Drying and Warming of Our Earth: Part 1


From Jim Steele

Video from Jim Steele, describes how enlightened land management can make landscapes more resilient to drying and heatwaves. It reports the most recent research showing heatwaves are not made worse by rising CO2 but by altering the earth’s surface

5 13 votes
Article Rating
76 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 26, 2021 2:18 am

Forest Management can not only reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, create many jobs, and produce the forest products we all use, but good forestry can also significantly increase water yields in California (and elsewhere) – https://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2019/water-yield-forest-thinning-depends-how-where-and-how-much

fretslider
Reply to  Mike Leonard
August 26, 2021 2:52 am

We found to our cost, mainly by flood events, that the real problem is ‘rewilding’ as per EU directives which originated with the UN

“Rewilding is not just for nature – it’s essential for our own survival”

There is ample evidence of how uncomfortable the earth becomes when Man interferes with its natural operating system. 

https://theecologist.org/2015/oct/16/rewilding-not-just-nature-its-essential-our-own-survival

Land (and water) management seems to be the new heresy.

Dennis
Reply to  Mike Leonard
August 26, 2021 3:55 am

Proven land management applied in the land now called Australia by the Australian Aborigines who after observing natural bushfires developed their now called traditional seasonal burning, following weather and wind patterns that are favourable fires are lit that burn and burn out when insufficient fuel on the ground is reached where previous years burning had taken place, a patchwork burning technique that is now being revived in Australia using indigenous rangers working with other rangers but using modern equipment such as helicopters to drop small fire bombs.

The first white settlers wondered about the open grassy country with scattered trees that appeared well cared for, as it was by seasonal burning. In the Snowy Mountains region cattle were grazed on the grasslands and the cattlemen adopted the Aborigine burning as they left the high country to spend winter on the low country. Once grazing was prohibited within a few years what had been prime grazing grasslands returned to being overgrown tangles of bushfire fuel to attract fierce destructive wild fires instead of the much cooler and slower season burning that allowed wildlife to escape and protected the trees from serious damage.

Of course some areas were not managed mainly because they were in very rough areas that are difficult to access.

Climate change – about 130,000 years ago Australia was covered in rainforest and today just 3 per cent of rainforest remains, the rest covered with eucalypts and/or grasses. The climate zone changed to drier and hotter conditions unsuitable for rainforests which retreated to what favourable conditions remained.

Dennis
Reply to  Dennis
August 26, 2021 4:01 am

Unfortunately after the signing by Australia of UN Agenda 21 (sustainability) and its many impositions well managed State Forests were converted into National Parks and since land management has not been up to the standard maintained by State Forestry management.

The result has been the worst bushfire seasons imaginable, mismanagement of the land, ignoring indigenous seasonal burning of thousands of years (the latest estimate of first arrival is 65-70,000 years ago) developed by the first colonisers, now Australian Aborigines, after they observed nature at work and copied but managing the fires and season based timing of their choosing.

Loydo
Reply to  Dennis
August 26, 2021 4:41 am

Climate change – about 130,000 years ago Australia was covered in rainforest…

Probably closer to a million.
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2010/how-australia-dried-out.html

Disputin
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 4:44 am

Yes, and about 60 million years ago antarctica was covered with forests.

So what?

Loydo
Reply to  Disputin
August 26, 2021 4:46 pm

It was a clarification. It got downvoted so I suppose that’s a bad thing.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 7:15 pm

Dumb comm

Ruleo
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 7:41 pm

What’s with the DVs here?

Sean
August 26, 2021 3:03 am

Makes you wonder how environmental water discharge in California is affecting the heat and wild fires. With no wetlands in the Central Valley and agricultural land made to lie fallow, are the record dryness, heat and wildfires a self inflicted crisis from eco zealots?

Chaswarnertoo
August 26, 2021 3:11 am

But the Earth is getter wetter as it warms…

commieBob
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 26, 2021 4:19 am

The whole CAGW narrative depends on atmospheric water vapor increasing.

Water vapor is by far the main greenhouse gas. James Hansen’s runaway global warming works like this: Extra atmospheric CO2 raises the temperature a little. That cause more water to evaporate. That raises the temperature more, and so on, and so forth. At some point we reach a tipping point and the planet becomes an uninhabitable oven.

As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence that Hansen’s posited positive feedback mechanism is actually occurring. The feedback method he uses pays no attention to (ie. violates) energy conservation because it is based on a vacuum tube amplifier which treats the power supply as if it were unlimited.

On the other hand, there is a well known negative feedback effect at the equator. Water is evaporated and since water vapor is less dense than air, it quickly rises up the atmosphere where it condenses and falls back as rain. The heat released high in the atmosphere is more easily radiated to outer space and is also carried toward the poles by convection. Thus, more water vapor increases the removal of heat from the surface.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
August 26, 2021 6:13 am

You just described one of the fallacies associated with the “radiation budget” calculations using average insolation over the earth’s surface. The sun’s energy is not distributed equally across a “spherical surface” laid flat. The equator gets vastly more energy than the poles resulting in a gradient from the equator to the poles. This results in vastly more atmospheric variation than a simple average where all points get the same average energy,

griff
August 26, 2021 3:33 am

no, they are ALSO made worse by CO2 heating the planet.

Dennis
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 3:42 am

CO2 in the atmosphere about 410 ppm (0.041%), most from natural emissions.

Heating and cooling is from solar activity and if there is a driver of climate zone changing apart from natural Earth Cycles it would more likely be H2O.

Earth has been warming since the Maunder Minimum “Little Ice Age” ended circa 1700s, as it did after the last Ice Age earlier in history.

Disputin
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 3:44 am

Does CO2 heat the planet? And if so, how?

Loydo
Reply to  Disputin
August 26, 2021 4:03 am

You might want to take this one Jim.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 7:54 am

This kind of discussion needs to use less generic terms and more specific terms describing what is occuring. “Surface” should describe the solid portion soil, rocks, asphalt, buildings, liquid water, fora, etc. that lies at the surface of the globe. The other term is “atmosphere” that describes the gaseous portion of the planet

Thermodynamically, these are two different bodies. One is a heat source, i.e., the surface which is predominately warmed by the sun’s energy. The second is an insulator, i.e., the atmosphere which receives heat from the surface.

Like it or not, the atmosphere (insulator) can never rise above the temperature of the earth (surface). If the conductivity of the insulator is low, the insulator, at the boundary of the surface/atmosphere, may rise to a temperature that is close to the surface but it can never rise above the source. To do so would violate several laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

The atmosphere (insulator) will have a gradient from the boundary to the opposite edge. It may even have a variety of gradients depending on the various differences in the structure of the atmosphere.

If the atmosphere was a perfect conductor, the boundary could be at the temperature of its coolest edge, i.e. 3K at space. Since it isn’t, the boundary will rise to some temperature. If the atmosphere was a perfect insulator (the conductivity is zero) no heat would be transferred from the boundary. In this condition, the surface and atmosphere would reach equilibrium only at the boundary.

You’ll notice I have not touched on the method of heat transfer at all. It could be any combination of conduction, convection, or radiation.

One big assumption for this is that the sun does not heat the atmosphere. We know this isn’t true because H2O in the atmosphere absorbs near IR from the sun. However, what radiation is directly absorbed in the atmosphere simply skips the steps of reaching the surface and then being transferred so the end result is the same.

What is the conclusion? We have to answer the question of how and can does CO2 reduce the conductivity of the atmosphere in order to increase the temperature gradient across the atmosphere.

I have yet to be convinced that there is sufficient CO2 to cause a major change in the conductivity of the atmosphere. I have been unable to find any studies, one way or the other, that conclusively find an answer, Most studies deal with temperature alone and how it correlates with CO2. Notice I have said correlates, and not the term causes. I have found nothing about how H2O either in vapor or liquid form in the atmosphere modulates the heat conductivity of the atmosphere.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2021 1:54 pm

Additional CO2 raises the altitude at which the Atmosphere becomes transparent to 15-Micron LWIR. This lowers the temperature at which the Atmosphere radiates to Space. This lowers the rate of heat transfer from the Atmosphere to Space.

This is indisputable, but the magnitude of this effect cannot be calculated from First Principles. More CO2 prevents some amount of heat from radiating from the Atmosphere to Space. A Lot? Just a Little? Nobody knows for sure, but Griff is sure it is enough to ruin life on our Big Blue Marble

commieBob
Reply to  Michael Moon
August 26, 2021 4:34 pm

This lowers the rate of heat transfer from the Atmosphere to Space.

The planet radiates very close to the amount it receives from the sun. If CO2 lowers the rate at which the surface radiates to space*, the atmosphere must make up the difference.

*because:

Additional CO2 raises the altitude at which the Atmosphere becomes transparent to 15-Micron LWIR.

Loydo
Reply to  Michael Moon
August 26, 2021 4:56 pm

Thank you two gentleman for your excellent responses (and they are going to be a hard act to follow), but I was hoping for the Jim to give us his answer to help satisfy Disputin’s curiosity and mine.

Loydo
Reply to  Michael Moon
August 26, 2021 5:10 pm

“A Lot? Just a Little?”

Does greater uncertainty entail a more or less riskier bet?

Is sensitivity to an abrupt doubling 1C or is it 5?

I insure my home from less risk.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:47 pm

What is indisputably true; regardless of what effect CO2 has on temperature, the present conditions are better than they were in the recent past and we are enjoying the added benefit of CO2 greening. Over all, humans are better off now than at any other period in human history … by every metric.

commieBob
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 27, 2021 3:57 am

The SJW and greenie and warmist idiots are progress deniers.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
August 27, 2021 11:12 am

So true. If only they could view the world as a ‘glass half full’ and that “things are better than we thought”, we’d begin to make some real progress. Such a waste, all this negativity.

mkelly
Reply to  Michael Moon
August 27, 2021 7:32 am

I would argue that if you cannot “calculate” this from first principles then it is “disputable”.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 5:53 am

There is no evidence that CO2 warming the planet is making anything worse.

Dusty
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 6:10 am

Don’t leave out the kitchen sinks.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 8:34 am

There he goes again, with his BS story! How many times does it have to be proven, Griff, that CO2 does NOT cause warming? Water vapor, being the PRIMARY atmospheric component is FAR more common than CO2. Water is 4% in the atmosphere, while CO2 is 1.7 parts PER MILLION! But, that’s OK, Griff, you just keep on believing that BS, OK?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
August 26, 2021 8:34 pm

no, they are ALSO made worse by CO2 heating the planet.

CO2 can in no way “heat the planet” because it is not an energy source. The Sun does that. In theory it can redirect the LW radiation loss to space in a very limited way.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
Loydo
August 26, 2021 4:01 am

Vanishing Ice Most Likely All Naturalhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/16/vanishing-ice-most-likely-all-natural/

Now Drying and Warming unaffected by CO2. But greening? Well that’s when CO2 suddenly becomes a super-hero.
…and they all lived happily ever after.

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 4:20 am

CO2 suddenly becomes a super-hero.”

Have you tried living without it? What would you eat?

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 5:54 am

CO2 is a super hero.
The tiny bit of warming it might be causing is completely beneficial, and it makes plants grow bigger and stronger. What’s not to love.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:08 am

As Shakespeare said in Hamlet –

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Warmists who concentrate on CO2 will find that trying to find causation from that molecule is a waste of time.

Wim Röst
August 26, 2021 4:02 am

Great video, very good analysis. Generally, land warms much faster than oceans. Jim Steele shows why. Draining the land deprives land of its natural cooling system: the evaporation of water. Man-made climate change.

Loydo
Reply to  Wim Röst
August 26, 2021 4:15 am

“land warms much faster than oceans”

Ocean heating dwarfs land heating by an order of magnitude.

What’s warming the ocean?

comment image

Nuccitelli et al. (2012)

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 4:36 am

Nuccitelli et al. (2012)

Now that was funny. Is he still working for that oil and gas company, what was it called… Tetra Tech?

Dana is as straight as a nine bob note.  

The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on “agnotology”, a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

97% anyone?

Loydo
Reply to  fretslider
August 26, 2021 4:45 am

Are you disputing: “Ocean heating dwarfs land heating by an order of magnitude.”?

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 5:00 am

No, but I bet you were hoping that was the case.

How exactly does heat sink rather than rise?

Wim Röst
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 4:49 am

Loydo: “Ocean heating dwarfs land heating by an order of magnitude.”

WR: Heat content is not the same as temperature, but of course you know that.

Loydo
Reply to  Wim Röst
August 26, 2021 5:08 am

My question remains; if better drainage is causing the land to warm, what’s causing the ocean to warm by a magnitude more?

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 5:25 am

The Sun

Loydo
Reply to  fretslider
August 26, 2021 5:33 pm

Yeah, abco2.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 6:18 am

Ill easily address that in a later article. For now Loydo try for once to stop being a troll, and honestly focus on the issues at hand that you CANNOT refute

DocSiders
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:36 pm

Have you noted that all the Tidal Guages on the planet show the same steady Sea Level Rise the last 150 years. (And don’t bring up the little blip upward from the recent North Atlantic Decadal Oscillation… blips have shown up as THE EXACT SAME BLIP in the Tidal Records every time…the NAO is now turning negative)

That Ocean Heat Extent you are hyperventilating over has been ongoing STEADILY (linearly) for 150 years…about a century before human CO2 emissions were measurable against the background..

Those Tidal Guage are the ONLY global “THERMOMETERS” available that tell is when Climate Level Warming (minimum 100 year timespans) began and it was not ~1950. It was ~1700 or earlier coming out of the LIA.

Loydo
Reply to  DocSiders
August 26, 2021 9:00 pm

You can arm-wave or you can refute by citing something.
“No acceleration” soundly debunked here:

comment image

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/global-data-contradict-claim-of-no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise/

But go on keep moving the goal posts.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
August 27, 2021 8:19 am

No moving goalposts. What you are showing here is about 0.07 inches per year. Satellites show less although accuracy is debated. The real danming thing is the long term locations that show no increase.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 5:57 am

I love the way warmistas convert tiny, tiny changes into big numbers in order to scare themselves.
When converted back into temperature, those scary looking heat content numbers turn into a warming of 0.03C.
Believing that we can measure the ocean’s temperature with that kind of accuracy is something only a troll would believe.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2021 6:33 am

Good hit it Mark….and the more sensitive your thermometry gear, the more you would find a temperature difference of a few thousandths of a degree along the length of a thermowell, and changes of water temperature with depth of a full degree in a meter due to currents or thermocline, the depth of which changes hourly. So basically wild but “statistician verified” claims that human beings have exactly .98073 testicles.

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Loydo
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 26, 2021 4:17 pm

“heat content numbers turn into a warming of 0.03C.”

Misleading. Why hide the significant oceanic surface temperature rise by averaging it out over the entire ocean volume – all the way down to the abyssal plain?

If you’re interested in weather/climate effects you look at the shallow, mixed layer, or even better the surface temperature because thats what affects the atmoshpere’s temperature, not the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

It is plain from that graph I posted above the vast majority of the thermal energy increase is oceanic. Atmospheric warming is the dog’s tail, not the dog.
If you want to ‘splain away AGW you start with the ocean or you’re just an amatuer disinformer. Evaporation and UHI are amatuer red-herrings.

comment image

Japan Meteorological Agency

Richard M
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 26, 2021 6:05 pm

Does that include Polyorchidism? You may be off by a few ten thousandths.

Dan
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 6:41 am

There is a big difference between “heat content” and the “rate of heating”. Oceans warm and cool more slowly than land, and for that very reason they store more heat. Also, water covers 71% of the earths surface versus 29% for land. The combination of the oceans’ heat content and slow rate of change makes earth’s climate very stable, reducing the thermal variability

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Dan
August 26, 2021 8:49 am

Claiming that the oceans heat more than the land is also wrong. Who has ever seen the oceans heat up to 130 F? The land has, many times, and in many places.The oceans absorb heat from the SUN! So does the ground! The ground is able to store that heat in it’s thin upper layers, while the ocean is a huge heat sink to absorb the extra heat, I am NOT an expert, but I DO have a brain and two good eyes, things that may warmist’s seem to be lacking.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:14 am

The sun is warming the ocean, dude, what else would? Maybe from cloud changes?

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” — Shakespeare

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:42 am

You apparently are unfamiliar with specific heat. You are confusing temperature with heat energy. Your graph does not disprove the statement that “land warms much faster than oceans.”

Loydo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 26, 2021 4:29 pm

Your graph does not disprove the statement that “land warms much faster than oceans.”
It wasn’t meant to. It was to show that proprotion of thermal energy absorbed by the ocean is dwarfing – by an order of magnitude – that absorbed by the atmosphere. So trying to claim land use change or UHI effect is an explanation for global warming is obviously preposterous.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:58 pm

The process of global warming began long before CO2 could have been an issue. But that is beside the fact that the planet is cooling steadily on a geological time scale. CO2 is having no observable effect on that at all.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
August 27, 2021 8:37 am

At this point in time, there is very little UHI raising the SST. If you think UHI or land use can’t change land heat absorption, you need to go back to school.

Rick C
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 8:47 am

Loydo: Are you being intentionally dense, or do you really not understand the difference between energy content and temperature. Heating is usually described in terms of temperature. Temperature of a substance – e.g. air or water – is a function of mass, specific heat and energy content. Since water on earth is vastly more massive and has a much higher specific heat than air, a huge amount of energy can be added to the oceans with a barely detectible change in ocean temperature. The oceans are a gigantic damper on the earth’s temperature which is why minor changes in energy imbalance due to GHG’s are not significant.

Steve Z
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 9:29 am

The oceans can have more “heat content” since they have a much higher specific heat than the atmosphere.

But the graph from Nuccitelli et al. is extremely misleading. To what depth is the heat content of “land” measured? Air has a very low specific heat compared to rock or soil on “land”, but if the heat content of rock or soil is only measured down to a few meters, of course it would have less heat content than the top 700 meters of the oceans!

The Nuccitelli graph shows about 14 x 10^23 Joules of additional heat content in the top 700 meters of the oceans from about 1974 to 2008. How much temperature change does that represent?

The area of the earth’s oceans is estimated as 362 million km^2, or 3.62*10^14 m2. The top 700 meters would have a total volume of 2.53*10^17 m3. The density of water is roughly 1,000 kg/m3, so that the total mass of water in the top 700 meters of the oceans would be 2.53*10^20 kg.

The specific heat of water is about 4.18 J/g-C (as noted in the Jim Steele video) = 4,180 J/kg-C, so that the heat required to raise the top 700 meters of the world’s oceans by 1 degree C would be 2.53*10^20 * 4,180 = 1.06*10^24 Joules. This means that the 1.4*10^23 Joules of additional “heat content” would warm the top 700 meters of the ocean by an average of 1.4*10^23 / (1.06*10^24) = 0.13 degrees C over 34 years (from 1974 to 2008), or less than 0.004 C / yr.

The question for Nuccitelli et al was how was this measured? The Argos buoy program, which measures ocean temperatures at depth, was not started until 2003, so where did the data from 1970 through 2003 come from? There may have been some “sea surface” temperature data from weather satellites since 1975, but were they accurate to within 0.1 C? How were water temperatures down to 700 meters deep measured before the Argos program started, and were they accurate to within 0.1 C or better?

Davidf
Reply to  Steve Z
August 26, 2021 4:26 pm

Just as an aside, is occured to me that if you could get them to declassify it, I would bet that the US Navy has an extremely good record of sea temperature down to several hundred metres, over the entire history of the nuclear submarine program. Maybe that is why the Russian GCS model is the only one that seems at least reasonably predictive

Richard M
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2021 5:54 pm

“What’s warming the oceans” is indeed the question that is being ignored. The answer is increased salinity and human pollution.

The oceans then share some of the energy with the atmosphere.

David Dibbell
August 26, 2021 5:20 am

Jim Steele, this makes good sense and is very much appreciated.

Peta of Newark
August 26, 2021 5:24 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrLk4vdY28Q

Now, if he could only get away from:

  • (and he has shot his own foot off here) Burning holes in forests to ‘Save them from burning’
  • The idea that CO2 is any sort of heat trapping gas. Yes it does intercept radiation but very very small amounts. It’s a resonant effect and, witness Tacoma Narrows, involves very modest amounts of energy
  • Yes it does re-radiate but at immeasurable levels due to the near-zero emissivity of CO2
  • Even if ALL that re-radiated came back towards the ground, yes it would increase downwelling radiation but it is Cold Radiation. It is spent energy. It can NOT have any heating effect at any point (an average) below where it was emitted from. Do remember, it had the be emitted in the first place and CO2, in the atmosphere, Simply Does Not Radiate
  • Never mind what cities are made of, concrete asphalt etc, don’t distract or throw up chaff (=Food For Trolls so don’t give them ideas) – all you need to know is what you were talking about – Aridity

Exactly how long has this guy been sitting on this – isn’t what I’ve raved about since I first ever said anything here.
Those words being Soil Erosion – THAT is exactly what he’s describing

(Enjoy Leonard Cohen as best you can – take time out, get a life, learn to dance)

Loydo
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 26, 2021 4:43 pm

“…it is Cold Radiation. It is spent energy

Ok, now you’re just taking the piss.

D Boss
August 26, 2021 5:51 am

I love the quote at the end of the video, but the full quote is as follows:

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

Thomas Huxley

DocSiders
August 26, 2021 5:57 am

Cover crops, in conjunction with no till farming, keeps the soil covered all the time. This reduces moisture loss, reduces soil erosion, while increasing the micronutrient AND macronutrient (NPK) availability to the crops. It also quadruples the organic content of the soil. With properly managed cover cropping, almost no costly NPK supplementation is required (after 4-5 years).

Tilling destroys soil fungal networks that are required for extracting available micronutrients from the soil. More micronutrients (and more CO2) makes plants more resistant to drought and pests…while making more nutritious food.

Cover Cropping uses solar energy to drive the microorganism engines that produce healthy soils.

Increased profitability from well managed No Till Cover Cropping (now being demonstrated on large scale farms) will eventually turn our industrial mono-crop farming system into a sustainable agriculture that builds up our most precious resource…our soil… where life comes from.

Lewis Lydon
Reply to  DocSiders
August 26, 2021 7:08 am
Fran
Reply to  DocSiders
August 26, 2021 10:44 am

No-till turns out to be very labour intensive unless you use herbicides and have heavy tractors with specialized gear. In some of the areas in Africa where the Greenies have pushed it, the men like it because they are the ones who do the digging field preparation, but yields are lower. Data from Russia that I read also indicated lower yeilds after a few years. I don’t have the refs now because my hard disk burned a few months ago.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  DocSiders
August 26, 2021 5:41 pm

I’m afraid that the only “Sustainable” agriculture is that where you take nothing from the soil. Any time you remove meat (e.g., cattle), a crop (e.g., corn), etc. from a pasture or a field you are removing part of the available NPK (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). Cover crops can replace some of the nitrogen. But, the only way to replace the phosphorus and potassium is by planting tap-root plants that can bring them up from lower levels, and this only works until the lower level soil has also been exhausted. Other than that the P and K are only replaced by floods, volcanic ash or fertilizing. In other words, sustainable agriculture is a bigger joke than even “global warming.”

Abolition Man
August 26, 2021 7:33 am

Jim,
Do you give any credence to Allan Savory’s holistic management theories, and could they be incorporated into the restoration of our native grasslands?

Jim Steele
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 26, 2021 8:01 am

I like Savory’s holistic management and have recommended it, in the watershed we restored

Keith Harrison
August 26, 2021 8:32 am

Thanks, Jim for an excellent presentation.

Looking forward to Part 2

Fran
August 26, 2021 10:11 am

Saw it yesterday. Jim Steele is real good value, especially when you think you know all about it.

Matthew Sykes
August 27, 2021 12:21 am

Fascinating.

Ron Waskiewicz
September 7, 2021 8:49 am

Great video! I learned a lot! I also just bought Mr. Steele’s book!

%d bloggers like this: