Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
Given that you've not answered any questions that I've asked, I'm not surprised (and a video from a seemingly non-credible source doesn't count!)
Sigh, so within an Irish context, how will you restore grasslands in such a way that restore biodiversity and yet still allow for the mass production of both meat and milk? Will you replace existing arable land with grassland? What about other areas such as the likes of mountain commonage or bogland?
How will you alter existing grasslands to allow for biodiversity restoration and on what evidence-led basis will you make those changes?
Not at all. I'm asking what the expected impact is of regenerative agriculture on global warming. Carbon sequestration is mostly done by the ocean, so it seems like regenerative agriculture won't have much impact on CO2 and hence global warming.
I think whoever is telling you that soil doesn’t sequester enough carbon isn’t being very accurate in their measuring.
we have bogs in ireland that are known carbon sinks. That’s why we have banned cutting turf!
No I’m done with you, you couldn’t grasp how grassland is better than desert for biodiversity. And even when the other poster explained it simply your still waffling.
Its like asking how is water better for us than Coca Cola.
Good question, short answer yes, I'll post later with some different ways I think it can help
No I’m done with you, you couldn’t grasp how grassland is better than desert for biodiversity.
At what point have I even mentioned the word "desert" never mind demonstrated my lack of understanding your claims? I have simply asked you to provide some kind of strength to your claims that you can restore biodiversity whilst maintaining food production. You have, not once, answered this rather simple question.
And even when the other poster explained it simply your still waffling.
I haven't waffled. My questions are quite clear. You are simply unable to apply your logic to an Irish setting which what I have asked from you today. Again, you haven't been able to provide a response other than your usual "I don't want to answer that because blah blah blah"
https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2019/Grassland-and-carbon-sequestration.pdf
Without any doubt, this will work.
We start To manage all the desertifying land properly, (using animals) we take all the bad crap in the atmosphere & put it into soils where it’ll stay until disturbed.
We stop biodiversity loss
we stop droughts
we stop famine
We stop poverty
Well put a big dent on climate change
Clean water
Clean air
A future for all our children & there’s.
"Briske and his colleagues looked at Savory's assertion that revitalized rangelands could help reduce atmospheric carbon to preindustrial levels. This would be a 30 percent drop, from 400 parts per million of CO2 to 280 PPM. The idea, the researchers concluded, is fantastical, amounting to "an enormous misrepresentation of the global carbon cycle and climate change science."
Something 'known' as a 'carbon sink' is, well, not particularly compelling. It's just a soundbitey kind of thing.
https://www.teagasc.ie/about/farm-advisory/advisory-regions/cork-east/farm-advice/soil-carbon-sequestration/
If someone else has a better idea of where to put carbon instead of Soils rather than our atmosphere then please speak up.
https://youtu.be/IX2FasKU24Q?si=V6yZ2o24lIrAO-_3
What exactly will work and what will it do because the link provided doesn't say much at all.
So nothing regarding Irish agriculture then? So why link to a Teagasc brochure?
In what way will this happen? For all species or just some?
Erm, ok. Not sure how!
All famines because they can happen for a myriad of reasons? Our most famous one was caused by potato blight and a large percentage of the population being overdependant in potatoes.
Brilliant. How?
Really. And this has potential dent been proven and quantified?
I welcome this solution but forgive me for thinking that it all sounds far too easy!
if you need explaining to you how grasslands are good for biodiversity then there’s just no point.
the adults here are discussing important stuff that you simply don’t understand yet.
So to quote myself from an hour ago:
Again, you haven't been able to provide a response other than your usual "I don't want to answer that because blah blah blah"
I have answered everything you’re looking for, Its simply beyond your brain capacity so no point.
Where else can we put carbon & keep it stored for hundred’s of year’s to come?
Where was it stored for millions of years before? The answer is in the ground. Thats what soil is, compost is soil. Compost is made up of carbon & nitrogen. Organic matter!! Simple as that, every gardener knows this!
That biological cycle has been going on for million’s of year’s, and were all still here!! Ecosystems thrived before human management.
nobody else has come up with any other viable common sense solutions.
That cycle was pre any industrial revolution which affected everything from industry to agriculture. So all that fossil fuel burning, large-scale farming etc isn't gonna be countered by just adding some grassland. You also have failed to provide any proof it will have a drastic impact. Eg the savory institute overestimates by seven times how much carbon the soil absorbs and that's research on the topic rather than YouTube clips.
This is the problem with the Savory system it makes unreasonable and unsupportable claims about its potential impact on climate change. This brings it and it's advocates into disrepute and makes it difficult to buy into its other claims since if it can be so wrong on one thing what else is it wrong about. It's not based upon hard empirical data, it's become something of a faith based thing and is popular with climate skeptics who want a soft way out of the crisis we are facing.
The issue isn't global warming. Cause we're only able to focus on one thing at a time, global warming (which hasn't been used in years cause of the associated positive connotations with it) has been a nice easy thing for us to focus on. The issue is basically everything that comes with planetary overshoot. We've simply exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet with our current way of life. What's more but a westerner's way of life (overconsumption, overpollutant, ecologically damaging) is apparently the benchmark for all developing nations. Like that's what they should aspire to...
Anyway focusing on climate change/breakdown, there is this idea if we just get our carbon output down, we'll be able to fix our problems, turn down the planets thermostat and things will be grand. This ignores the fact that 90% of the carbon released has been absorbed by the oceans, creates a latent heat effect, creates calcium carbonate stopping phytoplankton from creating their shells and is effectively eroding the base of the marine food chain. Oh and ~40% of the oxygen we breathe...
We're not able to think in terms of system dynamics, can only think in a linear way and export our solutions to problems as problems somewhere else...
How do we get off fossil fuels? What do we replace them with?
What other option’s are available?
Just because somebody says it does the store the amount of carbon required isn’t a good enough excuse for not doing it when there’s so many other benefits.
Just doing a back of the envalope caluculation to show how preposterous the Savory claim is regarding reversing climate change
The thing to take from this is the vastly different time scale it took to sequester the carbon in the first place compared to the tiny amount of time you propose to remove it.
The whole idea is ludicrous.
You can't demonstrate it will somehow reverse global warming. What other options do we have? Pursue efforts to reduce carbon dioxide output, move over to renewable energies etc, move to EVs for normal cars,totally favour environmental efforts too but following proven science rather than conjecture.
Meanwhile your approach seems to be to follow unproven approaches cause you like the sound of it.
Fair enough that’s your junk science. Biggest pile of crap iv ever heard after that question of how grasslands are good for biodiversity.
The obsession with only carbon sequestration is disgraceful and no doubt caused by brainwashing from media & internet
What are our other options so? What are we going to do?
I would say it's fair to follow the science rather than a concept that hasn't remotely proven itself. Also throwing around the term junk science when you yourself are pushing a theory that has no science behind it is ironic.
I told you, there’s billions of hectares of land that’s desert in the hottest places on earth. When the sun is shining on that land its burning hot. You step on sand at the beach on a hot summer’s day you’ll burn your foot.
On that same day if you were standing in a green field you won’t get burnt. Its cool, it’s grand. Now imagine that in scale on over 60% of the planet everyday. its warming!!!
How are we gonna build renewables without fossil fuels? All those windmills, solar panels etc are only possible with huge amounts of fossil fuels. How are we gonna provide clean food, water and air?
And like i said earlier and have proven if we got 100% green energy, removed billions of people and livestock climate change will continue because of biodiversity loss.
We are already following the science and look at the damage that’s being done!!
Conservation. Resting land. Thats causing biodiversity loss on all the land in seasonally wet environments.
Conservation works well in areas that have year round humidity.
watch the bloody video’s and learn something.
they explain it all much better than i can.
Watch this YouTube video by this group that can't prove the science of what it's claiming, they're clearly credible. 😂
We are already following the science and it’s causing the damage. Watch the video’s you might get it then.
your science is coming from institution’s that are getting very well funded by Industry’s that Savorys method is of conflict of interest with.
And now into conspiracy theories.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/soil-based-carbon-sequestration
Thats a fact.
When your going down that road i know I’m hitting a nerve
Maybe plant more trees?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
