Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Next
Comments 8101 to 8150:
-
BillyJoe at 12:19 PM on 11 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
Talk about Gavin Schmidt and cherry-pickin' climate deniers, I recently had a exchange with a cherry-pickin' climate denier who cherry-picked the following Gavin Schmidt quote:
"Models are not right or wrong; they're always wrong"
Of course, Gavin Schmidt did say that, but the climate denier misunderstood, either deliberately or out of ignorance, the meaning of that quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
And, of course, Gavin Schmidt is an expert on climate models and a trustworthy source of information on climate change, despite the implication of that cherry-picked quote that was taken out of thecontext of his TED Talk which was in support of climate models:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
-
BillyJoe at 12:02 PM on 11 February 2020On climate misinformation and accountability
The section "Climate Misinformation by Source" looks very out of date with the most recent entries being from 2013, and some not updated since 2009. Perhaps the misinformers just recycle all their old arguments endlessly and haven't come up with any new arguments since 2013? A couple of the entries are actually blank. Also, have there been no new misinformers since 2013? Just asking because I don't know, although, off-hand, I can't think of any not included in the existing list.
-
Eclectic at 11:49 AM on 11 February 2020CO2 effect is saturated
Dlen @582 , I am puzzled by what you say in your fourth-to-last paragraph.
Surely, regardless of the number of "frosted glass panes", the power arriving (upwards) at the top must always be the same* and equal to the solar heat entering the system (the system being the sub-TOA system i.e. the planet minus the stratosphere).
Of course, the same* will be very slightly more - or less - according to whether the planet is cooling or warming in transition to a new equilibrium surface temperature.
-
dlen at 11:10 AM on 11 February 2020CO2 effect is saturated
@ 580 and 581.
First thx for investing thought about it, which may make things clearer.
I would like to refer to the reference to Angströms experiment in the first part of the "advanced debunking". Not all outgoing IR is absorbed, there is this absorption window (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/) . But a certain IR band is absorbed by CO2, and for this band, the absorption lenght is in the order of magnitude of some meters at sea level. This is what I meant with "saturated".
BTW, this is the first point of the myth, which is actually not true, as stated above, because only the IR outside the transmission window will be absorbed.
So the heat energy has to propagate via multiple absorptions to the top layer. You are right, insofar having more CO2 molecules will already hamper this propagation process. My image for this is a stack of frosted glass, each representing one absorption length. The IR will be absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by each pane. To add CO2 means then to add a lot more of those panes. And those will increase the ratio between input and output power.
I have my difficulties with the statement, that the increase of the CO2 concentration pushes the emission layer up, where it is colder, where therefore less heat will be emitted. For me it's the other way around: because more "frosted glass panes" alias absorption lengths are stacked within the atmosphere, we have less power arriving at the top and therefore its temperature will be lower.
This - the lower top atmosphere temperature - is only the case as long as the earth is still warming up. In a new equilibrium, a couple of years after we hopefully managed to keep the CO2-level steady, the top atmosphere will be as warm as before, because it will emit exactly all incoming power. Only of course the surface temperature will be much higher than before.
With the word "complex", I tried to express a certain diffuse discontent with the explanation above. It has actually not explained, how in earth the heat, having been absorbed in the first meter or so, manages to reach the top layer in 50 km or so height nonetheless. Only if we give this explanation, we can make the effect of the additional absorption plausible.
The water metaphor is not bad, but it is a boundary - and conservation-of-energy argument. To use the actual propagation mechanism between the boundaries would imho more enlightening.
-
Eclectic at 10:02 AM on 11 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Thanks, Moderator @13 , for the sockpuppet notification.
I won't ask which rather puerile puppeteer it was. Being an optimist at heart, when I see a comment containing undertones of passive-aggression & deliberate fatuousness . . . I nevertheless think there's a 20% chance the comment comes from a clumsily laconic innocent. In this case, perhaps closer to a 10% chance, though !
-
PenguinHype at 05:28 AM on 11 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
I've been keeping an eye on the increasing rise in global tempature, and decided to do a bit of investigating after Antartica's new record of 65 degrees. Little did I expect to stumble upon such researched conversation, and better yet, the intellectual slamming nearly brought tears of joy to my eyes. Reading through this banter made my day, and has left me more educated about our collective crisis. You may see my contribution to this thread as a waste, and I don't care, but for your average Joe the comparison to Atomic bombs helps put things into perspective. In case your were curious about the opinion of a "lesser" mind.
-
Eclectic at 23:46 PM on 10 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Franklefkin @11 , to add to MA Rodger's comment :-
the moderator was not referring to the ocean temperature rise, but to the heating (from global warming) of the ocean.
You were incorrect ~ in stating that the instruments could not determine a small temperature change (such as the 0.09 figure you yourself nominated). Was this the point you wish to dispute?
The ocean covers 70% of the planetary surface, and has an average depth of around 4,000 meters. The ocean is warming, but not uniformly from 0.1 meter down to 4,000 meters of depth. Therefore there is little point in trying to specify an average oceanic temperature rise in degrees per year or per decade. OHC (ocean heat content) is the logical measurement. Was this another point you wish to dispute?
"Metrology" arguments would belong in a different thread than this one.
Moderator Response:[DB] You make sage points, but the user to which you are responding is a sock puppet and has thus recused itself from further participation here.
-
MA Rodger at 23:37 PM on 10 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
franklefkin @11,
You ask for "the actual temp rise of the oceans per decade" having been told-off for suggesting @5 that some unspecified "it" was warming at "~0.09 C/decade" adding that this rate was "less than the capability of the instruments to differentiate." Note that your definition of ocean temperature here is still not complete.
According to NOAA data, global SST has been rising at +0.13ºC/decade, a value evidently within "the capability of the instruments to differentiate."
Mind, the usual quantity which those suffering denial over AGW seem to enjoy bandying-about is the average increase in temperature for the entirety of the ocean's waters. That is a simple calculation. By taking the 0-2000m dOHC as representative of the entire ocean (again a value evidently within "the capability of the instruments to differentiate."), over the last 5 years we get +107 ZJperDecade /(1.4e21kg x 4200J/ºC) = +0.02ºC/decade.
-
franklefkin at 22:31 PM on 10 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Mod response @# 5
You say I am incorrect, yet fail to state what you feel (or what you determine credible sources state) the actual temp rise of the oceans per decade is!
What is it?
-
John Hartz at 08:15 AM on 10 February 2020It's cooling
Recommended supplermental rearding:
Claims of a coming 30-year “mini ice age” are not supported by science, Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Feb 6, 2020
-
Martin123 at 04:57 AM on 10 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
I hope this is on topic. The news roundup seems to refer to (amoung other topics) the fossil fuel industry. Otherwise, please point me to an approriate thread.
I would like to share this link to an article (in German) on undercover journalism. They talked to EIKE, a German outfit and in particular the Heartland Institute. The journalists claimed to be representatives of a German car copmany, wanting to donate € 500 000 anomously to influence public opinion. James Taylor, head of HI, explained in detail, how this would work, how you could buy statements and complete studies from experts and scientists, push buzz words on youtube, etc. He also pointed out that it would be much better to donate the money to them rather than EIKE. Even though EIKE and HI cooperate a lot. Not above stiffing their partner!
Link Correctiv
I might have suspected such obnoxious behavior. But knowing it, is something different.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for your post. The comment threads of both the Weekly News Roundup and of the Weekly digest effectively function as open threads.
-
MA Rodger at 20:20 PM on 9 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
eschwarzbach @9,
Yes, although I think it is "would be" rather than "could be".
The definitions of Climate Forcing tend not to help in respect of AGW as they describe a Forcing as the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. So this NOAA webpage says "The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planet’s radiative forcing (RF)." Such a definition is fine if it concerns a one-off event. But when it is an on-going process like AGW, it becomes confusing as the TOA energy imbalance will never match the total applied Forcing as the climate will be reacting to the imbalance before it is fully applied.
-
michael sweet at 09:55 AM on 9 February 2020IPCC global warming projections were wrong
My spell checker keeps changing your handle bjchip. Sorry.
-
michael sweet at 09:54 AM on 9 February 2020IPCC global warming projections were wrong
I am very sorry I misspelled your handle Virgil.
-
michael sweet at 09:53 AM on 9 February 2020IPCC global warming projections were wrong
Bishop,
Thank you for your insightful comment. All the OP's on SkS are written by volunteers. You could write an updated OP and submit it. Be sure to cite where you get the updated data from.
-
bjchip at 04:08 AM on 9 February 2020IPCC global warming projections were wrong
I understand that the graph from the IPCC "is what it was" but it does not reflect the current temperature record and it is NOW being used to claim that the model projections were wrong.
Yes I know that anyone who believes that is being foolish but for those "skeptics" who actually refer to this site, such things can be weaponized. I suggest we keep the original and then show it with the current added in.
-
eschwarzbach at 18:35 PM on 8 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Sorry for the terrible typo Hohnson/Johnson. Thanks MA Rodger @4 for the explanation and providing the pdf of Cheng´s et al 2020 paper, describing the accelerating Earths heating from 0.38 W m^-2 over the last 60 years to 1.2 W m^-2 in the last 5 years and the large hike in 2019 (table 1). Am I right, that the total forcing is just a "could be" in absence of extra energy leaking out into space due to a hotter globe?
-
Eclectic at 04:59 AM on 8 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Ed Leaver @6 ,
I am appalled at your suggestion.
Surely you were meaning to say <FestivusTreeLights> [for Seinfeld fans]
-
Eclectic at 04:56 AM on 8 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Franklefkin @5 ,
Yay ! 0.09 C/decade sounds good. Or even 0.14 C/decade . . . or maybe 0.20 C/decade (depending on which decade you wish to ignore).
Trouble is, the pesky ole planet - a.k.a. the real physical world - keeps on responding to the increasing heat, rather than to the kitchen-thermometer figure showing on the cupboard door. World ice keeps melting, world sea level keeps rising . . . gosh, it's almost enough to make ordinary folks think we got ourselves a real problem!
Easier to go with the parable of the frog in the warming pot of water ~ just hang around, eyes closed, saying nothing . . . until we croak ;-)
-
ed leaver at 03:33 AM on 8 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Color me old, but I prefer units of <ChristmasTreeLights>/<square meter>. Easier to visualize. 1.2W/m^2 is roughly 10 mini incandesent lights per square meter of land — UL won't let us string them over water — or nearly one of the older 5 W bulbs we so fondly remember. Countinuous, 24/7, throughout the year.
The problem with Hiros/second is they're so effervescent. That, and they are used by many of the No Nukes! contigent to simultaneously whip up anti-nuclear power sentiment, and consquent excuse to frack more gas and burn more coal.
So I stick with ChistmasTrees/m^2. They're a constant reminder and are carbon neutral.
-
franklefkin at 02:21 AM on 8 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
"...compares to the energy in Hurricane Sandy, or 6.0 magnitude earthquakes, or Big Bens full of dynamite, or millions of lightning bolts."
Why not keep it simple, in degrees C. So it is ~0.09 C/decade, less than the capability of the instruments to differentiate.
Moderator Response:[DB] "So it is ~0.09 C/decade, less than the capability of the instruments to differentiate"
Incorrect. Couple with the power of large numbers and using mathematical averaging, Scientists have quantified the warming caused by human activities since preindustrial times and compared that to natural temperature forcings.
Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.
By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).
What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/#fig-2-3
In the early 20th century human activities caused about one-third of the observed warming and most of the rest was due to low volcanic activity. Since about 1950 it's all humans and their activities.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522
Further, the detection of the human fingerprint in the observed tropospheric warming caused by the increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2 has reached 6-sigma levels of accuracy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0424-xPlease cite credible for sources for claims running counter to the published science. Thanks!
-
MA Rodger at 20:19 PM on 7 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
eschwarzbach @2,
Like Eclectoic @3, I presuime you meant to cite Johnson, Lyman & Loeb (2016) 'Improving estimates of Earth's energy imbalance' [full text] who do estimate the global energy imbalance 2005-15 as being "0.71±0.10 W m^-2" (which I calculate as 4 Hiroshima's/second). The OP cites Cheng et al (2020) which puts the annual increase in ocean heat content (the bulk of global warming due to the imbalance is ocean warming) for 2015-19 at 19ZJ = 1.2 Wm^-2.
The net global forcing is a different number of which the energy imbalance is but a part. Additional to the imbalance is the extra energy leaking out into space because the globe is now hotter than it was pre-industrial. If the warming-so-far is 1ºC, and ECS=3ºC for a doubling of CO2 (3.7Wm^-2), the climate forcing required to support that 1ºC warming would be 0.8Wm^-2. From this, using Cheng et al, we can infer a net global forcing of roughly 2Wm^-2.
Of course, the difficulty with directly assessing the value of net forcing is the negative component. The positive component is relatively exact with NOAA's AGGI standing at 3Wm^-2 (2015-18) suggesting a negative forcing of roughly 1Wm^-2.
-
Eclectic at 19:28 PM on 7 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
Eschwarzbach @2 ,
Please please please be careful to avoid typo errors in critical information ~ such as the scientific author's name. From your own moniker, I assumed the author might be German or Scandinavian but I eventually circled back to the common English name Johnson. And a great host of papers.
I did find a Johnson et al, 2016 ~ with planetary energy connection. But no Extract. Can you supply the paper's Extract for the readers here? Thanks.
-
eschwarzbach at 17:42 PM on 7 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
No doubt, the Earth is warming. But the number of Hiroshima bombs per second is uncertain. Most recent estimates of Earths energy imbalance is approx. 0.7 W/m2 (Hohnson et al. 2016), while the sum of all positive and negative forcings is in most papers, even Wikipedia, somewhere at 2 W/m2 or more. I have no idea, which figure is right or more reliable. Can anybody help me?
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:53 PM on 7 February 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #5, 2020
Thanks for that link, Nigel.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 7 February 2020Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to five atomic bombs per second
You could always change it to xyz tons of gun powder exploding per second. This would be an impressively huge number.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:34 PM on 6 February 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #5, 2020
Here is news coverage of a study report prepared for the UK Government.
The basic point is that a thoughtful evaluation has concluded that technological developments are unlikely to develop in time for the UK to meet its legal requirement to be Carbon-Neutral by 2050.
My understanding has been that a while ago global leadership in the 'supposedly most advanced nations' negligently passed the point in time where their aggressive encouragement of development of the required alternatives to fossil fuels had a chance of meeting the long established 'understood to be harmful but reasonably safe impact limit of 1.5 C'.
That irresponsible leadership has tried to declare that 2.0 C would be OK and that technological developments would 'be the solution'. They likely did it because the alternative was 'less popular' and certainly 'less profitable for the status quo'.
Reality Bites:
- !.5 C impacts remains understood to be harmful to the future of humanity, but a reasonably safe limit of impacts.
- Even if all of the 'supposedly most advanced nations' matched the UK commitment to be carbon-neutral by 2050, and all the developing nations committed to rapidly transition their development so that their carbon-neutral moments were shortly after 2050, and collectively the responsible advancement of prosperity of the poor effectively reduced birth rates, the total global impact could still exceed the 1.5 C impact limit (and potentially exceed the much more harmful 2.0 C level of impacts), especially if the higher impacting portion of the current generation was allowed to resist rapidly reducing their elective enjoyment consumption - continuing unnecessary CO2 impacting consumption that they enjoy, actions claimed to be 'so essential to the happier and easier living of the population that enjoys it that it is justified to be continued to the detriment of all future generations of humanity until a cheaper and easier less harmful way of getting that Joy is developed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:21 AM on 6 February 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
ilfark2 @15,
The required correction of what has developed includes 'ending all burning of fossil fuels', not just transitioning the major fossil fuel uses to alternatives. That requires changing the behaviours of 'everyone'.
You still provide no basis for claiming that Carbon Taxes cannot be a helpful part of the actions taken to rapidly eliminate the production of excess CO2. As a disruptive challenge to dispute your claim, an immediate imposition of a $2000 per tonne carbon tax would cause incredibly significant and rapid disruptions of the developed status quo. It appears you are not discussing the effectiveness of an action. You are discussing the 'Popular support for what can be done'.
Backing down from the 'very disruptive' immediate $2000 per tonne tax, a high and steadily increasing carbon tax that is rebated to the middle income earning and poorer portion of the population is likely to be a very effective 'disruption' of the status quo that motivates changes of 'everyone's behaviour'. And all of the economic evaluations of the expected results of 'only using a carbon tax' prove that a Price on Carbon would be helpful.
What can be claimed is that a portion of humanity have incorrectly developed the belief that taxes are bad. And those people are also likely to believe that government motivation and restriction of activity is as bad or worse. Therefore, those opposed to the benefit of taxes would also likely oppose the idea that government intervention could be Good.
I personally believe that the competitive marketplace can be a very effective mechanism for encouraging the development of new ideas and sorting the effectiveness, incorporating regional differences. The following are harmfully missing from the developed systems:
- screening to effectively keep harmful unsustainable alternatives from being allowed to compete (they are cheaper and easier to do which gives them a competitive advantage), including screening of activity that has already developed popularity and profitability.
- effective efforts to ensure that misleading marketing fails to impress people. Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements needs to govern all actions.
The corrective actions I see being required to be used along with helpful evaluation tools like En-ROADS include Government Restrictions on harmful unsustainable activities, including actions to terminate developed but unsustainable activity and actions to make misleading marketing undesirable and unsuccessful. And Government can implement generic incentives for helpful corrections and new sustainable developments. That governing to encourage helpful sustainable developments and limiting of what is allowed, including tax penalties as a method of correction, should be the limit of government in the marketplace but also be required actions of government in the marketplace.
Government should not be 'the mechanism for identifying the better choices among potential helpful new developments'. Government action towards specific alternatives should only be the expansion of awareness and understanding required to determine what to disqualify because it is a harmful unsustainable alternative.
Carbon taxes will undeniably be helpful regardless of what type of leadership is in power. Government efforts to direct economic changes could fail to be helpful, and with the wrong type of people in the positions of leadership it can be very harmful.
-
purrmonster at 00:00 AM on 6 February 2020Why is the Keeling curve so curvy?
The maxim I learned is "Spring comes in May in Siberia" to explain the shapes of the wiggles. Because yes, the two hemispheres have opposite cycles, but the land masses in the northern hemisphere dominate, and the bulk of Siberia dominates the whole.
-
Evan at 23:46 PM on 5 February 2020Why is the Keeling curve so curvy?
Very nice explanation of the Keeling Curve John and why our seemingly insignificant CO2 emissions matter.
-
nigelj at 11:50 AM on 5 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
Yes good on Mann. Its about time the scientific community was just a little bit more, whats the word, pointedly critical of the denialists, but in a humorous way.
What intrigued me is when he said "Im not relying on evidence". Bet he didn't mean for that to slip out. Bit of a freudian slip perhaps.
Someone should have asked him what he was relying on. Fairy dust perhaps.
-
RedBaron at 06:39 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
Indigo's goal is to sequester all the legacy carbon in the atmosphere in a matter of a few decades. They have gone through serval fundraising rounds and last I heard the two biggest investors were the Dubai sovereign fund and the Alaska permanent fund, both are outlets for oil money.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
So Indigo agriculture subsidises farmers to use regnerative farming. Does anyone know who funds indigo agriculture?
20% of yearly emissions sequestered sounds good.
-
ilfark2 at 05:18 AM on 5 February 2020With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming
not sure where i got the 60% from,
but IEA, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php,
notes 45% of US CO2 emission is from petroleum (which would include lots of trucks that should be trains, i imagine)
In the past all large transformations occurred from either massive government or popular (or both) intervention.
Taxes and subsidies sometimes played a role, but only a very minimal, marginal role. Best e.g. I know of is the centrally planned US WWII mobilization. Taxes and subsidies played a part, but they were not used in conjunction with a market.
If you plan to use taxes and subsidies in conjunction with markets, it will take 50 to 100 years.
A large part of this is capitalist systems become captured by first movers. Rail, coal, steel, autos, financials, media, web, software have all demonstrated this repeatedly. That's why we still have 19th century technology heat engines for transport.
At this point to get to 0 emissions in a timely fashion, we will have to have planned resource allocation.
Ideally we'd do it democratically. More likely it would be sort of representatively democratic or even more likely done the way whoever ends up in charge of it thinks it should go (like the US WWII mobilization).
In any case, taxes and subsidies will play a small, if any part.
Otherwise we'll bumble along as we are for a while until things get bad enough for somebody to block enough sun with SO2 to trigger snowball earth...
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
william5331 at 04:56 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
For a great take on regenerative agriculture, it would be hard to find a better book than Growing a Revolution by David R Montgomery. He also wrote a previous book, Dirt, in which he described the fate of civilizations that treated their soil like dirt and a sequel, The Hidding Half of Nature in which he describes the inner working of rich organic (carbon rich) soil. Rumors are that he is now working on a book on the food value of crops grown in rich organic soil vs crops grown in depleated soil.
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:46 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
RedBaron, pardon me if I'm telling you what you already know but there are a few specialist crowdfunding sites to help with scientific experimentation.
https://experiment.com/ is one I've used (as a funder)
Possibly you might have better results with a crowd particularly interested in funding science.
-
RedBaron at 04:10 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
Capacity is plenty to cover both mens estimates and some. The kicker is and always was rate.
5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr has been repeated multiple times around the world in the field by land managers.
Dr David Johnsons results are higher, but these are research plot numbers, not results from commercial land managers/farmers/ranchers attempting to use Dr Johnson's methods. I only know of one or two examples of anyone obtaining results comparable, so this could be an outlier, or it could be yet another big breakthough comparable to the LCP.
I don't doubt what Dr Johnson has done is possible, but how easily it is repeatable is an unknown for me right now. I will however attempt to repeat his numbers myself in my own research plots. That is if I can manage to round up enough money for a series of 16S and 18S analyses and some equipment. My attempts to raise money for my research has not gone particularly well so far. I know I don't have the funds for the more expensive detailed tests. My attempt to gain funding from the Indigo challenge was also unsuccessful, although I certainly applied.
Considering how he claims he got those results, I am a bit surprised though. Till now I never thought I'd see numbers like that on that side of the system. Although it may be that somehow while he may think this is saprophytic carbon being sequestered it is in the end really mostly mycorrhizal carbon from the LCP that has somehow trapped additional decaying organic material from the saprophytic organisms. That's just a hypothesis of mine though. I obviously have not tested it yet. I am basing it on this: Glomalin, the Unsung Hero of Carbon Storage
"Glomalin is a sticky protein produced by root-dwelling fungi and sloughed into soil as roots grow. By gluing soil particles and organic matter together, it stabilizes soil and keeps carbon from escaping into the atmosphere. In an earlier study, Wright found that glomalin serves as a corrective to global warming because it increases with carbon dioxide levels."
Notice that while glomalin itself is a carbon compound, it actually binds other organic compounds and traps them, preventing their oxidation and release back as CO2. It is possible that is what Dr Johnson is managing to optimize, since compost is clearly the saprophytic side (Labile fraction of soil carbon) and usually decays back to CO2 almost entirely. That leaves an interesting level of complexity to investigate. I have been following Dr Johnsons results for a while now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 5 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
The public reaction seen in the live TV broadcast that Michael Sweet's comment @3 provided a link to is indeed encouraging.
However, the reasons people vote the way they do is what needs to change, not just the expression of public moments of ridicule.
Many people who understand that the developed attitudes and actions of most of the more fortunate humans are causing significant unacceptable climate change to occur will continue to vote for candidates and parties they know do not share that understanding and the need for correction. They will vote for candidates and parties that have a proven a history of resisting expanded awareness, resisting improving understanding, resisting applying learning to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity, resisting correction.
Some people will understand they should dislike a Leader, or leadership candidate, who proves they lack the ability to responsibly perform the duties of their elected office like the "booed at Senator". But they will still vote for that type of individual or party "for other reasons". And, tragically, what many of those types of voters will fail to realize is that the "other reasons" they have for voting for that type of candidate or party are also resistance to expanded awareness, improved understanding and correction of unjustified developed beliefs and related harmful unsustainable actions.
The pursuit of Sustainable Development is a response to the harmful developments that have been occurring. And many of the wealthy and powerful have responded to the expanded awareness and improved understanding of the corrections of what has developed in order to achieve Sustainable Development by gathering up the diversity of "resistance to Sustainable Development Corrections" into United Political Groups as a way to divisively polarize societies in order to prolong the winning by a Collective Diversity of Resistance to Sustainable Development Correction. They, like the Senator, demand the freedom to believe whatever they want as the justification for resisting the correction of something they have developed a liking for. They like the freedom to continue to do what they like. They dislike "Any External Governing/Limiting of their behaviour, and any related corrections of beliefs".
-
Nick Palmer at 02:52 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
Lal's calculations as to how much C an be sequestered are regarded as very much at the low end of the spread of predictions. The results of Dr David Johnson of NMU suggest a surprisingly larger capacity is available. Red Baron?
-
Paul_Belanger at 02:07 AM on 5 February 2020Startups aim to pay farmers to bury carbon pollution in soil
This is all very good - soil regeneration is a win-win for us all. However it can be an even bigger win if you include biochar into the mix and burial into the soil - unlike compost it stays in the soil for 100s of years: ON BIOCHAR - A MUST READ – Burn; using fire to cool the Earth by Albert Bate and Kathleen Draper. Encourage your libraries and local bookstores to buy it.
-
Morchea at 01:19 AM on 5 February 2020Too late to stop Climate Change?
Hi,
I created a poll to get a feeling of what people are doing to reverse Climate Change in different parts of the world:
Please participate ! Thanks.
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and activated URL
-
michael sweet at 23:21 PM on 4 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
On a live TV broadcast in Australia a Senator is booed by the audience when he says he questions in climate change is "human caused" He says "my mind is open" based on "I'm not relying on evidence".
Michael Man responds "you should keep open mind but not so open your brain falls out" (2:00, the very end).
Three cheers for Michael Mann!!! On live TV!!
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:14 AM on 4 February 2020Models are unreliable
Worth reading about the subject: latest update at Real Climate. CMIP 3 seems to be doing quite good.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/update-day-2020/
-
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 3 February 2020CO2 is just a trace gas
Bruce 47. One issue is that the "greenhouse" effect is inapprobiately named. It doesnt work like a greenhouse which makes "simple" experiments interesting depending on you what are trying to measure. In a lab, you can measure the absorption of sunlight by increasing the CO2 concentration. However, you would quickly conclude as Angstrom did, that you can saturate the effect. However, in the real structure of the atmosphere, temperature and pressure varies with height and as a result you cannot saturate the effect. An experiment to demonstrate this would somewhat large...
However, the change in radiation as CO2 increases can be measured though it is not a simple design. See here for details. More indirect measures of the change have been done by both measuring change at surface (eg Evans 2006) or to outgoing radiation from space (eg Harries 2001).
-
michael sweet at 09:14 AM on 3 February 2020Milankovitch Cycles
MAP,
In general, if you think of a question scientists have answered it.
If not for humans the descent into the next glacial period would have started several thousand years ago. The hockey stick shows declining temperature until 1850. The descent would have been faster but human land use slowed it down.
-
Map at 08:30 AM on 3 February 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Moderator JH I would like to point out again comment @49 was a duplicate that can be deleted as well as this comment. A user here pointed me to an interesting website that answers most of my questions which is what I was hoping for. I will not be asking more here
Moderator Response:[JH] At the end of the day, we all do what we consider to be in our own self interest.
-
Map at 08:01 AM on 3 February 2020CO2 lags temperature
Philippe chantreau thank you, that link will answer many of the questions that this discussion would have led me to ask.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:34 AM on 3 February 2020CO2 lags temperature
Map,
The length of the cycle is 100,000. We reached the interglacial stage about 12,000 years ago (consider it the end of the cycle, or beginning, I'm not sure it matters), and what is known as the Holocene climatic optimum is centered around 7-8,000 years ago, depending on proxies.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Plenty of references on that page for data and publications.
-
Map at 07:08 AM on 3 February 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Moderator JH, I would like to ask, if the website is named skeptical science and most people in the scientific community agree with global warming, then why are all of the skeptics expected to formulate their questions like a scientist? Also want to point out post @47 somehow duplicated into @49
Moderator Response:[JH] Septics of mainstream science are more than welcome to post comments on this website if they are polite and abide by the rules. Skeptics who cannot and/or will not document the source of their assertions are, by and large, wasting everyone else's time. They are effectively functioning as "climate science deniers" who grossly underestimate the climate science knowledge base of the regulars who post and respond to comments.
To learn more about why the name Skeptical Science was chosen, click on the "About" button in the blue bar on the top of each page.
-
Map at 07:04 AM on 3 February 2020Milankovitch Cycles
Scaddenp thank you, that graph show exactly what I was looking for. Interesting that it shows the opposite of what I was comprehending before with the albedo on land mass.
Prev 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Next
