Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
PoopyPants
climber
Up in the mountains
|
|
As far as solutions, from a soil science perspective I don't understand why not sequester carbon in the soil on a large scale? There are three major carbon sinks in the ocean, atmosphere and soil. We took the carbon out of the soil in the first place so why not put it back? Plants turn atmospheric carbon to biomass that can then be turned to biochar or otherwise locked up.
Our current monocultured agricultural system has depleted our soil to the point where they are dead and can only grow a crop with the addition of heavy NPK fertilizers. Farmers are in debt for their machinery, chemicals and seed with no control over their own soil.
The other option is moving to a regenerative system that is based on a perrenial polycuture that actually builds soil. Yes, there is some lost in total productivity but when considering how inherently unsustainable a chemical monoculture is it makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering we can do this and restore previously degraded land. Also, we are finding that good livestock management (holistic / mob grazing) is actually very beneficial to buidling soil so we may not all have to be vegans after all because that would suck.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"How come this is frequently treated as a political topic?
It is not
It is a scientific topic
The political part is what we will do in response.
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focusing on solutions"
I agree with talking more about solutions.
Of course that has been done many times on these threads,
and the answer in the USA is mostly just a dead end,
because:
1) the deniers often have the floor and keep interjecting nonsense in both this forum and in USA government.
2) We want every other country to act as fast as us on decreasing emissions. That is simply not going to happen in places like India where the average income is so low and just living is quite harsh. We were leaders in moving to large fossil fuel emissions and we would need to be leaders in moving off them. At this point most of Europe is far ahead of us in lower GHG emissions. In fact some are discussing putting tariffs on goods from the USA (not the other way around.) China is taking the lead in solar.
The way I see policy evolving is through lots of small steps, similar to nuclear arms reductions among the major war powers. Leading richer countries would start taking more steps such as gradually increasing carbon taxes (revenue neutral), and then helping poorer countries to follow.
That way none suffer large unilateral costs. This is basically what the climate talks have proposed for decades now. Trade restrictions can be used to enforce efforts. The USA has already mostly wasted decades of precious time.
Some reasons revenue neutral carbon taxes are so great:
Easy to impose, hard to game loopholes.
Easy to gradually increase.
Easy to offset revenue through reductions in other taxes such as income or Social Security, or sales, or ...
Easy to calculate and compare between countries.
No pick and choosing of solutions, instead just providing incentive to find alternatives.
3. We are selfish and like our wasteful habits and are too lazy to consider alternatives.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
All this "save the planet" talk is presumptuous, imo.
Global warming will simply take the planet back to the state it has enjoyed for most of its history. Seas will rise, forests will grow where now there are sheets of ice, etc. We're actually coming out of an ice age, returning to something more "normal" from a geological perspective.
Maybe something like dinosaurs can evolve again. The possibilities are endless and wonderful. "Life finds a way."
"Save the planet" REALLY means, "'Save' a narrow, human-centric perspective of what's 'nice' for some subset of us." And subset is the motive word! Some are going to be displaced as some deserts grow. But much more of the world will become habitable and arable than exists at present.
"Save the planet" presumes that the limited regions of "badness" are generalizable to the whole planet, when, actually, if history is any guide, MOST of the planet will do much better warmer.
And if humans went extinct, that would be the best way to truly "save the planet."
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
anybody missing a goebels stand in?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Similarly, you should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. But I think someone who begins smoking is foolish because our best theory suggest that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, heart attacks, and a host of other adverse health outcomes significantly.
So if I may be a little tongue-in-cheek.
Really?
REALLY???
If your kid (or grandkid) came to you and asked whether smoking causes cancer, your response would be:
Absolutely. Smoking causes cancer and it is very dangerous to your health.
or
You should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. Now I think it would be foolish to begin smoking because our best theory suggests that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, but we really just can't be sure. All those New England Journal of Medicine published studies and other peer reviewed papers, might actually all be full of sh#t. So honey, why don't you sift through all the evidence and decide if smoking is right for you.
And I should remain skeptical about whether having bacon cheeseburgers, fries, and sodas and other similar fast food for lunch and dinner everyday is bad for my health. My being 40 pounds overweight might really be because I have fat ancestors not to mention fat co-workers. According to the beverage industry, there is no proof that sugary drinks have any ill effects on your health.
And the city of Flint missed a beat. Sure, parents are upset to hear that peer reviewed science papers state that even low levels of lead exposure can cause permanent, neurological damage. What the hell have those scientist ever PROVED! REMAIN SKEPTICAL! Maybe that lead doesn't do anything.
So returning to a more wonkish seriousness.
Come on, man. Not even scientist can successfully think this way across the board. This is like economist who have this fantasy that all consumers all these perfect rational creatures carefully weighing up every economic transaction to maximize their profit. Nobody, not even economists, make all of their purchases this way.
Long after most people rationally accepted that smoking was bad for you, the tobacco industry worked hard to sow doubt. Not proof. Just a little nagging doubt. So when your buddy lights up and offers you a cigarette and you say those things cause cancer. He can just brush it off with a nervous laugh and say those doctors all full of sh#t.
Doubt makes it harder to face up to the really tough task of quitting smoking and easier to just mentally push it away.
It doesn't do us any good to win the battle of Hillary. We also have to win the battle of Trump.
Saying skepticism is warranted is just a comfortable euphemism for saying I don't want to fully commit to the consequences of dealing with reality.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Saying skepticism is warranted is just a comfortable euphemism for saying I don't want to fully commit to the consequences of dealing with reality.
No. Saying skepticism is warranted is following the scientific method. We always allow for the possibility that later discoveries could change our theory.
Put another way, our current understanding of reality may change. That matters because when we dogmatically insist that we know all about reality, we make it easy for someone to blow a hole in our argument as soon as we learn something new. Why not admit that this is the best we know now, and we should act based on what we know?
As many have stated, this issue remains humanity's actions. Whether we understand all, most, some or none of the ramifications of our interactions with the universe doesn't change the fact that those interactions have consequences. Arguing over certainty distracts from the need to assess the consequences of our actions and modify them in account of that assessment. Getting hung up on skepticism distracts from the need to deal with our actions.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Arguing over certainty distracts from the need to assess the consequences of our actions and modify them in account of that assessment.
Which is why, as I said just above, I welcome global warming!
To the extent that it even makes ANY sense to talk in terms of "good" or "bad" in an evolutionary/geological context, global warming is surely a good.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/03/climate-change-scientists-house-panel-global-temperatures-misleading
The House Committee on science, space and technology are promoting a misleading fake-news Breitbart article expressing skepticism that the earth is warming.
Breitbart as the scientific reference that the Republican house committee on science is now using!
"If the House science committee wants to understand science they should talk to climate scientists." Yea, well, not if Breitbart is telling them what they want to hear.
"Where did you get your PHD?" Bernie Sanders asked. "Trump University?" Sure, why not, its a University like Harvard is right, in the same way Breitbart are climate scientists.
Thanks Trumpistas! We're f*#ked.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
Global warming will simply take the planet back to the state it has enjoyed for most of its history. Seas will rise, forests will grow where now there are sheets of ice, etc. We're actually coming out of an ice age, returning to something more "normal" from a geological perspective.
Most people here like ice. Go away, ice-hater.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Go away, ice-hater.
LOL
No, no, we won't go.
Actually, I'm hoping that within my lifetime Baffin Island will become a lush paradise with its towering walls poking up out of steamy forests!
Global warming can't move along fast enough for me.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The best compelling evidence is a prediction that turns out to be right.
No, actually, that's not correct. An infinite number of theories are consistent with ANY set of facts. So, NO pile of evidence can suggest even a single step toward CONFIRMING, or even "nodding toward," any particular theory.
All the scientific method can do is (at best) falsification of theories, never confirmation of theories.
And, in the context of looking for compelling evidence that a theory is incorrect (which was the context of the comment you responded to), "the best compelling evidence" would be evidence that did NOT cohere with the theory in question. Because....
See above.
Give me global warming, or give me death (apologies to Patrick Henry).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
^ useless hyperbole
Only to those who prefer to pontificate in ignorance. If you're going to "correct" others, you should at least be correct in your "correction."
You know, it's a function of intellectual honesty.
LOL
Give me global warming, or give me death!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
Madbolter...Steamy ropes...LOL...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
And he's been mad at the world ever since.
Uh, right. And you get THAT from my post? LOL
Clearly you "see" exactly what you want to see. Yeah, that's science in action.
Look, goofball, if you can't see the "refutation" of your ridiculous confirmationism, then there is no help for you.
So, yeah, just continue on in your delusional echo chamber ("correcting" others along the way, ROFL). That's just what I've observed from you perpetually.
Let's cut to the chase: You don't like me, and now I don't like you. Blah, blah, blah. The net effect remains: Science does NOT "prove," "indicate," "confirm," or in ANY other way "show" anything. It has no capacity to do that. So, there CAN be no "compelling evidence" that ANY theory is "correct."
Science can ONLY disprove theories, never confirm them. But don't take my word for it....
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Seriously. Watch it and learn something. After all, this is one of the gods of physics talking.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
Madbolter...Okay...that was a cheap shot..I didn't know you were the victim of that sophmorish prank until a few posts ago...rj
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I said compelling evidence. I didn't say proof. You are twisting my words, but that's what deniers do.
1) I'm not a denier.
2) Your distinction between "compelling evidence" and "proof" is a distinction without a difference. NEITHER is provided by the scientific method.
You're more of a windbag than me. At least what I say is sustainable, which cannot be said for you. You pontificate in ignorance, "correcting" others with incorrect statements. To the extent that I pontificate ("windbag" and all), what I say is correct.
That is a distinction with a difference.
Give me global warming, or give me death!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Madbolter...Okay...that was a cheap shot
No worries. It doesn't bother me anymore. But thanks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You haven't said anything that is correct, because you offer no evidence, only your opinion.
You only say that because you are ignorant. Oh, and you haven't bothered to watch the explanations from one of your own gods. Educated people know that what I'm saying is not merely "my opinion."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What successful predictions have the climate change deniers made?
Doesn't concern me. I'm not a denier.
Give me global warming!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!