand humanity doesn't exist in a vacuum, 3rd world societies want 1st world benefits.  They will work and evolve to achieve that and that's a game changer for the climate change solutions proffered today.  Regardless the reference was largely related to the 'total solution' picture conveyed by RedBaron.  Easily the most insightful and enlightening comments I've heard in this discussion.  The reference to 'tax payer funded' is grounded in reality.  Can you name a single large, scale, privately funded CO2 reduction effort? 

    I've reviewed IPCC documentation - NONE, shows a proven, difinitive, demonstrated solution.  Certainly CO2 climate issues can be demonstrated - that is a cause NOT a cure.  We mus also understand the CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control.  Additionally, that CO2 is largely the reason this planet is inhabitable.  I absolutely demand validation from any medical practitioner, for their advice, therapies and medications - you don't?  Few things in life are certain, but demanding reasonable proof and not operating on assumption, makes sense to me.

    Re. nuclear detonations, I didn't intend to distract, only point out a possible reality.  Hiroshima?  It was miniscule (15kt) vs today's weapons technologies that can yield thousands of times that.  A serious exchange could easily be cataclismic and render climate change concerns irrelevant.

    I keep going back to the fundemental issue.  I've seen no proof FF reduction cures climate change, particularly in a localized context, if you have proof provide it.  If there is an IPCC paper not littered with "appears", "can", "may", etc. and uses "does", "has", "did", etc. I must have missed it, please send me the liink/reference.  I hear lots of avoidance  and see many pretty graphs, but nothing answering the basic question:  Where is there proof the climate change mitigation strategies actually work?

    0 0
22. MA Rodger at 21:31 PM on 1 March, 2019

    nowhearthis @21,

    You appear to exhibit all the markers of someone in denial over AGW.

    To pick up on one comment you make:-

    " We mus also understand the CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control."

    What do you mean by this statement concerning the "most generation" of CO2? The 'generation' of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels over the last century or so is all due to humankind. So presumably you are talking of something else. As you insist "we mus(t) understand", what is it you are actually talking about?

    0 0
23. scaddenp at 10:02 AM on 2 March, 2019

    As pointed out to you, it is not a simple question because of your ideas of proof. Tell us what your standards of proof are before you would accept a Dr advice. 

    0 0
24. scaddenp at 10:17 AM on 2 March, 2019

    "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere"  this sounds like you are trying to repeat the "CO2 is just a trace gas". Note that we can directly measure the increase in radiation due to CO2. Please dont retread just nonsense.

    "most generation is outside human control" - this is another rhetorical trick. Perhaps you have just fallen for it? While CO2 fluxes in and out of atmosphere are huge, the increase in concentration of CO2 is human made. If you a victem of this myth, the please see the detail on this myth here. 

    There is a taxonomy of myths under the arguments  menu item. Please look up the arguments and comment there. You are offtopic here and posting offtopic comments will result in comment deletion by the moderators. 

    0 0
25. RedBaron at 10:26 AM on 2 March, 2019

    @23 Nowhearthis,

     You said, "Still waiting to hear the answer to the simple question: "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"

    and you said earlier,

    "Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts) we can reverse climate change? -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises?"

    I have two problems with this. First of all in my answer to you included evidence the mitigation strategy proposed by me was modeled after the natural biological carbon cycle that actually cooled the planet in the past.

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

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

    Is this proof? No. Agriculture is not exactly the same as natural biomes. And humans are new to the equation. There never was in the known geological past ever such a large and fast burning of so many fossil fuels all at once. So we can project based on the best evidence, but your request for "proof" instead of a "projection based on the best evidence" is a logic fallacy and unscientific rhetoric. However, this is very strong evidence that as long as we successfully model agriculture using biomimicry, we can harness this ecosystem fuction to our advantage and reverse AGW. (with appropriate reduction in emissions yielding a net negative CO2 flux)

    The other logic fallicy you made was a faulty premise. In fact it is you who should question your own beliefs, as you can not validate the assumption that AGW mitigation should drastically degrade current quality of life.

    In fact as part of my white paper for policy makers[1] I included examples proving this strategy drastically improves quality of life!

    Just from one example, SRI

    "SRI offers millions of disadvantaged households far better opportunities."

    "their confidence and optimism in the future is sky high."

    And that's just from my first example. I listed at least 10 examples from around the world in all sorts of conditions, rich and poor, developing countries and industrialised coutries and every situation inbetween raising all the major crop types worldwide. They all unambiguously benefit.

    You made a faulty premise not based on evidence, and it has clouded your judgement. I recommend a fresh start.

    0 0
26. nowhearthis at 10:50 AM on 2 March, 2019

    MA Rodger 

    To answer your question, I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control".  The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim.  Are they wrong?  I made no conclusion or inference on the topic beyond the statement.

    Still waiting to hear the answer to the simple question:  "What demonstrated proof exists to show any of the proposed CC mitigation strategies, actually significantly reverse CC?"   If these "strategies" are valid, there should be some proof to show that - otherwise it's  conjecture.  If you cannot validate your beliefs, you should be questioning them.

    0 0
27. Philippe Chantreau at 11:37 AM on 2 March, 2019

    I take issue with the "CO2 generation." In fact, only humans truly generate CO2 on Earth on a very large scale, by combining fossil carbon with oxygen. All the other sources of CO2 only cycle and recombine carbon into CO2. The exception is volcanoes, but they release CO2, they don't generate it. There is a large body of science that shows how human produced CO2 is beyond a doubt responsible for the current increase. I don't see anything from nowhearthis that really puts that into doubt. As for his last question, it is sort of asking before the Montreal protocol for definitive proof that phasing out CFCs was going to have a positive effect. Or asking for proof, before the 1960's smallpox immunization campaign that the campaign would have the desired result. Both of these "proofs" would have been absolutely impossible to produce. It is a demand that is impossible to satisfy in any situation.

    It is reminiscent of the denier's method that consists of attempting to argue that inferred reasoning has no place in science. Same old. 

    0 0
28. nowhearthis at 14:33 PM on 2 March, 2019

    Phillippe Chantreau

    The main point is being missed. You cannot expect people to crater their economies, give up modern convienences and have massive unemployment without proof those sacrifices are effective. People in general don't grasp the nuance of CC and will have viceral reaction to the things proposed and in the GND.

    Proof exists for this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html That was just a simple tax, imagine the magnitude of reaction for GND policies. It can only come at the price of freedom/liberty and at the end of a gun.

    You must have clear, verified proof if you want to sell these sacrifices.  I'm not the first to ask and millions more come behind me.  CFC was addressed with alternatives and little to no sacrifice, nothing on the scale of CC mitigation theory.  Jenner had clinical proof of the effectiveness of vaccine therapy (smallpox) over a century prior to the campaign you cite.  No such verifiable proof or easy answer exists, that I have seen, to support CC strategies.   

    One response tried to turn the tables claiming CC disasters are proven, in his mind perhaps but not in the general publics.  One of the big indicators claimed was hurricane activity.  The facts work against his argument when you look at things like this:  https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity  The difference over time is insignificant and the average of storms reaching America are apparently down from over a century ago.  This isn't a compelling argument and generates skepticism.  Ice storms and abnormally cold weather also undermine CC alarm.  THE MORAL OF THE STORY: It's a hard sell without proof.  Got any?

    0 0
29. RedBaron at 15:45 PM on 2 March, 2019

    @28 nowhearthis,

    Again, faulty premise without evidence. You really are just sloganeering.

    Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

    So tell me again how renewables "crater their economies, give up modern convienences and have massive unemployment "

    I already explain to you how beneficial the changes in agriculture could be. As you can see renewable energy can be beneficial too. Yet you still keep making the unsubstantiated claim that AGW mitigation strategy must be harmful to economies and requires people to "sacrifice" their good standards of living. Just the opposite is true.

    Well first off a conservative AGW mitigation strategy improves lives, and secondly it's ignoring the problem that will cause all the harm. AGW mitigation strategy has a purpose to improve standards of living, not destroy them. We have examples of what happens if we ignore this too:

    The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

    I can tell you from experience, if you continue making wild claims without evidence, you won't get far here. But even worse, you will have missed an opportunity to help improve society by avoiding this horible fate that awaits us if we do nothing.

    

    You are more than welcome to debate here, but no one I ever saw post here gets away without making sure they support their position with reputable evidence. Not you, not me, not anyone. Support your spurious claims and logic fallacies or withdraw them.

    0 0
30. nowhearthis at 17:24 PM on 2 March, 2019

    Red Barron

    O.K. I'll tell you again: Let's examine what you label "faulty premise"  You state "Solar employs more people in the U.S. Electricity Generation than Oil, Coal and Gas combined" to counter my claim GND would cause "massive unemployment".  The flaw is, your "count" only pertains to electricity generation.  When you look at the industries as a whole the Fossil Fuel workforce is around 1.9 million vs 374,000 in the solar field.  Then when you add in the fossil fueled automobile industry add 2 million at car dealers, another 940,000 in manufacturing and another 940,000 in the gas station industry.  What about large industrial plants that produce steel, cement, etc. - the building blocks of our society along with all the jobs involved implementing their materials.  Then move on to all the construction workers who use fossil fueled vehicles to go to work, transport materials, etc. and add in the airline industry, alll the food service, delivery jobs, on and on.  Your use of an "electrical generation" pigeon hole is quite silly.  The ripple effect of significant curbing of fossil fuels will result in an employment cataclism and cratering of our economy.  "wild claims" - really?

    I still haven't gotten a response to my original question.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. You have posed your "original" question multiple times and multiple people have responded do it with objective science-based answers. It's time to move on.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

     

31. RedBaron at 18:27 PM on 2 March, 2019

    @30 nowhearthis,

     This is the New Mitigation Research thread, not the GND thread.

    So yet again a logic fallacy. This time it's the false dichotomy. Maybe your critique could potentially be valid in the specific case of the GND. I know already several parts were already retracted as unrealistic. But they do not necessarily apply to new research in mitigation strategies in general. And they certainly do not apply to my conservative strategy I detailed for you above.

    And just because your question shows ignorance of risk analysis, doesn't mean you question wasn't answered.

    0 0
32. Eclectic at 19:57 PM on 2 March, 2019

    Nowhearthis @30  [and prior] :-

    <" still haven't gotten a response to my original question ">  (unquote)

    Nowhearthis: there is no possible answer to your question because (as you were already aware) the simple truth is that there is no AGW problem.

    You were quite right all along.   I consulted the gurus and pundits at the WattsUpWithThat website [the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change] and I was assured that there is no AGW and thus no AGW problem at all for you to worry about.   The WUWT article authors and the many posters in the comments columns, were almost unanimous that CO2 has no effect on world temperature.

    ~ Because there is no empirical evidence of CO2 greenhouse action : no confirmed reproducible experimental or observational evidence whatsoever.

    ** Some of the pundits proved that there has been absolutely no statistically-significant warming in the past 50 years (suggestion to the contrary by 99.9% of climate scientists, is due to the scientists' corruption incompetence and conspiratorial hoaxing and shameless data adjustment).

    ** Other pundits, less sanguine, proved that the borderline slight warming was nothing more than a cyclical Natural Variation deriving from a 60-year oceanic cycle; or a 1000-year oceanic cycle (separately or combined with sundry other oceanic cycles +/-  a stadium wave).

    ** Still other pundits posited that the very slight warming was occurring primarily because the Earth's disk had become slightly less oblique to the sun's rays (this obliquity following a multi-decadal sine wave variation ~ and very fortunately cyclic, because otherwise at a super-maximum obliquity . . . everything would fall off the lower edge of the disk).

    So . . . no problemo    ;-)

    0 0
33. MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 2 March, 2019

    nowhearthis @26,

    You reply to my questioning @22 thus:-

    "To answer your question, I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control". The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim. Are they wrong? I made no conclusion or inference on the topic beyond the statement."

    So if the EOA, AMS, NASA and others "all distribute content making that claim," you should have little difficulty providing a link to some of this 'distributed content'. Such a link would be helpful as your meaning remains entirely opaque and frankly nobody knows what you are talking about.

    0 0
34. Philippe Chantreau at 04:05 AM on 3 March, 2019

    The main point is not being missed at all. The main point is that you're long on rethoric, short on everything else, and demonstrably arguing in bad faith. Having an experimental vaccine succeed within the framework of a study is not proof that a large scale campaign will eradicate the disease, far from it. We never know what level of protection it is going to grant to a population until the population is vaccinated. You argue beside my point on CFCs by going to the economic aspect, which is ironic, considering that hubristic pundits back then promised economic collapse from phasing out the stuff (Sallie Baliunas said it would cost trillions). You're not showing that there was advance proof that the protocol would work, because there is no such thing. You talk about replacements and costs. The effectiveness of the intervention has no direct relation to its cost but both cost and effectiveness have a role in the cost/benefit analysis. You are saying that the effectiveness has to be known exactly before the cost/benefit analysis can proceed; that is total nonsense because the true effectiveness can never be known in advance, and it wasn't in the case of the Montreal Protocol.

    The reality about any kind of large scale action is that its effectiveness can not be measured until it has been implemented and given time to produce its expected results. There is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever. Because a vaccine works in a study sample, we attempt its large scale implementation but the true effectiveness can not be known in advance. Because the radiative effects of CO2 are well known and the current increase can be attributed to FF burning, we must decrease FF use. It really is that simple.

    As for your representation of the current effects of CC, it is laughable. Houston experienced three 500-years type of rain events, 3 years in a row, with about 125 billions of losses just for Harvey. California is experiencing extreme rain and floods right on the tail of devastating fires brought by drought conditions. Europe has been struggling with chronic droughts interrupted by violent rains and flooding. Last summer, Northern Europe saw extreme temperatures all the way to the Arctic circle and experienced massive forest fires. The heat was experienced all around the Northern hemisphere. Property values on the US coasts have already started to reflect sea level rise. As for hurricanes, any careful examination of the litterature shows that no consistent prediction of frequency in the future conditions exists. What does exist is the expectation that tropical storms and hurricanes will undergo rapid intensification and cause higher rain fall, which was clearly demonstrated on several occasions, the latest just last October. Pretty much all the predicted effects of CC are materializing right before our eyes, with their associated costs. The depth of the denial that it takes to not see it is truly a wonder.

    And what absolute proof do you have that the economic devastation you're predicting will actually occur? One could easily turn the table on you and demand proof that the consumption society model can be extended to 8 billion people without causing catastrophic losses of ecosystem services that are vital to all people. You don't have that proof, therefore, according to your reasoning, the generalization of that model should be stopped.

    I wish you could have asked to all the pretentious clowns in the finance world putting together CDOs in the 2000s if they had absolute proof that their clever schemes were safe for the World financial markets. Their hubris cost about 15 trillions. And yet, the damage was a far cry from what happened post 1929. Incidentally, this proves (you seem to like the word) that we could spend up to 15 trillions on an energy transition over a few years; it wouldn't be entirely painless but nowhere near the complete worldwide disaster you're trying to portray. We know that for sure because this cost was born by the World economy following the 2008 fiasco, no in-advance proof required.

    0 0
35. nowhearthis at 10:47 AM on 3 March, 2019

    In defense of "repetition" - two reasons: 1) No one has provided any actual answer to my initial question.  They dance around the issue - but no answer.  This has prompted me to ask again since I feel the point keeps getting lost.  2) Many (most) responses are hostile confrontations (avoiding, or justifying the avoidance of the central question) trying to convince me climate change is real and man made.  I don't need convincing, I'm there and was all along.

    I keep trying to convey that I'm not the only person who will ask this question.  As regulation, taxation and sacrifice is demanded this will become a common topic.  There better be an answer to justify the policy.

    Philippe in the post directly above argues it is unimportant to validate or at least have reasonable testing that indicates effectiveness of a drug, product or method.  He states "there is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever", that may be, however there can be reasonable demonstration of effectiveness that provides a sound basis to proceed - particularly where it is on a massive scale and cost.  Isn't "science" in the title of this website?  What is the 'scientific method'?  Perhaps that is what I'm seeking and I have been phrasing in incorrectly.  Red Barron regurgitates a 'solar electric worker' talking point supposedly to destroy my concern with uneployment.  The problem is, his talking point is laughable in the macro context. 

    The issue is complex and requires a concerted effort.  Just getting everyone globally on the same page may be impossible - a likely prospect no one has countered.  Further, no one ever asked me what I think may make progress to a solution.  You're all too busy being argumentative, self rightous and critical of others who don't fall in line. 

    I posed a simple question and have been drawn into a bunch of pheriperal arguments and demonized.  It's clear no answer exists and that most here believe concensus based on theory is proof and we should proceed on faith.  It's clear no answer is to be found here.  I hoped for better.  I'm done arguing, I can do that with my wife and she's much better looking.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Excessive repetition/sloganeering snipped.

36. Philippe Chantreau at 11:48 AM on 3 March, 2019

    The science is in MODTRAN and HITRAN that show with exquisite precision how infrared behaves in the atmosphere. They have been validated ad-nauseam. The science is in the TOA measurements, in the atmospheric energy budgets. The science of what CO2 does to infrared is established beyond the shadow of a doubt. The science is in the isotopic signature of fossil carbon, there is a large litterature showing that the recent and enormous increase is due to FF burning. It takes inferred reasoning to conme to the conclusion that limiting atmospheric CO2 is necessary to prevent the system from going in a territory entirely new for humans. If you're trying to argue that inferred reasoning should not be used when planning for the future you have given up all chance of being taken seriously. The science shows that warming is happening and already taking a considerable toll; it shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a major driver. How much of an effort does it take to reach the conclusion that said CO2 emissions should be reduced? This is nonsense. You are asking for proof that an action will have some effect without offering anything suggesting that it won't.

    Furthermore, I note that you are still not providing the level of proof that you are asking from others about your economic doom and gloom scenario. So you are basing you argument on a premise far more proof deficient than the logical idea that limiting the physical quantity of the cause of a problem will limit the extent of the problem.  I have pointed out that the World economy could absorb a 15 trillion loss from incompetence and greed without such extreme disatrous end as what you alluded. How about we spend half of that in energy transition for starters? That's just about the amount of money thesaurized in hidden accounts and tax heavens at any given time, money that ironically does not do anything, even for those who control it, because it has to be hidden.

    0 0
37. Philippe Chantreau at 13:20 PM on 3 March, 2019

    Your "initial question" is nothing but a rethorical trick. It is asking for something both impossible and unnecessary and runs counter to any kind of logical thought process. I'm sure some can be fooled by such courtroom methods. If I have studies showing how smoking damages airways, their lining, the cells' DNA, how it promotes inflammation and platelet activation, how it is associated with a variety of conditions, I do not need a study also showing health outcomes of smokers who quit vs. those who continue in order to know that it will be beneficial to quit, would it be only to stop the ongoing damage. That is basic logic. Such studies will simply quantify exactly how far that benefit extends, how quickly it manifests and other such details, which may be useful but unnecessary to know that quitting will be beneficial. If there were several planets to experiment with, your rethorical question could be answered with great precision, but that's obviously not the situation. As it stands, it is sophistry.

    0 0
38. RedBaron at 14:53 PM on 3 March, 2019

    @35 nowhearthis,

    Several answered the question, you just did not like the answer. But the question is a rhetorical trick, if any reputable scientist answered directly, it would discredit themselves and thus their answer.

    People here on this website are very well aware of these sorts of tricks and the logic fallacies that are used to create them. You won't be capable of tricking any of the regular members here. The only ones you'll be able to trick are denialists.

    Now you wanted originally absolute confirmation. You got an extra two Earth's to experiment with? One as a control and one to test mitigation strategies on? Oops. No you don't.

    But you also made unsupported claims about how horrible and costly the results of new research in mitigation would be to enact. Some may have proposed certain things that could potentially be costly, but you are ignoring the metaphorical "low fruit". That is mitigation strategies 100% benefial to everyone. The so called win/win strategy.

    'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison

    That means we do have certain kinds of confirmation. Not the 100% absolute confirmation you requested, as that's just rhetorical nonsense. But there is quite a lot confirmed in trials and in the field already.  For example, I posted to you results from case study trial that shows an average 10 year sequestration rate of soil carbon via the LCP of 5-10 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. I also showed 6 other studies from around the world where there are people confirmed to have reached sequestration rates in that range. (as well as studies showing when why and how other farmers failed to reach that rate)

    So since we have absolute confirmation at least some farmers from around the world can reach this high rate of sequestration, and we have at least some knowledge of when farmers have failed to reach such a high rate of sequestration, we can project what when and how changes in agriculture could be made to significantly mitigate AGW. It's a projection though. You couldn't be absolutely 100% sure until you actually did it.

    “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

    The advantage with this conservative approach though is there would be minimal risk. There are no known nor projected negative side effects to any of these proposed changes. Quite the contrary, they are universally beneficial to economies (both local and macro), environment, public health, etc... There is no down side. So we should enact this part of the mitigation strategy immediately. (And sure enough we are, but slowly. Maybe too slowly.)

    "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones

    That leaves the other side of the carbon cycle. There are also certain parts of the emissions side with "low hanging fruit" that absolutely is beneficial to everyone. Higher efficiencies and less waste benefit everyone. Passive solar and passive geothermal in designs combined with better insulation and remodels of older buildings all helps significantly with no known down sides at all. These also are being done already and building codes around the world reflect this. Some countries are further behind than others of course, but this is absolutely beneficial to everyone and is already happening now!

    That leaves the problems though, excessive use of fossil fuels for inefficient and wasteful uses. This is what really needs focused on in my opinion. We need to speed up the natural replacement of fossil fuels with renewables right now. There should not ever be a new coal plant being built any more, and they should slowly be weaned out as the old plants get decomissioned. 

    That of course might hurt jobs in the antiquated and obsolete coal business, but in the new and modern solar wind and hydroelectric businesses that replace it can be found far more benefits to offset the losses. So while not absolute in benefits, the total net is a certain benefit.

    It's only when you try to take all fossil fuels to zero and too fast that you run into projected high cost negative side effects, shortages, and economic collapse. So don't do that! There are plenty of these 100% beneficial things we can do as "low fruit" that we know work without any new technologies needed. 

    And even better, most likely if we take on all of the "low fruit" there is a pretty good chance we won't need to make any "draconian" cuts. (to use your weighted term) That's not 100% absolute. WE need to try it and see. But it's pretty likely and MUCH better than the status quo. And since we must try to salvage as much of the environment as we can to avoid it causing our own collapse, this is something we must try, unequivocally.

    "Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services." -John D. Liu

    0 0
39. Eclectic at 16:03 PM on 3 March, 2019

    Philippe Chantreau @37  [and prior]

    you are of course correct, when you say that our mutual friend (Nowhearthis) cannot be taken seriously.

    He is atypical, in that he combines concern-trolling and the usual extremist venting (that political ideological extreme where callous selfishness views itself as virtuous).   As usual, there is a large dollop of wilful blindness to scientific fact & logic, and a large dollop of smoke-and-mirrors sophistry (or rhetorical posturing . . . call it what you will) which is the product of Motivated Reasoning.

    Probably at a deeper level, there is an intellect silently pleading to be freed from the emotional binds of denialism . . . and hoping that "Prince Philippe" or "Baron Red" (or anyone at SkS) can find the magic phrases which will convince the "other" part of the brain of its wrongheadedness?   Well, that might (or might not) explain the continual repetition of mangled & absurd arguments from our friend.

    There is some amusement value in engaging with the repetitious posts . . . counterbalanced by the tiresomeness of it all.   Yet hope springs eternal....

    1 0
40. MA Rodger at 21:18 PM on 3 March, 2019

    nowherethis @35,

    You may glibly defend your continued requests for an answer to your "initial question." But if folk look back up the threads you have been commenting on, they see you repeatedly evading requests that you set out what it is you are asking.

    Your "initial question" set out thus:-

    "There's a lot of talk about "solutions". Is there any PROVEN solutions? Can anyone point me to the validation? I don't count 'appears-could-can-seems-may-projected-opinion-etc." as validation. I'm looking for something that is absolute and confirmed."

    There is of course a blindingly obvious but trivial answer to this question. If mankind reduces/stops* emitting GHGs into the atmosphere, the damage being caused by AGW will be lessened/restricted-in-level*. [*delete as appropriate] Such a "solution" is called 'mitigation' and is the only sensible route known to prevent mankind's GHGs trashing the global climate, something which threatens to make parts of the globe uninhabitable (outside air conditioning) and to crash the world economy.

    As this is so blindingly obvious and trivial, I have always assumed it is not what you want and have asked you on more than one occasion to set out you enquiry properly.

    So, assuming the above response is not what you seek, will you do that now? What do you mean by "solution"?

    0 0
41. RedBaron at 06:56 AM on 8 March, 2019

    @MA Rodger,

    I found a great lecture by  soil scientist Ray Archuletta from the USDA NRCS  regarding that lost ecosystem function you were asking about.

    It starts with the soil.

    0 0
42. MA Rodger at 04:19 AM on 10 March, 2019

    RedBaron @41,

    I'm not a great fan of  seventy-minute video presentations. I do still have you reading list @10 and do intend to run down it at some point.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.