Recent Comments

Prev  520  521  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  Next

Comments 26351 to 26400:

26351. jpjmarti at 05:48 AM on 11 December 2015
       Wind energy is a key climate change solution
       

       Publishing such uncritical marketing for a company does disservice to Skeptical Science. How about reading for example the Wind technologies Market report to check those "signifigant and sustained" cost reductions?Today wind costs about the same as 15 years ago. It is mature technology. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-188167.pdf

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link.

26352. rustneversleeps at 05:26 AM on 11 December 2015
       The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget
       

       Joel_Huberman @3

       A carbon fee and per capita dividend is probably equitable within a national jurisdiction. I am dubious that it addresses the issues raised in this article.

       For instance, as you point out, if that scheme were implemented in the U.S., it is forecast that 2/3 of the population would receive more back in the dividend than they would face in increased costs as the tax is passed through the economy. But, as Table 10 in Chancel and Piketty shows, 90% of that same population is currently producing more than the world average of CO₂-eq emissions. So, domestically, you are effectively redistributing income from super-extremely-high-emitters to just-extremely-high-emitters viewed from a global perspective.

       Not saying it isn't the way to go, but we need to honest about it if we are going to pretend it is addressing the equity question.

26353. RedBaron at 04:47 AM on 11 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @ wideEyedPupil #125

       OGF was long thought to be carbon neutral, recent studies showing that rather it can sequester roughly 2 tonnes C / hectare / yr [1] possibly the reason for the discrepency being the higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

       An improved grassland management system sequesters 0.11 to 3.04 tonnes C / hectare / yr and feeds a whole lot more human beings. [2] and that's on much dryer land, which is why it is grassland in the first place.

       Obviously it is counter productive to cut down OGF to raise grains to supply feedlots. However, from the start everyone here on this thread has agreed. There is no debate. The debate is the myth 'animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming.' and associated rebuttal. 

       The rebuttal is correct, it is a myth. and also in so much as  animal husbandry does contribute slightly to AGW, it is only due to the models of production, not the cow itself, as explained on multiple posts above with multiple references. Most particularly:

       Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function

       A feedlot uses grains. Those grains produced with haber process nitrogen. So look at what the study says about that. "In a temperate agricultural soil, long-term fertilization with ammonium nitrate reduced methanotroph abundance by >70%"

       Now compare with a cow raised on a properly managed pasture fertilised by the cow's own waste. "In contrast, organic fertilizer addition can increase methanotroph abundance and associated rates of methane oxidation"

       So you see? It has nothing to do with the cow, it is a flaw in the factory farming production model that needs fixed. You fix that by scrapping the flawed CAFO production model and replacing it with a different type of pasture based intensive system that doesn't have those same flaws. No cutting of OGF required. In fact that would be counter productive. Instead you would want to convert cropland to pasture and regenerate soil health.

       This also shows that the vegan idea of eliminating animal husbandry is flawed as well. Because without animal waste you are stuck with haber process nitrogen fertiliser. And what does that do? Reduce methanotroph populations by over 70%. No solution there either.

26354. MarkR at 01:47 AM on 11 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       ryland @8,

       I'd be surprised if UAH v6.0 shows a statistically significant decrease in trend although its best estimate is indeed lower. However, in order to get these "slowdown" trends you have to allow for magical "jumps" in termperature just before the proposed slowdown. This is a result of the long-term global warming trend and the Escalator shows the principle behind it. Tamino has also posted about this, showing that claims of a slowdown require magical non-physical temperature jumps just before your desired slowdown.

       So even if you pick some of the data to make the trend look smaller, your period is going to be warmer than the previous one because you've still stepped up in temperatures. 

       Of course, this is not obvious in most presentations that claim a slowdown because the presenters typically choose to hide the earlier data.

26355. Joel_Huberman at 01:38 AM on 11 December 2015
       The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget
       

       OPOF @2,

       If I understand your comment correctly, then I think a simpler scheme, which might have slightly more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed by the legislature in my country (USA), would be double taxation as I shall describe.

       First--a carbon fee & dividend scheme similar to the one proposed by Citizens' Climate Lobby, but with higher initial rate and higher annual increments (due to the need for very rapid decarbonization). All the income collected from the fees on fossil fuel production would be returned in equal per capita amounts to all legal residents to compensate for rising energy costs. Calculations show that about 2/3 of residents would receive more from the dividend than they would pay in higher energy costs. The generally increased cost of fossil fuels and of all products and services derived from them would provide a market-based incentive to switch to alternative energy sources.

       Second--an airflight tax similar to the one proposed by Chancel and Pikkety (see original post), but higher due to the need for larger amounts than previously calculated to pay for the giant economic transformation needed by the poor countries of the world. As an occasional flyer myself, it seems to me that an increment averaging $100 per flight would not be overly burdensome.

26356. Kevin C at 01:20 AM on 11 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       I think it may be highly relevent. So a second line of attack would be to try removing the ENSO signal from the temperatures at the different pressure levels.

       There are lots of pointers to there being interesting science to be done here. Unfortunately I can't take it on this time!

26357. Rob Honeycutt at 00:58 AM on 11 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       I don't know if this is relavent, Kevin, but isn't that 500-700mb altitude right around the base of where we should be detecting the tropospheric hotspot?

       Would it make sense that that region of the atmosphere would be heavily influenced by the ENSO cycle, so that over a period dominated by la Nina we might actually expect to see less of a trend over the time frames being discussed?

26358. Kevin C at 00:31 AM on 11 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Yes, the weighted averages are less different than the peaks.

       What difference does it make? We can take a look at a reanalysis - in this case ERA-interim. Ideally we'd look at the weighted mean of the pressure levels, but for now I've just looked at the 700mb (3km) and 500mb (5.5km) levels. For the period 1998-2014 I get a trend of 0.08C/decade for the 700mb level and 0.04C/decade for the 500mb level (quick calculation without checks).

       However the difference in trend between the two levels is reversed for the period before 1998. That's consistent with the behavour of the difference between UAH v6.0 and v5.6. I haven't looked at the magnitude of the difference, but it could be that most of the difference between v5.6 and v6.0 is explained by the difference in the height sampling profile.
       
       That's an interesting project for someone to take on.

26359. MA Rodger at 23:37 PM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       From the graphs presented by Spencer in his write-up, the UAHv0.6beta sensitivity averages to an altitude of 4,500m while the UAHv5.6 averages to 3,400m. Using their version of such graphs, RSS averages to 4,200m.

26360. Eclectic at 21:49 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       to Pfc.Parts @722 : you make a fair point, with your comment "It would be very nice if this site allowed comments to be edited."

       On balance though, that would not be a good idea ~ and I am sure you can picture the chaos and non-sequiturs which would occur as posters go back and modify their posts, even with innocent intent (let alone the malicious intent). Nope: to be fair to all, a non-self-modified posting system is definitely far better.

       Mind you, it could be reasonable to allow a poster to later insert a very obvious "corrigendum" paragraph at the end, to deal with clumsy bloopers / typos / or poorly-expressed phrasing . . . and this would help the flow of understanding in the commentary [rather than having such corrections appear later and quite possibly be half-buried by other intervening posts]. Such corrigendum would require clear demarcation and date/time label.

       But . . . there would probably need to be a 24 or 48-hour cut-off for such "grafted-on" corrections. And even there, I am sure you can picture how some posters would try to play games and thoroughly abuse such a system. So, overall, it's simpler to keep this as they are : and it also makes for a simpler and less vulnerable control of the comments column.

       [apologies for this off-topic excursion]

26361. ryland at 19:44 PM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       @2, 4, 9, 12  Thanks Kevin C and scaddenp for the time taken and the civil  and informative responses to a couple of my questions.  Such responses here are both rare and a pleasant surprise.  

26362. denisaf at 19:27 PM on 10 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #49
       

       Mechanisms to capture industrial emissions have to be made of irreplaceable materials and have limited lifetimes. They may reduce the rate of emissions slightly for a while. As there is an existing commitment for infrastructure to use fossil fuels at a high rate, the concentration level in the atmosphere and ocean will continue to rise even if remedial policies are implemented.

26363. Kevin C at 17:43 PM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Spencer's write-up on UAH6.0beta notes that the peak sensitivity of 6.0 is at about 4km altitude, compared to about 2km for 5.6.

       I've done a little analysis of v6.0 from the perspective of using it to infill surface temperatures. My (so far unpublished) results show that, as you would probably expect, UAH6.0beta shows both lower spatial correlation and slightly less temporal correlation with surface temperature than v5.6. That's not to say v6.0 is wrong - it may be a better measure of temperature in the mid troposphere. However it is, both in theory and practice, less useful than v5.6 as a proxy for surface temperature.

26364. RedBaron at 16:48 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       addition and clarification to the above post

       I am comparing a ~70%+ reduction of methanotrophs (other soil biota too)  with a 20% atmospheric increase in animal husbandry CO2e over the same time period. With agriculture now ~40% of the terrestrial surface, it is no wonder that methane oxidation is relatively insignificant to ruminant emissions now. Not to mention all the other sources of methane. It is no wonder the rest of the terrestrial biosphere is incapable of keeping up and methane is rising.

26365. RedBaron at 16:27 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @"As to methanotrophs, I have already given you references to fact that methane oxidation is relatively insignificant to ruminant emissions, but by all means include it." and several related points and posts 

       What you are missing is when that observation was measured, before or after ~70%+ of the methanotrophs were exterpated from agricultural soils. I actually agree 100% that biotic methane oxidation is relatively insignificant to ruminant emissions NOW. That's the whole point. It is disgraceful. I am stunned you proposal would actually fight against restoring that lost ecosystem function, by blaming the tool that can best restore biotic communities in the soil when managed properly, the ruminant herbivore.

26366. One Planet Only Forever at 16:02 PM on 10 December 2015
       The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget
       

       I think there is a further step required to 'equitably' identify who should face what level of the total consequences of the now more challenging rapid reduction of burning of fossil fuels.

       Every wealthy powerful person today has very little ability to claim that they were unaware that it was unacceptable to try to get personal benefit from burning fossil fuels. In fact, for many decades every wealthy powerful person has only been able to try to hide or excuse or attempt to gather popular support for their understood to be unacceptable pursuits of benefit from the activity (and many other unacceptable activities).

       General taxation of entire national populations to gather 'corrective compensation' is not appropriate. Taxation focused on activities directly trying to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels should be the sole source of such tax revenue. That would mean a very high Carbon Tax plus Taxation of any business income (not on profit - tax on gross income) from the sale of fossil fuels (with a rebate of the tax if there is proof that the fossil fuels were not burned).

       That may appear to be 'double taxation', but it is just an attempt to more equitably share the consequences of the need to penalize the unacceptable pursuers of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels (between consumers and pursuers of profit). It would only 'double tax' an investor in the extraction and trade of fossil fuels who also chooses to personally burn a lot of fossil fuels.

       Another important consideration is the global change of 'directing economic activity' that could be developed to maximize the useable energy obtained from burning fossil fuels within the global cap on emissions. The old ways of 'competition to get away with benefiting the most that can be gotten away with' have inappropiately developed and prolonged economies (particularly through the past 25 years) and will clearly not be effective ways to address this challenge.

       A new way of globally working together could actually significantly increase the total energy obtained from fossil fuel burning by most rapidly shutting down the highest impacting activities per unit of final user obtained energy (including all impacts, not just the production of excess CO2). But that is not likely to happen because of the inertia of the inappropriately developed wealth on the planet.

       Many developed perceptions of prosperity and wealth are not fully deserved. Properly correcting those unsustainable perceptions (getting global acceptance of the need to correct those perceptions) will be a huge challenge, but overcoming it is essential to the future of humanity.

       People who think they are winners do not like becoming losers (even if they know they cheated and even if after their loss they will still actually be living better lives than most other people will ever be able to live).

       Science leading to better understanding continues to be the key mover of humanity towards a lasting better future for all (and the key target of those whose interests are negatively impacted by developing better understanding).

       The advancement of humanity has clearly been stalled and even set back whenever the pursuits of personal benefit can trump the better understanding of what is required to develop a lasting better future for all.

       Hopefully, this issue will lead to the type of change of global human awareness and understanding that can develop a lasting constantly improving future for all of humanity (Let the games end, and understanding rule).

26367. ryland at 15:40 PM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       I don' t comment on any other website so anything you see elsewhere under ryland is not from me.  And as for you not seeing "the slightest evidence" it may be that you don't always/refuse to recognise what you are seeing.  

26368. wideEyedPupil at 15:39 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       I'm concerned with the presentation of this page and the more recent version.

       The Zero Carbon Australia Land Use Report found that a proper and full accounting of GHG emissions pegs Land Use at 55% of emissions using 20 year GWP. As you'd be aware 20 yr GWP is significant, given the perilous state of many climatic system and stocks of ice etc. Even using 100 year GWP which tends to obscure the effects in near term on climate systems of methane and black carbon it will soon be at 50% of national emissions.

       The major contributing factors were found to be land clearing (often cyclical), savannah burning (repeated) and centric fermentation. This would make it likely that GHG emissions in North and South America might be in that vicinity given the large amount of Amazonian and other old growth forest clearing going on to grow cattle and soy crops to feed north american cattle.

       90% of that 55% of national emissions using 20yr GWP is associated with livestock ruminants, mostly the large extended zone pastural operations in northern Australia, mostly for cattle.

       By presenting this argument using standard UNFCCC accounting which majorly obscures, re-assigns and ignores emissions and removal of sequestration sources associate with Land Use Sector you are in fact perpetuating a myth not debunking one.

       To my best knowledge the ZCA Land Use Report was peer reviewed and supervised within MSSI (University of Melbourne) and has not be refuted in the literature. Nor has it's conclusion that 55% of Australia's national GHG emissions using 20 yr PWG are from the Land Use Sector. I'd ask the you rename these pages to be less pejorative and more in line with the science and debate if you want to call it that.

       Given that much of the old growth forest clearing going on in the world to produce more ruminnent grazing pasture and crops to feed ruminents and animals in general, and that this OGF is the greatest CO2 sequester known to man, and that it's impossible to regain the sequestration levels once OGFs are logged, even after a century, it's doubly important that land use sector emissions be seen as the major problem, perhaps the greatest problem in the short term for GHGs reduction (ignoring the politics of livestock lobby vs ff lobby), then renaming this Page and the old version is required.
       
       Alastair Leith
       Climate Activist and Campaigner

26369. wideEyedPupil at 15:36 PM on 10 December 2015
       Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
       

       Zero Carbon Australia Land Use Report

26370. wideEyedPupil at 15:35 PM on 10 December 2015
       Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
       

       I'm concerned with the presentation of this page http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html.

       The Zero Carbon Australia Land Use Report found that a proper and full accounting of GHG emissions pegs Land Use at 55% of emissions using 20 year GWP. As you'd be aware 20 yr GWP is significant, given the perilous state of many climatic system and stocks of ice etc. Even using 100 year GWP which tends to obscure the effects in near term on climate systems of methane and black carbon it will soon be at 100 years,

       The major contributing factors were found to be land clearing (often cyclical), savannah burning (repeated) and centric fermentation. This would make it likely that GHG emissions in North and South America might be in that vicinity given the large amount of Amazonian and other old growth forest clearing going on to grow cattle and soy crops to feed north american cattle.

       90% of that 55% of national emissions using 20yr GWP is associated with livestock ruminants, mostly the large extended zone pastural operations in northern Australia, mostly for cattle.

       By presenting this argument using standard UNFCCC accounting which majorly obscures, re-assigns and ignores emissions and removal of sequestration sources associate with Land Use Sector you are in fact perpetuating a myth not debunking one.

       To my best knowledge the ZCA Land Use Report was peer reviewed and supervised within MSSI (University of Melbourne) and has not be refuted in the literature. Nor has it's conclusion that 55% of Australia's national GHG emissions using 20 yr PWG are from the Land Use Sector. I'd ask the you rename these pages to be less pejorative and more in line with the science and debate if you want to call it that.
       
       Given that much of the old growth forest clearing going on in the world to produce more ruminnent grazing pasture and crops to feed ruminents and  animals in general, and that this OGF is the greatest CO2 sequester known to man, and that it's impossible to regain the sequestration levels once OGFs are logged, even after a century, it's doubly important that land use sector emissions be seen as the major problem, perhaps the greatest problem in the short term for GHGs reduction (ignoring the politics of livestock lobby vs ff lobby), then renaming this Page and the old version is required. 

       Alastair Leith
       Climate Activist and Campaigner

        

26371. wideEyedPupil at 15:16 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @RedBaron I'm not sure if the way you talk around points made or recast them to your own misuse is motivated by your enthusiasm to be found correct or if it's wilful misspeech. Whatever, your claim that signifcant methane is not going to travel vertically away from the soil, never seeing the inside of a soil biota's digestion mechanism, and this methane you don't concede to is even so still a GHG sink is extremely odd and unsubstanciated in science.

       Your claim that the methane that isn't fixed in the soil meets abiotic oxidation is does not erase the problematic nature of methane for CC. Methane has a CO2-e co-efficient of 86 using 20 year GWP. That's what IPCC say in AR 5, and methane's CO2-e co-efficent has been upwardly revised each and every Assessment Report. Perhaps you are refering to some process that reduces the CO2-e co-effcient of methane in the atmosphere by pastures being hundreds of metres below the centre of the lower atmosphere that is not accounted for in the latest IPCC AR?

       You're making a large assumption that the decrease of methane outflow from pasture ruminants is greater than the reduced methane outflows from ruminants in the lots have due to dietary interventions. Again, elegant rhetioric is not what's required here, ugly data will suffice.

       @SkepticalScience… get a 5-10 minute edit window functionality for Dawkin's sake, it's the mature thing to do.

26372. wideEyedPupil at 15:11 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @RedBaron I'm not sure if the way you talk around points made or recast them to your own misuse is motivated by your enthusiasm to be fpound correct or if it's wilful misspeech, but either way your claim that some methane is not going to travel vertically away from the soil and never see the inside of a soil biota's digestion mechanism is somehow still a sink is extremely odd and unsubstanciated in science.

       Your claim that the methane that isn't fixed in the soil meets abiotic oxidation is does not erase the problematic nature of methane for CC. Methane has a CO2-e co-efficient of 86 using 20 year GWP. That's what IPCC say, and methane's CO2-e co-efficent has been upwardly revised each and every Assessment Report. Perhaps you are refering to some process that reduces the CO2-e co-effcient of methane in the atmosphere that is not accounted for in the latest IPCC AR?

       You're making a large assumption that the decrease of methane outflow from pasture ruminants is greater than the reduced methane outflows from ruminants in the lots have due to dietary interventions. Again, elegant rhetioric is not what's required here, ugly data will suffice.
       
       @SkepticalScience… get a 5 minute edit window functionality for god's sake, it's the mature thing to do.

26373. wideEyedPupil at 15:08 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @RedBaron I'm not sure if the way you talk around points made or recast them to your own misuse is motivated by your enthusiasm to be fpound correct or if it's wilful misspeech, but either way your claim that some methane is not going to travel vertically away from the soil and never see the inside of a soil biota's digestion mechanism.
       
       Your claim that the methane that isn't fixed in the soil meets abiotic oxidation is does not erase the problematic nature of methane for CC. Methane has a CO2-e co-efficient of 86 using 20 year GWP. That's what IPCC say, and methane's CO2-e co-efficent has been upwardly revised each and every Assessment Report. Perhaps you are refering to some process that reduces the CO2-e co-effcient of methane in the atmosphere that is not accounted for in the latest IPCC AR?
       
       You're making a large assumption that the decrease of methane outflow from pasture ruminants is greater than the reduced methane outflows from ruminants in the lots have due to dietary interventions. Again, elegant rhetioric is not what's required here, ugly data will suffice.  

26374. wideEyedPupil at 15:06 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @RedBaron I'm not sure if the way you talk around points made or recast them to your own misuse is motivated by your enthusiasm to be fpound correct or if it's wilful misspeech, but either way your claim that some methane is not going to travel vertically away from the soil and never see the inside of a soil biota's digestion mechanism.
       
       Your claim that the methane that isn't fixed in the soil meets abiotic oxidation is does not erase the problematic nature of methane for CC. Methane has a CO2-e co-efficient of 86 using 20 year GWP. That's what IPCC say, and methane's CO2-e co-efficent has been upwardly revised each and every Assessment Report. Perhaps you are refering to some process that reduces the CO2-e co-effcient of methane in the atmosphere that is not accounted for in the latest IPCC AR?

26375. RedBaron at 15:03 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @scaddenp #118

       Yes, that has been seen before other places too. That is the specific thing Savory set to work figuring out and correcting, and what the big deal is over his holistic management. Knowing that is going to happen, proactively monitoring for it, and knowing how to adapt before it decreases ecosystem function, in every sort of complex situation is exactly what Savory has been working on for the last several decades. Which is why he is the top grazing scientist in the world.

26376. wideEyedPupil at 14:45 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       @Pfc. Parts 
       I gather from you're tone your here to troll not to learn, understand or convey science. But if you're interested in the source you can listen the full interview with Ben Santer (lead author of the historic 1995 IPCC) here:
       
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOrUYQhGzT8
       
       He states, no known natural mechanisms or combination of natural causes  have that sustained effect, that human fingerprint, in this unquie way.

       My focus has been, in the last 10 years or so, on two things. One is the vertical structure of temperature changes in the atmosphere. If you look from the surface of the Earth right up into the stratosphere, 20 miles above the surface of the Earth, what we’ve actually observed in weather balloon measurements and satellite measurements is this complex pattern of warming low down and cooling up high. The lower atmosphere, the troposphere, has shown warming pretty much across all latitude bends, and the upper atmosphere has shown cooling over the last 30 to 40 years or so.

       It turns out that that pattern of warming low down and cooling up high is really distinctive. We know of no natural mechanisms that can generate something like that, sustained for three or four decades. Volcanoes can’t do it. The sun can’t do it. Internal climate variability can’t do it, nor can some combination of natural causes: volcanoes, the sun, and internal variability generate that complex pattern of warming low down and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The only thing that we know of that can generate that distinctive fingerprint is human-caused increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gasses, and human-caused depletion in the upper atmosphere of stratospheric ozone.

       It’s been fascinating over my career to look at ever-better satellite observations and ever-better model simulations and see that fingerprint pattern of human effects literally emerging from the noise. The best information we have now from our most recent research is that the chances of getting a fingerprint match between that human fingerprint pattern of warming low down and cooling up high and purely natural causes is infinitesimally small. The signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10. That’s what our research tells us. There’s just no way of explaining what we’ve actually observed without invoking a strong human effect on climate.

26377. RedBaron at 14:37 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @scaddenp #117

       I gave you two studies already (one focusing on water holding capacity which is directly related to carbon in the soil and the other here[1]), as far as anything comprehensive that includes all the various forms of MIRG in all the various climatic and soil conditions, I haven't seen that quantified anywhere yet. It might be a good thing for someone to do. The closest to that I have found is this 

       "Rates of C sequestration by type of improvement ranged from 0.11 to 3.04 Mg C·ha−1 yr−1, with a mean of 0.54 Mg C·ha−1·yr−1, and were highly influenced by biome type and climate. We conclude that grasslands can act as a significant carbon sink with the implementation of improved management.[2]" And even that includes all sorts "improvement", and doesn't really simply compare MIRG to set stock rate continuous grazing.

       This isn't really a scientific study, but might be useful to you in helping show you the mechanics behind how to properly start. Then of course if you applied holistic management as described post #77 with the monitoring and adaptive management plan, it would help you personally optimise it for your own particulars:  "This bulletin covers the basic principles underlying all types of rotational grazing. Management intensive rotational grazing will be emphasized because it offers a number of advantages over both continuous grazing and less intensive rotational systems.
       These include
       ■ more stable production during
       poor growing conditions (especially
       drought),
       ■ greater yield potential,
       ■ higher quality forage available,
       ■ decreased weed and erosion
       problems, and
       ■ more uniform soil fertility levels.
       There are many names for intensive rotational grazing: Voisin grazing, Hohenheim grazing, intensive grazing management, management intensive grazing, short duration grazing, Savory systems, strip grazing, controlled grazing, and high-intensity, low-frequency grazing. Although each term implies slight differences in management, they all refer to some sort of intensive rotational grazing system."..."Rotational grazing also can increase the amount of forage harvested per acre over continuous grazing by as much as 2 tons dry matter per acre.[3]" Keep in mind while this is harvested forage and no figures were given for carbon sequestration, An increase of 2 tons harvested means ~4 tons above ground increase in vegetation with and even larger increase below ground+an additional 30% in root exudates that feed the soil food web. As we discussed before that is active fraction, not stable, but the below ground is where the stable fraction forms. So at least in Minnisota that's big increases.

       Specifically for sequestered carbon I would send your soil scientist friend to contact Jay Furher. I know he did and is still doing some case studies for the USDA that are measuring carbon.

26378. Pfc. Parts at 14:12 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       It would be very nice if this site allowed comments to be edited.

26379. Pfc. Parts at 14:05 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       I was proof reading my post here on the last page of comments when I encountered this gem:

       "One of the human finger prints cited in the first week of the Denial course was that the atmospheric warming this century is unique in the fact of warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere"

       
       Not sure who came up with this but it's trully choice. So how many folks were measuring the temperature of Earth's stratosphere 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 2000? 20,000 years ago?

       Whoever made up that fun fact should get a prize, it's a real whopper.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] try reading for understanding rather than demostrating misunderstanding before banding about accusations. The surface temperature of any planet can be altered by changing solar input, albedo, GHG composition or aerosols. Increases in GHG composition is unique in that it is only forcing change that will warm the surface but cool stratosphere.

26380. Pfc. Parts at 13:58 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       "Tom" doesn't make it possible. "To make"

       "methodology" not "mehtodology"

       "vapor" not "vaport"

       "suborbital" not "soborbital"

26381. Pfc. Parts at 13:52 PM on 10 December 2015
       There is no consensus
       

       John writes: "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing"

       Actually that's a bit simplistic. A scientifi consensus is formed after a series of scientists are able to reproduce the work of the scientist advancing a hypothesis. This is done by publishing confiming/denying results in refreed journals. Tom make that possible, the person advancing the hypothesis first fully explains it, then describes how it was tested (the "mehtodology"), the observed data and the results.

       A scientific consensus isn't formed by simple agreement between scientists, it's evidence based and very much dependent on repeatable experiment. So while the consensus that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, meaning that like water vapor and methane it absorbs and radiates solar energy in known quanta, there is no consensus on the effect or "sensitivity" Earth's climate has to increases or decreases in it. Which is the problem.

       We know CO2 absorbs IR. Water vaport (H20) observes much more, so much more that IR astronomers put their telescopes as high as possible, on Mauna Kea, Medium Altitude soborbital platforms like the KAO and SOPHIA, and in low Earth orbit in order to get above H20. IR astronomers aren't particularly worried about CO2 because its effect is so small it just doesn't matter.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Myths about water vapour are addressed under "water is the most powerful greenhouse gas". Make your arguments there. Offtopic comments will be deleted.

26382. scaddenp at 13:06 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Nuts. On closer examination, the high SOC gains were only short term. On decadal scale SOC was either stable or reducing. but depends on soil type.

26383. scaddenp at 12:39 PM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Was discussing this with a landcare scientist and we would be really interested to hear about SOC accumulation rates under MIRG. If land is not under constant irrigation support then meaningful data must cover dry spell. Apparently there is interesting data (ie high SOC) coming in for some irrigated or high rainfall intensive grazing regimes here.

26384. Digby Scorgie at 11:53 AM on 10 December 2015
       The Road to Two Degrees, Part Three: Equity, inertia and fairly sharing the remaining carbon budget
       

       This has been a fascinating trilogy of articles.  My overall impression is that considerable sacrifices will have to be made, especially by the rich, if we are to stay below two degrees of warming; meanwhile, everyone is pretending like crazy that the necessary adjustments can be made without anyone needing to make any sacrifices at all.

26385. scaddenp at 10:33 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       That would be called moving the goalposts. Pre-1970 doesnt count? Paddy coverage has also be fairly stable. It is good that until recently Ch4 emissions have been relatively stable since early 1990s. Noone is blaming AGW on agriculture. CO2 from FF is unquestionably the main problem, but you cant ignore CH4 either.

       If you want to show that say, MIRG, is benign, then need to show that:

       (CO2e emissions/ha/yr now - Co2e emission/ha/yr pre-industrial ) < SOC increase/ha/yr

       The CO2e emission pre-industrial is tied down pretty well by earlier reference. "CO2e emissions /ha/yr now" = emission/head/yr * stocking rate - oxidation/ha by methanotrophs/ha/yr (the latter tied by del Grosso). The main numbers I am missing is SOC change for MIRG - you got reference for that?  - and stocking rate which I cant seem to tie down.

       As to methanotrophs, I have already given you references to fact that methane oxidation is relatively insignificant to ruminant emissions, but by all means include it. To show grazing better than grain, then you need to show that SOC loss and methane oxidation loss is greater than previous grazing emission load. However, I notice plenty of papers showing increase in SOC under grain cropping by using no-tillage and/or better rotation farming.

26386. Tom Curtis at 10:14 AM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       ryland @8: 

       UAH tlt v6.0 beta4:

       1994-2004 0.094
       2000-2010 0.105
       2004-current 0.129

       In fact the realclimate article offering the bet states:

       "The basis for the temperature comparison will be the HadCRUT3 global mean surface temperature data set used by the authors in their paper."

       HadCRUT3v

       1994-2004 0.337
       2000-2010 0.411
       2004-2014 0.422

       Basicaly it does not matter which surface dataset, or satellite tlt dataset you use - the bet would have been lost by Keenlyside et al.  And the payout, if the bet were accepted, would not have been based on "perception" but reality - the reality of the HadCRUT3 dataset which has not been adjusted.

       And, speaking of which, Ryland @7, I would believe you are just raising concerns about perception if there was even the slightest evidence that you dispelled false perceptions in favour of reality on this or any other website.  If you do, I certainly have not seen that evidence.  Rather, you appear to want to use a perception as a cloak against reality - repeatedly.

26387. RedBaron at 09:53 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @Scaddenp 

       Total emissions from agricultural ruminants went from a little less than 2GT CO2e in 1970 to a little more than 2.3GT CO2e in 2010: less than 20% in 40 years. Meanwhile there are no hard numbers, but wildlife ruminants actually decreased over that same time period and species after species runs precariously close to extinction. But even ignoring that, it is an increase easily offset by simply putting those animals back on pasture where they belong and managing it properly.

       Meanwhile what do you suppose the emissions from other things actually causing AGW were during that same time period? Tripled. 300%

       More importantly 1970s is when Nixon's Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz favored increased agricultural exports of grain and basically started the whole new business model of over production of grain as an international political tool/weapon. Any country with a differing political view? Just dump cheap grain on them and drive their idigenous farmers out of business. He went all over the country telling farmers to "get big or get out" and to plow up their fallow fields and start planting "fence row to fence row" That destructive business model then exported to other countries as well. Of course with all the fields plowed up, that meant we had to start feeding all that glut of excess grain to cattle and the even more destructive CAFO business model was developed and also exported around the world. All that extra land that before then was capable of mitigating AGW, now in a production model that contributes to AGW. I already gave you the links showing over 70% reduction in methanotrophs, but equally bad was similar reductions of Mycorrhizal fungi and other soil biota which also helps mitigate AGW.

       If you are insistent on blaming agriculture, don't blame the cow, blame Earl Butz.

26388. scaddenp at 09:44 AM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       The prediction about cooling that bet was based on, was for modelling of global surface temperatures. The appropriate data set to compare against the model prediction is GISS. Satellites attempt to measure measure lower troposphere (lower 4-6 km) temperatures. Besides the usual issues with satellite measurements, the troposphere is much more sensitive to ENSO variations than surface temperatures.

       The precise nature of the prediction was that: "over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged." The slow rate of warming in satellite records is due largely to preponderance of La Nina pattern in pacific.

26389. scaddenp at 08:38 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Not just bison, but they were the dominant ruminant by far in pre-industrial praire. deer and sheep are ruminants, but praire dogs and grasshoppers arent. I am certainly not reading vegan literature. I am meat eater and all for better agricultural management. I also believe we need food and that you cant grow protein groups on soils that we graze sheep on. What I am reading is IPCC reports and associated literature. No problem is solved by pretending it doesnt exist.

26390. ryland at 08:22 AM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       @5  I'm not sure that anyone answered my original query if the bet was based on ground or satellite based readings but satellite doesn't UAH 6  show a decrease in the temperature trend since 1998?  Even though other data sets showed warming that UAH data could have lead the cool bettors to suggest that the bet should be annulled

26391. scaddenp at 08:12 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Sorry, but you are making assertions that not at all supported by the literature. (Ch6 of IPCC AR5 WG1 is index into this).

       "AGW methane increases are mostly from mining, natural gas, fracking, melting methane clathrates, melting permafrost etc..." -

       Um, no they are not. Those account for <30%.  Expansion of paddy and ruminant no.s are the main contributors. Globally megafauna skyrocketed after industrial revolution from 0.2E12 kg to 1.4E12kg (here, fig 5). 

       Of course methane was produced from animals pre-human even, but it is the vast increase in no.s post industrial rev that is the anthropogenic part of emissions.

26392. ryland at 08:08 AM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Tom Curtis.  You clearly never have heard the phrase "perception is reality."  The point I'm making has nothing at all to do with the data per se but only to the perceptions of "foul play" that alterations to the data might have caused.  I hope I have now made that clear to you. And  I'm not saying or even insinuating there was any foul play.  As the altered data showed warming the cool bettor could be suspicious of the result and had it shown cooling the warm bettots might have had their suspicions. 

26393. RedBaron at 07:46 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @scaddenp

       Not just bison also elk deer moose bighorn sheep antelope over 40 extinct species of megafauna, prairie dogs, extinct species of grasshoppers and on and on. You are reading Vegan "exterminate the evil cow" unholy alliance with AGW deniers propaganda again.

       But at least you did say at the end "cattle in feedlots". Feedlots being the key component that actually at least is part of AGW.

26394. RedBaron at 07:34 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       No no no it is not the lions share.  It's not even the cow. Rather in so much as the little bit that did increase is related to animal husbandry, it is the methods by which those cows are raised. AGW methane increases are mostly from mining, natural gas, fracking, melting methane clathrates, melting permafrost etc... Even in agriculture, the haber process nitrogen we spread on fields killing over 70% of the methanotrophs (the only biotic methane sink) has a larger effect than the cow.

       I guess you  are going to have to trust me on this, because I can't find a scientific study that explicitly states it, but even before mankind existed as a species, animals were belching, farting, breathing and rotting after they died. All of which is "emissions" by that AGW denialist rhetoric. 

26395. scaddenp at 06:27 AM on 10 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Everything is AGW is really compared to pre-industrial. Methane concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial (0.8 to 1.85) with increase in ruminants taking the lion share. As you point out, CH4 is short-lived so this represented substantial, sustained change of flux. The GWP for methane used to calculate CO2e takes into account the lifespan of CH4 in atmosphere.

       Just looking at US rangeland, you think that change from 30M bison (emitting 72g/d CH4) to 90M cattle (emitting 170-240g/d CH4) really supports "methane from ruminants contribute nothing to the current AGW,"? The Follet et al 2001 reference above also notes overall loss of SOC since settlement. This report puts cattle in feedlots at 14%

26396. Tom Curtis at 01:44 AM on 10 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Knaugle, using WoodforTrees, the relevant means for RSS are:

       1994-2004: 0.196

       2000-2010: 0.225

       2004-Current: 0.239

       2005-Curent: 0.242

       I have included the last as a better approximation to a decadal value.

       In any event, with RSS it remains a clear win for the 'warmists', although the margins are not as large.

       As an aside, the bet was that each period would be warmer, with a payout to Keenlyside et al if temperatures were tied (had they taken the bet).

       As is so often the case with ryland's comments, he adopts a position that retains its reasonableness only by scrupulously not looking at the data.  If you play unfair and look at the data, you find all he is left with is empty rhetoric.

26397. Pete12981 at 01:34 AM on 10 December 2015
       Sea level is not rising
       

       I wonder how Monkton or anyone with a graph they believe disproves rise would care to explain how come the North Norfolk coast is getting increasingly flooded from the North Sea, and the golf course at Brancaster, just to cite one place, is expecting to lose its course by 2020 as it's close to the sea with just dunes protecting. And as no houses on the seaward side of the coast road can get mortgages.

26398. Pete12981 at 01:28 AM on 10 December 2015
       Sea level is not rising
       

       Something has been bothering me for a while, but I've found no mentions in the literature. Maybe someone here has knowledge.

       We know with increasing storms and precipitation causing massive flooding, landslides and topsoil degrading, the latter is talked about as harming agriculture. All the soil washed away eventually ends up in rivers and then the sea. It has volume, it is increasing. Archimedes?

       Is anyone attempting to estimate the volume of loss and its effect on sea level rise added to all the other causes we know about? There are figures for soil loss annually, which one site claimed was the size of Wales, but no volumes and I know nothing about soil scince or erosion. However small, it's bound to add. Additionally, there's coastal erosion which is also adding annually to the eureka effect.

26399. knaugle at 23:59 PM on 9 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       With respect to ryland's comment, looking at Cowtan's temperature plotter and the RSS data since 1994, it is slightly possible that the Real Climate folk would have won that bet as well.  Remember the bet was1.  2000-2010 >= 1994-2004 and
       2.  2005-2015 >= 1994-2004

       While it is certainly true some (like Ted Cruz) can point to RSS data and say "no warming" the past 18 years, even RSS clearly shows "no cooling" as well, certainly since 1994.  The El Nino years in 2010 and present certainly balance the massive one in 1998 and the period 2001 to 2007 works to the advantage of the Real Climate folk.

       So far as Ryland's altered horse track comment, note that RSS does not seem to publish version numbers, but I would be surprised if their methods have been locked in stone since 1994.  UAH on the other hand is far more open.  Their version 5.6 was much more in agreement with the surface data sets, but version 6.0 moved its data significantly in the direction of RSS data.  THAT as well is an altered horse track.

26400. Kevin C at 23:05 PM on 9 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       OK, here are the results using both the previous SST dataset (ERSSTv3b), and the one before that (HadR2):

                   1994-2004    2000-2010    2004-2015
       ERSSTv3b      0.492        0.591        0.619
       HadR2         0.458        0.557        0.589
       SkS           0.451        0.553        0.587

       I took the dates from the RC post, which claims they are decadal. However the last period seems to be an unusual 11-year decade.
       
       If you want to go further the next step would be to use the SkS temperature calculator to calculate a pure unadjusted record from HadSST3-unadjusted and GHCN-unadjusted. That way we can ensure that no changes in adjustment or calculation method play a role. I've listed those in the final row of the table.

       I'm not endorsing those numbers - Zeke and I have already provided two independent analyses supporting the existence of a cool bias in the SSTs over the period. They should therefore be treated as a lower bound on the warming over that period.

Prev  520  521  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  Next