How Whales Change Climate

Even a little accuracy would be a huge improvement.

This guy says, by similar action on land, cows can solve desertification, reverse CO2 to pre-industrial levels, and save us all from nasty, beastly horrible grisly deaths.

(He started slow, but 1.25-1.5x playback fixed that right up.)

Cheers, James Arthur

and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit their igno rance.

There accuracy is there, but John Larkin can't be bothered to look deep eno ugh to notice. He's perfectly happy to be lied to by denialist web-sites - they aren't designed to fool people who can do critical thinking, but John Larkin can't be bothered to look that closely.

Who pays any attention to idiots who post nonsense on YouTube?

There is good quality science availalble - I provide links to papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science from time to time, but James Arthur pefers to root around in garbage cans.

ic and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit their i gnorance.

to explain fairly massive deviations from physics based predictions especi ally as regards rates of change, to account for the equally powerful effect s of the biosphere.

n,

ly

he Proceedings of the National Academy of Science from time to time, but Ja mes Arthur pefers to root around in garbage cans.

I don't think Savory is an idiot. The criticisms of his proposed method com e from institutional proponents of a system that has obviously failed. Ther e may be overestimates of CO2 sequestration but there is no doubt his metho ds produce an enormous ecological improvement. I don't see what this has to do with the whales.

e:

eric and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit their ignorance.

nd to explain fairly massive deviations from physics based predictions espe cially as regards rates of change, to account for the equally powerful effe cts of the biosphere.

ion,

stly

the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science from time to time, but James Arthur pefers to root around in garbage cans.

ome from institutional proponents of a system that has obviously failed. Th ere may be overestimates of CO2 sequestration but there is no doubt his met hods produce an enormous ecological improvement. I don't see what this has to do with the whales.

The wikipedia article makes it cler that Savoury thinks that his methods pr oduce an enormous ecologicla improvement, but equally that he hasn't been a ble to set up scientific trials that prove this to the satisfaction of anyb ody else.

Setting up a scientific trial that distinguishes what you actually do from what it is that the testign scientist thinks that you are doing can be tric ky, particularly when people are perfectly capable of getting reliable resu lts from a technique that they practice without having a particularly clear idea of what thye are doing. This can make it difficult to adequately expl ain the technique to the scientist who is doing the testing.

rote:

ote:

pheric and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit the ir ignorance.

and to explain fairly massive deviations from physics based predictions es pecially as regards rates of change, to account for the equally powerful ef fects of the biosphere.

ation,

eastly

in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science from time to time, bu t James Arthur pefers to root around in garbage cans.

come from institutional proponents of a system that has obviously failed. There may be overestimates of CO2 sequestration but there is no doubt his m ethods produce an enormous ecological improvement. I don't see what this ha s to do with the whales.

produce an enormous ecologicla improvement, but equally that he hasn't been able to set up scientific trials that prove this to the satisfaction of an ybody else.

m what it is that the testign scientist thinks that you are doing can be tr icky, particularly when people are perfectly capable of getting reliable re sults from a technique that they practice without having a particularly cle ar idea of what thye are doing. This can make it difficult to adequately ex plain the technique to the scientist who is doing the testing.

A big part of the problem is testing of this kind of thing requires decades which creates practical problems for funding and sustaining the effort acr oss possibly multiple generations of researchers. A good example of what Sa vory is talking about is the Great Plains American bison which outnumbered the entire population of the U.S. at the time by a factor of 2-3. There wer e no problems with massive soil erosion and desertification until after the y were slaughtered, which was done for purely political reasons. Take a gan der at this moron:"To compel the Native Americans of the west to move to re servations, Delano supported the slaughter to near extinction of the vast b uffalo herds, which were essential to the maintenance of the Plains Indians ' lifestyle."

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:39:12 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrot e:

e:

eric and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit their ignorance.

nd to explain fairly massive deviations from physics based predictions espe cially as regards rates of change, to account for the equally powerful effe cts of the biosphere.

ion,

stly

ome from institutional proponents of a system that has obviously failed. Th ere may be overestimates of CO2 sequestration but there is no doubt his met hods produce an enormous ecological improvement.

g/wiki/Allan_Savory

Your "whales" video sums up to: lacking whales to transport nutrients vital to prey species (fish and krill), prey species decline.

Savory demonstrates free-range grazing animals serve the same function on land--digesting waste cover (e.g. straw) into fertilizer, distributing it, and incorporating into the soil nutrients that are otherwise lost. Without this, the land spirals into infertility.

Savory's carbon sequestration 'back to pre-industrial levels' claim seems dubious, but so what? We need more carbon anyhow.

If restoring the natural balance sequestered no net carbon but just reclaim ed countless expanses of habitat, and brought a billion people from the brink of starvation, that'd help a load of critters & people, and give carbophobe s a new thing to oppose, too. Win-win.

Cheers, James Arthur

ote:

ote:

pheric and geophysics- well, actually I do: people too stupid to admit the ir ignorance.

and to explain fairly massive deviations from physics based predictions es pecially as regards rates of change, to account for the equally powerful ef fects of the biosphere.

ation,

eastly

come from institutional proponents of a system that has obviously failed. There may be overestimates of CO2 sequestration but there is no doubt his m ethods produce an enormous ecological improvement.

org/wiki/Allan_Savory

al

imed

bes

I agree.

So, tell us, and be accurate, WHAT is capable of being improved. 'the modeling' could be a reference to Play-Doh.

Then tell us what measure of accuracy applies. Play-Doh isn't good at ear folds, you know, but if it's ear COUNT, there's hope for improvement.