I follow answers

best regards

When our planetary fresh water resources are more and more compromised by contamination the sustainability of our food system can be reaching a bottle neck. Over 70% of the fresh water is used for agricultural activities. We cannot afford to foul our water resources so that sufficient water is not available for the food needed for feeding our growing population. We need to be able to produce more on shrinking land and water resources. In relation to our water use we can implement management which will promote our water quality and quantity and also be implement technologies which produce more food with less water footprint. As we have inventory of the cost of our activities and the return on our investments we can us this information to improve the results of our investments. Full cycle analysis and understanding is critical. A number of researchers have pointed to limitation of Phosphorus for world food production we are using more phosphorus currently then we cannot sustain this over a sustained term based on P being a finite nonrenewable resource. In addition the scarce resources for these materials are in geographical areas in potentially hostile situation. At the same time excess P from unrecovered manures are fouling our water systems. When the recycling of our manure as compost can be implemented into the land a previously unsustainable resource use can be transformed and the issue of lost P resulting in eutrophication are addressed. Our water has enormous value which our economic assessment does value. Not assessing all the impacts of our resources results in proliferation of unsustainable practices. If we can get our P from recycling it allows us not be at will of shrinking resource. Moreover biological efficiency by using microbes which increase utilization allows us to get more for much less. A unsustainable future is transformed into a completely sustainable. When Cuba was cut off of support from Russia there was an unsustainable sugarcane economy became unsupportable. Urban agriculture based on local biological inputs permitted the survival of Cuba with a system that was sustainable. To be able to develop sustainable systems we need to change to full cycle analysis of what we do and why. In agriculture the conventional grain monocultures have led to a major loss of our soil organic matter. This lends itself to more vulnerability of the agricultural system to drought the chief obstacle to rainfed agriculture. When we increase soil organic matter we give a more productive and resilent cropping system and the over enrichment of atmosphere with greenhouse gas and fouling of the water system can be avoided. In addition because their is appreciation in the marketplace for organic foods the system can be more than competitive economically. When in agriculture we create an agriculture system which makes the core resource of land, water and air better it is superior to sustainable it is regenerative. The vast majority of our agricultural activities are neither sustainable nor regenerative but degenerative. We can baseline our activities and compare our measurements over time to our management. As industrialists and business have found anything we can measure we can learn to improve. Rather than being trivial or undoable it is crucial and doable. Our goal is not to maintain a depleted environment but rather improve the environment to improve our present and the future outcomes of descendants.

Interesting, I will learn from the answers.

The so called theory of climate change and global warming has an enormous data base which supports it. The levels of greenhouse gases can be put into models which accurately predict the past events and they are proving ability to get an accurate prediction of coming events. The science demonstrating the increase of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides are not disputable.

We also know without doubt that the human activities which are creating the gases and alternatives what can be done to avoid them.

The ability to get a curve relating temperature to carbon dioxide which is attached by chance is miniscule.

The curve shows the predicted effect is not only happening but the nature curve is the effect is exponential. The effect is accelerating with the accelerating emissions and levels of the greenhouse gases. This should promote an understanding that the massive amount of scientific investigation has generated a support for the global warming hypothesis and the null hypothesis that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are not involved needs to be rejected as it is highly unlikely that such results could ever be found be chance but if the theory is indeed true because it shows what has been happening and is successfully predicting an expected future panorama.

Kenneth Who is refusing to see an issue of global concern and join in its solution?

You apparently are convinced that the notable increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from natural causes regardless of 98% of the convocated scientists who opined the opposite. Then as a further track the fall back is that even if the climate has and is changing there is nothing that can be done in relation to it. Finally the idea that people who are seriously uncovered as part of some vast conspiracy to spread misinformation. I do believe there is a lot of disinformation out there and the idea that the earth is flat is one of them and the idea that man is not the root cause of real climate changes which have been uncovered is another. There was a time before the advent of the massive power of humans when natural changes were predominate is a given. But it is clear we are no longer in that pre human world. . The enormous capacity of human to change the world is dramatically demonstrated by the nuclear age. An event such as Chernobyl shows the massive ability of unintended consequences by faulty systems. When you say that IPCC NOAA NASA and other convocated scientists are flat in error it would be well to provide the specific credible information demonstrating this diabolic conspiracy against humanity as you have suggested and the motivating factors. As for my personal testimony I have no malevolent motivation to believe in the reality of climate change, the motivating influence of human activities and the belief that what man has done can certainly be undone. Consider that the authorities with conviction of the reality of climate change and its human roots might be construed as efforts to right a ship that has gone off course. and not by selfish self interest or just not having the information which is pertinent to the real issues. Finally you state the real issue is population I do completely agree but if this is the issue population is a controllable factor like emissions and sequestration all of which can be addressed in terms of a few human generations. The worst scenario which I see is failing to act on these issues which all are under human control. Indeed the beginning of all solutions start with our own consciousness.

There is always hope and there will be hope! Planting trees is one of the factor of hope that could help in decreasing global warming adverse effects on this planet earth. The lobbies who operate their agendas successfully, inspite of written message, smoking kills, the lobbies like soft drinks Pepsi, Coca cola and all who are really injurious to liver and kidneys health, but can not be stopped, the people who work for these lobbies and spread misinformation and hopelessness might be successful to some extent; but, Hope, human will and faith can conquer all difficulties.

" Wangari Maathai (1940-2011) was the founder of the Green Belt Movement and the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. She authored four books: The Green Belt Movement; Unbowed: A Memoir; The Challenge for Africa; and Replenishing the Earth. As well as having been featured in a number of books, she and the Green Belt Movement were the subject of a documentary film, Taking Root: the Vision of Wangari Maathai (Marlboro Productions, 2008)."(https://www.greenbeltmovement.org/wangari-maathai)

Syntropic agriculture is a practice that could bring better crop yields, ensuring biodiversity, healthy soil, water retention and flow, carbon sequestration. The wide spreading of this method could be a part of the answer to the difficulties of the three-sided concern: the population growth rate, climate change and food availability. Kenneth don't forget to underline these year-to-year fluctuations

Well Kenneth I agree that working on global cooling was misguided. Obviously the case for global warming is based on a much more robust data set. This data set is based on large sets of observations with the goal of confirming or denying the situation of greenhouse gas enrichment and its results. There is a data set which shows global warming is progressing according to theory yet you refuse to accept that this has occurred and is significant. Intimately first that it may not be occurring and if it is the effects are not important. And again the remedy of the actual situation is also largely accepted in the informed scientific community which is limiting the fossil fuel emissions and using natural sequestration methods to reverse the continuing unprecedented artificial enrichment of the atmosphere. In planetary terms we can continue an unplanned experiment that will take us into areas of Venus like atmosphere. Fortunately as our consciousness evolve but we do have ability to understand how this works by looking the principles and our universe. We also have a capacity to change. The rub is that human kind are not that friendly to adaptive changes. We also can appreciate how the lack of atmosphere works by looking at Mars. Scientists have marveled that our planet represents a Goldilocks situation before human technological intervention it ran on natural cycles but with massive interventions of humans this is no longer simply being governed by natural cycle but the human activities have changed those climatic fluctuations in ways which can be predicted and follow and confirm the theory and the models themselves.

While I cannot agree with your stand on these issues I can agree to disagree with you. In some ways if you were right everybody could breathe a lot easier but unfortunately the importance of these changes and the accelerated nature of their progression does not bode well for a do nothing position.

The "scare" about global cooling in the 1970s was not in scientific literature - just newspapers and magazines. Kenneth M Towe

It compares poorly to scientific literature of that time.

Article Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

“If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”

Kenneth M Towe

For those interested in the root of climate denial proponents just do a Wikipedia search on climate denial it follows the history of the subterfuge related to orchestrated efforts to derail efforts to right the ship of runaway fossil fuel emissions and their real impacts and threats. Follow the money.

Kenneth M Towe

Is there any evidence for this or did you again invent facts?

Your evidence for your statement " "Rasmus Andersen's attempt at denying the cooling from 1938 until 1975 .."? Where did I attempt this?

Synergy of prro ecological concept which has arisen is the Soil Feed Web. While artificial system have focused on eliminating biodiversity to favor single plant mono cultures these systems are biologically vulnerable and are only sustainable by unsustainable use of synthetic agricultural inputs. Natural high productive systems are based on biologically diverse systems that are very effective in recycling the energy within the system.

The idea after the World Wars was to use inputs which were killing agents to support modern agriculture in a green revolution. The most green of course did not accrue to world but to bank accounts of major corporate promoters of the systematic elimination of our biodiversity in our food system and surrounding it.

When we favor life rather than life elimination we get a truth that life begets life and death begets death. Ecology which originates for a word that we are studying biological home of residence. Perhaps if this filled with poison this will not be healthful place to live and breed.

Synergism is defined mathematically as when a plus b is more than the mathematical sum of a plus b. This isfound in marriage a man and a women has much more capacity than 2. So if we try to eliminate all types of life we are cutting the threads of biological web of life and our systems start unraveling.

Our systems of life should be encouraged and preserved not eliminated to single so called best alternative thread thinking.

While massive damage to agricultural environment is related to ammoniated fertilizers our natural alternatives include legume plants with biologically fixing bacteria for nitrogen which take the nitrogen out of thin air. This natural partnerships where both the bacteria and plant and environment are improved is call symbiosis of the sharing of one life together.

While conventional input agriculture has favored an economy rooted in death the ecological alternative is the teach how life is the goal and that indeed life begets life.

Agriculture and food should not be about inputs its about maximizing life in diverse abundance. Understanding this ecological concept is fundament to doing the vast damage our industrialized centralized food system has wreaked on our planet.

interesting discussion, following!

In many traditional farming economies there was much reverence on earth as the mother. If the mother is taken care of feeding the children becomes much easier. This holistic thinking has been almost completely sacrificed in the altar of serving the altar of convenience and forgetting the importance of mother earth for the environment. The mother earth is what nutures and serves to purify our water and air. Holistically thinking with a concentration on our productive natural systems work is prerequisite.

Ken has asked what threats I am talking about related to vested interests working to erode the academic consensus on global warming and a path forward.

Okay the election of climate deniers is already affecting our national energy policy. The agenda of this elected cadre is to dismantle area of scientific consensus concern and action. The administration of denial does not recognize climate change or its source and is actively working to redirect the economy to worst cast fossil fuel dependence.

While academic consensus would agree in relation to pollution and global warming the worst case scenario would be to return to overwhelming reliance on coal for a major bastion of our national electrical energy source.

In our current political environment this is exactly what is being championed by people without background in global warming and areas of sequestration.

The scientific knowledge would clearly point to coal as our worst option followed by petroleum and the most benign as natural gas which highly abundant and burns significantly cleaner than either a thermoelectric based on either coal or petroleum. The economy of gas based thermoelectric is completely competitive needed less time to construct and having less issues as an options.

Political payback for a climate denial agenda is to re-open the pandora box of coal reliance rather than pursuing more sensible options which have less toxicity and global warming influence even within the spectrum of fossil fuel choices..

In the denial play book the idea that there are issues are just ignored as the worst selection is promoted under an environment of clean coal a concept which has not been demonstrated in practice. Like a previous case of tobacco industry and their executives the problem just is not real. Deny deny and deny.

Denial is powerful force as Hamlet pondered, I could bind myself in a nutshell and pretend I was the King of infinite space were it not for the back dreams.

Unfortunately the propaganda masqueraded as science comes from sources who do not have the consciousness of the actions they take because of selective benefits they receive as players for their puppet masters.

For in that play book the monopolistic interest of energy dependence is not seen part of their plan incognito. Now those bad unveilers they insist it is they who are the real foe. Those environmental academics those alarmists those nasty academics who keep insisting there is a real issue in global warming and greenhouse gases which spawn it and those forces that press us to pursue real solutions.

The messengers of truth are the issue not the problem itself.

Make no mistake about there is a war of people looking for solution of the climate change debacle and forces of denial.

Let the buyers beware and follow the money these principles can lead to truth even in the flood of propaganda.

Thank you for your answers.

In the light of the above, there were interesting considerations, answers and conclusions that may be an inspiration to continue research in this area.

It seems to me that it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this question. The answers given are very inspiring. Therefore, I am still reading the answers, following the interesting discussion.

The issue of climate change, climate warming, rising average temperature on the Earth, the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth and the associated new climate disasters is probably the most important topic for discussion, research and for human activity in the 21st century.

The topics related to the greenhouse effect on Earth, which are the subject of discussion, are particularly important and scientifically important and in the context of human life.

I wish you all good and best regards

Ken you have it all covered!! No problem, no solution, anyone saying anything otherwise is an idiot a chimp and chump!! How sweet!!!. That how it is living in the nut shell comfortable.

No no no and again the no no hoax song in E flat I believe..

Have you ever remotely considered that NASA PSU IPCC and very many others actually know something and your ideas are just flat wrong? Oh yeah I know the answer NO! Have you ever thought about actually looking at the data? NO!

Have you ever considered that emissions can be controlled and there is reason to do so? Not impossible very proven look at the success with sulfur emission cap and trade and imagine society did not collapse either. What again another conclusive NO!

Have you ever considered that there are economic sequestration methods that are well proven and do constitute a wild experiment? There are many demonstrations of very significant carbon sequestration in forests, agricultural lands that can improve our soil our water and the atmosphere. It is not some impossibility as you propose over and over just a matter of will. Actually the erosion in the great plains was addressed with good success while is this type of intervention all the sudden completely undoable. OH yeah NO!

When nothing can be done and there is no problem and there is no listening. That sir Ken is negativity to the maximum. Look in the mirror there is issue and problem do nothing accept nothing listen to nothing.

Ken wants everybody to enthusiastically join the 810 Carbon dioxide club

Come on in the water warm acid and there plenty of it and it just fine just adapt the dinosaurs did!..... did they not?.

Oh yeah they had some issues in those environments back then but they are just species inconsequential except to those evil environmentists.

Who needs environment when we still have some coal to burn for a little while anyway.

What could be possibly better that a hot coal fired environment so clean and healthy its a fact.

And do not get me started about those evil academics. They are the problem no hoax at all just a vast conspiracy. And you say I am negative look in the mirror if you want to glance at negativity.

By the way consensus is the way forward is clear reduce emissions and optimize sequestration. It appears that just about everybody can understand this with certain deaf parties you just want to deny deny and deny.

Its all in the play book.

You know the same old disinformation campaign you do not have to be right just promote doubt.

No matter how erroneous I marvel at your persistent obstinance and complete resistance to listen to anything except your play book. You certainly have the disharmony well rehearsed.

Math review.

On the right a terra preta soil with a capacity of carrying over 1,000, 000 pounds of Carbon dioxide equivalent. On the left the unimproved depleted tropical Amazonian oxisol with neglible Carbon dioxide equivalent.

When we convert the left to right the transformation of the land use sequesters over 1000 000 pounds of Carbon dioxide for each and every acre this is done.

The 10 exp 6 pounds carbon dioxide can be applied on 10 exp 9 acres of tillable lands not including forest pastures etc which are a much bigger potential area.

Let us look at those old acid and depleted tropical soils that are found in many millions of acres. Acreage of the which this technology is feasible 5,000,000,000 acres just in tillable acreage now.

Continuing with the math exercise that put the capacity at will over the 350 gigatons. We are dealing with a capacity exp 15 when over the exp 12 you are alluding to Ken.

Not only is there no lack of capacity to resolve the issue but the real potential can go at 10 exp 3 beyond that point in a very conservation assessment of potential. Rather than not being able to met the potential it will be able to meet it plus 1000 times.

Now lets low at the real problem which is a lack of consciousness. There is not only potential well beyond the issue you allude to. Not pie in the sky as you suggest.

You may want to look at point sources 40% of the global emissions are from these sources the geological layers are calculated to be easily stored in these layers. In fact carbon dioxide is widely injected in fracking processing to increase the capture of oil and gas. Not unfeasible as suggested.

So as you alluded why is it not being done?.

Obvious no matter how feasible it is if it not applied the question is moot.

Let's say we know that a problem is related to diet and than chose to continue to play no attention and action to it.

So we know what has caused our greenhouse gas elevation and what is so disheartening a die heart effort of active communities of so called skeptics who will not look at the math and comprehend the nature of the issues.

For this so called skeptical community the math makes no sense because they do not believe any of it for that community it will be complete nonsense.

Still listening probably not.

Secondly look at biochar not only has the capacity to sequester well over the 50 ppm but it can avoid fossil fuel emission by substituting for nonrenewable fossil fuel with much greater negative impact namely coal and petroleum.

The third area is we need to feed a growing population on soils which are depleted and acid. Biochar not only provides nutrients and improves the degraded soil structure but it also limes the depleted acid old soils found in the areas of most nutritious food need.

A fourth area is the biochar technology can take lands which are not in production because of their degraded nature and make they productive and useful. This is an enormous economic and environmental potential as well as energy aspects as well.

So I would encourage you to do the math if you actually do you will find this is completely possible.

As for the so called uncertainity the life which always suggest the carbon is not durable and will be immediately re emitted into the atmosphere this is not an issue at all with biochar carbon.

Biocahr carbon has been measured in thousands of years. of half life. An assertion that all carbon just goes back to the atmosphere does not hold in all cases especially carbon which is hardened which biochar definitely is.

This of course does not include all the other reasons and the ability to use biochar as part of integrated renewable energy onversion and a recourse to convert from nonrenewable very contaminating fossil fuel to renewable every non fossil fuel which burns significantly cleaner than either coal or petroleum resources.

Since the areas which are devoting their primary resources to these nonrenewable fossil fuels the health statistics speak for themselves. One only has to look at history and some of the issues in areas of China and India around that focus of efforts.

In the end no vision no opportunity.

No willing o address real issues no opportunities.

With vision action and adaptation the sky is the limit.

In business it well know whatever we can measure we can improve we can measure all the issues in the carbon cycle and because critical areas are completely under our own human action they are amendable to human management.

An example of our ability to grow in solution is Moore's Law when the speed and capacity of memory chips have doubled every 18 months our capacity to address issues is indeed not static and not limited in any real sense.

If Pre Colombian Indians could do this on an area of greater than the area of modern day France certainly with our modern technological capacity and acumen this is completely doable.

Of course something that is never attempted and never believed in will have artificial obstacles which are man made.

Clearly the math is there but obviously there are forces who will not accept math. If we are to evolve solutions we need to direct our efforts toward them and work on the accountabilities. We cannot just throw are arms in the air say look the number is really really big.

Our ability to lower emissions and the ability to sequester carbon and other greenhouse gas is really really really really big.

On of course some big issues has been quite successfully address such as reduction of massive sulfur emission using cap and trade. Human kind made these issues and certainly human kind and resolve them.

Do the math more than enough but only if it is done.

By the way Ken what if anything do you suggest?

A lot of the same no action what?

Before any problems coming from ourselves can be addressed the mantra of denial needs to be accepted. When it comes to current climate change is measured and demonstrated we can only address it when we accept it. I will not deny but accept it and act accordingly..

Authorities not crack pots point to reducing fossil fuel emissions not denying there part and increasing sequestration as the solution to the issues this from experts with training and capacity in the subject matter not chimps, old farters or whatever derisive inappropriate term you are presently trying to concoct.

Reducing of emission has been demonstrated over and over the Montreal Protocol a good example proven by science and the cap and trade for sulfur emission another good example. But if we cannot even get out of the river in Africa of denial none of these can be support publicly because of campaign of vilification. This is way I believe the polemic of derision is a conscious decision of propaganda not scientific discussion.

Take a good example the value of solar energy competitive available and effective growing recognized around the world for its utility and usefulness. Lengths some are willing to go. A good way to deride the whole issue is crucify that tree on a cross of ignorance. Deny deny and deny.

Trees recognized for ecological environmental and economic value huge natural wonders which have shrunk with planetary mis management they too a subject of denial and ridicule.

Now my devotion to our mother earth the soil. While the amount of carbon in the air in its wildly enriched state yes the one that is engaging a observable and accelerating global warming is 3 to 4 times that of atmosphere pool. If the idea is that where can we put the excess baggage of Carbon dioxide we have a massive field to deal with. Taking a look at the global carbon budget there is almost carbon in the planetary biomass as in our atmosphere and lo and behold the budge and pool can transfer from the air to green mass. It is called carboncycle.

Lets start with no till agriculture completely accepted by conventional farmers in Brazil who are pioneers which has reach over 7 million acres for zero in just a courple of decades. Dr. Rattan Lal, the world foremost Carbon sequestration agriculture expert estimate when this technology is applied on all tillable global land it will sequester 10% of the actual current greenhouse emission.

Puget and Lat from a 4 decade controlled field in Ohio show that no till alone can sequester over 300 kg/ha per acre while simultaneously reducing fossil fuel use foe land tillage.

But wait the long term experimentation on cover crops from the Rodale Institute and now USDA and land grant universities show cover crop can sequester easily 2 to 3 times the no till sequestration while reducing needs for ammoniated fertilizer use which is the biggest carbon foot print in our current system. That very useful concept which actually allow things to be measured no wonder that would be under attack.

Now 10% no till and 30% cover crops that sounds like 40% of the issue can be dealt in proven economical ways with reduce energy costs and improve the environment. These things are zero end games as they depict chose energy or chose environment. We can grow both with a sacrifice this is part of the idea of synergy. You know another idea to deny.

Lets look at compost modest applications of this organic amendment can lower our costs related to waste procession and the sequestration at that rate both avoids issues in comtaminating a widely fouled water system and works to regenerate it but also can give the types of sequestration at level of no till and cover crops together. Math 40% plus 40% that is 80% of the presentday carbon emissions.

Lets keep growing compared to our tillable lands globally the pastures of our world are twice as extensive indeed the highest most fertile soils come for grassland than naturally sequester massive amounts of greenhouse gases. Now the potential sequestration of these system using intensive rotation grazins is found to over double the combined no till, cover crop, and compost field system. Now let double the acreage and double the potential 80 plus 80 there 160 much more than all the current emission presently.

But wait we have not looked biochar this technology applied at Pre Colombian Indian level can sequester a 1,000,000 kg/ha of carbon dioxide and has been demonstrated on lands greater than the size of modern day France and it has been shown to produce carbon which has thousands of year of half life.

The experts in the field has shown that through pyrolysis we can produce renewable energy and char with provide a clean renewable energy system superior to fossil fuel. Oh yes fossil fuels are not renewable and are declining. In this system half of the carbon becomes fuel and the other have builds the soil carbon and reduces the content in the soil.

This system could completely over ride all the others and address the very real issue of soil acidity particularly plaguing the tropics but prevalent through the zones of the world.

In terms of the emission we need to start with our energy system. For instance coal represents our worst case scenario just converting to natural gas would reduce emission from the electrical sector in one half. In addition natural gas is abundant cheap the plants are faster to construct and the health issue related to them are much less than coal.

Secondly wind energy is completely competitive in price to natural gas and can be used responsively. Solar is becoming more the real option every day. But also micro hydro electric is not exploited fully and yes when new approaches of nuclear which are both reliable and resolve waste nuclear material issues they certainly can be on the table.

Just a while back my friend Kenneth Towe quipped that carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than currently and no problem.. It was not even warm then. Wow. You may want to read Dr. Peter Ward who is paleogeologist at University of Washington.

He takes all the massive extinction events in geological record and points to level of carbon dioxide. In the last 200,00 years when it is considered at the human area arrived and in the 100,000 years when populations started growing or in the last 10,000 years when we experienced the agricultural and industrial revolution the Carbon dioxide fluctuated between 180 to 290 ppm.

Yet tn the prehistoric age we have 10 massive extinction even with the following CO2 concentration 4,000, 3,800, 3,900, 3,000, 1,200, 1,800 1,600 1,200 and 600 ppm with recorded by Dr. Ward. .

At 410 ppm Carbon dioxide and climbing the deniers are not worried Kenneth says we seen this before was not even warm. Yet there is an undisputable geological record that show when carbon dioxide as risen the temperature of our earth has followed suite. Also in 10 known massive every single one of them are associated with greatly enriched greenhouse house environment 600 to 4,000 ppm.

Our civilization and are advanced as all come in levels which are much inferior to the current and certainly. Now if geological record shows how temperature rise naturally with increasing carbon dioxide and it the 10 events of massive extinction are occurring under the high carbon and heat events are we willing to ignore all evidence and say lets just roll the dice.

Lets just deny say there is no evidence and say there is no solution.

Deny deny and deny and Dr. as expected keeps on growing lower and lower in his denial limbo.

Persona attack so if I have not contributed which is absolutely false,

What on earth have you done in Washington DC to contribute anything positive

Deride trees say people are problem the problem as population and do nothing in relation to it.

Make crude jokes about solar collection International Panel of experts in the material .

Not only have you done nothing but less than nothing because you attack the real information framing the real issues and pretend that there is no issue and no solution when the prepronderance of information say different.

Your going by the hand book stick that plan. I am sure you can go much lower.

Measuring pro-ecological synergy will be very fruitful for our future results.

The Rodale Institute Farming System Trial uniquely investigated measuring the synergy of pro-ecological approaches to our food system.

Now approaching 40 years of continuous evaluation of planned well replicated and analyzed comparison of conventional versus organic farming system show the synergy of an ecological biological based agriculture compared to conventional approached focusing on synthetic chemical inputs.

The biological organic systems by design eschew the use and dependence on synthetic chemical input.

While conventional vested interested assured it could not be competitive the biological organic approach proved more than competitive.

After 3 years of transition the organic biological system was fully competitive in terms of crop yields in normal yields. After this transition the organic system showed an improved result compared to the conventional chemical system in drought year.

At the root of superior result of the biological organic systems was improvement in soil organic matter. This led to improved water dynamic because the soil percolated retained and provided more scarce water to the crops in dry years. This was conclusively measured in over 33,000 measurement of unique intact soil core lysimeters.

When the chemicals were withdrawl researchers measuring a flourishing of mycorrhizal fungi which can extend the root systems by several magnitudes over the non symbiotic condition. Another result is that mycorrhizal products glomalin which highly decay resist is also serving to increase soil aggregation improving the soil condition and leading to better water relation.

From the energetic analysis the biological system does not depend on fertilizer which largely is related to Bosch Haber fixation process which has dependence on fossil fuel for generation of thousands of degrees of temperature and hundreds of pressure atmospheres to allow the reaction to occur. In the crop of maize over 50% of the carbon signature or foot print is related to this reaction.

Economically the organic system gives better economic returns because the input cost is less secondly there is no reduction in yield third there is stabilized yield in scarce yield when prices are higher and most importantly the demand for organic produce give premium prices which are highly significant.

In terms of the environment the liberation of the food system from synthetic inputs allow the reduction of contamination of our critical water resources and systems.

The success of these organic biological system are focused on improving biological diversity in these. Ecological studies show that diversity is key to high productivity and stability.

In the industrialized monocultures biodiversity is deliverability targeted for elimination and that increases the vulnerability which is then addressed by increased synthetic chemical inputs creating a vicious cycle.

As the biological diversity is expanded our agricultural system are made more productive less vulnerable and improve energetics and environment.

Pimental et al 2005 in Bioscience summarizes the major breakthroughs.

In addition check out the Rodale Institute website in their summaries on Farming Systems Trial.

Ken bring out his Latin, Q. E. D. and Puerto Rican racial slur.

Wow!

I am convinced Latin and a racial slur how can anyone deny that?

No argument just degrade and deny?!!

Nice strategy what next another slur at academics and policy makers again?

Stayed tune.

The climate denial limbo continues lower and lower should be interesting.

These dancers have amazingly flexible I am pretty sure they will even go much lower than they already have. Great flexibility.

Utilizing crop residues for producing paper, board, and energy; instead of just burning such residues. This synergetically improves the sustainability of agriculture and industry. It also promotes environmental sustainability by decreasing carbon dioxide emmisions resulting from burning such residues. A comprehensive disscusion is available in the below mentioned review. Happy new year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315427845_Agricultural_Residues_Wastes_for_Manufacture_of_Paper_Board_and_Miscellaneous_Products_Background_Overview_and_Future_Prospects?_sg=dCbeMX0vonOcHzwQIICRBblrhqLEUYcIkIGIU5bi5FixAnl_7Gy7bVaiRWZYH3_UjPk2AdvFl4wUKkQltHNm36ldi9KwCNkIpNnCr6aS.EPqnMeAOOTXhKUPPdB3GCu5uDq5T75lpbZJUF74khb_yasyOanYEwWGbIJtMDp06PferlvE6rcscMQ0nxbfg6A

Do not have any hand wringing concerns it is more than clear from preponderance of data that our current global climate change is coming from fossil fuel economies and that emission reductions combined sequestration are needed to reverse the situation.

The solution are know and available now we just need the political will.

The problem with introducing Urban Heat Island effects is that it serves as a distraction from the topic which is synergy of pro ecological activities.

The presence of UHI is one that in the case of Puerto Rico can be addressed by green roof which will help reduce cooling and heating costs and can provide a more pleasant environment and even feed us.

Urban forestry gardening and other inititiatives are wonderful examples. The tree city Madison Wisconsin is much more pleasant environment that untreed land scapes. Milwaukee versus Madison would be a good comparison.

The reduction in the UHI can work to lower the use of air conditions in hot environments and heating in the cool ones..

Beside their ability to lower the carbon foot print in terms of heating costs urban forestry can contribute to balancing the global carbon budget by sequestration of carbon.

In Cuba the majority of the food source is from urban gardens growing intensively. They eliminate the need for much of food transportation and can result in fresher food.

Many major corporation have utilized green roofs to make their operation environmentally and energetically friendlier. The plant transpiration is very effective in cooling in summers and the substrate for plants insolate heat loss in the winter. The increase in biomass is the result of photosynthesis which harvests the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and accumulates in the roof substrate.

These creative solutions are good examples of working with nature for producing positive results from ecologically based principles.

r

Yes Doctor Kenneth I will keep dreaming, Those rapid eye movement REM is what keep one growing. So sad when someone cannot or will not dream and consider dreams as impossibility rather than possibility.

Oh well I am responsible for myself before my responsibility can extend to others. So against dreams Ken but the researchers and physicians would have to conclude you are against your own health. It is amply demonstrated the health of dreaming and sickness of thwarting them. Enough on dreams Yes I am completely pro dreams and completely against the forces of thwarting our higher consciousness. .

Some Comments on Negativity

If one thinks something cannot be done they are usually very effective in not doing it.

Projecting negativity is good way to assure negative reality is realized.

They said it cannot be done and they were successful in not doing it.

Glass half empty is not only for themselves and they have any amazing deflationary nothing is possible nothing works.

Say it cannot be done and they are amazing in proving it to themselves they cannot do it.

Nothing really positive can come about except when our proposes it and then follows through. Our projection becomes our realization.

Our thoughts are very powerful it is called projection.

The idea that nothing is possible is wonderful way to get nowhere.

People did not get to the moon by proposing that it was impossible .

Population again oh please.

Now again here you go with the population nonsense.

Plenty of areas where they have been successful in controlling population growth including Puerto Rico, . Japan, China and Russia. Of course those societies are not progressing because they do focus on what really is needed in relation to the issues on hand.

So you can continue not to listen but population is not any solution related to greenhouse gases climate change or issues related to sustainability and ecology. are already experiencing your apparent solution less people.

but really it is not about people that is a false equivalence.

As for Puerto Rico the island is now in negative population growth but the energy system ecological system has not been addressed. It is not about population.

I for one can never buy in on Neo Malthusian nonsense. It did not work then for the dire food production idea and it is not working now on the idea that a man made problem has no approach to it. You guessed it just nonsense.

You want Latin non sequitur for yah.

Population is definitely not the core of the issue.

Population is definitely approachable also.

What is so difficult is that Issues of climate change have greenhouse gas at the core and totally underestimated.

We know where they have come from what they do and how to control them.

If something negative cannot be accepted the solution of the negativity cannot be realized.

Yes if we cannot accurately diagnosis the real problem what is the ability to resolve it. Nil.

Something that cannot be visualized cannot be addressed.

In the case of misdiagnosis the false assumption that nothing is really wrong assured the problem cannot be addressed. Denial play book nothing else.

Denial is this since you have asked. It cannot be then the first fall back if it is there it really is not important and third fall back and if it is there and if is important regardless there is nothing that can address it. The denial play book roves around these 3 predictable points.

proactive involvement not denial addressing issues with real the countermeasures not even of the forces in warfare can work when the problem identification and its solution are not diagnosed properly.

Concentrating on problem identification is exactly how there is an ability to address denial.

Interesting how calling proactive involvement as the problem is one of the classic denier methods.

no denial not of the issues not of the countermeasures not even of the forces in warfare for the problem identification and its solution.

That is exactly what the denial is about so they say they are not deniers it is forces of solution they are deniers all mind games aimed at misinformation and confusion non sequitur.

You say denial what denial. I do not even know what you are talking about.

There is no problem and certainly there is nothing that can be done. Denial.

Viola we said it could not be done and did not do it.

What is the solution it is found in accounting principles. Remember the concept measurement yes we can measure carbon foot print and yes we can dramatically change it by responding intelligently.

One of the cohort had a wonderful concept fool print. That is denial play book.

This is a major key to getting emissions under control. We have to get out of that River in Africa you know Da Nile.

As previously have demonstrated the very sizable electrical generation foot print can be marked reduced by using natural gas than coal. That is a huge start. Nothing can be done come on how now that is so ridiculous.

Second also related to fossil fuel we can direct our transportation to natural gas rather than diesel fueling. This would greatly reduce the greenhouse foot print of transportation another major source of the greenhouse gas. Nothing can be done absolutely nothing. Way too big. Nonsense.

In business it is clear that anything that can be measured can be improved.

We have good methods for measuring emissions and there is clear evidence that as people improve economically which I am support not some conspirator as you falsely assert and indeed the family sizes and population growth can stabilize rapidly within a few generations. Nothing can be done. Nonsense.

Now about the sequestration we have amazing potentially which has not been tapped by any means. If we look at Israel we have a wonderful example of a growing population with growing living standards and the productive and ecological control improving rather than degrading. The desert made to flower. Nothing can be done nonsense.

Because of degraded land scape provides arena of massive wind and solar and ability to sequester through revegetation. Nothing can be done nonsense.

Seven billion souls can plant 7 billion trees this would make a difference. Trees are the problem evil sun power and wind. You know just not true.

I am someone who is part of the solution and not the problem.

Not a rabid environmentalist or economic conspirator as suggested.

Again nonsense.

Along with my solar water heater that just keep working avoiding 30% of the Puerto Rican residential foot print,

the solar electric system which makes the house independent of the grid and excess.

the prius car that gets over 50 mpg and being not extravagant in my consumption and habits.

I am also composting and growing my trees garden and eating organic mostly vegetable based. Very low or no foot print not hypocrite as also alleged falsely.

I have researched the potential for farming and food to affect our carbon budget and shown the alternatives in well received peer reviewed publications in respective International Journals.

I will attach a small sample.

The problem is related to mans decisions and actions theses decisions and actions can change. the problem has been measured and the measures to counter actions are available.

The resolution of these issues will not only improve our health make our planetary condition sustainable another of those nonexistent terms and tools you rant and complain about but will also allow future generations to flourish.

As for me my one son and my one grand daughter I am going to do what is right. Even though I do think its about population I certainly have nothing to do the its about the population thing. anyway. No hypocrite no way.

I am certainly not into denial not my affinity. I am who I am I do what is right in my eyes . I believe my actions can and will help my son and grand daughter live better lives because they might follow an example that recognizes and reacts to real issues and do those actions which they find are intellectually and morally right.

.

Ideally the report card for the dividends of proactive ecological activity synergy would result in an improved health result. This would be measurable by a reduction in medical intervention and personal outputs. In terms of addressing this issue we need not only be concerned with negative outputs such as emissions but concentrate sequestrations that will lead to health, environment and environment impacts. In looking at the soil the depletion of soil does not allow sustainably or maintaining status quo would not be optimized. Instead of just addressing contaminants and their emission we need to look to building up the soil. While chemical input tends to create a dependency where more input is needed for less result. If proecological efforts are worthwhile we should be able to measure and quantify improvements in terms of the environment, health, energy and the economy.

Denial is more than a Rive in Africa.

Yes , there is a lot of smoke and it is coming from the coal solution you are so eager to continue and expand.

A lot of hot air from the denial warmist lobby.

A massive fossil fuel effort to support unrestricted use of the worse of the worse that is great contrarian thinking. The wonder oxymoron clean coal if it said enough people will believe it.

Data and solutions mean nothing and disinformation wild conspiracy theories that is where it is at.

Just wring your hands cry out nothing happening and cry out again nothing can be done. Cry out again all warm times are better. Back to prehistoric golden age of dinosaurs or before. Those were the good old days.

Data says different and the options are better than ever.

No matter just keep playing that denial playbook

Denial is more than a river in Africa.

Reality Check Lis

Paul is a scientist check that is true.

The massive emissions is affecting our health and environement check that is true.

The idea that man has not and is not affecting our environment health and climate.

Whoa Nelly that is totally and completely false.

Doctor there is overwhelming evidence that the worse solutions in range of fossil fuels are also the most expensive.

Your clean coal is at the top of list.

When someone under overwhelming evidence rejects the truth that is denial.

In terms of vested interests which are fueling pseudo debate the fossil fuel industry with leadership of Exxon Koch Brothers and the like are the unseen motivators.

Follow that money it does not lie.

The data on the health environmental and climate change issues are overwhelming then there is that Gershwin Song It Aint Necessarily So

Played to give an appearance of doubt where there is none.

But you know all of this it is all in the play book.

What are the key determinants of the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of green economy?

In my opinion, such factors as effective waste segregation, recycling, reduction of plastic packaging, development of renewable energy sources, electromobility in motorization, afforestation, architectural ecological innovations, etc. are one of the most important factors to enable real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on a new, green economy.

Effective segregation of rubbish, recycling, reduction of plastic packaging is one of the most important factors for the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development.

These are the necessary determinants of the real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green, new economics.

According to the findings of the last UN Climate Summit held in Katowice in December 2018, it is necessary to gradually withdraw from the production and use of plastic packaging, including plastic cutlery, straws, dishes and replace them with biodegradable, produced from some grains and vegetables.

Recently, the European Parliament voted for legal norms, with which this type of plastic packaging and plastic cutlery, straws and dishes will be withdrawn from 2021. This is one of the important activities in the directions of real implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of green, new economics. In addition, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of recycling and the reduction of toxic waste discharged into the environment.

For example, a cigarette butt discharged into the environment pollutes approx. 1000 liters of water. This is just an example suggesting the necessity to continue taking pro-ecological next steps. On the one hand, the role of the state and the media in the issue of pro-ecological education of the society is important. On the other hand, the industry that generates various types of waste, polluting the natural environment, the industry that produces non-degradable or non-biodegradable and toxic packaging and products that are currently not recyclable should be burdened with the costs of implementing new recycling technologies, reclamation of degraded natural environment and removal of toxic waste from this environment.

Only then will the economic pressure force the creation of new eco-innovations, the production of goods from biodegradable materials or materials that can be safely neutralized or burnt in garbage incinerators.

The electrical energy necessary to supply the aforementioned pro-ecological undertakings should come as far as possible from the development of renewable energy sources. Besides, it is necessary to develop electromobility in the automotive industry, etc. Only the synergy of these various pro-ecological undertakings will generate new categories of added value, which in the future will increase the economic efficiency of these processes.

Only this way will it be possible to implement real sustainable development based on the concept of a green, new economy.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: What are the key determinants of the implementation of sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of green economy?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

What is the role of particular social groups in disseminating the concept of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy?

The role of engineers is particularly important for enabling sustainable development, including sustainable pro-ecological development, based on the concept of a new, green economy. Engineers create new technological solutions, new energy technologies, ecological innovations, innovative ecological buildings, develop renewable energy sources in industry and other applications, create automation technologies for waste segregation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop electromobility, carry out investment projects to reclaim a devastated natural environment, etc. Apart from engineers, the key actors are the state as an economic entity and financial institutions, ie the main actors of external financing of environment-friendly investment projects, thanks to which sustainable sustainable development based on the concept of green economy is enabled and implemented. The role of politicians who set the direction of the necessary systemic changes is also important. Also important is the role of citizens who within the civil and information society are increasingly aware of the threats to the growing risk of climatic cataclysms that are a derivative of the progressive global warming. The role of mass media and new online media is important, including social media portals, thanks to which the level of social awareness for this type of important problems, particularly important in the 21st century, important for humanity, for the whole planet Earth is growing.

In view of the above, the current question is: What is the role of particular social groups in the dissemination of sustainable pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

The issue of the added value mentioned in the question should be analyzed in the context of the following issues: The concept of zero growth, the post-growth economy, sustainable proecological economic development based on the concept of green economy. In the following comments I describe the attempt to determine the correlation between these issues.

Because the issues of "the post-growth economy" and related issues such as the concept of zero growth, green economy, sustainable environmentally friendly economic development combine to form a very complex and multifaceted research area, so I will discuss this issue in the following topics.

The concept of zero growth for the domestic, or rather for, the global economy was based on theoretical considerations aimed at formulating the answer to the question: What would the economy look like in a fully sustainable, pro-annual development based on the assumptions of the green economy?

Development of ecological innovations, implementation on an industrial scale of new technological solutions for renewable energy sources, development of electromobility in the automotive industry, increasing the efficiency and automation of waste segregation and recycling, afforestation of degraded areas of civilization, reclamation of degraded natural environment, etc. in the long-term can not be implemented in In the form of large investment projects financed mainly from public funds, because it would generate a high public debt and the investment projects themselves would be growth-friendly, they would be a denial of "the post-growth economy".

The development of green economics and the long-term pursuit of the global economy for sustainable pro-ecological development must take place through the implementation of economically profitable business projects. How would the whole global economy change so that theoretical considerations could become a fact in the future? There are many answers to this question, and more specifically, recommendations for the necessary changes that must be implemented so that humanity can avoid a global climate disaster at the end of the 21st century.

These recommendations appear, for example, at UN symposia, conferences and summits, during which what should be done to slow down the global warming of the planet Earth is discussed. Some results of research on greenhouse gas emissions and projections of the continuation of the global warming process suggest that only a decade of time has already been left for the implementation and dissemination of these necessary changes, including: developing eco-innovations, implementing new technological solutions on an industrial scale. concerning renewable energy sources, development of electromobility in the automotive industry, increasing the efficiency and automation of waste segregation and recycling, afforestation of degraded areas, civilization, reclamation of degraded natural environment, etc.

I invite you to the discussion.

Otherwise, the global warming process will accelerate and by the end of the 21st century, the average temperature at the Earth's surface can increase by as much as 4 degrees C, which will mean the melting of all glaciers, sea and ocean surface rise by 20 meters, widespread drought, steppes and desertification many current green areas, significant reduction in arable land area of ​​agricultural production, reduction of areas suitable for human existence, numerous fires, increase of volcanic activity, more frequent climatic disasters such as tornadoes and downpours, release of methane from the arid soils of eternal desiccation of arctic regions and further acceleration of the greenhouse gas emission process and the inability of human to reverse this process.

So now there is time pressure to make the necessary changes for the implementation of the new global economy. We know what to do. We do not know how to do it to make this process based on profitable investment projects and not only on publicly financed investments, which are not always profitable and are financially limited.

Perhaps the solution is the synergy of all these pro-ecological undertakings. The synergy of simultaneous launch of various pro-ecological undertakings will generate an additional added value that will enable the improvement of these activities, including pro-ecological investment projects planned and implemented with the assumptions of the new green economy concept. Only when most of these ventures reach profitability, then only then will the globally functioning green economy based on sustainable pro-ecological economic development become real.

This development would not have to be characterized by high profitability. In the long-term, this profitability would globally approach the zero level in line with the concept of macroeconomic zero growth. Then economics could dominate globally, a global economy based on the concept of "the post-growth economy" would emerge.

If the whole process could be completed in the shortest possible time in the next dozen or so years, humanity could avoid a global climatic catastrophe which, according to the predictions of climatologists investigating the process of global warming, will most likely appear at the end of the 21st century if mankind fails to apply the necessary pro-ecological reforms.

In view of the above, the current question is: The concept of zero growth, green economy, "the post-growth economy", sustainable proecological economic development as an antidote to the future global climate disaster of the end of the 21st century?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG,

If anyone of you is interested in this subject or conducts research in the field of the above issues, I invite you to the discussion.

Please, answer the following question:

How can you describe, explore and measure the ecological added value resulting from the synergy of pro-ecological activities ...?

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG

In the 21st century, various solutions based on ecological innovations, renewable energy technologies, green economy, clean economy, reclamation of secondary raw materials, etc. should be developed. This way, added value can be generated based on the synergy achieved in parallel, mutually supporting processes. In this way, this kind of ecological added value can help to create a new economy in the future based on more sustainable development.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Best wishes

Interesting topic

In the context of the above considerations, the following question is also current:

Should the state co-finance the development of renewable energy sources or only the private sector?

A significant part of the pro-ecological reforms as part of the transformation of the energy sector and the development of renewable energy sources is carried out by private companies.

However, these are usually undertakings not resulting from market processes only from changing legal norms established by the state administration.

In addition, the construction of large nuclear power plants, water plants and the type of large wind and solar farms absorbs huge financial resources with predicted relatively low profitability.

Therefore, private enterprises are not interested in investing in the development of large power plants that produce electricity under renewable energy sources if the state does not provide financial support under financial guarantees and a share in investment costs.

The development of electromobility in the automotive industry in some countries is also supported by the state to a large extent.

In some countries, the state from the budget funds of the central public finance system refinances a significant part of the costs of purchasing an electric car and finances the development of the necessary infrastructure of electric vehicle charging points deployed on the streets and arteries.

Therefore, the development of renewable energy sources, ie the key element of the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector, should be coordinated organisationally and financially supported by the state.

In the context of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and the ever-faster global warming process, the pro-ecological transformation of the energy sector should be carried out as soon as possible.

It is not possible to implement proecological reforms in the energy sector and implement ecological innovations in other sectors of industry as well as wait for the resources of energy (hard coal, lignite, oil, natural gas) to run out.

This process can not be left solely to the market mechanism within the framework of classical or neoclassical economics.

In order for an environmentally-friendly transformation of the energy sector to be effected efficiently and as soon as possible, a significant share of financial support from the state is indispensable.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

Should the state co-finance the development of renewable energy sources or only the private sector?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes