Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Next
Comments 21951 to 22000:
-
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
-
RedBaron at 17:41 PM on 16 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
My sincere apologies to the Mods and MLDonoghue. I guess what I can say is context is everything. MLDonoghue, get your context right and I will try and help you best I can. For example the way you got it all out of context, it appears as if you think that ice ages recycle farming runoff.
-
curiousd at 16:15 PM on 16 December 2016Welcome to Skeptical Science
Thank you Tom Curtis,
1. No one contacted me (I emailed Dr. Pierrehumbert at the address you gave me and the message went through). I understand he is busy and may receive many inquiries from crackpot people. Chris Colose contacted me to say he too is presently busy and I understand that as well. But I found old work by Crisp, Fels, and Schwarzkopf, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 11, pp. 851 - 866. Their figures 3 and 4 are consistent with the SMASS of the most intense CO2 line at seal level and 296 degrees K, at 667 wn { with HITRAN STAB of 3 E (-19) [cm^2/molecule]x (wave number)^-1} having an SMASS with upper limit 810 m^2/kg (cm^-1) and lower limit of 130 m^2/kg (cm ^-1). I get SMASS of 620 m^2/kg (cm^-1) which is quite consistent with the Figs 3 and 4 of Crisp, et al.
For the H-C-G approximation, all you need is the value of SMASS at one atmosphere and a standard temperature such as the HITRAN default 296 degrees K, and your answer will give correctly (within the approximation that the fixed temperature assumed in H-C-G introduces only a relatively small error) both the strong and weak limits if you use for your average pressure between ground and your highest altitude point Zmax the average obtained from the massweighted average, namely (Pground + Pzmax)/2.
2. Thank you for the excellent explanation of the central spike in the CO2 emission.
-
john warner at 15:23 PM on 16 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
In 2010 NASA published the Earth Energy Budget based upon the Clouds and the Earth Radiation Energy System mission. The surface air emits 358.2wpsm at a temperature of 281.93 degrees Kelvin. This is 158.4wpsm more than the solar power heating the earth air, 199.8wpsm. And 38.29 degrees Kelvin hotter than the 243.64 degrees Kelvin of the earth’s total air. The ideal gas law fully explains why increasing the pressure of a gas can increase the density and temperature. The 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch confirms the correspondence between the theory and reality. Unlike the total air radiating to space and requiring an equal influx of solar energy to maintain the temperature, the surface air is radiating to the surface below and the air above. When the surface air is in equilibrium with its surroundings the temperature does not change because they are radiating equally against each other. There is no net flow of energy into and out of the surface air. So where does the energy come from to radiate in the first place. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy in matter. The coefficient of heat content in air is one joule of energy for each degree Kelvin for one gram of air. Therefore each gram of air has the 281.93 joules of energy necessary to radiate at 358.2wpsm. In short, I don’t have to prove anything. The temperature of the air is sufficient proof that it has the energy to radiate at the rate specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Therefore 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the attained total air temperature and to maintain the vertical temperature structure of the air. And even more important the ideal gas law description of the adiabatic lapse rate proves that greenhouse gases absorbed energy does not transfer through the atmosphere any differently than thermals or latent heat.
Moderator Response:[RH] This scattered comment does not sufficiently address your current task at hand, which is to clearly address how your ideas contradict basic thermodynamics. I'm setting this as a warning so folks can continue to read what you've written. Patience for your ramblings has grown very thin here. Either clean up your act by more clearly and effectively explaining your position or you will have to relinquish your commenting privileges.
MA Rodger is very patiently pointing out errors. Carefully look through those and try to understand your errors.
-
DrivingBy at 14:40 PM on 16 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
That Telsa pwall install looks like a demo, not a customer install.
Doing that on your house is akin to stapling a $5,000 bill on the side, while also adversising that you have the latest and greatest tech stuff inside. Clearly, it's hard to imagine anything going amiss with that setup.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:06 PM on 16 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
"...radiate the same amount up and down, as emission is indifferent to direction"
It is even so indifferent that it emits at the same intensity in all directions: up, down, left, right, etc.
Think of each point in space like a light bulb: casting radiation in all directions, shining outward onto an increasingly large sphere. The emission is then per unit solid angle (think of a cone facing out, with the tip at the source).
When you then want to know how much is arriving at a point, you need to think of it coming in from a sphere to the centre point, from all directions (not just up/down). The half-sphere (aka a hemisphere) that faces up is the downwelling radiation; a hemisphere facing down is the up-welling radiation.
The up/down division is the simplest way of focussing on the climatologically-important sums. Straight down, down at an angle, etc is all still down, and the same goes for up. Once you get one of your best mathematics friends to do the two-dimensional (in spherical coordinates) integration, you can divide the process up into what radiation climatologists call "the two-stream approximation" to get your up/down terms.
(Make sure its a good friend: the math is ugly for the amateur. Did I mention it's two-dimensional? And in spherical coordinates? That means trigonometry...)
-
Riduna at 11:39 AM on 16 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
Bernhard - I do mean kWh. Correction made.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:09 AM on 16 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
One has to be careful: mW is milliwatt and MW is megawatt.
Moderator Response:[PS] The Tesla Powerwall 2 has capacity of 13.5 kWh. The article is in error.
-
Bernhard14081 at 03:22 AM on 16 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
> with a capacity of ~14 mWh, is able to meet...
I think you mean kWh.
-
MA Rodger at 01:51 AM on 16 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Tom Curtis @160.
Suffice to say that we two surely are in agreement concerning the physics of the atmosphere but purely differ in how best to describe that physics for those who are easily confused by that physics. (I would ordinarily here set out my understanding of that difference-in-description but that may not be helpful in the circumstance.)
-
RedBaron at 01:20 AM on 16 December 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
@78 MLDonoghue
Sorry to say, but just about everything you wrote is partly wrong and partly right. It's as if in a carefully constructed Poe of partial understanding but failure to grasp the bigger picture. If it is a Poe, I suggest you try just saying what you really mean and forget the low brow humor.
If it is not a Poe, then pick one subject and stick with it alone long enough to get a general understanding of that one single thing before you move to the next. Right now you have a tangled up mess of 1/2 truths like Gordian's knot.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think it is safe to assume this is not a Poe. Please be careful not to make responses that could create unconstructive flamewars. Better to simply point out what you think are some of the bigger errors and let discussion continue from there.
MLDonoghue - while not a gish-gallop of our more usual sort, you do cover a lot of territory and RBs advice to stick to one point at a time is sound.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:58 PM on 15 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
MA Rodger @158:
"Firstly, the atmosphere is insensitive to up or down. So in addition to radiating 200W/sq m upwards, it also radiates 200W/sq m downwards. It thus requires 400W/sq m to maintain a temperature of theoretically -40ºC (as Stefan-Boltzmann)"
Any body of gas which has the same temperature throughout will radiate the same amount up and down, as emission is indifferent to direction. The atmosphere, however, has a distinct vertical temperature and density structure which results in a substantially greater downward emission at the bottom of the atmosphere than the upward emission at the top.
I am very certain you know this, but as written, your comment is likely to cause confusion, IMO.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:49 PM on 15 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
john warner @155 (156 &157 being redundant):
1)
"Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."
What is necessary to maintain the vertical temperature structure is that the net energy balance of the atmosphere, ie, energy inputs minus energy outgoings, should equal zero. Given that, let's look at the energy balance again:
The energy input into the atmosphere is 77.1 Solar absorbed by atmosphere + 358.2 Surface IR absorbed by atmosphere + 18.4 thermals + 86.4 latent heat, for a total of 540.1 W/m^2. Given that, it is very clear that the 199.8 W/m^2 of upward IR emission from the atmosphere is insufficient to maintain a constant energy content in the atmosphere, and consequently a stable temperature structure. Without the 340.3 W/m^2 IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, that energy balance cannot be maintained, and consequently neither can the stable temperature structure.
This is so basic, and so simple, a point that if you are not able to acknowledge it, no further discussion with you is warranted nor capable of being fruitful.
2)
"Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect."
That the temperature differential, ie, the convection induced lapse rate in tropospheric temperatures is a corner stone of the standard theory of the greenhouse effect is seen in the seminal paper by Manabe and Weatherald (1967). David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert introduce that paper in their collection of seminal papers on global warming by saying (in part):
"Three more building blocks had to fall into place before a proper, quantitative estimate of the effect of CO2 changes on temperature could be carried out. ... Second, a means had to be found to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere. ... This[*] was achieved in the remarkable 1967 paper by Manabe and Weatherald ... Manabe and Weatherald (1967) can with confidence be described as the first fully sound estimate of the warming that would arise from a doubling of CO2."
(* The "this" that they refer to was the inclusion of all three additional elements, not just the lapse rate which had been addressed by Manabe and Strickler (1964), and also by the apparently forgotten Hulbert (1931))
It is fair to say from that, that in their opinion without "a means ... to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere", a sound estimate (ie, one with an adequate theoretical grounding) is not possible. Therefore that temperature structure is fundamental to the basic theory of the greenhouse effect.
Indeed, absent that knowledge, it is impossible to predict event the sign of the effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations on surface temperatures. If the lapse rate were negative (ie, temperatures increased with altitude), increased GHG concentration cools the surface, as in fact happens on Titan.
-
MA Rodger at 23:31 PM on 15 December 2016There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
john warner @ 155/156.
Your first paragraph is undoubtedly incorrect.
Firstly, the atmosphere is insensitive to up or down. So in addition to radiating 200W/sq m upwards, it also radiates 200W/sq m downwards. It thus requires 400W/sq m to maintain a temperature of theoretically -40ºC (as Stefan-Boltzmann)
Secondly, it is incorrect to assert that even this 400W/sq m is sufficient to maintain "the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere" unless you have some extra information to share with us. Your second paragraph does not suffice. Note this temperature you consider to be the average for an atmosphere with higher density (& thus thermodynamically averaged) at lower altitudes: such a theoretical atmosphere you imply has a temperature much closer to the tropopause than the surface.
Consider the simplest 'structure' possible, a two-layer atmosphere comprising a 'top' atmosphere and a 'bottom' atmosphere both opaque to the IR they absorb/radiate. The 'top' radiates 200W/sq m into space and thus has an average temperature of -40ºC, the 'bottom' radiates 340W/sq m back to the surface and thus has an average temperature of +5ºC. The imbalance at the interface between 'top' & 'bottom' atmoshpere would be (200 x 2) - 340 = 60W/sq m. The imbalance between the 'bottom' atmosphere and the surface woud be (340 x 2) - 200 - 360 = 120W/sq m. These two imbalances require further atmospheric heating which is provided by the absorbed solar radiation (75W/sq m) and the convection-driven energy flux (105W/sq m sensible & latent heat). As the tropopause marks the point where the convective process ends, the 60W/sq m required by the 'top' atmosphere cannot be solely solar in origin. Indeed the solar heating is predominantly below 6km and thus would not be predominantly heating the 'top' (see for instance Lacis & Hansen 1973 'A Parameterisation of the Absorption of Solar Radiation in the Earth's Atmosphere')
Of course, what this simplest of model is beginning to describe is the "standard theoretical greenhouse." but which is described within the second paragraph @155/156 as being incorrect. Perhaps my description here will allow the reason for this claim that "Tom (@149) incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect." to be justified, which is certainly required as it is looking mighty wrong without it.
Prev 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 Next
