Climate Friendly Farming (Episode 5, Season 20)

Duncan Stewart explores what it would mean for Ireland's agricultural system to play it’s fair share in climate change targets.
Agriculture in Ireland has come under sharp criticism in recent years, not just for being Ireland’s largest contributor to climate change, but also because it has by far the biggest impact on biodiversity loss and is the sector that is most responsible for the demise in water quality in Ireland. But is sustainable farming possible in Ireland? and if so, what does it look like?
In a search for solutions, Duncan Stewart visits Dowth research farm in Co Meath where the team are aiming to restore soil fertility and achieve carbon neutrality on a suckler beef farm. With a farmer from Offaly, Duncan will also explore another system of livestock farming that’s growing traction in Ireland which benefits biodiversity, water quality, climate change and farmer’s profits. ‘Regenerative Farming’ sees farmers completely cut out their chemical fertiliser inputs and imported feed while offering a premium product.
Could what’s happening on these farms be the way forward for Ireland’s livestock farmers?

[@spencersanderson1894]

Clive from Sligo should Coppice that alder stand and sell the wood, might not be loads but will help pay him back slowly and also provide a benefit to wildlife and do its job at the same time.

[@myriammadigan9966]

Such a shame that farmers like Clive in Co Sligo is not rewarded for doing the right thing!

[@photosby3van]

What happened to the right audio channel lads 🤪 sound is coming from left only.

[@Euripides_]

That's crazy that farmers get nothing for planting native alder and wild meadow

[@RaniaIsAwesome]

"the emissions from these peaty soils dwarf the emissions from all of Ireland's transport sector" - yet in the previous episode the barchart shows them as being clearly less than Ireland's transport sector. "dwarfs" seems a very suspicious word to use there, I would think dwarfs would mean several times the value of what it's being compared to.

[@jrvthatsme]

Here a two additional things that would make a huge difference if implemented throughout Irish agriculture.
1: Hydroponically grown barley sprouts as sustainably cattle feed. ua-cam.com/video/b2XYLEliMhQ/v-deo.html
2: Lab grown meat. ua-cam.com/video/hVBq4Pw2_fQ/v-deo.html (would require farmers to collectively own shares of the meat growing labs so that the farmers get money for meat sold instead of per animal they sell).

[@nxgrs74]

The Eartn is cooler w the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require "extra" energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body.
Thr kinetic heat transfer processes of the contigious atmos molecules make such a scenario non possible.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change.

[@adrienneforeman8446]

Lol. You've fallen for a lot of junk there, Nick. Go study physics and the atmosphere and then try and make aaaannnyyyyy of that make sense.

[@nxgrs74]

@@adrienneforeman8446
My BSME and 35 years of experience have that physics thang covers.
BTW you avoided my points to go ad hominem.
If you have not done sufficient homework to refute my points, go find someone who has and can.
Let me know what they say, that's how real science works.

[@adrienneforeman8446]

@@nxgrs74 I'm a climatologist. I'm perfectly capable of refuting your points. I went ad hominem because you so clearly do not understand what you are talking about. This "black body" you are talking about literally exists - when the sun's energy is reflected back from earth, it changes from shortwave (incoming solar radiation) to longwave energy. The longwave energy, just as you say, would have to and does in fact interact with the GHGs and creates the greenhouse effect - thereby warming the atmosphere. As I said, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Let the climate scientists do their work and you stick with your mechanical engineering.

[@nxgrs74]

@@adrienneforeman8446
You continue to ignore my points and wander off in areas you don't understand.
Climatologist.
Is that like a canine aroma therapist?
They don't need physics either.

[@nxgrs74]

@@adrienneforeman8446
You have exactly zero idea of what a black body is.
Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory “288 K w - 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut MMU w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
According to the K-T atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396/333/63 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors. See ua-cam.com/video/0Jijw7-YG-U/v-deo.html
Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.