We might not be doomed | Science | TORN
We might not be doomed
    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Thread created on 17:01:31 - 13/08/18 (5 years ago)
    |
    Last replied 12:40:05 - 06/09/18 (5 years ago)
     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

     

    Hopeful
    Last edited by Wollongong on 17:02:41 - 13/08/18

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:02:32 - 13/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    ugh, stupid embed...

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:40:30 - 13/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I am super excited to see this on here and think it is great if we can talk about it. This is basically my area of expertise (he even has pictures from one of my study sites). Some of what Allan says is good advice, holistic management practices are important. But he is way overselling the benefits and in the scientific community is known as a shyster. His evidence here is essentially a set of photos that purposely dont show the whole picture. The whole picture shows pretty clearly that rotational grazing of learge herds does not increase grass cover. Additionally, desertification is not necesarily bad. We dont use tye term desertification anymore because we have improved our understanding of it. But for example those algea mats he mentions, otherwise known as biological soil crusts, are super important for sustaining soil water and grass growth.

    He started his career making some good points, but has since become so convinced that his ideas are good for the world he has accepted lying about the benefits to push for the outcome he wants. It is analogous to the plastic garbage island in the pacific. Plastic pollution is a problem, but there is no island of trash, just areas with higher density of trash. You would probably not even see it if you were out there. But it has helped make a point that we need to address plastic. Savory vastly exaggerates any benefits to his ideas to try and sell them to a wide public, but his ideas have generally been rejected by the scientific community. 

    Land management is extremely important, but Savorys approach is not scientifically valid. The real picture is much more complex and tuere is no easy solution, anyone who claims to have such a simple easy solution is lying. 
    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:09:41 - 14/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:32:14 - 14/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?
    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 
    Last edited by Quickdraw on 17:35:39 - 14/08/18
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:16:24 - 14/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    The thing that really sticks out for me is just how little we humans know.

    In the 1970's it was sold to the public to use plastic to save trees. This guy killed 40,000 elephants to save the grassland. In the Americas all the buffalo were killed off in the span of 75 years or so, and then we wondered why we had the dust bowl when we plowed up all the land to grow wheat, and then FDR spent millions on a make work program trying to plant trees to prevent another dust bowl... 

    My point is that today's solution often ends up being tomorrows problem.

    The problem is simple.

    Too many people.

    The solution is not so simple.

     

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • dunmugmeh [538353]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 21,653
    • Karma: 32,253
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 20:42:35 - 14/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    The thing that really sticks out for me is just how little we humans know.

    In the 1970's it was sold to the public to use plastic to save trees. This guy killed 40,000 elephants to save the grassland. In the Americas all the buffalo were killed off in the span of 75 years or so, and then we wondered why we had the dust bowl when we plowed up all the land to grow wheat, and then FDR spent millions on a make work program trying to plant trees to prevent another dust bowl... 

    My point is that today's solution often ends up being tomorrows problem.

    The problem is simple.

    Too many people.

    The solution is not so simple.

     
    Yes the main problem is that there are too many people.

    Every single one of us places a huge burden on the ecosystem.

    That is the one over riding thing which  places a strain on the environment.

    Im not a vegetarian far from it. But sometimes days go by when i dont eat any meat.

    Some people eat meat multiple times a day.

    The costs on the environment of raising cattle to give us that meat is very high.

    Some of us do need to eat a lot less meat.

    But even if all of us only ate meat once or twice a week there would still be a problem.

    There are too many of us and we place strains on the environment in other ways.

    If you dont get what im saying about meat check how large the cattle/poultry industry is worldwide. 

    All those animals need feeding etc, just for us to eat more meat.

    We all need to eat less meat.

     

    Forum signatures make my eyes hurt so i have turned them off.

    My tornography

    https://www.torn.com/newspaper.php#!/articles/285 

    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:36:18 - 14/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    The thing that really sticks out for me is just how little we humans know.

    In the 1970's it was sold to the public to use plastic to save trees. This guy killed 40,000 elephants to save the grassland. In the Americas all the buffalo were killed off in the span of 75 years or so, and then we wondered why we had the dust bowl when we plowed up all the land to grow wheat, and then FDR spent millions on a make work program trying to plant trees to prevent another dust bowl... 

    My point is that today's solution often ends up being tomorrows problem.

    The problem is simple.

    Too many people.

    The solution is not so simple.

     

    dunmugmeh [538353]

    Yes the main problem is that there are too many people.

    Every single one of us places a huge burden on the ecosystem.

    That is the one over riding thing which  places a strain on the environment.

    Im not a vegetarian far from it. But sometimes days go by when i dont eat any meat.

    Some people eat meat multiple times a day.

    The costs on the environment of raising cattle to give us that meat is very high.

    Some of us do need to eat a lot less meat.

    But even if all of us only ate meat once or twice a week there would still be a problem.

    There are too many of us and we place strains on the environment in other ways.

    If you dont get what im saying about meat check how large the cattle/poultry industry is worldwide. 

    All those animals need feeding etc, just for us to eat more meat.

    We all need to eat less meat.

     
    The other solution is for us to stop having kids, especially in places that are hardest pressed to feed those kids, but it seems those places are where the people are having the most kids... go figure.

    Have no fear. Nature is going to eventually solve the problem for us.

    The Earth will still be here long after we humans are gone... but sure... we should eat less meat.
    Last edited by MachineGunSteve on 22:36:56 - 14/08/18

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 07:20:08 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 
    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:22:42 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....
    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:47:06 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 
    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?
    Last edited by MachineGunSteve on 14:47:58 - 15/08/18

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:45:04 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?
    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:03:22 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 
    Fair enough. I really know nothing about the subject. I do like a good grilled steak from time to time, but I would rather eat chicken and not live on dried up rock.

    Thanks for the answer.

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:07:01 - 15/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 
    My response is not so ridiculous, as you refer to "literature" without stating WHICH literature ;) Adding links doesn't cost any more :D

     

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:34:55 - 16/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Fair enough. I really know nothing about the subject. I do like a good grilled steak from time to time, but I would rather eat chicken and not live on dried up rock.

    Thanks for the answer.
    Just to be clear I didnt mean to imply you were dumb or not worth talking to about this. I was thinking "oh shit I agreed to talk about this and now it is going to take a lot more effort than I originally thought and I have too much actual work to do this week!"

    I have also been thinking a lot about the role of experts and science communication. The democratization of information, largely via the internet, has led to some very good things but it also presents new challenges. Like this guy Savory, he makes a compelling argument, but it is not based on the reality of what we observe. But in order to know that he is wrong you have to put in a lot of effort to understand all the processes. The vast majority of people dont want to do that, and it is impossible to do for all the policy questions we need to decide there is simply too much knowledge for one person to know it all. So how do we fit in experts who can speak authoritatively on a subject with the fundamental anti authoritarian nature of science? My response in the past when people question scientific findings has been that they should do an experiment for themselves, but I know full well that wont happen. So how do we get people to trust what scientists say when the evidemce goes against what people want to hear? Savory is what people want to hear, a solution to solve all mankinds problems in 3 easy steps!

    Im kinda just rambling but any insight you or anyone else has would be helpful to me. 
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:17:35 - 16/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Fair enough. I really know nothing about the subject. I do like a good grilled steak from time to time, but I would rather eat chicken and not live on dried up rock.

    Thanks for the answer.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Just to be clear I didnt mean to imply you were dumb or not worth talking to about this. I was thinking "oh shit I agreed to talk about this and now it is going to take a lot more effort than I originally thought and I have too much actual work to do this week!"

    I have also been thinking a lot about the role of experts and science communication. The democratization of information, largely via the internet, has led to some very good things but it also presents new challenges. Like this guy Savory, he makes a compelling argument, but it is not based on the reality of what we observe. But in order to know that he is wrong you have to put in a lot of effort to understand all the processes. The vast majority of people dont want to do that, and it is impossible to do for all the policy questions we need to decide there is simply too much knowledge for one person to know it all. So how do we fit in experts who can speak authoritatively on a subject with the fundamental anti authoritarian nature of science? My response in the past when people question scientific findings has been that they should do an experiment for themselves, but I know full well that wont happen. So how do we get people to trust what scientists say when the evidemce goes against what people want to hear? Savory is what people want to hear, a solution to solve all mankinds problems in 3 easy steps!

    Im kinda just rambling but any insight you or anyone else has would be helpful to me. 
    I didn't take it as you implying anything, so no worries.

    It sounds like you may have the makings of a good PhD thesis in your mind, lol.

    Too be fair, as much as I would like to think Savory was right... I can't bring myself to trust a guy who would advocate for killing 40,000 elephants. Even in the 1970's, and even though he owned up to it, and says he feels bad... I would have felt bad after killing one or two... 40,000 that is just mind boggling to me. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night to be honest.

    I am a pessimist. I don't think there is any chance of reversing or fixing the problems we have... I think it will all just end, and before that there will be lots of suffering, and then the earth will fix itself over a few million years... without humans.

     

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:34:13 - 16/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Desertification isn't bad...?

    How do we, or anything in our biosphere, get better if we have more dry land?

    And can you support your claims that he's lying?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    No desertification is not bad, it just depends on what your objective is. Desertification is a term that is supposed to sound bad, which is why we don't really use it anymore. But for example, shrublands typically store more carbon in the soil than grasslands. The transition from grasslands to shrublands is what a lot of people call desertification because you get an increase in bare soil with shrublands. But also, that increase in bare soil actually helps facilitate focused groundwater recharge and increases streamflow. So shrublands can produce more water for human use and store more carbon from the atmosphere. But grasslands support grazing, they also support native species that play important roles in the food web and provide ecosystem services. So desertification can be good or bad or neutral depending on what you want to get out of the land. But deserts in general are not bad for the biosphere. Contrary to the old way of thinking, there is enormous biodiversity in drylands and they play really important roles in the earth system so drylands are not bad.

    It is not exactly that he is lying, but there is no way to know if what he is saying is true. This discussion is going to get a little pedantic, but I don't know a way around that, apologies in advance. Part of his whole idea is that you have to treat each ecosystem as a whole, which means that each system is unique. That means there is no way to replicate anything he does to actually check if his ideas worked or if something else caused an increase in grass cover. The way that scientific thinking works is to break those systems into smaller parts that we can build an understanding of how all those smaller parts work, and then we put it back together and have an understanding of how the whole works. Savory is trying to work the other direction, but that way you can't prove if anything you do works because there are many other variables that are changing as well. There are many reasons that an ecosystem might go from grassland to shrubland or vice versa, including fire patterns, climate change, grazing patterns, rainfall patterns, rodent populations, lagamorph populations etc. This goes directly against his claims that oxidizing grass is a problem, no studies have shown that to be true. 

    It is good that he is trying to get people to think about systems as a whole and how many different things interact, but since there is no scientific backing to his story, he is just a snake oil salesman. If you are interested in learning more I can send you links to many papers quickly because I know the literature well, but I am assuming you aren't super interested in reading hundreds of pages of technical reports. 

    Edit: I guess his title is lying, "how to green the worlds deserts"... That is not possible, deserts are not green because they don't have water, the only way to green them would be to add more water. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    Too much to respond to. But desertification. He says bare land exiles co2. You say it doesn't.  He says this is shocking as the literature tells us different. You point at the literature.

    I'd say his claims are worth further research. After all, there was a time when literature said the planet is flat....

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    Wollongong [12833]

    My response is not so ridiculous, as you refer to "literature" without stating WHICH literature ;) Adding links doesn't cost any more :D

     
    Well it does take a lot of effort, especially considering Savory says he can fix global warming and land degredation. Those are huge fields. I will give you a few papers that seem important. First, you highlighted the carbon story, here are some papers and books that illustrate impacts of shrub encroachment on carbon stocks. These papers and the references within should be a good start. The important thing is that woody plants sequester carbon because they create tissues from lignin that microbes don't like to eat, so it can hang around in the soil longer:

    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2_2

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01093.x

    https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.12770

    I can send more papers and discuss other aspects of woody plant encroachment (a better term than desertification) if you want more.
    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:20:59 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I am expecting a slow day at work, so reading time :)
    Looking at your semi-last post: you say people don't like it when scientists say something people don't wanna hear. But isn't Savory doing exactly that? " So how do we get people to trust what scientists say when the evidemce goes against what people want to hear? Savory is what people want to hear, a solution to solve all mankinds problems in 3 easy steps!"


    This guy is saying we've been doing exactly the wrong thing for half a century. Not a message that's easy to digest, is it?

     

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 05:27:13 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    ugh...not much reading... no access to the full text, so just using the summaries: 

    https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.12770

    "Recent global trends of increasing woody plant abundance in grass-dominated ecosystems may substantially enhance soil organic carbon (SOC) storage and could represent a strong carbon (C) sink in the terrestrial environment. "

    Isn't this what Savory says? His images show (first) an increase of grass, but later bushes - which are bushy

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01093.x
    Using fluxes measured by eddy covariance in 2003 we found that ecosystem evapotranspiration (ET) and net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide (NEE) increased with increasing woody-plant dominance.
    (...)
    Compared with grasses, the woody plants were better able to use the stable groundwater source and had an increased net CO2 gain during the dry periods.


    Which to me means: lower temperature and higher CO2 storage (although the sentence just after the second quote may negate it).

    Btw,
    this literature seems to focus on the concept that grassland being replaced is a bad thing. I am not sure about that premisse.

     

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:24:50 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Yeah I hate that journals can put research behind a paywall, and a really expensive one, $30 per article? **** off! Government funded research should be available to the public, but for the researcher to do that it costs them a few thousand dollars to publish open source. 

    Savory is telling people what they want to hear by saying that if we graze more cattle (aka make more money) it will solve global warming. That is obviously appealing because the title of your thread is "we might not be doomed". The real story is much more complex and solving global warming by managing rangelands is not possible, it can make a difference, but not completely solve it. And Savory might not mention this in his ted talk, but his main recommendation is to increase the number of grazing animals.

    I should have been more clear that woody plant encroachment (WPE) is often associated with an increase in bare soil cover and WPE is the new term for what we used to call desertification or rangeland degradation. An idealized case would be that a grassland has about 30% bare soil where a shrubland has 60-70% bare soil. And yes it has been viewed as a negative for two reasons, the shrubs are invading native grasslands and killing off native species amd cattle dont eat shrubs, they eat grass. So a rangeland full of shribs is not good for ranchers. But you are right that it isnt all bad. 

    If Savorys point were: hey ranchers graze a massive amount of cattle on your land to eat all the grass and then shrubs will grow there and absorb more carbon. He would be saying the same thing as the papers, but then the rangeland wouldnt have any grass after a few years and that rancher would go out of business. Savory is saying: graze more cattle and you will preserve the grassland and that grasslands absorb more carbon because they have higher vegetation cover. That second point is what isnt true. 

    Even if a rancher did not increase the size of their herd and just tried to use his rotational grazing method, that isnt even good advice in many places. Here is a description without a paywall: http://rangelandarchive.ucdavis.edu/Annual_Rangeland_Handbook/Grazing_Management_322/
Reply
Thread Title: