Recent Comments

Prev  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  Next

Comments 26451 to 26500:

26451. 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.  

26452. 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.

26453. 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 My (so far unpublished) results show that, as you would probably expect, UAH6.0beta shows both lower spatial correlation and slightly less temporal correlation with surface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.

26454. 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.

26455. 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.

26456. 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).

26457. 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.  

26458. 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

26459. 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

26460. 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

        

26461. 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.

26462. 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.

26463. 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.  

26464. 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?

26465. 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.

26466. 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.

26467. 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.

26468. 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.

26469. 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.

26470. 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"

26471. 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.

26472. 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.

26473. 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.

26474. 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.

26475. 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.

26476. 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.

26477. 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.

26478. 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.

26479. 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.

26480. 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

26481. 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.

26482. 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. 

26483. 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.

26484. 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. 

26485. 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%

26486. 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.

26487. 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.

26488. 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.

26489. 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.

26490. 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.

26491. RedBaron at 22:19 PM on 9 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @scaddenp

       I slept on it and I think I figured our why we are at odds. I believe it is a failure to communicate and I am willing to take the blame. I really failed to express to you what I mean by "net sink". Obviously there is always going to be some methane entering the atmosphere. But we are talking about AGW. In other words how humans have effected that cycle. So when I say net with regards to methane it means something different than when I say net with regards to carbon dioxide.

       Methane from animals is the short cycle. There always was and always will be emissions of methane from the short cycle, just replacing what gets oxidized abiotically. So because methane has such a short 1/2 life in the atmosphere, to actually be a cause of AGW, the emissions rate would have to exceed pre industrial emissions rates. Anything with a lower emissions rate than that can be seen as a net reduction. That doesn't mean no emissions, just less emissions. For that reason methane from ruminants contribute nothing to the current AGW, but rather the factory farm production model that removed those ruminants from the land.

       This is different than CO2, because CO2 is stable in the atmosphere. It basically does not oxidize abiotically.

26492. Eclectic at 21:41 PM on 9 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Let's hope "the bet" outcome will not be much different, for old versus new, on the Cowtan Totalisator.

       I'm expecting that the [Ryland] horse racetrack length will have suffered only a few metres' alteration in toto, over the years. Not enough to worry any genuine punter, anyway.

       Plus, we have already witnessed the cumulative race results in recent decades . . . and the stewards have confirmed the results :- It's getting warmer. No pawse, just hoofbeats ~ and let's pray it is not the biblical four horse race  :-)

26493. Kevin C at 21:04 PM on 9 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       Fortunately GISS still distribute the ERSSTv3b grids, and the software to blend them into a land-ocean record. They're at the bottom of this page. Look for the link labelled "Sea surface air temperature (ERSSTv3b), previously used". So we can easily find out whether the bet would also have been won with the old GISTEMP.

       I've got the calculations running now.

26494. ryland at 20:25 PM on 9 December 2015
       Betting against global warming is a sure way to lose money
       

       To forestall any criticism, let me say upfront I don't believe alterations to temperature records have been made solely to hide a "hiatus" or "pause "or exaggerate a warming trend.  A question-was the bet based on temperature calculations from satellite measurement or ground station observations?  In view of the adjustments that have been made to temperature readings for whatever reason, it is probably a good thing the bet was not made.  Adjustments to temperature records which did occur after the bet had been suggested, would and quite rightly should, have raised doubts in all of those placing the bet whatever the temperature trend showed.  A bit like having a bet on a horse only to find  finding the track had been altered after the bet had been placed but before the race had been run.  

26495. scaddenp at 18:54 PM on 9 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       foolonthehill. I dont have NZ no.s but grazing/farmland in US takes up CH4 at <1.5kg/ha/yr (the del Grosso reference). 226g/head/day is 82.5kg/head so you should be able to work out from your stocking rate /ha. (which is what by the way? I found it very hard to get info on US stock rates which seem to be 0.2-0.3 on rangeland. NZ intensive dairy goes to 3.5-4 I think.)

26496. scaddenp at 18:45 PM on 9 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Redbaron, your conjectures are not supported by the actual measured methane oxidation rates, nor  (so far) by actual measurements of SOC increase. No SOC increase, no sequestration.  Now the results I had were from survey of NZ soils. Prairie soils are a different beast so if you can find comparable multi-decade survey showing SOC rates big enough to offset the number of ruminants, then I would be delighted to see it. The best I could find was Follet et al 2001. 

       This notes the issue with intensity

       " light stocking intensities (1.2 AUM/ha) did not have any effect on the SOC content after 44 years of grazing; however, heavy (2.4 AUM/ha) and very heavy (4.8 AUM/ha) grazing significantly reduced the SOC in the foothills of southwestern Alberta. They believe the heavy grazing intensities “jeopardized the sustainability of the ecosystemby reducing the fertility and water holding capacity."

       However, the study mostly considers the potential for increasing SOC and its recommendations for practise look truly excellent. Overall,

       "We estimated ... that 10.2Mha of U.S. pastures use improved grazing management systems, with sequestration rates of 300 to 1300 kg C/ha/yr and total sequestration of 3.1 to 13.3 MMTC/yr. "

       While this is good news, a dry-cattle low-end emission is 170g CH4/day, = 62kg/year or =1737 kg Co2e/year. So the stocking rate is vital. 0.29 head per ha is 500kg CO2e/ha/yr. At that rate, SOC can keep ahead. No way if stocking rate is even 1/ha. Increased SOC seemed to come from better grazing management, fertilizer and water inputs which I would also associate with higher stocking.

26497. Tom Curtis at 18:39 PM on 9 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @51 draws attention to three purported sources of "erroneous conversion from emissions to forcing", one of which (different estimate of radiative forcing relative to change of concentration) is valid and is discussed at 48 above.  It represents an 18% overestimate of FAR radiative forcing for change in concentration relative to current estimates for CO2 forcing, although less than that for all WMGHG.  It is the major factor as to why scenario B rather than scenario D is the closest relevant factor.

       To that valid concern, he adds two specious concerns.  The first is an assumed overestimate of the retained fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.  However, the IPCC FAR BAU scenario represents a retained fraction of 55% of the specified emissions.  Those emissions are industrial emissions, as argued @48 above, for which the retained fraction on modern observations is also 55%.  The retained fraction would be too high if (and only if) the CO2 emissions specified in the scenarios were intended to be the combined industrial plus LUC emissions, a possibility contradicted by the fact that the states emissions in 1990 are well less than the combined emissions averaged over the preceding decade as specifice in the FAR.

       The second specious concern is that the model used for the prediction did not incorporate aerosols as a forcing.  That could be a valid concern if anthropogenic aerosol forcings increased significantly from 1990-2015.  Unfortunately I cannot test that, but from the IPPC AR5 Figure 8-18 (below), it can be seen that anthropogenic forcings in addition to WMGHG has decreased by 2.4%.  Furthermore, overall forcings have decreased relative to WMGHG as well.  The IPCC FAR included only anthropogenic WMGHG because rates of change in other anthropogenic forcings, and in natural forcings, was expected to be small relative to anthropogenic WMGHG, a supposition born out by AR5 data.

       

        

       Finally, Charlie A lets forth with a rhetorical cannard, suggesting we are comparing IPCC FAR predictions by applying their two box model to historical forcings.  Of course, nothing is further from the truth.  What we are doing is comparing historical forcings to the four IPCC scenarios to see which one most closely matches history.  That is what we are supposed to do.  That is the whole point of constructing different scenarios and generating a range of projections instead of just one prediction.

26498. MA Rodger at 18:22 PM on 9 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @51.

       You actually signal four objections to the FAR. Objecting to the abilities of the FAR climate models to provide anything useful does rather trump all that goes before. Do you feel the predictive abilities achieved by FAR to date are then just coincidental?

       But let us be "instructive" and begin by addressing initially your first point. The Airborne Fraction AF (as it is referred to these days) has remained remarkably steady over period of Atmospheric CO2 instrument data, something that wasn't that clear a quarter of a century ago. Another difficulty facing the FAR was the emissions from LUC which they greatly underestimated. Thus the numbers used to calculate the AF were not the ones we would use today and would indeed suggest a rising AF. However, these data problems do cancel each other out over initial decades.

       Also note that the FAR did not begin by defining emissions. That was not a part of the "Task A" brief required of WGIII whic was more to check that the climate forcings in their brief were realistic. Some of the numbers they considered were extreme by today's standards but those were generally averaged out of the final scenarios.

       Given this situation, your position on this first point is not clear. Are you then actually arguing that the scenarios, presumably specifically Scenario A is some form of straw man?

26499. Charlie A at 17:12 PM on 9 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       #49 MA Roger. "you suggest there was "erroneous conversion from emissions to forcing" within the FAR scnarios. Could you expand on that comment?"

       1.  Errors in calculating concentrations that result from given emissions.

         I have not calculated the specific impact of this, but it appears that FAR overestimated the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that would remain the atmosphere.

       2.  Errors in calculating radiative forcing for given concentrations  Is CO2 radiative forcing 3.7W/m2/doubling or is it 4.3W/m2/doubling.   Obviously, if one uses 4.3 (as did FAR) instead of 3.7 one calculates higher forcings than if one uses the currently accepted 3.7 number.

       3.  Ignoring aerosols.  Yes, FAR radiative forcing calculations completely ignored aerosols.   I have not caclulated the specific impact of this.  In 1990 the was uncertainty as to whether aerosols were even a positive or negative forcing:  "In view of the above uncertainties on the sign, the affected area and the temporal trend of the direct impact of aerosols, we are unable to estimate the change in forcing due to troposphenc aerosols. "  Page64 FAR WG1, forcing chapter. 

       -----------------------------------------

        The goal of governmental policies are to control emissions, since that is the human "input" to the ecosystem.  

       First, from emissions we make assumptions, and calculate concentrations.  Secondly, from those calculated concentrations we then calculate radiative forcings.  In a third step, from the radiative forcings we then calculate expected temperature changes.

        

       While it is instructive to ignore errors in the first two steps and then see if the calculations from forcings to temperature changes are correct, it sheds very little light on the overall accuracy of FAR predictions/projections.   This is particularly true since the FAR predictions are the output of a simple 2 box model.    While many seem to assume that the GCMs were used to make the FAR predictions, in reality they were done by an extremely simple two box model.  

       Provided that I get to choose my forcings, I can do a very accurate projection of global temperatures using a simple multiplier and a single exponential lag.  Even the two box model is overkill.   Of course, my projections become exceedingly accurate if I get to adjust the forcings to those observed, as others have done in their comments. 

       ------------------------

       Some further details, .....

       A crude examination of assumed emissions vs project PPM CO2 leads me to believe that FAR assumed higher percentage of anthropogenic CO2 would remain in the atmosphere than actually remained.   I haven't bothered to see where the discrepancy comes from, but I did note that the FAR expected a "saturation effect" to take place which would lead to a rise in the percentage of anthropgenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere  (about 1/2 stays in atmosphere and 1/2 is absorbed into biosphere and oceans).

        

       Another error is simply the radiative forcing formula used for CO2.   Yes, this is basic physics, but the consensus has changed as to the correct value.  For example, the TAR (2001) uses delta-F = 5.35ln(C/C0).  (This leads to the more often used 3.7W/m2/doubling of CO2)

       In 1990 the FAR used delta-F = 6.2ln(C/C0).  

26500. foolonthehill at 16:15 PM on 9 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       This is why they are superior at soil building to other types of herbivores.

       Until the arrival of cattle in 1814, New Zealand was devoid of ruminants. Would you expect our soils to be low in carbon? Do you think that the arrival of cattle would have improved the carbon content of our soils? Bear in mind that our cattle are almost all pasture fed and always have been.

       The measured amount of enteric methane release from 26 month old steers in New Zealand averages 222g per head per day. Could you give me a percentage of this methane that you think is being consumed by the methanotrophs and converted into soil carbon. I know my stock numbers so if it is all being captured at source I should be able to get a handle on how much my soil carbon mass will increase by. 

Prev  522  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  Next