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: 4,597
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: 24,013
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: 4,597
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: 24,013
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: 4,597
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: 4,597
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: 3,865
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: 15,291
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: 4,597
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
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 09:09 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.