Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [LandCafe] FW: Laying the myth to rest

Expand Messages
  • Sean Brooks
    Gardening is a hobby of mine. Current agricultural practices maximize profits largely by minimizing labor inputs. Should the economics of it all change
    Message 1 of 32 , Oct 31 12:33 PM
      Gardening is a hobby of mine. Current agricultural practices maximize
      profits largely by minimizing labor inputs. Should the economics of it all
      change (perhaps by reducing the taxation of labor and increasing the
      taxation of land and petrochemical inputs), the general mode of agricultural
      production will change. Using composting, intensive (v. row) planting,
      raised beds, and transplanting of seedlings from flats to beds, food to feed
      one person for a year could be grown on <5000 s.f. of land. At this rate,
      the UK's 16,943,000 ha of agricultural land could feed almost 365 million
      people. Alternatively, the UK's 60 million people could be fed from 1/6th
      of her agricultural land - with the remainder available for meat, dairy, or
      fiber production, or just left as wilderness.

      Sean.



      >From: "John" <john.burns-curtis@...>
      >To: "'Kevin Moore'"
      ><kevin_enviro@...>,<Davewetzel@...>,<LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: RE: [LandCafe] FW: Laying the myth to rest
      >Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:01:48 +0100
      >
      >From: Kevin Moore [mailto:kevin_enviro@...]
      >
      > > I think you should all consider the fact that
      > > the population of Britain has risen by around
      > > 10 million over the past 50 years, much of
      > > it the result of poorly controlled and illegal
      > > immigration.
      >
      >Illegal? This amount to little in overall percentage. You sound like
      >the Daily Mail
      >
      > > Whilst not huge as a percentage, that
      > > still represents a requirement for around 3
      > > million additional dwellings.
      > > The fact is, Britian has severely exceeded
      > > the carrying capacity of land for at least a
      > > hundred years
      >
      >In WW2 Britain could not feed itself because it relies on imported food
      >from the empire and the USA, etc. It could have fed itself, and at the
      >end of WW2 was near to doing that. The UK actually has a land surplus.
      >We now pay farmers to keep fields idle they are so productive. I don't
      >know the real figure, and it can only be am approximation by the best
      >experts, but the UK can cope with far more than 60 million people that
      >is clear.
      >
      >Britian is NOT a small country. Take a modern air conned comfortable
      >car. Start at Land End and drive to John 'O goats, only on B roads. You
      >will need an overnight stop. Go from the Scillies to the Shetlands and
      >probably two stops. Doesn't sound small to me. Fast transportation
      >gives a false impression of size.
      >
      > > and it is only cheap energy (particularly
      > > oil and gas more recently) that has made
      > > that possible.
      >
      >You lost me there. Was the point land, which we occupy little of,
      >7.65%, and its ability to feed the population?
      >
      ><snip>
      >
      >You are either confused or a troll.
    • Paul Metz
      Dear colleagues, Is it a good idea to continue to dedicate this Cafe to issues not too distantly related to land ? For issues like globalisation, China,
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 10, 2005
        Dear colleagues,
         
        Is it a good idea to continue to dedicate this Cafe to issues not too distantly related to 'land' ? 
        For issues like globalisation, China, Iraq, climate change, energy security, etc we have plenty other fora and I believe that is efficient.
         
        As much as I appreciate your expert opinions on landuse, I am not interested here in these copied opinions on issues we all lack expertise.
         
        Paul Metz


        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard
        Sent: maandag 7 november 2005 21:42
        To: 'John Havercroft'; 'Sean Brooks'; landCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] The CO2 myth

        John,

         

        Good website.

         

        I’ve seen estimates of total atmospheric carbon ranging from 660 to 750 Gt (749 on the site).

         

        This amount is dwarfed by the huge amounts of carbon elsewhere in the global system.

         

        We add about 6 GT of which half comes from fuels, cement and similar “industrial revolution” sources. (I’ve seen variations on these amounts too.)

         

        That there is climate change is pretty certain – there is always climate change. The first 40 years of the 20th century showed a temperature increase, the next 35 years or so showed a cooling (there was a Climate Conference on the imminent Ice Age) – then about 1976 there was an abrupt rise.  (Carbon dioxide increased through warming and cooling.)

         

        Most interesting to me is the sudden rise in the seventies.

         

        Why?

         

        I’ve seen several suggestions – the Atlantic conveyer changed, the earth experienced a ‘wobble’, we brightened under influence from the sun, and so on. Atmospheric carbon dioxide didn’t increase suddenly, so why did the ground temperatures rise so suddenly?

         

        I’ve not seen mentioned the great change in measuring stations over the years. Particularly in Russia , but in many other places, temperature measurements are taken at far fewer places than back then. I would have to look it up but direct comparison between then and now is very dodgy – but it’s used all the time.

         

        The IPCC which spearheads the Global Warming hypothesis is more political than scientific. Their first Assessment report was doctored to remove all dissent – which is a good way to obtain a consensus.

         

        Now it is ‘understood’ that there is consensus. In fact, any skepticism is shrugged off by the assertion of a consensual belief by scientists in GW. “Practically everyone now believes in Global Warming”

         

        To this contention, one of our local scientists at UCLA, Dr Naomi Oreskes,  analyzed about a thousand scientific papers and concluded that 75% of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view. None directly dissented from it.

         

        That’s a consensus – isn’t it? The prestigious magazine ‘Science’ thought so and published Oreskes’ paper.

         

        Before the war in Germany it was said that 95% of Germans supported Hitler. It was also said, that everywhere you went in Germany , you kept running into the other 5%.

         

        Similarly, among climatologists, one seems always to be running into the 5% who are skeptical – so much so that a scientist at Liverpool’s John Moores University decided to conduct his own analysis on the 1,000 papers.

         

        Dr, Benny Peiser – a catastrophe expert - found that only one third backed the consensus view, while only 1% did so explicitly.

         

        He proceeded to write a letter to science giving his findings. Now, you would expect a direct rebuttal of a previously published paper to find immediate space in a scientific magazine.

         

        After two or three weeks, the letter was returned with the comment that it was too long.

         

        The Liverpudlian edited the letter and mailed it again. More weeks, then Science replied that the content had been "widely dispersed on the internet" and couldn’t be published. (Peiser vehemently denies this.)

         

        Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

         

        A direct refutation of their published paper was “not perceived to  be novel”.

         

        Science is a premier scientific publication. Yet they have acted very dubiously.

         

        Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht , Germany , submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity. It wasn’t published.

         

        Prof Roy Spencer, (look up his website – it’s good) a leading authority in the field said: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

         

        He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

         

        (Nature didn’t condemn that doctored IPCC report back in 1990, which is strange for a ‘scientific’ publication.)

         

        However, denying the existence of dissent – or claiming that skeptics are all paid by the oil companies – is a fine way to get a consensus.

         

        The latest is the suggested ‘link’ between GW and hurricanes. The IPCC Fourth assessment Report will be worked on next year to be published in 2007 and the hurricane link is a good way to frighten the Great Unwashed – and, incidentally to keep the money flowing. Watch for it!

         

        Final point – if every requirement of the Kyoto Protocol was followed to the letter by everyone there would be no effect on the much touted dire consequences of climate change.

         

        Sorry to bend your ear (eyes) with so much, but the problem is really the international bodies we set up, which organizations take on a life of their own and gobble up resources that might otherwise provide us with useful results. There are four years of solar activity data that are unanalyzed for lack of money. Maybe, their perusal would provide useful evidence about global warming, but we may never know.  

         

        Harry

         

        ********************************

        Henry George School of Social Science

        of Los Angeles

        Box 655  Tujunga   CA 91042

        818 352-4141

        ********************************

          


        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Havercroft
        Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:34 AM
        To: Sean Brooks; john.havercroft@...; landCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] The CO2 myth

         

        Yes there are substantial seasonal variations that vary from place to place and from time to time.  The trend is upwards from the fossil carbon released and seasonal variations are just that – seasonal.

         

        Yes trees hold a lot of carbon and grow quicker and hold more if CO2 is more concentrated.  They release this CO2; quickly if burnt; slowly if left to rot.  But the carbon is only held temporarily unless it is on its way to being coal.

         

        Yes agricultural disturbance and Nitrogen fertilisers reduce soil CO2 capacity.  The web site below gives some useful background and I particularly like the schematic at Figure 9.  It may only be an educated guess but it gives a feel for orders of magnitude. 

         

        http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture.html

         

        John H

         

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Sean Brooks
        Sent: 07 November 2005 11:09
        To: john.havercroft@...; landCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] The CO2 myth

         

        It is my understanding that the seasonal change in annual CO2 levels is an
        order of magnitude higher than the annual change in CO2.  This is due to the
        seasonal dormancy and death of plant and other biotic life, and points to
        the importance of storing, even temporarily, carbon in plant life. 
        Furthermore, as every sustainable agricultural method shows, storing carbon
        in the soil is incredibly important, with, again, carbon in the soil and
        biotic soil life having a mass an order of magnitude larger than the the
        mass of the plant life above.  Conventional agriculture, with it's soil
        disturbance, monoculture, and application of various poisons, stores 1/6th
        the soil carbon that organic methods do.


        >From: "John Havercroft" <john.havercroft@...>
        >To: "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...>, <landCafe@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: RE: [LandCafe] The CO2 myth
        >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:17:32 -0000
        >
        >I fear a great deal of nonsense and muddled thinking surrounds the laudable
        >desire to lock up Carbon in plants.
        >
        >Fundamentally the planet absorbed carbon for millions of years and put it
        >underground in Coal, Oil and Chalk; and we are letting it out again. 
        >Unless
        >the Carbon in plants is captured permanently and sent on a journey that
        >ends
        >in the production of coal, oil or chalk all we are doing is contributing to
        >the normal process of the biosphere in which carbon is temporally trapped
        >in
        >growing things and released when they die, with no permanent change to the
        >carbon in circulation.
        >
        >John H
        >
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
        >Of
        >Dan Sullivan
        >Sent: 05 November 2005 16:24
        >To: landCafe@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [LandCafe] The CO2 myth
        >
        >On 1 Nov 2005 at 11:29, John wrote:
        >
        > > The UK imports about 6 billion pounds worth of timber each year and
        >

        > rising. If we planted more forests to cope with the our current
        demand
        > > we would absorb more CO2 and wipe out most of the trade imbalance.
        > > Makes sense to me, but are there any trade agreements (EU etc) to
        > > ensure we use Scandinavian wood?
        >
        >In temperate climates, a cornfield absorbs 42 times as much CO2 per
        >year as an old-growth forest. There are other reasons why I do not
        >recommend this, but from a pure CO2 standpoint, the thing to do is to
        >cut down old-growth forests and plant corn.
        >
        >Plant forests if you want forests, and plant forests to retard soil
        >erosion, but don't think you are saving the planet from CO2.

         

         


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.