The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The *science has, quite simply, gone awry’



https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...1-fc38ed4f85e3


https://ecomodder.com/forum/images/editor/quote.gif















These and many more.


Doesn’t sound like a “consensus” or “settled” to me.



>

There are thousands of scientists contributing to the IPCC - and they are all climate scientists. Who are the 700? Are they dentists, or geologists, or what? Most "skeptics" are not climate scientists, and some are not even scientists.

You quoted a lot of OPINION. That is not evidence based science. This current administration is anti-science. They believe - like you, apparently - in a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory - by definition, is bunk.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What if we "solved the problem" and it kept on getting warmer?

Not that there is any way current technology can "fix the problem" with out going all khymer rouge.

We know how to sink carbon into the soil. Plants would do the hardest part - splitting the oxygen away from the carbon, and they then put it in the soil, in large part. We just have to not screw it up.

Watch this, and learn one way it can be done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0

And another way is to do no-till farming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIyKfWf9kU

Another way would be to make biochar, and use the heat energy, and put the carbon into the soil - where it is hugely beneficial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svNg5w7WY0k

[oil pan 4]

They are already doing no till farming here when possible.
Usually winter coverage crops.

When I burn pine I gets lots of unburned charcoal left over. I magnet out the nails and dump the leftover in my elm fuel tree areas.

Starting next spring I'm going to water my fuel trees to make them grow faster, this fall I'm going to put down some fall tree fertilizer.

[sendler]

Are these concepts (biochar) meaningfully scalable on a global CO2 emissions level? Or is this just more wishful thinking?

[oil pan 4]

Wishful thinking to me it appears.
The best carbon capture tech is just to let a swampy area just do its thing and create peat.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Hate no, irritate and annoy, yes.

Okay! You the man!
I'd advocate for a lecture tour around the nation.You've definitely got chops!

[NeilBlanchard]

Watch the videos - the first one talks about the possibility of reducing atmospheric carbon back down to 350ppm is a decade or less.

Grasslands have more carbon per acre than forests. There are more grasslands than forests.

If we managed them with herds of herbivores (bison, cattle, etc.) we could sink a LOT of carbon, very quickly.

HOW do you think the American midwest got 10-20+ FEET of topsoil?

We only need to add 1% by weight to the top 6" of all agricultural land - to get below 350ppm.

We can BENEFIT from the carbon in the air - IF we do this right.

[oil pan 4]

I figured dust blew in from AZ, NM, TX and got layered with some organic matter

Originally Posted by aerohead

Okay! You the man!
I'd advocate for a lecture tour around the nation.You've definitely got chops!

I don't do comedy.

[NeilBlanchard]

Native Americans managed the bison, by hunting them. They burned areas to keep trees from coming in, and since grass is 80% root, and when it is cut back - it abandons a proportional amount of the roots.

This pumps a massive amount of carbon into the soil. The roots are 40-50 FEET deep. There is no oxygen down there, so the carbon stays put.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Is it a self-imposed limitation on internet, or do you not have internet available at your abode. I can get you a laptop if you just don't have a computer.



Some say that we have benefited from global warming overall. Certainly we have benefited since the globe has been warming 14,000 years ago. Many more die of cold than from excessive heat.

The trick is determining what the ideal temperature is, all things considered, and then determining if keeping it near that temperature is feasible or beneficial given what we would have to sacrifice to achieve that temperature.

I don't dismiss the possibility/probability that some storms are more violent due to warming, but is it worse than the alternative of being too cold?

I tend to believe we have benefited from the warming, even to this day, especially given some predict continued net benefit until 2080, at which point we will have net negative consequences.

Having internet at home would blow my budget such that I'd never make it back to DARKO in 2020.Losing 15-years of effort.

I'm dedicating about 60-hours a week to EcoModder.Even if I had a computer and internet at home,I'd have no more time than I have now to look at it.
As to the cold,I've camped at -30F in my tent,in Colorado,with no heat other than metabolic.
If I lived in the Michigan peninsula,or Ontario,I'd have to structure my behavior around the local environment.And I wouldn't ask El Salvadoreans to die of renal failure from my tailpipe as is happening today.
One can dress for the cold,but one cannot get more naked than naked.
If we have to gamble the planet for the sake of those who choose to live in four-season climes,there's gonna be a discussion.
The ideal temp was probably 58-F.