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 4th February 2019, 11:42 AM   #1
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change?

Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?
__________________
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 4th February 2019, 11:46 AM   #2
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,760
A political ad?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 4th February 2019, 11:48 AM   #3
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
A political ad?
Not really, since it is bipartisan and not really what I advocate actually.

I posted here for a skeptical analysis of what I wrote, not the politics part.

I am of course in favor of AGW mitigation. So I wrote that with this title on the share: "The bipartisan Energy Innovation AND Carbon Dividend Act to mitigate global warming is being considered right now, but we Conservatives can do even better."

So yes. There is a political side to this, but I am more interested in a discussion of the strategy itself here in the science section.
__________________
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; 4th February 2019 at 11:52 AM.
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 4th February 2019, 11:51 AM   #4
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
I'm not seeing any figures, so that looks just like an advertising campaign rather than a serious proposal.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 4th February 2019, 01:43 PM   #5
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I'm not seeing any figures, so that looks just like an advertising campaign rather than a serious proposal.
It is so difficult to write something that addresses the complexity of climate change mitigation strategy and still is readable and comprehensible to the general public.

I try and do a simplified outline with bullets and all the meat is in the links and citations.

I know already I am not the best at this. But I am willing to listen.
__________________
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 4th February 2019, 02:14 PM   #6
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 522
"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"

Yes.

"and what is preventing its implementation?"

Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).

We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.

France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.
Wayward son 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 4th February 2019, 02:28 PM   #7
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"

Yes.

"and what is preventing its implementation?"

Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).

We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.

France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.
I have no issues against Nuclear where appropriate. What makes you say that?
__________________
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 4th February 2019, 03:32 PM   #8
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,197
The solution is to get rid of anthropogens. Sorted.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 4th February 2019, 04:48 PM   #9
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
This is a slightly biased opinion piece about a US bill. Scott Strough, a "researcher in carbon farming as a climate change mitigation strategy", emphasizes his area of interest and minimizes other climate change mitigation strategies without justification.

His "It won't work,..." statement is not supported by his reference.
Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)
Carolyn Snyder wrote a doctorial thesis that reconstructed the last 2 million years of temperature. Part of this was published in a Nature paper. The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.

The rest of the opinion piece is reasonable given his bias. Implementing as many climate change mitigation strategies as practical is the logical way to go.

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th February 2019 at 04:50 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 4th February 2019, 07:08 PM   #10
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

His "It won't work,..." statement is not supported by his reference.
Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)
Carolyn Snyder wrote a doctorial thesis that reconstructed the last 2 million years of temperature. Part of this was published in a Nature paper. The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
It is a prediction that if we actually don't lower atmospheric CO2, then temperatures continue to rise anyway.

That leaves us with the options to draw down CO2.

We can try CCS and that indeed is the strategy proposed the majority consensus on how to reverse Global warming. The idea is to substitute biofuels for electricity production and then use a "to be developed" CCS technology to sequester CO2 directly from those deep underground. Thus turning a supposedly carbon neutral biofuel into an actual net negative in the carbon cycle. This "to be developed" future technology is termed "active decarbonisation of the atmosphere" and most science bodies like for example the Commonwealth Academies of Science project a more conservative 3 degrees as long as we stay under the so called "budget" of carbon emissions rather than 5 degrees even if we end all net emissions completely tomorrow.[1]

This is why an alternative biological carbon capture and sequestration (BCCS) is so important. The technology is already here having been discovered in 1996 initially and actively developed in the field all around the world. It is not a mature technology by any means but even by 2008 the first 10 year case studies from the field were coming in showing 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr sequestered in the soil on average.

Quote:
Under appropriate conditions, 40%-60% of carbon fixed in green
leaves can be transferred to soil and rapidly humified, resulting in
rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of five to 20 tonnes of
CO2 per hectare per year[2]
Since then it has been confirmed at least in that range or greater. But as I said it is not a mature technology yet. While these numbers are plenty, there are those doing more, and no one really knows what the biological limit might be.
__________________
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; 4th February 2019 at 07:15 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 4th February 2019, 08:03 PM   #11
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It is a prediction that if we actually don't lower atmospheric CO2, then temperatures continue to rise anyway.
Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Another strategy is carbon sequestration which is not just changing farming with its current uncertainty and possible economic issues.

Other more extreme strategies not off the table, e.g.
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 4th February 2019, 08:14 PM   #12
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Correct. The issue is that the cited article and paper do not say that lowering emissions will not work as was written. It says that not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Another strategy is carbon sequestration which is not just changing farming with its current uncertainty and possible economic issues.

Other more extreme strategies not off the table, e.g.
lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.

One is the cumultive effect of many years of emissions and even taking emissions to zero will not necessarily lower atmospheric CO2 unless something is done to actively decarbonize.

It takes many millennia for simple passive rock weathering to remove those sorts of excess CO2 we see in the atmosphere now. It's not a good option. It's not a worst case scenario, but it is pretty bad.

You are dreaming if you expect simply reducing emissions to somehow balance the carbon cycle, much less actually draw down CO2.
__________________
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 February 2019, 04:22 PM   #13
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,623
Sigh, not this again...


Land use changes are a real part of global warming, but till small in comparison to the impact of fossil Carbon.

The reason land use change effects the climate is because at equilibrium healthy old growth forests hold more carbon than healthy grasslands and in turn healthy grasslands hold more carbon than typical crop land. In addition to burning fossil fuels humans have been busy cutting down forests and turning them into degraded croplands or worse.

The most that we can do to sequester carbon would be to allow all the old forests to regrow. First of all that isn't likely to happen, but even if we did the very most we could hope for is to reverse the CO2 contributions from cutting them down in the first place. We can't offset digging up fossil carbon using these techniques.

Proposals for "sequestering carbon in the soil" fall short even of this, because they mainly deal with grasslands. Grasslands by their nature sequestrator less carbon than the forests that were there previously so in their equilibrium state they still represent a release of carbon into the atmosphere.

What happens from time to time is someone looks a the transient response of unhealthy grassland becoming more health and and says "look at how much CO2 we sequestered". There is a wide error range in that number to begin with, but this is then multiplied many times over by assuming a) that all grassland would similarly improve and b) that this response would continue indefinitely rather than reach and equilibrium with increased CO2 released by decomposition in the soil. The end result is a MASSIVE overstatement of how much CO2 could be sequestered this way. When we look at the well understood equilibrium values for carbon sequestered in soil, however we already know ahead of time that we can't even sequester all the carbon releases by cutting down trees in the first place let alone absorb fossil Carbon 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 5th February 2019, 05:51 PM   #14
Warmer1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 443
In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/
Warmer1 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 February 2019, 05:53 PM   #15
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,150
I'm still trying to figure out how paying farmers to sequester carbon will stimulate the economy.
theprestige 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 5th February 2019, 06:24 PM   #16
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm still trying to figure out how paying farmers to sequester carbon will stimulate the economy.
Maybe this will help your understanding.
Broken Heartland: The Rise of America’s Rural Ghetto.

Or is it you think Rural economies don't count as "real" economies?
__________________
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 6th February 2019, 01:24 PM   #17
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
lowering emissions is not the same as reducing atmospheric CO2.
I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

Lowering carbon emissions enough stabilizes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus stops global warming.

Lowering carbon emissions to zero eventually reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus reverses global warming. I think that the main uptake of C02 will be the oceans.

Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation
Quote:
Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term global warming and its related effects.[2] Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).[3] Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks, e.g., through reforestation.[3] Mitigation policies can substantially reduce the risks associated with human-induced global warming.[4]
The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to 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 6th February 2019, 01:42 PM   #18
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Maybe this will help your understanding.
A reference that does not mention paying farmers to sequester carbon and whether it would stimulate the economy, Red Baron Farms !

Think about an extremely hypothetical scenario. Peat sequesters a lot of carbon. If we paid farmers to turn productive farmland into bogs, they would lose the income from their farms!

Or a more realistic scenario: Pay farmers to turn productive farmland into forests. They lose income from the farmland but they gain income from the trees.

The practical strategy is encouraging farmers to use improved farming practices that sequester more carbon. There is 1 study from 2013 that says that this can be done with no decrease of yield or profits (Regenerative agriculture).
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 February 2019, 01:48 PM   #19
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
Exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lowering carbon emissions enough stabilizes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus stops global warming.
No. Lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough. You literally just contradicted yourself.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lowering carbon emissions to zero eventually reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus reverses global warming. I think that the main uptake of C02 will be the oceans.
Eventually as in thousands of years from now. This because of reinforcing feedbacks in the system already triggered. It is not a AGW reversal strategy with any hope of success.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation

The goal is to stop global warming from reaching unacceptable levels by 2100. It seems not practical to reverse global warming.
It isn't without drawdown, but drawdown is possible. And exactly unacceptable to who? The Syrians might claim, with some justification, it already reached unacceptable levels.
The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

This is not the only area "unacceptable" climate change has already happened either.

Quote:
Climate change has implications for human health and productivity. Models suggest that heat extremes affect worker health, reduce labor capacity, and commodity supply. Chronic health conditions are on the rise internationally. However there is a paucity of direct empirical evidence relating increasing temperatures to both agricultural worker health and productivity.
The impact of heat and impaired kidney function on productivity of Guatemalan sugarcane workers
They say it is even worse in some other countries.
The Silent Massacre: Chronic Kidney Disease in Central America's Sugarcane Workers

There are things we can do to help like educate about the importance of additional hydration and work breaks in heavy labor industries. But in these places around the world even small increases in average temps make tremendous differences in quality of life.
__________________
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; 6th February 2019 at 01:50 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 February 2019, 01:57 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Exactly what I said.....
Quote:
I and the cited article and paper did not write that, Red Baron Farms. The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
There is no lowering of carbon emission in that quote. It is lowering of atmospheric CO2 by any means and that it does not happen.

Then I went on to climate change mitigation strategies which are ways expected to reduce global warming to acceptable levels by 2100.
Quote:
A strategy we know can stop global warming is lowering emissions. This is well known technology.
Lowering carbon emissions will reduce global warming to acceptable levels ("stop global warming "). That may include lowering atmospheric CO2 over the next 80 years.
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 February 2019, 02:05 PM   #21
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There is no lowering of carbon emission in that quote. It is lowering of atmospheric CO2 by any means and that it does not happen.

Then I went on to climate change mitigation strategies which are ways expected to reduce global warming to acceptable levels by 2100.

Lowering carbon emissions will reduce global warming to acceptable levels ("stop global warming "). That may include lowering atmospheric CO2 over the next 80 years.
Again you just quoted the damn thing. You said it yourself. "The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years."

Bingo. Reducing emissions is not enough. We must actually lower accumulated CO2.

Lowering emissions is part of the strategy to reduce and then reverse AGW, but it requires also increasing the other side of the carbon cycle. Increasing sequestration. This is the only way to reach a net negative emissions rate and lower atmospheric CO2 and reverse AGW..
__________________
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 6th February 2019, 02:10 PM   #22
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Question Give your scientific sources

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough. You literally just contradicted yourself.
A bit of reading incomprehension, Red Baron Farms. Listing the effects of the levels of carbon emissions is science, not a contradiction.
If carbon emissions increase then obviously global warming increases!
If carbon emissions stay the same then global warming increases!
If carbon emissions decrease then global warming deceases!
If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!
It is not just "fossil fuel emissions", I wrote "carbon emissions". The two biggest contributors are cement production and use, and burning fossil fuels.

Same question that you should have asked on reading the article.
Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.

Ask yourself why climate scientists emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
Ask yourself why climate change treaties emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
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 February 2019, 02:17 PM   #23
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Again Reducing emissions is not enough.
Again you are wrong, Red Baron Farms. One more time:
The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.
The scenario is not lowering atmospheric CO2.
The scenario is not climate change migration which is for the next 80 years, not thousands of years.

Reducing emissions is not mentioned.
Carbon sequestration is not mentioned.
Geoengineering is not mentioned.
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 February 2019, 02:20 PM   #24
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A bit of reading incomprehension, Red Baron Farms. Listing the effects of the levels of carbon emissions is science, not a contradiction.
If carbon emissions increase then obviously global warming increases!
If carbon emissions stay the same then global warming increases!
If carbon emissions decrease then global warming deceases!
If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!
It is not just "fossil fuel emissions", I wrote "carbon emissions". The two biggest contributors are cement production and use, and burning fossil fuels.

Same question that you should have asked on reading the article.
Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.

Ask yourself why climate scientists emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
Ask yourself why climate change treaties emphasize lowering carbon emissions.
If carbon emissions increase then obviously global warming increases! yes
If carbon emissions stay the same then global warming increases!yes
If carbon emissions decrease then global warming deceases!no! wrong! still increases for thousands of years!
If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!No wrongStill increases for thousands of years!

It is not just "fossil fuel emissions", I wrote "carbon emissions". The two biggest contributors of fossil carbon are cement production and use, and burning fossil fuels. Cement is part of it but relatively small compared to fossil fuels. Either way, cutting them to zero still results in warming for thousands of years based on CURRENT accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's what the study says. Now if you want to go against what the study says and claim just reducing emissions is enough to actually lower accumulated atmospheric CO2 enough to halt global warming, then you better find a different citation.

I suggest trying a "merchants of doubt" website for denialist junk science like that. It certainly isn't the consensus from any mainstream body of science.

As for why we need to lower emissions, that's trivially easy. Since the goal is a net negative emissions rate, then lowering emissions gets us 1/2 way there. Then we need to increase the sequestration side of the carbon cycle, which can then actually lower atmospheric CO2.


We need to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions
__________________
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; 6th February 2019 at 02:55 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 February 2019, 04:39 PM   #25
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Question Give your scientific sources

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
If carbon emissions decrease a lot (e.g. to zero) then global warming deceases!No wrongStill increases for thousands of years!...
The reference says not lowering atmospheric CO2 will cause temperatures to increase over the next few thousand years.

Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions to zero leaves global warming increasing for thousands of years, Red Baron Farms.

Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
Good first source so now we need a few more.
We need to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions
Quote:
Getting climate change under control is a formidable, multifaceted challenge. Analysis by my colleagues and me suggests that staying within safe warming levels now requires removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The technology to do this is in its infancy and will take years, even decades, to develop, but our analysis suggests that this must be a priority. If pushed, operational large-scale systems should be available by 2050.

We created a simple climate model and looked at the implications of different levels of carbon in the ocean and the atmosphere. This lets us make projections about greenhouse warming, and see what we need to do to limit global warming to within 1.5℃ of pre-industrial temperatures – one of the ambitions of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
This is actually not a paper on mitigating global warming to acceptable levels as in treaties and most papers. "The Paris climate agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and ideally no higher than 1.5℃" and then Rohling selects a 1℃ limit because the same happened in the "Eemian period, 125,000 years ago" with sea levels up to 10 meters higher than present We may have already crossed that threshold. But there has been no modern up to 10 meter rise in sea levels!

Note that Eelco Rohling does not list changes in farming as a way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The underlying paper is Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions by James Hansen et. al. which does have "improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content,".

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th February 2019 at 05:04 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 February 2019, 05:06 PM   #26
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I am done talking to idiots. If you cant do basic carbon cycle pool math...then it is impossible to go forward. There just isn't going to be any scientific paper saying "to lower atmospheric CO2 requires negative emissions." That is like asking for a scientific paper saying 412 ppm CO2 + x = 300 ppm but not understanding x must be a negative 112 ppm CO2.

Scientific papers generally don't need to teach people how to count.



Why you personally are so stuck on this is beyond unreasonable. It is asinine. You are stubbornly acting like an idiot. Presumably on purpose, since I know you are not really an idiot.

However, if you want some sort of ultra basic primer explaining that reducing net emissions to zero is not enough, simply try and read the link I gave you above. #24
__________________
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; 6th February 2019 at 05:11 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 February 2019, 12:24 AM   #27
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,712
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I have no issues against Nuclear where appropriate.

Gotta love when the debunking of the sentence is in the very sentence itself.
__________________
________________________
This is The End 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 February 2019, 06:15 AM   #28
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
Gotta love when the debunking of the sentence is in the very sentence itself.
It's true that I did not define "appropriate". But we can imagine "appropriate" meaning in a stable technically advanced enough nation with land areas not subject to high risk of earthquake and volcanism etc... These are relatively common though, so certainly a majority of the civilized world should be capable of using nuclear energy generated electricity as a significant portion of their grid. Of course where it is the cheapest low carbon alternative. Hydroelectric and wind can often be cheaper. In certain cases even solar 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 7th February 2019, 06:58 AM   #29
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,623
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
"Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change?"

Yes.

"and what is preventing its implementation?"

Ideology on all sides (and that includes the link - pure ideology).

We know how to dramatically reduce emissions because several countries have done it successfully - but none since we started actually "trying" to reduce emissions.

France did it. Ontario did it. South Korea did it - all in the late 70s and 80s. None have come close since because the successful method clashes will the ideology of the greens.
The major problems with Nuclear power are a) it's not economically competitive and b) in it's current state the technology itself is not a technically viable substitute for fossil fuels on a global scale.
__________________
"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 7th February 2019, 01:24 PM   #30
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I am done talking to idiots....
Insults are not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.
Demanding that I do "basic carbon cycle pool math" that you have not done in this thread is not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.

Nor is misrepresenting my question: Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
There are no negative emissions in that question!

Nor is a display of inability to understand a post when I wrote about the link you gave in post #24 and even gave you the paper that article is based on.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We need to get rid of carbon in the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions

This is actually not a paper on mitigating global warming to acceptable levels as in treaties and most papers. "The Paris climate agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and ideally no higher than 1.5℃" and then Rohling selects a 1℃ limit because the same happened in the "Eemian period, 125,000 years ago" with sea levels up to 10 meters higher than present We may have already crossed that threshold. But there has been no modern up to 10 meter rise in sea levels!

Note that Eelco Rohling does not list changes in farming as a way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The underlying paper is Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions by James Hansen et. al. which does have "improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content,".
My doubts about the article and paper is the choice of 1 ℃ when the accord limits are below 2 ℃ or ideally below 1.5 ℃. The Eemian period had "Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today" and global temperatures "around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene". We have just probably passed the [Eemian temperatures. But we have not had a sea level rise of over 6 meters (yet)! That suggests that modern conditions are different and the comparison is incorrect. Sea level rises - Projections for the 21st century up to 2100 range from about 1 meter (IPCC 2013) to "several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years" (Jim Hansen, the lead author of the above paper).

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th February 2019 at 01:41 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 7th February 2019, 04:05 PM   #31
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Insults are not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.
Demanding that I do "basic carbon cycle pool math" that you have not done in this thread is not a good debate tactic, Red Baron Farms.

Nor is misrepresenting my question: Give your scientific sources that state that lowering fossil fuel emissions is not enough to mitigate global warming, Red Baron Farms.
There are no negative emissions in that question!

Nor is a display of inability to understand a post when I wrote about the link you gave in post #24 and even gave you the paper that article is based on.

My doubts about the article and paper is the choice of 1 ℃ when the accord limits are below 2 ℃ or ideally below 1.5 ℃. The Eemian period had "Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today" and global temperatures "around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene". We have just probably passed the [Eemian temperatures. But we have not had a sea level rise of over 6 meters (yet)! That suggests that modern conditions are different and the comparison is incorrect. Sea level rises - Projections for the 21st century up to 2100 range from about 1 meter (IPCC 2013) to "several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years" (Jim Hansen, the lead author of the above paper).
No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet. (radiative balance) Much less the addition point based on future emissions. If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2. Until one day far in the future we finally reach radiative balance again. This paper projects thousands of years rather than hundreds to achieve radiative balance. I have seen other papers claiming far less. But all pretty much agree that we are far from that point now and it takes significant time for temps to catch up because we raised CO2 so quickly.

In order to prevent that we must LOWER CO2 in the atmosphere. No amount of word salad will change this. If you wish to dispute the paper, at least first understand what it means.
__________________
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; 7th February 2019 at 04:07 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 February 2019, 05:43 PM   #32
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Thumbs down There is no zero carbon emission scenario in the article or paper

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet.
Wrong. What the article and paper state is that under 2 scenarios of future CO2 emissions plugged into their climate model, we can pass their limit of 1 ℃ by 2100 and thus negative emissions are needed.
There is no zero carbon emission scenario in the article or paper or anything you have cited.

An unsupported "keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2" assertion.
Give your scientific sources, Red Baron Farms.
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 7th February 2019, 06:32 PM   #33
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong. What the article and paper state is that under 2 scenarios of future CO2 emissions plugged into their climate model, we can pass their limit of 1 ℃ by 2100 and thus negative emissions are needed.
There is no zero carbon emission scenario in the article or paper or anything you have cited.

An unsupported "keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2" assertion.
Give your scientific sources, Red Baron Farms.
You made the assertion.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C.
Then you contradicted yourself and claimed you didn't say that.
Then you claimed that saying that meant something else.
Now you are claiming what you said and I agreed is both wrong.

It is totally asinine Bull manure. Stop embarrassing yourself.

As I said, until you even understand what you are talking about, there is no need even discuss this. You are outside your field of understanding and arguing no differently than Markie was in the BLP thread, from ignorance and a bit of google/wiki knowledge.

Either that or you are being bullheaded on purpose just to stir up the waters ... even worse.

Either way doesn't matter, it is not worthy of anything but scorn and ridicule.
__________________
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 7th February 2019, 07:02 PM   #34
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You made the assertion. ...insults snipped...
No. I wrote The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
But you wrote "If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2." That is a prediction about effects of reducing CO2 emissions.

This is not "if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels". You have skipped a step. You have to cite the scientific literature that states:
If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement (your condition)
Then CO2 levels will stabilize at current levels (the paper's condition).
Thus over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C.

P.S. I think that you are right. But then you keep writing that I am ignorant so my agreement is moot.

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th February 2019 at 07:35 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 7th February 2019, 09:58 PM   #35
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,623
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
No That is not what it suggests. It simply means we have not reached stability at CURRENT levels of CO2 yet. (radiative balance) Much less the addition point based on future emissions. If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2.
This simply isn't true. Temperatures lag radiate balance by 1-3 decades, however if we completely stopped emitting CO2 atmospheric CO2 would begin dropping immediately which would mostly offset the radiative imbalance so temperatures would stop going up fairly quickly and then start to drop after a decade or so.

The fly in the ointment is that if we stopped emitting CO2 we would also stop emitting aerosols that have a strong cooling effect, and these would leave the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2 so we'd actually get a very rapid spike in temperatures followed by a gradual decline. If this spike pushed us past a tipping point all bets are off.

Over the very long term CO2 levels would remain somewhat elevated for over 100K years so from a human perspective temperatures would never drop back to "normal".
__________________
"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 8th February 2019, 04:14 AM   #36
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,043
I think we kinda knew a way to store carbon ever since we figured out the Carboniferous, innit? There's a clue in the name right there.

I'd figure, just plant some vast areas with beans for a few years to fix the nitrogen in the soil without spending more carbon to make fertilizers, plant it with fast growing evergreens, cut them down, store the wood somewhere, repeat. And hey, you can eat the beans too.

For some reason though it's not as popular as some spectacularly idiotic plans, like, say, somehow industrially separating the carbon dioxide and pumping it under immense pressure into some cans underground. I guess you don't make political headlines by just proposing to plant some trees. Nor appeal to the kind of demographic for whom "green" is just an excuse for "well, that's too complicated, let's just kill off humans instead" fantasies.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th February 2019 at 04:18 AM.
HansMustermann 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 February 2019, 06:46 AM   #37
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No. I wrote The paper and her quote in the article is that if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels then over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C. This is not a prediction about the effects of reducing CO2 emissions.
But you wrote "If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement, then we still keep warming for hundreds or thousands of years based on CURRENT levels of CO2." That is a prediction about effects of reducing CO2 emissions.

This is not "if CO2 levels stabilize at current levels". You have skipped a step. You have to cite the scientific literature that states:
If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow, both fossil fuel and cement (your condition)
Then CO2 levels will stabilize at current levels (the paper's condition).
Thus over the next few millennia temperature will rise by roughly 5 degrees C.

P.S. I think that you are right. But then you keep writing that I am ignorant so my agreement is moot.
That's simply because you are refusing to accept that there are more ways to stabilize atmospheric levels at roughly current levels.

We could reduce emissions 100%. And all else equal it would stabilize and the papers projection has some evidence to support it. So it is a likely outcome.

Or we could reduce emissions 50% and increase the sequestration rate enough to compensate for the other 50%. That too would stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels, and again the paper shows the likely result. (or any other combination equaling 100%)

But as the paper shows, this really isn't that beneficial. We still have that global warming for a very long time. Thus we need to decrease emissions and increase sequestration so that the two combined exceed 100%.

And now we came full circle back to my original claims. see #10 :P
__________________
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 February 2019 at 07:53 AM.
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 February 2019, 07:05 AM   #38
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,587
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I think we kinda knew a way to store carbon ever since we figured out the Carboniferous, innit? There's a clue in the name right there.

I'd figure, just plant some vast areas with beans for a few years to fix the nitrogen in the soil without spending more carbon to make fertilizers, plant it with fast growing evergreens, cut them down, store the wood somewhere, repeat. And hey, you can eat the beans too.

For some reason though it's not as popular as some spectacularly idiotic plans, like, say, somehow industrially separating the carbon dioxide and pumping it under immense pressure into some cans underground. I guess you don't make political headlines by just proposing to plant some trees. Nor appeal to the kind of demographic for whom "green" is just an excuse for "well, that's too complicated, let's just kill off humans instead" fantasies.
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough. The Grassland biome is far better at that and explains why the vast prairies of the world had produced the deepest blackest rich high carbon soils. Much more than forest soils.

Quote:
the relation between Mollisols and grassland or steppe has been recognized for more than a century (Shantz 1923). Soils containing a mollic epipedon are among the world’s most productive soils (Liu et al. 2012). The thickness and high soil organic carbon (SOC) contents of the mollic epipedon mean that these soils have sequestered large amounts of C over long periods of time.[1]
This is a major component contributing to our current climates in the first place. At least the carbon component
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

The big advantage being we can restore the grasslands currently being used to raise corn to feed animals and make ethanol additive for gasoline, and actually improve food yields, improve ethanol efficiency, and restore the ecosystem function of soil sequestration of carbon all simultaneously.[2][3][4]

There is actually a tree option that works called silvopasture. This is a combination of trees and pasture mimicking the savanna biomes. The end goal is to have both working together to provide food and shelter for livestock, with additional food and lumber yields from the trees.

However, the primary carbon sequestration in the soil comes from the grasses, especially the C4 grasses.[5][6]
__________________
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 February 2019 at 07:11 AM.
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 February 2019, 11:24 AM   #39
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,623
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough.
Turning forests into grasslands releases large amounts of sequestered CO2. It's caused the release of up to 270Gt of Carbon over the last few thousand years. By comparison ALL current forests, grasslands, croplands, etc combined only contain ~450Gt Carbon.


Erb et al. (2017)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25138


Quote:
Here we show, using state-of-the-art datasets, that vegetation currently stores around 450 petagrams of carbon. In the hypothetical absence of land use, potential vegetation would store around 916 petagrams of carbon, under current climate conditions. This difference highlights the massive effect of land use on biomass stocks. Deforestation and other land-cover changes are responsible for 53–58% of the difference between current and potential biomass stocks. Land management effects (the biomass stock changes induced by land use within the same land cover) contribute 42–47%,
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Last edited by lomiller; 8th February 2019 at 11:45 AM.
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 8th February 2019, 11:44 AM   #40
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,043
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The problem with the trees is that they don't sequester carbon efficiently enough. The Grassland biome is far better at that and explains why the vast prairies of the world had produced the deepest blackest rich high carbon soils. Much more than forest soils.
The idea isn't just how much the forest stores. The idea is that you then cut down the forest, store the wood away, and plant the forest again. So more and more carbon is in a giant pile of dead wood.

You know, same as happened in the carboniferous.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 11:42 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.