Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

Now Traker, one thing about this thread.

My name is Trakar Shaitanaku.

 

[Trakar]

I just don't think it serves us well not to be realistic about the potential. Too open to critique and therefore dismissal of a good idea.

Fully agreed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You drift back towards over statement.....

It is miniscule against the GHG release issue.

Is this an overstatement?

The problems of agriculture are many: from an ecological perspective, there just isn't anything as destructive as agriculture. - Professor Nina Fedoroff

Now of course she is referring to conventional agriculture. It doesn't have to be that way. There is much room for improvement.

Let's just get down to brass tacks. You are the one that made an overstatement without backing on a skeptics forum. You said, "It is miniscule against the GHG release issue." without backing that claim with any science or examples at all. Now, you could have easily found sources that back you. Many people have that opinion. But in a skeptics forum science thread you need to post that, so one could investigate the source and check the evidence. I think what you'll find is that the potential for conventional agriculture in conventional business models is minuscule. Just by checking the evidence they base their statistics on, you find types of agriculture that are not very good at sequestering carbon. Even optimizing them gives limited results.

I specifically said change agriculture. That means you don't use statistics from a failing conventional model, not even optimized for carbon sequestration. The biggest problem by far is the CAFO business model. The conventional grains used to supply it are a carbon emissions source. The CAFOs themselves are an emissions source. They use high energy inputs that are typically emissions sources. Every part of the model is a net emissions source, start to finish. Improving that model so that the grain production sequesters a limited amount of carbon is offset largely by the other parts of the model. Thus the claims that the net result is minuscule, even optimized.

On the other hand if you completely throw out that model, and return the animals to pasture where they belong. And then build a new model that optimizes that system for carbon sequestration and total production, a whole different result can be obtained. Now in one of the links I gave you I have this quote,

“If we were to capture 1 ton of carbon per acre per year on the roughly 5 billion hectares of grasslands worldwide, we would remove 12 Gt of C from the atmosphere per year, that is, 6 ppm annually. If gross soil sequestration were approximately 6 ppm/year, after subtracting current annual carbon emissions of 2.5 ppm/year net sequestration would be 3.5 ppm per year.”

You seem to think that is overstating things. Well? Actually there are people getting 4 tons of carbon per acre per year and more, and NOT sending their animals to CAFOs to fatten up and NOT using high energy inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, tractors to plow and plant, etc... etc... etc... They are building soil at a rapid rate where the conventional model in the USA is loosing soil at 10 times the rate nature can replace it. And they are doing it because they have created a positive feedback trophic cascade. Let me show you a short clip of what happens when you do that in nature.

How wolves can alter the course of rivers

Now of course agriculture, strictly speaking, isn't natural. But what we can do is mimic nature in a way termed "biomimicry" that creates these positive feedback trophic cascades to heal the land. In other words artificially creating a positive feedback trophic cascade by changing the behavior of the domestic stock, with us as the top of the food chain instead of the wolf. Here is a somewhat longer clip describing that.

Greg Judy

I know it is an hour long and many people won't want to watch it. Not only that, it is a seminar designed to teach people a new model. Carbon is why this works, but it is a side benefit, not really the main topic of the seminar. However, this guy is getting WAY over the 1 ton per acre mentioned in the above quote. So lets analyze it. 1) He is dramatically reducing fossil fuel emissions 2) His productivity per acre is increasing dramatically. 3) There are positive feedback trophic cascades happening all over the farm, dramatically improving the overall environment, 4) He is sequestering carbon at well over 400% higher rate per year than the very conservative numbers used in the Savory Institute White paper.

Now repeatedly people (not just you) have said that I have overstated the impact changing agriculture can have in carbon sequestration. Well I contend I have understated it dramatically. I have been understating it because I seriously doubt conventional agriculture will go down without a fight. They are far more powerful than all the big energy lobbies combined. So even though technically we humans could get serious and blow the whole issue out of the water very quickly and easily, I seriously doubt that enough changes on enough land will happen that quickly. You are going to have people sequestering far in excess of the 1 ton per acre target, but you'll also have many refusing to change at all and remaining carbon emissions sources to the bitter end. That's one reason Allan Savory doesn't even talk about replacing a cornfield with a pasture. He focuses on the worst marginal desertifying land that is completely unfit for conventional agriculture. Then he uses numbers far lower than can be obtained in good agricultural land.

The whole thing is conservative in the extreme, not overstated.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now repeatedly people (not just you) have said that I have overstated the impact changing agriculture can have in carbon sequestration. Well I contend I have understated it dramatically.

As you have said repeatedly. Since we remain unconvinced it's safe to say we'll stay that way, so let's not go over this again. Far too boring, frankly. Good luck with your endeavours and with finding a more receptive audience.

 

[Trakar]

Is this an overstatement?

Quote:
The problems of agriculture are many: from an ecological perspective, there just isn't anything as destructive as agriculture. - Professor Nina Fedoroff

Now of course she is referring to conventional agriculture. It doesn't have to be that way. There is much room for improvement.

Dr. Fedoroff seems to head in a different direction than you with regards to agriculture.

- "We’ve gotten so good at growing food that we’ve gone, in a few generations, from nearly half of Americans living on farms to 2 percent. We no longer think about how the wonderful things in the grocery store got there, and we’d like to go back to what we think is a more natural way.

But I’m afraid we can’t, in part, because there are just too many of us in this world. If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn’t support the earth’s current population — maybe half."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/19conv.html?_r=0

The amount of land for growing food hasn’t changed in more than half a century. And we’ve been keeping agriculture alive in many places by pumping ground water from what’s called fossil aquifers. That’s aquifers that don’t get recharged.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/nina-fedoroff-on-science-for-global-agricultural-challenges

Don't get me wrong I fully support Dr. Fedoroff, It just doesn't sound to me like she is all onboard with the particular twist of agriculture that you are excited about. Or perhaps it is just that she doesn't see it as the end-all, be-all solution to carbon sequestration as well as food production. I would be interested in seeing her direct considerations and opinions upon the precise processes you are describing.

Let's just get down to brass tacks. You are the one that made an overstatement without backing on a skeptics forum. You said, "It is miniscule against the GHG release issue." without backing that claim with any science or examples at all. Now, you could have easily found sources that back you. Many people have that opinion. But in a skeptics forum science thread you need to post that, so one could investigate the source and check the evidence.

A request for support for one's opinions seems a reasonable request. BTW, your own statements regarding the ability of these agricultural processes you are taken with to deal simultaneously with too much CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing CO2 emissions without requiring any cutback in emissions, in a reasonable and effective timeframe, is something that should similarly be supported with compelling evidences.

I think what you'll find is that the potential for conventional agriculture in conventional business models is minuscule. Just by checking the evidence they base their statistics on, you find types of agriculture that are not very good at sequestering carbon. Even optimizing them gives limited results.

These are additional statements that should be compellingly supported, and Dr. Fedoroff offers a strong rule of thumb guideline when looking at science:

I would also ask that they begin to understand that science is not a set of facts to be harvested from knowledge trees, but a very human process of testing, trying, repeating and only then coming to conclusions. At the heart is a hugely important concept of the “weight” of the evidence. What this means is that any given study can come to very wrong conclusions for a large variety of reasons, including such things that it wasn’t designed well and that the investigator is out to prove something he or she already believes, rather than testing an hypothesis. But if the pile grows and there are 10 studies that come to one conclusion, compared to 1 that comes to the opposite conclusion, and that ratio then grows to 15 to 1 or 50 to 1, then the balance is tipping toward the conclusion come to by the many and not the one. - See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/02/pr...e-aaas-board-qa-on-gmos/#sthash.yTKmZqnf.dpuf

I specifically said change agriculture. That means you don't use statistics from a failing conventional model, not even optimized for carbon sequestration. The biggest problem by far is the CAFO business model. The conventional grains used to supply it are a carbon emissions source. The CAFOs themselves are an emissions source. They use high energy inputs that are typically emissions sources. Every part of the model is a net emissions source, start to finish. Improving that model so that the grain production sequesters a limited amount of carbon is offset largely by the other parts of the model. Thus the claims that the net result is minuscule, even optimized.

Have you got some specific numbers for both models so that your assessment can be independently verified?

On the other hand if you completely throw out that model, and return the animals to pasture where they belong. And then build a new model that optimizes that system for carbon sequestration and total production, a whole different result can be obtained. Now in one of the links I gave you I have this quote, You seem to think that is overstating things. Well? Actually there are people getting 4 tons of carbon per acre per year and more, and NOT sending their animals to CAFOs to fatten up and NOT using high energy inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, tractors to plow and plant, etc... etc... etc... They are building soil at a rapid rate where the conventional model in the USA is loosing soil at 10 times the rate nature can replace it. And they are doing it because they have created a positive feedback trophic cascade. Let me show you a short clip of what happens when you do that in nature.

How wolves can alter the course of rivers

Nice little "Attenborough-ish" clip, But understanding natural trophic cascade processes does not compellingly support that the process you suggest is a good parallel to this natural process.

Now of course agriculture, strictly speaking, isn't natural. But what we can do is mimic nature in a way termed "biomimicry" that creates these positive feedback trophic cascades to heal the land. In other words artificially creating a positive feedback trophic cascade by changing the behavior of the domestic stock, with us as the top of the food chain instead of the wolf. Here is a somewhat longer clip describing that.

Greg Judy

I know it is an hour long and many people won't want to watch it. Not only that, it is a seminar designed to teach people a new model. Carbon is why this works, but it is a side benefit, not really the main topic of the seminar. However, this guy is getting WAY over the 1 ton per acre mentioned in the above quote. So lets analyze it. 1) He is dramatically reducing fossil fuel emissions 2) His productivity per acre is increasing dramatically. 3) There are positive feedback trophic cascades happening all over the farm, dramatically improving the overall environment, 4) He is sequestering carbon at well over 400% higher rate per year than the very conservative numbers used in the Savory Institute White paper.

You are correct, I don't watch many hour and a quarter youtube videos about topics that I am really interested in yet alone one about a conference discussing outlier agricultural practices of debatable efficacy and benefit. The Savory Institute, and Dr. Savory and his ideas, however, are much more accessible and easier to address. It seems that while there has been some popsci fanfare over his TED talk and the papers he has produced through his personal research institute regarding "Holistic Planned Grazing," more rigorous peer-review analyses of his claims do not well support those claims in real world senarios, among many such journal discussions are:

"Short-Duration Grazing: The Facts in 1999" (Holechek, Gomes, Molinar, Galt, and Valdez, 2000) - https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/view/11450/10723

Hoof action on soils - "The best researched of Savory's claims is that short-duration grazing will increase water infiltration into the soil compared to continuous grazing. Several studies at different locations have been quite consistent in showing that hoof action from having a large number of animals on a small area for short time periods reduced rather than increased infiltration
(McCalla et al. 1984, Thurow et al. 1986, Weltz and Wood 1986, Warren et al. 1986, Pluhar et al. 1987). These same studies have also been consistent in showing short-duration grazing increased erosion compared to continuous or seasonlong grazing. In the Warren et al. (1986) study, simulated short-duration grazing applied at progressively increased stocking rates progressively reduced infiltration and increased erosion compared to an ungrazed control (Table 2)..."
Forage Production - "Several studies now show that there is little difference in forage production between short-duration and continuous grazing systems if stocking rates are the same (Jung et al. 1985, Pitts and Bryant 1987, Anderson 1988, Thurow et al. 1988, White et al. 1991, Manley et al. 1997). In a 6 year study on blue grama rangeland in south-central New Mexico, total
grass production averaged 828 lbs acre-' under continuous grazing compared to 724 lbs acre-' under short-duration grazing..."

The paper points to similar evidentiary refutation of many of not most of Savory's other claims and overstatements, including Plant Succession and Range Conditions, Harvest Efficiency and Livestock Distribution, Livestock Productivity, and Financial Returns.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that improved land management/utilization is a necessary and integral part of moving our technology and civilization forward, but as MacDoc has (IMO correctly) stated, the overstatement of such proposals can easily "...open to critique and therefore dismissal of a good idea." I believe that there are potential benefits to revamping several aspects of modern agriculture, but I'm not sure that any minor changes will be easy to widely implement across the planet, a big part of the Ag problems we face now aren't modern Ag issues in the developed world as much as they are the fact that in most parts of the world the slash and burn Ag practices of 10,000 years ago are still the predominant Ag technology being used.

Now repeatedly people (not just you) have said that I have overstated the impact changing agriculture can have in carbon sequestration. Well I contend I have understated it dramatically.

The issue isn't about what you, or others, say. The issue is about the numbers and what the compelling evidentiary support tells us about the situation.

I have been understating it because I seriously doubt conventional agriculture will go down without a fight. They are far more powerful than all the big energy lobbies combined.

This is verging on conspiracy thinking, and seems rather contradicted by the difficulty of passing even clean and uncontroversial Ag bills in congress over much of the last decade.

So even though technically we humans could get serious and blow the whole issue out of the water very quickly and easily, I seriously doubt that enough changes on enough land will happen that quickly. You are going to have people sequestering far in excess of the 1 ton per acre target, but you'll also have many refusing to change at all and remaining carbon emissions sources to the bitter end. That's one reason Allan Savory doesn't even talk about replacing a cornfield with a pasture. He focuses on the worst marginal desertifying land that is completely unfit for conventional agriculture. Then he uses numbers far lower than can be obtained in good agricultural land.

The whole thing is conservative in the extreme, not overstated.

Again, these are your personal perceptions, but not anything I've seen widespread, compelling academic evidences in support of, though I do encourage you to find some independent, compelling evidences to provide in support of your perceptions and share them. I am open to being persuaded, but it takes a large amount of compelling evidences to reach that bar, and thus far, I have not seen such evidences.

 

[Trakar]

As you have said repeatedly. Since we remain unconvinced it's safe to say we'll stay that way, so let's not go over this again. Far too boring, frankly. Good luck with your endeavours and with finding a more receptive audience.

Most science (and public policy, for that matter) is very boring, it is the nature of the beasties. The only time such issues become interesting is when we are emotionally and intellectually engaged with them.

 

[Trakar]

I find that people who do not respect science and its methodologies rarely produce scientifically rigorous findings and results.

"You'll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me." - Allen Savory
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/view/11447/10720

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions

And why would a group of 20 or so "primarily retired veterans of our manned space program" be expected to have expertise in climate science, Haig?
Especially when they display symptoms of climate change denial with the statements on the above page. I especially like the ignorance displayed in

3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.

Climate computer models are validated !
How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Dr. Fedoroff seems to head in a different direction than you with regards to agriculture.

Agreed. Dr. Federoff thinks that the solution to the destructive nature of agriculture is to even more intensively farm land than it is now. Her theory is that by even more intensively extracting every last bit of productivity with even more intensive high energy high input conventional methods, even though that doesn't heal the land, it would allow us to use less land, so more could be put back to nature. Then once that land becomes unfit for use, it could be put back to nature and we use the land we previously put back. It's not much different than what I mentioned above. She understands the destructive nature of conventional agriculture, but wants to try and make a silk purse out of that sows ear. There are many problems with this approach. I will be happy to discuss them if you wish.

Don't get me wrong I fully support Dr. Fedoroff, It just doesn't sound to me like she is all onboard with the particular twist of agriculture that you are excited about. Or perhaps it is just that she doesn't see it as the end-all, be-all solution to carbon sequestration as well as food production. I would be interested in seeing her direct considerations and opinions upon the precise processes you are describing.

I support her too actually, even while disagreeing vehemently with her analysis. Because even though I don't agree at all with that approach, she is trying to improve agriculture. It is not an easy thing to do. If she can reach her goal of actually setting aside land to go back to nature, I would feel at least part of the problem could be solved. Unguided nature sequesters carbon at a lower rate than holistic managed by humans for that result, but it does at least produce a net carbon sink. Minuscule in comparison to world wide fossil fuel emissions, but never the less better than the emissions source agriculture is today.

A request for support for one's opinions seems a reasonable request. BTW, your own statements regarding the ability of these agricultural processes you are taken with to deal simultaneously with too much CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing CO2 emissions without requiring any cutback in emissions, in a reasonable and effective timeframe, is something that should similarly be supported with compelling evidences.

Actually I don't think that. I am in favor of reducing fossil fuel emissions. The problem is that you need to do both. Not just reduce emissions but also increase sequestration in the soil. That's because we are at ~400 PPM already.

Have you got some specific numbers for both models so that your assessment can be independently verified?

Already posted above. The iopscience link. For details simply look at the data and further references that are listed in that link. It is conservative as well, because that data is based on current on farm practices, not all of which are optimized for carbon sequestration.

Nice little "Attenborough-ish" clip, But understanding natural trophic cascade processes does not compellingly support that the process you suggest is a good parallel to this natural process.

The key to understanding the parallel is to understand it is not just the numbers of animals but the behavior of those animals. It is not just that the wolves killed all the deer, they actually killed a relatively small number, but that they changed the grazing behavior. Also not mentioned in the clip is that they change the behavior of the bison too. The parallel principle in domestic grazing management is called the 3 M's: Mobbing, Mowing, Moving.
Mobbing comes from predator protection. Grazing animals like bison and elk form herds tightly packed when confronted with pack hunters like wolves. This forces a less picky grazing behavior. Instead of only choosing the most palatable grasses and forbs, "icecream" They tend to eat more indiscriminately and include the less palatable plants as well. "broccoli". So the action is more like mowing than if they are allowed to pick and choose. They are forced into this behavior because the animal right next to them will get their food if they don't, because they are tightly packed as a defense against predation. If this doesn't happen, then the animals will eat only the "icecream" and avoid the broccoli. Not only is that less healthy, over time it changes the grasses in the pasture to only "broccoli", since all the "icecream" was overgrazed. The evidence is where Greg Judy showed the grasses like big bluestem and eastern gamagrass "icecream" coming back. Finally comes moving. That happens in nature for a variety of reasons, both to keep avoiding those predators and to get off the land they just soiled with their own feces. In grazing management it is part of the rotation, and forced with electric fencing instead of wolves. That has benefits in both allowing the pasture to recover and breaking pathogen cycles.

You are correct, I don't watch many hour and a quarter youtube videos about topics that I am really interested in yet alone one about a conference discussing outlier agricultural practices of debatable efficacy and benefit. The Savory Institute, and Dr. Savory and his ideas, however, are much more accessible and easier to address. It seems that while there has been some popsci fanfare over his TED talk and the papers he has produced through his personal research institute regarding "Holistic Planned Grazing," more rigorous peer-review analyses of his claims do not well support those claims in real world senarios, among many such journal discussions are:

"Short-Duration Grazing: The Facts in 1999" (Holechek, Gomes, Molinar, Galt, and Valdez, 2000) - https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/view/11450/10723


The paper points to similar evidentiary refutation of many of not most of Savory's other claims and overstatements, including Plant Succession and Range Conditions, Harvest Efficiency and Livestock Distribution, Livestock Productivity, and Financial Returns.

Again, as already stated above. That Holecheck study has been refuted by Teague. I sent the link and he explains very well both why and how the Holecheck(and others) study is flawed. BUT more importantly, no matter what grazing management system is used, it still beats a CAFO system hands down in terms of carbon sequestration. Studies like that are arguing over the potential optimization of grazing management systems. But they are still comparing grazing management to grazing management, not grazing management to CAFOs. That's why I posted the iopscience link. It actually compares grazing to CAFOs. That's what we really need to be talking about here.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that improved land management/utilization is a necessary and integral part of moving our technology and civilization forward, but as MacDoc has (IMO correctly) stated, the overstatement of such proposals can easily "...open to critique and therefore dismissal of a good idea." I believe that there are potential benefits to revamping several aspects of modern agriculture, but I'm not sure that any minor changes will be easy to widely implement across the planet, a big part of the Ag problems we face now aren't modern Ag issues in the developed world as much as they are the fact that in most parts of the world the slash and burn Ag practices of 10,000 years ago are still the predominant Ag technology being used.

Agreed in part. That's actually where Nina's flaw is. She claimed as you correctly quoted, that organic methods will only feed about 1/2 our needs. But she includes those antiquated 10,000 year old slash and burn tactics as "organic". Silly since Organic agriculture wasn't even developed until the late 1930's and early 1940's. Actually organic methods of agriculture can increase yield over these primitive forms of agriculture in the developing world by ~93% +/-.

The issue isn't about what you, or others, say. The issue is about the numbers and what the compelling evidentiary support tells us about the situation.

Here is an analysis of evidence supporting this.

Can Organic Farming Feed us all?


Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to
food, Olivier De Schutter

Keep in mind both these reports are referring to high tech, low impact methods of organic, not low tech primitive subsistence agriculture.

More importantly, in the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93 percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the soils. A study from Kenya found that while organic farmers in "high-potential areas" (those with above-average rainfall and high soil quality) had lower maize yields than nonorganic farmers, organic farmers in areas with poorer resource endowments consistently outyielded conventional growers. (In both regions, organic farmers had higher net profits, return on capital, and return on labor.)

Contrary to critics who jibe that it's going back to farming like our grandfathers did or that most of Africa already farms organically and it can't do the job, organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It's heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant.

And more importantly to this thread topic.....that "increased organic matter" is carbon. Carbon that was in the atmosphere that is now in the soils of those fields.

Again, these are your personal perceptions, but not anything I've seen widespread, compelling academic evidences in support of, though I do encourage you to find some independent, compelling evidences to provide in support of your perceptions and share them. I am open to being persuaded, but it takes a large amount of compelling evidences to reach that bar, and thus far, I have not seen such evidences.

Hopefully the links I have provided will help to broaden your perception as well.

ETA You quoted Savory:

"You'll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me." - Allen Savory

I guess the humor was lost on you? You need the joke explained?

 

[AlBell]

Those with an actual monetary interest, don't actually deny the science, they are just trying to delay aggressive public policy to deal with the problem. It is the horde of village outcasts seeking a rallying banner who make up the bulk of the arrogantly and deliberately ignorant that compose the remains of the denial movement.

You've finally woken up to the fact that AGW denial by US taxpayers has always been about remediation funding, not Science. Congratulations.

 

[CapelDodger]

You've finally woken up to the fact that AGW denial by US taxpayers has always been about remediation funding, not Science. Congratulations.

We've long been aware that AGW denial, while directed at the science and, in particular, at a few scientists, is motivated by the implications, consciously or not. It's also become something of a right-wing tribal totem, by whatever strange twists.

US taxpayers do not, in the main, deny global warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect brought on by our human industriousness. They've rather been denied an informed national debate on how to respond by the need to persuade Flat Earthers, in the US President's apposite phrase, that science is a real thing and that reality cannot be spun.

Thankfully it won't last much longer, maybe a few years before the ridicule gets too loud and AGW denial goes into the hermetic long tail of decay which awaits all such cults. The fossil fuel industry has already disinvested and the monkey glands can't keep Rupert going much longer. In fact it's not just Rupert who's facing the demographic imperative, it's pretty much the whole crew, supperannuated NASA guys (I'm guessing guys, haven't actually checked) included. That's what counts for new blood. As for new thinking, fuggedaboudit.

No wonder we warmists are so relaxed and the AGW deniers so hysterical. The result's not in doubt; might as well leave now and avoid the rush, eh?

 

[Trakar]

Agreed. Dr. Federoff thinks that the solution to the destructive nature of agriculture is to even more intensively farm land than it is now. Her theory is that by even more intensively extracting every last bit of productivity with even more intensive high energy high input conventional methods, even though that doesn't heal the land, it would allow us to use less land, so more could be put back to nature. Then once that land becomes unfit for use, it could be put back to nature and we use the land we previously put back. It's not much different than what I mentioned above. She understands the destructive nature of conventional agriculture, but wants to try and make a silk purse out of that sows ear. There are many problems with this approach. I will be happy to discuss them if you wish.

Her name is Nina Fedoroff. Think "fedora" if the spelling gives you problems.
Please reference your understanding of Fedoroff's agricultural ideas and concerns, as they seem dramatically at odds with both her researches and public statements. Dr. Fedoroff's fields of expertise are primarily LifeSciences/biology, biotechnology, genetic engineering and agricultural science. In 2010 she was the lead author of a paper that was essentially an open letter to the leaders of the world regarding sustainable agriculture:

...An international panel of scientists writing in the Feb. 12 edition of the journal Science is urging world leaders to dramatically alter their notions about sustainable agriculture to prevent a major starvation catastrophe by the end of this century among the more than 3 billion people who live relatively close to the equator.

Specifically they urge world leaders to "get beyond popular biases against the use of agricultural biotechnology," particularly crops genetically modified to produce greater yields in harsher conditions, and to base the regulations of such crops on the best available science...

...The authors advocate developing systems that have the potential to decrease the land, energy and fresh water needed for agriculture and at the same time reducing the pollution associated with agricultural chemicals and animal waste...

...The Science article represents the views of the authors and stems from a workshop they presented for the State Department last September in Washington, D.C.

Other authors are Roger Beachy of the U.S. Agriculture Department; Peter Cooper of the India-based International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; David Fischhoff of Monsanto Co.; Carl Hodges of The Seawater Foundation; Vic Knauf of Arcadia Biosciences; David Lobell of Stanford University; Barbara Mazur of the DuPont Experimental Station; David Molden of the Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute; Matthew Reynolds of the Mexico City-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; Pamela Ronald of the University of California, Davis, and the Joint Bioenergy Institute; Mark Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute; Pedro Sanchez of Columbia University; Avigad Vonshak of Ben-Gurion University in Israel; and Jian-Kang Zhu of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia and the University of California, Riverside.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211141140.htm

They don't seem to be the pushing for methods or goals aligned with what you suggest, nor do they seem unreasonable and ill-considered in in their relationship to mainstream scientific considerations with regards to agriculture. Fedoroff's National Academies Press book titled "Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods" is an excellent and very informative read regarding GM foods. (unfortunately this is not offered freely, $24.95 for paperback, $19.50 for a downloadable pdf)

I support her too actually, even while disagreeing vehemently with her analysis. Because even though I don't agree at all with that approach, she is trying to improve agriculture. It is not an easy thing to do. If she can reach her goal of actually setting aside land to go back to nature, I would feel at least part of the problem could be solved. Unguided nature sequesters carbon at a lower rate than holistic managed by humans for that result, but it does at least produce a net carbon sink. Minuscule in comparison to world wide fossil fuel emissions, but never the less better than the emissions source agriculture is today.

To me, it sounds contradictory to say that you simultaneous support someone's ideas but that you vehemently disagree with the analyses which leads them to and supports those ideas. Likewise I've seen nothing in her statements indicating that she wants to turn lands "back to nature" but would be interested in any references you have to this idea. I also have a problem with another point that you bring up here which is the idea that the short term bonding of carbon into superficial crust soil reservoirs is the equivalent to long term carbon sequestration from the environmental carbon cycle.

Actually I don't think that. I am in favor of reducing fossil fuel emissions. The problem is that you need to do both. Not just reduce emissions but also increase sequestration in the soil. That's because we are at ~400 PPM already.

That is a relief, because I've seen no evidence that soil management practices can even come close to offsetting the 30 billion+ tonnes (and rising) of CO2 that fossil fuels are emitting each year, much less begin significantly pulling down the accumulated ~2.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 we have added to the active carbon cycle over the last couple hundred years.

Already posted above. The iopscience link. For details simply look at the data and further references that are listed in that link. It is conservative as well, because that data is based on current on farm practices, not all of which are optimized for carbon sequestration.

Well the early study you indicate, isn't dealing with crop agriculture but with pasture lands for grazing cattle, and wile is does seem to indicate some temporary storage of C in soils reservoirs the authors seem to feel that the minor net storage is within the error bars of their research and that the results do not rise to the level of significance.

...Average on site and attributed NGHG balance reached 176 and 55 g CO2 equivalents/m2 per year, respectively, indicating a sink activity (Table 1). Nevertheless, intensively managed sites had negative on site and attributed NGHG balances, indicating a source activity...

More importantly a recently revised and improved study of the topic by the same authors found:

The net balance of on- and off-site C sequestration, CH4 and N2O emissions reached 38 g CO2 equivalents/m2 per year, indicating a non-significant net sink activity. This net balance was, however, negative for intensively managed cut sites indicating a source to the atmosphere. In conclusion, this review confirms that grassland C sequestration has a strong potential to partly mitigate the GHG balance of ruminant production systems. However, as soil C sequestration is both reversible and vulnerable to disturbance, biodiversity loss and climate change, CH4 and N2O emissions from the livestock sector need to be reduced and current SOC stocks preserved

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7229324
So basically, carefully reintegrating manure into the soils at least partially offset the generation of Carbon created by cattle burping and farting in both of these studies. I see no discussion in this set of studies that would lead me to believe that wholesale atmospheric carbon is being extracted from the atmosphere and stored in significant significantly greater quantities than normal (non-pasture) grasslands.

The key to understanding the parallel is to understand it is not just the numbers of animals but the behavior of those animals...

The analogy seems contrived and offers no compelling evidence that the proposed practice of Savory's ideas actually create a trophic cascade that is a beneficial improvement over natural systems or current agricultural practices. Evidences are what are needed not anecdotal stories and analogies about how Savory expects his ideas to play out.

Again, as already stated above. That Holecheck study has been refuted by Teague. I sent the link and he explains very well both why and how the Holecheck(and others) study is flawed.

Beyond the fact that the "Holecheck study" is actually mostly a survey of the mainstream publications on the topic, and that several follow-up publications by Holecheck et al. continue to address and negate Savory's (and his acolyte Teague's attempts to defend these ideas, as well as similar contradictions and findings by the mass of mainstream Ag science publications which have examined the issue, we simply see that Savory is primarily pushing "science" via anecdote and wishful thinking rather than following the lead of empiric evidences which seems to lead away from Savory's desired outcome. Beyond this Teague himself broke with Savory in joining with other mainstream Ag researchers in the 2008 paper refuting much of Savory's assertions titled "Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence"

abstract -
In spite of overwhelming experimental evidence to the contrary, rotational grazing continues to be promoted and implemented as the only viable grazing strategy. The goals of this synthesis are to 1) reevaluate the complexity, underlying assumptions, and ecological processes of grazed ecosystems, 2) summarize plant and animal production responses to rotational and continuous grazing, 3) characterize the prevailing perceptions influencing the assessment of rotational and continuous grazing, and 4) attempt to direct the profession toward a reconciliation of perceptions advocating support for rotational grazing systems with that of the experimental evidence. The ecological relationships of grazing systems have been reasonably well resolved, at the scales investigated, and a continuation of costly grazing experiments adhering to conventional research protocols will yield little additional information. Plant production was equal or greater in continuous compared to rotational grazing in 87% (20 of 23) of the experiments. Similarly, animal production per head and per area were equal or greater in continuous compared to rotational grazing in 92% (35 of 38) and 84% (27 of 32) of the experiments, respectively. These experimental data demonstrate that a set of potentially effective grazing strategies exist, none of which have unique properties that set one apart from the other in terms of ecological effectiveness. The performance of rangeland grazing strategies are similarly constrained by several ecological variables establishing that differences among them are dependent on the effectiveness of management models, rather than the occurrence of unique ecological phenomena. Continued advocacy for rotational grazing as a superior strategy of grazing on rangelands is founded on perception and anecdotal interpretations, rather than an objective assessment of the vast experimental evidence. We recommend that these evidence-based conclusions be explicitly incorporated into management and policy decisions addressing this predominant land use on rangelands.

Agreed in part. That's actually where Nina's flaw is. She claimed as you correctly quoted, that organic methods will only feed about 1/2 our needs. But she includes those antiquated 10,000 year old slash and burn tactics as "organic". Silly since Organic agriculture wasn't even developed until the late 1930's and early 1940's. Actually organic methods of agriculture can increase yield over these primitive forms of agriculture in the developing world by ~93% +/-.

Here is an analysis of evidence supporting this.

Can Organic Farming Feed us all?

Nothing here is quoted from or indicative that it is even remotely derived from the statements or ideas promoted by Nina Fedoroff, your support is significantly less than compelling.

Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to
food, Olivier De Schutter

Keep in mind both these reports are referring to high tech, low impact methods of organic, not low tech primitive subsistence agriculture. And more importantly to this thread topic.....that "increased organic matter" is carbon. Carbon that was in the atmosphere that is now in the soils of those fields.

But not, according to the evidences presented, in significantly greater quantities than the carbon that was taken from the soils by the grazing animals in the first place, nor is this carbon (for the most part) being locked away from the active carbon cycle of the planet for significant periods of time (millions of years).

Hopefully the links I have provided will help to broaden your perception as well.

ETA You quoted Savory: I guess the humor was lost on you? You need the joke explained?

Many a jest, has proven to reveal the truth cloaked within the intended mirth.

I'm always open to new information, but so far none of what you have presented is either new, or particularly informative. Please, however, do support your perspective with any compelling evidences you run across.
And since we are sharing links in the spirit broadening perceptions, give these a look:

"An Evidence-Based Assessment of Prescribed Grazing Practices" - http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045796.pdf

"The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse Climate Change" - http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1

"Beyond the “climate versus grazing” impasse: using remote sensing to investigate the effects of grazing system choice on vegetation cover in the eastern Karoo" - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196303001071

"Solutions for a cultivated planet" - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/full/nature10452.html (full paper available at site)

And please take a look at http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm
This is a publication that the authors have made available in electronic version on the Public Lands Ranching Org site
I particularly recommend: Rangelands Must Be Grazed to Stay Healthy (in Myths section), The Donut Diet: The Too-Good-to-Be-True Claims of Holistic Management, and Using a Hammer to Swat Mosquitoes: Livestock as Management "Tools" (these last two are in the False Hopes and Counter arguments section)

 

[Trakar]

You've finally woken up to the fact that AGW denial by US taxpayers has always been about remediation funding, not Science. Congratulations.

Perhaps on the part of "some" tax-payers, but denying the problem does not resolve the need for remediation nor does it make remediation cheaper or more simple. The longer the delay the more the cost and the worse the problem gets before it is corrected. That "argument" for a delay of public action is ultimately ineffectual, and presents those who make it as dangerously short-sighted, ignorant and wasteful of lives, resources and money. A suite of traits that is obsolete.

 

[macdoc]

RB

Is this an overstatement?

The problems of agriculture are many: from an ecological perspective, there just isn't anything as destructive as agriculture. - Professor Nina Fedoroff

From a land use or ecological framework there is a case could be made that agriculture is most destruction WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF LAND USE>

Now of course she is referring to conventional agriculture. It doesn't have to be that way. There is much room for improvement.

that's fine

Let's just get down to brass tacks. You are the one that made an overstatement without backing on a skeptics forum. You said, "It is miniscule against the GHG release issue." without backing that claim with any science or examples at all.

Because we pointed this out numerous times and this is not the thread nor am I interested in doing it again and if you persist in overstating you will lose some of the credibility you appeared to regain in the land use thread.

You want to ride a hobby horse then do it in the thread set up for it.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by AlBell
You've finally woken up to the fact that AGW denial by US taxpayers has always been about remediation funding, not Science. Congratulations.

- what an arrogant statement from an ill informed dabbler

I dare say any number of us have posted up evidence to that reality numerous times in this thread. Perhaps you should read BEFORE you face plant.
This has been posted before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5GVHqlnPAc

DIscussions of the funding has gone on before and yes the PR campaign has been effective but there is also the underlying stupidity of too many Americans
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273759 )( and Canadians and AUstralians for that matter ) that are willing swallow the crap dished out by Faux News et al.

The cost of mitigation will be born collectively and the US is in line and IS suffering massively already.

The dodge was for fossil fuel companies to avoid litigation for knowingly inflicting damage on the environment and having to pay for said damage ala Big Tobacco.

The fossil fuel interests knew the score in 1995 and embarked on a campaign of disinformation

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
‪http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/scien ... .html?_r=2‬

At some point the courts are going to get engaged as they were with SO2 and then maybe we will see some serious movement toward carbon neutral and maybe some fines to fund it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yeah you completely misunderstand my reference to Nina Fedoroff. You seem to assume I thought she supports advancement of modern scientific organic methods. She doesn't. It's not that I agree with her proposed solutions at all. It is that she is a well respected scientist that understands the destruction agriculture as it stands now is causing. It relates partly with the joke you didn't quite get. you said, "Many a jest, has proven to reveal the truth cloaked within the intended mirth." And that's right. You need a grain of truth to make a joke funny, and sometimes more than just a grain. How do they relate? The science behind the destructive nature of agriculture to the environment as it is generally practiced today is well documented and even well understood. The scientific method has done a great job of that. And BTW Savory is a scientist too. The point he is making is the engineering of creative solutions. The ability to ask "What if?" as opposed to "What is?" That sort of creative thinking is different than the sort of science that simply tries to understand better what already exists. It's more of an engineering sort of thinking as opposed to a reductionist scientific method way of thinking. It's more like building something complex as opposed to reducing it to its component parts so each part becomes easier to understand. Now Nina is a brilliant scientist, she does understand how destructive agriculture is. She is even working on solutions. However, she is working to improve agriculture within the model that has made it so destructive. She is working on the "What is" and trying to improve it, as opposed to looking at the "What if?" and engineering a system that doesn't have those limitations. Now what scientists without that ability to think creatively tend to do is label the creative thinkers as "cranks" or worse. And Savory has been labeled that by more than a few. However, it is a serious underestimation of Savory. He is in fact a scientist and does understand the scientific method quite well actually. In his trials he has kept very good records to document his claims. He has even developed a management system that is usable for anyone, even the illiterate tribesman. That took genius. How to train something high tech and beyond even many scientists ability to understand, yet make it simple enough for a nomadic tribesman. Rangelands Rehabilitation and Carbon Credits in Kenya Imagine the bruised ego of a PhD range-land specialist watching 1/2 naked "savages" doing something they failed at? Of course the tribesmen failed as well .... until taught Savory's system. See Savory doesn't have that hang-up. He respects the cultures and their experiential knowledge and includes it in his management system. It's like I quoted before, but you didn't quite get.

Contrary to critics who jibe that it's going back to farming like our grandfathers did or that most of Africa already farms organically and it can't do the job, organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It's heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant.

Now you quoted Briske, and Briske took a lot of criticism for that old 2008 paper. BTW Teague was also part of that paper. I already posted Teague's later paper. But Briske himself, while still incapable of generating results equal to thousands of Ranchers on millions of acres, has at least figured out the problem in the studies, including his own studies. He is not so far off as you might think.

Managers have found that rotational grazing systems can work for diverse management purposes, but scientific experiments have demonstrated that they do not necessarily work for specific ecological purposes. These interpretations appear contradictory, but we contend that they can be reconciled by evaluation within the context of complex adaptive systems in which human variables such as goal setting, experiential knowledge, and decision making are given equal importance to biophysical variables. The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, but also narrowly focused, because it derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables. -Briske et al

See I don't even have to open the "An Evidence-Based Assessment of Prescribed Grazing Practices" to know it is exactly that. Prescribed is basically Savory's method, except with the Human variables intentionally excluded. That's what prescribed means. Briske himself has admitted that his studies that criticize holistic management fail in that regard. It's not prescribed, it's adaptive.

Do you actually read the links you are sending? For example from the public land ranching link:

the plant species of this region are not adapted to continual heavy grazing and trampling

Continuous grazing is not rotational grazing of any sort, prescribed or adaptive either one. Those lands can be grazed, but only for a day or two each year. If done right the land will improve. Continuous grazing however will kill the grass.

Also from the Nature link:

Compounding this challenge, agriculture must also address tremendous environmental concerns. Agriculture is now a dominant force behind many environmental threats, including climate change, biodiversity loss and degradation of land and freshwater. In fact, agriculture is a major force driving the environment beyond the “planetary boundaries”

I said a similar thing and was told by MacDoc I was overstating things and you agreed! You see the words they are using? dominant, major. It is true. There is no over stating it, and changing it to a ecologically sound model can be just as beneficial as not changing it is bad. It even has the same criticism of CAFOs

However, using highly productive croplands to produce animal feed, no matter how efficiently, represents a net drain on the world’s potential food supply.

Isn't that what I repeatedly said about CAFOs? It doesn't matter how efficient they are run, the model itself is flawed. or this?

Moving forward, we must find more sustainable pathways for intensification that increase crop production while greatly reducing unsustainable uses of water, nutrients and agricultural chemicals.

Sound familiar?

Where water is scarce, good water and land management practices can increase irrigation efficiency. For example, curtailing off-field evaporative losses from water storage and transport and reducing on-field losses through mulching and reduced tillage will increase the value of irrigation water.

Mulches? OMG sign them up for an organic farm! The writers are after my heart! Just a little training on the cutting edge advances in organic technology and they'll be there! And lastly,

(4) The search for agricultural solutions should remain technology-neutral. There are multiple paths to improving the production, food security and environmental performance of agriculture, and we should not be locked into a single approach a priori, whether it be conventional agriculture, genetic modification or organic farming.

That's my biggest criticism of organic certification boards. They are far too dogmatic. For example deciding all GE technology regardless of what the GMO actually does potentially removes a very important tool from the organic producers kit. Bad move.

 

[Trakar]

Unfortunately, RBF, you have now removed any trace of supported and evidenced science from your discussion and are (deliberately or negligently) reinterpreting the explanations given in the references I provided, while apparently deducing entirely different meanings than the authors make clear throughout the context given in their works. I have no interest in wootastic rhetorical explorations of fringe belief systems. Given this, there seems to be no means or method that I can see for us to carry on a productive discussion of merit on this topic. I wish you well, and hope that you can someday reconcile the issues which seem to be leading you to denigrate and dismiss the scientific method and the understandings it has brought to our species, but people do not require it to live or even enjoy their lives and that is my desire for you, that you live a long and enjoyable life.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Unfortunately, RBF, you have now removed any trace of supported and evidenced science from your discussion and are (deliberately or negligently) reinterpreting the explanations given in the references I provided, while apparently deducing entirely different meanings than the authors make clear throughout the context given in their works. I have no interest in wootastic rhetorical explorations of fringe belief systems. Given this, there seems to be no means or method that I can see for us to carry on a productive discussion of merit on this topic. I wish you well, and hope that you can someday reconcile the issues which seem to be leading you to denigrate and dismiss the scientific method and the understandings it has brought to our species, but people do not require it to live or even enjoy their lives and that is my desire for you, that you live a long and enjoyable life.

Fine quote and I also wish you no ill will either. Any failures of communication that led you to believe I dismiss the scientific method most assuredly came from me and not you. Sorry my explanation of the humor in the joke failed. I don't know how to communicate it better. However, the other parts where you seem to think I don't understand the paper? Agreeing or disagreeing with certain points does not mean I don't understand it. Nor are my beliefs "fringe". Minority maybe, all new ideas start out in the minority. But fringe is not even close.

 

[macdoc]

Agriculture is now a dominant force behind many environmental threats, including climate change, biodiversity loss and degradation of land and freshwater. In fact, agriculture is a major force driving the environment beyond the “planetary boundaries”

I said a similar thing and was told by MacDoc I was overstating things and you agreed! You see the words they are using? dominant, major. It is true. There is no over stating it, and changing it to a ecologically sound model can be just as beneficial as not changing it is bad. It even has the same criticism of CAFOs

You are misinterpreting the comment in Nature.

A dominant force in a variety of frameworks in no way translates to THE dominant force in climate change

This thread is not about sustainable, ecological, biodiversity....etc ...yes they are all impacted by climate change and land use is a primary driver in the sense that it is not a feedback.

But it is NOT the main driver of climate change.....GHG is....period, full stop.
Land use and agriculture either magnify or mitigate and yes some good practices from waste management to silva culture to grazing, to meat consumption ......the list goes on and on can help or hinder.

But land use is NOT in the same magnitude for climate change as GHG.
It may be the major problem with bio-diversity, degradation of fresh water and land.......but it's not the major driver of climate change.
Get past it.
Land use is important in climate but in many respects it has nothing to do with your particular notion of sequestration, rather it has to do with preventing destruction of diverse biomes and tropical and temperate forests that have a variety of impacts on consequences of climate change in various regions..

Alterations of land use will not reverse climate change and will not neutralize current level of emissions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You are misinterpreting the comment in Nature.

A dominant force in a variety of frameworks in no way translates to THE dominant force in climate change

This thread is not about sustainable, ecological, biodiversity....etc ...yes they are all impacted by climate change and land use is a primary driver in the sense that it is not a feedback.

But it is NOT the main driver of climate change.....GHG is....period, full stop.
Land use and agriculture either magnify or mitigate and yes some good practices from waste management to silva culture to grazing, to meat consumption ......the list goes on and on can help or hinder.

But land use is NOT in the same magnitude for climate change as GHG.
It may be the major problem with bio-diversity, degradation of fresh water and land.......but it's not the major driver of climate change.
Get past it.
Land use is important in climate but in many respects it has nothing to do with your particular notion of sequestration, rather it has to do with preventing destruction of diverse biomes and tropical and temperate forests that have a variety of impacts on consequences of climate change in various regions..

Alterations of land use will not reverse climate change and will not neutralize current level of emissions.

Look Mac. You can believe it or not as you wish. But all those things you mentioned are related intimately. As much as you might want to, you can't separate them. Nor will we be able to mitigate global warming without addressing agriculture. The reason is, as was posted in one of the many links in discussion, we humans have largely destroyed the biomechanism nature uses to sequester carbon in the soil and replaced it with a model of agriculture that is an emissions source. Until people realize the failure inherent in that mistake, we are just arguing over nothing. Who cares if AGW is real or not if we are not wise enough to fix it? And if we are wise enough to fix it, who cares if it would have been 4 degrees of warming or 20? If you fix it, then whatever it would have been if we did nothing, that will be offset by fixing it.

Now I was actually invited to discuss mitigation along with anyone else with mitigation ideas.

Boring is a good thing!


Of course, once the discussion shifts from "it's not happening," to "what do we do about it," it becomes largely (if not entirely) a public policy (politics) issue.

And just because we define the problem doesn't mean that we'd all agree to the same idea of appropriate response.

So, Given the range of climate change over the next 10, 50, 100 years, what course of action do you propose and what evidences support your perspective?

(open to all - I think it is time that this discussion begins happening more)

Open to all he says. Well hopefully that includes people who understand the mitigation potential of agriculture. Even if you or anyone else doesn't quite understand it or are skeptical, at least it is being discussed.

Now what I have tried to do is show that studies claiming the potential is not there have flaws. I do that by reading the studies and seeing if they draw incorrect conclusions. So when a study is used to refute adaptive planned rotational grazing, but uses information about continuous grazing...then that is a flaw. Of if someone tries to refute modern high tech organic agriculture with statistics taken from archaic 10,000 years old traditional methods, that is a flaw. Or worse yet claims it can't be done based on the conventional model in place now which is an emissions source. The conclusions drawn from those are flawed. That is how you do critical thinking. You don't just find some study that backs your position or not with Google. You look at why based on all the actual evidences. Do I look closely at an orange and determine the flavor of an apple? Or do I need to look at apples? How many acres of land sequestering well over 1 ton per acre do you need before it isn't described as anecdotal? That's not even counting the reduction in emissions. A change in agriculture attacks both sides of that cycle. It lowers emissions AND sequesters carbon both. All while improving the environment and feeding us too. 1 ton per acre per year over nearly 1/2 the planet's land surface potentially.

You got a mitigation proposal even approaching that scale? Let's hear it.