Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 Next
Comments 21901 to 21950:
-
scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 20 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Implicit in your statement above is the belief that a native grazed grassland will sequester carbon and at a rate above that of enteric emissions and one that doesnt is somehow wrong. This is clearly not necessarily a given as a naturally changing bioeme can transition from grassland to desert with changing climate. I will agree that a naturally developing soil will sequester carbon but not necessarily at a rate to also cover emissions from grazing animals. Once you increase the herd size to farming level intensities, then it is even less of given. Our native grasslands most certainly do not sequester carbon very quickly and grazing at even low intensities makes matter worse. Is it your bioeme that is abnormal?
"The trick would be to figure out what piece of the puzzle is missing in that farm." Remember that this is hardly just this farm - maintaining SOC on grazing land here has been puzzle for a very long time with a lot intensive research. Figuring out the puzzle is very much an interesting question. So yes, I am very curious to know what the main species mix is in US native grasslands. Even a C3/C4 ratio would be interesting.
-
RedBaron at 09:46 AM on 20 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
@scaddenp,
First off to really get a handle on what I mean by "normal grassland" you must go back to who started the whole MIRG concept. That was Andre' Voisin.
There have been a whole lot of improvements since then, but that's who really started the scientific method as it applies to rotational grazing. Or as he called it "rational grazing". And the main principle that flows through all the various forms and versions that have been developed from his work is using a natural biome as a blueprint or framework in designing the artificial agricultural system. In agriculture of course we can select carefully species and genomes of plants and animals to optimise yields and productivity, but always in the back of your mind should be , "How does this mimick a native grassland in terms of ecosystem function?" This way we are much less likely to have failures in ecosystem function like the farm in your case study, regarding either CO2 sequestration and/or methane oxidation. If you get it right, you will observe big increases in yields along side radical reductions in inputs and increasing soil fertility every year (including significant carbon increases). Get it wrong and you might be able to maintain productivity only by increasing inputs.
The trick would be to figure out what piece of the puzzle is missing in that farm. It could be legumes or other species of forbs. It could be the wrong blend of C3 to C4 grasses. It could be the wrong mix of soil biology whether worms, small arthropods, nematodes, insects and such or microbiology like AMF and/or saprophytic fungi, diazatrophs, methanotrophs, endophytes, other types of bacteria etc... Could be the fertilizer regime. Could be all or none of these. But what we can say for sure, that pasture is not functioning like any native grassland. That we can observe and has been observed in the case study.
So if it was MY pasture, I would trial various changes with controls and just observe what happens. I would chose those changes based on my understanding of native grasslands which are typically far more productive than planted pastures all else equal. Where that pasture may have one or two species of grass, a native grassland might have 100 or more species of grasses and forbs. Eventually if I get the ecosystem function right, then the genetics should allow me to surpass a native grassland in productivity, because each new species I add will be selected with that in mind.
Now in USA we typically don't have to do what you need to do there. The great plains region already has a huge dormant seed bank in the soils. The added species just "show up" one day as if by magic when conditions are right. We might add a few here and there, but generally we don't need to build a whole ecosystem from scratch like you Kiwis need to do. Even guys who started this literally on farms so degraded that bedrock was peeking through the surface still generally don't need to seed pastures, or add soil microbes. Some do to speed the process, but most have no need.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:28 AM on 20 December 2016There's no empirical evidence
I will briefly add that, were we to ignore complications and work back to a climate response based on the difference between Venus' and Earth's surface temperatures by the loglinear rule, we would estimate the climate response per doubling of CO2 to be 70o K. Obviously too large, for reasons given @317, but certainly not the basis for concluding that CO2 can have no significant effect on global temperatures (the conclusiong Jeff18 is angling for). The 70oK figure, like Jeff18's 0.08oK temperature impact for 25% of current CO2 concentrations on Earth, are both examples of Garbage In, Garbage Out.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:27 AM on 20 December 2016There's no empirical evidence
Jeff18.
That isn't the way to calculate it.
Here is how the greenhouse effect works.- A planet tends towards being in radiative balance. It has to radiate as much energy as infrared to space as it absorbs from sunlight.
- Where this radiation to space originates from is determined by the quantity of GH gases. Where the amount of GH gases in the air column is higher, lower in the atmosphere, the air is optically thick. It is essentially opaque and absorbs virtually all the infrared passing through it. So any IR from below or IR radiated here by the atmosphere can't escape to space. Only at higher altitude, where the air grows thinner does it become possible for IR to start escaping to space. The air becomes optically thin. So all the radiation to space is originating from these higher altitudes, not the surface. GH gas concentrations determine how high this transition to optical thinness occurs at. Then radiative balance drives this altitude to be at the temperature required to achieve balance.
- In any atmosphere where vertical air movement occurs, there is a vertical temperature profile called the Lapse Rate. It gets colder as you go up, or conversely warmer as you go down. On Earth this figure is around 6.5 C for every kilometer of height.
Putting these together, the balance temperature for Earth is-18C. The average altitude where the transition to optical thinness occurs is around 5 km up. So this level in the tmosphere tends towards -18C. Then the Lapse rate warms the air below and cools the air above this altitude. So the surface is at around -18 +(5 * 6.5) = +14.5 C. About right. And the 10 km level is at around -18 -(5 * 6.5) = -50.5 C About right.
Lets do the math for Venus.
With that super dense atmosphere its effective emission altitude is over 50 km up. Its balance temperature is actually lower than the Earth. Although it is closer to the Sun and receives twice as much sunlight, it is far more reflective. Earth reflects around 30% of the sunlight that strikes it and only absorbs 70%. The Bond Albedo of Venus is 0.9 so Venus only absorbs 10% of the sunlight that strikes it so only 2/7ths of what the Earth absorbs. So its equilibrium temperature is actually more like -85 C
And the Lapse Rate on Venus is around 10.2 C/km. It is this much higher because there is no condensation of water which lowers the Lapse Rate on Venus.
So putting the numbers together -85 + (10.2 * 50+) gives over 425 C - about right. -
Tom Curtis at 09:15 AM on 20 December 2016There's no empirical evidence
Jeff18 @315, the temperature response to increased CO2 in the atmosphere approximates to a linear increase for each doubling of CO2. Thus, you will get the same temperature response for increasing the CO2 concentration from 140 ppmv to 280 ppmv (ie, from half the industrial to the industrial concentration) as you would for increasing it from 280 to 560 ppmv.
Clearly this relationship does not hold across all concentrations of CO2, for if it did, there would be an infinite temperature increase from 0 ppmv to any finite value. Checking with modtran, the relationship holds from approximately from 16 to 4000 ppmv, ie, the full range of reasonable expectations of past and future CO2 concentrations on Earth - but it is not straighforwardly transferable to the situation on Venus.
Further complicating things, temperature varies with the fourth root of energy, so that a linear increase in forcing (W/m^2) will be associated with a less than linear increase in temperature, particularly when there is not fluid H2O on the planet as with Venus. Consequently no simple rule of thumb formula will give very accurate results for the effect in changes in CO2 concentration for Venus. This is important because applying the loglinear (linear increase with each doubling) mentioned by Tristan as a best approximation would lead us to expect a surface temperature on Venus elevated by only 80oK, which is far to small. Better results can be obtained by using the formula that surface temperature equals the lapse rate times the effective altitude or radiation to space of IR radiation from the atmosphere, where that altitude is determined by radiation models of Venus' atmosphere. Better still is the application of the full theory of the greenhouse in the form of climate models, which can predict with reasonable accuracy the actual surface temperature (and have done so since 1980).
Finally, I suggest you read this post by Chris Colose, and that we conduct any further discussion on this in that thread (where it is on topic).
-
scaddenp at 07:25 AM on 20 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
"not functioning like a normal grassland" is the core of issue for me. Which set of studies represent "normal". The abstract is maddening low on important detail as you say and will have to wait for full publication, but this study is showing better results than early ones - it is "abnormal" for here and makes me suspicious that result is due to location and being on degraded soil. You can however safely assume that applied nitrogen will be urea with rates and timing determined from some reasonably sophisicated models, but these are for optimizing production/cost not SOC.
Comprehensive studies of full GHG emissions (N2O, CH4 and CO2) from pasture plus SOC from MIRG in US have eluded me. Maybe it was in references you have given me already but obviously not in one that I saved.
Just chatting with a grasslands ecologist who is in my building (not an agricultural scientist however but intrigued by the problem). He has asked if you could point us to a reference for the grass species commonly used in MIRG with good CO2 and CH4 uptake? (especially interested to know whether there are any C4 species involved).
-
Tristan at 06:14 AM on 20 December 2016There's no empirical evidence
Hi Jeff
The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not linear - it's loglinear. decreasing the atmospherice concentration of CO2 by 1% does not decrease the amount of energy reradiated back to the surface by 1%.
-
william5331 at 05:29 AM on 20 December 2016On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
DeCaprio has the right approach. Don't talk to Donald Trump about climate change. Talk to him about all the job creation from installing and maintaining renewable energy. Talk to him also about all that wealth flowing to the oil proucing countries that he could use for his works programs. Point out that this money comes back into the USA to buy up American businesses who then have to pay dividends to the oil barrons. More money flowing out of America. Some goes into buying off terrorists who then use the funds to attack America. Read the man and present the arguments he will understand and appriciate.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
william5331 at 04:47 AM on 20 December 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
If we are now makeing a strategic retreat and talking about living with climate change rather than (or in addition to) trying to stop it, we need a substitute for Glaciers. We need something that will hold water during off-growing periods and release the water in the summer. We need to hold the water on the land in order to recharge water tables rather than letting the water rush down to the sea. It would also be nice to catch silt from poor farming and poor land use and keep it where it will so some good in the future. If in addition we can improve our ecology, that would be a bonus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM
-
Jeff18 at 04:13 AM on 20 December 2016There's no empirical evidence
I have yet to find the answer to the following problem. Consider the atmosphere of Venus is almost 100% CO2. Not quite, but close enough. The surface temperature is about 800 degrees. Let's ignore for now the fact that Venus is closer to the sun which would make the effect of CO2 less. And also ignore that the atmospheric pressure is much higher than that of Earth. So, 100% CO2 would make the temperature 800 degrees warmer, 1% would make it 8 degrees warmer and .01% would make it .08 degrees warmer. The .01% number is roughly the increase in CO2 over older estimates. Now if we factor in that Venus is much closer to the sun and the atmosphere of Venus contains a whole lot more CO2, the .08 degree number would drop much more. It would seem by this method that the actual effect of CO2 is not large. I have sent this little story to various people and no seems to want to respond. Anyone?
-
CBDunkerson at 23:50 PM on 19 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
The problem of CO2 emissions >is< going to go away on its own... eventually.
Indeed, that has always been the case. If nothing else, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels to burn.
However, that does not mean that we can just kick back and wait for it to happen. Indeed, the whole point is that we need to deal with global warming before it gets to the point that it is self-correcting.
Coal is obviously on its way out. It will not be a major component of electricity production anywhere in the world "decades" from now. However, how quickly we phase it out, to say nothing of oil and natural gas, is still very important.
-
RedBaron at 23:00 PM on 19 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
@scaddencamp,
Still troubling that synthetic fertilizers are used. Particularly nitrogen. I know how harsh that is on soil biology. But seeing as how I don't have a side by side compareson on that farm as a control to compare, it would be difficult to say for certain. I have never seen anyone optimize soil carbon either by the LCP or by methane oxidation where they used any haber process ammonia (NH3) or Ammonium (NH4) at all. Not only is it not needed and in the long run it reduces nitrogen availability, it also is quite harsh on soil biology, particularly earthworms. Considering their function in aerating the soil, it is potentially possible that's the problem. Other forms of nitrogen can have the opposite effect though and the link you presented doesn't say which was used.
Obviously something is going on with that farm to explain why it is not functioning like a normal grassland. And reading the paper it seems even they were surprised at their own results,
This is a somewhat puzzling result as the soils are well drained and CH4-producing microbes usually require oxygen-free conditions; however, similar observations have occurred in other intensively managed grasslands, grazed or harvested.
considering how different they were from plenty of other peoples results on other pastures. But without controlls it is nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies.
The study I already gave you says this:
Mineral N applied annually as (NH4)2SO4, at either 96 or 144 kg N ha −1 for 130 years, completely inhibited CH4 oxidation, even where lime was applied to maintain a soil pH of about 6.[1]
Which could also be an explanation, if that's the version of nitrogen they used.
-
Chris O'Neill at 21:23 PM on 19 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
"So no Prime Minister, it is unlikely that coal production and use for electricity generation in Australia will last for decades to come – maybe one decade but even that is questionable."
This is fantastic news. The problem of CO2 emissions is going to go away on its own. No need for Carbon pricing or any type of government intervention to solve the problem. And closer to home, no need for websites like skepticalscience or realclimate to counter the influence of global warming/climate science denialists because there is no need for political action anymore.
And if you believe that then you've never heard of Pollyanna and her statements reminiscent of the quote above.
-
scaddenp at 18:06 PM on 19 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Definitely walked on. This is the normal NZ model of intensive grazing with cows moved on new pastures quickly when food value of grass is at optimum. It is not generally thought of as factory farming. All the literature you have put out on MIRG look pretty much like the systems used here. The water system drips in fertilizer and effluent from milking shed is also distributed on pasture. Insufficient nitrogen is linked to soil carbon loss. While the full study isnt published yet, I dont believe the stocking rate on the research farm is any higher than normal.
-
RedBaron at 14:48 PM on 19 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
In that system likely it is not. Do the cows even walk on that so called "pasture"? Or is it more like this?
Certainly I can see chemical fertilizers are used, which decimate soil biology. I even gave you a link before showing the differences in management and their impacts on methane absobtion and oxidation.
Keep in mind, I have always agreed with the scientific consensus that the current industrialised factory farming methods were a net methane emissions source. Nothing new here.
-
william5331 at 08:39 AM on 19 December 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #51
Low Arctic ice recovery.
In the fall and early winter is when the first indications of things to come should be apparent and it looks like this year that is what is happening. You have the mother of all off shore evening winds as the land rapidly cools off while the ocean is a reservoir of heat accumulated in the ever more open water. The difference is that this offshore wind should continue day and night and be continued as latent hear is released from freezing sea water. It should suck warmer air from the south to further slow the refreeze. As this effect gains strength, it should suck air from ever further south until you have a reversed Hadley cell and a two cell system in the northern hemisphere. With air flowing from the land to the sea Coriolis causes a counter clockwise circulation over the Arctic Ocean which will push a counter clockwise sea circulation. In such gyres, to the right is away from the centre so ice and the fresher surface layer will be expelled from the Arctic thinning the layer. Waves, with their longer fetch working on this thinner layer will mix the salty warmer deep water into the surface, further decreasing ice formation in the winter and thawing in the summer.
-
scaddenp at 08:05 AM on 19 December 2016How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
This one for RedBaron. I've been a noted skeptic of extent to which grazing is good answer, largely because resources you cite are not matched by studies here. Summary of some recent research published here. The location of the study was on mid-Canterbury gravel soils, dryland area, where irrigation has allowed dairy on what was cropping land (so probably pretty degraded soil). This region was grassland when europeans arrived, and probably light open-canopies forest pre Maori (1000 BP) so probably closer to US soils. Rainfall is 24-28" but also subject to strong hot, dry fohn winds so evaporation rates high
Results are in encouraging for net carbon uptake but note that still not GHG sinks when all factors considered.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:14 PM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Paul D @9, the phrase you are looking for is "Trumped up science".
"trump (v.2) Look up trump at Dictionary.com
"fabricate, devise," 1690s, from trump "deceive, cheat" (1510s), from Middle English trumpen (late 14c.), from Old French tromper "to deceive," of uncertain origin. Apparently from se tromper de "to mock," from Old French tromper "to blow a trumpet." Brachet explains this as "to play the horn, alluding to quacks and mountebanks, who attracted the public by blowing a horn, and then cheated them into buying ...." The Hindley Old French dictionary has baillier la trompe "blow the trumpet" as "act the fool," and Donkin connects it rather to trombe "waterspout," on the notion of turning (someone) around. Connection with triumph also has been proposed. Related: Trumped; trumping. Trumped up "false, concocted" first recorded 1728." -
Paul D at 19:07 PM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Daniel@4 re: Trumpery.
LOL. Wasn't aware of that word.
But Trumpery Science doesn't quite work. -
bozzza at 18:39 PM on 18 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Nuclear is subsidised by defence interests and the Americans won't let us use it. Thus, it has no financial legitimacy to put it one way!
-
Riduna at 12:14 PM on 18 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Digby - Quite Right! Compared with global subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and production ($88 bn/year), Australia pays out a modest $4bn/year, of which some $1.8bn/year goes to coal.
This sum does not include the cost of health care for those involved in production and use of coal, the value of water used in the process, or its effects on the environment. The latter includes global warming of the atmosphere and oceans and all that entails, including damage to coral reefs, the biosphere and food production.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:13 AM on 18 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
SingletonEngineer
Please don't talk about subsidies for renewable energy when fossil-fuel producers are not only subsidized to an enormous extent but also pay nothing for the effects of the poisons they inflict on society and the planet.
-
nigelj at 11:12 AM on 18 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
SingletonEngineer, the costs of a renewable grid are not astronomically higher than nuclear and are only slightly higher than coal. I base this on an analysis by Forbes, who certainly dont particularly favour renewable energy and the analysis is about 5 years old. And we all know costs of renewables is dropping quite fast.
You also have to consider nuclear energy does carry the possibility of catastrophic risk. At some level this has a "cost" that needs to be considered. Im not totally opposed to nuclear but all factors must be considered. -
nigelj at 10:59 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Daniel Mocnsy @5, I largely agree. Arguments about levels of certainty in science can be twisted around to discredit things to the point it becomes absurd. Of course proof is technically impossible in science and belongs to mathematics, however this is a strict interpretation. Given some elements of theoretical physics are unresolved, we cannot be absolutely 100% certain about anything else, in a technical sense, but its somewhat pedantic.
For example for all practical purposes we know the world is a type of sphere, and is not flat. The chances we are hallucinating about the world, or living in a "matrix" like that movie are probably one in a trillion trillion. We have to trust our senses, and basic observational evidence, or we are lost and have nothing on which to base decisions.
Climate science is 95% certain, according to the IPCC. In any other sphere of life those odds would be considered overwhelming.
We should also consider all implications. We will run out of fossil fuels anyway, so change is inevitable sooner or later.
-
nigelj at 10:35 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Daniel Mocnsy @4, Trumpery does indeed mean showy, deception etc. Good point.
And Donald has the following derivation courtesy of google: "Donald. ... Given Name DONALD. USAGE: Scottish, English. PRONOUNCED: DAHN-əld (English) [key] From the Gaelic name Domhnall which means "ruler of the world", composed of the old Celtic elements dumno "world" and val "rule".
You also get the term "Mafia Don" which means "Don or godfather, is the highest level in a crime family"
This is all somewhat worrying! -
Dcrickett at 08:39 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
#2 Paul D: It is a problem that has joined but not replaced the zenophobic fear-and-loathing of classic racism. I married a triracial woman. We and our children (now past the half-century point) have plenty of experience to gainsay the "post-racial society" euphemism.
By now we have learned how to navigate this aspect of the New World Disorder and get on with life.
Sadly, we have to cope with new sins while still suffering all the old ones.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 07:32 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
One thing all science deniers appear to have in common with just about everybody else: they all willingly (even greedily) consume the benefits of science every day. What does this say about what science deniers really believe?
As scientific purists - perhaps influenced by the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and of Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery - we acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that every finding of science is provisional, and at most we can only say it hasn't been falsified yet. This deference plays into the hands of ideologues of every stripe (political, religious, economic) who can dismiss any science they find inconvenient as merely ephemeral and potentially subject to revision. They are then free to present their own uninformed certitudes as eternal and perfect, and themselves as heroic Galileos (albeit without telescopes and new data) defying the establishment.
But do we really need to hand them that weapon? Is every finding of science merely provisional? We know that scientific revolutions have occurred in the past, and if you pick up a science text from 150 years ago, it sorely needs an update. But we also know that everything that worked then still works today. For example, you can still navigate with a sextant just as well as people did in 1866. All the science that the sextant validated is still valid and will always be valid, insofar as getting the sextant to work.
Today we have a lot more science; accordingly we can build a lot more things. Consider your computer - a stupendously complex, wonderful, and improbable device. Many scientific discoveries and theories enable it to work. The complete list probably fills a library, when you consider everything that goes into a computer and its entire production chain. No future scientific discovery or breakthrough will ever retroactively stop your computer from working by invalidating any of the science critical to its operation. Some of those enabling theories will probably be refined for precision, or extended to cover new cases, but it would take a miracle to get a working computer from any theory that turns out to be flatly wrong. Much as you are very unlikely to eradicate polio or smallpox without knowing the germ theory of disease. (Imagine a chimpanzee typing out the complete works of Shakespeare - it could happen, but the odds are small.)
All science is provisional in principle, but that provisionality recedes to the vanishing point for any chunk of science that enables multi-billion-dollar industries. Hard-headed venture capitalists don't wager a king's ransom on science that only might be true. They bet on science you can take to the bank - and there's a lot of that.
As proponents of science, we need to explain to the masses where their goodies come from, and how those goodies connect to other scientific findings they find inconvenient. For example, how many patrons of the Creation Museum realize the cars they drove there only had fuel because the oil companies of the world flatly reject what the Creation Museum claims? Nobody figures out where to drill for oil by reading the Bible as a literally true historical and scientific document. Each time a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) hops in his/her ride, s/he loudly proclaims by his/her actions that the Bible - read literally as a scientific document - is bunk. But in my experience with talking to YECs (and from having been raised as one), none of them seem aware of how their actions contradict their professed beliefs.
The scientific method and our stockpile of theories give us wondrously improbable things such as computers, aircraft carriers, eradication of various diseases, a doubled life expectancy, and pretty much everything that makes life in the USA today preferable to life in pre-Columbian America. (We always have the option of going back to the Stone Age with its nasty, brutish, and short lifestyle, but who does by choice?)
Therefore, a question worth exploring, and explaining to the masses, is: how likely is the same science that gives us computers, etc., to be completely wrong about man-made climate change? Or worded differently, if the hugely interdisciplinary field of climate science could be so far off the rails, after decades of work and thousands of published studies, then how does your computer still work? How could science be so spectacularly bad for so long in one area, and so spectacularly good in another? For starters, there's a huge amount of overlap. Anyone who builds computers for a living can readily learn to do climate science, and conversely, just by reading a few dozen books. Climate scientists use many of the same theories that your computer proves are true (or all but true). The two groups use the same basic approach of formulating hypotheses and testing them. The same science academies represent them. An attack on one group is an attack on the other.
It might be possible to show that if climate science could be as wrong as the climate science deniers claim it is, then your computer actually would have to stop working. That would be a handy result, if anyone feels motivated to catalog all the scientific links between them.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 06:17 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
But instead of Aryan Physics, it looks like America is heading for Trumponian Science.
It turns out the dictionary already contains the word "Trumpery" which means:
- n. Showy but worthless finery; bric-a-brac.
- n. Nonsense; rubbish.
- n. Deception; trickery; fraud.
-
william5331 at 03:51 AM on 18 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Just one wee niggle. None of this is new with the advent of the Trump administration but perhaps he has catalyzed the mobilization of scientists to become activists. Perhaps this will become a more general movement in fields other than science. In which case, the Trump administration could be the turning point in which 99% of the whole community says I'm not going to take it any more.
-
PluviAL at 02:41 AM on 18 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Riduna, this is a big thumbs up for me because I like to see solutions. We can do this, and sincere deniers will embrace the challenge, once potential and viable solutions are apparent, then we can be on our way to managing the planet positively, not destructively. The concentrating of human civilization into cities seems to be well on its way; sprawl is one of the biggest causes of our load on the planet, so we are solving the problem on two big fronts. We can do it, the more we focus on solutions the faster our success will materialize.
-
Paul D at 23:13 PM on 17 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
There are IMO parallels with 1930s Germany. But instead of Aryan Physics, it looks like America is heading for Trumponian Science.These days you don't have to burn books, you just wipe a data store clean. The Scientific American article above is well worth reading. Today the 1920s/30s racial tones of the battle is now replaced with one of economic and political ideology.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Please learn to do this yourself with the link button in the comments editor
-
michael sweet at 22:22 PM on 17 December 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Redfa:
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
According to this NPR Article, about 634 million people live within 10 meters of sea level. If you imagine their population would otherwise rise, how many would be "killed" by sea level rise of 10 meters over say 300 years? About 11 million people are within 2 meters of sea level in Forida (not to mention the rest of the USA) and might lose their cities by 2100.
From Florida they can all move to Kansas, but the 17 million in Bangladesh displaced by 1.5 meters of rise have no-where to go. Perhaps they can also go to Kansas, although I doubt Trump would think that is a good idea. More likely it will go the Syria route and they will be killed in war.
For RCP 8.5 in 2013 experts thought sea level rise of 1-2 meters by 2100 could be expected (Real climate post), IPCC projections are less. Since then expectations of sea level rise have gone up (they always go up with time). The best farmland in the world is often in river deltas that will be the first to go with sea level rise. Speculations of new farm land in Alaska are unrealistic. How will populaitons be fed after the farmland is under the sea? The problems with heat Tom points out are in addition.
While your 3-5 billion is probably a worst case (over what time period was that? Do wars caused by climate change count?) a realistic evaluation of 50 years from now with BAU does not look pleasant. Since the deaths are additive, over 200 years 3-5 billion is not so high.
The high end danger is collapse of civilization. That is not considered a likely risk but if there is a 1% chance it would mean the human population could drop to less than one billion. How much risk can you tolerate? If there was a 1% chance your house would burn down would you take action to lower the risk? I would. What if the action reduced pollution and made us all healthier?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:36 AM on 17 December 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Redfa1 @40, if we burnt nearly all available reserves of fossil fuels, or if climate sensitivity is towards the high end of the estimated range, an increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) of 10 to 12 degrees is likely. With such an increase, for significant parts of the year hotter weather patterns will lift the wet bulb temperature above 35oC. If that happens for about six hours of the day, all large mammals that cannot find refuge in water or airconditioning will die. That includes humans. Smaller mammals (which have more efficient cooling and higher basal temperatures) and cold blooded animals will survive to higher temperatures. The following map shows in mauve the areas likely to experience those sorts of temperaratures regularly at least durring the local summer months:
In those circumstances, those areas would have to be evacuated durring summer of nearly all humans, along with their live stock and domestic pets every summer. In the yellow areas heat fatalaties would be common but not ubiquitous. When you consider the areas involved (all of India, large portions of China, the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, Spain) the economic impact of this circumstance would be extreme, and the shere number of environmental refugees created could well overwhelm our capacity to deal with. It is plausible that such a circumstance, therefore, could so overwhelm the economic system as to cause an almost complete breakdown of the system of trade. That in turn would result in the effective technological levels of our economy plummiting, along with our capacity to provide food for the population. So, in this scenario our civilization (ie, the technological trade based society that dominates the world) would likely collapse, and with it several billion people would die.
Let me emphasize this is not the only climate based stressor that could result in that outcome. There are several others which could, in themselves cause an effective collapse of trade; and all of these will be acting concurrently so that their combined effect is even more likely to do so. Further, lack of food or stress from an excess of refugees could well cause instigation of large scale, potentially nuclear wars.
So, in short, those estimates do have some truth in them, but as worse case scenarios in situations in which we do not take effective action against global warming. Even the inadequate methods agreed to todate would likely prevent such outcomes. If such measures are significantly wound back, as is likely under President Trump, the more extreme scenarios come back into play.
Finally, it should be noted that any scenario involving the death of multiple billions will most likely result from a situation where we destroy ourselves (through inadequate responses to crises, or through war) rather than changes in climate itself directly killing us (although that may well result in the deaths of tens, or even hundreds of millions with inadequate mitigation and adaption).
-
Redfa1 at 10:17 AM on 17 December 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Hi,
I've been trying to understand more about climate change, as well as the impacts it will have on the planet. I feel like I reasonably understand, but I do have concern over the future predictions. I know that they are not certain, but I have seen claims that "3-5 billion people will die" or of "imment collapse of civilization". Are these sensationalised, or do they have some truth to them?
Thanks.
-
SingletonEngineer at 08:48 AM on 17 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Typo: interconnector cost should read "say, $3 to $4 billion US."
-
SingletonEngineer at 08:45 AM on 17 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Do the maths.
The cost of utility-scale batteries is huge, whether expressed in dollar terms or resource utilisation numbers.
The costs of gas fired generation to support wind and solar when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is huge also - again both in dollars and in gas consumption and hence CO2 and CH4 emissions.
The cost of additional HV interconnectors necessary to push the electricity from where it able to be generated to where it is needed is also directly a consequence of and thus the responsibility of the wind farms and their locations.
If you aren't already convinced about the cost of interconnectors, consider recent South Australian experience, which is directly attributed to the loss of supply for a whole state after weather caused the loss of almost 40% of its (wind) generating capacity and thus overloaded the Heywood Interconnector, which tripped. Current recommendations are that additional interconnectors be constructed to duplicate existing ones between SA and NSW/Vic; Vic and Tas; and NSW/Qld. The cost? Estimated $4B to $5B Australian (say 3 to 3 billion US).
More maths: Why subsidise wind to the point where its proponents then say that it is "cheaper"? Subsidy: $90/MWh (LRET). Wholesale market prices: $40/MWh and upwards.
The winners are the non-Australian manufacturers of wind turbines, etc and those who (again, not Australian, in the main) own and operate fossil fuelled, polluting gas turbines that are essential to the scam/scheme.Yet we are forbidden by law from considering nuclear power on its own merits.
Sheesh!
Moderator Response:[PS] Just raising some flags before this discussion goes completely off the rails:
Firstly, please cite the sources of numbers so others can verify your mathematics should they wish. Unsupported arguments are simply sloganeering.
Secondly, any further responses on nuclear should be restricted to cost analysis. Those wishing to debate the larger pros and cons of nuclear power should do so over at BraveNewClimate not here.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 17 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
michael sweet @84, fish are tricky.
Unlike the case with land animals, where we eat herbivores, humans preferentially eat large, predator fish. The consequence is that while we fish down stocks of our preferred fish, the resulting lack of predators allows an increase in the number of prey fish. This 2014 study indicates that we have reduced the biomass of predator fish by 66.4 (60.2-71.2)% over the last 100 years, with most of that occuring in the last 40 years. Over the same time, however, the biomass of prey fish have increased by 130%, ie, more than doubled. Given the trophic pyramid, the biomass of prey fish in the undisturbed state was likely 10 times that of the predator fish, giving a net change in biomass of 0.9*2.3 + 0.1*0.34 = 2.1, so that overall fish biomass may have approximately doubled.
Of course, the increase in prey fish will also have resulted in a decrease in the biomass of their prey, ie, plankton. That is difficult to estimate, however, because:
1) The population of prey fish were initially predator limited so that the biomass of planckton would not have been approximately 10 times that of the prey fish as according to the standard trophic pyramid; and
2) The prey fish often fed on zooplanckton which fed on phytoplanckton; and to the extent that is the case phytoplanckton would have become more numerous, possibly resulting in an overall increase in ocean biomass.
To further complicate things, a recent study has suggested that fish numbers in the middle layer of the ocean (mesopelagic fish) have been underestimated. As mesopelagic fish have not been primary catches in global fisheries until recently, the numbers quoted above may be overestimates by an order of magnitude.
-
nigelj at 07:46 AM on 17 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
I applaud scientists participating in this rally. This is a situation where science itself is under attack. Scientists are perfectly entitled to protect their interests, and I would expect nothing less.
We all know normally scientists wisely generally keep a low profile, and keep out of government policy debates. However we are not in that normal situation.
If you dont stand up to bullies they walk all over you. The Trump world view ammounts to bullying. It has a silver gloss on it, but underneath its bullying and intimidation. -
nigelj at 07:00 AM on 17 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Drivingby, fair point, but most people would put the tesla power pack out of sight at the back of the house. You wouldn't put it by the front door, as it would look unattractive, like a heat pump, and as you say it would be an invitation to burglars.
I also dont think people will be buying these just to be fashionable. Most will be genuine.
This power pack is $5,000. Given that new homes can easily cost half a million, this is almost nothing.
What intrigues me is what will win the battle? Traditional centralised electricity supply or self sufficient homes?
-
william5331 at 06:58 AM on 17 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
I wonder if we will be in time. Curiously, this year, despite the output of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere flat lineing or slightly reducing, the concentration in the atmosphere took a jump of almost twice previous years (ref. Mana Loa Carbon dioxide website). Is this just a temporary phenomenon, possibly caused by the recent El Nino or are one or more sinks shutting down. The next couple of years will tell. If it continues, we are in a spot of bother.
-
noa at 05:26 AM on 17 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but Vaclav Smil has some numbers in his article "Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human impact", 2011. (a free copy is available on his homepage, but it seems to be offline at the moment;)
Here are some numbers from Table 1, p 616:
Year - Population (million) - Global phytomass stock (Gt C)
0 - 200 - 1,000
1000 - 300 - 900
1800 - 900 - 750
1900 - 1,600 - 660
2000 - 6,100 - 550The changes in zoomass are quite smal in comparison (p 618f):
" The total zoomass of wild terrestrial mammals ... yields no more
than about 50 Mt of live weight (about 10 Mt C) in 1900 and 25 Mt of live
weight (about 5 Mt C) in 2000, a decline of 50 percent. In contrast, during the same time, the global anthropomass rose from roughly 13 to 55 Mt C."His estimate for the biomass of domestic animals is 35 Mt C in 1900 and 120 Mt C in 2000.
-
Kiwiiano at 05:23 AM on 17 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Driving By: if you're going to worry about that, you'll have to hide the Tesla sitting in the drive, erect a trellis around the battery pack, install a state-of-the-art security system,* invest in a doberman and move to a grotty neighbourhood (that probably has more problems with burglaries anyway)
* which you probably have already.
-
michael sweet at 04:30 AM on 17 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Tom and Art,
You could also try to estimate fish biomass changes which would be very difficult. Reports that there were so many cod that ships were slowed in sailing by the friction on the fishes backs indicate much loss of fish. During World War II fish mass increased, possibly contributing to the hiatus in in warming in the 1940's. Whales were also much affected.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:30 AM on 17 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Art Vandelay @82, it is hard to estimate lost phytomass, and I will not try. I do know that LUC including deforestation has resulted in anthropogenic emissions of 157 GtC (2015 Global Carbon Budget), and that about 50% of the dry mass of wood is carbon, and about 50% of the wet mass is H2O, so that the total wood lost is on the order of 628 Gigatonnes. Against that, forest regrowth, increased growth due to moister conditions and the CO2 fertilization effect have increased net fixation of carbon by photosynthesis, so that the net change in carbon flux from vegetation is 0.2 GtC per annum (1.1 GtC/annum from LUC - 0.9 GtC/annum increase in net photosynthesis). If that ratio was consistent through out the post 1850 era, that means the net change in vegetative biomass is on the order of 114 Gigatonnes (28.5 GtC). That is a big "if", however, and I do not know of any research showing to what extent it holds or not. I suspect, but do not know, that the net biomass lost is somewhere in the 200-300 Gigatonnes range.
With regard to the biomass of mammals, we are no more secure grounds. It has increased around 1.2 Gigatonnes:
Assuming the 18% carbon content by mass of humans is typical of mammals, that represents 0.22 GtC, not to far from your humans only estimate. That amount will be included in the uncertain change in net biomass consequent in the difference between LUC and cumulative net increase in photosynthesis. Clearly animal biomass changes, human or otherwise are an insigificant fraction of the changes in vegetation, so my drawing attention to the change in large fauna biomass was an unintentional diversion.
-
Art Vandelay at 00:44 AM on 17 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Tom Curtis @ 77, The difference in biomass between humans and plants is accounted for in the Land Use Change (LUC) budget in the global CO2 budget. It is smaller than you think because the biomass of large herbivores (ie, cattle) has massively increased over the last 160 years. Identifying just a single component in the changed system and comparing it with the total biomass of the preceding system is misleading, though no doubt unintentionally.
That's true, it was wikipedia sourced, though the ratio of terrestrial plant / animal biomass is supposedly still approx 1000 : 1.
I was surprised to learn that large domesticated herbivores do constitute about 6x the biomass of humans, but It would be interesting to know how much biomass has been lost with the extinctions and depletions of various animal species as a consequence of human population growth. Such numbers are hard to come by.
From a book titled "Harvesting the biosphere", where the author has researched as best he could the various human impacts dating back to pre agricultural times, it's stated that roughly 200 Gt C of global phytomass has been lost since about 1800, which is considerable given that it represents as much as 60% of fossil fuels burnt over the same period.
It's postulated that as much as 40% of (post glacial) phytomass has been removed by humans.
If as projected, the global population will rise to 10 or 11 billion before 2100, the task of reassimilating all of that displaced carbon (from land clearing and FF combustion) back into the biosphere will not be a simple one, particularly if future land clearing increases phytomass loss for the purpose of increased agricultural output, human settlement, or even biofuel production.
-
Jeffrey Middlebrook at 22:46 PM on 16 December 2016From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
Thanks, Jeffronicus. I read through the linked report you posted and it does not answer my initial question posted. As we know CO2 is "captured" by atmospheric water into the molecular form of carbonic acid. Rain has never been "pure", it's always been a weak acidic solution, whether carbonic acid or sulfuric acid. It's virtually impossible for rain to fall upon land or sea as pure H2O. So as global warming increases the amount of evaporated water in the atmosphere, that increased atmospheric water has to capture more CO2, it's unavoidable. And then that increased CO2 capture is going to transport more CO2 to the oceans, either directly through rain falling on the oceans or by way of rivers.
-
shoyemore at 22:32 PM on 16 December 2016On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
I am cynical about "Team Ivanka". if she serious, or just marketing her personal brand and branded products? She is effectively running interference to keep up a pretence about Trump's "open mind".
Judge the "open mind" by actions, not words.
Let's not get fooled again, people.
-
shoyemore at 22:27 PM on 16 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
A good article in Vox on why coal makes no sense to build new coal plants, at least in the USA.
-
MA Rodger at 21:27 PM on 16 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
john warner @163.
I highlight the task set you by the moderators. They said “It has been explained to you that your ideas are in contradiction with thermodynamic law relative to atmospheric air pressure. Set everything else to the side and deal with this one thing and then you can move onto others.”
Working backwards through your comment.
♣ - 1 - The lapse rate does demonstrate that upwards sensible heat transfer is a net flux resultant from the vertical temperature/pressure profile as is the radiative heat transfer. However, the latent heat transfer is not. Also I am at a loss as to why any of this is considered important.
♣ - 2 - Temperature does set radiant heat transfers.
♣ - 3 - You do not have to prove anything but without proof we will consider your statements as worthless.
♣ - 4 - The energy content of a gram of air may be (will always be) sufficient to radiate at a certain wattage for a certain period of time but this is not relevant to any physical process occuring in the atmosphere.
♣ - 5 - Yes, atmospheric temperatures can be considered in equilibrium but you leave unanswered what is maintaining the atmospheric energy.
♣ - 6 - There is a web-calculator of atmospheric temperature-pressure. What its calculations demonstrate/confirm is not described but is presumably not controversial.
♣ - 7 - Ideal gas laws do concern P, T & D.
♣ - 8 - The Earth Energy Budget does require satellite measurements but it employs a far broader set of data.
♣ - 9 - The graphic up-thread @159 (which does not date to 2010 but rather 2013/4) shows the atmosphere absorbing “358.2wpsm” which has no relation to any temperature calculated using S-B as it is absorbed radiation not emitted radiation. The “358.2wpsm” is greater than the sum of atmospheric heating (direct solar and net atmospheric heating) but the “358.2wpsm” is balanced by a “340.3wpsm” flux in the opposite direction.john warner, given the task set by the moderators, I see no progress @163. Perhaps the individual points I make here will allow some direction to any forthcoming explanation.
-
curiousd at 19:08 PM on 16 December 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
There is a URL which works to access the article by Crisp, et al for free without access to a research library. That URL is
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org.....
Moderator Response:[BW] tried to fix the link as it seems to break the page-format
Prev 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 Next
