Global warming

If I can attempt to mediate here (or pour more fuel on the fire😂) - I don't think @thinkabouit is saying we don't need to reduce our reliance fuels, they are going to run out some time soon if we carry on the way we are. Or as @cfuserkildare was looking at the graph of historical CO2 levels, that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not the main problem we face. I am somewhat in agreement with that idea, but I would say exponential / hockey stick type curves / rapid unsustainable short term changes like this are a real risk.

Rather the main problem we face is desertification, largely caused by deforestation and poor agricultural practice (overgrazing and unsuitable irrigation), and since desertification causes climate change, desertification leads to more desertification, so that's what we need to fix, as a matter of urgency.

Many proponents of holistic management are probably a bit hard to pin down on the science front. But there are other regenerative farming techniques that have shown quantifiable increases in soil carbon sequestration and biodiversity improvements. But when an argument breaks out online most people on the opposing side seem to see Allan Savory as a bogey man and completely overlook the potential of regenerative agriculture practices, especially practices that include ruminant animals, to be part of any solution, so I hope we can find some common ground somewhere.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I meant it the other way around.

I think desertification is the main cause of the disruptions we're seeing to our climate. The vast hot deserts are changing weather patterns, leading to storms and increased extreme weather events in other areas.

It's obviously a problem in and of itself, for the reason you mention, desertificaton leads to human migration due to lack of food and resources.

There's also some speculation that broken microclimates are a way to explain some desertification. If the moisture and plants are completely gone the water can't cycle

For instance there's some research that suggests that every drop of rain contains a bacteria or spore, that caused the droplet to form. I think 80% are a single species, so if the land has lost it's bacteria through desertification it has lost it's ability to bring the rain back.

I always said it a part of any solution. What I have objected to is the proposition that it is the solution. This has been explicitly said here and it brings the whole idea into disrepute.

Overselling a solution whilst not acknowledging both the complexity of the problem and it solutions is magic bullet thinking and unhelpful.

Can't disagree though what I've googled and read about the research here isn't that conclusive. Still, bringing species back, especially the 'cryptic' things like bacteria and bugs, is good in my book.

It's a loop: CO2 gets into the atmosphere. Temps go up. Desertification worsens, storms due to acute dryness and perhaps loss of bacteria worsen. Storms (lightening) cause more wildfire. Fewer trees sequester CO2. CO2 gets into the atmosphere. Repeat.

Trouble is, CO2 is going up for all kinds of reasons, but the one thing I keep coming back to, is more people eating means more CO2.

We know where most of the additional C02 is coming from in our atmosphere. It's from fossil fuels. We can measure this using Carbon 14. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-climate-change/

The primary solution needs to be 'stop burning fossil fuels'

Of course we cant do this immediately or we'd all starve and end up chopping down every last tree for fuel, so the primary activity needs to be to build the infrastructure that allows us to stop burning Fossil fuels as quickly as we can, and then use the infrastructure to allow us to stop burning oil gas and coal.

Being quite resourceful as a species, we can do more than one thing at once, so we should simultaneously spent resources on improving adaptability, and this involves increasing biodiversity, rewetting drained land, rewilding uplands(not just tree plantations) and using more sustainable agricultural techniques as much as we can, creating green buffers to protect our towns and cities from the consequences of climate change, natural flood plains, forests create micro climates that cool the area and improve soil health and clean water courses...

Not gonna be easy to balance competing interests

Volcanos are short one off blips on the carbon concentration graph. Their effects last a few years at most. The main point is that volcanos have been constant so cannot account current climate changes

All of those areas have serious issues with feral stock.

The Sahara was not created by overgrazing - it was created by regional climate change. Your analysis is shallow.

Confusing the issues of biodiversity loss and climate change is unhelpful. Your concerns about biodiversity loss are well founded, but they are not the primary cause of climate change.

If you want to discuss the biodiversity crisis then please start your own thread on it. It's an interesting and important discussion to have but a distraction in a thread focused on climate change.

Biodiversity loss is not the main cause of climate change - repeat it all you like but no one here is biting.

You killed this thread. Well done.