Recent Comments

Prev  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  538  Next

Comments 26501 to 26550:

26501. michael sweet at 12:48 PM on 8 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Scaddenp,

       I have a small paddock that could support 2 cows or a small flock of sheep or goats.  Would a small flock of either sheep or goats emit more/less/same greenhouse gasses than cows?

26502. Tom Curtis at 11:34 AM on 8 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A, @47, continues to insist that it is emissions rather than forcing which is the direct driver of temperature change.  He also continues to insist that in determining the relevant scenario for comparison, only CO2 emissions should be considered, thereby excluding the very large reductions in CFC and CH4 emissions in the observed data relative to those projected in the FAR BAU scenario.  Further, he insists the forcing comparison from Table 2 here is invalid because "the erroneous conversion from emissions to forcing caused a best match between forcing projections and observations if we use scenario D".  (Note again, forcing is a function of GHG concentrations, not emissions so that this objection is entirely wrongheaded.) 

       As it happens, the table (reproduced below) does contain one inaccuracy, and is out of date to boot - covering the period to 2010 only.

       Table 2: FAR Figure A.6 radiative forcing projections from 1990 to 2010

       Scenario	Change in forcing, 1990-2010
       BaU	+1.23 W/m²
       B	+0.78 W/m²
       C	+0.70 W/m²
       D	+0.63 W/m²
       Actual	+0.63 W/m²

       Adressing the second issue, by pixel count on Fig 1.6 of the IPCC FAR, the approximate forcing changes from 1990-2015 are:

       BAU: 1.5 W/m^2

       B: 0.9 W/m^2

       D: 0.8 W/m^2

       'Actual': 0.77 W/m^2

       The plot for C is indistinguishable from those of B and D at that time, so I have not data for C.

       The article says, "The actual forcing increase of +0.63 W/m² is from NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index."  Of course, that excludes changes in forcing from changes in albedo and/or insolation.  They are likely to be negative over that period, however.  Further, they are not included in the FAR model projections, so using the GHG only forcing gives the best apples to apples comparison.

       So far we continue to track at about the level of scenario D.  That is unsurprising given that CO2 industrial emissions have tracked the BAU scenario projections from 2010 to present, while CFC concentrations continue to track well below even scenario D levels.

       That said, the data above is taken from the IPCC FAR Fig 6, which used the simplified formulas given in Table 2.2 (page 52) to calculate forcings from concentrations.  The constants in those tables have been updated since then, based primarilly on the work of Myhre et al (1998).  In particular, the formula for CO2 has changes from 6.3*ln(CO2/CO2_initial) to 5.35*ln(CO2/CO2_initial).  To account for this, the 'actual' forcing should be increased by 18% for a true apples/apples comparison.  Alternatively, the projected forcings should be reduces by the reciprocal amount.  That gives us a current comparison of:

       BAU: 1.5 W/m^2

       B: 0.9 W/m^2

       D: 0.8 W/m^2

       Adjusted 'Actual': 0.91 W/m^2

       In 2010, the adjusted actual value was 0.74 W/m^2.  Therefore actual forcings are now tracking closer to scenario B than to Scenario D.  However, they are still tracking 40% below the BAU scenario.

       I have not been confident enough to attribute the best comparison to any scenario (and still am not), based on the differences between scenarios B through to D being to small at this stage relative to the error from pixel counting on a photocopied sheet from pages that were not always flat.  Actual forcings may be tracking as low as scenario D, or then again, they may be tracking higher than scenario B.  However, they are certainly not tracking as high as scenario A (BAU) - and are almost certainly tracking closer to B than to A (even if above B). 

26503. gws at 09:18 AM on 8 December 2015
       Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter
       

       In his new oped in the San Antonio News Express, Smith repeats his unfounded accusations and doubles down. Suggest head-vice while reading ... can a politician be sent a cease-and-desist letter when he keeps accusing a whole group of people, in this case climate scientists, of malfeasance without any evidence, affecting their public reputation?

26504. ecohen at 08:20 AM on 8 December 2015
       Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
       

       Thanks for this great discussion.

       Check out this Eshel paper-Climate impact of beef: an analysis considering multiple time scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials- R T Pierrehumbert1 and G Eshel2

       Published 4 August 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 8

       http://m.iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085002/meta

       The study conclusions include that certain forms of pastured beef have substantially lower climate impact than feedlot systems.

       To full address climate change impacts, we need to consider different types of livestock management — for their threats and potential benefits — ghg emissions reductions/sequestration as well as natural water storage, flood mitigation, and biodiversity enhancement...

       It seems we should eat much less beef and when we do eat it, we need to it the right kind...

       Also, my understanding is that all agriculture (not just livestock) GHG emissions are estimated at 15% of global total by FAO 2013; and 13% by UNEP 2015.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] fixed link.

26505. scaddenp at 08:05 AM on 8 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       RedBaron - would your labels "stable" and "active" be equivalent to "immobile" and "mobile" from point of view of carbon flux? What is the form of the "stable" carbon?

       The trouble with intensification of grazing from emissions point of view is more animals and thus more methane. Because methane is more radiatively active than CO2, you need sequester a lot of carbon to offset the extra methane. Again, I dont see evidence presented so far that says any form of intensive grazing achieves this. Where is the evidence for "All that extra grow is short term sequestered carbon canceling out the effect of increased emissions". To be convincing, a paper needs to show carbon stored per hectare per year is more than CO2e emitted per hectare per year.

       For example, in the 20-30 year study on SOC change I linked to above, the best SOC gain was about 200g/m2/year (upland grazing). I make that 5480g/hectare per day for a CO2e of 20,000 gCO2e/ hectare/day. Compare that to emissions of 170g per day of CH4 per beef upland animal . With a stocking rate of 2/ha that would be 170x2x28 = 9520gCO2e/hectare/day. Now that is really offsetting CH4 and goes into the countries GHG inventories as an offset.

       However, most soils showed much lower SOC gains and even losses, especially when grazing was intensified. Not only does stocking rate go up but emissions per animal increase as well. SOC gain of 100g/m2/yr, 4/ha and 190g CH4 per animal and suddenly it is 10,000gCO2/hectare versus 21,200gCO2e/ha emitted.

       It is also worth noting that GHG inventories do take CO2 sequestration in grasslands into account. See here for the methodology used by IPCC.

       That said, we need food, and farming practices that minimize total emissions in producing it are definitely part of the solution.

26506. foolonthehill at 04:59 AM on 8 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @RedBaron

       I have only recently started farming on my present land and testing the soil carbon will definately be part of my plan. I would think that this testing would need to be done over a number of years to get an idea as to what is going on. We are expecting a drought this year and I would expect that would affect plant growth and hence carbon sequestration. My situation is complicated by the fact that my land has a wildly varying contour so to get the best calculation I will need to take many samples over a large area. 

       Then compare the carbon you are sequestering in the soil against the carbon from fossil fuels you use.

       And to complete this calculation as regards climate forcing I will also need to calculate the amount of methane my cows emit and enter this into the equation too.

26507. Charlie A at 00:13 AM on 8 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       #46"quite happy lying about the fact and, of course, cherry picking"

       Interesting response in that my "lie" is a post of the IPCC graph of projected emissions, and my cherry picking is to show the driving force of humans — emissions — rather than the incorrectly calculated forcing.

       the dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions of scenario D did not happen, but that is the scenario which several people have said should be treated as the IPCC 1990 prediction.   Why?  Because the erroneous conversion from emissions to forcing caused a best match between forcing projections and observations if we use scenario D. 

26508. RedBaron at 22:08 PM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @Foolonthehill

       So measure it. You don't need to be a scientist to measure your own operation. simply take soil samples in a carbon protocol, (carbon testing protocol is slightly deeper than standard soil tests) that gives you the sequestration side with a simple calculation. Then you obviously have your utility and fuel costs. Another simple calculation. Then compare the carbon you are sequestering in the soil against the carbon from fossil fuels you use. You won't be able to tell others what they are emitting/sequestering, but you will know what you are.

26509. andyelwes at 20:40 PM on 7 December 2015
       Book review: Climate Change, What Everyone Needs to Know
       

       Another book puts forth the defense that the individuals who comprehend the fundamentals of environmental change and clean vitality will be the "shrewd cash" in the coming years. The individuals who don't, be that as it may, will settle on terrible choices for themselves and their gang. They may, for example, wind up holding beach front property after costs have started to crash because of due the developing twin dangers of ocean level ascent and tempest surge.

       To put it plainly, environmental change isn't simply something each informed individual should think about on the grounds that it will affect future eras or in light of the fact that everybody will be discussing it amid the up and coming Paris atmosphere talks. It is something everybody needs to think about now on the grounds that "Environmental change will biggerly affect your family and companions and all of mankind than the Internet has had."

       "Environmental Change, What Everyone Needs to Know" is a piece of the exceptionally respected Oxford University Press arrangement of introductions on subjects going from China to Islam, which all offer the same subtitle. For its environmental change book, Oxford picked Dr. Joseph Romm, the organizer of the famous online journal ClimateProgress.org. Romm, a physicist and previous U.S. Vitality Department authority, composes as effortlessly on atmosphere science as he does on arrangements. bd manager at http://www.mobilepoundsuk.co.uk/  we offer text loans

26510. TonyW at 20:16 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       It really is pointless arguing with contrarians (to use an uncontroversial description) because they are quite happy lying about the facts and, of course, cherry picking. They also have no single coherent theory to explain the warming since pre-industrial times, but that doesn't stop them.

       However, the publishing of a Matt Ridley article on the new Scientific American site (which doesn't appear to allow comments) is sad, indeed. Sci Am generally publishes sound articles on the subject, so I was a bit taken aback that they would include an article by a prominent contrarian that is riddled with errors. It is any wonder that it's so hard to get significant action on this issue?

26511. MA Rodger at 19:41 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @42.
       You will be pushing your luck trying to make a comparison between the different Scenarios and the measured outcome using the FAR emissions graphs. Those graphs aren't that accurately drawn. The atmospheric consentrations graphs provide a more robust comparison and in particular the CO2 graph (as shown @41). Scaling that shows 400ppm CO2 hits 400ppm in 2007 for Scenario A & 2019 for Scenarios B, C & D. Precisely when we did arrive at 400ppm CO2 depends on where you are measuring. The NOAA global measure latest NOAA global measure (September) is still a month or so short of the 400ppm. But taking MLO as the likely candidate measure for somebody in 1990, we reached 400ppm this March. This, with the comparisons for other GHGs, is the basis my comment @38.

26512. Tom Curtis at 19:31 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @42, first, and most fundamentally, the most basic graph for this issue is the projected change in radiative forcing due the the change in all GHG concentrations (third graph in my post above).  Given that the observed change in radiative forcing is significantly smaller than that projected for scenario A, it is a distortion of the IPCC FAR projections to use scenario A as their equivalent to what realy happened.  

       Sticking just to CO2, the most basic graph is CO2 concentrations.  That is because change in forcing, and hence change in temperature, is a function of change in CO2 concentration - not in CO2 emissions.  

       Change in concentration is in turn, to a close approximation equal to change in cumulative emissions multiplied by the airbourne fraction.  Therefore, if the IPCC FAR did indeed underestimate CO2 emissions, that in turn means they are using too small an airborne fraction with the two errors approximately cancelling out.  And because they approximately cancel out, they have negligible impact on the model/observation comparison.

       In fact sometimes this self cancelling pair of errors is used to deliberately simplify projections.  That is, rather than estimating total anthropogenic emissions (ie, LUC emissions plus industrial emissions), an estimate of industrial emissions alone is used, with a larger airborne fraction used.  The difference in the net increase in CO2 concentration between the two techniques turns out to be negligible.

       What is more, that appears to be what has been done in the IPCC FAR scenarios.  In particular, Fig 1.5 (page 13) shows the estimated annual average industrial and LUC emissions for the decade, 1980-1989 as 5.4 and 1.6 GtC per annum respectively.  The combined total, 7 GtC per annum is 0.4 GtC larger than the 1990 emissions estimate for Scenario A (BAU).  Had the scenarios estimated both emissions, the starting estimate should have been 7 GtC plus 0.5 the decadal trend in emissions, or approximately 7.7 GtC.  Instead it is 6.6 GtC, approximatley the 1987 estimate plus trend for the intervening years.

       If that is what has been done, the apples to apples comparison is observed industrial emissions to projected industrial emissions.  In that case, observed industrial emission begin lower than projected (6.1 vs 6.6 GtC) and rise more slowly.  The gap therefore increases, with projected emissions exceeding observed by 1.3 GtC in 2000.  Thereafter the more rapid observed increase in the 2000s closes the gap until they crossover in 2010 (the last year of observed data I have).  Projecting the oberved trend, by 2015 the gap widens so that by 2015 observed emissions exceed projected emissions by 0.7 GtC.  Although projected emissions are less than observed emissions in the final year, however, projected cumulative emissions always exceed observed cumulative emissions.  And it is cumulative emissions which is the critical value for determining CO2 concentrations, and hence radiative forcing.

       If we include LUC and industrial emissions, as can be expected by the initial projected values falling short of the mean for the previous decade, observed emissions and cumulative emissions always exceed projected emissions.  But in this case, there must have been an error in the airborne fraction that more than cancels this error as noted above.

       So, in the one (more likely case) projected cumulative emissions exceeds obeserved cumulative emissions throughout; while in the other case twin errors more than cancel out so that explecit emissions estimates are irrelevant. 

       What it looks to me that you are doing at the moment is, faced with a mass of evidence showing what actually occured was not the 1990 BAU projection, you are desperately seeking to cherry pick the one graph that might allow you hold to that belief, no matter how much contrary evidence you need to ignore.  If that is indeed what you are doing, say so.  "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and if you are resorting to grasping straws to retain your beliefs, clearly you are at best being "convinced against your will" and I have no wish to waste further time on you.  But if that is not what you are doing, it is about time you acknowledged the mass of contrary evidence to your opinion already shown above.

26513. Eclectic at 18:16 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Joel_Huberman @22 : thanks Joel, for your link to Professor Curry's website ~ though I am not sure I would describe it as "better" than WattsUp site. Certainly, Curry's site is more upmarket than WUWT ~ the comments posters seem to be twice as educated and half as rabid as those of WUWT. Not that that's saying much!

       It is more than a year since I previously looked at the Curry site. Not much has changed there. She continues with a multi-pronged attack on the mainstream climate science: At times she takes a Lomborgian It-won't-be-bad-ist position / other times she does a lot of fence-sitting by using the "Uncertainty" gambit / other times she follows the usual denier meme by cherry-picking and elephant-ignoring.

       Just in case anyone should think Professor Curry is not a gold-medal climate science denier :- please consider a few of her (recent) quotes:

       " . . . we need to open up the debate on the causes of the warming." [my emphasis]

       "I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much."

       "The differences between the U.S. Democrats and Republicans on this issue [AGW] is rooted in their preferred policies, not so much the mainstream science." [my emphasis]

       Yes, the Curry website is much, much lower-key than the typical mouth-frothing denier website. But as you read into it, you find that her website simply uses a different approach in obfuscating of science and of clear thinking about the issues. It is an approach which uses obfuscation through a chaotic welter of words.

       Yes, it is "different" ~ where the average [American] denier complains that Science Is Being Politicised . . . we find that Curry complains politics is being "scientized". [Marvellously droll, eh? How dare any politics be influenced by scientific facts!]

       Alas, if you want practical, useful information, then you will find that neither Curry or WUWT is worth going to.

26514. foolonthehill at 17:05 PM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Thank you for your comment RedBaron. I am not a scientist but I am interested in climate change and my contribution toward it. I appreciate the participation of those on the same journey.

       As far as I can tell from what I have been reading, on a very basic level, my farming practices affect climate change primarily through the cycling of carbon and its compounds (and to some extent nitrogen). 

       As I understand it, the methane that my cows (by virtue of being ruminants) emit, acts as a forcing for a short period until it is oxidised to CO2. This CO2 is not a forcing.

       If I wish to reduce this forcing from their methane emissions, I can lower my stock numbers. Alternatively I can rely on some as yet non-existant technology to reduce the amount of methane my current number of cows produce.

       The grazing of my stock may or may not increase the carbon content of the soil. It would be wonderful if that were the case, as it would contribute to the mitigation of their methane emissions. Even better would be that the quantity of carbon sequestered back in the soil was sufficient to completely offset the methane emitted. 

       Unfortunately, I still havent seen enough evidence that convinces me that any method of pasture management achieves this goal. Studies are ongoing and that situation may change. Until then, it appears to me that I am contributing to climate change. I hope that I, like everyone else, can make changes to reduce that as much as possible. 

26515. Charlie A at 16:59 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       You omitted the most basic graph -— the one showing the IPCC FAR projected emissions for the various scenarios.

       

       When I get time I'll add the actual emission lines to the graphs, but as I noted above, I'm pretty sure that the actual emissions exceeded the BAU scenario.   They _definitely_ exceeded the Scenario D that is being used as the scenario with the forcings that most closely matched observed.

       Moderator Response:

       [AS] Fixed picture width. Please keep all figures no more than 550 pixels wide. Thanks!

26516. RedBaron at 15:55 PM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @ scaddenp & foolonthehill Last several posts

       Holism in science or systems science in agricultural management systems has absolutely nothing to do with magic or faith. It has to do with the very agressive and expanded comprehensive monitoring and how that data is applied to the adaptive management plan as a whole. I don't even know where you got the idea that it has anything to do with faith? Maybe because any science/technology sufficiently advanced seems like magic to those uneducated in that field? For example, quantum physics seems like magic to me, because it is beyond my field of expertise. Intellectually I understand it isn't magic, but I don't understand how it works. So it still seems mystical and I have to take it on faith those scientists know what they are doing. That's a different kind of faith though. That's faith with evidence as opposed to faith in the absense of evidence. Standard Newtonian physics I understand quite well. It was part of my general education. To someone well educated in conventional agricultural systems, carbon farming/ecoagriculture may seem mystical because it heavily relies on systems science and holism, but it is based on evidence.

       Please read the definitions and short descriptions of these terms here, so we have a common foundation to communicate: systems science , holism We can discuss the exact nature of this monitoring and the context in which that data obtained applies to any adaptive agricultural management plan, but this is a bit outside the context of the thread. All that needs understood is that this is designed to obtain information about ecosystem function by monitoring key indicators. By tracking how changes in the adaptive management plan effect these key indicators over time, the plan is capable of being adjusted to optimize those beneficial aspects and minimize the negative. It is a given that no plan starts out optimised, nor is every change beneficial, but because of the monitoring, they improve over time. Over time as this is applied, the plan and thus the ecosystem function, profit, yields etc... improve. And yes that includes, but is not limited to, the carbon sequestration into the soil, which is a key component to any terrestrial agricultural system and actually any terrestrial natural ecosystem as well. This is what is important in the context of this thread. 

       Now to address the other questions about the carbon cycle. It is fundamentally a self adjusting complex biological system. Yes we humans can effect changes in how it functions, but it still remains a self adjusting complex biological system, and as such systems science is required to understand how it functions. This is nothing new to climate scientists. There are all sorts of complex forcing and feedbacks that must be taken into account in any climate model. Those models are dependant on systems science. Climate deniers are the ones who tend to cherry pick one part out of context to mislead people. But most conventional agricultural science is not based on systems science. With the exception of the newer carbon farming/ecoagriculture, most of that information is a bit antiquated or modern but not applicable, focused primarily on mechanization technology, genetics and simple chemistry, not ecosystem function.

       No scientist can know every field though, so sometimes that antiquated information when plugged into the climate models can be deceiving. One of the most deceptive parts is the encouraged myth that the current somewhat antiquated agricultural production models are required to meet demand, so climate scientists are told to focus on fossil fuel emissions instead. Emissions are only 1/2 the cycle. It is fail from the start. It can help, but it can never succeed. And unfortunately, leads to further misleading things like what is being debunked in this thread. We do need to eat. So as long as that myth prevails, it keeps people away from looking to closely at the environmentally destructive agricultural practises. It is sidelined to "land use change" and it's impact minimized to only that part of the agricultural land that is newly added, or lost, not the bulk that has been in continuous production for many years. Unfortunately, minimizing its impact also minimizes the benefit of changing it and/or what changes need to be made. So this is what gets me aggravated and annoyed and it is not any vegan or vegetarians fault, they are being misled as much as anyone else. To any climate scientist reading this, I understand you cant be expert in all fields, and must take it on faith that the information you obtain from agricultural scientists is reliable. Just remember the difference between faith with/without evidence, and look at the condition of agricultural soils worldwide for your assesment about how reliable the information you are receiving. If they knew what they were talking about, the agricultural soils worldwide would not be in such poor condition. After all, the highly educated farmers in developed countries are following their instructions, and those soils are in general getting even worse at a faster rate than uneducated farmers from developing countries. OK sorry for the rant, but it had to be said to partly explain where the misleading information is coming from. 

       Carbon can be broken up into two parts, the active cycle and the stable cycle. Obviously fossil fuels is part of the stable carbon. So is about 30-50 % of the soil carbon, the stable fraction. 

       Atmosphere and biomass both living and decaying, above and below the soil line is all part of the active cycle or active pool that exchanges relatively quickly. (There are other pools with limited to no part in agriculture like methane clathrates, limestone, ocean floors and permafrost etc)

       Living biomass gets its energy from photosynthesis and absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, both CO2 and Methane or from the processes of decay. So you have two sides, the living growing side, and the dead decaying side. But life on this planet is carbon based, so it is all part of the active carbon cycle. This active biological cycle being a complex self regulating adaptive system. If for example a large part dies, the biomass responcible for biological decay grows and emissions of C increase. Also that biomass has a life cycle too and parts of it dies, all resulting more C emissions, but also more nutrient release, fertilizing the other side of the carbon cycle, which pulls out C from the atmosphere. Or if you get more vegetative growth, that pulls out C from the atmosphere, but eventually dies, increasing emissions. So anything you do to one side of the active cycle, increase or decrease, eventually is roughly countered by the other side. Increase methane emissions causes increased methanotroph growth, increased CO2 increases plant growth which leads to more decay when that additional growth dies, bringing you right back where you started, all else equal. So the vast majority of the active cycle is approaching carbon neutral. Any push you make on one side for good or for bad is countered roughly equally by the other side. You can speed up the cycle or slow down the cycle, but harder to increase one side while slowing the other side down. To do that you must break a link in the cycle. Animals are an important part of that cycle, they are responsible for increasing the rate of decay, which in turn increases the rate of growth. If you remove them, you slow the whole cycle down. Yes the rate of emissions decrease, but so does the rate of sequestration. Functionally think of it like this, a grass plant grows sets seed and then above ground leaves die. But if an animal grazes it before it can produce seed, it regrows and attempts again to set seed. This can happen several times in a season before the grass finally gives up and waits to try again next season. All that extra grow is short term sequestered carbon canceling out the effect of increased emissions. Slightly different with methane. more methane increases methanotroph growth, but that fertilizes plant growth when the methanotrophs die and decay. I would call that getting nowhere, but faster.

       So ask yourself this, what does matter? Well 2 things really. Each ecosystem has a total biomass. So regreening a human caused desert, or reforesting some land does increase the total biomass that is living growing and dieing decaying. In both cases, once the new larger biomass reaches equilibrium, it becomes saturated and approaches net neutral again. OR causing desertification/deforestation does the reverse, decreasing total biomass which then also approaches net carbon neutral again. Those do either add or subtract to atmospheric carbon, but are limited to the increase or decrease in total biomass before reaching net neutral again.

       However there is another part of the carbon cycle involving the stable pools. Fossil fuels are 100% stable pool carbon. ~30-50% of the soil carbon is the stable fraction. Normally this carbon does not cycle with the active carbon, but exchanges very slowly. When we burn fossil fuels, we are turning stable carbon into active carbon. Reforestation increases the biomass pool, but the biomass pool has limited effect due to reaching a saturation point. A new grassland reaches that biomass saturation point even faster! Both are active cycle. 

       But there are processes that turn active carbon back into stable carbon. It is a much smaller amount, but is additive and never really reaches a saturation point. In fact, in the right conditions, it accelorates. In a grassland that is more than in a forest, because the majority of the biomass of the grassland is below ground, while in a forest the majority of the biomass is above ground. So when grassland biomass finishes decaying, more gets trapped in the soil and less reaches the atmosphere. (unless the soil gets disturbed)

       What matters long term is the net flux between the stable carbon cycle and the active carbon cycle. So to improve that positively we try to limit disturbance, maximise total active biomass, reach that saturation point as quickly as possible, then cycle it as quickly as possible without disturbing the soil. This way that small % that leaves the active cycle and enters the stable pool in the soil also increases. The biomass is saturated yes, but the stable pool just keeps adding and adding. The observation is that SOC increases. Once SOC reaches a certain point and starts tapering off, then the A horizon of the soil begins to get deeper and deeper. B horizon (sub soil) is being converted to A horizon (top soil). This is why natural grassland soils are much deeper A horizons than forest soils. But in agriculture we can do it even faster and deeper than natural grasslands, because we are optimizing as many parts of that cycle as we can. That's why it is called intensive, even though requiring less outside inputs, little to no fertilizers or pesticides or fossil fuel use etc... like most other forms of intensive agriculture people are familiar with.

26517. Tom Curtis at 14:45 PM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @40,

       1)  

       I find it very difficult to believe that the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report explicitly adopted as BAU the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  Indeed, based strictly on temporal logic, it cannot even have allowed for the 1992 UNFCCC which preceded Kyoto.

       Your confusion appears to relate to mine, in that I incorrectly referred to the Kyoto Protocol (which was also implimented, and is another difference between BAU and what actually happened) and the Montreal Protocol, which is indeed referred to in the IPCC FAR, which states with regard to the BAU scenario:

       "For CFCs the Montreal Protocol is implimented albeit with only partial participation." (My emphasis).  How partial can be seen by comparing the BAU projections for CFC 11:

       

        with what actually happened (fourth panel):

       

       You will notice that in reality CFC 11 concentrations peaked at just above 250 ppt prior to 1995, and then when into decling.  The projection, in contrast has BAU concentrations at 400 ppt by 2010, ie, 60% higher, and still rising rapidly.  Every IPCC FAR scenario significantly overstates CFC 11 concentrations relative to what happened.  So, even correcting for the appropriate protocol, my statement was substantively correct, and far less misleading than stating that "FAR explicitly says that they assume [Montreal] Protocol will be implemented in most countries as part of the business-as-usual scenario" without massive further qualification.

       2)

       Here are the IPCC FAR CO2 concentration projections:

       

       It shows CO2 concentration in 2015 of 415 ppmv for BAU, 15 ppmv greater than has actually happened.  That difference is made up of a much slower than projected rise in the 1990s partly compensated by a faster than projected rise in the 2000s due to China's rapid economic growth.  While the overestimate relative to what actually happened is smaller for CO2 than for CFCs and CH4, it is still an overestimate.

       Overall, adding all forcing together the CO2eq concentration has increased in line with scenario B rather than BAU:

       

       3)

       
       The 'headline' prediction of the IPCC FAR was, and I quote:

       "Based on current model results, we predict:

       • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors
       • under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0 1 °C per decade (Scenario D)"

       That is, the 'prediction' was tied to a particular scenario, with the effect that no explicit prediction is made if the scenario did not occur.  There is no further prediction that BAU will occur.  Saying that "the headline/main/executive summary prediction was for BAU"  is a straightforward misrepresentation. 

26518. scaddenp at 11:24 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Interesting. I will keep my eyes open more on this.

       The location of the study with increasing SOC would be typical for Canterbury plain, but very different from most dairying areas. Forest lost around 800 years ago instead late 19th C; would have been under tillage for grains for much of 20th C in area known for windblown soil loss. So probably a very degraded soil before dairying and irrigation introduced. Irrigation alone has probably improved SOC.

       By contrast, see this paper on long term (2-3 decades) SOC loss/gain under grazing with biggest losses under intensive dairying and gains on low intensity hill country grazing. 31 profiles from many parts of the country.

       Perhaps reducing dairy consumption is more important the reducing meat.

26519. foolonthehill at 10:27 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Haven't seen grain fed in supermarkets. I noticed it on the menu of a couple of rather expensive restaurants and also in a couple of deli's. I assume it is imported but there's nothing to stop a local farmer from using a point of difference to make a better profit. It seems that anything that is slightly out of the ordinary is highly sought after by the real estate barons of Auckland... 

       The farming papers (NZ Farmer, Farmers Weekly, Rural News) are well worth a read to check how the agricultural pulse is beating. Palpitations are a common feature when it comes to climate change issues. They are free circulations but maybe you need a rural delivery address to receive them?

       The long term evaluation of this study will be interesting to see. Maybe the vast increase in government science funding of $20million will be enough to ensure it's completion... Surely the price of a decent coffee, per capita, is sufficient for such a weighty matter? Or should a flag referendum take precedence?

26520. Charlie A at 10:07 AM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       #39 Tom says BAU scenario assumes "3) No Kyoto protocol with the consequent massive reduction in CFC emissions; :"

       That is incorrect.  FAR explicitly says that they assume Kyoto Protocol will be implemented in most countries as part of the business-as-usual scenario.

       Later on I will extract the FAR BAU scenario assumptions on carbon/CO2 emission and compare them to actual.   IIRC, the CO2 emission have actually been higher than those assumed in FAR's Business as usual scenario, in spite of things like reduction in British coal mine production.  
        

       The main problem with the prediction made by the IPCC in 1990 is that they ignored aerosols.  

       Yes, if you go back and correct the predicted forcings to something closer to what they actually have been, then the _revised_ predictions are more in line with what happened, but the headline/main/executive summary prediction was for BAU.  Not for scenario B.  Not for the more aggressive emissions reduction scenario C.  And definitely not the most aggressive possible emissions scenario simulated, Scenario D.

26521. Tom Curtis at 09:35 AM on 7 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #49
       

       I normally enjoy the cartoon in the weekly digest, but to be funny they need to have a resemblence to reality.  In this case, any delay in finding a solution increases the cost of that solution, either in more rapid required emissions and hence a higher carbon price or regulatory cost to drive that rapid reduction, or in the cost of an extensive sequestration process, or through higher, more damaging impacts.  But nevertheless there will be many opportunities for alternative solutions to AGW in the future - particularly as regards to very long term impacts.

26522. scaddenp at 09:25 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       foolonthehill - that is a very interesting news release. We share office with Landcare scientists and teatime conversation had more or less assumed SOC loss. I have heard this reported in conference as well. I wonder how robust this is since seems to be based on one drylands farm study? Earlier results were from more traditional dairying locations in Manuwatu and Taranaki.

       I've never seen grain-fed beef at a supermarket here or in Wellington - is it imported? Huge fuss about suggestion of barning in Southland a few years ago...

26523. foolonthehill at 08:10 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       And one more thing...

       Can we be a little more carefull as to how we are labelling people here.

       Despite being a farmer that eats meat, I am still a tad disturbed by the way vegans and vegetarians seem to be referred to as some unified body that is opposed to all those that don't follow their lifestyle choice. I know a few vegans who make no attempt to proselytize their beliefs. I have come across many that do. I try to treat them as individuals.

       If we were to replace 'rabid Vegan' with 'rabid Jew', I think we would all be horrified. Would 'activist' not suffice?

26524. foolonthehill at 07:45 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       And then again - just as I press send - this pops up in my feed.

       intensive farming helps build soil

       No mention of fossil fuel inputs or the environmental impacts of the water requirements but I guess it's early days. 

26525. foolonthehill at 07:24 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Redbaron, maybe I being thick here but going through your references, I am not finding evidence that your desired farming practises (which I fully agree with are superior to other common systems) are net carbon sinks.

       I have to say that I am struggling with this issue too. The whole 'holistic' system appears to me to be based on faith and annecdote. There are many conflicting opinions and very few controlled studies that support it as a method of mitigation of GHG emissions. As a grass fed beef farmer, I would dearly love to believe the hype but I'm not falling for it just yet...

       Grain-fed beef is practically unknown here. 

       It's certainly more common in Auckland than I have ever seen before and strangely, it seems to command a price premium. Maybe there is a demand from tourists. Visitors from the US certainly seem to prefer it. I find it usually very tender but completely devoid of flavour. Different folks and all that...

26526. Tristan at 07:12 AM on 7 December 2015
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
       

       Steyr, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe convention is that 1891-1910 is used for the pre-industrial baseline.

26527. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 7 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Redbaron, maybe I being thick here but going through your references, I am not finding evidence that your desired farming practises (which I fully agree with are superior to other common systems) are net carbon sinks. I find evidence that SOC increases which is good but to show net carbon sinks (or rather CO2e sinks), then rate of SOC increase per hectare must be larger than CO2e emissions (CO2 equivalents which are the methane fraction) per hectare. (and that SOC increase is sustainable).

       On unrelated point, the other issue I would have with vegan diets would be one of land use. I do agree that feeding grain to raise beef is bad news, but I would love to see much protein vegans could raise on farmlands where we currently raise sheep and beef cattle. Good luck on that. Grain-fed beef is practically unknown here.

26528. scaddenp at 06:29 AM on 7 December 2015
       Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
       

       "eating a plant-based diet would still be the single most effective action an individual could undertake, short of going off the grid."

       If you look at where the individual contributions of energy use are (eg the MacKay analysis for UK is here - I have done similar for NZ), you would see that food and even going off grid arent that big a deal (particularly if you use non-FF heating). Getting off the plane is probably the biggest saving you can make. Finding ways to get out of the car would be next followed by sharply reducing your consumption of stuff.

26529. Tom Curtis at 03:19 AM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @38, the BAU (scenario A) projections from the IPCC FAR are shown on this graph:

       

       By pixel count, I have determined the increase from 1990-2015 to be 0.64 C [0.48-0.91], leading to a mean decadal trend of 0.26 C per decade [0.19-0.36].  Your estimate of the BAU prediction is, therefore, [0% and 65%] to high.  Given the 0.163 C/decade trend over that period (GISTEMP), that means the BAU estimate from IPCC FAR is 60% to high compared to the observed rate.  Already we detect significant exageration by Ridley and Peiser.  (That is probably based on based on treating the trend to 2015 as equally the trend to 2100, which as you note is an error.)

       Further, the Scenario A projection is not the IPCC FAR prediction.  The reason for the various scenarios, and for calling them projections is that the IPCC does not attempt to predict the future growth of forcing agents.  Rather it considers various plausible scenarios and makes predictions for those so that the uncertainty in the projections is not further exagerated by uncertainty regarding political and economic decisions into the future.

       In this case, and in particular the Business As Usual in 1990 assumes:

       1)  No massive reduction of British coal production under Margaret Thatcher;

       2)  No breakup of the Soviet Union and consequent massive reduction in very polluting Soviet block factories;

       3)  No Kyoto protocol with the consequent massive reduction in CFC emissions; 

       4) No plateauing of CH4 concentrations through the 1990s; and

       5) No major uptake of renewable energy and reduction in energy intensity  due to the e-revolution.

       I presume the difference in forcing between the BAU scenario and the very much not BAU reality accounts for the additional difference between "predicted" temperatures as noted in the scientists letter.  Certainly that difference means the 60% overestimate is the upper bound of the overestimate by the IPCC FAR.

       MA Rodger and Michael Sweet have already raised these points - but it is useful, I think, to remind people how very much not BAU the 1990s was.  The lazy assumption that what happened was automatically BAU repeatedly made by deniers is as intellectually impoverished as the assumption that the first few decades of trend will be the same as the centenial trend.

26530. MA Rodger at 01:26 AM on 7 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A @33.

       If you scale Figure 9 from the FAR SPM, the Scenario A central projection 1990-2015 comes out at +0.67ºC  which is not greatly less than the +0.75ºC from the average over the 21st century. But if you examine the rest of the SPM it is evident that Scenario A poorly represents the outcome 1990-2015. GHGs in 2015 - CO2 lies between the Scenario A & Scenario B values, CH4 lies below Scenario B & CFC-11 well below all scenarios. So, as michael sweet argues @37, Scenario A is inappropriate to use. There are however the other scenarios. Scaling Figure 9 for the other scenarios instead of Scenario A (they are still pretty closely grouped in 2015) and the rise is +0.44ºC which fits with the +0.35ºC to +0.6ºC you were enquiring about as well as being close to the rise of a linear trend through the 1990-2015 global temperature record +0.42ºC±0.1ºC(2sd).

26531. Vincent Duhamel at 00:33 AM on 7 December 2015
       Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
       

       Very interesting. Thanks for putting things in perspective.

       However, it seems like this confirms part of the "Myth" you wished to debunk:

       "Becoming Vegan or cutting down on your own personal meat consumption could be the single most effective action that you can do to help reduce green house gas emissions."

       Short of going off the grid, that is. You have compared emissions from agriculture to emissions from the fossil fuel industry. Since your case seems to be built for the US where much power/electricty comes from fossil fuel, a person can hardly act so as to stop using fossil fuels. Even by selling their cars. However, they can stop eating meat.

       So it seems, although the impact of animal agriculture is sometimes overblown, eating a plant-based diet would still be the single most effective action an individual could undertake, short of going off the grid. No?

26532. michael sweet at 22:16 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Charlie A,

       You ask for explainations of the letter.  It was written by a group of experts who do not post on this board.  If you want an answer from the authors you need to post where they read and post.  I would try RealClimate.

       I do not understand your calculations at 34. You say the maximum increase in temperature was projected at about 0.3C per decade.  You say you discount the rate and over 2.5 decades you expect 0.75C warming.  Since 2.5 times 0.3 is 0.75, there is no discount in your calculations.  Your error bars are also incorrect. If you discounted the rate (as you claim is necessary) you would get what the letter says.  

         This post analizes the FAR. the key point is:

       "The collapse of the former Soviet Union led to a decimation of Soviet Block industry which nearly halved Eastern European emissions. In addition, the Montreal Protocol put an end to manufacturing of some of the most potent chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are greenhouse gases), and its effect has been swift. Also, growing global recognition of the threat of climate change has rapidly increased the adoption of renewable energy, both in the US and especially in Europe; government subsidies such as feed-in tarrifs have encouraged this trend. Meanwhile, the rising price of fossil fuels has led to slower economic growth than most would have predicted in 1990.

       "If we look again at the temperature predictions for Scenario D, the FAR predictions were increases of 0.25, 0.17, and 0.11°C per decade, based on sensitivities of 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5°C for CO2 doubling, respectively. The central figure of 0.17°C, based on the best sensitivity estimate, is virtually identical to the actual observed temperature increase over the past 30 years (Figure 4). Foster & Ramstorf (2011) puts the increase at 0.16 +/- .02°C per decade."

       You cannot take the worst case projected in 1990 and say it is incorrect when the forcings were for a different case.  You have to take the increase projected for the forcings that actualized.  Your estimates of projected increases are double what was actually projected.

       You can answer your questions in your other post by using the search button at the top of the page.

26533. Steyr at 20:59 PM on 6 December 2015
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
       

       How do you align GISTEMP (or other data sets like HADCRUT) to a 1765 baseline?

26534. MA Rodger at 20:51 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Tom Curtis @31.

       You suggest we could be fair to the authors of CFACT in that they are but "guilty of of inadequate research in this context." You then continue suggesting that this is also indicative, but only indicative of, greater crimes.

       There is actual evidence of such greater crimes.

       The second bit of quotation supporting the CFACT assertion that "Sea level is only rising 1mm to 3mm and has been for generations" fundamentally mis-represents their reference Dangendorf et al. (2015) 'Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise.' The paper makes very plain that it discusses local and global Mean Sea Level and that these must be addressed seperately. The quote from CFACT entirely ignores the distinction and so makes fools of those who read it unquestioningly. As there is no sign that I can find of this being the work of others, so with no signs of plagiarism CFACT cannot claim the defense that they were made fools of themselves.

       The first reference supporting the SLR claim is also worth a few words. The link no longer works. Indeed, this was predicted by a denialist website that also uses the link. This denialist website page is suggesting that nod-nod-wink-wink such censorship is/will-be used to stop embarrasing AGW facts being spread around. Such a view is a little strange given the same embarrasing AGW fact is provided by the NOAA site's FAQ page and there it is attributed to IPCC AR4. Indeed AR5 gives a figure  for GSLR in the SPM that is marginally lower. But quoting from that NOAA FAQ page or the IPCC SPM is less satisfying for denialists as the rate of GSLR provided there obviously applies to the last century not to the present.

26535. Charlie A at 16:51 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       The next bullet point in the article says " A recently-released UN study found that both the frequency and intensity of storms and floods has increased over the past decade, and that weather-related disasters are occurring at almost twice the rate as they did two decades ago."

       In the link to the EM-DAT (not IPCC) Report there is a section on page six that appears to be the source, but the very next sentence starts off as "While scientists cannot calculate what percentage
       of this rise is due to climate change, .......  "

        

       Yes, the previous sentence says "In total, EM-DAT recorded an average of 335 weather-related disasters per year between 2005 and 2014, an increase of 14% from 1995-2004 and almost twice the level recorded during 1985-1994."  But then the next sentence channels Bjørn Lomborg  and Pielke Jr by saying "While scientists cannot calculate what percentage
       of this rise is due to climate change, predictions of more
       extreme weather in future almost certainly mean that we will
       witness a continued upward trend in weather-related disasters
       in the decades ahead"

        

       Is this the section of the report you relied upon, or is there some point in the report by Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters that discusses climate change and observed increases in disasters?   I have noted several places where the report ties observed increases with better reporting, but none that link observed increases to climate change.

26536. Charlie A at 16:37 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       This article says "The statement that the world has warmed at half the rate predicted in 1990 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is false. The IPCC predicted that warming between 2015 and 1990 would be between about 0.35 and 0.60 °C."

       What is your reference for that 0.35 to 0.60 °C range?

       Looking at the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC first assessment report (SPM link) I find on page 5 the following text: "Based on current model results, we predict:
       • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
       emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
       global mean temperature during the next century of
       about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
       0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade),"

       I note that the prediction of the trend is over the next century, and assume that the predicted trend rises with the passing of time, so the expected numbers over the first 2.5 decades should be lower. 

       Assuming a lower, constant, trend, I read the central IPCC prediction for 1990 to 2015 as 0.75°C, with an expected range of 0.5 to 1.5°C.

       Please explain how you read the FAR to get a 1990-2014 range of 0.3 to 0.6 °C.

26537. ryland at 13:26 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Tom Curtis  Read Philip@24 to see why I went into the details in 29.  I was responding to not initiating what you state is "left field"

26538. RedBaron at 13:02 PM on 6 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @Andy Skuce #68

       Absolutely you are correct! Of course there are uncertainties. Most notably because we are talking about complex biological systems that have highly nuanced interactions, interdependancies, and symbiotic relationships that cause unexpected emergent properties of the system.

       One of those unexpected emergent properties with respect to ruminant animals is that a properly managed pasture is actually a net methane sink as well as being a net carbon sink. This is unexpected because while ruminants may produce more slightly methane (even if not grazed, grasses will decay and produce methane anyway), the other parts of the grazer/grassland system also increase. As you pointed out, the soil biota can increase, which not only reduce that methane, also in the process fertilise the system which allows even more plant growth, which allows even more grazing. That's why to get meaningful conclusions you must use systems science/holism. You must look at plants, animals, atmosphere and soil biota in all their functions and interconnections, rather than treating any area as a single-product system.

       A properly managed grazer/grassland system is not only a net carbon sink, but also a net methane sink. I already posted one citation of this earlier, but look it up if you are skeptical. Also a properly managed grazer/grassland system has more animals on it not less. I know that is counterintuitive and many people can't grasp it, but maybe this riddle will help you understand.

       You are driving down the road on the right side you see 10 fat cows, on the left side 5 skinny cows. All else is equal, no grain supplements fed, same breed and age of livestock, the cows are getting all their nutrition from the grass in their pasture only and the pastures are equal in size with the same soil type. No cheating. The only difference is one is being overgrazed and one is managed properly. Which pasture is being overgrazed?

       This matters because for example in the US roughly 1/2 the pasture/rangeland is overgrazed, 95% of livestock reaches a feedlot eventually, and both overgrazing and feedlots are net emissions sources for both methane and CO2. Basically what is happening is the land is being overgrazed, so the animals won't get fat, so cropland is growing grains in an unsustainable manner to fatten them in feedlots, cropland being yet a third emissions source.

       What needs to happen is the 10 fat cows on pasture instead of the 5 skinny cows that later get fattened in a feedlot. In other words we need more, not less, ruminants on pasture, but managed properly. I know it is very counterintuitive. Every vegan I ever met except one was completely incapable of making the connection. But this is what needs to happen to turn agiculture from the net emissions source it is now to a net sink. It is also what needs to happen to reduce the deforestation that is happening to support animal husbandry.

       Again, any agriculture of any type that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil is not creating AGW, but rather is helping mitigate AGW. The type of production of livestock that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil produces more yields per acre, not less. We don't need people eating less meat. What we need is people boycotting any food production model, animal or vegetable, that doesn't increase the net carbon in the soil, and replacing it with food that does increase SOC. It's there. The models exist. They produce more food not less. They produce more real profit not less. There is no down side.

       The primary reason it ever changed to the unsustainable models we have now is subsidies, misguided government regulation, and cheap fossil fuels. Yes green revolution agriculture was an improvement over traditional subsistence agriculture. So once upon a time those subsidies/regulations made sense. Now those same factors that advanced agriculture are preventing the next revolution in agriculture, carbon farming/ecoagriculture. So the same policies that were the future in the 1940s 50's and 60s are now Luddite.

       Vegans are not helping.

26539. Tom Curtis at 12:56 PM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       ryland @40, of course the funding of the Climate Commission was done for a political purpose, although given that - at least the Gillard government had the good sense to appoint people with relevant competencies including several climate scientists, a leading public servant with domain knowledge, two business men including the president of the australasian branch of a major fossil fuel company (BP), and whose reports have been highly praised by leading climate scientists.  In contrast the "concensus center" could only drum up as its lead head a man found not guilty of scientific fraud only on the basis that he was no scientist; and whose "consensus" methodology is to cherry pick experts based on known position in various issues to ensure the proper balance in the final outcome.

       And of course GetUp's campaign was political.  That does not change the political nature of the funding in the first place.  It does not change the fact that the Liberal party tried to white wash the center with academic respectability by bypassing normal funding and hiring proceedures that are based on academic merit.  It does not change the fact that given the clearly political nature of the funding, no university should have had a bar of it as a matter of academic integrity, just as they should not have a bar of dismissing academics because their opinions are politically unpopular.

       Your problem is that you want it both ways.  You want to criticize UWA and Flinders because rejection of the funding was based on his views (which is not actually true); but think it would be OK for them to accept funding to set up his center when that funding was only made available because of his views on climate change.  If the former is unacceptable (it is), then the latter is also unacceptable.  And what you are ignoring was that it was not just GetUp that protested the funding, but a large number of academics on the principled grounds I have defended here.

       Similarly, you want to pick out three cases as people dismissed, rejected, or not renewed in positions because of their views but ignore the very many more scientists who lost their position due to the Abbot government cut backs on research funding (again politically motivated).

       Finally, I have reread the moderators direction @29 and it was specifically directed at you.  I assume it was directed at you because of the way you went of into left field rather than defending the obvious flaws in the "references" or the CFACT/WUWT article.  Having failed in your argument there, you redirected.  And now, having failed again you have begun a campaign of moderation complaints to get the very clear evidence (quoted and linked) that your charges are without basis deleted. 

26540. Andy Skuce at 10:50 AM on 6 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       RedBaron: I'm not for a minute dismissing the importance of good farming practices that increase the amount of stable carbon in the soil. My argument was just on the basis of other things being equal, which, as you point out, they may not be. Surely we agree that both carbon enrichment of the soil and reduction in greenhouse gases are important. If animal husbandary can be done that enriches the soil with carbon and that does not increase methane in the atmosphere, I'm all for it, since I have a hankering for cheeseburgers as much as anyone else does. 

       I have found the key reference for fossil versus biogenic methane GWPs, it's Boucher et al (2009). The process of methane removal from the atmosphere is more complicated than the simple oxidation that I imagined earlier. Some atmospheric methane  falls out as formaldehyde to the surface where some of it is absorbed by soils or oceans and the rest oxidized, finding its way into the atmosphere as CO2.

       Some atmospheric methane is taken up directly by soil biota that convert it to methanol and formaldehyde. Some proportion of those chemicals may be in turn taken up and stored as stable carbon compounds in the soil.  

       So, the overal difference between biogenic and fossil methane amounts to about 1 or 2 points to the GWP values, less than the 2.75 I (mis)calculated earlier. The biggest absolute and relative effects is on the longer-time interval GWPs as this table shows:

       

       This is a fragment of a table from AR5 WG1 Chapter 8, page 731

       Fossil methane has a roughly 7% bigger 100-year GWP than does biogenic methane. But there are uncertainties, of course.

26541. Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Phil @27, the Tilling quote does not, as you indicate, come from the Guardian article.  It does, however, come from a BBC article.  So the quote is misreferenced rather than nonexistent.  That said, the full quote reads:

       ""It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps - if you get one year of cooler temperatures, we've almost wound the clock back a few years on this gradual decline that's been happening over decades," said Rachel Tilling.

       "The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year.""

       It is evident from the following sentence which I have highlighted that the quote is taken out of context rather.  Being fair to the authors of the CFACT piece, the quote was repeated by a number of other news sources, some of which may have taken it out of context (I am certain the one at the Telegraph did).  They may merely have been guilty of inadequate research in this context.  The mis reference, however, is highly suggestive that they were trying to launder a report from an obvious denier source by referencing an article from a more credible source.

26542. Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       With the hopeful permission of the moderator, and in respect to ryland @29:

       1)  Bjorn Lomborg was not denied a position at the UWA.  Rather, the AGW denied and then PM of Australia offered the UWA a special monetary grant on condition that they set up a "consensus center" administered by Lomborg.  The center was not to employ Lomborg, but other researchers by his invitation working on his flaws "Copenhagen concensus" model.  This was money entirely outside the normal academic grants process, and was not based on any academic assessment of the merits of Lomborg's work.  It was quite rightly rejected as a blatant attempt to provide Lomborg an additional platform for his pontifications which were considered desirable by the government not because of academic merit but because of political convenience.

       No attempt by Lomborg to be employed in Australia via normal academic processes has been rejected, and nor should it be.

       2)  Salby was sacked for: a)  Not undertaking his prescribed teaching load; b) failing to teach a course he was directly instructed to teach; and c) using university funding without permission to undertake a trip to Europe he was expressly denied permission to make as it conflicted with his teaching duties.  

       3)  Bob Carter was not sacked from James Cook University, and nor could he be as he had already retired.  He was not offered a renewal of his annual, unpaid position of adjunct professor because he was not undertaking the duties thereof.  That the failure to renew the offer was not due to his opinions on global warming is evident from the fact that the position has been renewed annually from 2002-2012, ten years over which he has been as vocal on climate change as he is now.  From JCU:

       "Dr Carter’s very prominent public contributions to the climate change debate is not something new. He has been promulgating his views, which of course he was entitled to do, for many years while holding an adjunct appointment. But what has changed over the years is the level of his contribution to the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences where he held his adjunct appointment.

       Academics holding adjunct appointments are expected to contribute on a regular and ongoing basis to one or more of the following University activities:
       • Teaching;
       • Collaborative research;
       • Postgraduate supervision; and
       • Staff and student consultations.

       The key question for an adjunct appointment is: “Proposed activities and Perceived Benefits to the School”. While Dr Carter has continued his own research and gives “public talks and advice about climate change and climate change policy” – again as he is perfectly entitled to do – such outreach activities are not related to the work of the School, and do not meet the need to contribute to the School as outlined above.

       The simple fact was that in the School’s view Dr Carter was no longer undertaking any of the activities within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences that is required of an adjunct."

        In short, the adjunct professorship was not renewed because he was no longer teaching, undertaking collaborative research, supervising any post graduates or consulting with staff or students.  Rather, he was merely using his office for non-academic purposes.

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] I'll let this one slide in the interests of having 'both sides of the story', but no more thanks. 

26543. RedBaron at 08:51 AM on 6 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       @Andy Skuce #65

       You asked, "Still, reducing beef and dairy consumption would help reduce our short-term impact on the atmosphere and our longer-term impactt on the environment generally, while being good for our health, so why not do it?"

       There is a very good reason why. As I stated in post # 21, what matters is the net flux from stable to active carbon cycles. Any agriculture of any type that increases the stable carbon pool in the soil is not creating AGW, but rather is helping mitigate AGW. That includes animal husbandry. If anyone wants to help mitigate AGW by giving up certain foods, give up foods produced from land decreasing in soil carbon, and replace it with food produced from land increasing in soil carbon. One emergent property of agricultural systems that increase SOC is that they also improve the nutritional qualities of that food too. Yes even animal products. [1]

       This is an important distinction that is overlooked on many dogmatic advocate sites. No question we must change angriculture to production models that are more ecologically sound, but the good thing is that those same changes also make our food healthier too. There really is no down side to it, unless you operate a confinement dairy or feedlot. BUT if you refine your eating habits to increase demand for ecologically sound methods of production and reduce demand for those that cause AGW, you provide financial incentive for those confinement dairies and feedlots to change their operations. What does a confinement dairy or feedlot care about vegan boycotts? Vegetarians are not a customer no matter what the producer does. But a wise businessman will change their production methods if their customers demand it. If you want to change agriculture, you need to change the demand in the marketplace. A blanket boycott or reduction does not do that unless there is a corresponding increase in demand for products that help mitigate AGW.

26544. ryland at 07:54 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Philip64@26

       You comment "But in 15 years of following this subject quite closely I can't remember a single instance of someone losing their job in a significant scientific institution or failing to secure one becauser of their views about climate change or any aspect of it."

       Perhaps you need to follow it a bit more closely.  Bjorn Lomborg was denied a university position here in Australia because of his views of climate change.  He is not a "denier" but believes the dangers of climate change are overstated and there are more pressing problems. (see here)

       You will note no doubt that the vice president of the Academic Staff Association states

       "This isn't about censorship at all ... Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it," Mr Bunt said.  But he would say that wouldn't he?

       A more telling quote is from Greens Senator Rachel Sieweret who is reported as saying:

       "It was very clearly the Government's design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn't as significant an issue as it is," Senator Siewert said.

       "It was bad science, and I'm pleased that UWA has realised that.

       "[The Federal Government] clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it."

       As you can see Bjorn Lomborg's views cost him a position at UWA, which is where I got my PhD from.  I do not support the actions of UWA in this instance.

       You also may not of heard of Murry Salby and Bob Carter both climate change sceptics. Salby was dismissed from his position and Carter was not re-employed. You can read about it here and here.  The two references, the second of which is by Dana Nuccitelli give quite different views

       Moderator Response:

       [Rob P] This whole persecution discussion has run its course. Any more comments in this vein will be considered off-topic and result in deletion. Stick to the science.

26545. Jim Eager at 06:58 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Philip64, Genoa's rant is nothing more than argument from incredulity and alleged anecdote, both logical fallicies, and offers nothing what so ever in the way of verifiable evidence. Frankly, there is nothing there to believe or disbelieve.

26546. Andy Skuce at 05:54 AM on 6 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Here is a blog post and a link to a paywalled paper (which I can't access) that asserts the opposite of what I assumed above. According to this, the IPCC GWP estimate would be appropriate for short term biogenic methane but not for fossil methane, which should be higher.

       But it's from 2010, so it may be out of date now.

       Added: Doh! The footnote to the table I posted said that the fossil methane should have a GWP of 1 or 2 higher. So, I was wrong. Apologies for posting first and doing the due diligence later. I will correct my original comment when I have a moment, later.

26547. Phil at 05:40 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Looking at the article referenced by ryland @7, I found this statement

       Arctic sea ice is up by at least a third after a cool summer in 2013. “It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps,” says Rachel Tilling, University College London.” – The Guardian, July 2015

       If you follow the link provided by WUWT to The Guardian here you will see that the quote WUWT provide is not from Tilling at all, but is in fact from the main body of the article. Tilling goes on to place this "resilience" in context:

       Tilling said: “You see Arctic sea ice as dwindling and in decline, but then there is a cold year and you get some of the ice back. It shows there is hope for Arctic sea ice,if you can turn the clock back to colder temperatures, which would need huge reductions in carbon emissions.”

       (my emphasis)

       But this slopiness appears to be a prevalent feature of WUWT.

26548. Andy Skuce at 05:11 AM on 6 December 2015
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       The questions about whether we should treat methane emissions from fast biogenic parts of the carbon cycle differently from emissions of fossil methane are interesting. I would have expected this to have been addressed in the literature, but I haven't found much. Admittedly, I haven't looked very hard. 

       Note: Much of the following was off the top of my head and is incorrect. I have struck through the wrong bits. See later posts for more correct inffromation

       By my calculations, the GWPs of biogenic methane from agriculture should be reduced by 2.75 compared to fossil methane releases. Basically, the biogenic methane removes  2.75 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere while it is kicking around as 1 kg of methane. (GWPs are measured according to mass, not moles. If you combust 1kg of methane you get 2.75 kg of CO2.) Fossil methane adds new carbon to short-term cycles.

       This would mean that the 20 year GWP for biogenic and fossil methane for 20 years should be 83.25 and 86 respectively. Here's the graph for methane from AR5:

       

       The GWP curve asymptotes (if that's a verb) towards 2.75, as it would for methane introduced from fossil fuel, the 2.75 representing the residual CO2. If the methane were instead sourced biogenically, in effect replacing CO2 for a short while with CH4, then we should shift the incremental GWP line down by 2.75 so it asymptotes towards zero, since once essentially all of the biogenic methane in the pulse is back to CO2, we are back where we started from.

       And here's the table

       

       For 100 years the methane GWP should be 31.25 (bio) and 34 (fossil). For very long time periods it would be ~zero and ~2.75.

       It's possible that I have miscalculated and misunderstood matters here. I can't find any mention of this in the IPCC reports, which raises a red flag that it's likely me who has the wrong end of the stick. The standard emissions accounting treats both kinds of methane equally.

       Still, even if I'm right, biogenic methane is still ~90% ~93% as bad as fossil methane, using the conventional and somewhat arbitrary 100-year timeline. Considering that methane emissions of all kinds are really hard to measure precisely, this discrepancy may not matter. Also, the GWP used for reporting for methane is currently 25, lagging the latest research, so we are nowhere near using the "correct" number. 

       What this boils down to is that anthropogenic methane of all kinds is a significant contributor to the climate crisis over human timeframes and we should take reasonable steps to reduce it. Perhaps biogenic anthro methane is a little less bad than that sourced from fossil anthro methane, but it's still a problem and the GWPs the policy makers are currently using are still too low.

       However, as Tom, Ray Pierrehumbert and many others have pointed out, the priority has to be reducing the long-lasting emissions of CO2.

       Still, reducing beef and dairy consumption would help reduce our short-term impact on the atmosphere and our longer-term impact on the environment generally, while being good for our health, so why not do it?

26549. Philip64 at 05:05 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       @Ryland 10.

       You write: "I am appalled that any scientist or indeed anyone, who questions the perceived wisdom of the modellers is excoriated and may well be dismissed from their position."

       I'm sorry but your indignation is as unconvincing as it is unmerited. If this was really happening we would have actually heard about it by now. But in 15 years of following this subject quite closely I can't remember a single instance of someone losing their job in a significant scientific institution or failing to secure one becauser of their views about climate change or any aspect of it. If they had, they would have nothing to lose by coming forward and citing chapter and verse.  So where are they? And yet we hear this feeble mantra wheeled out regularly without any supporting examples. The simple fact is: the claim of academic suppresion is a fallacious and fictitious notion used to explain the almost complete absence of peer-reviewed science supporting the various (and mutually contradictory) contrarian positions - such as the ones set out by Genoa.

       Real scientists, retired or otherwise, know that general views on broad subjects are irrelevent to careers in science. What matters is research and publication, usually in a very narrow field (unless you happen to be Albert Einstein or someone of that stature). Generally speaking, the more surprising the conclusions, the better.

       In short, I don't believe Genoa's claims. They're as incredible as his fulminations about cherry picked data points, and just as divorced from reality. 

26550. dcpetterson at 05:03 AM on 6 December 2015
       Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser
       

       Regarding frequent reference above to claims from WUWT that global warming "stopped" or "paused" or "slowed" or whaever beginning 1998 or so...

       Most of the articles at WUWT regarding this were written by Chris Monckton, who proclaims whenever RSS releases its monthly data, "No global warming for xxx months!" and provides a graph to prove it. Put aside 1) the reality of regression to the mean, as has already been mentioned above, and 2) Mockton's flatline of "no temperature increase" is at a point significantly higher than the current temperature trendline over the last century (which means some natural phenomenon, unexamined by Monckton, created a sudden climate discontinuity that raised global temperatures far above the current ~1 C warming that most climate scientists accept).

       This means, if one were to accept the Monckton/WUWT thesis that there has been no warming since c. 1998, then one would also have to accept not only that regression to the men doesn't happen, but also that the world is significantly warmer than any dataset currently shows, and that this sudden discontinuous leap was caused by a phenomenon no one has even hinted at, no one understands, and even Monckton hasn't acknowledged.

       But as I said, put that aside. The biggest problem I see with the Monckton/WUWT thesis is that the date of when the "pause" started keeps changing. If you examine Monckon's graphs over the last couple of years, you'll see his start date keeps creeping forward in time. (I have documented this elsewhere, in an article where I also steal a graph or two from SkS.) Whatever physical process started the "pause" keeps altering its starting point somewhere in the past. Mockton doesn't adequately explain how this happens.

       The alteration of "pause" start date indicates the "pause" itself is nor more than a statistical oddity, not a reflection of any physical reality or actual physical process. It also indicates the denier meme about a "pause" is based on an intentional and clumsy bit of fraud.

Prev  523  524  525  526  527  528  529  530  531  532  533  534  535  536  537  538  Next