Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by jim2

0
0

tcf – I’ve been following Coskata for a few years now. Their original idea was to be able to take any organic matter and convert it to ethanol and other chemicals. What with cheap nat gas now, they have changed strategies to use only nat gas. Obviously, they haven’t yet been able to take tires, for example, and convert them to ethanol in a cost effective manner. But still, it is an interesting idea.

Even in the nat gas configuration, it is one solution to the liquid fuels problem – just not CO2 reduction.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/07/20/coskata-switches-from-biomass-to-natural-gas-to-raise-100m-in-natgas-oriented-private-placement/


Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by AK

0
0

From Beth’s link:

If biotechnology takes over the planet in the next fifty years, as computer technology has taken it over in the last fifty years, the rules of the climate game will be radically changed.

HEAR! HEAR!

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by mosomoso

0
0

Wait till you see what moso bamboo, grown in the right biome, can do with some useless regrowth scrub. Hills of lush forest, a hundred feet high, perfect wind filtration and soil stabilisation, clear understory for easy strolling and foraging, steep slopes producing food and timber, flats left free for other crops…The carbon sequestration factor is the boring bit, but it’s massive.

As long as you approach from the “carbon” end, you’ll spend and you’ll waste. You are humans, so start from the human end, be guided by usefulness to humans and their animals…and by sheer prettiness.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Regarding the observation:


David Springer | June 7, 2013 at 7:28 am | Reply

Not a single mention of “pissant progressive” or “space cadet”. Amazing.

You have to understand that it is all about framing and projection. People like the Chief may actually know the critical aspects of man’s relationship and impact with the environment yet they cannot give an inch when it comes to the political angle.

In fact what Chief describes is Ecology 101, which is very similar to the conservation approaches that I was taught back in grade school by so-called “progressive” educators. These teachers were amazingly enough the same greens that are constantly being deemed as environmental wackos by the Limbaughs of the world.

How does this hypocrisy square? The projection and framing is really a clever strategy by the denier community. Look up a report by David Wojick, longtime denizen, called “Carbon storage in soil, the ultimate no-regrets policy”. Wojick is another relentless denier of climate change that also wants to have it both ways.

The fact is that both Chief and Wojick will continue to demean anyone that holds up the science on climate change while at the same time purport to campaign for the very important No-Regrets policies that were coined by climate scientists around 1990:
R. M. White, E. B. Weiss, T. Atkeson, and A. O. Adede, “The great climate debate,” presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 1990, vol. 84, pp. 346–365.
No-regrets policy
A policy that would generate net social and/or economic benefits irrespective of whether or not anthropogenic climate change
occurs.”

Just as moving off of fossil fuels just because of their constrained and finite supply is a No-Regrets benefit of AGW mitigation, so is this basic soil conservation framework. As with peak oil, we also have issues with phosphate depletion, and are having to go to more energy extensive measures to extract phosphates for fertilizers. Of course conservation agriculture makes sense.

I can only laugh at how clumsily people like Chief and others try to hijack the arguments long used by the “pissant progressives” of the world. That is how political framing and projection works and, clumsiness notwithstanding, they can get away with it. The hypocrisy of denying global warming for “a decade or three” while at the same time lobbying for a No-Regrets policy is jarring to those who understand framing techniques, but the typical skeptic cluelessly eats it up.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Edim

0
0

“This is just common sense guys!”

Lolwot, what common sense? Have you ever studied Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Heat Transfer etc?

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by David Springer

0
0

It should be noted that conservation farming (a.k.a. no-till or low-till) is sometimes called “chemical farming”. The till is replaced by treatments with chemical weed killers. Monsanto loves the heck out of conservation farming. They’ll sell you GM seeds for crops resistant to chemical weed killers and they’ll sell you the chemical weed killers too. They’re very gung ho about it. Follow the money. And follow the farmers. A great deal of farmland is productive and not deteriorating using a plow instead of chemicals to condition the soil and they’re happy to keep doing what they know will work. Farmers epitomize the philosophy “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0
Cappy, You are framing rather clumsily. I am not the only one that is suggesting 3 C of warming. This is the mean value that 97% of the climate science research field is suggesting. As I suggested <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/#comment-330105" rel="nofollow">elsewhere in this thread</a>, by advocating conservation measures, you and Chief are promoting the No-Regrets policy long promoted by the IPCC.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by jim2

0
0

Non-AGW alarmists sometimes propose no-regrets solutions as a compromise. And that is what is needed politically. For example, I am a proponent of nuclear energy, and also a secure waste facility, and I welcome aboard anyone afraid of CO2. There is nothing hypocritical about this. For me, it simply represents a good way to secure a 24/7 base load that obviates the need for solar and wind. Solar and wind, IMO, can continue on if they can do so without subsidies.


Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by David Springer

0
0

Building a thicker layer of topsoil lasts for thousands of years too mabye longer. Thousands of years is a stretch for trees. Few trees live longer than a hundred years and the average is much shorter. Hardwoods and probably a fair amount of pine however are harvested for the production of durable goods made of wood. A home or a table built from wood might remain sequestered for up to a few hundred years but longer than that probably not and the average I should think would be maybe a century at most. Not as much stuff is made of wood nowdays either although that might change with a redoubled effort to produce more of it for sequestration reasons. Personally I love building stuff with wood. It’s beautiful, durable, flexible, comes in varieties for almost any purpose or environment, and is very forgiving of boneheaded mistakes made by amateur woodworkers like me. I always use screws instead of nails so I can undo my many mistakes and/or easily reuse the wood from one project in another. You can reuse the screws too! So I’m all for more trees I just question if it would be a significant source of carbon sequestration and more than that I think carbon sequestration is a waste of time and money in and of itself.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by jim2

0
0

Ditto working with wood and screws.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

David L.Hagen is another hypocrite when it comes to not admitting that he is an advocate of a No-Regrets Policy of AGW risk mitigation.

Recall that Hagen is a huge promoter of spreading the reality of oil depletion and Peak Oil. Yet at the same time he tries to deny the potential problems of doubling the atmospheric levels of CO2.

David, you do realize that pushing alternative and renewable fuels is a good thing with respect to the global CO2 issue? Or does not this register with you?

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by David Springer

0
0

Venus surface temperature is due to heat of formation, radioactive decay, and a surface insulated against thermal losses by an troposphere of pure CO2 so thick it’s more like a liquid than a gas. For the same reason the temperature of the earth is hundreds of degrees C if you dig down a few kilometers into the crust the top of the crust on Venus is a few hundred degrees C. The same the rocks in the earth’s crust limit how much heat can escape from the core the uber-dense troposphere of Venus insulates just as well as the crustal rocks on earth and its troposphere is hundreds of kilometers deep.

The Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect produces a lapse rate in a non-convecting atmosphere where kinetic energy is replaced by gravitational energy joule-for-joule as altitude increases. In this manner total energy per mole of gas remains constant at all altitudes which it must do in a maximum entropy (fully relaxed) state.

This doesn’t make the surface of any planet “hotter” than it would be otherwise. It merely makes it colder than it would be otherwise at higher altitudes because themometers don’t measure total energy they only measure kinetic energy. Thus there’s no explanation for Venus’ high surface temperature due to gravitational lapse rate. Write that down.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by maksimovich

0
0

Ploughing is responsible for the loss of around 13 billion mt of topsoil yr and around 15% of co2 emissions, the dustbowl of the 30′s was a result of overplowing.

Seed drills limit the loss,and increase moisture capture ( a water vapour sink)

The expansion of grasslands and increased C sink with enhanced weathering ( biological weathering being a factor of 10 faster then archers model) enhanced the transition since the cenzoic to cooler regimes. eg Retallack

http://pages.uoregon.edu/dogsci/_media/directory/faculty/greg/grasslandscooling.pdf?id=directory%3Afaculty%3Agreg%3Aabout&cache=cache

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Nothing wrong with that jim2.

Peter Lang is another guy that has talked about the No-Regrets Policy of moving to nuclear.

What gets me is that people are not being open about this fact. AGW could be a huge non-issue, but the risk mitigation policies implicit in No Regrets will have benefits for agriculture, conservation, and adopting alternative fuels. It is really a systems view of the environment and of the Earth’s natural resources.

We are killing way more than two birds with one stone by going No Regrets.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by Beth Cooper

0
0

I’ve planted trees along the railway line as a wild life corridor.
As in me garden I find mulching keeps weeds down. I get
more weeds when I dig … Serfs don’t like digging, )
B-t-s


Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by David Springer

0
0

I agree Dr. PeePee. Where we differ is that at best I consider AGW narratives to be a noble lie and at worst undermining public trust in legitimate sciences which quietly bring us the great advances that enable to people live longer more productive lives and generally make the world a better place. That’s a lot to risk for a noble lie and I for one have too much integrity for any noble lie in the first place. Lies is lies and eventually both the teller and the listener are diminshed by them in my humble opinion.

Comment on Soil carbon: permanent pasture as an approach to CO2 sequestration by Rob Starkey

0
0

What is the cost of CO2 sequestration?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Max_OK

0
0

Well, it might be funny to some right-wing crackpot nuke energy suck-up. But that’s a shrinking demographic.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Max_OK you write “My question is when do you think the current pause began ( i.e., the year, even the month if you wish)?”

And my answer to you is whatever date, year month etc. you choose to claim that CAGW started.

Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images