Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Red Baron Farms]

Disappointing effort.

It's possible the game was rigged against you.

Since after reading the article they are basing the poor results primarily on methane emissions from Dairy, and dairy is quite capable of being a net negative methane emissions source depending how those dairy farms are managed....I suspect there is at least the possibility that methantrophic activity on pastures was not included.

This can happen when the emissions from any livestock operation are calculated based on poorly understood biophysical models rather that actually measured in situ.

Now this hypothesis could be wrong too. Maybe dairy's impact did rise. But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers... In many cases I have seen, very flawed models are being used that don't seem to even understand the biological Methane cycle at all!

Soil microorganisms as controllers of atmospheric trace gases (H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO).

 

[The Atheist]

Now this hypothesis could be wrong too. Maybe dairy's impact did rise. But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers... In many cases I have seen, very flawed models are being used that don't seem to even understand the biological Methane cycle at all!

I left dairy out,l because the numbers are misleading.

There's been a massive move from dry stock & sheep farms being converted to dairy over the past couple of decades, and that makes the numbers look worse than they might be.

I was more interested in domestic usage, which shouldn't be increasing. If I had to put my finger on a cause, I'd look at recessed lights first.

 

[The Atheist]

Feedback Loop #2735 - Antarctic sea ice has declined more in 4 years than Arctic ice has in 34 years, reversing the slight increases seen over the previous 30 years.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116

With vast amounts of ocean to absorb sun's rays than being reflected by the nice, white ice, we're looking at a fairly serious feedback loop, and the lack of sea ice and warmer waters are highly likely to impact on Antarctic glacial ice, thus raising sea levels.

This, against a backdrop of June 2019 being the planet's warmest month ever, some 2 deg C above "normal". https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

In NZ, Christchurch was 10 degrees warmer than its long-term average for July yesterday, and the whole country is still looking for winter, with ski-fields' only snow coming out of machines.

 

[lomiller]

Feedback Loop #2735 - Antarctic sea ice has declined more in 4 years than Arctic ice has in 34 years, reversing the slight increases seen over the previous 30 years.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116

With vast amounts of ocean to absorb sun's rays than being reflected by the nice, white ice, we're looking at a fairly serious feedback loop, and the lack of sea ice and warmer waters are highly likely to impact on Antarctic glacial ice, thus raising sea levels.

This, against a backdrop of June 2019 being the planet's warmest month ever, some 2 deg C above "normal". https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

In NZ, Christchurch was 10 degrees warmer than its long-term average for July yesterday, and the whole country is still looking for winter, with ski-fields' only snow coming out of machines.

In Antarctica, sea ice is primarily a winter phenomenon so it’s not subject to quite the same positive feedback as summer sea ice in the artic.

I’d still recommend caution in claiming any trend in Antarctic sea ice. It’s a lot more erratic and dependant on the specific conditions of the winter in question and water conditions play a huge role so it can expand in spite of warmer temperatures and shrink in spite of cooler temperatures.

 

[The Atheist]

In Antarctica, sea ice is primarily a winter phenomenon so it’s not subject to quite the same positive feedback as summer sea ice in the artic.

Yes, but the water is warmer at Antarctic sunset, so will take longer to freeze.

I’d still recommend caution in claiming any trend in Antarctic sea ice.

I don't think anyone's claiming a trend yet, but after 30 years of slow growth, 4 of extreme loss is a touch disturbing.

 

[Reality Check]

But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers...

That is hidden a bit at the bottom of the article, Red Baron Farms.

The environmental accounts are produced under the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) method, used by many countries internationally to link environment and economic data.

System of Environmental-Economic Accounting looks complex. It may boil down to something as simple as X cows produce Y tonnes of methane and need Z tonnes of CO2 (e.g. fuel used in transporting feed and them). More dairy farms increases X and thus Y and Z.

Unlikely to be anything to do with soil microorganisms. More likely to be empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture produces.

ETA: Another issue is that the transport component of household emissions caused household emissions to increase ("Changes in household emissions were due entirely to transport"). No reason for this is given n the article.
My total guess is global warming! With more frequent extreme weather people may use their cars more.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Unlikely to be anything to do with soil microorganisms. More likely to be empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture produces.

If they include those sorts of emissions without including empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture absorbs, then the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed.

This is fairly widely known. For example: Everyone breathes out CO2. Yet breathing doesn't cause AGW. This is because all that CO2 was recently pulled out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis before being released back into the atmosphere by respiration. There is negligible net flux in either direction.

In fact it is a common Merchant of Doubt tactic to use the total CO2 emissions and compare that to fossil fuel emissions in order to make it appear that the fossil fuel emissions are too tiny to possibly ever make any difference. It's clearly obfuscation because net should be used rather than gross.

However, the biotic methane cycle is less widely known than the biotic CO2 cycle. Quite frequently methane emissions are calculated without the corresponding biotic absorption, making those stats flawed. This is why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts.

So any time I see a claim like the one above for New Zealand, I try to find out if they have included this data at all, either measured results or at least modeled it in with an attempt at best approximations.

Most of the time they did neither one, and the reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda. If they at least tried with a best approximation, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But when they haven't even tried, this is nothing but propaganda. Garbage in garbage out.

 

[Venom]

Most of the time they did neither one, and the reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda. If they at least tried with a best approximation, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But when they haven't even tried, this is nothing but propaganda. Garbage in garbage out.

They can never just be looking at it the wrong way right.

Lemme guess....vegan propaganda?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

They can never just be looking at it the wrong way right.

Lemme guess....vegan propaganda?

Vegans are a different issue from merchants of doubt and both those are different from simply honestly missing an important part of the carbon cycle that throws off results.

However, I have seen certain special interest groups jump all over mistakes like this, (whether intentional propaganda set out by the meat industry, or honest mistakes in understanding biological systems) if it suits their purposes.

Most people call that confirmation bias of one sort or another, and certainly Vegans are as guilty of that as anyone. Especially considering the large number of google warriors and nutritional woo that can be found in that community.

And yes I find it particularly ironic when Vegans use merchant of doubt propaganda paid for by the meat industry guys protecting their confinement business model. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

 

[Reality Check]

If they include...

My point was that they probably include measured data about greenhouse gases. They do not need any knowledge of what produces or absorbs greenhouse gases. For example if there is a sink that is measured to absorb X, it does not matter whether this is caused by A, B and C or A, B, C and Z. The total is what is measured.

Thus a economic model does not have to include models of soil, models of cows, models of the atmosphere, etc. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting

What is the SEEA?
The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is a framework that integrates economic and environmental data to provide a more comprehensive and multipurpose view of the interrelationships between the economy and the environment and the stocks and changes in stocks of environmental assets, as they bring benefits to humanity. It contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics and accounts. The SEEA framework follows a similar accounting structure as the System of National Accounts (SNA). The framework uses concepts, definitions and classifications consistent with the SNA in order to facilitate the integration of environmental and economic statistics. The SEEA is a multi-purpose system that generates a wide range of statistics, accounts and indicators with many different potential analytical applications. It is a flexible system that can be adapted to countries' priorities and policy needs while at the same time providing a common framework, concepts, terms and definitions.

Greenhouse gas emissions have barely budged in a decade, new data shows is Statistics NZ ("the public service department of New Zealand charged with the collection of statistics related to the economy, population and society of New Zealand.") using an internationally recognized statistical methodology relating economics and environment.

 

[Reality Check]

So any time I see a claim like the one above for New Zealand, I try to find out if they have included this data at all, ...

Claiming that the SEEA method misses something out and so "the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed", needs scientific evidence that this is the case.
Just writing "biotic methane cycle" does not make the SEEA method flawed or the results it gives flawed. How do we know that the biotic methane cycle is not just as insignificant as your example of CO2 from human breathing?
Speaking of breathing: Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions so how significant is the biotic methane cycle compared to cow burps?
How are the methane emissions calculated in the SEEA method? If you do not know, you cannot say that they are flawed. I do not know and are happy to say that I do not know if they are flawed or not.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Claiming that the SEEA method misses something out and so "the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed", needs scientific evidence that this is the case.

right

Just writing "biotic methane cycle" does not make the SEEA method flawed or the results it gives flawed. How do we know that the biotic methane cycle is not just as insignificant as your example of CO2 from human breathing?

agreed. How do we know? Where is the methods SEEEA used? I read for almost an hour and so far I did not find it. Maybe you try too, and link it?

Speaking of breathing: Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions

"Their research, combined with data on how well the soil traps methane, can help create more accurate models of just how much greenhouse gas emissions Americans can chalk up to their fondness for cheese and hamburgers." That's a quote from your link RC

so how significant is the biotic methane cycle compared to cow burps?

Depends where those cows are located. If they are in a grassland environment with healthy well aerated upland soils full of methanotrophs, enough to be a net negative.

How are the methane emissions calculated in the SEEA method?

I asked first.

If you do not know, you cannot say that they are flawed.

agreed . You cant say they are right either. You cant say either way, that's why I asked.

I do not know and are happy to say that I do not know if they are flawed or not.

neither do I. That was the point.

 

[Reality Check]

I read for almost an hour and so far I did not find it.

Which is what I said - you do not do know the methods used and thus anything you say about the results of those methods is "necessarily flawed"!

What you guess about the biotic methane cycle versus methane from cow burps is still not science until you support it with science.

...neither do I. That was the point.

That is not quite what you wrote.

• You claimed that neglecting the biotic methane cycle is "why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts" with no scientific sources.
• You claimed that most reports do not include data from or models of the biotic methane cycle with no sources.
  Sounds reasonable, e.g. maybe climate scientists know that the biotic methane cycle is insignificant in greenhouse gas models and generally neglect it. If you had sources we would know.
• You wrote that these kinds of "reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda".
  That is wrong. Those reports based on scientific models will be science.
  The worst case is that they will be inaccurate to some degree which without sources you do not know.

 

[Reality Check]

"Their research, combined with data on how well the soil traps methane, can help create more accurate models of just how much greenhouse gas emissions Americans can chalk up to their fondness for cheese and hamburgers." That's a quote from your link RC

Yes it is.
It is well known in climate science that methane is emitted by cows and that methane is trapped by soil. Measuring the methane emitted by cows is the subject of Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions. We can collect data on how well the soil traps methane - wow !

Even Wikipedia knows this - Global methane cycle has "This simple diagram depicts the flow of methane from sources into the atmosphere as well as the sinks that consume methane.", e.g. soil.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Which is what I said - you do not do know the methods used and thus anything you say about the results of those methods is "necessarily flawed"!

This is a dishonest quote RC. That makes you purposely misleading. A form of a lie.

Why is it dishonest? Because that was pulled from a sentence with an If then structure to it. This is what I said exactly.

If they include those sorts of emissions without including empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture absorbs, then the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed.

In the article there is nothing about the methane sink. Only discusses methane emissions. Stop being a prick and either cough up the missing data on the sink or else go away. Until there is some indication they included methane activity on those pastures in New Zealand, then I am calling the article misleading at best and potentially junk science.

After all you said it best:

It is well known in climate science that methane is emitted by cows and that methane is trapped by soil. Measuring the methane emitted by cows is the subject of Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions. We can collect data on how well the soil traps methane - wow !

Even Wikipedia knows this - Global methane cycle has "This simple diagram depicts the flow of methane from sources into the atmosphere as well as the sinks that consume methane.", e.g. soil.

It is so well known that if it isn't included in that article, then it shows clear purposeful deception or complete pseudoscience. Take your pick.

 

[The Atheist]

This is a dishonest quote RC. That makes you purposely misleading. A form of a lie.

Welcome to the thread - that's his/her whole shtick.

If you want to actually discuss something, avoid getting caught up in that mire.

 

[Reality Check]

This is a dishonest quote RC.....

I was not being purposely misleading. I made a mistake. I should have put a to make sure you understood that it was a humorous quote.

You do know that is a news article ?
Greenhouse gas emissions have barely budged in a decade, new data shows need not give every single detail of the methodology that a government department (NZ Statistics) used to get the statistics that the article reports. Those details are presumably somewhere within System of Environmental-Economic Accounting method stated in the article.

I do not have to "cough up" anything to support what you claim

• You claimed that neglecting the biotic methane cycle is "why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts" with no scientific sources.
• You claimed that most reports do not include data from or models of the biotic methane cycle with no sources.
  Sounds reasonable, e.g. maybe climate scientists know that the biotic methane cycle is insignificant in greenhouse gas models and generally neglect it. If you had sources we would know.
• You wrote that these kinds of "reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda".
  That is wrong. Those reports based on scientific models will be science.
  The worst case is that they will be inaccurate to some degree which without sources you do not know.

I have no claim. I have a fairly reasonable assumption or 2. A government department collating statistics is unlikely to be running climate models. When they say they are using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, the title suggests accounting models. Those models should plug in measured values, not values from climate models.

 

[Reality Check]

Welcome to the thread - that's his/her whole shtick.

That is wrong, The Atheist. Red Baron Farms mistaking a humorous quote because I forget a is not anyone's "his/her whole shtick".

My shtick in a Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread is to expect claims to be backed up with science and ask for the science if they are not.

My shtick is to give people sources for what they ask about, e.g. Red Baron Farms asked "But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers..." so I gave a source where that information should be. But the actual calculations seem hidden within System of Environmental-Economic Accounting.

 

[The Atheist]

If there's a lottery for the first major city to be abandoned due to climate change causing ocean rise, New Orleans looks like the prime candidate, with flooding happening well ahead of any potential storm surge from TS Barry: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/storm-surge-louisiana-barry/index.html

At the same time, NOAA notes that high-tide flooding has doubled in the US over the past 30 years: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nuisance-flooding.html

 

[lomiller]

If there's a lottery for the first major city to be abandoned due to climate change causing ocean rise, New Orleans looks like the prime candidate, with flooding happening well ahead of any potential storm surge from TS Barry: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/storm-surge-louisiana-barry/index.html

At the same time, NOAA notes that high-tide flooding has doubled in the US over the past 30 years: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nuisance-flooding.html

I’d still be putting my money on Miami. It’s already getting flooding ~50 times per year just due to high tides alone. Unlike New Orleans, you can’t keep the water out with levees because the city is built on porous stone that allows the water to come up though the ground.