Thanks for sharing that absolutely fasinating .

cisco said...
Thanks beau. It makes sense to us plebs but how do we get the message through to the policy makers.

Saw a program that told the story of a guy doing similar here on a property and was sponsored by Gerry Harvey.

So global warming exists now!???

Why don't they just stop building greenhouses?

dinsdale said...

Mobydisc said...

log man said...
So global warming exists now!???

Yeah global warming has existed for a long time. Without global warming the Earth would be an icy planet.

Well, climate change, at least - warming and cooling at different times. The argument, which you in particular have never understood, is about whether we're responsible or not.

We're not!!

I think we are, a little bit

dinsdale said...

doggie said...

dinsdale said...

Mobydisc said...

log man said...
So global warming exists now!???

Yeah global warming has existed for a long time. Without global warming the Earth would be an icy planet.

Well, climate change, at least - warming and cooling at different times. The argument, which you in particular have never understood, is about whether we're responsible or not.

We're not!!

I think we are, a little bit

Well, ok. 0.00000000001% - maybe

dinsdale said...

doggie said...

dinsdale said...

Mobydisc said...

log man said...
So global warming exists now!???

Yeah global warming has existed for a long time. Without global warming the Earth would be an icy planet.

Well, climate change, at least - warming and cooling at different times. The argument, which you in particular have never understood, is about whether we're responsible or not.

We're not!!

I think we are, a little bit

Well, ok. 0.00000000001% - maybe

Well at least you've acknowledged that we're likely to have had some effect. I'd guess it'd be more than that, and definitely nobody can say for sure. But it is a fact that Co2 in the atmosphere has risen from 315ppm in 1960 to 391ppm today. I doubt if all the negative feedbacks that might be out there would cancel the effect of that out exactly.

That the atmosphere has gotten to the way it is due to life on earth is also pretty well established. If we are changing the atmosphere we wouldn't be the first organism on the planet to do it. The cyanobacteria were responsible for the great oxygenation extinction (GOE) 2.4 billion years ago.

If you look at global deforestation. Here's the US (Europe was denuded before records were even sort of kept).



And acknowledge that vegetation is a big driver of the climate, and you saw the SBS show on the dusty ol' dustbowl....

and then you've got to allow for the contrails from those V12 stratocruisers. Contrails reflect sunshine, they are canceling out a lot of the warming. When we do run out of Avgas, or aviation is cut to zero due to an outbreak of turkey flu, we'll get a big double hit of global warming.


You probably should shift that decimal point in your estimate a few places to the right.


But yes still less than 100% of the change that would have happened without us.

Most of us don't need a degree to already know what he was taking about. Most farmers know this and have been practicing it for decades. The farmland around here is some of the most densely stocked land in Australia - not just because the feed is there for the stock, but because most farmers know that as soon as you reduce the stock numbers, the vegetation reduces with it. Nothing new here - although seeing that no-one listens to the farmers any more, I hope that maybe someone will listen to him and his comments make a difference.

I know!
Lets make up some sort of tax, That will fix everything, Yay Yay Yay


Or in my experience, the more someone tries to convince you of some thing that your not convinced about, the more you should doubt them.

And no I didn't watch the 22 min film clip, I watched the first 1.5 min or so......

log man said...

cisco said...
Thanks beau. It makes sense to us plebs but how do we get the message through to the policy makers.

Saw a program that told the story of a guy doing similar here on a property and was sponsored by Gerry Harvey.

So global warming exists now!???

No!! Human misuse of natural resources has been going on for quite a while though.

What the guy is saying is the best refutation of so called "climate change caused by human industrial activity" that I have heard so far.

log man said...
......yes CERTAINTY, that humans are now effecting the climate.

Apparently not according to the current data on mean sea levels and temperatures.

Just because Gillard, Combet, Wong, Garrett, Swan, Conroy et al have the same opinion does not make it fact.

Mr Milk said...

Sailhack said...
Most of us don't need a degree to already know what he was taking about. Most farmers know this and have been practicing it for decades. The farmland around here is some of the most densely stocked land in Australia - not just because the feed is there for the stock, but because most farmers know that as soon as you reduce the stock numbers, the vegetation reduces with it. Nothing new here - although seeing that no-one listens to the farmers any more, I hope that maybe someone will listen to him and his comments make a difference.

Question....how much fertiliser do your local farmers use?

I watched the talk. A question immediately occured about his assertion that 1 billion hectares of grassland was under a fire management regime in Africa "once upon a time"
Africa 30 000 000 sq Km. Sahara 9 000 000 sq km. That leaves 2.1 billion hectares. The equatorial rainforests aren't grassland and don't burn. There are other large desert areas in SW Africa. Basically, he seems to be suggesting that anywhere that could be burnt was burnt.
And the spectacular improvements that come with overstocking? So you stick cattle on a bare paddock (nothing there to eat) and their dung turns it back into Eden after a couple of years?
Evaporation rates on bare ground of surface water are higher for sure. It takes plants with roots to really suck up that subsoil moisture. That's why vegetated areas are cooler, albeit stickier.

All that I've got from his talk is a plan for a perpetual motion machine.

Lord Munckton he ain't. But he is a distraction

I agree, many local farmers do fertilise, but not on a regular schedule and not heavily. My main issue with the vid was the obvious question asked at the end by the host, which he had no answer to except patronise the host with the old "sigmoid curve" babble...

If you increase the stock level in an area (without feed or water) by say 400%, most will die from hunger - that's fact! 'Sigmoid curve' won't feed them, and it becomes a 'perpetual motion' dream as said above. However, if you increase the stock levels whilst providing substitute feed for the initial stage (to generate manure), then in theory it would work.

Sailhack said...

Mr Milk said...

Sailhack said...
Most of us don't need a degree to already know what he was taking about. Most farmers know this and have been practicing it for decades. The farmland around here is some of the most densely stocked land in Australia - not just because the feed is there for the stock, but because most farmers know that as soon as you reduce the stock numbers, the vegetation reduces with it. Nothing new here - although seeing that no-one listens to the farmers any more, I hope that maybe someone will listen to him and his comments make a difference.

Question....how much fertiliser do your local farmers use?

I watched the talk. A question immediately occured about his assertion that 1 billion hectares of grassland was under a fire management regime in Africa "once upon a time"
Africa 30 000 000 sq Km. Sahara 9 000 000 sq km. That leaves 2.1 billion hectares. The equatorial rainforests aren't grassland and don't burn. There are other large desert areas in SW Africa. Basically, he seems to be suggesting that anywhere that could be burnt was burnt.
And the spectacular improvements that come with overstocking? So you stick cattle on a bare paddock (nothing there to eat) and their dung turns it back into Eden after a couple of years?
Evaporation rates on bare ground of surface water are higher for sure. It takes plants with roots to really suck up that subsoil moisture. That's why vegetated areas are cooler, albeit stickier.

All that I've got from his talk is a plan for a perpetual motion machine.

Lord Munckton he ain't. But he is a distraction

I agree, many local farmers do fertilise, but not on a regular schedule and not heavily. My main issue with the vid was the obvious question asked at the end by the host, which he had no answer to except patronise the host with the old "sigmoid curve" babble...

If you increase the stock level in an area (without feed or water) by say 400%, most will die from hunger - that's fact! 'Sigmoid curve' won't feed them, and it becomes a 'perpetual motion' dream as said above. However, if you increase the stock levels whilst providing substitute feed for the initial stage (to generate manure), then in theory it would work.

Not to put too fine a point on it, he's talking bull****

^ That's really good.

Fundamental physics.
Empirical observation data.
"Skeptics" normally overstate uncertainty, but ironically in this case, Evans dramatically overstates certainty.

---

How the Greenhouse Effect Works (off the top of my dome/rough)

Short version:
Exactly like your car on a hot day/a greenhouse.

Longer version:
Light/energy from The Sun comes through the Earth's atmosphere, which includes CO2. CO2 doesn't reflect certain wavelengths of energy. By the way light, heat, radio wave; all energy. This energy that can go through CO2 hits the Earth. It heats the Earth up...

Are we all following so far? I hope so. It's elementary.

...It [energy from The Sun] heats the Earth up. This heat/energy is is then radiated into the atmosphere at a different wavelength. < This is important. This wavelength does not pass through CO2 (as easily?). < Also important. The heat/energy is retained in the atmosphere, unable to escape.

It works exactly the same as your car on a hot day/a greenhouse. The energy from The Sun comes through the glass, hits your black leather seat, is radiated back as heat/energy of a different wavelength, the glass reflects the heat/energy at a different wavelength. You car heats up. The "Greenhouse Effect".

Can we all agree on the greenhouse effect? It is so seriously well proven, and so easy to replicate (and so easy to replicate incorrectly/dumbass).

I've noticed a few arguments out "there" disproving the greenhouse effect, but completely misunderstanding at the outset and thus actually arguing against nothing. I think it's called a "straw man argument". www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

---

Fun fact: Where does most of the oxygen on earth come from?



Plankton.

Hey those plankton sure are egotistical thinking they changed the Earth's environment.


I terraformed the Earth!

Yeah, right little plankton. So egotistical.

mineral1 said...
...

Where does a healthy percentage of the co2 & methane come from, same place as the plankton live, from rotting vegetation in the ocean systems.

Another fun fact is that methane was implicated in the great Permian extinction. It unfolded over an uncertain extended period of time 250,000,000 years ago. There was then, as there is now, a huge amount of frozen methane sequestered in the oceans.

The Permian event is believed to have been triggered by a huge amount of volcanism that set in train the conditions for a rise in CO2. That raised the mean temperature by 4-5° and that was enough to set the methane free. That then raised the temp by a further 4-5°.

It was an appalling disaster for life on Earth, the biggest of all quantifiable extinctions.