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 8th February 2019, 11:52 AM   #41
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
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.
Why waste resources cutting it down and hauling it away. Just let the tree die naturally lay where it falls. This makes for a more diverse resilient natural ecosystem in addition to sequestering CO2.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 8th February 2019, 01:23 PM   #42
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
BioChar is also a strong contender both for sequestering and soil enhancement

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-feds-s...potential.html

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-biocha...-benefits.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969718328997

and real world

Quote:
A large-scale scientific test involving a material called biochar is being conducted on forestry land in hills above Loch Ness.
Biochar is a charcoal-like by-product of the wood processing industry.
Millions of tonnes are generated every year and it is mainly sold as a mulch for horticulture.
In the test, trees have been planted at Trinloist, near Foyers, to investigate how biochar performs as a fertiliser and a "nutrient sponge".
The four-year study is being done by Natural Environment Research Council-funded scientists from the University of Edinburgh in collaboration with Forest Research.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...lands-46890792
macdoc 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, 04:20 PM   #43
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
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
Turning forests into grasslands temporarily releases carbon due to the smaller biomass pool. Absolutely correct. This is why we do NOT recommend cutting forests to make grasslands. Instead we need to turn cornfields and degraded land into grasslands. That way we don't go two steps backwards to move three steps forward.
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Why waste resources cutting it down and hauling it away. Just let the tree die naturally lay where it falls. This makes for a more diverse resilient natural ecosystem in addition to sequestering CO2.
All that carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2 and CH4.
__________________
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 04:39 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 8th February 2019, 04:27 PM   #44
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
Absolutely correct. Biochar is a good significant help, and if combined with methods used to enhance the LCP, even sequesters more than both alone. This because biochar actually creates habitat beneficial to mycorrhizal fungi. So it is carbon itself, and then it helps AMF increase the LCP, and then finally the glomalin produced acts like a soil glue locking the biochar in place well into deep geological time if left undisturbed.
Glomalin Is Key To Locking Up Soil 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; 8th February 2019 at 04:41 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 February 2019, 11:36 AM   #45
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,390
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Why waste resources cutting it down and hauling it away. Just let the tree die naturally lay where it falls. This makes for a more diverse resilient natural ecosystem in addition to sequestering CO2.
OK, I'll be the straight man and assume you're not trolling.

Because wood which falls naturally will, in most cases rot. It will eventually be converted entirely to CO2. And part of the transition process will be via methane, which is (as I'm sure you know) a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but which has the saving grace of oxidizing to CO2 in 7 years or so.

Naturally falling wood will only sequester carbon if it occurs in wet environments where it is protected from the air. Or, of course, extremely dry environments - but these don't produce much wood, for obvious reasons.
WhatRoughBeast 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 February 2019, 01:47 PM   #46
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
OK, I'll be the straight man and assume you're not trolling.

Because wood which falls naturally will, in most cases rot. It will eventually be converted entirely to CO2. And part of the transition process will be via methane, which is (as I'm sure you know) a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but which has the saving grace of oxidizing to CO2 in 7 years or so.

Naturally falling wood will only sequester carbon if it occurs in wet environments where it is protected from the air. Or, of course, extremely dry environments - but these don't produce much wood, for obvious reasons.
Not to mention wood is a resource itself. Therefore cutting and hauling away wood is not wasting a resource, it is using a renewable resource. Just so long as you don't take too much and always replant, this model might not be a solution to AGW but it doesn't cause AGW either.

It's only when these renewable resources are improperly managed that they become a cause of AGW. And be sure that plowing them up and spraying them with herbicides every year to grow more corn and soy than every human being on the planet could possibly ever eat certainly is no way to manage a grassland or forest.
__________________
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 9th February 2019, 09:05 PM   #47
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Because wood which falls naturally will, in most cases rot.
It will do that anyway.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 9th February 2019, 09:11 PM   #48
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Turning forests into grasslands temporarily releases carbon due to the smaller biomass pool. .
If it were only temporary the deforestation over the last 5000 years or so would have increased the amount of grassland and increased the amount of sequestered CO2. The exact opposite has happened, changing forests to grasslands and resulted in a massive reduction in sequestered CO2 over 1000+ year time scales. Conversely periods of reforestation have sequestered CO2.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 10th February 2019, 01:56 AM   #49
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If it were only temporary the deforestation over the last 5000 years or so would have increased the amount of grassland and increased the amount of sequestered CO2. The exact opposite has happened, changing forests to grasslands and resulted in a massive reduction in sequestered CO2 over 1000+ year time scales. Conversely periods of reforestation have sequestered CO2.
Not true at all. The soil carbon pool is much larger than all the atmospheric and biomass carbon combined. Even in their highly degraded states due to poor agricultural practices, soils still contain much more carbon. If you study the soils, you find that the soil carbon is concentrated under what was historically grasslands and/or savanna/open woodland. This has been well established by soil scientists for over 100 years. Mollic epipedon What they didn't know was causation to explain the correlation. It was a mystery because it is very counter-intuitive how a smaller decomposing biomass could account for vastly more soil carbon.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

So what changed this time?
Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show
New maps show food production now takes up 40 percent of the Earth's land surface, revealing the extent to which farming has changed the face of the planet, scientists say.


It is agriculture that has changed this dynamic. Now when a forest gets removed, it often is prevented from regrowing by the plow and/or herbicides. Furthermore, vast areas of grasslands are also plowed and/or sprayed with herbicide.

The natural succession along with the ecosystem function of soil creation and carbon sequestration has been destroyed by these practices. So you lose both biomass and soil carbon and the ill effects of this are far more permanent.

And the big breakthrough in 1995 was that we finally have discovered the causation that explains the 100 year old mystery of why grasslands' soils contain vastly more sequestered soil carbon than forests' soils. More than all the biomass on the planet and atmospheric carbon combined! And that new discovery was Dr Sarah Wright's discovery of Glomalin, (Little Known Glomalin, a Key Protein in Soils) and several other scientists including Dr Christine Jones and Dr Kristine A. Nichols in the field discovery of what has been termed the liquid carbon biochemical pathway for carbon in the soil of which glomalin is only one link of a long chain.

Glomalin, the Unsung Hero of Carbon Storage

Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised


Keep in mind those last two have done field trials that are now being used by early adapters in agriculture already! That information is now decades old, meaning there are ordinary farmers that have successfully used this science to improve their land management for decades already. So it is not only repeatable by soil scientists, it is repeatable by laymen in the field without scientific training.

This is not some mythical hocus pocus, and it is time the rest of the AGW climate scientists peered beyond their closed silos and saw what's out there and currently available to help reverse AGW.

Some have. But this biggest problem is the same merchants of doubt campaign that obfuscates the science of climate change and fuels denialism is also at work vigorously obfuscating the soils science for agricultural change as a mitigation strategy.

Too often I see very obvious flaws in studies designed to minimize the perceived potential of this new paradigm. But that might be obvious to me because it is well within my silo, but it often is not nearly so obvious to a climate scientist whose silo is physics.

For example. You look at a study and find that NPK fertilizers or biocides are used, then you know they haven't studied this new paradigm at all, but rather are studying the carbon sequestration potential of the old paradigm. That's well known, modeled by the Roth C model for climate scientists, and at least 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the liquid carbon pathway. Usually even a net loss! But with certain improvements can be a fairly tiny net gain. Still, no improvement can compare it to the LCP.

You would be well in your rights to ask why this is so obvious to me. That's because of the research done on the glomalin producing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and inorganic chemical fertilizers.
Role of Mycorrhizal Symbioses in Phosphorus Cycling

You can see the plant AMF symbiosis trades carbon for phosphorus (and other nutrients too). This is what drives the LCP pumping vast quantities of carbon deep in the A and B horizons of the soil profile, rather that the Roth C which models the decay of biomass at the surface O horizon in the soil profile.

But there is more to it. Because once you add NPK fertilizers to the soil, this symbiosis becomes superfluous, and instead parasitic. Its a feedback mechanism.

Phosphorus and Nitrogen Regulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Petunia hybrida

But we can turn it back on again too!

The Use of Mycorrhizae to Enhance Phosphorus Uptake: A Way Out the Phosphorus Crisis

As long as we use NPK fertilizers to supply plant nutrition, then we have shut down the LCP and instead sequester carbon 2 orders of magnitude slower! But if we instead use this new paradigm to supply plant nutrition, we activate the LCP and soil carbon rises on average rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr!
__________________
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; 10th February 2019 at 02:56 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 10th February 2019, 07:40 AM   #50
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,485
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I wish I had time to really understand the information in the links you have posted, but I truly appreciate you posting it. It's fascinating stuff, and it gives me hope that scientists are working on real solutions.

The question is whether our political processes will be able to take in the scientific information, and turn that into large scale action on the level that it needs to be effective.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 08:08 AM   #51
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I wish I had time to really understand the information in the links you have posted, but I truly appreciate you posting it. It's fascinating stuff, and it gives me hope that scientists are working on real solutions.

The question is whether our political processes will be able to take in the scientific information, and turn that into large scale action on the level that it needs to be effective.
I believe we can yes. Although that discussion is for the politics forum. And thanks for the kind words.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 05:14 PM   #52
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
[quote=Red Baron Farms;12595512]Not true at all. /QUOTE]

Yes it is true and I've already shown it to be true. Your entire premise is wrong.

Forests sequester more carbon than grasslands when they change to grasslands it warms the climate as has happened over the last century, when forests re-grow it cools the planet as happened during the "Little Ice Age".
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 10th February 2019, 06:04 PM   #53
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Not true at all.
Yes it is true and I've already shown it to be true. Your entire premise is wrong.

Forests sequester more carbon than grasslands when they change to grasslands it warms the climate as has happened over the last century, when forests re-grow it cools the planet as happened during the "Little Ice Age".
Actually you haven't shown anything but that the biomass pool has dropped roughly 1/2. 466 petagrams of carbon +/-... assuming maximum vegetative potential which BTW is never seen due to natural disturbances like forest fires and floods etc....

You did not even try to compare that to lost soil carbon. Even in its currently highly degraded state the soil carbon pool at 3 meters is between 1500 Pg C and 2300 Pg C depending on the researchers estimates. Of the 52 million square kilometers of dry grassland soils worldwide, 35 million square kilometers are degraded by 70% or more due to poor agricultural practices! That soil carbon pool used to be so very much larger by far. It is even worse for the more wet tallgrass biomes which are basically completely gone and their soils rapidly degrading and 30 and 50 % of the previous soil carbon is lost.

But that's not the whole story because the depth of soil carbon is shallowest in forests. This means that a much higher % of carbon stored there will recycle to the atmosphere as it decays. It is stored, not sequestered into the long carbon cycle. Thus it is a temporary fix that helps, but it is not a solution. It essentially saturates far too quickly to be a solution.

Meanwhile grassland and savanna soils (and shrublands with grass understories) sequester their carbon much deeper in the soil profile and over geological time frames. It truly is sequestered into the long carbon cycle. Over geological time frames a high % of this carbon becomes mineral carbon in the soil rather than returning as CO2 in the atmosphere.

Biomass and soil carbon are apples and oranges.
__________________
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; 10th February 2019 at 06:06 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 10th February 2019, 06:38 PM   #54
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
That's simply because you are refusing to accept that there are more ways to stabilize atmospheric levels at roughly current levels. ...
Wrong, Red Baron Farms. I am refusing to accept your unsupported assertion "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).".

The reason is the same that I do not accept my own guess that this is correct. You do not supply any scientific sources. I do not know of any scientific sources.

I have stated a couple times that there are many ways to stabilize atmospheric levels at roughly current levels. Lowering emissions is just a reliable way to do that.
That leaves us with all climate change mitigation strategies.
Lowering carbon emissions is a key element of climate change mitigation
Then I went on to climate change mitigation strategies which are ways expected to reduce global warming to acceptable levels by 2100.

The paper does not have the scenario of cutting all emissions 100% tomorrow. The article is Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (2016)

The paper is Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years by Carolyn W. Snyder (Nature 13 October 2016). What Snyder says is that the past Earth system sensitivity of 9 degrees Celsius over millennium timescales suggests the current greenhouse gas levels may cause a total of 5 degrees Celsius over the next few millennia.

Snyder emphasized that this is not a exact prediction or a forecast in the article.
Quote:
"This is not an exact prediction or a forecast," Snyder told Nature, advising caution regarding her study's temperature predictions. "The experiment we as humans are doing is very different than what we saw in the past."
She and other climate scientists think this is an interesting starting point for future work.
Quote:
Michael Mann, an influential climate researcher at Penn State University who was not involved in Snyder's research, told Mashable that "I regard the study as provocative and interesting, but the quantitative findings must be viewed rather skeptically until the analysis has been thoroughly vetted by the scientific community."

Other scientists said they were intrigued by Snyder's findings and hope her study leads to additional research. Jeremy Shakun, a climate researcher at Boston College, told AP that "Snyder's work is a great contribution and future work should build on it."

"It's a useful starting place," Snyder said to Nature about her research. "People can take this and improve upon it as more records become available in the future."

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th February 2019 at 06:46 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 11th February 2019, 09:01 PM   #55
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wrong, Red Baron Farms. I am refusing to accept your unsupported assertion "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).".

The reason is the same that I do not accept my own guess that this is correct. You do not supply any scientific sources. I do not know of any scientific sources.
The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm (300 ppm might actually be better) if humans could cut all emissions 100% immediately. If the current net flux to sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. That's just simple back of the envelope math. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease.

In fact the carbon cycle is a self adjusting complex system. The only reason the cycle has such a high rate dissolving in the oceans and what little of the terrestrial biosphere still functioning as a sink, has everything to do with the high rate of emissions. As soon as that flux ceases, the rate on the other side of the carbon cycle will begin to reduce and ultimately stabilize, all else equal.

Now some papers like the one cited make claims warming will continue for thousands of years. I have also seen estimates somewhat but not much smaller.

So we can approach this problem in a number of different ways. We can use models of carbon sink behavior based on the best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere so called CO2 fertilization effect. We can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out. Like she did actually.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50% of the net AGW CO2 pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70% in the first 100 years +/-. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 % +/- or so being removed after 300 years +/- and the remaining 20% lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed. That means ultimately the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time

Here is the twofold problem though. Assuming the 50% CO2 pulse did get absorbed and put us at 335 ppm CO2, it is still high enough to continue warming. That warming is going to release vast amounts of methane and CO2 from the permafrost melting and many other ecosystems losing carbon too. Not to mention the continuing albedo changes. These are called reinforcing feedbacks. So although the Anthropogenic Fossil Fuel flux gradually gets reabsorbed over tens of thousands of years, the actual atmospheric CO2 levels are not likely to fall nearly so fast. The actual warming certainly not. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 300 to 500 years is entirely conservative and reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10) and the claim made in the source I provided well within the realm of possible if not likely.

UNLESS we work hard at restoring the ecosystem function of carbon sequestration over vast areas of the planet with agriculture and better land management! Then we have a chance to actually solve an otherwise intransigent problem. Only this last part is my claim. All the rest I was taught and is well known standard core curriculum basic climate science 101.

I have no problem with skeptical criticism of my claim. But I have a big problem with a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding what is already accepted and well founded knowledge about AGW to begin with. That's why the ridicule, scorn and insults from me.

I do occasionally make exceptional claims, and it is fair to ask for exceptional evidence regarding those claims. But I do not have time to teach you basic climate science 101. Go take the damn courses yourself. Learn what the models really say yourself. Then we can intelligently discuss my own claims that need an educated skeptical eye to cut down to size!

PS BTW I also had a problem understanding all this above myself! My initial attempts at developing a AGW reversal strategy were completely flawed because I originally assumed the above 4 gigatons sink would indeed continue as roughly constant and all I had to do was offset the net rather than the gross emissions INCLUDING feedbacks!

I took the climate science courses though and found I was way off and it is much harder a problem to solve. Which is why these last two years I have been hard at work refining the mitigation strategy. None of my links work anymore because the IPCC has reorganized their web-pages without redirecting links! Very annoying. But since you requested scientific back-up and don't know where to find it, try looking here: reports IPCC
__________________
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; 11th February 2019 at 10:41 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 12th February 2019, 08:18 PM   #56
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50% of the net AGW CO2 pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70% in the first 100 years +/-. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 % +/- or so being removed after 300 years +/- and the remaining 20% lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed. That means ultimately the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time
This 2005 paper states that the level of CO2 will decrease naturally without the need of carbon sequestration. The decrease will be slow.

In the "If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow" scenario we discussed these authors say that about 50% of the net AGW CO2 pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years. That is the level of CO2 decreasing in this unlikely scenery making the Snyder paper suggestion about current greenhouse gas levels moot.

Another unsourced speculation: What does the literature say about the amount of warming with a 335 ppm CO2 level, Red Baron Farms?

Your climate courses should have told you that it is increasing CO2 that increases global temperatures. If CO2 stops increasing then there still some warming as the atmosphere comes to equilibrium. You and I already know that. The question is how long does this take?

More "ridicule, scorn and insults" from an assumption that you are the only person in this thread who has learned about climate science. FYI, I have a post graduate degree in physics and have learned about climate science. I do not claim to be an climate expert since the degree was many years ago and in solid state physics.
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 12th February 2019, 08:54 PM   #57
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This 2005 paper states that the level of CO2 will decrease naturally without the need of carbon sequestration. The decrease will be slow.

In the "If we cut all emissions 100% tomorrow" scenario we discussed these authors say that about 50% of the net AGW CO2 pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years. That is the level of CO2 decreasing in this unlikely scenery making the Snyder paper suggestion about current greenhouse gas levels moot.

Another unsourced speculation: What does the literature say about the amount of warming with a 335 ppm CO2 level, Red Baron Farms?

Your climate courses should have told you that it is increasing CO2 that increases global temperatures. If CO2 stops increasing then there still some warming as the atmosphere comes to equilibrium. You and I already know that. The question is how long does this take?
Models are not exactly speculation RC. They may not be the same as evidence, but they are skillful.

However the exact level of radiative imbalance at 335 ppm is dependent on the sensitivity. That number we keep getting closer to, but it is still not completely known due to the other feedbacks.

One thing we do know though, even if the CO2 dropped to 335 rapidly due to zero emissions, it is still higher than historical highs going back a very long time.

Atmospheric CO2 and glacial cycles

As you can see by the graph, even the peak CO2 levels from the warmer periods are almost always under 300 ppm.

So 335 ppm is likely going to still have us melting even more Glaciers and polar ice for a while. How much is open for some debate though.
__________________
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 14th February 2019, 06:36 PM   #58
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,908
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
It will do that anyway.
Not at the same rate.

If the rate at which stored wood rots is lower than the rate at which new trees grow, then you will continuously sequester more carbon.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 14th February 2019, 06:44 PM   #59
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,045
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Not at the same rate.

If the rate at which stored wood rots is lower than the rate at which new trees grow, then you will continuously sequester more carbon.
The amount decay is proportional to how much you store. Store twice as much and you get twice as much decay.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 18th February 2019, 07:15 PM   #60
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Models are not exactly speculation RC. ...
I wrote that you stated an unsourced speculation and obviously you are not a climate model !

Another unsourced speculation: What does the literature say about the amount of warming with a 335 ppm CO2 level, Red Baron Farms?.

That 2005 paper that you cited does have a model of a CO2 pulse that shows that the level of CO2 will decrease naturally without the need of carbon sequestration. The decrease will be slow. The paper does suggest that a constant CO2 level scenario is not realistic because as you wrote 50% of the net AGW CO2 pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years.

We have been modeling climate for some decades now using emission scenarios that are more practical than going to zero emissions tomorrow. The current IPCC scenarios are the Representative Concentration Pathways. The pathways are emissions rising up to various dates and then declining.
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 18th February 2019, 10:04 PM   #61
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We have been modeling climate for some decades now using emission scenarios that are more practical than going to zero emissions tomorrow. The current IPCC scenarios are the Representative Concentration Pathways. The pathways are emissions rising up to various dates and then declining.
Did you even read your source? Do you know what it means? The only model shown there with a reduction in greenhouse gasses at all is RCP 2.5, and to get that minimal reduction after reaching 450 ppm requires an unspecified future technology like CCS to reach net negative emissions. Meanwhile all attempts so far at showing this possible have failed.

That's the primary reason for articles claiming we are "locked in" to the highest temps in millions of years. Even the best scenario models using not yet developed future tech still isn't enough.

But I have proposed a fundamental change in the way we do agriculture that is based on technologies already developed and having undergone case studies of real farmers in the field. Case studies that show we are not really locked in anyway and the RCP2.5 really isn't the best case scenario after all.
__________________
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; 18th February 2019 at 10:05 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 19th February 2019, 02:02 AM   #62
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,164
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
France did it.
Ah yes, the French. They did it alright...

Moruroa
Quote:
the first nuclear test was conducted on July 2, 1966, code named Aldebaran, when a plutonium fission bomb was exploded in the lagoon... the explosion sucked all the water from the lagoon, "raining dead fish and mollusks down on the atoll", and that it spread contamination across the Pacific as far as Peru and New Zealand.... Smaller blasts were detonated on the northern end of the atoll, designated as Denise. Three nuclear devices were detonated on barges, three were air dropped from bombers, and the rest were suspended from helium filled balloons. A total of 41 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted at Mururoa between 1966 and 1974.
Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior
Quote:
..was a bombing operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE), carried out on 10 July 1985. During the operation, two operatives sank the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior, at the Port of Auckland in New Zealand...

France initially denied responsibility, but two French agents were captured by New Zealand Police and charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As the truth came out, the scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu.

The two agents pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years in prison. They spent just over two years confined to the French island of Hao before being freed by the French government.[2]

Several political figures, including then New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, have referred to the bombing as an act of terrorism[3] or state-sponsored terrorism.

Nuclear power in France
Quote:
Following the 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the head of France's nuclear safety agency has said that France needs to upgrade the protection of vital functions in all its nuclear reactors to avoid a disaster in the event of a natural calamity... Opinion polls show support for atomic energy has dropped since Fukushima. Forty percent of the French "are 'hesitant' about nuclear energy while a third are in favor and 17 percent are against

In 2016, following a discovery at Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant, about 400 large steel forgings manufactured by Le Creusot Forge since 1965 have been found to have carbon-content irregularities that weakened the steel... In December 2016 the Wall Street Journal characterised the problem as a "decades long coverup of manufacturing problems", with Areva executives acknowledging that Le Creusot had been falsifying documents.[33]

France's nuclear reactors comprise 90 per cent of EDFs capacity and so they are used in load-following mode and some reactors close at weekends because there is no market for the electricity.[4][8] This means that the capacity factor is low by world standards, usually in the high seventies as a percentage, which is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear plants... During periods of high demand EDF has been routinely "forced into the relatively expensive spot and short-term power markets because it lacks adequate peak load generating capacity"
And the punchline...

Quote:
In 2008, nuclear power accounted for 16% of final energy consumption in France. As is common in all industrialized nations, fossil fuels still dominate energy consumption, particularly in the transportation and heating sectors.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 19th February 2019 at 02:04 AM.
Roger Ramjets 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 February 2019, 02:09 AM   #63
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,791
A big step would be to stop incentivising harmful or wasteful behavior.

for starters, let's stop paying people to build in places that will sink into the sea in a decade or two.
The Great Zaganza 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 February 2019, 06:52 PM   #64
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Did you even read your source?....Yet more unsourced speculations...
You are quoting the section in my post about emissions, not CO2 levels. Representative Concentration Pathways.
Quote:
The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic (i.e., human) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and aim to represent their atmospheric concentrations.[4] RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO2-equivalents) peak between 2010–2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter.[5] Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline.[5] In RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline.[5] In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century.[5]
My post is slightly wrong - 3 of the 4 pathways are emissions rising up to various dates and then declining.

You are correct. RCP 2.5 has the level of CO2 reducing before 2100. RCP 4.5 has the level of CO2 flat before 2100. The other two have the level of CO2 rising before 2100.

There is no "requires an unspecified future technology like CCS" in RCP.
IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways
Quote:
Each RCP could result from different combinations of economic, technological, demographic, policy, and institutional futures. For example, the second-to-lowest RCP could be considered as a moderate mitigation scenario. However, it is also consistent with a baseline scenario that assumes a global development that focuses on technological improvements and a shift to service industries but does not aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a goal in itself (similar to the B1 scenario of the SRES scenarios).
What does the literature say about the amount of warming with a 335 ppm CO2 level, 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 19th February 2019, 07:10 PM   #65
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
But I have proposed a fundamental change in the way we do agriculture that is based on technologies already developed and having undergone case studies of real farmers in the field.
You have not proposed anything in this thread or provided evidence of those technologies, Red Baron Farms. You have speculated that somehow farming practices can be changed to give physically significant carbon sequestration. You have not cited any literature on changes in farming practices. In other thread(s), you have promoted a debated farming methodology for grazing grass land so that may be where "case studies" comes from. They basically come to the amazing conclusion that ranchers who work harder at monitoring their ranches, improve their ranches!

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th February 2019 at 07:13 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 19th February 2019, 07:51 PM   #66
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

There is no "requires an unspecified future technology like CCS" in RCP.
IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways
You just don't know what you are talking about RC because you are trying to google warrior it. I wish you had taken my advice and actually taken a climate course on all this. With your physics and math background it would have made your discussion so much more interesting.

Here is a different explanation. It's in pretty simple form. Have a look.

What on earth is an RCP?

Go look at the best case scenario.

"Oil use declines but use of other fossil fuel increases and is offset by capture and storage of carbon dioxide. Biofuel use is high. Renewable energy (eg solar & wind) increases but remains low."

That is corn ethanol as biofuel being burned to produce energy in CCS (carbon dioxide capture and storage) with the idea that if biofuels is carbon neutral then CCS will make it carbon negative. Exactly what I described to you.

1) I should not need to be arguing over bull manure with you. This is common knowledge to anyone who understands the models. They were standardized precisely for this reason! You are better than this.
2) all this does is distract and obfuscate from what is the important discussion, can the LCP sequester carbon more efficiently than the biofuel / CCS model in RCP 2.6?

well... if you actually are interested in the real debate rather than obfuscation whether unintentional or not, here is another good article:

Biofuels turn out to be a climate mistake – here’s why

and

It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System
__________________
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 February 2019 at 07:56 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 17th March 2019, 07:04 PM   #67
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You just don't know what you are talking about RC because you are trying to google warrior it....
More insults when I have cited the literature, i.e. IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways

What on earth is an RCP? is a guide to the IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways "based on an excellent guide by Graham Wayne at skepticalscience.com". RCP 2.6 has an assumption of "use of other fossil fuel increases and is offset by capture and storage of carbon dioxide". This is "industrial" CCS as in Carbon capture and storage
Quote:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) (or carbon capture and sequestration or carbon control and sequestration[1]) is the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources, such as biomass or fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally an underground geological formation.

Increasing the carbon content of soil, etc. comes under the wider context of carbon sequestration: "Modification of agricultural practices is a recognized method of carbon sequestration as soil can act as an effective carbon sink offsetting as much as 20% of 2010 carbon dioxide emissions annually".
Wait .... This is your disliked "google warrior" so has to be wrong !

But not to reverse climate change with increased productivity as claimed by some: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
Quote:
Quite simply, it is not possible to increase productivity, increase numbers of cattle and store carbon using any grazing strategy, never-mind Holistic Management. There are several factors which are important in controlling the ability of soils to store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A list of these factors, and their importance and relevance to Holistic Management, is listed here: ...

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th 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 18th March 2019, 01:26 AM   #68
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
More insults when I have cited the literature, i.e. IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways

What on earth is an RCP? is a guide to the IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways "based on an excellent guide by Graham Wayne at skepticalscience.com". RCP 2.6 has an assumption of "use of other fossil fuel increases and is offset by capture and storage of carbon dioxide". This is "industrial" CCS as in Carbon capture and storage
It is also exactly what I said, unproven technology. There are no biomass fueled CCS power plants in existence. I am glad you took the time to understand the literature well enough to prove to yourself what I said was accurate. See? I told you this discussion would be more interesting if you did your homework. And no it wasn't any insult, it was a statement of fact that you were ignorant about what was being discussed. Happy you fixed that at least a bit.



Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Increasing the carbon content of soil, etc. comes under the wider context of carbon sequestration: "Modification of agricultural practices is a recognized method of carbon sequestration as soil can act as an effective carbon sink offsetting as much as 20% of 2010 carbon dioxide emissions annually".
Wait .... This is your disliked "google warrior" so has to be wrong !
Close. If you include it in a wider context like that which includes industrialized agriculture that isn't very good at sequestering carbon, then sure, those numbers are roughly accurate, but with still a very large degree of uncertainty and scientific error. My position was always that it would require a CHANGE of agricultural systems in order to be a much larger significant sink. But even turning a roughly 15% source into a 20% sink yields 35% net change, which really helps reduce the pressure to completely eliminate all fossil fuel use. Instead we could get the same results just lowering fossil fuel use very roughly 65% +/-. This is important because it's that last bit that costs a fortune because of the issues with base load.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
But not to reverse climate change with increased productivity as claimed by some: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
The last reference is a relatively good article that will take me some time to properly study to see how accurate it is or not. I will get back to you on this one after I do that. For now I remain neutral till I study it better.
__________________
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; 18th March 2019 at 01:46 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 18th March 2019, 06:36 AM   #69
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
OK I went there. It is pretty flawed. Point by point:

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'
Quote:
"They are at risk of completely drying out because of increasing temperatures and more at risk to the detrimental effect of mismanaged grazing (Lal, 2004).This makes it unreasonable to apply Holistic Management to such dry areas, where the intense grazing would no doubt leave soils further damaged."
This is a false demonstrably illogical statement. Land that has mismanaged grazing neither proves nor disproves properly managed grazing. It's ridiculous to claim there is no doubt that even using Holistic management would result in the same outcome as mismanaged grazing. It's so ridiculous a statement I shouldn't even need to refute it. But I can easily.

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

As can be seen clearly, Holistic planned grazing significantly increases water content of soils over mismanaged grazing and critically even shows improvement over the control with no grazing at all!

Most of the rest of that section has nothing to do with Holistic planned grazing and only describes yet again demonstrably mismanaged grazing. We can agree that overgrazing and undergrazing both result in desertification and the release of carbon rather than the sequestration of carbon. Ironically the main reason for the term "holistic" comes from a series of management techniques designed to prevent these sorts of mistakes from happening by closely monitoring and proactive adaptation. Holistic management provides a management framework that dramatically helps prevent these negative results from happening. Simply proving that the land can easily be mismanaged really is not a rebuttal of Savory at all. It's more a critique of the status quo Savory is trying to change.

Methane is my pet peeve here. I have already discussed this in some detail here. Most of the issue is Natural gas leaks and clathrates,(fossil methane) not cows at all. But I would agree that removing the livestock from grazing and instead using feedlots to fatten them also has cause some of the problem.

See upland oxic soils is the only biome on the planet that is a net sink for methane primarily due to the action of methanotrophs. Part of maintaining a healthy population of methanotrophs is indeed proper animal impact.

Biotic oxidation is accomplished by methanotrophs which are bacteria that eat methane as their only source of carbon and energy, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate pathway.[1] Of all the natural methane sources and sinks, the biotic oxidation is the most responsive to variation in human activities.[2] It can be improved by proper management of upland oxic soils by proper grassland/savanna/open woodland management in agriculture. Essentially the healthy grassland soils are an overall net sink for methane, while closed canopy forests, wetlands, and degraded soils are generally not.[3]

So once again it is mismanagement of the land that does have some negative impact, and once again Savory's methods are designed to reduce and/or eliminate these sorts of management mistakes. This is once again not a criticism of Holistic planned grazing, but rather a critique of mismanaged livestock. I would agree that this is part of the problem, but the conclusion of this article is one huge logic fallacy. Just because mismanaged land and livestock is indeed a problem, does not say anything at all about what Savory proposes, nor does it refute the 10's of millions of acres already showing quantifiable improvement due to following his work. That does indeed include published results too by the way.

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



Once again, this time regarding soil carbon, we see marked improvement over mismanaged grazing of several sorts, and critically an improvement over the control of no animals at all.

Quote:
"Because of the complex nature of carbon storage in soils, increasing global temperature, risk of desertification and methane emissions from livestock, it is unlikely that Holistic Management, or any management technique, can reverse climate change."
I would agree with that. It's possible but very unlikely. Instead we need to do both fossil fuel reductions and changing agricultural systems both. There is no single silver bullet. And just because fossil fuel reductions is not enough alone, and soil sequestration also probably wouldn't be enough alone, doesn't mean we freeze up and do nothing. It means we must do both! Again with the logic flaws. Astonishing really.

Quote:
"Studies of several grazing techniques and carbon storage have produced no ground-breaking results to suggest that Savory’s idea is doable."
This is a demonstrably false statement actually. In fact Savory won the Buckminster Fuller award for proving the breakthrough in rather dramatic fashion. Not to mention repeatability on every continent and the aforementioned 10's of millions of acres already showing dramatic improvement. So this part of the conclusion actually borders on an outright lie.

Quote:
"With increasing temperature, the ability of soil to store carbon will decrease
"

Exactly true. And in fact part of the monitoring of Holistic management involves making sure soil temps stay low so they stop losing carbon and water both. So this part of the conclusion yet again can not be assigned to holistic management, but rather mismanagement. The logic flaws continue.

Quote:
"and grazing will likely speed up the process of desertification. "
Again the logic flaw. Is this mismanaged grazing? Then the statement is true. Is this properly managed grazing? Then demostrably false. See above.

Quote:
"Finally, methane emissions from cattle are currently too high, and their effect on global warming cannot be ignored."
Actually methane emissions mean nothing. this is as false as the merchant of doubt argument regarding CO2 emissions from animals. see argument # 34 for more information. When calculating these, of which methane is but a small part, the entire biological cycle must be considered, not just emissions. Thus it is the net that matters, not gross emissions like when we deal with fossil fuels including fossil methane.

Quote:
"Adding more livestock to the planet will not help this."
Alone no. Of course not. The thing that mitigates AGW is increasing our depleted biological systems, and livestock can indeed be a tool for doing that, as Savory so amazingly proved on many millions of acres across the globe. Mismanaged livestock are part of the problem now. Not nearly as big a part as the plow and agrochemicals, but a part yes. Especially when the plow and agrochemicals are used to raise grains for cows and sheep, which is ridiculous mismanagement even worse than mismanaged grazing. So we can easily start there and stop this wasteful use of land to grow excess grains. That will free up so much land we indeed might need to increase either livestock or wild herbivores just to keep it all pruned properly. To avoid it going to desert like so much is already doing now. However, that is determined later by how much arable land we can take out of production and rest. Got the horse before the cart on that one.

Quote:
“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan 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; 18th March 2019 at 06:40 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 18th March 2019, 12:53 PM   #70
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It is also exactly what I said, unproven technology ....
That is wrong. CCS is not unproven technology. Carbon capture and storage is technology that is known to work. It is proven technology. The article lists 9 industrial scale CCS projects and
Quote:
As of September 2017, the Global CCS Institute identified 37 large-scale CCS facilities in its 2017 Global Status of CCS report which is a net decrease of one project since its 2016 Global Status of CCS report. 21 of these projects are in operation or in construction capturing more than 30 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. For the most current information, see Large Scale CCS facilities on the Global CCS Institute's website. For information on EU projects see Zero Emissions Platform website. Some of the most notable CCS large scale facilities include:
The tiny biomass part of CCS seems still under development. There are 4 biomass projects that were under development as of ~2010 which was 9 years ago.

My point was that this is carbon capture and storage and CCS does not include carbon sequestration through changes in farming practices.
Carbon sequestration through changes in farming practices will use scientifically tested and trusted changes in agricultural systems, e.g. no-till farming. It will not use dubious, disputed, copyrighted! systems. such as Savory's holistic grazing.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th March 2019 at 12:56 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 18th March 2019, 01:03 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
OK I went there. It is pretty flawed. ...
This is irrelevant to the thread. New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' is abut Savory's flawed claims to reverse climate change. I cited it as an example of extreme, dubious claims about farming systems. When climate scientists look at a claim of reversing climate change from an ecologist, they easily see that it is wrong. What the science says is
Quote:
Multiple scientific studies from climate scientists and agricultural specialists show little or no significant gain in carbon sequestration on soils managed holistically to those with other grazing techniques. Even under the most favourable conditions, Holistic Management (HM) alone can only slow climate change by a small percentage, over a limited period, and certainly cannot reverse climate change.
I will address this in the appropriate thread: Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th March 2019 at 01:07 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 29th March 2019, 10:32 PM   #72
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change?

Quote:
Through photosynthesis, the cover crops pulled CO2 from the air, sank roots deep into the earth, and towered over the land. The results were unusual—and highly controversial. Johnson reported a net annual increase of almost 11 metric tons of soil carbon per hectare on his cropland.
Quote:
Johnson asserts that if his approach were used across agriculture internationally, the entire world’s carbon output from 2016 could be stored on just 22 percent of the globe’s arable land.
__________________
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 31st March 2019, 01:13 PM   #73
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The answer is that one microbiologist has an opinion that they can. David Johnson has a field trial with intriguing results but no actually published data to back his opinion up.
Quote:
As with all of Johnson’s work to date, this result has appeared only in the form of reports and other “grey literature.” Harold van Es, professor of soil and water management at Cornell University’s School of Integrative Plant Science, is one of Johnson’s severest critics.
“In science, we strongly believe that research should be subjected to peer evaluation,” van Es says. “His ideas should not be at all presented as scientific facts.”
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 31st March 2019, 01:31 PM   #74
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The answer is that one microbiologist has an opinion that they can. David Johnson has a field trial with intriguing results but no actually published data to back his opinion up.
Call it what it is, a case study. In case you didn't know, case studies run by PhD scientists actually are evidence. It's called "grey" literature and is very common in agriculture where there is no reason to publish in a peer reviewed science journal when the real peers are actually farmers who will never read those journals anyway.

Never the less, there are journal articles which I have already presented. This just happens to be the next level down, "in the field", sorts of evidence. And of course some scientists have their nose all disjointed. No scientist want to believe he could be THAT wrong and proven so by an ignorant farmer working with a microbiologist! We all know biology isn't a real science, and agriculture isn't science at all!
__________________
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 31st March 2019, 03:33 PM   #75
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Call it what it is, a case study. In case you didn't know, case studies run by PhD scientists actually are evidence.
I did not say that it was not evidence - it is not peer reviewed evidence. that any PhD scientist would publish n a peer reviewed journal. Those case studies run by PhD scientists are published in peer reviewed journal mainly because those PhD scientists are confident that their results will withstand the analysis of their peers.

The peers for PhD scientists are other PhD scientists..

Last edited by Reality Check; 31st March 2019 at 03:36 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 31st March 2019, 03:38 PM   #76
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I did not say that it was not evidence - it is not peer reviewed evidence. that any PhD scientist would publish n a peer reviewed journal. Those case studies run by PhD scientists are published in peer reviewed journal mainly because those PhD scientists are confident that their results will withstand the analysis of their peers.

The peers for PhD scientists are other PhD scientists..
And you on the other hand have consistently dismissed both sorts of 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 31st March 2019, 03:55 PM   #77
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Never the less, there are journal articles which I have already presented.
You have cited some irrelevant journal articles, Red Baron Farms.

Last edited by Reality Check; 31st March 2019 at 04:00 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 31st March 2019, 04:00 PM   #78
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
And you on the other hand have consistently dismissed both sorts of evidence.
I certainly dismiss "grey" literature for the reason that it is not peer reviewed: The peers for PhD scientists are other PhD scientists.

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.
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 31st March 2019, 04:53 PM   #79
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,837
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I certainly dismiss "grey" literature for the reason that it is not peer reviewed: The peers for PhD scientists are other PhD scientists.

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.
Oh really?

This is peer reviewed evidence and you dismissed it.
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

You are not the only one either, others dismissed it too. Same argument as you just gave too! ie .. That papers on soil science exist does not show that soil carbon sequestration can be a significant global warming mitigation strategy.

So he wrote a white paper on that very issue to make the link crystal clear. No way to ignore it.

RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING


People complained that wasn't peer reviewed and dismissed it too. You did yourself on another thread. So he wrote another paper with plenty of corroborating evidence and co-authors and had this one peer reviewed and instead of leaving it to people to actually think, now even people who couldn't add two and two before have it explained plainly.

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

Retallack did the same. He published a peer reviewed paper with evidence:

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

And exactly like Teague, the same denialist strategy was used. Dismissed as not relevant. That was thousands of years ago and couldn't possibly be relevant in modern times.

So like Teague he had to spell it out for people and publish it. Otherwise people like you simply ignored the evidence:

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


There it is spelled out for people incapable of adding two and two by themselves. The great part about this is that it is a completely different independent line of evidence from a different field of science, and each line of evidence reinforces the other.

Both of them have hit the lecture series too, just in case people still want to try and misrepresent them. In those lectures they both say it plainly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 04:38 PM   #80
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,474
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Oh really? ...
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. A couple of scientists repeating their opinions in lectures does not make those opinions valid science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd April 2019 at 05:10 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
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 06:27 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.