Climate Emergency - The Next Decade

[DrWazzock]

maybe a silly question, but wouldn't it be better to graze it before it gets like that?

Of course it would.
Our grassland here isn’t a fire risk. Grazed and or mowed and baled in June while it had nutritional value.
I visited a large estate recently with a couple of hundred acres very low intensity grazed grassland. Gone to seed and dead. A rewilding project according to the notice board. Hopelessly under stocked with native breeds now starving amidst herbage with all the nutritional value of a cardboard box. Big patches of buck thistles with seed blowing seed away. Also a fair amount of ragwort. They are leaving it to nature apparently. Rewilding. Well it looked like a disaster from many different angles to me. All incentivised by DEFRA. I despair.

 

[Goweresque]

100mm more than we had in June and July

Well of course there's always places that get less (or more) rain than others. That's not the point. The point is that if this was a somehow utterly exceptional summer that fact would show up in the national statistics. Which it doesn't. Drier summers have been seen just within my lifetime, and I'm not (that) old.

We can't base an entire UK wide drought strategy on 'Well this particular farm hasn't had any rain this summer, so something must be done!'.

 

[Adeptandy]

Well of course there's always places that get less (or more) rain than others. That's not the point. The point is that if this was a somehow utterly exceptional summer that fact would show up in the national statistics. Which it doesn't. Drier summers have been seen just within my lifetime, and I'm not (that) old.

We can't base an entire UK wide drought strategy on 'Well this particular farm hasn't had any rain this summer, so something must be done!'.

I agree, but as we’ve not been lucky to get what some had, just felt it was worth mentioning

 

[Goweresque]

I agree, but as we’ve not been lucky to get what some had, just felt it was worth mentioning

I'm pretty sure we've not had 100mm over the last 2 months either. Probably considerably less than half that, we are in a rain shadow here. Great in wetter times, not so good in a dry one

Anyway I'm sure all this dry weather is my fault, I had a contractor in last summer for drainage work, and he's due back any day now for some more, so that pretty much guaranteed that it would stop raining, here at least. The good news is I haven't got any more work planned for next year so things might get back to normal by then........

 

[toquark]

These things tend to go round in circles. A good lot of the rewinding arguments are total tosh, but instead of arguing against them, I’m more inclined to just let them play out to demonstrate their many failings to its proponents and the public which they are doing already. There’s no better way. We’ll reinvent the wheel but whilst allowing the people to think they’ve made the decision themselves. Like sheep, you’ve got to let them think they’re in charge. It’ll take time, but democracy always does.

 

[DrWazzock]

Well of course there's always places that get less (or more) rain than others. That's not the point. The point is that if this was a somehow utterly exceptional summer that fact would show up in the national statistics. Which it doesn't. Drier summers have been seen just within my lifetime, and I'm not (that) old.

We can't base an entire UK wide drought strategy on 'Well this particular farm hasn't had any rain this summer, so something must be done!'.

Look further afield to continental Europe. I just get the feeling it’s trending progressively dryer. Of course there are blips and often wetter spells but we seem as badly prepared for them as we do the dry spells.
A French aquaintance told me they’ve almost given up on grass now. That’s a steady trend that’s been building for 30 years. They went to maize. Now that’s looking increasingly unsustainable.
We can all quote statistics but I’d say things are trending hotter and dryer with more extreme rainfall in between. Veg will be hit first.
What’s wrong with building in a bit more resilience?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Of course it would.
Our grassland here isn’t a fire risk. Grazed and or mowed and baled in June while it had nutritional value.
I visited a large estate recently with a couple of hundred acres very low intensity grazed grassland. Gone to seed and dead. A rewilding project according to the notice board. Hopelessly under stocked with native breeds now starving amidst herbage with all the nutritional value of a cardboard box. Big patches of buck thistles with seed blowing seed away. Also a fair amount of ragwort. They are leaving it to nature apparently. Rewilding. Well it looked like a disaster from many different angles to me. All incentivised by DEFRA. I despair.

wild is not low intensity. I was really surprised when I was in the Ngoro goro crater, and Lake Manyara national parks and seeing the amount of animals in the wild.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Watching youtube videos of water infiltration (as well as watching infiltration demonstrations with rainfall machines), it seems to me, that how we farm affects infiltration. This must affect the amount of water stored in the aquifers. I know this doesn't make it rain, but it does allow bore hole extraction. Then, we have, how land use affects local water cycles, maybe we should look at how we farm and manage land can increase local rainfall too. Then I suppose, keyline design towards putting in reservoirs and use them too. Few nuanced ideas of mine about how we as a country should think about droughts (for food production). Instead all we get is huff about rewilding and Carbon offsetting.

 

[C.J]

Plenty of wildlife trusts, with probably lots of vegan members, are happy to use ruminants where it suits them. Some hypocrisy there.

Sorry did I say public park - I should have said dog toilet.

According to their website, Ludwell valley park do graze cattle at certain times of the year - looks like they are excluded from areas that have been reseeded with wild flower seed.

 

[DrWazzock]

Watching youtube videos of water infiltration (as well as watching infiltration demonstrations with rainfall machines), it seems to me, that how we farm affects infiltration. This must affect the amount of water stored in the aquifers. I know this doesn't make it rain, but it does allow bore hole extraction. Then, we have, how land use affects local water cycles, maybe we should look at how we farm and manage land can increase local rainfall too. Then I suppose, keyline design towards putting in reservoirs and use them too. Few nuanced ideas of mine about how we as a country should think about droughts (for food production). Instead all we get is huff about rewilding and Carbon offsetting.

On a small scale here the field round the house which was never under drained looks a lot better than those fields with efficient modern underdrains.
A lot of things maybe need a rethink. Underdrains were installed here at 28” min depth, deeper through Sandy knolls. Result, a desert by June. But if we don’t have them it’s too wet to get on in winter. But you question why we need to get on the land in winter and question whether a drain depth of 28” is sensible, being dictated at the time by nothing more than maximum subsoiler leg length.

 

[yoki]

A different view, and one that never gets a mention.

https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2

Namely that global warming is taking place but rather than being related to greenhouses gases, which is a dodgy theory (at best!), that it is a result of all the energy being continual released directly in to the atmosphere as waste heat.

I have to say, that it certainly seems more plausible than the greenhouse gas theory.

Also, it would mean that nuclear power rather than being a solution, would only serve to greatly exacerbate the problem.

 

[ollie989898]

A different view, and one that never gets a mention.

https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2

Namely that global warming is taking place but rather than being related to greenhouses gases, which is a dodgy theory (at best!), that it is a result of all the energy being continual released directly in to the atmosphere as waste heat.

I have to say, that it certainly seems more plausible than the greenhouse gas theory.

Also, it would mean that nuclear power rather than being a solution, would only serve to greatly exacerbate the problem.

That theory is absolutely ridiculous. Even if that theory was completely true (ignoring the universal laws of thermodynamics) the amount of energy mankind unleashes annually would be pish all compared to the energy doused onto/into the Earth by the Sun or the gravitational pull of the moon.

 

[yoki]

That theory is absolutely ridiculous. Even if that theory was completely true (ignoring the universal laws of thermodynamics) the amount of energy mankind unleashes annually would be pish all compared to the energy doused onto/into the Earth by the Sun or the gravitational pull of the moon.

It's a pretty detailed paper.

Which parts of it do you take issue with specifically?

 

[ollie989898]

It's a pretty detailed paper.

Which parts of it do you take issue with specifically?

What part of the energy being unleashed by mankind annually is pish all did you not get the first time?

The insane amount of watts hitting the Earth from the sun daily, the insane energy involved as the Earth dances with the moon, the insane amount of heat and energy given off by Volcanoes (dozens erupt each year)- whatever humans can do we are but throwing mere droplets at a rainstorm.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

It's a pretty detailed paper.

Which parts of it do you take issue with specifically?

Who is it actually by?

 

[yoki]

What part of the energy being unleashed by mankind annually is pish all did you not get the first time?

The insane amount of watts hitting the Earth from the sun daily, the insane energy involved as the Earth dances with the moon, the insane amount of heat and energy given off by Volcanoes (dozens erupt each year)- whatever humans can do we are but throwing mere droplets at a rainstorm.

Ah right, so just because you're an ignorant twit I should automatically defer to your superior knowledge.

All I got was that you don't actually have a feckin clue what you're talking about but don't like the sound of it so started running your mouth off rather than go to the bother of studying it.

Have I got any of that wrong?

 

[yoki]

Who is it actually by?

The name is on it.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

The name is on it.

Is it Springer open or Springer nature?

 

[yoki]

Is it Springer open or Springer nature?

Neither!

 

[ollie989898]

Ah right, so just because you're an ignorant twit I should automatically defer to your superior knowledge.

All I got was that you don't actually have a feckin clue what you're talking about but don't like the sound of it so started running your mouth off rather than go to the bother of studying it.

Have I got any of that wrong?

That's good, start by assuming I have no fudging clue. I don't see what difference that makes, if I know fudge all refuting the point I have made should be easy as pish since you are the one presenting the alternative theory so I presume you know something about it? Engage with the ball and not the man or would you just prefer the usual par for the course?

How does your theory account for the fact the Earth was a darn sight hotter throughout it's history, even when humans were nowhere to be seen?

By your theory, the millions of tonnes of coal that exist must have cooled the Earth radically as they were formed, only we know that global temperatures were a LOT warmer during the carboniferous period than they are today, by several degrees at least.

As I have already mentioned, the sum total of human activity pales into insignificance when compared to the real forces of nature at work within the Earth and our solar system.