Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sadly, there's a lot of morons out there.

That does it.  I'm tired of years of listening to you call anyone who disagree's with your ideals "morons" [and worse]. 
You've gone through the warning ladder and now it's time.
Bruce
Staff

 

[Nemo888]

The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility. The question is what to do about it. I am enjoying Europe getting a taste of our crappy winter weather so far as the transatlantic currents are disrupted. But if we go to 4C solutions like  growing food in the arctic are completely unrealistic. There is no topsoil and very little sunlight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408350

Climate change evident across Europe, says report

The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned.

In a report, the agency says the past decade in Europe has been the warmest on record.

It adds that the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events is rising, and the continent is set to become more vulnerable in the future.

The findings have been published ahead of next week's UN climate conference.

They join a UN Environment Programme report also released on Wednesday showing dangerous growth in the "emissions gap" - the difference between current carbon emission levels and those needed to avert climate change.

"Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.

"It is across the board, it is not just global temperatures," she told BBC News.

"It is in human health aspects, in forests, sea levels, agriculture, biodiversity - the signals are coming in from right across the environment."

2C or not 2C

The report - Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Europe 2012 - involving more than 50 authors from a range of organisations, listed a number of "key messages", including:

    Observed climate change has "already led to a wide range of impacts on environmental systems and society; further climate change impacts are projected for the future";
    Climate change can increase existing vulnerabilities and deepen socio-economic imbalances in Europe;
    The combined impacts of projected climate change and socio-economic development is set to see the damage costs of extreme weather events continue to increase.

As it currently stands, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has set a target of limiting the rise in global mean temperature to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

But the report's authors warn that even if this target to mitigate warming is met, "substantial impacts on society, human health and ecosystems are projected to occur".

To limit the impacts, experts say effective adaptation strategies need to be developed in order to minimise the risk to nations' infrastructure, homes and businesses.

The European Commission is expected to publish its European Adaptation Strategy in 2013, outlining measures it think will help the 27-nation bloc deal with future climate shifts.
Swollen River Tiber, Rome (Getty Images) Europe will have to climate-proof its infrastructure if its economy is to "weather the storm"

Examples of adaptation measures include using water resources more efficiently, adapting building codes to be able to withstand extreme weather events and building flood defences.

Prof McGlade said such measures would be essential in order to climate-proof the EU.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

    While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement... they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal ”

Achim Steiner Unep executive director

"I think what the European Commission and other parts of the world are finding is that whilst it is important to understand what is happening at the global level, it is what is happening at the regional and local levels that will really determine how economies will weather the storm," she said.

The report said the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events had increased from 9bn euros (£7bn) in the 1980s to 13bn euros in the 2000s.

One of the report's authors, Andre Jol, head of the EEA's vulnerability and adaptation group, added: "We know that the main increase in damage costs from natural disasters has not been from climate change, as such, but more as a result of an increase in wealth, people and infrastructure in risk areas.

"But one of the key messages from the report is that in the future, with projected increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, we know that climate change will contribute to the increase in the cost of damage from extreme events."

'Lack of action'

On Monday, the World Bank published a report that warned that the world was "on track to a 4C [increase by the end of the century] marked by extreme heatwaves and life-threatening sea-level rise".

It added that the world's poorest regions would be hardest hit by the warming, which was "likely to undermine efforts and goals".

"A 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - we need to hold warming below 2C," said World Bank group president Jim Yong Kim.

"Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today."

However, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) warned that it was still possible to achieve the 2C target but time was running out.

Data in the Emissions Gap Report showed that annual greenhouse gas emissions were now "14% above where they need to be in 2020".

Unep executive director Achim Steiner said: "While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement to come into effect in 2020, they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal by fulfilling financial, technology transfer and other commitments under the UN climate convention treaties."

The reports have been published ahead of the annual two-week UN climate conference, which starts on Monday in Doha, Qatar.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility.

Please. :

Wishful thinking on your part is not an arguable point.

 

[Haletown]

So the pre Doha Meetings are in full agenda setting mode. We can expect much more of this stuff as they try and get their gravy train rolling again.

Lots of entertainment to be had as economic reality, especially in Europeland, begins to invoke its relentless reality check on the Eco Religous Zealots pushing the environmental disaster/sky is falling meme.

Film at 11.

 

[Dissident]

The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility.

Repeat a lie often enough...

 

[George Wallace]

Crap Nemo!  Had you been alive a couple billion years ago, perhaps you could have saved the dinosaurs.

When are these "conspiracy theorists" going to simply accept the fact that the worlds climates are constantly changing.  We already know that we are headed towards another Ice Age in a few thousand years.  Do we need to prepare you now with Winter Cam Jackets having long sleeves and straps to connect them to your back?

 

[a_majoor]

More on mad science from NextBigFuture. What is a bit frightening is many of these schemes are actually quite affordable and even have an element of "DIY" about them. After all, hiring a barge and steaming out into the open ocean and dumping iron into the water is something almost anyone could arrange. High flying balloons lifting hoses into the stratosphere is a bit more difficult in terms of building, but the overall cost is quite modest (and don't forget we now live in a world where you can order custom DNA over the Internet and a private individual founded a rocket company that has successfully launched payloads to the ISS...). Since, despite what activists would like us to believe, climate is a poorly understood chaotic system, there is no real way to predict what will happen from these experiments.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/11/low-cost-geo-engineering-and-actual.html

Low cost geo-engineering and actual field tests

The cost to construct a Stratospheric Shield with a pumping capacity of 100,000 tons a year of sulfur dioxide would be roughly $24 million, including transportation and assembly. Annual operating costs would run approximately $10 million. The system would use only technologies and materials that already exist—although some improvements may be needed to existing atomizer technology in order to achieve wide sprays of nanometer-scale sulfur dioxide particles and to prevent the particles from coalescing into larger droplets. Even if these cost estimates are off by a factor of 10 (and we think that is unlikely), this work appears to remove cost as an obstacle to cooling an overheated planet by technological means.

1/20th Scale Testing of Aerosols to the Stratosphere was funded but the actual test called off

British researchers supported by the U.K. government were attempt to pump water a kilometer into the air using little more than a helium balloon and a rubber hose. The experiment, which was to take place at a military airfield along England's east coast, was meant as a test of a proposed geoengineering technique for offsetting the warming effects of greenhouse gases. If the balloon and hose could handle the water's weight and pressure, similar pipes rising 20 kilometers could pump tons of reflective aerosols into the stratosphere.

In May 2012 this first field test was cancelled altogether in agreement of all project partners. Dr. Matthew Watson, the project´s lead scientist, named two reasons for the cancellation: First, involved scientists had submitted patents for similar technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of interest. In addition to that, concerns about the lack of government regulation of such geoengineering projects were raised Although the field testing was cancelled, the project panel decided to continue the lab-based elements of the project.

Iron dust fertilization of the ocean live test

American entrepreneur named Russ George dumped 120 tons of iron dust off the hull of a rented fishing boat; the plan was to create an algae bloom that would sequester carbon and thereby combat climate change.

His actions created an algae bloom larger than the area half of the size of Massachusetts (satellites measured a 10,000 square kilometer bloom) that attracted a huge array of aquatic life, including whales that could be “counted by the score.”

Mr. George, whose iron dumping exploit did more than test a thesis about ocean fertilization: it also tested the waters for future geoengineering experiments. And judging by the muted response so far, the results of Mr. George’s test are clear: geoengineers proceed, caution be damned.

Some ocean trials reported positive results. IronEx II reported conversion of 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) to carbonaceous biomass equivalent to one hundred full-grown redwoods within two weeks. Eifex recorded fixation ratios of nearly 300,000 to 1.

Current estimates of the amount of iron required to restore all the lost plankton and sequester 3 gigatons per year of CO2 range widely, from approximately 2 hundred thousand tons per year to over 4 million tons per year. The latter scenario involves 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of approximately €20 billion ($27 billion)

I think the mass of it was 100 to 500 grams per square meter. and about half of that might of sank. Some studies show that algae get to about 600 grams per square meter before the population collapses.

So if we assume 100 grams sank per square meter, then about 1 megaton CO2 might have been sequestered with the 120 ton dumping.

Need to get more diatoms to grow for more sinking of the bloom.
What exactly actually happens with the bloom depends upon the makeup of what actually ends up growing. They did take a lot of water samples and there are robotic bouys for monitoring it. (paid for by Canadian government).

There were two UN conventions that say that this type of thing should not be done but they could not actually enforce it.

The Indian tribe paid to boost the food for salmon to try to increase salmon stocks.

 

[cupper]

There are some significant examples of large scale engineering projects where good intentions created more problematic issues than those that were solved.

The Aswan High Dam is a good example of good intentions with unforeseen consequences. Yes the annual flooding of the Nile was controlled, but as a result, groundwater increased in salinity, increased sedimentation of the Lake Nassar Reservoir, increased Algae blooms in waters below the dam, and so on.

Redirecting rivers into the Aral Sea to irrigate desert lands in the former Soviet Union has caused the sea to essentially dry up.

Efforts to control the Mississippi River have had negative effects on annual flooding.

Sometimes the best solution is to leave things as they are.

 

[Dissident]

Efforts to control the Mississippi River have had negative effects on annal flooding.

Sounds like some pretty serious consequences.

 

[cupper]

Sounds like some pretty serious consequences.

Oops. Typing too fast.

 

[a_majoor]

More on mad science from Popular Mechanics (see any contradiction there?  ). One comment on Instapundit was rather chilling, though:

Forget geoengineering. I’d look at an infectious-disease expert with Deep Ecology beliefs. . . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?click=pm_latest

Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists?

An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from doing it himself?
By Kathryn Doyle

It's hard to stop a bad idea with enough money behind it—even rogue science on the high seas.

Russ George, a wealthy American businessman with a history of big, controversial ideas, launched his latest one this October: dumping 200,000 pounds of iron sulfate into the North Pacific. His aim was to spur a huge plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide in photosynthesis and then sink to the ocean floor. George was attempting to engage in ocean fertilization, the idea that seeding the sea in this way creates those organic blooms that sequester carbon when they sink.

Plenty of scientists have bandied about the idea of ocean fertilization—it's one of the most common proposals for geoengineering, or engineering the earth to protect civilization from climate change. But George didn't write a scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron. He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, a First Nations group in Canada that was hoping an improvement in the ocean would also improve the salmon numbers they depend on.

This wasn't George's first attempt at unilateral geoengineering. But his solo action has outraged scientists, who have spent years studying not only the potential benefits but also the potential negative consequences of hacking the earth. All of which leads us to ask: What's to stop modern-day mad scientists?

Rules on the Books?

A hundred years ago chemical and biological weapons had no regulation because they were new ideas, according to Jason Blackstock, a physicist and international relations scholar at the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at Oxford. Fifty years ago the first rules for human-subject research were put in place.

But newer sciences have yet to spawn a hard set of rules. Consider the current state of fields like genetically modified foods, says Blackstock, which have widely varying national regulations but no international protocols. Or take nanotech: "[In] Michael Crichton's novel with little robots taking over and eating the world [Prey], they are things that could be pretty damaging if released into the environment, but we just don't know," he says. "So there are still a lot of big questions for what should be allowed and what shouldn't be."

Geoengineering is so new, and its consequences so big, that there is no set of laws to deal with it yet. "Right now there is no system for that," says Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. More rogue scientists and businessmen could be motoring through those loopholes in the near future. "I think we're likely to see more and more of these ideas," Speer says.

George has already drawn attention for plankton-centric attempts to engineer the climate. "The Weatherbird, his previous escapade, was widely criticized," says Speer. Country representatives ratified a treaty of the London Protocol on May 1, 2008, that was prompted by the Weatherbird experiment. Dumping a bunch of experimental stuff in international waters violates these rules, but it's not clear what happens next. At best, it's questionably legal, but no expert would call it definitely illegal. One could potentially avoid any punishment by calling it legitimate scientific research and exploiting the vagueness of that phrase. Plus, the rules are murky in international waters, as any keen observer of Bond villains knows. International protocols and moratoriums like the ones on ocean dumping exist, but enforcement has to be carried out by the country where a vessel in violation originated.

The amount of iron sulfate George dumped into the ocean was only a drop in the bucket on a global scale, says Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. "The sewage waste coming into the oceans from coastal towns around the world, I'm sure that's going to be orders of magnitude bigger than what Russ George did. Humans are adding nutrients to the oceans in large quantities every day, knowingly. Of all the damage that humans did to the oceans on that day, Russ George was probably a millionth of that."

For Caldeira, it's the fact that George conducted his experiment in secret rather than the actual amount of iron he dumped that's really troubling. And that's what has bigger implications for the future. "Experiments like this make people realize that there are holes big enough you can literally drive an ocean liner through them," Blackstock says.

Spotting Rogue Scientists

Identifying the people who are likely to do this, or have done it in the past, could be a good way to prevent mad science.

The trouble is, you only know about these experiments beforehand if public funding requires transparency or if the directors choose to tell other scientists and the community at large. "This is not the sort of thing the public should find out about after the fact," says Blackstock.

When people are informed of experimental intent before the fact there's a resulting back-and-forth of environmental impact assessments and the airing of grievances. The Spice project in the U.K., another geoengineering experiment designed to pump water and, ultimately, sulfates into the upper atmosphere to try to block part of the sun's light and thereby cool the planet, was suspended before it began a year ago because public reaction worried funders. In another experiment, called LOHAFEX, the scientists modified their iron dumping location in the Southern Ocean after getting feedback from the German science ministry. (The project was put on hold for two weeks because the ministry had reservations, and during that time the lead scientists chose a stable eddy that would trap most of the new carbon and, hopefully, mollify the German government.)

Mad or Just Frustrated?

The New Yorker recently called George the first geo-vigilante,"implying he fought for justice when the system failed us. But was he frustrated in his pursuit of knowledge or just exploiting a loophole?

"Scientists still aren't sure what they can and can't do," Blackstock says. "You do end up in cases where somebody says, you know what, I'm just gonna go do it, even within the U.S. What Russ George has done is taken that to an extreme. A big extreme."

"Ten years ago everything in geoengineering looked like a mad-scientist idea," he continues. "Frankly, I still wake up some days and see this stuff and I go, seriously—we must be nuts. I mean, spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet—this is terraforming. This is science fiction. And yet it is really a question... of how they go about it, not the idea itself."

Blackstock suggests two criteria for judging geoengineers. First, is their experimental design solid? And second, are they working toward the public good? (Caldeira advocates the classic "follow the money" rule for the second point.)

In George's case, the risks were small: Even though he dumped 200 times more iron than any previous experiment, Caldeira says, George's experiment would have to be done at a much, much larger scale to have any noticeable effect on the atmosphere. It wasn't particularly useful as a proof-of-concept test, either. Blackstock says: "There ain't no way that they're collecting enough data to make an experiment of this scale worthwhile, with that small number of people and resources."

As for following the money, George is a self-professed scientist, but most publications call him a businessman, and he stood to make a profit from ocean fertilization with carbon credits. Ostensibly, geoengineering could work toward global public good as well, if it manages to offset climate change without doing more harm in the process.

And that's why some researchers worry about Bond villains and billionaires going rogue. Whether geoengineering can really combat climate change—and do so without horrific unintended consequences—is an ongoing, contentious debate. But it's one that a mad scientist with enough money could circumvent.

"With geoengineering, the experiments are in themselves benign but could lead somewhere we don't want to go. There's no consensus," Caldeira says. "If we're willing to transform huge swaths of the ocean from quasi-natural ecosystems to managed-ocean ecosystems you could maybe offset a few percentage points of the climate-change problem, but I think that most informed observers would say that the tradeoffs aren't there. The potential for harm exceeds the potential benefits."

Read more: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? - Popular Mechanics

Mad science playing around with geo engineering does require a certain scale, which should make it relatively easy to spot. A mad scientist working on a plague will have far fewer constraints; a basement lab and a fermenter could be disguised as a micro brewery, for example. We already have a certain experience with this, most computer hacking requires a relatively limited amount of equipment (hackers who need huge amounts of computing power simply take over your computer and add it to a "bot net").

 

[Old Sweat]

This open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations published in The Financial Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.

Special to Financial Post | Nov 29, 2012 8:36 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 29, 2012 8:45 PM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations


H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.

November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.


Edit: Here is the link to the letter which includes the names and qualifications of the signers:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

 

[2 Cdo]

Repeat a lie often enough...

I remember hearing the same "science is settled" argument in the 1970's about a coming ice age. I predict in 50 years or so people will be laughing about our battle against "global warming" and "climate change".

 

[Haletown]

Amen, you are forgiven of your sins, that will be $100.00

"The analogy between Indulgences and Carbon Credits is very good, but especially as both create a source of income for those who identify and define the problem, exploit the guilt, and offer a solution. They also do nothing to ameliorate the supposed problems, the amount of sinning or the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere from human sources. In fact, they almost guarantee an increase in both cases. The analogy fails because sin exists, whether it is a transgression against religious or secular law. CO2 in the atmosphere from any source, including human, is not causing global warming or climate change. More important, it’s essential to life on the planet and an increase in atmospheric levels is beneficial to their distribution, abundance, and productivity."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/02/is-al-gore-the-latter-day-pardoner/#more-75159

 

[ArmyRick]

One problem I have with global warming or in my own words "routine climate change" is everybody is focussed on Polar Bears, etc, etc. A

Apparently Forest Fires can dump WAY more carbon in the air than a city full of cars running and idling. That was a shocker to me. I say we ban forest fires, oh wait, Smokey the bear tried that.

Seriously though from a part time farmer (me) that specializes in pasture management/land healing there are some very easy steps we could take as a society to enhance and heal the land we have left available and improve soil quality.

On that note I see different problems than most fellow canadians. I can go into more detail if people are interested.

 

[63 Delta]

Lets hear it. Id be interested to know more about improving the soil quality, as well as what the current quality is even at.

 

[ArmyRick]

To start with, I will base this on my own practical experinces and what I have learned from my mentors, Gerald TeVelde (Twin Creeks Farms) and Greg Judy (Green Pastures Farm). As well as all the good stuff I have learned from numerous books, videos and talks with Joel Salatin (Polyface Farm)

1. Soil must be worked
2. Soil must be "rejeuvenated" will explain more later
3. Soil needs to also have rest but not too much
4. Soil needs to be nourished
5. We should mimic nature structure

These above points will prevent desertification (A serious problem) and heal the land, this has many benefits will explain as I go on.

SOIL MUST BE WORKED

For healthy soil, plants (grasses, forbes and legumes, bushes and trees too) need to be frequently "trimmed" or "mowed" by animals (ruminant animals are ideal). Using a grassland for example, having a herd of cows or a flock of sheep, come in, and eat intensely for a brief period of time and then move on. This action forces the plant to grow back, creates manure when digested (nourishment), allows for trampling action (this beats the ground up and loosens up some tight packed soil) with hooves. Tightly packed ground does not allow proper absorbtion of water and slows down microbiol activity (such as small insects, bacteria and worms). Also the prehensile tongue action of cows and sheep loosens the plants ever so slightly allowing more aeration of the soil (again improves microbial life). During this time, urine and manure is dumped on the ground (nourishment, bacteria, enzymes, nitrogen, minerals, ect, etc). It is imperative that soil is worked eating, stomping, defacting and urinating.

SOIL MUST BE "REJEUVENATED"

Soil needs additional nutrition from water, urine and manure. A note here, the soil gets loosened up by stomping and mowing action, this allows water to better seep in. Now a word on plants (solar collectors). Different plants have different roles. Forbes (we call weeds) are usually distinguished by long tap roots. This tap root collects deep seated mineral up into the plants leaves and stems. The animals eat these parts of the plant, this in turn, brings those minerals to the surface when the animal poops them out. Deep tap roots also aeroate the soil, allowing water absorbtion and microbial activity.  Grass is excellent nutrition for animals and is great for binding soil and keeping top covered preventing damage by wind and sun. Legumes (clover and alfafa are a few examples) fix nitrogen from the air into the soil via the roots, adding a "protein" boost to the ground, which other plants can take up in their roots. Now a word about natural seeding, as animals eat the seed heads, they poop out the fermented seed heads which will have started the sprouting process, starting its own life cycle over again.

More to follow....

 

[ArmyRick]

SOIL NEEDS REST BUT NOT TOO MUCH REST

As you see from above post, there is a cycle of conditioning that happens between weather, animals, earth and microlife. Now the rest. With herd animals (sheep, cattle, bison, goats, musk ox) are notorius open or loosely closed area grazing. These animals when present in a natural environment will hit an area intensely for a few hours to a day or two at the most then migrate onwards. The activity is hard and intense followed by several months to potentially a few years of rest. Now when I say grass, I mean real grass. Not the BS grass people keep out in their front lawns, we are talking 3 to 6 feet high whn fully grown, that is grass. many, many different species. More tropical and heavier precipitation areas, with more moisture, you can have more frequent return of herd animals (such as once every 4-6 months) where as in arid regions (which can still grown plenty of grass) such as certain parts of Africa and south west USA, a longer rest period of 1-2 years is more ideal. This rest allows plants to bouce back from being attacked (chewed on) and allows the minerals and nutrients to be fully broken down and absorbed into the soil. Now if too much time passes, the ground at the top will get hard (slowing or reducing water absorbtion), slows down worm activity and stalls plant growth.

SOIL NEEDS TO BE NOURISHED
We covered some of this earlier. The cycle goes from anaimals eating plant matter and passing it. The minerals are passed from plant to soil as well. Vitamins and nutrients gathered from the sun in the plants is collected from the animal upon being eaten. Now other forms of nutrients will also pass to the ground. dead plants rotting and breaking down and even dead animals breaking down. Insects have an improtant roll to our life cycle.

WE SHOULD MIMIC NATURAL STRUCTURE

To make this work best, we can not simply dump a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep or goats into a pasture. Without predators to enforce "discipline" they will be all over the place and randomly eating grass, allowing no rest. We can create predation by using protable electric fencing and "mob stocking" the animals together (keep reasonable packed together but not too tight). Move them every day or twice a day and allow a rotation plan that gives each spot of ground 90-180 days rest. This mimics one of the best examples (we destroyed), a herd of bison in the past could easily number in the thousands and they would eat, poop, piss, sleep and then move on. This action was performed by these animals for hundreds of thousands of years, creating some of the richest top soil North America originally had (that we have more or less destroyed). Deer, moose, elk do a similar action for more forested areas (They are ruminant animals as well). Also deer and their kind, keep forest well maintained. Without them, trees can grow to dense and that creates deadly competition for limited soil nutrition in trees. In time, several trees die off and then several packed dead dry trees = forest fire. Not good.

We can re-create this effect any where you have a little chunk of grass/open area. I have alot more to say but I will leave at this for now. The benefits from this are
1. Healthy animals with healthy meat (Grass fed beef and lamb is hard to find)
2. Low in put from not having to create soy/corn/grain for bovines and sheep (These animals should NOT be eating this stuff anyways)
3. Healthy pasture and savanah areas
4. It has been shown to repair riparian areas (land and river/creek/pond meet)
5. Soil gets healthier and as each season passes in this manner, the plant population increases and the quality improves
6. No need for chemical fertilizer
7. Greatly improves hay quality
8. It allows animals to be more comfortable and behaving naturally before having that "one really bad day" at the abatoir

 

[Old Sweat]

And this thread from SDA is worth a read as Christopher Monckton blogs about his unauthorized intervention at the Doha climate conference.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/022156.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And this thread from SDA is worth a read as Christopher Monckton blogs about his unauthorized intervention at the Doha climate conference.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/022156.html

You can see the looks on the delegates once their terps translated for them and it sunk in what he was saying.

I'd be just as interested though to know how the delegates from Myanmar explained their absence, to their bosses, and how Monckton got their microphone  ;D