P
pixelsmith
Guest
Interesting reading: Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Your sources spend a good amount of text to spin rather than focus on science which in itself is a red flag. I am not interested in rebuttals of 'alarmists scientists' or 'recent media attention'. Trying to wade through all the underbrush of this kind of rhetoric is time consuming.
Particularly relevant is when the subtlety of the CO2 argument is not understood. This is not simple science. It is multi-layered science. We are talking about feed-back loops and triggers. CO2 levels is one trigger.
LINK: The Meteoric Rise of Carbon Dioxide in 1 Video | Climate Central
TEXT May 2014: "April set a carbon dioxide milestone by averaging 400 parts per million for the entire month. That’s uncharted territory over the course of human history, and a new data visualization makes clear just how high and fast it has risen. [Please note: we are talking about human history, not geologic history, or earth history.]
"The march to 400 ppm might seem slow by human standards, rising just one or two parts per million each year, but it’s a veritable sprint by geological standards. We know this from ice cores, which contain air bubbles that give snapshots of carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years. Modern atmospheric measurements are taken at observatories around the globe including one at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which has been taking continuous measurements since the late 1950s.
"An animation from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences makes clear that though there have been variations over time, the current rise is unparalleled. The animation zooms in on the graph of temperatures, often times referred to as the Hockey Stick for its distinctive shape, and shows the granular changes over time. It’s clear that there are long swings taking CO2 levels anywhere from 175 ppm up to 300 ppm.
"Over the course of the past 2,000 years, CO2 has stayed roughly around 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution kickstarted a carbon emissions bonanza, driving levels higher and higher. It soared past 350 ppm — the level scientist James Hansen has said is the safe upper limit of CO2 — in October 1989.
"CO2 levels vary throughout the year as trees and plants burst forth in the spring and draw down levels over the following months. That means this year’s CO2 levels will peak in May and then drop below 400 ppm over the summer before trekking back up in the fall. Scientists that work on the CO2 monitoring program at Mauna Loa estimate it will be just a few years before CO2 levels stay above 400 ppm year round.
Rising CO2 levels have been linked to the globe’s average temperature rise as well as a host of other changes to the climate system including sea level rise, shifts in precipitation, ocean acidification, and an increase in extreme heat. Those changes are expected to continue and intensify if emissions from human activities continue."
Why is this important? It's complicated. May 2011. LINK: Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
The article is advocating a target of 450 to maintain a 'safe' 2'C rise by 2100. That target is viewed by one commenter as unrealistic: "I both agree and disagree with your position re the target of 450 ppm. I agree that it is dangerous, and that the effect on the environment are likely to be significant. However, I disagree that it should not [sic] be an aspirational target, because given the current state of politics and the pitiful efforts to reduce current emissions, 450 ppm is likely to be at the low end of what we can realistically achieve. I am very concerned by this, and I despair about what the state of the environment is going to be at the end of this century because of it. But what can you do?"
Read the comments to observe first hand the debate/conversation taking place. This is not black-and-white thinking. It is complex and nuanced. Interpretation of data is always being fine tuned. This is living science - trying to find answers to what is being observed.
The following is a scientific conversation, not a battering of 'sides'. This is an exploration of possibilities based on observations - and new information coming in as the article was being written (in a sense).
TEXT: "A target of 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as synonymous with keeping mean global temperature by 2100 to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This is very misleading and dangerous. For reasons set out below, achievement of that target, probably by 2030, is likely to result in mean global temperatures dangerously in excess of the predicted 2°C. At present we use the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as the indicative measure of future temperature.
[...]
"As global temperature rises it causes fast (loss of albedo) and slow (clathrate melting) feedbacks. A lot of work has been done on examining the effects of fast feedbacks – much less on slow ones, even though their effect on global temperature is becoming increasingly evident.
"Slow feedbacks are increasing at an accelerating rate, as are their warming effects. Stratospheric ozone is increasing reversing the cooling effect caused by its loss, particularly over Antarctica. Cooling aerosols are diminishing as countries reduce their emissions because of their health effects.
"Prior to these developments atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450ppm was equated as limiting average global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. This can no longer be maintained. Hansen and Sato (2011) using paleoclimate data rather than models of recent and expected climate change warn that “goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster”.
"They predict that pursuit of those goals will result in an average global temperature exceeding those of the Eemian, producing decadal doubling of the rate polar ice loss, resulting in sea level rise of up to 5m by the end of this century. That prognosis is one which can not be ignored. Atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm may be an icon to which politicians and others cling but it is wrong and dangerously so.
"Taking into account all of the above matters, what concentration of CO2 will limit global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100? Hansen suggests 350 ppm, warning that anything above this is dangerous."
Now what is your linked article below emphasizing? Please note the rhetoric and analogies being used by the author in the first article. In the second article there is an assumption/hope that the reader is poorly versed in the science of the matter and will be stymied by big words is my guess.
TEXT: "With atmospheric CO2 concentrations reaching the 400 ppm level, the media and a number of alarmist scientists have set off the mega-alarm bells, claiming “record high levels” of CO2 had been reached, and that the planet is on the verge of an overdose. This is based purely on ignorance of the Earth’s history.
"Worrying that 400 ppm is too high is like worrying about your fuel tank overflowing when it reaches the 1/8 mark during filling." [The article then uses a graphic of a car's gas gauge to make it's point - this is not science.]
"From an historical perspective, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 400 ppm is actually almost scraping the bottom of the barrel. Over the Earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm, see Figure 1 below. On that scale we are in fact today barely above the Earth’s record lows."
[If by historical is meant geologic history that's one thing. If human history is being considered that is another. Human history has taken place in a very narrow band. But to understand what is being said you must understand why the CO2 rise to 400 ppm in one month is troublesome and causes concern for humanity - not the earth.]
Some jiggery-pokery here methinks. This is science but it is written in a very dense and nearly incomprehensible manner. Perhaps you can decode and translate the article in sum? That would be helpful because I'm not sure you understand what this article is actually claiming.
TEXT: "Reduction of photosynthesising biomass through indiscriminate deforestation constitutes damage to the self-regulating mechanism that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and a review of the evidence shows that the yearly deficit in photosynthetic uptake of atmospheric carbon dwarfs the carbon emission of fossil fuel combustion."
What evidence is that? Can you supply it? This is a political statement, not science.
If you doubted what this short little piece is trying to do, here we have it: "Carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion represent less than 20% of the total human impact on atmospheric carbon levels."
Exactly how was that arrived at? And if accurate, and you believe this is so, why should we not be concerned with the 20% mark?
In sum, I am skiing of you: First tell me how the 20% was arrived at. Then, is it accurate. Then, why this 20% should not concern us. Show me that you understand the science.
The article purports to understand the consequences of deforestation, but only in as much as so saying deflects from the major issue of 'carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion'. What you have linked to reeks of a political - rather than a scientific - agenda.
It's unlikely I will spend this kind of time again on an answer to your links. You engage in very little intellectual 'heavy lifting' - is my observation. I doubt you will respond with anything other than a nonsensical one-liner post with some dismissive wordage. It is so predictable it is boring.
Particularly relevant is when the subtlety of the CO2 argument is not understood. This is not simple science. It is multi-layered science. We are talking about feed-back loops and triggers. CO2 levels is one trigger.
LINK: The Meteoric Rise of Carbon Dioxide in 1 Video | Climate Central
TEXT May 2014: "April set a carbon dioxide milestone by averaging 400 parts per million for the entire month. That’s uncharted territory over the course of human history, and a new data visualization makes clear just how high and fast it has risen. [Please note: we are talking about human history, not geologic history, or earth history.]
"The march to 400 ppm might seem slow by human standards, rising just one or two parts per million each year, but it’s a veritable sprint by geological standards. We know this from ice cores, which contain air bubbles that give snapshots of carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years. Modern atmospheric measurements are taken at observatories around the globe including one at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which has been taking continuous measurements since the late 1950s.
"An animation from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences makes clear that though there have been variations over time, the current rise is unparalleled. The animation zooms in on the graph of temperatures, often times referred to as the Hockey Stick for its distinctive shape, and shows the granular changes over time. It’s clear that there are long swings taking CO2 levels anywhere from 175 ppm up to 300 ppm.
"Over the course of the past 2,000 years, CO2 has stayed roughly around 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution kickstarted a carbon emissions bonanza, driving levels higher and higher. It soared past 350 ppm — the level scientist James Hansen has said is the safe upper limit of CO2 — in October 1989.
"CO2 levels vary throughout the year as trees and plants burst forth in the spring and draw down levels over the following months. That means this year’s CO2 levels will peak in May and then drop below 400 ppm over the summer before trekking back up in the fall. Scientists that work on the CO2 monitoring program at Mauna Loa estimate it will be just a few years before CO2 levels stay above 400 ppm year round.
Rising CO2 levels have been linked to the globe’s average temperature rise as well as a host of other changes to the climate system including sea level rise, shifts in precipitation, ocean acidification, and an increase in extreme heat. Those changes are expected to continue and intensify if emissions from human activities continue."
Why is this important? It's complicated. May 2011. LINK: Why 450 ppm is not a safe target
The article is advocating a target of 450 to maintain a 'safe' 2'C rise by 2100. That target is viewed by one commenter as unrealistic: "I both agree and disagree with your position re the target of 450 ppm. I agree that it is dangerous, and that the effect on the environment are likely to be significant. However, I disagree that it should not [sic] be an aspirational target, because given the current state of politics and the pitiful efforts to reduce current emissions, 450 ppm is likely to be at the low end of what we can realistically achieve. I am very concerned by this, and I despair about what the state of the environment is going to be at the end of this century because of it. But what can you do?"
Read the comments to observe first hand the debate/conversation taking place. This is not black-and-white thinking. It is complex and nuanced. Interpretation of data is always being fine tuned. This is living science - trying to find answers to what is being observed.
The following is a scientific conversation, not a battering of 'sides'. This is an exploration of possibilities based on observations - and new information coming in as the article was being written (in a sense).
TEXT: "A target of 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere is widely regarded as synonymous with keeping mean global temperature by 2100 to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This is very misleading and dangerous. For reasons set out below, achievement of that target, probably by 2030, is likely to result in mean global temperatures dangerously in excess of the predicted 2°C. At present we use the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as the indicative measure of future temperature.
[...]
"As global temperature rises it causes fast (loss of albedo) and slow (clathrate melting) feedbacks. A lot of work has been done on examining the effects of fast feedbacks – much less on slow ones, even though their effect on global temperature is becoming increasingly evident.
"Slow feedbacks are increasing at an accelerating rate, as are their warming effects. Stratospheric ozone is increasing reversing the cooling effect caused by its loss, particularly over Antarctica. Cooling aerosols are diminishing as countries reduce their emissions because of their health effects.
"Prior to these developments atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450ppm was equated as limiting average global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. This can no longer be maintained. Hansen and Sato (2011) using paleoclimate data rather than models of recent and expected climate change warn that “goals of limiting human made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster”.
"They predict that pursuit of those goals will result in an average global temperature exceeding those of the Eemian, producing decadal doubling of the rate polar ice loss, resulting in sea level rise of up to 5m by the end of this century. That prognosis is one which can not be ignored. Atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm may be an icon to which politicians and others cling but it is wrong and dangerously so.
"Taking into account all of the above matters, what concentration of CO2 will limit global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100? Hansen suggests 350 ppm, warning that anything above this is dangerous."
Now what is your linked article below emphasizing? Please note the rhetoric and analogies being used by the author in the first article. In the second article there is an assumption/hope that the reader is poorly versed in the science of the matter and will be stymied by big words is my guess.
TEXT: "With atmospheric CO2 concentrations reaching the 400 ppm level, the media and a number of alarmist scientists have set off the mega-alarm bells, claiming “record high levels” of CO2 had been reached, and that the planet is on the verge of an overdose. This is based purely on ignorance of the Earth’s history.
"Worrying that 400 ppm is too high is like worrying about your fuel tank overflowing when it reaches the 1/8 mark during filling." [The article then uses a graphic of a car's gas gauge to make it's point - this is not science.]
"From an historical perspective, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 400 ppm is actually almost scraping the bottom of the barrel. Over the Earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm, see Figure 1 below. On that scale we are in fact today barely above the Earth’s record lows."
[If by historical is meant geologic history that's one thing. If human history is being considered that is another. Human history has taken place in a very narrow band. But to understand what is being said you must understand why the CO2 rise to 400 ppm in one month is troublesome and causes concern for humanity - not the earth.]
Some jiggery-pokery here methinks. This is science but it is written in a very dense and nearly incomprehensible manner. Perhaps you can decode and translate the article in sum? That would be helpful because I'm not sure you understand what this article is actually claiming.
TEXT: "Reduction of photosynthesising biomass through indiscriminate deforestation constitutes damage to the self-regulating mechanism that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and a review of the evidence shows that the yearly deficit in photosynthetic uptake of atmospheric carbon dwarfs the carbon emission of fossil fuel combustion."
What evidence is that? Can you supply it? This is a political statement, not science.
If you doubted what this short little piece is trying to do, here we have it: "Carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion represent less than 20% of the total human impact on atmospheric carbon levels."
Exactly how was that arrived at? And if accurate, and you believe this is so, why should we not be concerned with the 20% mark?
In sum, I am skiing of you: First tell me how the 20% was arrived at. Then, is it accurate. Then, why this 20% should not concern us. Show me that you understand the science.
The article purports to understand the consequences of deforestation, but only in as much as so saying deflects from the major issue of 'carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion'. What you have linked to reeks of a political - rather than a scientific - agenda.
It's unlikely I will spend this kind of time again on an answer to your links. You engage in very little intellectual 'heavy lifting' - is my observation. I doubt you will respond with anything other than a nonsensical one-liner post with some dismissive wordage. It is so predictable it is boring.
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
If you really are serious - talk the science - not the politics. What all the name-calling and posturing tells me is that you can't argue the science. I'm willing to listen but I hear nothing but noise.
You don't get it. There is no 'one side', there is an on-going scientific conversation. There are certain facts based on observation that are absolute - but we are watching the system change before our eyes. We could predict certain possibilities but how it's all playing out has us startled at the speed, and the factors emerging that we never initially considered.
You want it to be simple. You want - perhaps - to be on the winning side. It doesn't work that way. It's on-going. One makes a determination one day and the next day new data comes in that shifts the scenario. One keeps asking questions. There is no final 'correct' answer in this - we are learning as we go.
For you - and others - it seems to be about money and politics and 'the left' and 'sheeple'. For others it is about the science.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wow. You are a perfect sheeple Tyger. Baaaa.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
Depends on where you happen to live, doesn't it?
Short of a dramatic and lethal apocalypse, I think talk about global regulation of carbon emissions is essentially academic. No other substance on earth is as economically versatile and technologically advantageous as are fossil fuels. And someone, somewhere on earth, will capitalize on this fact for economic advantage.
Anyone in favor of military action against nations in south Asia or China for violation of carbon emission rules? Not I.
Things like ceasing deforestation and cleaner emissions of industry are realistic goals. First world mandates to developing nations to hamstring their economies by cutting carbon emissions are probably not. And advantages taken by first world players in terms of outsourcing, in response to domestic pressure to maintain standards of living, will likely prevail.
At latitude 29 degrees, you can bet the last thing I want to see is a warming climate. It's just that it's my belief that over the long term, mankind will to to extreme lengths to adapt to climate change, whatever its underlying cause, before giving up the advantages of fossil fuels.
Last edited:
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I was going to jump in here since it's Sunday and I've got some time but there's obviously no need for me to do so. Tyger and Burnt have done an excellent job dismantling Pixels simplistic nonsense.
As predicted, there's no actual debate here, sensible posts full of scientific information are met with childish, completely subjective one liners like "warmer is better than colder". It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic that intelligent people like Tyger and Burnt have to waste their time responding to the lazy, over simplified garbage posted by Pixel and his ilk. In the end none of their information will be either acknowledged or refuted, and Pixel and his kind will go back to posting the same crap as if it never even happened. The pointlessness of it all is what keeps me from digging deeper, I refuse to waste my time with people like that.
I am glad that there are those here who will take the time to point out the flaws inherent in such shallow thinking, it's good for anyone undecided on the subject who may stumble on this thread in the future. Kudos to you guys.
As predicted, there's no actual debate here, sensible posts full of scientific information are met with childish, completely subjective one liners like "warmer is better than colder". It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic that intelligent people like Tyger and Burnt have to waste their time responding to the lazy, over simplified garbage posted by Pixel and his ilk. In the end none of their information will be either acknowledged or refuted, and Pixel and his kind will go back to posting the same crap as if it never even happened. The pointlessness of it all is what keeps me from digging deeper, I refuse to waste my time with people like that.
I am glad that there are those here who will take the time to point out the flaws inherent in such shallow thinking, it's good for anyone undecided on the subject who may stumble on this thread in the future. Kudos to you guys.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
It's a kind of battle against ignorance just for the sake of anyone else reading this thread, aside from Boomerang's sensible and thoughtful considerations that few take time to engage I would be tempted to call this thread mostly dysfunctional and people should stay away from the slippery slope of simplicity.
I also see it as a tag team effort - important to depart from every niw and then so as to not waste too many minutes in one sided conversation. Tyger's been holding up the fort for quite some time now. Points have been made - no real responses...
I also see it as a tag team effort - important to depart from every niw and then so as to not waste too many minutes in one sided conversation. Tyger's been holding up the fort for quite some time now. Points have been made - no real responses...
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Here is some discussion regarding CO2 in the soil. Following the article are some selected comments. Please note how much this is a conversation. Ideas floated, questions asked, answers proffered. This is not a screeching debate - it is a vital conversation upon which our future as a whole earth rests.
Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil? By Stephen Leahy
LINK: Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil? | Inter Press Service
TEXT May 2013: "REYKJAVÍK, Iceland, May 31 2013 (IPS) - Soil is becoming endangered.This reality needs to be part of our collective awareness in order to feed nine billion people by 2050, say experts meeting here in Reykjavík. And a big part of reversing soil decline is carbon, the same element that is overheating the planet.
" "Keeping and putting carbon in its rightful place” needs to be the mantra for humanity if we want to continue to eat, drink and combat global warming, concluded 200 researchers from more than 30 countries. “There is no life without soil,” said Anne Glover, chief scientific advisor to the European Commission. “While soil is invisible to most people it provides an estimated 1.5 to 13 trillion dollars in ecosystem services annually,” Glover said at the Soil Carbon Sequestration conference that ended this week.
"The dirt beneath our feet is a nearly magical world filled with tiny, wondrous creatures. A mere handful of soil might contain a half million different species including ants, earthworms, fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms. Soil provides nearly all of our food – only one percent of our calories come from the oceans, she said. "Soil also gives life to all of the world’s plants that supply us with much of our oxygen, another important ecosystem service. Soil cleans water, keeps contaminants out of streams and lakes, and prevents flooding. Soil can also absorb huge amounts of carbon, second only to the oceans. “It takes half a millennia to build two centimetres of living soil and only seconds to destroy it,” Glover said.
"Each year, 12 million hectares of land, where 20 million tonnes of grain could have been grown, are lost to land degradation. In the past 40 years, 30 percent of the planet’s arable (food-producing) land has become unproductive due to erosion. Unless this trend is reversed soon, feeding the world’s growing population will be impossible. The world will likely need “60 percent more food calories in 2050 than in 2006″, according to a new paper released May 30 by the World Resources Institute. Reaching this goal while maintaining economic growth and environmental sustainability is one of the most important global challenges of our time, it concludes.
"Urban development is a growing factor in loss of arable lands. One million city dwellers occupy 40,000 hectares of land on average, said Rattan Lal of Ohio State University. Plowing, removal of crop residues after harvest, and overgrazing all leave soil naked and vulnerable to wind and rain, resulting in gradual, often unnoticed erosion of soil. This is like tire wear on your car – unless given the attention and respect it deserves, catastrophe is only a matter of time.
"Erosion also puts carbon into the air where it contributes to climate change. But with good agricultural practices like using seed drills instead of plows, planting cover crops and leaving crop residues, soils can go from a carbon source to a carbon solution, he said. “Soil can be a safe place where huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere could be sequestered,” Lal told IPS.
"When a plant grows it takes CO2 out the atmosphere and releases oxygen. The more of a crop – maize, soy or vegetable – that remains after harvest, the more carbon is returned to the soil. This carbon is mainly found in humus – the rich organic material from decay of plant material. Soil needs to contain just 1.5 percent carbon to be healthy and resilient – more capable of withstanding drought and other harsh conditions. “Healthy soils equals healthy crops, healthy livestock and healthy people,” Lal said.
"However, most soils suffer from 30 to 60 percent loss in soil carbon. “Soils are like a bank account. You should only draw out what you put in. Soils are badly overdrawn in most places.” Farmers and pastoralists (ranchers) could do “miracles” in keeping carbon in the soil and helping to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and feed the world if they were properly supported, Lal said.
"The world’s 3.4 billion ha of rangeland and pastures has the potential to sequester or absorb up to 10 percent of the annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production, estimates Ólafur Arnalds, a soil scientist at the Agricultural University of Iceland. Eliminating overgrazing and using other pasture management techniques will reduce the number of animals on the land in the short term but it is better for the long term health of grazing lands. While these practices can help with climate change, there many other good reasons to adopt them, Arnalds told IPS.
"That view is echoed by many here since determining exactly how much carbon a farm field or pasture can absorb from the atmosphere is highly variable and difficult to determine. Proper land management can help with climate change but in no way does it reduce the need to make major reductions in fossil fuel use, said Guðmundur Halldórsson, a research co-ordinator at the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, co-host of the conference. And using farmland or pastures as a ‘carbon sponges’ will lead to all sorts of problems, Halldórsson told IPS. “The real key is adopt practices that enhance soil health to improve food productivity,” he said. That approach is much more likely to help in improve local livelihoods, protect water resources, improve biodiversity, reduce erosion and help put carbon back into the ground where it belongs, he said. “Iceland overexploited its lands, trying to squeeze more out of the land than it could handle. We call it ‘killing the milk cow’. We can no longer live off the land as we once did.”
"Situated in the North Atlantic, the windy island was once mostly covered by forests, lush meadows and wetlands when the first settlers arrived nearly 1,000 years ago. By the late 1800s, 96 percent of the forest was gone and half the grasslands destroyed by overgrazing. Iceland became one the world’s poorest countries, its people starved and its landscape remains Europe’s largest desert.
"Of necessity, Iceland pioneered techniques to halt land degradation and in restoration. And for more than 100 years the Soil Conservation Service has struggled but the gains are small and very slow in coming. Today at least half of the former forests and grasslands are mostly bare and subject to severe erosion by the strong winds. “We’re still fighting overgrazing here,” Halldórsson said.
"Iceland relies far less on agriculture now and the harsh lessons of poor land management of the past are irrelevant to the 90 percent of Icelanders who now live in urban areas. “The public isn’t supporting land restoration. We’ve forgotten that land is the foundation of life,” Halldórsson said."
Comments -
Comment: "Putting more carbon into soil will improve the quality of the soil and should be done for that reason. However as a method of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere it makes little economic sense.
"To keep organic carbon in the soil each extra ton of carbon must be accompanied by 80 Kg of nitrogen, 20 Kg of phosporous and 14 kg of sulphur which in Australia would have a total cost of about $250. Stubble generally contains small amounts of these nutrients ( with the exception of legume stubble which is relatively rich in Nitrogen) so they would have to be added in some other way."
Comment: "In my 1/2 acre orchard in Florida sand, I started mulching with oak leaves (almost pure carbon) three years ago to reduce weeds. My trees look much better now and I have a lot of earthworms, which were not there before. Soil chemistry is complex, but it is well known that soil is degraded in many locations where there have been farms for a long time. Look at the pictures of Iraq. They have farmed there for centuries and much of the country is now dessert."
Comment: "Theoreticaly, which strategy would achieve the faster C sequestration rate? Forest restoration or soil restoration? Restoration of the ancient forests would have drawn down 29% human C which is 600Gt (according to land use emission data). I have do idea how long it would take. A wild guess: say 200 y in most places (average mature tree age), so 3Gt/y? Anyone knows better numbers? Compared to the quoted above pasture potential sequestration rate of 10 percent of the emissions (currently 10Gt), so 1Gt/y. Even if feasible (needless to say realistic while feeding 6b+ population), it's still not enough to make good dent in the emissions, so cutting emissions themselves is the only option."
Comment: "Could someone address how this fits with some of the work of "peak farmland". The idea that more efficient methods have lead to lower utilization of land for the same yields? One paper on this is at http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PDR.SUPP Final Paper.pdf "
Go to LINK for all comments: Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil?
Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil? By Stephen Leahy
LINK: Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil? | Inter Press Service
TEXT May 2013: "REYKJAVÍK, Iceland, May 31 2013 (IPS) - Soil is becoming endangered.This reality needs to be part of our collective awareness in order to feed nine billion people by 2050, say experts meeting here in Reykjavík. And a big part of reversing soil decline is carbon, the same element that is overheating the planet.
" "Keeping and putting carbon in its rightful place” needs to be the mantra for humanity if we want to continue to eat, drink and combat global warming, concluded 200 researchers from more than 30 countries. “There is no life without soil,” said Anne Glover, chief scientific advisor to the European Commission. “While soil is invisible to most people it provides an estimated 1.5 to 13 trillion dollars in ecosystem services annually,” Glover said at the Soil Carbon Sequestration conference that ended this week.
"The dirt beneath our feet is a nearly magical world filled with tiny, wondrous creatures. A mere handful of soil might contain a half million different species including ants, earthworms, fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms. Soil provides nearly all of our food – only one percent of our calories come from the oceans, she said. "Soil also gives life to all of the world’s plants that supply us with much of our oxygen, another important ecosystem service. Soil cleans water, keeps contaminants out of streams and lakes, and prevents flooding. Soil can also absorb huge amounts of carbon, second only to the oceans. “It takes half a millennia to build two centimetres of living soil and only seconds to destroy it,” Glover said.
"Each year, 12 million hectares of land, where 20 million tonnes of grain could have been grown, are lost to land degradation. In the past 40 years, 30 percent of the planet’s arable (food-producing) land has become unproductive due to erosion. Unless this trend is reversed soon, feeding the world’s growing population will be impossible. The world will likely need “60 percent more food calories in 2050 than in 2006″, according to a new paper released May 30 by the World Resources Institute. Reaching this goal while maintaining economic growth and environmental sustainability is one of the most important global challenges of our time, it concludes.
"Urban development is a growing factor in loss of arable lands. One million city dwellers occupy 40,000 hectares of land on average, said Rattan Lal of Ohio State University. Plowing, removal of crop residues after harvest, and overgrazing all leave soil naked and vulnerable to wind and rain, resulting in gradual, often unnoticed erosion of soil. This is like tire wear on your car – unless given the attention and respect it deserves, catastrophe is only a matter of time.
"Erosion also puts carbon into the air where it contributes to climate change. But with good agricultural practices like using seed drills instead of plows, planting cover crops and leaving crop residues, soils can go from a carbon source to a carbon solution, he said. “Soil can be a safe place where huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere could be sequestered,” Lal told IPS.
"When a plant grows it takes CO2 out the atmosphere and releases oxygen. The more of a crop – maize, soy or vegetable – that remains after harvest, the more carbon is returned to the soil. This carbon is mainly found in humus – the rich organic material from decay of plant material. Soil needs to contain just 1.5 percent carbon to be healthy and resilient – more capable of withstanding drought and other harsh conditions. “Healthy soils equals healthy crops, healthy livestock and healthy people,” Lal said.
"However, most soils suffer from 30 to 60 percent loss in soil carbon. “Soils are like a bank account. You should only draw out what you put in. Soils are badly overdrawn in most places.” Farmers and pastoralists (ranchers) could do “miracles” in keeping carbon in the soil and helping to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and feed the world if they were properly supported, Lal said.
"The world’s 3.4 billion ha of rangeland and pastures has the potential to sequester or absorb up to 10 percent of the annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production, estimates Ólafur Arnalds, a soil scientist at the Agricultural University of Iceland. Eliminating overgrazing and using other pasture management techniques will reduce the number of animals on the land in the short term but it is better for the long term health of grazing lands. While these practices can help with climate change, there many other good reasons to adopt them, Arnalds told IPS.
"That view is echoed by many here since determining exactly how much carbon a farm field or pasture can absorb from the atmosphere is highly variable and difficult to determine. Proper land management can help with climate change but in no way does it reduce the need to make major reductions in fossil fuel use, said Guðmundur Halldórsson, a research co-ordinator at the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, co-host of the conference. And using farmland or pastures as a ‘carbon sponges’ will lead to all sorts of problems, Halldórsson told IPS. “The real key is adopt practices that enhance soil health to improve food productivity,” he said. That approach is much more likely to help in improve local livelihoods, protect water resources, improve biodiversity, reduce erosion and help put carbon back into the ground where it belongs, he said. “Iceland overexploited its lands, trying to squeeze more out of the land than it could handle. We call it ‘killing the milk cow’. We can no longer live off the land as we once did.”
"Situated in the North Atlantic, the windy island was once mostly covered by forests, lush meadows and wetlands when the first settlers arrived nearly 1,000 years ago. By the late 1800s, 96 percent of the forest was gone and half the grasslands destroyed by overgrazing. Iceland became one the world’s poorest countries, its people starved and its landscape remains Europe’s largest desert.
"Of necessity, Iceland pioneered techniques to halt land degradation and in restoration. And for more than 100 years the Soil Conservation Service has struggled but the gains are small and very slow in coming. Today at least half of the former forests and grasslands are mostly bare and subject to severe erosion by the strong winds. “We’re still fighting overgrazing here,” Halldórsson said.
"Iceland relies far less on agriculture now and the harsh lessons of poor land management of the past are irrelevant to the 90 percent of Icelanders who now live in urban areas. “The public isn’t supporting land restoration. We’ve forgotten that land is the foundation of life,” Halldórsson said."
Comments -
Comment: "Putting more carbon into soil will improve the quality of the soil and should be done for that reason. However as a method of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere it makes little economic sense.
"To keep organic carbon in the soil each extra ton of carbon must be accompanied by 80 Kg of nitrogen, 20 Kg of phosporous and 14 kg of sulphur which in Australia would have a total cost of about $250. Stubble generally contains small amounts of these nutrients ( with the exception of legume stubble which is relatively rich in Nitrogen) so they would have to be added in some other way."
Comment: "In my 1/2 acre orchard in Florida sand, I started mulching with oak leaves (almost pure carbon) three years ago to reduce weeds. My trees look much better now and I have a lot of earthworms, which were not there before. Soil chemistry is complex, but it is well known that soil is degraded in many locations where there have been farms for a long time. Look at the pictures of Iraq. They have farmed there for centuries and much of the country is now dessert."
Comment: "Theoreticaly, which strategy would achieve the faster C sequestration rate? Forest restoration or soil restoration? Restoration of the ancient forests would have drawn down 29% human C which is 600Gt (according to land use emission data). I have do idea how long it would take. A wild guess: say 200 y in most places (average mature tree age), so 3Gt/y? Anyone knows better numbers? Compared to the quoted above pasture potential sequestration rate of 10 percent of the emissions (currently 10Gt), so 1Gt/y. Even if feasible (needless to say realistic while feeding 6b+ population), it's still not enough to make good dent in the emissions, so cutting emissions themselves is the only option."
Comment: "Could someone address how this fits with some of the work of "peak farmland". The idea that more efficient methods have lead to lower utilization of land for the same yields? One paper on this is at http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/PDR.SUPP Final Paper.pdf "
Go to LINK for all comments: Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil?
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Humus, Human, Humility = Of and for the earth
LINK: The answer lies in the soil (you have to have a sense of humus)
TEXT May 2013: "Something a little different: soil expert Graham Sait talks about the importance of soil humus and its potential as a way to mitigate climate change at the recent TEDx in Noosa, Queensland. I’m not going to vouch for all his numbers, but as he devotes time to mycorrhizae he’s OK with this truffle grower…
"
LINK: The answer lies in the soil (you have to have a sense of humus)
TEXT May 2013: "Something a little different: soil expert Graham Sait talks about the importance of soil humus and its potential as a way to mitigate climate change at the recent TEDx in Noosa, Queensland. I’m not going to vouch for all his numbers, but as he devotes time to mycorrhizae he’s OK with this truffle grower…
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
This is a discussion. This is how science proceeds. I offer the following in the spirit of discussion. His "claims are supported by experimental evidence, but are also under fierce dispute." Wiki
His work is in Africa (Zimbabwe) and may not be able to be extrapolated globally.
Environmental TEDtalk - Allan Savory: How to reverse climate change by greening the world's deserts
TEXT: Published on Apr 4, 2013 Allan Savory devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change.
Comment: "Allan has devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change. In this quietly powerful talk he discusses how desertification (land turning into desert) is happening to about 66 per cent of the world's grasslands. This shift is accelerating climate change and is also causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. He believes, and can show it through his work so far that a surprising factor can protect our grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert. “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. His work shows that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert."
Comment: "Allan has devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change. In this quietly powerful talk he discusses how desertification (land turning into desert) is happening to about 66 per cent of the world's grasslands. This shift is accelerating climate change and is also causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. He believes, and can show it through his work so far that a surprising factor can protect our grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert. “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. His work shows that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert."
Comment: "An assessment of multiple research studies, published by the United States Department of Agriculture, concluded that "these results refute prior claims that animal trampling associated with high stocking rates or grazing pressures in rotational grazing systems enhance soil properties and promote hydrological function". Similarly, a survey article by Briske et al. (the same author) that examined rotational grazing systems found "few, if any, consistent benefits over continuous grazing." FromWiki"
Comment: "Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast."
Comment: "They don't work. Which is why he failed peer review. If a hypothesis fails peer review it's not science! Meaning it's not reproducible! If you don't understand that open a 7'th grade science book and start learning the scientific method."
Comment: "The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert."
His work is in Africa (Zimbabwe) and may not be able to be extrapolated globally.
Environmental TEDtalk - Allan Savory: How to reverse climate change by greening the world's deserts
TEXT: Published on Apr 4, 2013 Allan Savory devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change.
Comment: "Allan has devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change. In this quietly powerful talk he discusses how desertification (land turning into desert) is happening to about 66 per cent of the world's grasslands. This shift is accelerating climate change and is also causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. He believes, and can show it through his work so far that a surprising factor can protect our grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert. “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. His work shows that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert."
Comment: "Allan has devoted his life to stopping desertification and reversing climate change. In this quietly powerful talk he discusses how desertification (land turning into desert) is happening to about 66 per cent of the world's grasslands. This shift is accelerating climate change and is also causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. He believes, and can show it through his work so far that a surprising factor can protect our grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert. “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. His work shows that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert."
Comment: "An assessment of multiple research studies, published by the United States Department of Agriculture, concluded that "these results refute prior claims that animal trampling associated with high stocking rates or grazing pressures in rotational grazing systems enhance soil properties and promote hydrological function". Similarly, a survey article by Briske et al. (the same author) that examined rotational grazing systems found "few, if any, consistent benefits over continuous grazing." FromWiki"
Comment: "Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast."
Comment: "They don't work. Which is why he failed peer review. If a hypothesis fails peer review it's not science! Meaning it's not reproducible! If you don't understand that open a 7'th grade science book and start learning the scientific method."
Comment: "The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert."
Last edited:
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Thank you, Erno86. I have been puzzling about this - particularly the inability to have a decent conversation without the epithets being tossed around. 
What was going on? This has been helpful.
I have taken the following from your quote and bolded what popped out for me.
TEXT: "What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else --- a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism.
"Well, think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn't matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.
"And the natural reaction is denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you'll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage of the denialists.
"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It's not really suprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big government power grab. After all, right -wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.
"So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostitilty to science. In some ways this make the task easier; we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept huge monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." "
What was going on? This has been helpful.I have taken the following from your quote and bolded what popped out for me.
TEXT: "What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else --- a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism.
"Well, think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn't matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.
"And the natural reaction is denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you'll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage of the denialists.
"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It's not really suprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big government power grab. After all, right -wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.
"So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostitilty to science. In some ways this make the task easier; we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept huge monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." "
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
John Russell May 31, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Thanks for posting this, Gareth.
Soil health is one of the most important subjects for our future ability to deal with approaching problems, from climate to feeding 9bn+ people. As someone who spent the 2000s filming sustainable agriculture projects across the world, it became very clear, very fast, what huge damage rampant agriculture is doing to our planet. This hit home first in the vast agricultural regions of north east Brazil where scrub land has been turned into farmland for growing a wide range of crops, many for export. But the problem is that after a few years of industrial farming much of the substance of the soil has been lost as the micro-organisms break down the organic content of the soil until in many places it becomes little more than sand. This is what has also happened in much of Australia where it’s been worsened by the use of pumped artesian water, which turns the soil saline.
The problem of depletion is that nothing will grow without huge imported inputs of fertilisers and nutrients — with their attendant energy inputs, much of fossil origin — and, back in Brazil, huge amounts of imported water pumped from the rivers, often by old lorry engines surrounded by piles of oil barrels, that sit on the banks of canals and rivers pumping water miles to the fields. This is simply not sustainable for the long term. Degraded soils are prone to leaching and erosion from rain and wind.
Much is being done to try and extend the life of these new agriculture areas by introducing sustainable methods, but generally the huge short term financial benefits are being used to justify the long term damage that’s being caused. The only solution is a long term reduction in pressure to bring production back to more sustainable — and therefore often less profitable — level, to ensure soil health is maintained, and hopefully improved.Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use ... - PubMed - NCBI
The whole situation is reminiscent of the way we’ve put our oceans in a spiral of diminishing returns.
As I’ve indicated, work is being done, but often trumped by the pressure of quick returns. The current human mindset of quick-buck short-termism, driven by a faith in expensive, never ending (usually fossil-fuelled) technological solutions is something we must overcome.
Our hubris needs puncturing, hopefully before it’s too late to reverse the decline.
Thanks for posting this, Gareth.
Soil health is one of the most important subjects for our future ability to deal with approaching problems, from climate to feeding 9bn+ people. As someone who spent the 2000s filming sustainable agriculture projects across the world, it became very clear, very fast, what huge damage rampant agriculture is doing to our planet. This hit home first in the vast agricultural regions of north east Brazil where scrub land has been turned into farmland for growing a wide range of crops, many for export. But the problem is that after a few years of industrial farming much of the substance of the soil has been lost as the micro-organisms break down the organic content of the soil until in many places it becomes little more than sand. This is what has also happened in much of Australia where it’s been worsened by the use of pumped artesian water, which turns the soil saline.
The problem of depletion is that nothing will grow without huge imported inputs of fertilisers and nutrients — with their attendant energy inputs, much of fossil origin — and, back in Brazil, huge amounts of imported water pumped from the rivers, often by old lorry engines surrounded by piles of oil barrels, that sit on the banks of canals and rivers pumping water miles to the fields. This is simply not sustainable for the long term. Degraded soils are prone to leaching and erosion from rain and wind.
Much is being done to try and extend the life of these new agriculture areas by introducing sustainable methods, but generally the huge short term financial benefits are being used to justify the long term damage that’s being caused. The only solution is a long term reduction in pressure to bring production back to more sustainable — and therefore often less profitable — level, to ensure soil health is maintained, and hopefully improved.Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use ... - PubMed - NCBI
The whole situation is reminiscent of the way we’ve put our oceans in a spiral of diminishing returns.
As I’ve indicated, work is being done, but often trumped by the pressure of quick returns. The current human mindset of quick-buck short-termism, driven by a faith in expensive, never ending (usually fossil-fuelled) technological solutions is something we must overcome.
Our hubris needs puncturing, hopefully before it’s too late to reverse the decline.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
After 13:00 and the mid-way break the explanation for the desertification of the Siberian Steppes is given: man-caused.
Deserted Arctic: Mysterious sands of Russia (RT Documentary)
TEXT: "Uploaded on Feb 5, 2012 Watch more on RT's documentary channel http://rtd.rt.com
The village of Shoina is situated beyond the Arctic Circle, 1,400 kilometers north of Moscow. This tiny settlement is known for its sands, which appeared here over 50 years ago and have been waging a relentless offensive against humans ever since, depriving them of living space. How did they appear, and where else in Russia can you find unusual places like this? Solve the mystery, on RT."
Deserted Arctic: Mysterious sands of Russia (RT Documentary)
TEXT: "Uploaded on Feb 5, 2012 Watch more on RT's documentary channel http://rtd.rt.com
The village of Shoina is situated beyond the Arctic Circle, 1,400 kilometers north of Moscow. This tiny settlement is known for its sands, which appeared here over 50 years ago and have been waging a relentless offensive against humans ever since, depriving them of living space. How did they appear, and where else in Russia can you find unusual places like this? Solve the mystery, on RT."
technomage
Paranormal Adept
I just want to point out that the name of this thread doesn't lend itself to any kind of debate. It basically infers that anyone who is a "climate denier" is silly. So any response from "climate deniers" will not necessarily be nice based on the fact that they are being called silly from the get-go. If you want to have a debate or non-antagonistic discussion, you don't have a thread with this title. It's doomed to be combative and pointless.
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
Heavy sigh.....Almost every thread I've seen on this topic generates more heat that light. Even when the best of intentions are involved.
I used to lurk on a forum where, I swear, every third poster was some kind of scientist or engineer. Points made and data cited were excruciatingly intricate. But the overall result was much the same. Much emotional investment with very little resolution.
I used to lurk on a forum where, I swear, every third poster was some kind of scientist or engineer. Points made and data cited were excruciatingly intricate. But the overall result was much the same. Much emotional investment with very little resolution.
Last edited:
Aye but its typical Angelo, from when he was bullet proof around here.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
In the spring of 2012 the following thread was started here: Global Warming Happy Fun-Time | The Paracast Community Forums
I have always viewed the above thread as the 'real' Climate Change thread. But that's just me.
Two years later, this past spring, this 'How Silly Is Denial' thread was started. I suspect in large part to escape the sturm-und-drang that was going forward on the first thread but I don't really know why. I do know that I shifted over here for the 'quiet' (I thought). At some point certain posters, like Pixel, wandered over here from the other thread to continue what they had been doing over there. Again, no idea why, as it was clear this thread had a particular built-in bias because of the title.
For myself I have never really been in the debate on Climate Change on this chat site. I nibble around the fringes but that's all. There are far more worthy intellects here (than me) - like Muadib and Burnt and others - who know the science and the facts. One just has to peruse the previous thread to see that. I defer to them. My contributions are very minimal.
Also, I am far from wanting an antagonistic or combative discussion but there are posters who simply go to that level as a matter of course. I said next to near nothing, except post links of interest to me, and found my posting persona was being dunked - pretty strange experience. I don't think it has anything to to with the title of the thread - I think some posters just like to mix-it-up. It's a choice.
Anyway, I remain always someone interested in a serious conversation. I've learned a lot from those who have shared. I wish really judicious discussion could proceed but such does take a lot of time and many of us just don't have that kind of leeway. So it is.
