Recent Comments

Prev  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  Next

Comments 31301 to 31350:

31301. MA Rodger at 06:02 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @239.

       Fine. We are looking at the same sources. So where within this work of Rellatack or this work of Teague is there support for your assertion @225 that the IPCC AR5 Chapter 6 "have the numbers right for the land use change to agriculture, but are missing the land use changes within agriculture as methodologies change."?

31302. RedBaron at 05:19 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Here is the published text that support the conference lecture. That is what is in The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Sorry I got the conference name wrong by swapping it with his published paper.

       http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001?journalCode=earth

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] FIxed link

31303. RedBaron at 05:05 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       OK I got the Name of the conference wrong, but here is a link.

       http://bio4climate.org/conferences/conference-2014/program/

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link

31304. ryland at 04:49 AM on 27 February 2015
       Understanding adjustments to temperature data
       

       The author says there is no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature reading.  Does this apply to the Central England Temperature record which I understand is a well regarded record of temperatures since the 1600s.  I have a particular and arguably proprietorial, interest in this as I come from Central England and would like to have something to skite about.  

31305. thinstatic at 02:40 AM on 27 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       (Moderator, forgive the funky link. Policies/firewalls here break some features of websites - I see a basic comments box, no tabs.)

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] If I'm not mistaken, you can also just type in the html code to embed links. If you know a little html that might be a workaround.

31306. thinstatic at 02:37 AM on 27 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Maybe this isn't the appropriate thread - this article might apply to several arguments, but CO2 lag seemed to fit. Brief on LiveScience on observed greenhouse effect(vs. modeled):http://www.livescience.com/49950-greenhouse-effect-measured-us.html

31307. CBDunkerson at 02:29 AM on 27 February 2015
       With climate change, US presidents matter
       

       Obama certainly has a mixed record on global warming, but I don't think there is any question that the title of the piece is entirely accurate... with a GOP president Keystone XL would have been approved years ago, there would be no EPA regulations on coal plants, there would have been no funding for renewables research, there would have been no subsidies for solar and wind development, there would be no tightening of automobile MPG requirements, et cetera.

       Sure, you or I could have done the job better ( :] ), but Obama has done more than any president before him on this issue and vastly more than any GOP president would have.

31308. MA Rodger at 02:14 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Correction to #236. That Teague link is here.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Commenters like RedBaron are expected to document the source of their assertions about what others have supposedly stated. It they do not, or cannot, their comments are merely heresay hearsay. 

31309. MA Rodger at 02:11 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @235.

       I assume this paper by Retallack will contain what you're advocating. And (I do hate linking to video - life is too short) this 24 minutes of somebody's life will explainwhat you mean by Teague (& this the Retallack equivalent).

31310. RedBaron at 01:19 AM on 27 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @MA Rodger,

       I am not sure I am up to the monumental task you just outlined. But what I can say is that Greg Retallack and Richard Teague both spoke at the most recent Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences conference. They appear to be in support of each other completely. Ie the paleo record supports the current observations and they both point to potential near future solutions of AGW. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please document what Greg Retallack and Richard Teague said at the most recent Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences conference. Where and when was this conference held? Who sponsors it? Were you in attendance? 

31311. One Planet Only Forever at 01:06 AM on 27 February 2015
       With climate change, US presidents matter
       

       Synapsid,

       The portion of XL that was built was indeed to increase the movement of damaging fossil fuels, but it does not need to be extended into Canada where it would further damage things. And Obama had absolutely no influence over that portion beacause it did not cross the US border.

       Obama could do little to stop what the greedy likes of the Tea Party/Republican controlled House wanted. Same goes for coal export.

       The problem is the likes of the Tea Party/Republicans including those who call themselves Democrats but will vote for coal if they are in a region where the damaging activity is a prominent part of the economy.

       A global ban on the ability of greedy pursuers of personal benefit to export any product derived from the oil sands is needed. Many self-interested people will try any way they can get away with to benefit as much as possible, even if they are fully aware of how unsustainable and damaging their pursuits are.

       However, I agree that his apparant support of Arctic Drilling and Ga-Fracking are unacceptable, if he had authority to actually block them, which he probably doesn't.

       The real problem is the American voters who share that attitude in numbers big enough to elect members of the House and Senate in the bizarre shaped Jerrymandered House constituencies created by the likes of the Tea Party Republicans (combined with their deliberate attempts to keep people who would not vote 'with them' from getting to cast a vote).

       What the Americans can do, in addition to stopping any expansion of coal export facilities, is to ban the movement and export of the Petroleum Coke by-product of trying to turn the bitumen into something more readily burnable.

31312. MA Rodger at 20:22 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @233.

       Down this thread since #217, you have been presenting perhaps three separate arguments which may be why the responses haven't been quite hitting the mark for you.

       Perhaps the least controversial (relatively) of your three proposals concerns sequestartion of CO2. There are people (coming from different directions) who advocate using grassland management techniques to improve sequestration of atmospheric CO2. It is usually at the same time also argued that such management of grassland would hughly incerease pastoral livestock production. Further I have seen such argument made in a general sense to cereal production as well.

       These multiple approaches reaching similar conclusions would suggest there is merit in such arguments although the slow of progress made by such arguments suggests also that the benefits are not as straightforward as claimed (or as not so easily demonstrated as claimed).  It also suggests that a discussion here will not easily provide a clear outcome.

       However, it is the second argument that you present that is the main bone of contention within the thread. You are arguing that the rise in atmospheric CO2 results directly from changes in agricultural practice and such changes have caused CO2 emissions that remain unaccounted for by any of the studies of the likes of Houghton.

       Such an argument is strong stuff. Yet in establishing such a hypothesis, I would say that I don't think you have begun even to scratch the surface.

       But there is a third hypothesis that you are proposing. You suggest that it was the spread of grasslands during the Cenozoic that resulted in the fall in atmospheric CO2 levels over that period. Again, this is strong stuff.

       Mixing up all this into one big debate will get us nowehre. Thus I would recommend that these three areas of discussion are addressed separately.

31313. Elmwood at 18:02 PM on 26 February 2015
       With climate change, US presidents matter
       

       Synapsid is spot on, Obama has done very little to decrease our nations future production of fossil fuels and has laid the ground work for growth. Despite the right-wing mantra, Obama has shown himself at best to be a centrist moderate on environmental issues.

       
       Opening up drilling off the southeast coast should be a shock for people concerned about AGW and his removal of areas from future leasing in the Arctic were mere postage stamps relative to the vastness of the lease sale areas, besides the fact that they were not thought to be prospective to industry. His administration has scheduled lease sales in the Cook Inlet, Beaufort and Chukchi Sea in Alaska, which is ground zero for climate change.

31314. protagorias at 17:38 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       I see, but i think I make a valid point when I say we don't have enough data. We don't have accurate enough measurements regarding the composition of gases on Venus today to warrant speculation about what happened on the planet millions of years ago.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You've made your point. Please move on to a different topic.

       Excessive repititon is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Any future posts by you on this topic will be summarily deleted.

       Sloganeering is also prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Any future posts by you that lack credible documentation to support your position will be summarily deleted.

31315. RedBaron at 16:56 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I also have found very limited maths concerning this as well! It is an over looked but in my opinion highly important part of the problem! It's an oversite that in my opinion causes the IPCC analyses to be flawed! There is however some information out there. It just hasn't been rigorously applied to climate science models. At least not to my satisfaction.

       But let's start with historical ecosystems prior to the anthropocene. (the proposed epoch that began when human activities had a significant global impact on the Earth's ecosystems)

       https://www.zotero.org/jsebastiantello/items/itemKey/Z6B9F3QE 

       "the truly novel event of the Cenozoic was the evolution and expansion of grasslands, with their uniquely coevolved grasses and grazers. Neogene expansion of the climatic and geographic range of grasslands at the expense of woodlands is now revealed by recent studies of paleosols, fossils, and their stable isotopic compositions. Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2,CH4, and water vapor, and their Cenozoic evolution a contribution to long-term global climatic cooling. Grassland soils are richer in organic matter than are woodland and desert soils of comparable climates, and when eroded, their crumb clods form sediment unusually rich in organic matter. Grasslands also promote export of bicarbonate and nutrient cations to lakes and to the oceans where they stimulate productivity and C burial"

       So according to Retallack, the primary driver that gave us the climate we humans evolved in was the grassland/grazer biome. Admittedly taking geological time to evolve. Grasslands/graziers didn't just pop into existence and immediately take over 1/2 the worlds forests. But the biome is the biome that once established did make a major contribution to our climate. So this is the biome that historically originally pulled down our carbon to pre-industrial levels. Simply removing that biome would tend to cause climate to rebalance at pre-Cenozoic levels. (much warmer and wetter than we are now)

       Now look at agriculture. What is the primary agricultural ground? Yes some of it is cleared forests and alfisols. But they tend to loose their carbon and fertility quite rapidly. The prime agricultural land is regions like the midwest North American plains. Particularly the tall grass prairie. Why? because that's where the deep fertile mollic soils are primarily formed! But those ecosystems are largely extirpated and replaced by artificial agricultural ecosystems. Even in the dryer plains/savanna areas of the world, the grazers are largely extinct or extirpated, causing those grasslands to no longer effectively function as carbon sinks. Replaced once again with agriculture, either dryland crop production or livestock. Often many of those grasslands are burned due to there not being nearly enough animal impact to cycle the vegetation.

       Because of this we get analysis from many sources already mentioned in this thread: "Since 1750, anthropogenic land use change have resulted into about 50 million km2 being used for cropland and pasture, corresponding to about 38% of the total ice-free land area (Foley et al., 2007, 2011)"

       It's not just that 38% is in agriculture. But the prime arable land is almost completely under agriculture. It's not evenly distributed. Mountains and deserts have far less % of the land in agriculture. Agriculture rests primarily right in the middle of the best land, which also is the land responcible for mitigating carbon increases in the atmosphere! So that 38% is right in the same land that potentially would be mitigating our fossil fuel emissions. Quantifying it is hard though. Entire regions and whole trophic levels of the biomes are gone. We are not going to let loose millions and millions of bison in Iowa corn country and let them and the wolves roam freely to measure what carbon would have been sequestered if we hadn't extirpated them. Certainly can't bring back the extinct megafauna of the planet. So hard numbers on that are very difficult to get.

       But what we can and have done is develope models of agriculture with farming methods that function as carbon sinks. They have been measured compared to conventional best management practises currently being used.

       Here is an example: LINK

       and 

       http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011%5B0343:GMACIG%5D2.0.CO%3B2

       These studies show that best management practises on both rangeland and planted pasture increases CO2 sequestration by 11 tons CO2/ha/yr simply by regenerating ecosystem function. You couldn't of course say all grassland does that, but it shows an INCREASE over conventional by that amount in those locations. Some areas like Iowa probably would be more as the conventional model there is corn fed instead of grass fed. Here is a white paper by the author of the first paper descibing the potential if that model were applied worldwide:

       LINK

       It's not as easy to restore ecosystem function without animal impact. But relatively good results have been achieved by David Brandt on traditional row crops. Documented by USDA NRCS on Brandts demonstration farm. 

       LINK

       Unlikely to reach the historic 8-10% SOC with Brandts system as it doesn't include animals. But he has achieved results as high as 4-5% SOC  sequestered in a decade even in a row crop model. (no til with multi species covers)

       There are systems out there that integrate all three of the above that have achieved the historic 11%!

        

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened links that were breaking page format.

31316. Tom Curtis at 15:38 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @228 and 230:

       1)  The argument that we have degraded the terrestial biosphere's ability to sequester fossil fuels is different from your initial claim that:

       "The hocky stick isn't fossil fuel emissions, it's agricultural degradation of the soils, particularly carbon", and that. Sure emissions also help somewhat, but even without a single fossil fuel drop, degrade the ecosystem services and we get global warming."

       Specifically, your current argument relies on fossil fuels providing the excess CO2, with the implication that has we equally degraded the biosphere, but not emitted the fossil fuels, there would have been a much reduced increase in CO2 emissions.

       2)  Degrading 50% of the terrestial biosphere's ability to sequester CO2 is not the same as degrading the terrestial biosphere's ability to sequester CO2 by 50%.  For them to be the same, we would need to, not degrade, but eliminate 50% of the terrestial biosphere's ability to sequester CO2, that 50% would have to account for half of natural sequestration, and there would have to be no compensating increases in the ability to sequester in the other 50% of the biosphere.  You have not shown any of these conditions to be true.  Indeed, plausibly, the degradation of the ability to sequester scales with the biomass.  That is, plausibly we have degraded the ability of the terrestial biosphere to sequester CO2 by the ratio of cumulative LUC emissions (160 GtC) to total terrestial biosphere Carbon (2500 GtC), or by 6.4%.

       3)  Whatever the degradation of the ability to sequester is, the fact is that the terrestial biosphere has sequestered 130 GtC, and that over the last few decades, total biosphere sequestration has exceded total emissions from LUC as shown by the O2 data (see my post @223).  Ergo the increase in the ability of the terrestial biosphere to sequester CO2 due to the increase in temperature, humidity and CO2 concentration exceeds the degradation of the ability to sequester consequent on LUC.

31317. Tom Curtis at 15:19 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       scaddenp @111, it is more than (or should that be worse than) ridiculous.  Logically, the instruments used to obtain empirical emissions data from Venus were not experimentally tested on Venus.  Therefore it is possible that Venusian conditions result in a change in physical laws such that the data is misinterpreted if we use the theory based on experiments on Earth to interpret the data.  If, therefore, we apply protagorias' restrictions on the use of theory, we can not use any data from Venus we have obtained.

       If, on the other hand, we assume that physical laws tested in experiments on Earth, that work well in Earth's atmosphere and appear to work well in Venus (and Mars') atmosphere also work on Venus, then we obtain the results protagorias excoriates as too theoretical.  His objection, therefore amounts to no more than pseudo-philosophical cant,  which disguises that fact by not applying it explicitly to any particular observations or theories (where such application would show immediately he is resorting to unjustified obscurantism).

       Given his chosen internet name, this should not surprise us.  He has chosen the name of a philosopher who argued that theoretical maths (specifically, Euclidean geometry) was not applicable in the real world, and excessively theoretical; and that truth was relative.  (Note, Protagoras lived before Euclid, so the geometry he objected too had not yet been axiomatized, but was Euclidean in the sense that it treated parallel lines as never meeting.)  Given that his namesake would not even accept that a line could be tangent to a curve, why would we expect him  to accept the maths behind the Kombayashi-Ingersol limit?  Or consider it worth discussing with him, as he wants to imunize his views from debate by avoiding specifics.

31318. scaddenp at 14:19 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Okay, RedBaron, it looks like we are in more agreement. What is the basis for your statement "we have degraded the terrestrial biosphere's capability to sequester carbon by roughly ~50%+/- by degrading the terrestrail ecosystems world wide." I havent seen data published on this (which is not to say that it doesnt exist). I admit to being skeptical because some sequestration mechanism are sensitive to CO2 concentration so the maths doesnt fit.

31319. RedBaron at 13:56 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @Scaddenp: You said, "But what Houghton does is add up all those changes. That is where the numbers come from. Your original post was "Sure emissions also help somewhat," whereas the evidence from all those sources with all the maths, calculated by multiple methods, would suggest that the phrase should be "Sure human agriculture also help somewhat" - to the tune about 8% what FF does..." Actually I have seen figures around 10% but either way 8-10% is close enough. That's emissions. The ecosystem service of carbon sequestration is on the opposite side of the carbon cycle. So we have emissions of 8-10% but what is missing from your analysis is that we have degraded the terrestrial biosphere's capability to sequester carbon by roughly ~50%+/- by degrading the terrestrail ecosystems world wide. Even in their highly degraded state, the ecosystems manage to sequester about ~ 50% of all emissions. Restoring the ecosystems to full function with regard to carbon sequestration should potentially be able to eliminate the other 1/2. Restore them to higher functionality than wilderness ecosystems should actually potentially begin drawdown.

31320. scaddenp at 13:20 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       But what Houghton does is add up all those changes. That is where the numbers come from. Your original post was "Sure emissions also help somewhat," whereas the evidence from all those sources with all the maths, calculated by multiple methods, would suggest that the phrase should be "Sure human agriculture also help somewhat" - to the tune about 8% what FF does. There is strong evidence to support a number around that magnitude and so far you havent cited a source which would suggest otherwise.

31321. RedBaron at 12:58 PM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Think about it Tom. You said, "Houghton et al (2012) looked at the primary literature and found that while in some cases the flux is positive, increasing atmospheric CO2, in others it is negative and that the net global effect is close to zero." And the IPCC report that I quoted said, "Since 1750, anthropogenic land use change have resulted into about 50 million km2 being used for cropland and pasture, corresponding to about 38% of the total ice-free land area (Foley et al., 2007, 2011)" Meanwhile about 1/2 fossil fuel emissions are being sequestered (although not all of that is in terrestrial sinks)

       Add up what all those independant sources mean. It means just what I said in my first post here. Agriculture has broken the natural buffering capability (ecosystem service of sequesting carbon and moderating climate) of the terrestrial biosphere roughly by about 1/2 +/- and the current biosphere is falling short of sequestering CO2 from fossil fuel emissions roughly by about 1/2. There is your primary problem confirmed in yet another way.

       The reason this is important IMHO is that it points to many potential mitigation solutions that are biology based. Agricultural land is already intensively managed. It doesn't take huge budgets of new research and development that the energy technology fixes require to simply change the management. It's simply an educational solution. Farmers only need educated in the already developed management techniques that restore the ecosystem services to the land they manage. Very small costs, and big returns in both carbon sequestration and actually instead of costing society huge sums, turns out to be a net profit!

31322. scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       This is rediculous. We have an absolutely mass of data on Venus. Where is there any sign of an observation that disagrees with known physics? By your definition, geology and maybe biology are not sciences because we cant rerun a planet. As a reminder, the core of science is about testing of ideas, usually expressed as models, against what is possible to be observed. Experiments are a way to generate observations but no mean the only way. Sending a probe to the surface of Venus and measuring all the way down is another perfectly valid one.

       The idea for instance that the Radiative Transfer Equations (which is how you calculate the GHE for Venus) are derived from "a single point that may be transient in nature" is absurd.

31323. protagorias at 12:45 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Tom Dayton, thank you for pointing that out. Begrudgingly I have to admit that I stand corrected. We are, I think, a civilization going through a modern and enlightening period in history.

31324. Tom Dayton at 12:22 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       protagorias, your definition of "science" requiring experimentation on a whole-planet scale is incorrect.  Indeed, "science" in general does not require experimentation.  Unfortunately, your definition of "science" is what typically is taught in grade school.

31325. DSL at 12:21 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Protagorias, perhaps you could provide a specific example of where you think this terrible error in judgment has occurred.

31326. protagorias at 12:07 PM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       tom curtis @106,

       On the contrary I think my points are inherently self-evident to anyone who knows how to conduct a scientific experiment and properly interpret data. Quite frankly it's sheer folly and arrogance to take any particular data point, which may be transient in nature, and lacking any ability to test for such transience, ascribe undue meaning to it. I have no interest in playing games of whose creative interpretation of incomplete data is better.

31327. Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       protagorias @105, your comments are so lacking in specifics as to be void of content.  Where they rise to any level of specificity, they amount merely to an ad hominen, accusing people of basing their theory on a "philosophical point of view" rather than science, again without specifics so as to avoid detailed refutation.  In all, your post is a classic example of sloganeering, which is banned by the comments policy.  Ergo, it is not worthy of further comment.

31328. protagorias at 11:33 AM on 26 February 2015
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       What's interesting in reading through the comments section here about possible greenhouse warming in Venus' history is the degree to which several factors can contribute to what I think is really an unhelpful paradigm.

       You have first of all a lack of experimental rigor. Data we can measure is incomplete, and we have no current ability to conduct on a planetary scale, any sort of experiment which could yield telling conclusions.

       Secondly, to incomplete data, you have an excess of theoretical mathematics. Interpretation of current data, divorced from adequate experiemental results, VERY quickly becomes a creative endeavor. It's extrmely easy to twist aspects of the data to fit a predetermined philosophical stance.

       Thirdly, you have an issue when you bring in a philosophical stance to an issue that should ideally be bereft of one. For example, anyone who uses the term "denier"  is really bringing in an unethical a priori point of view to something that should be science based.

       Lastly, my overarching point is that we have a lack of ability to carry out valid experiment, and that we shouldn't be overly eager to marry a particular philosophical point of view with inadequate data.

31329. Synapsid at 10:40 AM on 26 February 2015
       With climate change, US presidents matter
       

       John,

       President Obama vetoed a House bill that would have circumvented the established process for evaluating the KXL application.  He did not veto KXL.  He could still approve it; I don't know how likely that is.  One suggestion I've seen is that he could use it as a negotiating piece with Canada.

       The President did stand in a pipe yard to announce that he had instructed his administration to do everything it could to fast-track the southern end of KXL, and that portion of the pipeline went into operation in January 2014.  The President had called it "vital to the American economy."  Its capacity is 600 000 barrels of oil a day, if memory serves.  (The admistration had no authority over the southern end of the pipeline anyway; it crosses no international border.)

       Under the current administration exports of US coal, much of it from Federal lands, have increased 50%.

       120 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico have been offered for leasing for oil and natural gas (NG) exploration and development.

       The East Coast, which has been shut to oil and NG drilling for decades, has been opened.

       31 000 drilling permits on Federal lands have been approved, including more permits in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011--one year after the Macondo blowout--than since 2007 under President Bush.

       There's more, of course.  The point is that President Obama has been acting realistically--as much as an elected politician can--about energy.  The ongoing emphasis on KXL has served to divert attention and energy from the ongoing increase in the export of crude oil from Canada (much of it from the oil sands).  Where is the value in that?  Last year more Canadian crude was brought into the US than in the year previous, and the story is the same for the year before that and for the year before that--without the northern part of the KXL.  Crude that doesn't move by pipeline moves by rail, as we see in the news, and I don't see that as a plus.

       Here's a thought:  The bitumen from Canada's oil sands won't flow through a pipeline--it's too viscous.  It has to be diluted with lighter oils including condensate, and Canada imports that stuff from...the US.  If you want to slow the development of the oil sands then work to prevent export of US light oils to Canada.  Stopping or delaying KXL won't do it.

31330. Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I see scaddenp has beat to the punch on Houghton et al.  Here is the full quote:

       "4.2 Agricultural management
       The changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) that result when native lands are converted to croplands are included in most analyses, but the changes in SOC that result from cropland
       management, including cropping practices, irrigation, use of fertilizers, different types of tillage, changes in crop density, and changes in crop varieties, are not generally included
       in global LULCC model analyses. Studies have addressed the potential for management to sequester carbon, but fewer studies have tried to estimate past or current carbon
       sinks. One analysis for the US suggests a current sink of 0.015 Pg C yr−1 in croplands (Eve et al., 2002), while a recent assessment for Europe suggests a small net source
       or near-neutral conditions (Ciais et al., 2010; Kutsch et al., 2010). In Canada, the flux of carbon from cropland management is thought to be changing from a net source to a net sink, with a current flux near zero (Smith et al., 2000). Globally, the current flux from agricultural management is uncertain but probably not far from zero. Methane and nitrous oxide are the predominant greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture."

       The IPCC in turn indicated that it's estimates of emissions from LUC were:

       "Estimated from the cumulative net land use change emissions of Houghton et al. (2012) during 1850–2011 and the average of four publications (Pongratz at al., 2009; van Minnen et al., 2009; Shevliakova et al., 2009; Zaehle et al., 2011) during 1750–1850."

       (Footnote g to table 6.1)

       So, the flux that RedBaron says the IPCC ignores is explicitly taken into account by the IPCC's primary source.  Further, while he estimates that flux to dominate the flux from Fossil Fuel emissions without evidence or reading of the primary literature, Houghton et al (2012) looked at the primary literature and found that while in some cases the flux is positive, increasing atmospheric CO2, in others it is negative and that the net global effect is close to zero.

31331. scaddenp at 09:09 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Read a little further into the IPCC report. FF has zero C14. The continued dilution of C14 in atmospheric CO2 since nuclear testing is consistant with the calculation of relative proportions of FF v LUC.  You claim IPCC has not considered changes in agricultural management affecting soil carbon. However the IPCC source for LUC using fig 6.8 is Houghton et al 2012. This uses and compares a number of different studies all producing similar results. Your point is explicitly discussed in section 4.2. From the studies discussed, it concludes "Globally,
       the current flux from agricultural management is uncertain
       but probably not far from zero". If you have papers that can challenge those studies, then please cite. However, as Tom points out, if LUC contribution is higher than current estimates, then given known FF emissions, you then need to account for an unknown sink to get our measured concentrations (and the C14 dilution).

31332. mancan18 at 08:21 AM on 26 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       I hope Dana's book is a success. Judging by the qualities of his posts his book should be an informative read and deserves to be a part of the lierature related to Climate Science. However, I am not sure it will necessarily be a success, if what happened to Al Gore and Tim Flannery are any indication after criticism by the usual cast of climate change doubters in the media. That is the problem with conveying climate science to the wider public. On one side there is a scientific argument. On the other side there is a marketing campaign where those who cast doubt are not required to justify their argument in any meaningful scientific manner. They never seem to be challenged on the basic premise behind Climate Science. They are never required to justify how the planet will cool or won't warm when one of its primary greenhouse gases, due to us, is increasing at the rate it is. Most climate science discussion in the popular media seems to revolve around the impacts we are seeing which ranges from that they are non existent and don't matter to they will be a catastrophe. This is because very few in the media are sufficiently scientifically literate to make a proper judgement and write a properly balanced article. Also, there is a huge financial incentive for media outlets to publicise arguments that are favourable to some of their largest financial contributors, fossil fuel companies. I do hope Dana's book is read by some of the journalists and what he has to say is properly conveyed.

       Despite anything deniers argue they should always be challenged on the basic premise i.e. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is increasing at unprecedented rates, its increase is due to us, and it will warm the planet; and the evidence that this is happening is quite clear and over the past century; carbon dioxide levels have increased 40%, global temperatures have risen on average by 0.8 degrees Celsius, the sea level has risen by around 19 cm, polar and galacial ice is melting, the seasons are changing, the range of some species is increasing as others are going extinct, and the paleontology record as well as climate models indicate that there will be huge problems for us in the future if the increase in carbon dioxide continues. What scientific evidence do the climate doubters ever convey to justify their argument that it isn't happening and it will be all OK, basically none.

       Again, I hope Dana's book is a success and changes the balance in the media.

31333. Jose_X at 07:21 AM on 26 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Rob, before cs became politicized, ask anyone about it and they'd likely say that they would defer to the scientists or would express an opinion but accepted they did not know nearly enough to base public policy on it. They'd probably also agree it would be best to be a little safe over sorry and that preserving fossil fuels (cutting back) would probably be a good thing anyway. Politicized either way, however, and the non-experts will protect the political party probably because the party wars have many more items at stake. People like Barry Bickmore (Mueller?) and others are a minority because it is a minority that can actually dig into the science to avoid misplaced allegiances on this topic and can hold their own in debate. We should take the media to task for being biased as some of them are (or for lapses), but they represent a wider body than scientists so are affected by politics, never mind that ownership (especially for blogs) are frequently enough unapoligetically political.

        

       Moderator, I did not realize to post in a different thread and then a link here to it. [That earlier comment, flaws and all, was to Patrick, btw.]

31334. michael sweet at 06:46 AM on 26 February 2015
       CO2 lags temperature
       

       Patrick,

       You ask about how during the ice ages the ocean could outgas CO2 while warming but now it is absorbing CO2 while the temperature increases.  You can calculate the solubility of CO2 using the formula here if you want more accuracy.   

       The issue here is that on the "skeptical" blogs they do not consider the magnitude of processes.  They presume that any effect that seems to minimize the AGW problem is the dominate one.

       According to figure 1 in the OP, the CO2 changes from about 190 ppm to about 280 ppm during an ice age.  This is a change of about 90 ppm.  The global temperature change is about 6C during the same time.  Thus the CO2 changes about 15 ppm for each 1C change in temperature.

       For AGW we have changed the CO2 from about 270 to 400 or about 130 ppm of CO2.  The temperature has risen about .8C so far.   We might expect ocean outgasing to decrease CO2 concentration in the ocean by the equivalent of about 10 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. (the deep ocean has not come to equilibrium.  This explaination is a rough estimate)  

       According to Henry's law, the solubility of CO2 is directly proportional to pressure of CO2.   The increase in pressure has increased the solubility of CO2 about 130 ppm which is over 10 times as much as the solubility of CO2 has decreased from the increase in temperature.

       The ocean acidification narrative is correct because the increase in solubility from pressure increase is so much greater than the decrease in solubility from temperature.  The situation was different during the ice ages because the change was slow and the difference in CO2 concentration was smaller.

       As the moderator points out, the increase of temperature may cause major problems in the future as the deep ocean heats up.  After enough temperature rise the ocean will not accept any more CO2 (the temperature affect increases as the temperature increases).  Then the CO2 in the atmosphere will rise more rapidly.  The surface few hundred meters will stay acidic in any case.  The rapid change in acidity is difficult for ecosystems to adapt to.

       This calculation is old news to people who have researched the facts about AGW.  Your posts would come across better if you asked questions about what you want to learn instead of suggesting that scientists have made major errors.

31335. citizenschallenge at 05:38 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       Thank you Kevin, very helpful article.

       fyi. Since it's a great rebuttal to some of Jim Steel's Crazy-making over at WUWT I've decided to mirror this post over at my blog. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/exposing-ushcn-homogenization-insanity.html

       Regarding the tiff with the Telegraph might I offer:  Political leaders and the public have a right to learn without malicious interference! ~ ~ ~ Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity", Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible and always learning. ~ ~ ~ It's not about relying "only on what others are telling us." It's about trusting a huge community of experts who keep each other honest ! http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/florifulgurator-denial-scienceofdoom-1c.html

31336. CBDunkerson at 03:47 AM on 26 February 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #8
       

       Inside Climate News has the best writeup on the Soon debacle that I have seen thus far.

       Quoting Soon: "For polar bears... you do want to watch out for ice. Too much ice is really bad for polar bears."

31337. Jubble at 03:38 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       This was the response from the Telegraph - now on to IPSO:

        

       Thank you for contacting us about this article.

       As you are aware, climate change is a complex and controversial topic. A newspaper is not a scientific journal, and is not required to represent all the possible shades of evidence and interpretation that might have a bearing upon any given topic.

       This is clearly an opinion article and identifiable as such. Against the background described above, readers can be expected to understand that any evidence offered is almost certainly contestable. It follows that in an opinion article of this nature only the most egregious inaccuracy could be significantly misleading. The point you raise does not qualify as such.

       The article is based on material published by Paul Homewood on his weather blog. The writer is entitled to cite Homewood's interpretation of temperature data and comment upon it. Although I understand you disagree with his views, the existence of contrary interpretations does not negate Christopher Booker's right to offer his own. There is nothing that would engage the terms of the Editor's Code of Conduct.

       I trust this is of some assistance.

31338. RedBaron at 00:52 AM on 26 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       I'll try to address you guys points one by one. First scaddencamp, you said: "Your thesis is not compatible drop in O2 and isotope ratio of CO2 in atmosphere." Actually it is compatable, even the IPCC report says as much. C12 isotope ratios are consistent vegetative sources, whether fossil, or in the biosphere. "With a very high confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration." p 493

       But what is lacking in the IPCC report is the Land Use data is far too crude. There is little analysis of land use changes within agriculture. In other words IPCC says this:

       "With a very high level of confidence1, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. About half of the emissions remained in the atmosphere (240 ± 10 PgC) since 1750. The rest was removed from the atmosphere by sinks and stored in the natural carbon cycle reservoirs. The ocean reservoir stored 155 ± 30 PgC. Vegetation biomass and soils not affected by land use change stored 160 ± 90 PgC. {6.1, 6.3, 6.3.2.3, Table 6.1, Figure 6.8}"

       But not factored was the "land use change" that was a result of the green revolution. The Green Revolution refers to a series of research, and development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1960s that radically changed how agriculture is practised world wide. That's the same flaw in the graph posted by Dikran Marsupial. Agricultural land that changed methodology but was prior agricultural land and is afterwards agricultural land is no counted as "land use change". However, there is a radical change in the carbon cycle that accompanies that change in methodolgy. Specifically the most radical change is in soil health, primarily carbon. If you change that graph to include changes within agriculture, I believe you'll find that instead of crossing in 1965 you'll see it continuing to be the primary cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

       Further confirmation of this flaw can be seen in this quote from the IPCC report. "Since 1750, anthropogenic land use change have resulted into about 50 million km2 being used for cropland and pasture, corresponding to about 38% of the total ice-free land area (Foley et al., 2007, 2011), in contrast to an estimated cropland and pasture area of 7.5 to 9 million km2 about 1750 (Ramankutty and Foley, 1999; Goldewijk, 2001). The cumulative net CO2 emissions from land use changes between 1750 and 2011 are estimated at approximately 180 ± 80 PgC (see Section 6.3 and Table 6.1)" They have the numbers right for the land use change to agriculture, but are missing the land use changes within agriculture as methodologies change.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Formatting glitch fixed.

31339. Jubble at 00:24 AM on 26 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       I have just posted a complaint on the Telegraph website on this article.  We will see how it is taken.

31340. BBHY at 23:39 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Thank you for writing this book. I have read so many, many predictions of the "coming mini ice age", etc from the like of Joe Bastardi and many others. They get a lot of play in the media, but it seems that nobody ever comes back later and confronts them with these failed predictions after we have yet another Earth's hottest year. 

31341. Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Red Baron, the factor you describe is already taken into account by the IPCC (and all other carbon cycle researchers) and it is described as "land use change emissions" (as pointed out above by scaddenp).  You can get data on on this from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre (CDIADC).  One of the most surprising things I found out about climate change when I first looked into it just how late cumulative anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel use finally overtook those from land use change.  The answer turns out to be about 1965. 

       

31342. Nick Stokes at 19:36 PM on 25 February 2015
       Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments
       

       That gives a good view of distribution of adjustment effect. I made a Google Maps gadget here, where you can color stations according to adjustment trend effect, though you don't get the color shading picture. It also lets you link to the GHCN data pages.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Activated link.

31343. Rob Painting at 19:26 PM on 25 February 2015
       Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right
       

       Jose - ain't it weird how the high CO₂ levels predominantly seem to be affecting the cognitive abilities of those of a certain political persuasion?

31344. Tom Curtis at 19:01 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Just one more point, one of the factors showing it is the consumption of fossil fuels leading to the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been the reduction in the O2 content:

       

       As can be seen, given known emmissions from fossil fuels, measured delines in O2 and increases in CO2 concentration, the equations only balance if the combined effect of LUC plus natural uptake by the land (vegetation plus soils) decreases the CO2 concentration over the period of measurement.  That is consistent with total anthropogenic emissions from LUC being positive, but only if they are less than natural sequestration by vegetation and soils.  That is again inconsistent with RedBaron's thesis.

31345. Tom Curtis at 18:53 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @220, with respect, your anonymous, non peer reviewed analysis consisted of a map showing the proportion of the land surface currently under agricultural production.  But now you want us to give a pass on that analysis, and question the expert, public and peer reviewed analysis of the IPCC based on your say so?  I think you have radically disparate standards of evidence depending on whether or not you agree with a theory.

       Further, you simply neglect the force of the case as presented by the IPCC.  The IPCC shows changes in reservoirs with 90% uncertainty intervals.  Specifically, changes are as follows:

       Atmosphere + 240 +/- 10 GtC

       Ocean  + 155 +/- 30 GtC

       Fossil Fuels - 365 +/- 10 GtC

       It follows that the change of all other reservoirs combined (ie, vegetation plus soils) is 30 +/- 33 GtC from that information alone (assuming the data is independent).  Calling into questin the partition between soils and vegetation in no way allows the sum of change in soils plus vegetation to exceed those limits.  So, until you find the evidence that the ocean is absorbing CO2 at several times its rate as reported by the IPCC, you do not have a case.  Indeed, looking at the uncertainties, it is more likely that vegetation plus soils have increased in CO2 content than that they account for even 20% of the atmospheric and ocean increase, let alone most of it.

31346. scaddenp at 18:34 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Redbaron - your quote applies to potential scenarios in the future, not to current source of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not sure why you think there is a fixation with forest in the carbon budgets given the soil carbon storage in grassland is well known. The change in grassland is explicitly calculated. While land use change is part of AGW, the evidence to date is that is small compared to fossil fuel burning. The check on the calculation is the carbon isotopic concentration in the atmosphere. You need a massive change in carbon fluxes for this to be significant compared to FF.

31347. RedBaron at 17:29 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       @ scaddenp & Tom Curtis,

        I am well aware of the IPCC report and the charts. I even think most of it is relatively good. There are however several flaws that change the overall picture. This for example is potentially quite flawed.

       "It is very likely, based on new experimental results {6.4.6.3} and
       modelling, that nutrient shortage will limit the effect of rising
       atmospheric CO2 on future land carbon sinks, for the four RCP
       scenarios. There is high confidence that low nitrogen availability will
       limit carbon storage on land, even when considering anthropogenic
       nitrogen deposition. The role of phosphorus limitation is more uncertain.
       Models that combine nitrogen limitations with rising CO2 and
       changes in temperature and precipitation thus produce a systematically
       larger increase in projected future atmospheric CO2, for a given fossil
       fuel emissions trajectory."

        

       another flaw is the fixation with forests. The primary historical carbon fixation is not forests. It is grasslands. The fixation is not in vegetative material, but rather exudates. Forests do have a moderating effect, especially as seen now with a new balance being made as fossil fuels emissions increase. But ultimately the long term effect of forests is near neutral, as a much higher % of the products of photosynthesis are above ground. A relatively small % is sequestered, because ultimately above ground and near surface carbon compounds are released in the short term carbon cycle by way of the processes of decay. So you get a net effect of maybe 2% +/-? Depending on how long a time frame you look? Grassland sequestration is completely different. Those grasses and forbs sequesture as much as 37% directly deep in the soil by direct exudate production. The carbon is sequestered far longer than near surface and above surface carbon. In the thousands of years if undisturbed. That's why historically molisols have far deeper A horizons with much higher SOC than alfisols (even old growth forst alfisols).

       But, while only about 1/2 the land suface is under agriculture and there are still forests, the grassland/savannas of the world (primary terrestrial carbon sequetration of the Earth) are largely either extirpated like the tallgrass prairie, or under poor management and no longer functioning as a carbon pump. Pretty much all of it is gone. So the secondary buffers (forests) are helping to take away 1/2 the excess carbon from fossil fuels. But the primary terrestrial buffer to the carbon cycle is nearly completely gone or disfunctional due to poor management.

31348. Tom Curtis at 14:52 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       RedBaron @217, adding to scaddenp's response, here is the graphic showing reservoirs and fluxes of CO2 from the IPCC (Fig 6.01):

       

       Fluxes are shown in by the arrows, reservours by the boxes.  "Natural" (ie, preindustrial) values are shown in black, changes since the preindustrial in red.  Units are in terms of Petagrams of Carbon per year for fluxes, and Petagrams of Carbon for reservoirs, with a Petagram equalling 10^15 grams, or a billion tonnes of Carbon (Gigatonnes).

       So, looking at the reservoirs, we see that the combined atmosphere/ocean reservoir has increased by 395 Gigatonnes of Carbon, while vegetation has decreased by 30 gigatonnes of carbon, and fossil fuel and cement stocks have decreased by 365 gigatonnes of carbon.  That is, the combined effect of land use changes and the CO2 fertilization effect has resulted in only 8.2% of the total increase, with fossil fuels accounting for the rest.

       The total emissions from fossil fuels and cement manufacture is well known.  For it to be even matched by emissions from LUC, you need a new, and very large reservoir to store the excess CO2.

       There is additional evidence that the primary source of the increased CO2 comes from fossil sources.  Of these the most important is the decline in C14 concentrations.  Another is that there is a very strong correlation between cumulative fossil fuel emissions and CO2 concentrations:

        

       Over the period of observations at Mauna Loa, that correlation is 0.9995 with an r squared of 0.999.  That correlation actually decreases slightly when emissions from LUC are included, probably because estimates of those emissions are not as accurate as those for fossil fuels.

31349. scaddenp at 14:00 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Change in Land use is accounted for - see the IPCC report. Your thesis is not compatible drop in O2 and isotope ratio of CO2 in atmosphere. Some discussion of that here. I think you may be underestimating the role of oceans in CO2 cycling compared to land. You can get references to studies doing the maths of CO2 accounting from the IPCC WG1 chapter 6.

31350. RedBaron at 13:50 PM on 25 February 2015
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       Here is what I believe you are missing. You claim: "Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions." It's true. But we have also degraded the ecosystem services by ~1/2 as well...with modern factory farming style agriculture. The hocky stick isn't fossil fuel emissions, it's agricultural degradation of the soils, particularly carbon. Sure emissions also help somewhat, but even without a single fossil fuel drop, degrade the ecosystem services and we get global warming. It is us doing the harm, so it is AGW. But you guys are looking at the wrong source. Here is your evidence:

       http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

Prev  619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634  Next