The Green New Deal

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
Entitlements have nothing to do with socialism. They are simply programs for with the legal authority is long term instead of being altered re-authorized and potentially changed in every budget.

By definition any market solution will increase the cost of emitting CO2 until the externality (rising CO2) is gone. You can be sneaky and avoid saying this openly, but this is what any market solution will do.

Funny how you seem to be ok with the last 40 years of wealth being transferred to rich from the middle class and the poor than has been going on for the last 40 years, but call any suggestion that flow be reversed as “sneaky”

I most certainly am not "OK" with it, I simply have a different solution. A solution that actually works rather than being a sneaky plan that makes things even worse, but keeps the ignorant masses mollified. Every time we add one of these social justice policies the socialists envision, it gradually gets worse and worse. That's because rather than directly trying to fix the problem, they are craftily designed to be durable, just like the EICDA and the GND.

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
You are right. It won't sway me. Because the math is completely flawed in that article.
.

The authors of the article have somewhat more credibility than you do…

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_ASw7xYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-AFVO6MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

Red Baron Farms said:
The real figure is 123 PgC/yr.

The relevant number here is net CO2 uptake, which is 2.6Pg. The daily cycle under which plants absorb carbon when it’s sunny and release carbon at night cannot be used to sequester carbon because it’s how plants survive.

Red Baron Farms said:
But improve the transfer less than 10%

Suggesting we can “solve global warming if plants would just stop plant respiration” is beyond ridiculous.

Red Baron Farms said:
No In fact the LCP is a completely different biochemical pathway than the decay cycle. It does degrade slowly over time, but 78% of the LCP is sequestered long term in the soil by turning into humic polymers tightly bound to the mineral substrate.

Only applicable in dry soil. Under the wet conditions required to increase plant CO2 uptake this is no longer the case. See the Amazon for example. The wet conditions ensure almost no organic matter remains in the soil for long.

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
A solution that actually works rather than being a sneaky plan that makes things even worse,

As already pointed out your “solution” is physically impossible and based on complete misunderstanding of the carbon cycle.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
As already pointed out your “solution” is physically impossible and based on complete misunderstanding of the carbon cycle.

Clearly not impossible since it is a measured result. So who's actually misunderstanding the carbon cycle? The one who claims measured results are impossible? Or the one who scientifically explains results found in the field that were impossible to explain for hundreds of years until now?

See your model of the carbon cycle can't explain this:
Mollic Epipedon Even though it has been known for over 100 years, this phenomenon was unable to be explained.

The origin of the mollic epipedon is only partially understood; however, the relation between Mollisols and grassland or steppe has been recognized for more than a century

Then a soil scientist by the name of Sara Wright discovered Glomalin and everything changed.

Glomalin eluded detection until 1996 because, “It requires an unusual effort to dislodge glomalin for study: a bath in citrate combined with heating at 250 F (121 C) for at least an hour.... No other soil glue found to date required anything as drastic as this.” - Sara Wright.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
The authors of the article have somewhat more credibility than you do…

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_ASw7xYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-AFVO6MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

That's a false comparison. I am not the one who discovered the LCP. The weight of the evidence shows that those two made a fundamental error. That evidence isn't mine. Its hundreds of other PhD scientists equally educated as them, but with the advantage of being capable of explaining observed phenomenon, rather than than being a denialist.

lomiller said:
The relevant number here is net CO2 uptake, which is 2.6Pg. The daily cycle under which plants absorb carbon when it’s sunny and release carbon at night cannot be used to sequester carbon because it’s how plants survive.

Playing fast and loose with photorespiration and the processes of decay here. Both emit CO2. But entirely different biochemical pathways.

lomiller said:
Suggesting we can “solve global warming if plants would just stop plant respiration” is beyond ridiculous.

You are the only one who claimed something that ridiculous.

lomiller said:
Only applicable in dry soil. Under the wet conditions required to increase plant CO2 uptake this is no longer the case. See the Amazon for example. The wet conditions ensure almost no organic matter remains in the soil for long.

Not true at all. In fact as the link I already gave you proves, the carbon content and the water holding capacity both improve.

The key of course is the pore space and the glomalin producing AMF. Because soil is not dirt. It is a living biological system. You can't even begin to make claims like you just made about soil in general. Maybe certain kinds of highly degraded soils with poor biological activity. But certainly not healthy soil.

Belz... · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
The daily cycle under which plants absorb carbon when it’s sunny and release carbon at night cannot be used to sequester carbon because it’s how plants survive.

So planting trees or grass isn't the solution. How do we do that, then?

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
See your model of the carbon cycle can't explain this:
Mollic Epipedon Even though it has been known for over 100 years, this phenomenon was unable to be explained.

How is that even relevant?

Grasslands make up ~20% of the 2.6Pg of carbon absorbed by plants each year. Even in the absence of any decomposition whatsoever this places the maximum amount of carbon it’s physically possible for grasslands to absorb each year at 0.5Pg. Factor in the fact that most of this is returned to the atmosphere via decomposition within a year and upper bound for grassland CO2 uptake globally is on the order of 2 magnitudes smaller than human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

Belz... said:
So planting trees or grass isn't the solution. How do we do that, then?

He has no clue what he is talking about. 123 pg CO2 is the total "fixed" carbon annually by plants AFTER photosynthesis and photorespiration but before decay of biomass. The processes of decay release almost as much annually back to the atmosphere primarily due to poor agricultural management. Primarily either by slash and burn in forestry and firestick grasslands management and/or plowing the soil and exposing the O-horizon to oxygen. Some wild ecosystems still function as sinks, but worldwide on average agriculture actually is a net emissions source due to this poor management.

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Belz... said:
So planting trees or grass isn't the solution. How do we do that, then?

Reversing land use change certainly isn’t useless. IIRC land use changes account for ~10%-20% of current greenhouse forcing. As fossil emissions continue, however, this percentage drops so in the long term fossil CO2 simply swamps everything else (methane, land use, aerosol cooling, ozone recovery, etc) so if we keep burning fossil fuels literally nothing else we do matters, so moving away from fossil carbon is the only thing we can do.

On the bright side the various carbon sinks continue to absorb over 50% of the CO2 we emit so in the short term the amount we need to reduce emissions to make a difference is smaller than it seems. Longer term many carbon sinks will release their carbon instead and atmospheric CO2 levels will shoot up in spite of anything we do. However, ocean acidification resulting from absorbing all this CO2 is a big problem in it’s own right, and given current understanding of events like the PETM extinction it may be a much bigger threat than global warming.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
How is that even relevant?

Grasslands make up ~20% of the 2.6Pg of carbon absorbed by plants each year. Even in the absence of any decomposition whatsoever this places the maximum amount of carbon it’s physically possible for grasslands to absorb each year at 0.5Pg. Factor in the fact that most of this is returned to the atmosphere via decomposition within a year and upper bound for grassland CO2 uptake globally is on the order of 2 magnitudes smaller than human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

again you are stuck on the biomass side of the equation which will indeed decay into CO2 at some point, and generally sooner rather than later. But the LCP is entirely different. And actually C4 grasses are more efficient at photosynthesis than any other plants. But it is real hard to absorb carbon when the grasslands are plowed under and sprayed with herbicides and/or destroyed by poor management...

Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and
rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per
hectare per year.
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
again you are stuck on the biomass side of the equation which will indeed decay into CO2 at some point, and generally sooner rather than later. But the LCP is entirely different. And actually C4 grasses are more efficient at photosynthesis than any other plants. But it is real hard to absorb carbon when the grasslands are plowed under and sprayed with herbicides and/or destroyed by poor management...

I was unable to find a Google Scholar entry for a Christine Jones who does research on soil. Perhaps you can locate it so we can compare her publication history to that of Jason West and David Briske who I referenced above.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
I was unable to find a Google Scholar entry for a Christine Jones who does research on soil. Perhaps you can locate it so we can compare her publication history to that of Jason West and David Briske who I referenced above.

acbytesla · Apr 2, 2019

Right now, I can think of only one answer to the CO2 problem. Stop or significantly reduce the burning of fossil fuels. But of course with a world where prosperity is the result of the relatively cheap energy it is not an attractive solution. That is unless we can find a cheap alternative. And I'm sorry, solar, geothermal and wind can not replace more than a fraction of what is required and their production actually contributes to greenhouse gases.

This is why I have become a big proponent of nuclear power. We need to spend the money required to make it safe and inexpensive. I get why people are afraid of it. But most of those concerns can be resolved through engineering. By moving away from one off pressurized water reactors we solve 99.8% of the safety problems. And the remaining safety problems are not catastrophic.

There is a lot of companies looking at manufacturing small modular reactors. We as a society need to help. Right now we have some burdensome and costly regulations that are not applicable to the new reactors which should be modified and some that should be eliminated entirely. We need Congress to authorize the building of larger liquid thorium molten salt test reactor along with a CO2 turbine.

Seriously, I don't see how anyone can be green and be anti-nuclear any more.

Nuclear is not a pie in the sky answer to moving off of fossil fuels, but something that can work especially if we can make use of the thorium fuel cycle. I can see a day where modular nuclear reactors some as little as 10Mw to maybe 250Mw being built in factories along with the the fuel and entire power plants being shipped to where they are needed on as little as a couple of semis. Containerized Cargo Ships would all be nuclear eliminating the need for almost all bunker fuel.

But even with nuclear power, there will be a place for other renewables.

I've been reading about what RBF has been promoting and while I support the goal of improving the soils etc, I don't see how it offers more than a small contribution to remedying the problem. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm still trying to get a grasp on it.

lomiller · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
Sure, I can easily supply it for all the sources I used.

Christine Jones - short CV

Still not finding anything. Apparently nobody is very interested in her work.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&mauthors=CE+Jones&hl=en&oi=ao

Red Baron Farms said:
I am just tired of copy posting in your idiotic whose citations lists are longer.

On this I actually agree. Nothing I have seen you link o far even suggests the people you are linking to even agree with your ridiculous claims, so it's rather pointless to bother checking on whether they are legitimately experts in the field. pardon the pun). Yes they are discussing increased carbon sequestration in soil, but your claims are orders of magnitude higher than can be found in anything resembling respectable research.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

acbytesla said:
Right now, I can think of only one answer to the CO2 problem. Stop or significantly reduce the burning of fossil fuels. But of course with a world where prosperity is the result of the relatively cheap energy it is not an attractive solution. That is unless we can find a cheap alternative. And I'm sorry, solar, geothermal and wind can not replace more than a fraction of what is required and their production actually contributes to greenhouse gases.

This is why I have become a big proponent of nuclear power. We need to spend the money required to make it safe and inexpensive. I get why people are afraid of it. But most of those concerns can be resolved through engineering. By moving away from one off pressurized water reactors we solve 99.8% of the safety problems. And the remaining safety problems are not catastrophic.

Long term, Nuclear must be part of the solution. That is unquestionable. Maybe Thorium which is safer than what we use now and with dramatically less radioactive waste. Maybe Fusion. But some form of nuclear must be part of any long term plan or we can kiss all civilization and maybe even human survival goodbye. Because at these population levels, a loss of energy means the whole world would quickly become exactly like Haiti in an incredibly short period of time. Even faster than Haiti became Haiti.

You want to see deforestation, just watch what happens when people start literally freezing every winter and starving all year round. Those forests don't stand a chance and will be gone before we even realize it. Which of course means even worse starvation ... and so the downward cycle of collapse will start.

acbytesla said:
There is a lot of companies looking at manufacturing small modular reactors. We as a society need to help. Right now we have some burdensome and costly regulations that are not applicable to the new reactors which should be modified and some that should be eliminated entirely. We need Congress to authorize the building of larger liquid thorium molten salt test reactor along with a CO2 turbine.

Seriously, I don't see how anyone can be green and not be anti-nuclear any more.

With certainty. In fact it is part of the flaw in the GND. AOC being anti-nuclear too.

acbytesla said:
Nuclear is not a pie in the sky answer to moving off of fossil fuels, but something that can work especially if we can make use of the thorium fuel cycle. I can see a day where modular nuclear reactors some as little as 10Mw to maybe 250Mw being built in factories along with the the fuel and entire power plants being shipped to where they are needed on as little as a couple of semis. Containerized Cargo Ships would all be nuclear eliminating the need for almost all bunker fuel.

But even with nuclear power, there will be a place for other renewables.

Exactly.

acbytesla said:
I've been reading about what RBF has been promoting and while I support the goal of improving the soils etc, I don't see how it offers more than a small contribution to remedying the problem. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm still trying to get a grasp on it.

Most people have difficulties grasping the scale. You are not alone. But be sure, there is only one thing we humans do at a large enough scale to actually be significant.

It's a matter of scale

acbytesla · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
L
Most people have difficulties grasping the scale. You are not alone. But be sure, there is only one thing we humans do at a large enough scale to actually be significant.

It's a matter of scale

The problem isn't the scale per se, but understanding the science. I feel as if you have a bigger problem. How to sell it. I feel as if you have made your argument so dense that few have the mind or patience to grasp it. With all respect in a bumper sticker world, you have no chance.

I agree with you that AOC's Green New Deal was anti-nuclear, but unlike those that had a knee-jerk reaction to it I thought it was a good start to the conversation the country has to have. I never considered it as more than that. Instead, the GOP used it in an attempt to end the conversation entirely.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

lomiller said:
Yes they are discussing increased carbon sequestration in soil, but your claims are orders of magnitude higher than can be found in anything resembling respectable research.

First of all, everyone I use for sources is leading experts in their field and entirely respectable, although Jones and Wright are now retired.

Now as far as the observation that the sequestration rates are orders of magnitude higher, is true actually. It is at least one order of magnitude higher. What you should ask yourself is why though. Given that it is higher, why would that be?

And if you actually spent the time to really find out why, then you will eventually discover that

C4 grasses are approximately an order of magnitude more efficient at photosynthesis than C3 plants
and the LCP is at least an order of magnitude more efficient at taking the products of photosynthesis and sequestering them into the soil than the biological decay of above ground biomass,
and once sequestered in the soil, this carbon is at least an order of magnitude more stable and likely to last into deep geological time rather than return to the air as CO2.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

acbytesla said:
The problem isn't the scale per se, but understanding the science. I feel as if you have a bigger problem. How to sell it. I feel as if you have made your argument so dense that few have the mind or patience to grasp it. With all respect in a bumper sticker world, you have no chance.

I agree with you that AOC's Green New Deal was anti-nuclear, but unlike those that had a knee-jerk reaction to it I thought it was a good start to the conversation the country has to have. I never considered it as more than that. Instead, the GOP used it in an attempt to end the conversation entirely.

Oh you mean like a catchy phrase like:

"There is more carbon missing from our agricultural soils than extra in the atmosphere"

Or maybe this one:
"I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change."

Or this one I really like:
American farmers:
Make America Great Again
From the ground up

acbytesla · Apr 2, 2019

Red Baron Farms said:
Oh you mean like a catchy phrase like:

"There is more carbon missing from our agricultural soils than extra in the atmosphere"

Or maybe this one:
"I am an organic farmer. I am not afraid of change. I am the change."

Or this one I really like:
American farmers:
Make America Great Again
From the ground up

Somewhere between that and other posts.

Red Baron Farms · Apr 2, 2019

acbytesla said:
Somewhere between that and other posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12595755&postcount=288

The Green New Deal

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher