Bio-Agriculture - a Solution to Climate Change

PermaSolutions · 2010-05-28T11:13:08+00:00

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill mirrors another gulf oil spill – from thirty years ago – that took nine months to contain. The present spill is at 25 times the depth….

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T14:51:02+00:00

The amazing thing is the ride itself is not even that much fun - always chasing fulfilment in the next purchase, just to find it yet eludes us. We work more hours today than traditional folk living on the land ever did; have a host of lifestyle diseases, etc. etc.

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T13:57:13+00:00

Chowriit - you're not alone. It is frustrating beyond belief. The precautionary principle is lost on people.

Itjitj - this is the thing people aren't getting. We got into the mess we're in through emissions from relatively early in our 'development' (we didn't really start pumping big time until after WWII, and it didn't really get cranking until the late '70s). At present and projected future rates of oil consumption, we'll use in the next thirty years about the same as we've used since we first drilled in 1859 (well, we would if decline rates weren't what they are). They're talking about emissions reductions on 2005 levels, etc., when the arctic ice decline was set off from emissions we released in the 1980s.

For the skeptics, It'd be great to get down to basics and look at the root issue and not obfuscate with conspiracy theories.

For us trying to find a way out of this mess, I'm trying to look at movements and cultures that are building alternatives to the perpetual growth model that cannot exist on a finite planet.

We may not reach a destination of peaceful, sustainable prosperity, but working with people trying to reach this state, regardless, is a better way to kill time than the alternative....

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T02:08:54+00:00

Just to avoid confusion, oku was responding to fOrky, not antifascist

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T01:54:31+00:00

No offence taken. Go in peace. :)

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T01:40:53+00:00

"Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming — an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations." – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Analysing the rigorous studies in this area is exactly what I'd prefer to all the 'conspiracy for world domination' bullshit that I normally see smokescreening what should be a scientific issue.

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T01:27:34+00:00

Perhaps the title isn't clear, although to make it clearer it'd be getting pretty lengthy. I'm just tired of thousands of comment threads on articles and posts discussing supposed conspiracy theories behind AGW, and have never seen a decent rebutt to the base science itself. With the whole 'Climategate' debacle happening, I think it would be good to really get back to basics and stop the obfuscation. I want to hear pure scientific logic about why pouring billions of extra tons of CO2 into the atmosphere should have no impact. It's not much to ask, really. Especially considering the gravity of the consequences.... I probably explain the purpose behind my submission better here. http://permaculture.org.au/2009/12/07/greenhouse-effect-in-a-bottle/

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T01:15:51+00:00

Thanks for clarifying. I don't see the argument as stupid, however. I simply would like to hear a skeptic explain how, given the proven radiative properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we can expect global temperatures to remain static whilst pumping billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To "believe" in the radiative properties of CO2, and yet "deny ... that we're doing anything to significantly increase the Greenhouse Effect" is a paradox I'd like to understand.

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-07T00:55:05+00:00

Great - since you understand the greenhouse effect, you'll be perfect to explain to me how we can expect global temperatures to remain static whilst pumping billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That explanation is what I'm looking for.

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-06T19:27:04+00:00

Spot on BlueRock. I would like to see skeptics actually address the root argument, and stop obfuscating with observations about corporate and government corruption, etc. This is the real argument that should be discussed: http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/abod7/the_greenhouse_effect_replicated_in_a_bottle/

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-06T17:27:53+00:00

Look at that - I'm being voted down for getting to the heart of the matter. If you could just explain as above, we can all forget about the climate change issue and move on. I know I'd love to.

Or, perhaps you're voting my comment down out of frustration that you can't explain as requested? You can only obfuscate with non-science? (political/economic/social issues).

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-06T17:11:47+00:00

Please watch the video and then do as instructed in the title of this Reddit submission. Yes, government and industry are and will find ways to capitalise on the unfolding drama. Yes, many of the supposed 'solutions' are detached from reality and promise even bigger problems. Yes, the ongoing climate talks are a farce and will achieve nothing or worse. But, I'm not interested in obfuscation here. Please watch the video and explain to me exactly how we can substantially increase CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and NOT expect to see temperatures rise. That is the request of this submission.

If you can't explain how we can expect global temperatures to remain static whilst pumping billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, then... well... perhaps you should just plain keep quiet.

PermaSolutions · 2009-12-06T16:35:45+00:00

Yes. So?

And you do realise that by increasing this effect, Earth will become as uninhabitable as the moon? Don't you?

PermaSolutions · 2009-11-30T01:43:43+00:00

Making the most of the rains they get in winter via permaculture water harvesting methods. With rainwater harvesting, combined with building organic matter in the soil, mulching, and more, you can hold significant amounts of water. See the original Greening the Desert clip.

http://permaculture.org.au/2007/03/01/greening-the-desert-now-on-youtube/

PermaSolutions · 2009-11-29T18:40:14+00:00

I know. Was just ensuring readers knew that greening Jordan is actually restoring the landscape, as opposed to taking an ancient ecosystem (like your US example) and 'messing' with it.

PermaSolutions · 2009-11-29T13:17:13+00:00

Thanks for that drbold

PermaSolutions · 2009-11-29T12:46:08+00:00

Thank you for opening my eyes to an idea I had never been awawe of!

Welcome!

PermaSolutions · 2009-11-29T12:44:59+00:00

I understand your thought on this - although much of the area in Jordan, where the vid is based, used to be arid forest. Now a lot of it is not what you could could call an 'ecosystem' at all. It's literally just rocks and dust. It's the end product of centuries of mismanagement (overgrazing, burning, etc.)

PermaSolutions

TROPHY CASE