• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clouds. Cern has discounted cosmic rays as a factor but seems to imply a biological component at play for cloud formation.

This makes all sorts of sense but also would seem to have crazy implications as it means our crop choices and land clearance in forests may have impacts far beyond albedo.
I would think pollen sizes and quantity - especially given our propensity for mono-cropping

In addition desertification dumps incredible particulates into the atmosphere particularly downwind of major deserts.

FOr instance what is going on in the North Atlantic hurricane season this year.? Is addtional dust or pollution raining the heat engine out before it gets going??? :confused:

Gavin has mentioned a number of times the difficulty of dealing with particulates. Now we have a biological aspect to consider as well as the carbon black and S02 etc from our activities.

Thoughts?:boggled:
 
wow - if you are talking about the authors on RealClimate you just lost any shred of respect I might have had for your ideas.
Do you really understand who you are talking about ??? !!!! :boggled:



You are just completely offbase with comment and Gavin is only one of numerous top climatologists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/



You really want to take on Gavin in math???!!!!...pardon my laughter but you seem to have a notable propensity NOT to understand the math.

Cool, put Gavin on the mistake, he'll probably laugh at the obvious fallacy himself. And if he actually backs it, I'll eat my words.
 
RBF
Gavin's email address is easily accessible...you send your comments to him or post them on RealClimate...
...or are you afraid of the consequences??? I'll not bother Gavin with your pejorative nonsense.

Obviously from your comments you didn't know the underpinnings of RC.

•••

Here is a bit more support for the climate aspect of vegetation type...

Cloud seeding by trees could alter precipitation, climate
Certain pollens shed potent ice-nucleating compounds
BY JANET RALOFF 10:43AM, OCTOBER 12, 2011

Bees and their nectar-loving friends aren’t the only means of transporting pollen long distances. Water molecules grab some wind-strewn pollens and whisk them up into the clouds, where they can become the seeds on which ice crystals form. These tiny bits of plant tissue can raise the temperature at which cloud water will freeze by up to 18 degrees Celsius, a new study finds — increasing the reflectivity of clouds and likelihood that droplets become heavy enough to rain out.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cloud-seeding-trees-could-alter-precipitation-climate

This fits well with the Cern info.
 
As far as I know it is a form of self delusion and lack of critical thinking that goes something like this, If it feels good, believe it. Or If it sounds right, trust it. But the same could be said (but in reverse) of the people blindly following the bad math and propaganda in the RealClimate blog. ie If it doesn't feel good or sound right, it must be wrong. I have shown exactly why the math used is bad, and why it probably was chosen precisely to have that effect on the readers and completely ignores the real world results that have been repeated over and over around the world. ...

You're describing some kind of soft delusion and not what epistemological hedonism is. And you're describing whatever it is by making a clownish caricature of "the enemy".

I was really saying that epistemological hedonism is what brought you to this point of "your knowledge". But now that you're psychologically invested in it, your behaviour may resemble what you described as *epistemological hedonism*. That is a matter of behaviour, not a matter of epistemology.

Epistemological hedonism has to do with the way we chose between two options. If one of them is attracting, or worrying, or puzzling, or soothing, or reassuring or menacing, whatever may satisfy the principle of pleasure directly or indirectly, well, that lead tends to be followed with disregard of the uninteresting option, no matter both equally probable (in the case of a trained researcher) or no matter which of them is more probable or even plausible (in the case of Joe Six Pack In The Fridge).

Once people is increasingly invested in such chains of reasoning, as hedonistic decisions tend to come back as feedback in a way they confirm themselves, a whole drama may follow, but you have to put elements of yourself that exceed epistemological hedonism to arrive to the episode of DeGrassi you described above.

The bottom line is, whether intentional or not, this statement in the RealClimate blog is completely misleading due to the math error of mixing gross figures on one side of the equation, with net values on the other.,
That paragraph is completely right. If you wanted to contrast it, you should have calmly said "but the bit «(assuming similar transfers to stable C pools like soil organic matter)» is fundamentally wrong -or is the element to act upon- because of [some of what you have been asked to provide for months now and you have failed to do so far]". That's the easy and informed way to do it and not doubling the bet with darer assertions or indulging into persecutional notions.

I come back to you later about the errors in the rest of your post. By the way I had forgotten that I had already read months ago the AGEE paper you suggested and found that it doesn't backed your claims about climate change at all, besides the criticizable bits in it.

Start looking for papers that really back you in your claims about climate change, because so far you have absolutely fail to provide evidence or something that makes sense to this thread's topic. And if you are to praise the virtues of more organic approach to farming, do it in the appropriate threads, not in this one.
 
Last edited:
Well if the rate of amount of carbon taken up by all of the vegetation in the world were actually to triple, that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 369 PgC/yr! An absurd figure that is not even close to Savory's claims and as far as I know, pretty much impossible at our current technology.

So the absurd claims are not Savory, and not me, they are in the RealClimate article by West and Briske. If you want to attack the prevalence of epistemological hedonism and peoples lack of critical thinking or wishful thinking or denial of the evidence and just accepting what a person says because he is an "authority", your sights are targeting the wrong side of the debate. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, a lot of people are wasting a huge amount of effort in wishful thinking, trying to debunk Savory, and giving a free pass to West and Briske. I am not saying you shouldn't put effort into investigating Savory and many of the other breakthroughs in land management. I know I did. But I also looked just as carefully at Briske and that Luddite like resistance to change as well.

Oh and BTW there are many more misleading statements made by West and Briske in the RealClimate article. I simply used that one because I was addressing where Reality Check was led astray.

I've just read it and the article at RealClimate and the numeric bits you pointed there are wrong. It's indeed a bad article because of the sloppy dance of wrong magnitudes: They've tried to induce the reader to envision the magnitudes involved, but they fail to point to the right processes.

Now I'm intrigued. I'll be reading Briske et al and hearing Savory video and I'll come back to you with my opinion.
 
Good luck at adding modules to earth system models to represent such kind of processes. They were already puzzled representing the lava lamp like "behaviour" of our oceans and getting ocean currents changed in case of deep climate change.

no real choice if models are to move forward especially regional ones.
Certainly areas like the Amazon are big enough to have micro-climates of their own and the biota may have a role beyond the normal convective aspect of afternoon storms and showers.

Sahara dust plays a role in the hurricanes across the mid Atlantic....just cuz it's difficult to tease out doesn't mean it cannot be assessed if only to help explain some anomalies.

Already there is an odd discrepancy of C02 levels in the Arctic that has something to do with changing biome.

How can you really expect a model to do well over massive areas of vegetation or desert without taking into account the particulates.

•••

BTW the shot at RBF was not article specific but the broad brush painting of the group which just comes across as foolish in the extreme.

Gavin and others do respond to critiques and well reasoned questions...they are scientists after all. If he's got a beef then he can take it up directly with them.
 
no real choice if models are to move forward especially regional ones.
Certainly areas like the Amazon are big enough to have micro-climates of their own and the biota may have a role beyond the normal convective aspect of afternoon storms and showers.

Sahara dust plays a role in the hurricanes across the mid Atlantic....just cuz it's difficult to tease out doesn't mean it cannot be assessed if only to help explain some anomalies.

Already there is an odd discrepancy of C02 levels in the Arctic that has something to do with changing biome.

How can you really expect a model to do well over massive areas of vegetation or desert without taking into account the particulates.

Of course there's no option, but I'll remind you this dialogue when a dire projection of +4.5° for 2075 over 1970-2000's comes from a model. These days I was looking for model runs on the hypothesis of a retrograde rotation of the Earth. It doesn't surprised me that some models don't allow it and the contradictory variety of results of those which do. In some paper it seems that there's an incremental model for sea currents so sea temperature comes to be strongly latitude dependent except the Atlantic coast of South America where a strong Humboldt-like current emerges. By observation, it resembles that the cold current that is expected by the reversion of the Earth's spin is superposed with the actual Malvinas/Falkland Current, a branch of the Antarctic Circumpolar which should have disappeared :D

Models have still a long way to go, so every projection has to be taken with a pinch of salt as there's not only the marine heat anchor what is making extreme predictions to fail -fortunately-.

By the way, the figures for Ocean Heat Content are due what is important as last three quarters have had unusual values. I'm afraid there may be a little gift that Santa is preparing for everyone in spite of the models saying otherwise.
 
By observation, it resembles that the cold current that is expected by the reversion of the Earth's spin is superposed with the actual Malvinas/Falkland Current, a branch of the Antarctic Circumpolar which should have disappeared

Doesn't the Galapagos kick what normally would be a bottom hugging current like the one that dives under the Gulf Stream into an upwelling and results in incredible bio-diversity.

I would have thought most models would take into account known ocean currents and major air flows.
 
I would have thought most models would take into account known ocean currents and major air flows.

They do, but that's the problem. A real earth system model should be capable to recreate the world as it is without being programmed with the actual outcome. I know I'm asking too much for 2013 as models had by force to start by taking account of what exists and analyse its possible variations, but I expect models to go in the right direction and I expect scientists and connoisseurs to be prudent about stretching too far the real predictive power of contemporary models.

I think there's been a pervasive influence of denialists and assorted epistemological hedonists in a way climate science looks for more certainty than it should.
 
Does global warming mean the globe is warming?.....or does it mean that if say even if the Earth is naturally cooling, lets just say....that man is causing heat, which in turn is causing the Earth to be warmer than what it would be if say there was no industrialization or vehicles? Then there is THIS: When oil is in the ground, it is heat neutral i presume. But then when we extract it, we cause heat. When we refine it, we cause heat. When we burn what we refined, we cause heat. So.....since we have an insulating atmosphere and cloud cover...shouldnt there be a heat build up? Also, before any man or creatures were on Earth, we were dirt, right? Well, now there are 7 billion people(not counting animals/creatures), and i have heard on avg we give off 400 btu`s each. That be 2.8 trillion...TRILLION... btus of heat...per HOUR, that we are giving off. WELL, where`s THAT going? Now if the rain cycles, ozone, counteracting oxygen and carbon dioxide gasses act as some kind of thermostat, keeping all in balance no matter what we do, energy wise...if that`s true...well, that`s another feather in the cap for a supreme deity theory, that thought this whole thing up, keeping the Earth man-proof, you might say. It just seems awfully lucky if not only do we have all the wonders of the Earth, such as previous (partial) lists i have made, but then ontop of it, have an Earth that `knows` how to keep itself temperate.
 
So the absurd claims are not Savory, and not me, they are in the RealClimate article by West and Briske. If you want to attack the prevalence of epistemological hedonism and peoples lack of critical thinking or wishful thinking or denial of the evidence and just accepting what a person says because he is an "authority", your sights are targeting the wrong side of the debate. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, a lot of people are wasting a huge amount of effort in wishful thinking, trying to debunk Savory, and giving a free pass to West and Briske. I am not saying you shouldn't put effort into investigating Savory and many of the other breakthroughs in land management. I know I did. But I also looked just as carefully at Briske and that Luddite like resistance to change as well.

Oh and BTW there are many more misleading statements made by West and Briske in the RealClimate article. I simply used that one because I was addressing where Reality Check was led astray.

Well, I'll do what I promised and I could be writing a few pages, but I won't. To be brief:

I saw the video and I like this dude Savory. He's a salesman, not a scientist. A salesman with a little vocation for messianism. And it's OK because he has a very difficult product to sale. In my opinion he goes really too too far with his sale arguments, and in spite I'd like him to succeed, I can't help being disgusted for the bunch of distortions, exaggeration, and even plain lies he resort to sell the product. A product worth selling, I repeat.

Examples of exaggeration:

  • 2/3 of the world is desertifying (2:35)
  • one inch of water -except some runoff- evaporated (3:10)
Exaggerations verging lies (because of the induced inferences involved), or simply lies :

  • 1 ha burned produces more pollutants than 6,000 cars (probably during the hours it burns, but the induced inference is "yearly" or other foul play created by the facts that cars are not used just the time a hectare burns and then discarded) (about 11:00)
  • Each single year more than one billion hectares of grasslands are burned in Africa (about 11:00). Well, in fact Africa has 3,022 million hectares and at least a third are dessert, jungle and mountains, so most African grasslands are burned on a yearly basis according to Savory. That's easily proven false (revisit this animation)
  • In this area people is basically fed with cattle, up to 95% -he plays with the number and tries to induce having it stretched to the whole area, as the image shows (what is easily dismissed as the area is home to several hundreds of millions):
Use of slushy imagery and cheap emotional tricks:

  • Better pastures means families growing and generations staying in the land (about 17:00)
  • Happy photos: bambi with his mother, happy kids on a fence, etcetera, all surrounded of green (19:40)
  • Contrasting photos used to induce they illustrate a "before" and an "after" (used along all the video)
Fantasies about global warming from 18:50 on. Unfounded assertions -always done in the typical advertising way of induced inference- like suggesting that half of the atmospheric carbon provides from land use and the other half from fossil fuels (but he explicitly says he believes it's even more -said in an ambiguous way: the public believe it's from soils-) (18:58). I forgot to take note of what he says in 19:30, but I wrote "delusions".

And finally, the paragraph quoted in RealClimate, which is a jewel:
“…people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that for illustrative purposes, if we do what I’m showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world’s grasslands that I’ve shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, for their children and all of humanity…”
​
Look how carefully worded it is -like every induced inference-. Other knowledgeable anonymous people said in a scientific manner -calculate- for illustrative purposes (isn't this genius?) that we can get rid of the problem completely (that's the meaning of "safely stored for thousands of years"), "I can think almost nothing..." isn't it gorgeous? Dale Carnegie pales.

Of course, there's mostly a fantasy. But anyway I agree a lot of money -including part of what I pay as taxes- must be devoted to the sort of ideas this Savory and people like him are proposing. And believe me, the problem is that, except in some overgrazed regions mainly in Africa, there's no economical gain in doing so unless some incentives and funding are made available in the right places and with the right timing.

But of course, that doesn't mean that seriously holistic approach to farming is going to solve the problem of global warming and feed us with reasonable costs. Not even solve a fourth of it and feed us at great expense. But in fact some of the 2.6 GT of net capture in the IPCC figure comes from this and other real changes in husbandry techniques, like no-till.

About Briske et al (did you realise that Teague, one of your favourite authors, is among the "al"?). They compare techniques just from the point of view of productivity. The rotational grazing described there is the simplest and dullest available. I don't know what real techniques were used in all the rotational grazing considered. The conclusion points toward intensive grazing being equal if not better than rotational grazing, but that is not clear at all. The environmental effects of such techniques is completely disregarded as if it is of no value, so there are no possible connexion with Savory's assertions but about his propposed great increase of productivity. In that subject Briske seem to be less wrong than Savory.

Savory's assertions fall by themselves and that RealClimate page doesn't contribute to that fall.

About Savory's mention of Patagonian herds, visit http://www.ovis21.com/. Some information in English. Much information in Spanish. That information doesn't include the 50% raise in one year claimed by Savory nor any information about the actual gain in SOC. Such raise is mentioned as a sale argument, but not quantified, as everything is sold as sustainable and people taking care of the land, which is very commendable but does little for the actual CO2 pool in the atmosphere.
 
Does global warming mean the globe is warming?.....or does it mean that if say even if the Earth is naturally cooling, lets just say....that man is causing heat, which in turn is causing the Earth to be warmer than what it would be if say there was no industrialization or vehicles? Then there is THIS: When oil is in the ground, it is heat neutral i presume. But then when we extract it, we cause heat. When we refine it, we cause heat. When we burn what we refined, we cause heat. So.....since we have an insulating atmosphere and cloud cover...shouldnt there be a heat build up? Also, before any man or creatures were on Earth, we were dirt, right? Well, now there are 7 billion people(not counting animals/creatures), and i have heard on avg we give off 400 btu`s each. That be 2.8 trillion...TRILLION... btus of heat...per HOUR, that we are giving off. WELL, where`s THAT going? Now if the rain cycles, ozone, counteracting oxygen and carbon dioxide gasses act as some kind of thermostat, keeping all in balance no matter what we do, energy wise...if that`s true...well, that`s another feather in the cap for a supreme deity theory, that thought this whole thing up, keeping the Earth man-proof, you might say. It just seems awfully lucky if not only do we have all the wonders of the Earth, such as previous (partial) lists i have made, but then ontop of it, have an Earth that `knows` how to keep itself temperate.

You have to learn the basics of it before starting to arrive to conclusions. It's not heat produced by humans (it's called "waste heat" and it amounts just 0.007% of the whole Earth's energy budget). It's greenhouse gases produced by humans that make increasingly difficult heat (99.97% coming from the sun) to escape back to space.
 
It just seems awfully lucky if not only do we have all the wonders of the Earth, such as previous (partial) lists i have made, but then ontop of it, have an Earth that `knows` how to keep itself temperate.
We don't have such an Earth. We don't have your god either, nor any other. We have the world we evolved to prosper in and the civilisation which we developed in the current climate. Go to Antarctica and persuade yourself it's temperate there if you can (and perhaps you can, the human mind is a wonder) but you're not going to persuade anybody here.
 
I saw the video and I like this dude Savory. He's a salesman, not a scientist. A salesman with a little vocation for messianism.
You think? :)

He ticks every box on the guru checklist, including the one about having acolytes.

This quote says it all, I think :

“You’ll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries.”
 
Well, I'll do what I promised and I could be writing a few pages, but I won't. To be brief:

I saw the video and I like this dude Savory. He's a salesman, not a scientist. A salesman with a little vocation for messianism. And it's OK because he has a very difficult product to sale. In my opinion he goes really too too far with his sale arguments, and in spite I'd like him to succeed, I can't help being disgusted for the bunch of distortions, exaggeration, and even plain lies he resort to sell the product. A product worth selling, I repeat.

Examples of exaggeration:

  • 2/3 of the world is desertifying (2:35)
  • one inch of water -except some runoff- evaporated (3:10)
Exaggerations verging lies (because of the induced inferences involved), or simply lies :

  • 1 ha burned produces more pollutants than 6,000 cars (probably during the hours it burns, but the induced inference is "yearly" or other foul play created by the facts that cars are not used just the time a hectare burns and then discarded) (about 11:00)
  • Each single year more than one billion hectares of grasslands are burned in Africa (about 11:00). Well, in fact Africa has 3,022 million hectares and at least a third are dessert, jungle and mountains, so most African grasslands are burned on a yearly basis according to Savory. That's easily proven false (revisit this animation)
  • In this area people is basically fed with cattle, up to 95% -he plays with the number and tries to induce having it stretched to the whole area, as the image shows (what is easily dismissed as the area is home to several hundreds of millions):[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_33325528933c9ceed4.jpg[/qimg]
Use of slushy imagery and cheap emotional tricks:

  • Better pastures means families growing and generations staying in the land (about 17:00)
  • Happy photos: bambi with his mother, happy kids on a fence, etcetera, all surrounded of green (19:40)
  • Contrasting photos used to induce they illustrate a "before" and an "after" (used along all the video)
Fantasies about global warming from 18:50 on. Unfounded assertions -always done in the typical advertising way of induced inference- like suggesting that half of the atmospheric carbon provides from land use and the other half from fossil fuels (but he explicitly says he believes it's even more -said in an ambiguous way: the public believe it's from soils-) (18:58). I forgot to take note of what he says in 19:30, but I wrote "delusions".

And finally, the paragraph quoted in RealClimate, which is a jewel:
“…people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that for illustrative purposes, if we do what I’m showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world’s grasslands that I’ve shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, for their children and all of humanity…”
​
Look how carefully worded it is -like every induced inference-. Other knowledgeable anonymous people said in a scientific manner -calculate- for illustrative purposes (isn't this genius?) that we can get rid of the problem completely (that's the meaning of "safely stored for thousands of years"), "I can think almost nothing..." isn't it gorgeous? Dale Carnegie pales.

Of course, there's mostly a fantasy. But anyway I agree a lot of money -including part of what I pay as taxes- must be devoted to the sort of ideas this Savory and people like him are proposing. And believe me, the problem is that, except in some overgrazed regions mainly in Africa, there's no economical gain in doing so unless some incentives and funding are made available in the right places and with the right timing.

But of course, that doesn't mean that seriously holistic approach to farming is going to solve the problem of global warming and feed us with reasonable costs. Not even solve a fourth of it and feed us at great expense. But in fact some of the 2.6 GT of net capture in the IPCC figure comes from this and other real changes in husbandry techniques, like no-till.

About Briske et al (did you realise that Teague, one of your favourite authors, is among the "al"?). They compare techniques just from the point of view of productivity. The rotational grazing described there is the simplest and dullest available. I don't know what real techniques were used in all the rotational grazing considered. The conclusion points toward intensive grazing being equal if not better than rotational grazing, but that is not clear at all. The environmental effects of such techniques is completely disregarded as if it is of no value, so there are no possible connexion with Savory's assertions but about his propposed great increase of productivity. In that subject Briske seem to be less wrong than Savory.

Savory's assertions fall by themselves and that RealClimate page doesn't contribute to that fall.

About Savory's mention of Patagonian herds, visit http://www.ovis21.com/. Some information in English. Much information in Spanish. That information doesn't include the 50% raise in one year claimed by Savory nor any information about the actual gain in SOC. Such raise is mentioned as a sale argument, but not quantified, as everything is sold as sustainable and people taking care of the land, which is very commendable but does little for the actual CO2 pool in the atmosphere.
It could be possible that the things you are looking for are better described in this vid. Gabe Brown, who I mentioned before does use holistic management, is one of the featured case study farms, but the grazing part of this is not the focus of the vid except as part of the integration with crop production. It does address the issues of productivity and profit you brought up quite well and in pretty good detail, as well as more detailed soil analysis. The "salesmanship" of Savory's Ted Talk is absent. In other words it is showing the integration of "mob grazing" with conventional no-till crop system modified in innovative ways for soil improvement. It also explains in better detail the water issue you mentioned.

Innovative No-Till: Using Multi-Species Cover Crops to Improve Soil Health

ETA Yes I am well aware Teague is on that study. I mentioned him and his new research, and his own rebuttal of the Briske study he was part of for precisely that reason. Presumable since he was part of the Briske et al study he should know as well as anyone the limitations of that study.
 
Last edited:
It could be possible that the things you are looking for are better described in this vid. Gabe Brown, who I mentioned before does use holistic management, is one of the featured case study farms, but the grazing part of this is not the focus of the vid except as part of the integration with crop production. It does address the issues of productivity and profit you brought up quite well and in pretty good detail, as well as more detailed soil analysis. The "salesmanship" of Savory's Ted Talk is absent. In other words it is showing the integration of "mob grazing" with conventional no-till crop system modified in innovative ways for soil improvement. It also explains in better detail the water issue you mentioned.

Innovative No-Till: Using Multi-Species Cover Crops to Improve Soil Health

Sorry, I didn't find any paper or numerical database in their website, so I fail to see the reason I would hear more than an hour in a language that is difficult to me in its spoken form, being the subject no-till with cover species, which is known here for many years know -though chemical fallow continue to be the most common method-.

In fact, last Saturday I came across the type of studies I'm looking for, and it exclusively compared the change in SOC in different layers of the first metre of soil in three plots originally identical under no-till with chemical fallow, no-till with cover crop, and "traditional" -I'd rather call it "heritage"-, during the period 1992-2004, in an experimental station of INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) -THE official technological institution on agriculture here-. over a specific type of soil common to that region of Córdoba Province (The Southern Hemisphere's).

I found here an endless number of such papers and I have a hard time believing that such kind of papers doesn't exist in abundance in the US publicly available and that no-till with cover species is considered innovative in 2013 (maybe in 1993). But perhaps it's you who can't find them or don't want to find them.

ETA Yes I am well aware Teague is on that study. I mentioned him and his new research, and his own rebuttal of the Briske study he was part of for precisely that reason. Presumable since he was part of the Briske et al study he should know as well as anyone the limitations of that study.
Please, point me to Teague's rebuttal of Briske, ..., Teague, et al. Any direct source you can link here, so I can check how much of it is real and how much of it is gossip.
 
Sorry, I didn't find any paper or numerical database in their website, so I fail to see the reason I would hear more than an hour in a language that is difficult to me in its spoken form, being the subject no-till with cover species, which is known here for many years know -though chemical fallow continue to be the most common method-.

In fact, last Saturday I came across the type of studies I'm looking for, and it exclusively compared the change in SOC in different layers of the first metre of soil in three plots originally identical under no-till with chemical fallow, no-till with cover crop, and "traditional" -I'd rather call it "heritage"-, during the period 1992-2004, in an experimental station of INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) -THE official technological institution on agriculture here-. over a specific type of soil common to that region of Córdoba Province (The Southern Hemisphere's).

I found here an endless number of such papers and I have a hard time believing that such kind of papers doesn't exist in abundance in the US publicly available and that no-till with cover species is considered innovative in 2013 (maybe in 1993). But perhaps it's you who can't find them or don't want to find them.
It's a pity you have a hard time with spoken English because this is dramatically advanced over those papers you are talking about. Gradually reducing fertilizer and pesticide use 90% or more while actually increasing yields. And they are rapidly approaching the day when they can get better yields with no fertiliser or pesticide at all. They have already reached that in a few of the older fields. (with the highest SOC) I'll find a way to get you the papers, and maybe even a transcript of the webinar. I'll make a few phone calls.
Please, point me to Teague's rebuttal of Briske, ..., Teague, et al. Any direct source you can link here, so I can check how much of it is real and how much of it is gossip.

Well I already did send you one rebuttal #492 (However you are right, it was written by Itzkan using published Teague and others work) , but as it turns out, it just so happens Teague made that request very easy by posting a rebuttal on the RealClimate blog yesterday. Post 126.

126
Richard Teague says:
17 Nov 2013 at 10:13 PM
DEFICIENCIES IN THE BRISKE ESTIMATES OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION ON RANGELANDS

By Richard Teague
Professor, Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University
Senior Scientist of the Borlaug Institute
Associate Resident Director, Texas A&M AgriLife Research
P.O. Box 1658, Vernon, TX 76385
E-mail: [email protected]

Most research related to grazing management, and thus carbon sequestration potential, on rangelands cited by Briske et al. [1,2,3] has been short-term and has examined the issue from a reductionist viewpoint that ignores the critical influences of scale, and does not use adaptive multi-paddock grazing to achieve sound animal production, resource improvement, and socio-economic goals under constantly varying conditions on rangelands [4]. Superior results in terms of range ecosystem improvement, productivity, soil carbon and fertility, water holding capacity and profitability have been regularly obtained by ranchers using multiple paddocks per herd with short periods of grazing, long recovery periods and adaptively changing recovery periods and other management elements as conditions change [4,5].

The references cited by Briske et al. [1,2,3] concentrate only on differences in rangeland productivity without meaningfully taking into account negative impacts on the environment that can lead to misleading extrapolations. These conclusions cloud, rather than enhance, knowledge about sustainable grazing management and are not relevant to practical grazing management. Multi-paddock grazing research from Australia, Southern Africa, Argentina and USA [4,5] that was: i) conducted at the scale of ranching operations, ii) adaptively managed as conditions changed to achieve desired ecosystem and production goals, and iii) measured parameters indicating change in ecosystem function, have arrived at the opposite conclusion. These published data were omitted in the reviews by Briske et al. [1,2,3].

Many ranchers around the world have used adaptive, multi-paddock grazing management to restore ecosystem services and productivity on degraded rangelands in areas with less than 10 and up to 80 inches of annual precipitation. Many of these ranches in drier areas were initially so bare of vegetation that they would have been classified as desertified. By ignoring such successful restoration examples, Briske and other scientists with the same limited experience are grossly underestimating the potential of management to increase carbon sequestration on the rangelands of the world. Consequently, the inferences and conclusions made by Briske et al. [1,2,3] do not represent the subject adequately because conclusions have been selectively chosen so as to exclude published data showing superior results at commercial ranch scale from adaptively managed multi-paddock grazing. The studies referenced underestimate positive benefits to soil and ecosystem function, so they almost certainly underestimate the potential of rangelands to sequester carbon. The accumulated body of small-scale grazing systems research promoted by Dr. Briske and partners needs to be evaluated in light of the discrepancies with larger-scale studies, and perhaps should be largely set aside as being of little relevance to any discussion of grazing distribution on commercial ranches.

The majority of conservation awards to ranchers operating on native rangelands have overwhelmingly gone to ranchers using multi-paddock grazing of one form or another. These ranchers operate in extensive, heterogeneous landscapes, where they are confronted with the adverse effects of uneven grazing distribution, and their collective ecological and management knowledge using multi paddock grazing indicating the necessity of using adaptive, multi-paddock grazing management to achieve superior outcomes. The articles in the Rangelands October 2013 issue, a journal of the Society for Rangeland Management, support this.
In calculating the potential of rangelands to sequester carbon to offset global climate change and improve ecosystem function we cannot ignore the superior outcomes achieved by conservation award winning ranchers, those who have restored ecosystem function and productivity on degraded rangeland using adaptively managed multi-paddock, time-controlled grazing, or published research that does not refute the results achieved on these ranches.

References

1. Briske, D., Derner, J., Brown, J., Fuhlendorf, S., Teague, R., Gillen, B., Ash, A., Havstad, K., Willms, W., 2008. Benefits of Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: An Evaluation of the Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61, 3-17. http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/06-159R.1

2. Briske, D.D., Sayre, N.F., Huntsinger, L., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Budd, B., Derner, J.D., 2011. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64, 325e334.

3. David D. Briske, Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Joel R. Brown, Samuel D. Fuhlendorf, and H. Wayne Polley, 2013. The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse Climate Change. A response to the Allan Savory TED video. Rangelands 35(5):72-74. 2013
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1

4. Richard Teague, Fred Provenza, Urs Kreuter, Tim Steffens, Matt Barnes, 2013. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 128, 15 October 2013, Pages 699-717, ISSN 0301-4797, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064.

5. Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L., Baker, S.A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P.B., Conover, D.M., 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 141, 310-322.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880911000934
 
Last edited:
You think? :)

He ticks every box on the guru checklist, including the one about having acolytes.

With little check marks, yes.

This quote says it all, I think :

The quote is «You’ll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me.»

He's Dale Carnegie resurrected! His words are excellent to teach what induced inferences are. And I suppose that he, like everybody using the techniques, feels to be free of criticism for doing so, as induced inference is so easily neutralized: 8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas (the other two accepted their chopped cabbage first). Pity that's not taught at school, and even fora like these ones have few practitioner of such a debunking.
 
It's a pity you have a hard time with spoken English because this is dramatically advanced over those papers you are talking about. Gradually reducing fertilizer and pesticide use 90% or more while actually increasing yields. And they are rapidly approaching the day when they can get better yields with no fertiliser or pesticide at all. They have already reached that in a few of the older fields. (with the highest SOC) I'll find a way to get you the papers, and maybe even a transcript of the webinar. I'll make a few phone calls.

Thank for that. I'd really like to read papers dealing with both increasing SOC and yields, and their economical implications. That's a point for analizing action about modifying taxes and subsidies.

By the way, for the bunch of papers I could collect here, there's an average gain in SOC of about 0.8 T/ha.yr in all lands changing to no-till cultivation. Other papers relate with other schemes of rotational grazing, some of them I was explained when I was a child -decades ago- like having camps free of cattle more than a year to recover cycles of certain grasses. All the techniques with SOC analysis done to my satisfaction -not like Teague et al's paper- range from 0.3 to almost 2 T/ha.yr during the initial period, and those techniques are being used here in tens of millions of hectares (26 of 29 million hectares planted with grain crops are no-till). The most important thing is that done without the intention of contributing to moderate the global warming issue -or done because of it, but for moral reasons-. That is, no retribution other than the same of better production (that in a country where an amazing 58% of soy income evaporates as taxes)

Well I already did send you one rebuttal #492 (However you are right, it was written by Itzkan using published Teague and others work) , but as it turns out, it just so happens Teague made that request very easy by posting a rebuttal on the RealClimate blog yesterday. Post 126.

It confirms some elements I saw, like the stereotypical rotation considered. But it claims elements I also claim about Teague's (#5 in Teague's post), besides the omissions in it. About #4, I got a copy of it and it cites an Argentine paper that is also cited many times in literature in the United States: "Rotational Grazing Effects on Rangeland Vegetation at a Farm Scale" by Jacobo , Rodríguez , Bartoloni and Deregibu. Trying to get a copy of it (Jacobo and Rodriguez teach at my alma mater, 10 km from home)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom