ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agw , climate change , global warming

Reply
Old 2nd April 2019, 05:14 PM   #81
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is a lie that I have dismissed peer reviewed papers. I have dismissed your misinterpretations of them by looking at what they actually state. refers to this thread. I did not dismiss "Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie" since I have discussed it in the appropriate Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread) thread.

Allan Savory's invalid propaganda in a white paper about using his debated Holistic Grazing to reverse global warming should be addressed in that thread.

More papers stating known facts that I do not dismiss. We know that changes in agricultural practice can change soil carbon sequestration. The other known fact is that there is no evidence that they are the solution to anthropogenic climate change. As I have noted several times, soil carbon sequestration is a possible additional mechanism to mitigate global warming: Climate change mitigation.

Sceince is not done by YouTube video.
Lots of strawmen and misdirection mumbo jumbo is all I see here. I first present a science paper then I present a lecture proving I have not misinterpreted it. In fact it was you who misinterpreted it, as the authors of the papers state clearly the same interpretation I have said all along.

as for your implication that I claimed they are "the solution to anthropogenic climate change." as if I have stated that soil sequestration alone is the strategy, well that's just wrong. From the OP I said exactly this:
"There are two sides to this and BOTH must be improved, less emissions and more sequestration."

I am the one proposing a holistic solution, unlike many who focus only on fossil fuel emissions like it is a silver bullet.

The problem is of course that we both agree than emissions must be reduced. You on the other hand are in denial of the soil sequestration side of the carbon cycle. Thus it is you who hasn't the balance argument. You are simply in denial and mirroring.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 06:16 PM   #82
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Exclamation I am not "in denial of the soil sequestration side of the carbon cycle"

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Lots of strawmen and misdirection mumbo jumbo is all I see here....
Lots of inability to understand my post, Red Baron Farms.
I am not "in denial of the soil sequestration side of the carbon cycle". My post explicitly says that it exists. My post explicitly says that changing practices can increase soil carbon content.

I did get "the" solution wrong. Increasing soil carbon sequestration is at best a partial solution since the scientific literature has estimates of the order of 10% of CO2 emissions. For example, you know about:We have tested and viable ways ("a holistic solution" that exists and works!) of reducing CO2 levels with a good idea of their economic impacts: Climate change mitigation. Reducing CO2 emissions is existing, working technology. Carbon capture and storage is existing, working technology. Biosequestration is developing technology, e.g. reforestation and zero-till farming practices.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd April 2019 at 06:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 07:25 PM   #83
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lots of inability to understand my post, Red Baron Farms.
I am not "in denial of the soil sequestration side of the carbon cycle". My post explicitly says that it exists. My post explicitly says that changing practices can increase soil carbon content.

I did get "the" solution wrong. Increasing soil carbon sequestration is at best a partial solution since the scientific literature has estimates of the order of 10% of CO2 emissions. For example, you know about:We have tested and viable ways ("a holistic solution" that exists and works!) of reducing CO2 levels with a good idea of their economic impacts: Climate change mitigation. Reducing CO2 emissions is existing, working technology. Carbon capture and storage is existing, working technology. Biosequestration is developing technology, e.g. reforestation and zero-till farming practices.
Right. You get the concept, but the rate is what you argue about. We have gone round and round about this before already.

You accept all papers that use the Roth C model and related rates of biomass decay and turnover of carbon to and from soils.

And you reject any and everything to do with this:
Liquid carbon Pathway symbiosis with Mycorrhyzal fungi rates of carbon transfer by humification.

I get it. I am deeply sorry I am incapable of teaching you where you are going wrong. I wish I was a better teacher and could get past your block so you could read your own sources and predict what outcomes will be which. I tried really hard, but you still don't even understand the difference. So I am not sure what to say now?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2019, 03:11 PM   #84
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Exclamation I do not reject scientific papers on the liquid carbon pathway

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Right. ...
I accept published peer reviewed science. I read and try to understand that science.

Increasing soil carbon sequestration is at best a partial solution because the literature says 10-20% of current CO2 emissions.

I do not reject scientific papers on the liquid carbon pathway. Fungi exist. Soil bacteria exist. Plant sugars (liquid carbon) exists.

You have not presented any science with that states the effect the liquid carbon pathway has on the Roth C model.

I do not blindly believe in unsupported assertions about the liquid carbon pathway on a blog. The "5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year" rumor pops up again. Maybe repeated from Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
Quote:
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.
What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th April 2019 at 03:13 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2019, 04:51 PM   #85
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I accept published peer reviewed science. I read and try to understand that science.

Increasing soil carbon sequestration is at best a partial solution because the literature says 10-20% of current CO2 emissions.

I do not reject scientific papers on the liquid carbon pathway. Fungi exist. Soil bacteria exist. Plant sugars (liquid carbon) exists.

You have not presented any science with that states the effect the liquid carbon pathway has on the Roth C model.

I do not blindly believe in unsupported assertions about the liquid carbon pathway on a blog. The "5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year" rumor pops up again. Maybe repeated from Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?
I have tried hard to explain this symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi to you. And yes it is probably from Dr Jones measurements in the field. But those measurements have been repeated too. I have repeatedly given you links over and over.

The problem being many of those repeated results are contained in papers that already filter them once, and then you try and filter them again.

For example, one paper I already gave you also found that rate, but then also takes a multitude of other rates from other systems that are much lower and tries to assume only a small % of land would ever use HPG while our hugely inefficient and destructive factory farming system would not be replaced. So they do NOT show the potential, they show a projection instead.

It's an entirely different way of approaching the problem. For example right now in USA here is a chart for the use of corn:
Image courtesy USDA commons
As you can see the vast majority of corn is not used to feed people. All that acreage could and should be put back into prairie and used to raise our animals.

My proposed solution completely eliminates grain based ethanol for fuel and drastically reduces its use as animal feeds, completely eliminating CAFOs based on this dynamic discussed in Scientific American:
It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System

This is by far the vast majority of the land growing crops. It of course is a carbon source rather than a sink. It can be improved, but its potential is not even close to the potential of grasslands.

Quote:
Carbon sequestration potential of switchgrass as a bio-energy crop . In other research done in the central and northern Great Plains, soil organic carbon increased significantly at 0-12 inches and 0-47 inches, with accrual rates of 0.5 and 1.3 ton carbon/acre/yr (equivalent to 1.8 and 4.7 ton CO2/acre/yr), respectively.
1 us ton/acre = 2.2417 metric tonnes/ha
So that means
4 to 10.5 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr
That's pretty damn close to what Jones measured in her case studies in Australia.

But the source I gave you before instead assumes we will stick with inefficient corn alcohol which is a net carbon source.

But if for whatever reason you don't think the University of Michigan knows what they are talking about. It's easy enough to find others who measured the rates.

How about the University of Nebraska?

Quote:
Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for
Bioenergy
Variability in SOC change
across sites within the studied agro-ecoregion was significant,
from −0.6 to 4.3 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for the 0–30 cm depth
One ton of carbon equals 44/12 = 11/3 = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
so 2.2 to 15.8 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr and that's only measured to 30 cm deep on a plant with up to 30 feet deep roots!

If you don't like Nebraska then maybe look at any number of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the USA measured results, and most of the above have not even come close to being optimized for carbon sequestration. Those numbers are almost as good as Jones found and the land managers ranchers and farmer by and large were not even trying.

Just you watch. Set up a carbon market that puts a fee on emissions sources, but pays a dividend to verified carbon sinks, and watch what happens.

That's when off the charts results like Gabe Brown and Joel Salatin and Colin Seis become the new normal.

https://vimeo.com/189494582
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 8th April 2019 at 06:25 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 05:08 PM   #86
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems

Quote:
Across-farm soil organic carbon (SOC) data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas feed-lot (FL) emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink.
convert to CO2e 3.59 x 3.67 =
13.1753 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr and yet again another replication of the work Jones recorded, dead center in the 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.

And that doesn't even count the fact that we could simultaneously take a similar acreage of corn out of production replacing it with grass. So we are reducing emissions and increasing sequestration simultaneously. Twice the efficacy at 1/2 the cost!
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 02:21 AM   #87
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,868
Great project demonstrating Carbon Farming
https://www.marincarbonproject.org/
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:02 AM   #88
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,359
I think all this back and forth is ignoring the most simple and obvious solution.

__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 11:31 AM   #89
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I think all this back and forth is ignoring the most simple and obvious solution.
By all means. You volunteering? You first?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2019, 04:39 AM   #90
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project
Decades after Dr Jones first suggested it, but finally the squashed project has been resurrected and is actually paying.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 09:13 PM   #91
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Question What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I have tried hard to explain this symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi to you. ...
I do not doubt the existence of this symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi !

My point is still that you have not provided any scientific evidence about this symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi being a significant player in climate change mitigation via soil carbon sequestration.

It is a lie that you have cited sources about Christine Jones' still unsupported assertion in her paper. Those sources need to cite the paper or be about the same subject of her paper with similar calculations.

9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Carbon sequestration potential of switchgrass as a bio-energy crop. as support for Jenner's paper is also irrelevant because you have given no evidence that Christine Jones' numbers are for switchgrass.

Ditto for Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy

Increasing soil carbon sequestration is at best a partial solution because the literature says 10-20% of current CO2 emissions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2019 at 09:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 09:23 PM   #92
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Question What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
...yet again another replication of the work Jones recorded, dead center in the 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.
Another argument from ignorance about where Christine Jones' numbers come from. She does not give a source or calculation or even a good context so any paper you cite is irrelevant until you answer a basic question.
9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems is strangely enough about beef finishing systems in the Midwestern USA. What is compared is feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems versus adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing. The results are:
  • AMP grazing produces more emissions than FL.
  • AMP grazing can sequester large amounts of soil C.
  • The emissions from AMP grazing were offset completely by soil C sequestration.
  • Thus "Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change."
Note the units of this paper: "CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1". This is not a "CO2e/ha/yr". There is no area (/ha). There is no rate (/yr).

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2019 at 09:39 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 11:15 PM   #93
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Another argument from ignorance about where Christine Jones' numbers come from. She does not give a source or calculation or even a good context so any paper you cite is irrelevant until you answer a basic question.
9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems is strangely enough about beef finishing systems in the Midwestern USA. What is compared is feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems versus adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing. The results are:
  • AMP grazing produces more emissions than FL.
  • AMP grazing can sequester large amounts of soil C.
  • The emissions from AMP grazing were offset completely by soil C sequestration.
  • Thus "Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change."
Note the units of this paper: "CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1". This is not a "CO2e/ha/yr". There is no area (/ha). There is no rate (/yr).
Try reading past the abstract please.

Quote:
Averaging data for all three soil types (for S, SL and CL) led to an estimated sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 (Table 4).
3.59 MgC/ha/yr converted to CO2e is 3.59 x 44/12 = 13 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr

Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 5th May 2019 at 11:17 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:30 AM   #94
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
The market is betting on climate change

Wolfram Schlenker, Charles Taylor 02 May 2019


Understanding beliefs about climate change is important, but most of the measures used in the literature are unreliable. Instead, this column uses prices of financial products whose payouts are tied to future weather outcomes in the US. These market expectations correlate well with climate model outputs between 2002 and 2018 and observed weather data across eight US cities, and show significant warming trends. When money is at stake, agents are accurately anticipating warming trends in line with the scientific consensus of climate models.
[...]
Our data come from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which offers monthly futures contracts for eight cities on two main weather products – cooling degree days, which measure how much cooling is necessary during hot temperatures in summer months, and heating degree days, which measure how much heating is required during cold temperatures in winter months. The contracts are indexed to 65°F, a common standard for utility companies because cooling and heating systems tend to be turned on above and below that level, respectively. For example, a mean daily temperature of 85°F degrees would count as 20 cooling degree days. These daily degree days are then summed over the course of a month or season.
[...]
Futures prices closely follow the predictions of climate scientists, which, on average, appear to have materialised, thus validating the climate models. This close agreement between markets and models implies that traders are taking into consideration the scientific consensus on climate change when making trades. Overall, we find that the market has been accurately pricing in climate change, largely in line with global climate models, and that this began occurring at least since the early 2000s when the weather futures markets were formed.
Doesn't quite fit here but it didn't seem worth its own thread either.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 01:52 PM   #95
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Question What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Try reading past the abstract please.
Try understanding what you cite !
Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems is strangely enough about beef finishing systems in the Midwestern USA. The conclusion is a suggestion that one method of finishing cattle before slaughter could have its greenhouse emissions offset by soil C sequestration.

Christine Jones' article is not about a specific finishing system in the Midwestern USA. ! Her numbers are extremely unlikely to be related to this papers numbers.
This is her article that you cited: Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
This is her unsourced assertion yet again:
Quote:
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.
You are arguing from ignorance about where Christine Jones' numbers come from. Every paper you come up not citing her with is irrelevant unless we know what she is writing about.

9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:26 PM   #96
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project
Decades after Dr Jones first suggested it, but finally the squashed project has been resurrected and is actually paying.
Jones is not mentioned in that press release. Every soil scientist in the world knows about soil carbon sequestration and has for decades. A "squashed project" rumor.
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project
Quote:
The credits were received by the Grounds Keeping Carbon Project, which showcases the work of a Victorian innovation and farming system that creates soil carbon in pastures at rates comparable with forests. The Soilkee Pasture Renovator combines cultivation, mulching, aeration and mixed species seeding to improve grazing systems and build soil carbon effectively. The higher the soil carbon levels the more productive and healthy the farm.

'We are very proud to have achieved this formal recognition for Soilkee', said founder, inventor and Gippsland farmer, Niels Olsen. 'The opportunity for expanding regenerative farming and building soil carbon at scale is phenomenal and we are now ramping up our production to deliver on this potential.
This is a project by Niels Olsen using his Soilkee Pasture Renovator. The images are slightly industrial scenes of tractors mulching pasture or spreading mulch.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:32 PM   #97
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project
Decades after Dr Jones first suggested it, but finally the squashed project has been resurrected and is actually paying.
Jones is not mentioned in that press release. Every soil scientist in the world knows about soil carbon sequestration and has for decades. Caron credits are also decades old.

A "squashed project" rumor. What Jones did was launch a "Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme" in 2007 which seems to have died a death naturally. I see announcements of its launch, 2009 and 2010 parliament hearings where she is the representative of the scheme, and nothing much else.

First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project
Quote:
The credits were received by the Grounds Keeping Carbon Project, which showcases the work of a Victorian innovation and farming system that creates soil carbon in pastures at rates comparable with forests. The Soilkee Pasture Renovator combines cultivation, mulching, aeration and mixed species seeding to improve grazing systems and build soil carbon effectively. The higher the soil carbon levels the more productive and healthy the farm.

'We are very proud to have achieved this formal recognition for Soilkee', said founder, inventor and Gippsland farmer, Niels Olsen. 'The opportunity for expanding regenerative farming and building soil carbon at scale is phenomenal and we are now ramping up our production to deliver on this potential.
This is a project by Niels Olsen using his Soilkee Pasture Renovator. The images are slightly industrial scenes of tractors mulching pasture or spreading mulch.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th May 2019 at 02:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 03:42 PM   #98
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Jones is not mentioned in that press release. Every soil scientist in the world knows about soil carbon sequestration and has for decades. Caron credits are also decades old.

A "squashed project" rumor. What Jones did was launch a "Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme" in 2007 which seems to have died a death naturally. I see announcements of its launch, 2009 and 2010 parliament hearings where she is the representative of the scheme, and nothing much else.

First Australian carbon credit units issued to a soil carbon grazing project

This is a project by Niels Olsen using his Soilkee Pasture Renovator. The images are slightly industrial scenes of tractors mulching pasture or spreading mulch.
Are you drunk again?

Jones range of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr is from her own published case studies...published in a farm journal that went bankrupt....so the case studies are no longer available, just a reprint of the results.

By itself her case studies don't really have much scientific value anymore because the journal is defunct and the case studies decades old. EXCEPT that her results are very easily repeatable by just about anyone and everyone who tries. That is indeed the true test of science. Are her results repeatable by completely independent people? And the answer is YES.

The study I linked to is completely different to what Jones did. Even different techniques at restoring soil health. And yet they also had result right in the range Jones reported from her case studies. So yes, this Soilkee Renovator is completely different but it is still pasture cropping and the measured soil carbon increases are 13 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.

Are you not aware that 13 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr is in the range of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr?

So we have a completely independent confirmation that Jones was accurate in her case studies.

I have also given you published confirmation from the US too. All in the range of Jones 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr

This is easily repeatable by anyone who understand the biophysical process we now refer to as the LCP (liquid carbon pathway). You can do it yourself too if you want. Anyone can. This property of the biophysical mechanism that makes it so easily repeatable is the exact reason why it has use as a global Warming mitigation tool. Because AGW is indeed global and needs to be repeatable globally. and it is
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 06:29 AM   #99
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I wish I had time to really understand the information in the links you have posted, but I truly appreciate you posting it. It's fascinating stuff, and it gives me hope that scientists are working on real solutions.

The question is whether our political processes will be able to take in the scientific information, and turn that into large scale action on the level that it needs to be effective.


I'm late to this thread; I second the sentiment/endorsement, good job, RBF.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 06:46 AM   #100
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Personally, I think the primary answer is one economists have known about for a long time: a robust carbon tax.

Yes, there are important parts of the world where such a thing might not work (Libya, Sudan, maybe even India), but the biggies - the EU, US, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Australia, (most of) OPEC - have sufficiently strong legal, regulatory, etc infrastructures to make such a tax work.

True, there would be very considerable pain, for perhaps hundreds of millions of people; however economists will also tell us that there will also be very considerable gain (albeit with a delay), for most of those who suffer the pain. Pain today to avoid vastly worse pain for one's children and grandchildren.

However, I'm not sure if RBF and his sources have considered the critical importance of carbon sequestration, or reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere substantially.

Much human-created CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which become more acidic. At some point, (almost all?) critters which make shells become unable to do so any more; when that's widespread, some catastrophic ecological changes will begin (far worse than oyster bars becoming extinct). Good news: maybe not until 2100 or so; bad news: it may already be too late.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 05:54 PM   #101
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Exclamation Jones's numbers are unknown and unsourced, papers not citing her work are irrelevant

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Are you drunk again?...
Usual insults and rumors from Red Baron Farms. A rumor of "published case studies" in a farm journal that went bankrupt. A rumor that these case studies support her assertion of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr.

The answer as expected to 9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?
is: No one knows those conditions. No one knows the sources for those numbers. Thus
10 May 2019: Jones's numbers are unknown and unsourced, thus papers not citing her work are irrelevant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 06:03 PM   #102
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Exclamation An ignorant "repeatable" assertion about Jones' results

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
EXCEPT that her results are very easily repeatable by just about anyone and everyone who tries.
10 May 2019: An ignorant "repeatable" assertion about Jones' results because as he has just stated no one apparently knows about her case studies.

They are decades old case studies published in a defunct "farm journal" with an unknown impact. He has not supplied any citations of those case studies. People can only repeat case studies that have been known to have happened. Not even Jones has repeated those decades old case studies. That is a hint of a scientist abandoning an unfruitful line of research.

A logical conclusion is that these case studies were so obscure or maybe obviously invalid so not one has bothered to repeat them.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 06:08 PM   #103
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Thumbs down An "Jones was accurate in her case studies" lie

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
So we have a completely independent confirmation that Jones was accurate in her case studies.
10 May 2019: An "Jones was accurate in her case studies" lie because we have no idea what was in those case studies.

Jones' case studies did not use any Soilkee Renovators because they are recent technology. There is no evidence that her case studies used mulching, etc. as in this project about what looks like 1 farm so far.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 06:29 PM   #104
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Thumbs down A "published confirmation from the US" lie

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I have also given you published confirmation from the US too.
10 May 2019: A "published confirmation from the US" lie

Same reason as before - her vanished case studies about unknown "certain conditions" with unknown calculations make any papers cited not a confirmation of those unknown conditions and calculations. An exception would be a paper citing Jones.

What the US papers state is that
  • Switching to switchgrass is a viable way of increasing soil carbon content.
  • The carbon emissions involved with feedlots may be neutralized by swapping to adaptive multi-paddock grazing.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 06:43 PM   #105
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,280
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
This is easily repeatable by anyone who understand the biophysical process we now refer to as the LCP (liquid carbon pathway). ...
That "we now refer to as" is wrong. Google Scholar for "liquid carbon pathway" suggests that this is a rarely used term (36 results mostly from Jones!).

Fantasies about the fact that soil has carbon in liquid form are not a scientifically supported mechanism for increasing soil carbon content as global warming mitigation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2019, 10:46 PM   #106
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A rumor of "published case studies" in a farm journal that went bankrupt. A rumor that these case studies support her assertion of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr.
It's not a rumor RC I am not sure exactly what you have against Dr. Jones? But she indeed is a real scientist and was indeed working for CSIRO when she ran those case studies. Those are her published results of the case studies. She has a website called Amazing carbon. Read up on her work. Learn something.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The answer as expected to 9 April 2019: What are those conditions? Where are the sources for those numbers?
is: No one knows those conditions. No one knows the sources for those numbers. Thus
10 May 2019: Jones's numbers are unknown and unsourced, thus papers not citing her work are irrelevant.
You are still being stubborn RC. STOP .... TAKE A DEEP BREATH.....THINK CAREFULLY.

All those references are discussing a newly discovered biochemical pathway called the Liquid Carbon Pathway that was completely unknown prior to 1996. This pathway has been found to pump large quantities of carbon into the soil as root exudates to feed symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi that produce glomalin which in itself is very stable, but instead of decaying into CO2, it decays into humic polymers tightly bound to the soil mineral substrate. Because this unique pathway doesn't decay into CO2, a high % (approx 78%+/-) of that carbon is removed from the short term biological carbon cycle and instead enters the long term deep geological times carbon cycle.

Jones is just one of many scientists who have measured the rate at which soil carbon increases when farmers manage their land to optimize this newly discovered LCP.

I gave you several citations, and you are 100% correct. All the others have entirely NOTHING to do with Jones' case studies. They are completely independently done 100%. In fact it is entirely possible some of them don't even know their work is repeating work Dr Jones did 10 years ago! That's how completely independent some of these other teams are!

And yet they are getting the same results!

You could too. I already am in my test plots. This means her work is not some strange outlier. It means her measured results of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr are accurate. Here is one of those case studies discussed:

Pasture Cropping: A Regenerative Solution from Down Under

It also means Allan Savory's results discussed in this Ted Talk:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
are also being confirmed as accurate.

I don't know what your issue is, I gave you independent confirmation that the rate of sequestration for the LCP is plenty high enough to mitigate or even reverse AGW if applied to enough acreage. Why you now think that because these alternate published results in the same range somehow are invalidated because they are truely independent? That's a complete mystery to me.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt you might be drunk...because otherwise you are just plain stupid. I know you are not stupid, so I deduced you must therefore be drunk. If I was wrong, then I apologize....But it makes your critical thinking capacity begin to be in serious doubt.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 06:36 AM   #107
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
<snip>

It also means Allan Savory's results discussed in this Ted Talk:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
are also being confirmed as accurate.

<snip>
I write this very tentatively, as it's a subject I know little about, and have ~zero desire to study.

Is this this the same Savory as the author/proponent of "holistic grazing"? About whose ideas Sierra devoted a lengthy piece in its magazine some time ago?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 11:18 AM   #108
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I write this very tentatively, as it's a subject I know little about, and have ~zero desire to study.

Is this this the same Savory as the author/proponent of "holistic grazing"? About whose ideas Sierra devoted a lengthy piece in its magazine some time ago?
It is the same. Sierra wrote quite extensively why they think it shouldn't or couldn't work.

Problem though. This is their bias talking, because Sierra's entire hypothesis is falsified by evidence in the field it actually does work. So no matter how convincing their arguments may be, they collapse under the weight of the evidence.

In fact this is what me and RC keep going on about over and over. He has decided that what Savory says can't be right, but then he has no explanation for all the independent lines of evidence it is right. It is causing a normally rational RC to make really silly claims here.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 11:20 AM   #109
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,697
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I write this very tentatively, as it's a subject I know little about, and have ~zero desire to study.

Is this this the same Savory as the author/proponent of "holistic grazing"? About whose ideas Sierra devoted a lengthy piece in its magazine some time ago?
Yes. Red Baron Farms is a long time proponent.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271970

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=257348


I think there is an even older and longer thread out there someplace as well
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 11:28 AM   #110
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It is the same. Sierra wrote quite extensively why they think it shouldn't or couldn't work.

Problem though. This is their bias talking, because Sierra's entire hypothesis is falsified by evidence in the field it actually does work. So no matter how convincing their arguments may be, they collapse under the weight of the evidence.

In fact this is what me and RC keep going on about over and over. He has decided that what Savory says can't be right, but then he has no explanation for all the independent lines of evidence it is right. It is causing a normally rational RC to make really silly claims here.
Thanks.

My memory of the article (plural actually) is hazy (I should try to dig it up and/or find an online copy), but two things I do remember:
a) they (or rather the author/s) tried very hard to get Savory to present objective evidence (he didn't/couldn't, merely lots of pretty pictures, no data), and
b) they were unable to find anyone - from the likes of a university ag department - who had objective evidence that Savory's ideas worked (at best the people they interviewed said the evidence was equivocal, at worst inconsistent with Savory's claims).

Of course, like everyone, Sierra makes mistakes. However, on this topic, they came across to me as having really done their homework. I wonder what evidence - which was available at the time they did their research - they missed?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 11:51 AM   #111
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Yes. Red Baron Farms is a long time proponent.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271970

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=257348


I think there is an even older and longer thread out there someplace as well
I first found out about Savory specifically in 2012. I investigated all the literature I could find on this for several months and by April 2013 I was pretty sure he was onto something and that's when I started my own trials integrating perennial grasses into vegetable production. All the beneficial side effects mentioned by Savory like increased soil moisture in drought, increased infiltration in heavy rain events, increased soil carbon deep in the A and B horizons of the soil and even increased biodiversity are being seen here as well.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 12:06 PM   #112
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Continuing a discussion, from the Nuclear power plants thread, which belongs here. I'll copy just one post; it captures most of the key ideas:
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Cross-purposes.

A carbon tax, of the kind I mentioned, would be very inefficient for removing carbon from the atmosphere, because it acts to push economic actors to reduce net carbon emissions to zero (or some level much below current).

To avoid ocean acidification to the point of wiping out almost all oceanic shellfish, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced. Quite a lot (and it may be too late anyway).
Killing two birds with one stone is not inefficient cross purposes working against each other! Instead it is dual purposes working in very efficient harmony together! There is a huge difference.

And yes the tax of the kind you mentioned would be inefficient at actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. However, the dividend structure I mentioned corrects this shortfall. That was my point.

Quote:
First, "cap and trade" is inefficient, compared with a carbon tax.
Compared with everything.

Quote:
Second, a carbon tax to keep global temperature rise to below 1.5C by 2030 (say) needs to be far more widely (and rigorously) applied than hithertofore. And far bigger.
yes

Quote:
One terrific feature of a robust carbon tax is that it leaves the "how" of getting to zero net carbon emission up to each economic actor. And we know that technical answers to "how" are already widely known, for almost all types of economic activity; and the marketplace will quite quickly and efficiently find good answers.
100% agreed. And the exact same dynamic for sequestration will also apply to a robust verified dividend.

Quote:
Directing some of the revenue raised by a carbon tax to R&D on various "how"s might be warranted in some cases, but by far the best thing to do is use the revenue to reduce other forms of taxation.
Which my proposal would do by eliminating the entire current farm bill subsidies on excess grain production.

Quote:
Maybe. Maybe not.
Not maybe, certainly.

Quote:
The key points are a) there are lots of ideas floating around, b) not all central grid electricity utilities (or beef farmers) are the same.
Exactly and a robust tax combined with a robust verified dividend for sequestration will make winners out of those sectors of the economy with the least emissions and the most sequestration, and losers out of those refusing to change to more advanced balanced carbon technologies.
(my hilite)

What is this (proposal/dividend structure/whatever)? Sorry if I missed it, earlier in this thread or elsewhere.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 12:30 PM   #113
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.

My memory of the article (plural actually) is hazy (I should try to dig it up and/or find an online copy), but two things I do remember:
a) they (or rather the author/s) tried very hard to get Savory to present objective evidence (he didn't/couldn't, merely lots of pretty pictures, no data), and
b) they were unable to find anyone - from the likes of a university ag department - who had objective evidence that Savory's ideas worked (at best the people they interviewed said the evidence was equivocal, at worst inconsistent with Savory's claims).

Of course, like everyone, Sierra makes mistakes. However, on this topic, they came across to me as having really done their homework. I wonder what evidence - which was available at the time they did their research - they missed?
Savory made several testable claims aside from the cases he presented in his Ted Talk and his own project which won the Buckminster Fuller award.1

Starting with his main claim regarding desertification. The soil moisture content in arid areas under his style of management is a good non-biased measurement that can be taken that is pertinent to desertification and its reversal.

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

Notice that not only does his holistic planned grazing result in more soil moisture than the rest rotation grazing most commonly used in the region, it also is an improvement over the control of no grazing at all!

"soil-water content is the
principal determinant of productivity and the primary driver of
rangeland condition in semiarid ecosystems."

There are other properties too though. These can be measured objectively too. For the purposes of this discussion soil carbon is a big one.

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


Again Savory's management system for grazing, (called adaptive multi-paddock grazing in this study) shows improvement over other types of grazing and improvement over the control of no grazing at all here too! And the rate of increase of soil carbon is indeed high enough that if applied over 100% of all rangeland would indeed offset emissions.

So if we were to actually reduce emissions and change land management to Savory's holistic management, then it would indeed bring about the Draw Down of atmospheric CO2.

So his two main claims of greening desertified land and sequestration of carbon at a high enough rate and scale to reverse AGW both have published evidences supporting them that were around long before Sierra wrote that in 2017.

Of course there is a lot more to the discussion, like the biophysical and biochemical processes that describe causation....but none of that matters until you first show he has found a method that has results worth investigating to begin with. He has. It works

Ironically I don't even raise cows, but when I started investigating these biochemical and biophysical processes that make Holistic Management work, I figured out a way to incorporate them into what I am doing with vegetables too!
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 12:44 PM   #114
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
Thanks RBF.
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Savory made several testable claims aside from the cases he presented in his Ted Talk and his own project which won the Buckminster Fuller award.1

Starting with his main claim regarding desertification. The soil moisture content in arid areas under his style of management is a good non-biased measurement that can be taken that is pertinent to desertification and its reversal.

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

Notice that not only does his holistic planned grazing result in more soil moisture than the rest rotation grazing most commonly used in the region, it also is an improvement over the control of no grazing at all!

"soil-water content is the
principal determinant of productivity and the primary driver of
rangeland condition in semiarid ecosystems."

There are other properties too though. These can be measured objectively too. For the purposes of this discussion soil carbon is a big one.

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


Again Savory's management system for grazing, (called adaptive multi-paddock grazing in this study) shows improvement over other types of grazing and improvement over the control of no grazing at all here too! And the rate of increase of soil carbon is indeed high enough that if applied over 100% of all rangeland would indeed offset emissions.

So if we were to actually reduce emissions and change land management to Savory's holistic management, then it would indeed bring about the Draw Down of atmospheric CO2.

So his two main claims of greening desertified land and sequestration of carbon at a high enough rate and scale to reverse AGW both have published evidences supporting them that were around long before Sierra wrote that in 2017.

Of course there is a lot more to the discussion, like the biophysical and biochemical processes that describe causation....but none of that matters until you first show he has found a method that has results worth investigating to begin with. He has. It works

Ironically I don't even raise cows, but when I started investigating these biochemical and biophysical processes that make Holistic Management work, I figured out a way to incorporate them into what I am doing with vegetables too!
As I mentioned above, I have zero desire to spend time learning (more) about this. Perhaps my biggest puzzle is why Savory did not provide the Sierra journalists with at least pointers to the objective evidence they asked for (persistently, from my hazy memory of the article)? And again from hazy memory, the Sierra issue led to a lot of mail (as you'd expect)! Yet none of what I remember of what was published (again, Sierra seems to have a good track record here IMHO) even hinted at objective evidence (i.e. papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) the journos had missed.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 01:30 PM   #115
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,409
I found the Sierra article; it's by Christopher Ketcham and is dated 23 February, 2017: Allan Savory's Holistic Management Theory Falls Short on Science

To me, having re-read it, the most damning parts have to do with science; some examples (my formatting):

"I [Christopher Kectham] studied an informational sheet he had handed me when we met. It explained why he couldn't talk about the science behind his methodology. "Holistic management does not permit replication," said the document, which Savory had authored. "This point is critical to understanding the great difficulty reductionist scientists are experiencing trying to comprehend holistic planned grazing—because no two plans are ever the same even on the same property two years running." A stunning admission appeared a few lines lower: "Every study of holistic planned grazing that has been done has provided results that are rejected by range scientists because there was no replication!""

"Experimental validation, of course, offers the best process for evaluating whether holistic management works. But Savory rejects that possibility. "You'll find the scientific method never discovers anything," he told a journalist for Range magazine, which profiled him in 1999. "Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me.""

There are also links to the mail this article generated, and a letter from the editor.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2019, 01:35 PM   #116
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,636
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks RBF.

As I mentioned above, I have zero desire to spend time learning (more) about this. Perhaps my biggest puzzle is why Savory did not provide the Sierra journalists with at least pointers to the objective evidence they asked for (persistently, from my hazy memory of the article)? And again from hazy memory, the Sierra issue led to a lot of mail (as you'd expect)! Yet none of what I remember of what was published (again, Sierra seems to have a good track record here IMHO) even hinted at objective evidence (i.e. papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) the journos had missed.
The biggest problem I see is that Savory absolutely rejects any attempt at reductionist investigation of his holistic management. He claims that the function of the whole is compromised by the process of reducing it into its component parts because much of what happens is actually the result of unexpected emergent properties of the system taken as a whole.

Even when reductionist science does indeed find confirmation of a bit or part, he doesn't trust it to be consistent. He claims to have spent 30 years figuring out these issues and thinks any attempt to verify this with reductionist science will fail.

Personally I don't agree with him. I believe it can be reduced to its components like the two studies above did and like the biophysical and biochemical has also been partially done. However, it does take a bit of mental gymnastics to think about this from both a holistic view and a reductionist view simultaneously. I can understand the difficulties in doing that for many. And I do agree that we must be very very careful we don't lose an emergent property when scientifically breaking this down to its component parts.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.