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.
Reply
Old 19th March 2019, 01:01 PM   #521
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Question Cite the literature that shows that LCP is the source for HPG

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
But they are completely useless at estimating the carbon sequestered by HPG or any other agricultural system using the LCP as the primary carbon source for sequestration.
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.

My suspicion is that it is the type of soil that determines the relative amounts of LCP and biomass sequestration. A dune in a desert has very low biomass but might have high liquid carbon. The soil in a forest will have high biomass but may have modest liquid carbon.
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 19th March 2019, 04:43 PM   #522
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
20 March 2018: An irrelevant lie that Nordborg, M., 2016 claims "soil carbon sequestration" is impossible.

That soil sequesters carbon is basic soil science.
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF) was published by Nordborg of the EPOK - Centre of Organic Food & Framing at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. There is a "4.2 Soil Carbon Sequestration" section that is 7 pages long. This section partially supports Savory’s claim that grazing can increase soil carbon sequestration.




This irrelevant lie ignores that Jones does not show that neglecting the liquid carbon pathway has any effect on the results of the Roth C model.
That is obvious to anyone who understands science and her article. Merely pointing out that the LCP is not used in the Roth C model does not make the model invalid. For example, climate models do not include the flapping of butterfly wings and match the real world ! More seriously, the simpler climate models of the 1970's gave roughly matching results to their data and modern models with more "pathways".
You misquoted me out of context them claim it is a lie? The mistake Nordbord makes is in rate, and in which pathway is responsible for carbon sequestration, not in that it exists at all. Nordborn simply is using the old top down decay of biomass in the O-horizon model of soil carbon rather than the newly discovered LCP that wasn't even discovered until very recently.

You wonder why I keep having to explain the basics to you over and over? Because over and over you keep misunderstanding the basics. Then no matter how good a reference, you simply have no idea what it means. I cant even remember how many times I sent you the link to Jones Liquid Carbon Pathway unrecognized, and yet by some miracle of incomprehension you still find the LCP unrecognizable!

I have explained it to you. I have linked others explanations to you. You still keep missing it. You are not even close to understanding how to spot in the literature if they are recognizing it or not. Hint: Nordborg isn't and you can tell by the much lower sequestration rate that tapers down to zero over 50 years. This is a signature of the O-horizon as it saturates the decaying biomass pool. It has nothing to do with the LCP at all. So when we see that we know Norborg missed this pathway completely.

The LCP increases over time until it gradually levels off near a peak rate due to increased fertility and NPP. Completely different signature.

Of course the Roth C is not invalid, it simply models a different biological pathway for carbon into the soil.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 04:51 PM   #523
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.

My suspicion is that it is the type of soil that determines the relative amounts of LCP and biomass sequestration. A dune in a desert has very low biomass but might have high liquid carbon. The soil in a forest will have high biomass but may have modest liquid carbon.
Well you are kind of right. The primary source for soil carbon in the forest floor is actually biomass decay in the O-horizon.

Two reasons for that, one the leaf litter mat is much thicker on the forest floor, and the forest fungi are much more weighted to saprophytic and ectomycorrhizal.

But you are wrong about a desert dune. There is nearly no AMF symbiosis at all of any sort on a dune as it requires a living plant root to live. There may be AMF spores, but no liquid carbon flow at all without a living plant.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 05:24 PM   #524
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Well ....
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.
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 19th March 2019, 05:49 PM   #525
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Thumbs down A lie that Nordborg, M., 2016 soil carbon sequestration rate is impossible

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You misquoted me out of context them claim it is a lie? ...:
You are right - I missed the "rates" so it is
20 March 2018: A lie that the Nordborg, M., 2016 soil carbon sequestration rate is impossible from a list of papers.

Section 4.3 of Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has
Quote:
Based on these (combined) very optimistic assumptions (see below), 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year 1 (= 3.8 tonnes of C / ha / year × 2 × 10%).
You have a list of papers that you claim make that value impossible. That is a lie.

For example, the first paper is Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change . This paper has a table including a net carbon sequestration impact (NCSI) column with
Quote:
+, ++, and +++ indicate that the mean CO2 sequestration is 0 to 2; > 2 to 4; and > 4 t ha–1 y–1, respectively.
That does not make "0.76 tonnes of C / ha / year" impossible.
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 19th March 2019, 06:00 PM   #526
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Exclamation This paper possibly does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003
Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

A paper needing payment. But Strategies for GHG mitigation in Mediterranean cropping systems. A review (PDF) cites the above paper and has some of the same authors.
Quote:
In all cases, significant effects on C sequestration have been observed in long term experiments, averaging 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.
Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for Mediterranean cropping systems is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2019 at 06:09 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 19th March 2019, 06:03 PM   #527
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Exclamation This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
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.
Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming
Quote:
We found significant differences and higher values for organically farmed soils of 0.18 ± 0.06% points (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for SOC concentrations, 3.50 ± 1.08 Mg C ha−1 for stocks, and 0.45 ± 0.21 Mg C ha−1 y−1 for sequestration rates compared with nonorganic management.
Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for organic farming is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.45 ± 0.21 Mg C ha−1 y−1.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2019 at 06:09 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 19th March 2019, 06:12 PM   #528
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You are right - I missed the "rates" so it is
20 March 2018: A lie that the Nordborg, M., 2016 soil carbon sequestration rate is impossible from a list of papers.

Section 4.3 of Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has


You have a list of papers that you claim make that value impossible. That is a lie.

For example, the first paper is Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change . This paper has a table including a net carbon sequestration impact (NCSI) column with

That does not make "0.76 tonnes of C / ha / year" impossible.
That's not what I said RC. You know it. The rate Nordborg uses is based on the catabolic saprophytic pathway rather than the anabolic LCP. If anything for the pathway described the rate is too high. But once again, this rate is much smaller than the LCP.

The papers I sent you all have various results, some including the LCP and some not. The point is to show supporting evidence that the rates given by Jones are not impossible like Nordborg claims, but also to show the difference in rates between one pathway and the other are profoundly different.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 06:19 PM   #529
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security

Rattan Lal doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8
Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security.

This paper has general information including soil carbon sequestration. No soil carbon sequestration rates in the paper itself.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate is 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.
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 19th March 2019, 06:22 PM   #530
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for Mediterranean cropping systems is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.
Yes again, Nordborg's estimates for the saprophytic pathway are exceedingly optimistic and too high.

Nordborg thinks this refutes Holistic grazing. Because if Norborg is using too high a rate, and still less than Savory, Nordborg concludes this must indeed be evidence Savory's HPG cant work.

There are 2 problems with this.

HPG does work. There are measured rates even much higher than the average Jones uses, which are much higher than Nordborg uses.

So obviously Nordborg's hypothesis can't describe some of the empirical evidence. Yet in other cases it is actually too generous. This is evidence it is Nordborg who is actually wrong, not Savory. Especially not Jones, who actually spent the time and effort to explain why the discrepancy.

I have been trying to explain to you why Nordborg is wrong for days now, but it is like trying to convince a cat to take a bath. You simply are refusing to accept the evidence.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 06:29 PM   #531
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
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
The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America has no applicable soil carbon sequestration rates. There are SOC sequestration rates with CO2 equivalent rates and a "3 tC ha–1 y–1" from a Teague paper.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate of 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.
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 19th March 2019, 06:42 PM   #532
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America has no applicable soil carbon sequestration rates. There are SOC sequestration rates with CO2 equivalent rates and a "3 tC ha–1 y–1" from a Teague paper.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate of 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.
LOLS are you drunk? Seriously RC. I have stated over and over Nordborg's number are too low for the LCP and even Nordborg admits the rate is pretty generous using the older soil carbon models.

Nowhere have I ever said Nordborg's rate was impossible. LOLZ It's actually just a fraction of what's possible.

As for the Teague paper, here is the copy paste and the math to convert.

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

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byck JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2016 —VOL. 71, NO. 2"
To convert that to CO2e we multiply by 44/12* or 3.67 so just to clean this formatting and scale up a bit for comparison we get 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average.

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

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.

Liquid Carbon Pathway Unrecognized By Christine Jones, Australian Farm Journal
Edition 338, 3/07/2008"
*44/12 is the molecular weight of CO2 divided by the molecular weight of carbon.
__________________
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; 19th March 2019 at 06:44 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 19th March 2019, 06:45 PM   #533
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Yes again, Nordborg's estimates for the saprophytic pathway are exceedingly optimistic and too high.....
You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate.

Section 4.3 is the question "How much carbon can be stored in pastures?"
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.
  1. Take very optimistic assumptions based on the scientific literature.
  2. Estimate the soil carbon sequestration rate using those very optimistic assumptions.
  3. The result is a maximum rate under those very optimistic assumptions.
  4. That maximum rate tells us the maximum about of carbon that can be stored in pastures.
The answer to the question is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year
Apply holistic grazing to 1 billion ha to get less than 10% of current annual emissions. This debunks Alan Savory's claim that holistic grazing can reverse global warming.
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 19th March 2019, 06:50 PM   #534
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate.

Section 4.3 is the question "How much carbon can be stored in pastures?"
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.
  1. Take very optimistic assumptions based on the scientific literature.
  2. Estimate the soil carbon sequestration rate using those very optimistic assumptions.
  3. The result is a maximum rate under those very optimistic assumptions.
  4. That maximum rate tells us the maximum about of carbon that can be stored in pastures.
The answer to the question is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year
Apply holistic grazing to 1 billion ha to get less than 10% of current annual emissions. This debunks Alan Savory's claim that holistic grazing can reverse global warming.
That's like taking very optimistic assumptions on the maximum speed of a Stanley Steamer car and claiming it is the top speed of a Lamborghini.

Again, the LCP is overlooked. that's what Jones repeatedly claims. Nordborg's rebuttal is failing to descibe reality because it is old science describing an antiquated paradigm.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 06:57 PM   #535
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Thumbs down An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
...I cant even remember how many times I sent you the link to Jones Liquid Carbon Pathway unrecognized, and yet by some miracle of incomprehension you still find the LCP unrecognizable
An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal.
  • Dr. Christine Jones paper does not make the Roth C model invalid or even flawed because she does not actually show that the LCP has makes the model invalid or flawed.
    Neglecting insignificant effects is what scientific models do. Soil scientists since (I assume) Roth have neglected LCP. They will have reasons for this.
  • That paper has been ignored for 11 years (mostly 14 citations, mostly by her).
    A good paper is cited by other scientists. A lack of citation is a hint of problems with the paper. In this case, the lack of citation is probably caused by the journal closing.
    Other soil scientists have not abandoned the Roth C model. Other soil scientists have seem to not have updated the Roth C model.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2019 at 07:10 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 19th March 2019, 07:08 PM   #536
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal.
  • Dr. Christine Jones paper does not make the Roth C model invalid or even flawed because she does not actually show that the LCP has makes the model invalid or flawed.
    Neglecting insignificant effects is what scientific models do. Soil scientists since (I assume) Roth have neglected LCP. They will have reasons for this.
  • That paper has been ignored for 11 years (mostly 14 citations, mostly by her).
    A good paper is cited by other scientists. A lack of citation is a hint of problems with the paper. In this case, the lack of citation is probably caused by the journal closing.
    Other soil scientists have not abandoned the Roth C model. Other soil scientists have seem to not have updated the Roth C model.
And other scientists have no explanation for why HPG works either. But you are using circular reasoning.

Instead you need to explain where that carbon came from if you have decided that Jones is wrong.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 07:14 PM   #537
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
And ....
And nothing to do with An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

Or the fact that you have given no evidence that the Roth C model cannot be applied as maybe one of the cited papers in Nordberg does.
This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. does not show that the Roth C model cannot be applied.
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 19th March 2019, 07:23 PM   #538
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And nothing to do with An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

Or the fact that you have given no evidence that the Roth C model cannot be applied as maybe one of the cited papers in Nordberg does.
This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. does not show that the Roth C model cannot be applied.
OMG again with the willfull ignorance. The Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate, it just doesn't describe MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies. These are not opinions about projected possibilities, they are describing real world Empirical evidence that the old soil carbon models can't explain.

If you think Jones is wrong, then feel free to submit your own new hypothesis to explain these measured rates of sequestration far in excess of what the older soil carbon models can describe..
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 07:24 PM   #539
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
That's ....
Nothing to do with my post so You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Again, the LCP is overlooked. that's what Jones repeatedly claims.
What you have supplied is evidence that 1 and only 1 soil scientist in the world claims that the liquid carbon pathway is overlooked. That 1 soil scientist repeats a claim does not mean that the claim is correct.

I do not think that soil scientists are ignorant about soil ! They will know that the carbon content of soil comes from biomass and soluble carbon. They will have reasons for the Roth C model using biomass.
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 19th March 2019, 07:31 PM   #540
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Question Can the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
OMG again with the willfull ignorance. The Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate, it just doesn't describe MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies..
A possible "MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies" lie since you have cited no such studies.
No studies in the ignored Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised. In fact no MEASURED results! A "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" pops out of nowhere.

You are claiming that Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. cannot use Roth C and going on about LCP.
But you now state" Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate".
Nordborg applies the Roth C model to grasslands so:
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that states the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2019 at 07:42 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 19th March 2019, 07:37 PM   #541
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Nothing to do with my post so You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate


What you have supplied is evidence that 1 and only 1 soil scientist in the world claims that the liquid carbon pathway is overlooked. That 1 soil scientist repeats a claim does not mean that the claim is correct.

I do not think that soil scientists are ignorant about soil ! They will know that the carbon content of soil comes from biomass and soluble carbon. They will have reasons for the Roth C model using biomass.
Of course Jones isn't the only one. The Teague results fall dead center in Jones range. Obviously Savory would be another.

Sarah Wright and Kristine A. Nichols would be 2 more. Elaine Ingram another.

The whole USDA SARE (science section of the USDA) working on soil would be hundreds more.

A good % of the USDA NRCS too.

We are in the thousands by now. In fact Haney from the UDSA even had to develop a whole new soil test called the Haney test in his honor to describe the new paradigm that opened up when investigating the LCP.

As it turns out carbon sequestration is just a minor consequence of the LCP symbiosis. The primary function is to transport nutrients.

AMF pays for this carbon my supplying the plant the nutrients it needs to support growth. Thus when this is functioning correctly no fertilizers are needed. That's even a bigger deal than all the carbon in the soil. It also explains why the LCP shuts down in standard agricultural methods.
__________________
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 19th March 2019, 07:45 PM   #542
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Of course Jones isn't the only one.....
A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others.

It is what a scientist publishes that tells people their stance on science. It is soil scientists publishing papers that say that LCP needs to be included in the Roth C model that tells people their stance on LCP in the Roth C model.

You also debunk Jones by saying hundreds of people recognize LCP!

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2019 at 07:49 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 19th March 2019, 10:39 PM   #543
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others.

It is what a scientist publishes that tells people their stance on science. It is soil scientists publishing papers that say that LCP needs to be included in the Roth C model that tells people their stance on LCP in the Roth C model.

You also debunk Jones by saying hundreds of people recognize LCP!
You are silly. Just making stupid strawmen. Scientific models like the Roth C are only useful when they describe observed phenomenon. It doesn't work on the LCP because it describes a carbon pathway that we knew about for a long time prior to the liquid carbon pathway which is new knowledge.

Plenty of scientists have published on the LCP, but it is still in its infancy. It is still being broken down into its component parts to figure out how it works exactly. Whole new fields of soil science were created when Sarah Wright made her breakthrough. There is at least 50 to 100 years of science to do before anyone can make a scientific model of the liquid carbon pathway as accurate as the Roth C model is for the saprophytic pathway.
__________________
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 24th March 2019, 04:43 PM   #544
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You are silly.....
Real world facts are not silly, Red Baron Farms. Scientists publish their positions on science (primarily) in scientific journals. You establishing that soil scientists do recognize LCP makes Jones assertion that they do not wrong.

Scientific models are useful when they match the real world. You have presented no evidence that the Roth C model does not match the real world.
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that states the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands as Nordborg presumably does.

What about the so far imaginary "MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies" that the model cannot explain?

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has an optimistic estimate of soil carbon sequestration that makes Savory’s reversal of global warming assertion wrong.
Quote:
Despite optimistic assumptions, 0.76 billion tonnes of C correspond to less than 10% of current annual emissions, ...
You have presented no evidence that this estimate is wrong.
The papers you list in All of these show soil carbon sequestration rates Nordborg, M., 2016 claims is impossible....[/ do not say Nordborg's rate is impossible. They have soil carbon sequestration rates that are lower than Nordborg's estimate. The first paper has some specific, other agricultural practices that produce higher rates.

Merely mentioning LCP does not magically make Nordborg's estimate or any other calculations wrong. Merely mentioning LCP does not make the Roth C model wrong or inappropriate or whatever you think.

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th March 2019 at 04:47 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 24th March 2019, 07:01 PM   #545
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,985
Still with this? Oy.

Time for the old classic: "What would it take to convince you that your position is incorrect?"
The Shrike 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 April 2019, 04:47 PM   #546
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Most of the paper is about Cenozoic cooling listing various explanations including the authors own "COOLING BY GRASSLAND COEVOLUTION?".
"FUTURE COOLING EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL GRASSLANDS?" has 1 estimate related to global warming - it may be possible to "sequester at least 100 Tg per year, which is roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions (Sanderman et al. 2010)." 15% is not > 100% !
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 2nd April 2019, 05:04 PM   #547
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

This is a research editorial (basically a review) that does not say that ruminants or changes in agricultural practice can reverse global warming. The authors describe the role of ruminants in GHG production, e.g. rumen fermentation producing CH4. They give 5 hypothetical North American net greenhouse emission scenarios. The best scenario is a reduction of ~0.72 Gt C/y (Figure 1) or ~1.2 Gt C/y (Figure 2). That is less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014 (their table 1). 10% is not greater than 100% !
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 2nd April 2019, 05:22 PM   #548
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Most of the paper is about Cenozoic cooling listing various explanations including the authors own "COOLING BY GRASSLAND COEVOLUTION?".
"FUTURE COOLING EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL GRASSLANDS?" has 1 estimate related to global warming - it may be possible to "sequester at least 100 Tg per year, which is roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions (Sanderman et al. 2010)." 15% is not > 100% !
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

This is a research editorial (basically a review) that does not say that ruminants or changes in agricultural practice can reverse global warming. The authors describe the role of ruminants in GHG production, e.g. rumen fermentation producing CH4. They give 5 hypothetical North American net greenhouse emission scenarios. The best scenario is a reduction of ~0.72 Gt C/y (Figure 1) or ~1.2 Gt C/y (Figure 2). That is less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014 (their table 1). 10% is not greater than 100% !
Correct. They are not. And what is your point? No one, not even Savory, ever said soil sequestration by any means would be 100%. Never ever said it! I never said it. No one reputable ever said it. Teague never said it. Jones never said it. Retallack never said it.

When you make up comments like this, it is called a strawman. You simply misrepresent your opponents position then prove that misrepresented position false. It the worst kind of deception. Some would even call it an outright lie. Either way it is meaningless. You are just babbling in the wind with nothing coherent to say.

Come back and post something when your mind sharpens up a bit.

Oh and by the way, land managers using Savory's system can do a bit by restoring desertified land, and ranchers can do a bit by better grazing management of their pastures, and farmers can do a bit by advanced no till mutispecies and cover crops, and converting cornfields back into prairies, and rice farmers can do their bit by using SRI, loggers can do their bit by replanting after timbering, and we can all help by reducing fossil fuel use and converting to renewables and nuclear. No single one is the solution. But combined they are plenty. More than enough.
__________________
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; 2nd April 2019 at 05:29 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 3rd April 2019, 05:33 PM   #549
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Correct. They are not. And what is your point? No one, not even Savory, ever said soil sequestration by any means would be 100%.....
You need to understand Savory's myth: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (my emphasis added).
Quote:
The Myth Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
“Holistic management as a planned grazing strategy is able to reverse desertification and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide into soil, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to pre-industrial levels in a period of forty years.” (Allan Savory, 2014)
Just to stop global warming, Savory is claiming an ability to sequester 100% of our CO2 emissions using Holistic Management. The scientific sources in the article have evidence that will not happen. Your scientific sources have evidence that will not happen. My scientific sources have evidence that will not happen.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd April 2019 at 05:43 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, 05:59 PM   #550
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You need to understand Savory's myth: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (my emphasis added).

Just to stop global warming, Savory is claiming an ability to sequester 100% of our CO2 emissions using Holistic Management. The scientific sources in the article have evidence that will not happen. Your scientific sources have evidence that will not happen. My scientific sources have evidence that will not happen.
sequestering carbon in the soil is the only way to reverse AGW. That is in fact true. But it doesn't mean that part of the strategy isn't also reducing emissions from fossil fuels. He makes that very clear from the beginning.

It's true he focuses on that side of the carbon cycle, as it is his field of study. But he awknowledges right from the get go we need a technological fix for energy and then fix the biological side too, and together it can reverse AGW.

No other strategy that only focuses on emissions actually can reverse AGW. They all fall short, or rely on technology only being developed.
Quote:
Now there's no question about it at all: we will only solve the problem of replacing fossil fuels with technology. But fossil fuels, carbon -- coal and gas -- are by no means the only thing that is causing climate change. Savory
__________________
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; 3rd April 2019 at 06:05 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 7th April 2019, 08:41 PM   #551
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Repests ignorance about Savory's claim

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
sequestering carbon in the soil is the only way to reverse AGW. ...
Still wrong: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Savory's TED talk has Savory's claim
Quote:
I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels, while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.
The scientific evidence is that Savory's claim is wrong.

Savory may have changed his claim and told no one about it. We have to go with the claim he made.

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.
Quote:
The controversial claim appears to be based on a calculation in a report issued by the Savory Institute, ”Restoring the climate through capture and storage of soil carbon through holistic planned grazing” (Savory Institute, 2013a), in which it is assumed that 2.5 tonnes of C can be sequestrated per ha and year, on 5 billion ha (corresponding to one third of the world’s land), continuously for almost 40 years. A calculation shows that: 2.5 tonnes of C / ha / year × 5 billion ha × 40 years = 500 billion tonnes of C. This amount corresponds fairly well to the total emissions of carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution, which amount to 555 billion tonnes of C (see Appendix 1). However, the assumptions on which this calculation is based are presented without support or references and appear to be speculation4
There is also an unpublished report at the Institute by Seth Itzkan "which yields a total of 88-210 billion tonnes of sequestrated C." using visual inspection of before/after photos to estimate changes in soil carbon!

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th April 2019 at 08:53 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, 05:58 AM   #552
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Still wrong: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.
Those can mitigate. It's not the same as reversing. Mitigating AGW really is easy. Anything that reduces mankind's impact qualifies as "mitigation". I said reverse. That means it needs to be on a scale large enough to offset over 100%. (We still need to reduce emissions) There is no current technology we humans use at that scale big enough to potentially reverse AGW. The others are simply either too small or untested "futuretech".

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Savory's TED talk has Savory's claim

The scientific evidence is that Savory's claim is wrong.

Savory may have changed his claim and told no one about it. We have to go with the claim he made.

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.

There is also an unpublished report at the Institute by Seth Itzkan "which yields a total of 88-210 billion tonnes of sequestrated C." using visual inspection of before/after photos to estimate changes in soil carbon!
Nordborg is quite flawed as already discussed. Just repeating your claim without discussing why it is not flawed in your unscientific opinion is just that...a worthless unscientific opinion.

As an analogy I will borrow the bumblebee analogy from the 70's. I could have given all sorts of aerodynamic reasons why bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, yet they do anyway. So it means I need new aerodynamic models. It doesn't force bumblebees to the ground. Your reasoning by using Nordborg is equally flawed. Nordborg doesn't explain observed phenomenon. Thus we need to find new models to explain it, but it in no way means it can't be done. It has been done on tens of millions of acres worldwide already. If Nordborg hypothesizes it cant be done, yet it is beeing done already, it means Nordborg is already falsified and Nordborg will need to come up with a new hypothesis.

As far as Retallack goes, he calculated current land, not new land where desertification was reversed. There is a whole vast area of desertified land that could be restored.
__________________
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, 01:46 PM   #553
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Exclamation Still ignores Alan Savory's actual, invalid claim

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Those can mitigate. It's not the same as reversing....
Try reading the link: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.
Quote:
Sinks and negative emissions
Main articles: Carbon sink and Negative carbon dioxide emission

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period, such as a growing forest. A negative carbon dioxide emission on the other hand is a permanent removal of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Examples are direct air capture, enhanced weathering technologies such as storing it in geologic formations underground and biochar. These processes are sometimes considered as variations of sinks or mitigation,[171][172] and sometimes as geoengineering.[173] In combination with other mitigation measures, sinks in combination with negative carbon emissions are considered crucial for meeting the 350 ppm target.[174][175][176]
Sequestration of carbon in soli is not the only method of sequestration of carbon that exists !
We can sequester carbon in trees. This is called reforestation.
We are currently sequestering carbon in sinks on an industrial scale.

I am repeating Alan Savory's invalid claim that Holistic Management can sequester enough carbon to return levels to pre-industrial levels within 40 years stated in his 2014 Ted talk because you still do not understand his words. No published science supports this. The published science gives limits of 10-20% of current emissions per year.

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th April 2019 at 01:48 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, 02:13 PM   #554
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Try reading the link: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Sequestration of carbon in soli is not the only method of sequestration of carbon that exists !
We can sequester carbon in trees. This is called reforestation.
We are currently sequestering carbon in sinks on an industrial scale.

I am repeating Alan Savory's invalid claim that Holistic Management can sequester enough carbon to return levels to pre-industrial levels within 40 years stated in his 2014 Ted talk because you still do not understand his words. No published science supports this. The published science gives limits of 10-20% of current emissions per year.
Biomass does not reverse AGW it is just a temporary help because biomass is part of the short term carbon cycle and saturates relatively quickly, after that it is net zero on the geological carbon cycle. Your failure to grasp the difference between the biological pathways of carbon are showing.
Limits to growth of forest biomass carbon sink under climate change

Thus reforestation biomass cant actually reverse climate change. It is only a relatively much smaller mitigation potential. We still should do it of course. But it isn't going to reverse AGW.

Industrial CCS has even less potential. It can't even hope to ever exceed 100% .

And yes, if done on enough land, and there is enough land, HPG could actually sequester enough to remove the legacy fossil fuel carbon in around 40 years. It is easily a sink in that range of scale. And there are published results showing it too. And 10s of millions of acres already beginning to do it. That's not enough though. It will take expanding this worldwide.
__________________
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 02:14 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
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 08:01 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.