Comments on: Eaarth

By: CVP

CVP — Mon, 24 May 2010 08:56:54 +0000

I interpreted the initial theme to this discussion as 'how we must amend our land management skills on a smaller scale', This in turn will collaboratively help restore the global environmental issues. I believe this process will not be modeled on any existing country like Zimbabwe, but will have to be a new 'form' using old practices and contemporary ideas.
Mono-culture farming is unsustainable!

I believe its time for humanity to have a break to stop and smell the roses before mother nature unleashes Newtons theory upon us.
Sadly I predict our 'economy mad, environmentally blind' governments will push the planet to the endth degree and then the 'nay-sayers' will be seeking food and shelter from the 'I told you sayers'.;)

By: ctg

ctg — Thu, 13 May 2010 06:45:01 +0000

Now why would you be touchy about being called "Garth", I wonder…

By: Gareth

Gareth — Thu, 13 May 2010 04:08:03 +0000

Then you'll be able to add the missing \”e\”, perhaps…

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 13 May 2010 04:01:13 +0000

Thanks Garth. I will join up.

By: philscadden

philscadden — Thu, 13 May 2010 01:16:21 +0000

Correct – this is not how science works and isnt in fact how it is done – you are raising another straw man.

The arguments for AGW is from a very successful theory of climate which derives the theory from basic physics. This theory make a large no. of predictions which can be compared to observation. The most powerful of those predictions is stratospheric cooling and direct measurement of atmospheric greenhouse effect either by OLR or ground incoming.

Proxy reconstruction don't prove or provide any basis for the theory. The could however invalid the theory if you found past temperatures were outside the error bounds for estimates from past forcings. Suggesting otherwise is another strawman. See the IPCC statement on this.

If GHG arent doing it, then how do you explain.
Evan 2006
Harries 2001 and papers that
have reproduced these results.

Your explanation for upper stratospheric cooling would be?

These are quantified prediction from theory confirmed by observation which IS how science works.

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Thu, 13 May 2010 00:59:42 +0000

So once again we have the argument from ignorance fallacy: I can't explain recent warming, therefore it must be human-induced. Sorry, that's not how science works.

Furthermore your talk of remedies is only meaningful once you have demonstrated a problem. Your vague hand-waving about "the variation unlike past variations" is:
(a) not proven. Proxies simply don't give the temporal or spatial resolution to determine global temperatures pre-industrial or changes thereof, and
(b) Would not establish human cause even if it were true.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Wed, 12 May 2010 22:55:08 +0000

"Ideally a farm is self-sufficient, it isn't dependent on external inputs apart from those required to replace the fertility exported when produce is sold."

What a load of nonsense. A farm is merely a means for humans to grow food or other primary produce to be used as those who are involved with the farm see fit. There is no one ideal way of doing things because it is dependent on what the farmer wants from the farm.

If the farmer wanted to ensure short to medium term high yields and high profits from selling crops to other people then there is no way that the farm should not rely on external inputs such as, newly developed crop varieties, pesticides, fertilisers, transportation etc etc.

By: Kiwiiano

Kiwiiano — Wed, 12 May 2010 22:17:32 +0000

“As soon as you reduce the size of farms you lower your ability to raise working capital. This as well as the decision to vest ownership in the state is the problem in both those countries.”
You said it yourself, Gosman, the problem is financial and political, not the inherent productivity of the smaller units. Ideally a farm is self-sufficient, it isn’t dependent on external inputs apart from those required to replace the fertility exported when produce is sold. Unfortunately perpetual self-sufficiency, which requires about 60% of the farm’s soil being devoted to husbanding the farm is an anathema to commercial mind-sets.

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Wed, 12 May 2010 19:52:12 +0000

"You keep telling yourself that Bryan."

Telling you, actually, Gosman. But it bounces off.

"I suppose that isn't really worth consideration as it involves ideas which are not radically left wing."

You're feigning (I hope) obtuseness. The cloud-forming idea may well have to be looked at if things get as bad as seems likely. But such desperate options in no way lessen the need to stop the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That radically left-wing idea is strangely shared by Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron and many others who describe themselves as conservatives. Granted they're not having much success as yet, but I haven't heard them denying the need.

Geoengineering possibilities have been discussed on Hot Topic in a past postby the way.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:49:05 +0000

"When I review a book sympathetically that doesn't mean I am an advocate. "

You keep telling yourself that Bryan.

It seems that even Bill Gates is investigating time and money looking into the the area that Superfreakonomics was writing about.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech…

But then again I suppose that isn't really worth consideration as it involves ideas which are not radically left wing.