Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[CapelDodger]

So this means that cosmic rays doesnt effect global warming?

It means they don't have an appreciable effect on cloud-forming nucleation, which has been proposed as an alternative explanation to the enhanced greenhouse effect for current warming. It was always a pretty desperate effort, unencumbered by evidence or a reasonable argument.

 

[macdoc]

So this means that cosmic rays doesnt effect global warming?

The hypothesis that cosmic rays affected nucleation so affecting cloud cover would appear to be voided by this as this.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Interesting! I've been discussing ocean acidification and AGW with some deniers over at some other forum, maybe I could use that link for late

 

[DC]

dang, i liked Svensmark's hypothesis of cloud nucleation by cosmic rays.
oh well it didn't say it doesn't happen it just seems to be even less than i thought, and sure a huge lot less than Svensmark believed.

Far away Supernovas still influence the cloud Formation on out planet.

 

[CapelDodger]

If it hadn't been for actual warming and the associated demand for Anything But Carbon explanations, Svensmark's private musings would probably have remained just that. The CLOUD project would probably not have been funded and we wouldn't have learned this about the role of amines in nucleation. The uncertainties surrounding clouds (a favourite refuge of deniers) have been reduced. If Lindzen doesn't resent this guy he's a bigger man than I am. Then again, however small a gap might get, someone can cram a god into it. For Lindzen it's the cloud god; for Watts its the UHI god; for Spencer and Christy it's just God.

The "more research is required" policy has been disastrous in many ways, but it has actually led to more research being done. By the time things settle down we'll have climate science nailed. Also glaciology, although that will be somewhat redundant.

 

[Loss Leader]

As has happened before, this thread is being taken off Moderated status. This is due to the generally fine behavior demonstrated of late. Please note, however, that we will return the thread to Moderation if we note too many breaches of the MA. Of course, anyone taking advantage of this situation to lob personal insults and attacks will be subject to moderator action. Thank you for keeping this discussion civil and polite.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Mikemcc]

It appears we may be finally starting to at least slow down emissions. A very long way to go yet though!

BBC report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

The abstract of the original paper:

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It appears we may be finally starting to at least slow down emissions. A very long way to go yet though!

BBC report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

The abstract of the original paper:

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report

Thank you, that's the report I heard on the news, but was unable to find due to confusion over the false reports of the so-called global warming reversal that also came out recently. Unfortunately I don't think it's time to pop the cork just yet, because this only indicates a slowdown in the rate at which emissions are rising. Even if that rate were zero, we'd still see a massive amount of CO2 emissions each year.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think we'll see a turnaround in China (from increasing to decreasing) within the next ten years, if only because their cities are choking. India's difficult to read, but I expect economic and social collapse on a wide scale over the same sort of period. Continued de-industrialisation in Europe and impoverishment in the US will reduce their emissions. All in all, it's time to pull your money out of fossil-fuel stocks and get into renewables. The carbon bubble will burst and it's best to be far away when that happens.

 

[lomiller]

I think we'll see a turnaround in China (from increasing to decreasing) within the next ten years, if only because their cities are choking. India's difficult to read, but I expect economic and social collapse on a wide scale over the same sort of period. Continued de-industrialisation in Europe and impoverishment in the US will reduce their emissions. All in all, it's time to pull your money out of fossil-fuel stocks and get into renewables. The carbon bubble will burst and it's best to be far away when that happens.

I think they will follow more along the lines of western countries where SO2 and aerosol emissions drop but CO2 keeps going up. If anything this would cause a decade or two of more rapid warming. I’m really not all that hopeful we will get our act in gear in time to prevent significant warming. Our only real hope is that fossil fuel prices climb enough that their usage drops off before we hit catastrophic warming.

 

[lomiller]

Realclimate weighs in on the feasibility of sequestering carbon in grasslands. Short version is that they are extremely doubtful .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-anthropocene-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/

Approximately 8 Petagrams (Pg; trillion kilograms) of carbon are added to the atmosphere every year from fossil fuel burning and cement production alone. This will increase in the future at a rate that depends largely on global use of fossil fuels. To put these emissions in perspective, the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year. To a very rough approximation then, the net carbon uptake by all of the planet’s vegetation would need to triple (assuming similar transfers to stable C pools like soil organic matter) just to offset current carbon emissions every year. However, the claim was not that holistic management would maintain current atmospheric CO2 levels, but that it would return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. Based on IPCC estimates, there are now approximately 240 more Petagrams (Pg) of carbon in the atmosphere than in pre-industrial times. To put this value in perspective, the amount of carbon in vegetation is currently estimated at around 450 Pg, most of that in the wood of trees.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think they will follow more along the lines of western countries where SO2 and aerosol emissions drop but CO2 keeps going up. If anything this would cause a decade or two of more rapid warming.

I'm factoring in some non-specific economic disruption which will hit old, dirty industries more than renewables. You're quite right, of course, that China cleaning up would have a warming effect.

I’m really not all that hopeful we will get our act in gear in time to prevent significant warming. Our only real hope is that fossil fuel prices climb enough that their usage drops off before we hit catastrophic warming.

I was never hopeful myself. We simply don't have the national and international institutions to cope with a problem like this. On a small scale (CFC's, for instance) they can muddle through, but AGW is way too big an issue.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Realclimate weighs in on the feasibility of sequestering carbon in grasslands. Short version is that they are extremely doubtful .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-anthropocene-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/

Looks like RealClimate and a whole lot of other boggers missed the boat on this one. There is a fundamental problem with 90% of the Savory detractors comments, the carbon sequestration is NOT in the grass, it is in the soil. When grass gets grazed the plants shed roots in much the same way trees shed leaves in fall. This lignified carbon becomes food for a whole web of life in the soil and quickly gets reduced to stabilized humus. Unlike trees though, the humus is deep in the soil, not on top in the leaf mat. Also unlike trees, the grass plants can potentially shed this lignified carbon many times a year. The result is that it builds the soil fertility and nutrient/water holding capacity while sequestering far more carbon than is in the plant itself. This is what created most the mollic soils of the earth. It is all in understanding the grass plant and optimizing this trait with a good management system. There are also many other environmental benefits as well, besides carbon sequestration.

Savory is advocating Holistic management. I am not sure exactly why Briske has such a block on the concept. He himself admits his conclusion:

derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables-Briske

Management is all about "human variables". Management is the breakthrough, not the biophysical properties. The biophysical properties have been well known and proven for decades.
If Briske is not smart enough to set up a trial that includes these management variables, that's on Briske, not Savory. Savory was able to set up a trial, and that trial won the prestigious Buckminster Fuller Award. Plenty of other scientists have confirmed the carbon sequestering biophysical properties of the grassland/grazer symbiosis are real too. It can be both profitable AND beneficial to the environment at the same time.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

Pastures for profit: A guide to rotational grazing

Grassland birds: Fostering habitat using rotational grazing

WINNER OF 2010 BUCKMINSTER FULLER CHALLENGE

So before everyone starts jumping on the RealClimate/Briske bandwagon that failed, maybe reconsider that it might be better to go with the scientists that succeeded?

"Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is often a step forward" Edison

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I know it's only tangentially related, but I found this interesting article on Cracked recently, showing how nature has adapted to the changes humankind has made to the environment. The title speaks for itself. Check out item #1 in particular.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20636_5-shockingly-creative-ways-animals-are-using-our-garbage.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

I know it's only tangentially related, but I found this interesting article on Cracked recently, showing how nature has adapted to the changes humankind has made to the environment. The title speaks for itself. Check out item #1 in particular.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20636_5-shockingly-creative-ways-animals-are-using-our-garbage.html

Very humorous, that #1. It's just another case of rhetorical/media "I got a list" ["I will create a list by adding elements of assorted quality and veracity that sum, subtract or cancel each other, in a way I will be able to tell any story I want to promote as plausible/real/interesting/etc"]. The problem with that is not it being tangentially related to the topic but it addressing the epistemological hedonistic cravings of the eventual reader and not what actually may be going on in high latitudes.

 

[lomiller]

Looks like RealClimate and a whole lot of other boggers missed the boat on this one. There is a fundamental problem with 90% of the Savory detractors comments, the carbon sequestration is NOT in the grass, it is in the soil. When grass gets grazed the plants shed roots in much the same way trees shed leaves in fall. This lignified carbon becomes food for a whole web of life in the soil and quickly gets reduced to stabilized humus. Unlike trees though, the humus is deep in the soil, not on top in the leaf mat. Also unlike trees, the grass plants can potentially shed this lignified carbon many times a year. The result is that it builds the soil fertility and nutrient/water holding capacity while sequestering far more carbon than is in the plant itself. This is what created most the mollic soils of the earth. It is all in understanding the grass plant and optimizing this trait with a good management system. There are also many other environmental benefits as well, besides carbon sequestration.

Savory is advocating Holistic management. I am not sure exactly why Briske has such a block on the concept. He himself admits his conclusion: Management is all about "human variables". Management is the breakthrough, not the biophysical properties. The biophysical properties have been well known and proven for decades.
If Briske is not smart enough to set up a trial that includes these management variables, that's on Briske, not Savory. Savory was able to set up a trial, and that trial won the prestigious Buckminster Fuller Award. Plenty of other scientists have confirmed the carbon sequestering biophysical properties of the grassland/grazer symbiosis are real too. It can be both profitable AND beneficial to the environment at the same time.
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

Pastures for profit: A guide to rotational grazing

Grassland birds: Fostering habitat using rotational grazing

WINNER OF 2010 BUCKMINSTER FULLER CHALLENGE

So before everyone starts jumping on the RealClimate/Briske bandwagon that failed, maybe reconsider that it might be better to go with the scientists that succeeded?

"Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is often a step forward" Edison

The total yearly sequestration in the soil can’t possibly exceed the yearly carbon uptake of the grasses that live there. Current yearly human CO2 emissions are 17X greater than the uptake of all the vegetation on the planets grasslands. Even the completely unrealistic assumption that no grass ever got eaten or decomposed in any way grasslands would still only offset 6% of our annual CO2 emissions.

The published science doesn’t conclusively show the potential for any increase in sequestration and the absolute best cases only offsets a tiny fraction of yearly emissions so the notion that this is a solution to global warming is highly questionable at to say the least.

 

[Reality Check]

Looks like RealClimate and a whole lot of other boggers missed the boat on this one.

The fundamental knowledge of that "90% of the Savory detractors comments" is that the carbon sequestration is NOT in the grass, it is in the soil via the grass. No grass, no carbon sequestration!

Savory is advocating Holistic management.

Savory is advocating a specific method of managing grasslands that he calls "Holistic Management^TM". This trademarked phrase is not holistic management.

Jason West and David Briske point out that "Holistic Management^TM" "has been controversial for decades" and that there are peer-reviewed papers about the lack of scientific support for "Holistic Management^TM". They give the example of
Synthesis Paper: Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence(pp. 3-17)
D. D. Briske, J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash and W. D. Willms

That is part of their introduction to Savory. The main point that I take from the article up to then is that Savory has no expertise in climate science.

Savory's comments in that TED video show that he definitely has no expertise in climate science. He does not know

• How much carbon is produced by us (~8 trillion kilograms per year)
• The sequestration by all vegetation is ~2.6 trillion kilograms per year.
• There is 240 trillion kilograms more carbon than in pre-industrial times.

Jason West and David Briske have taken such a block on Savory's comments in the video because the facts say that he is very probably wrong.
He requires at least a 3 fold increase in grassland carbon sequestration in the simplest scenario (ignore what is happening to all other vegetation. e.g. the Amazon forest; ignore the continuing increase in human output of carbon; ignore the need to get rid of the excess carbon).
More realistically he needs about a 15 fold increase just to break even:
Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video

Grasslands represent approximately 30-40% of the planet’s land surface and only a fraction of annual global productivity and carbon sequestration (~20% of global carbon stocks).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The fundamental knowledge of that "90% of the Savory detractors comments" is that the carbon sequestration is NOT in the grass, it is in the soil via the grass. No grass, no carbon sequestration!


Savory is advocating a specific method of managing grasslands that he calls "Holistic Management^TM". This trademarked phrase is not holistic management.

Jason West and David Briske point out that "Holistic Management^TM" "has been controversial for decades" and that there are peer-reviewed papers about the lack of scientific support for "Holistic Management^TM". They give the example of
Synthesis Paper: Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence(pp. 3-17)
D. D. Briske, J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash and W. D. Willms

That is part of their introduction to Savory. The main point that I take from the article up to then is that Savory has no expertise in climate science.

Savory's comments in that TED video show that he definitely has no expertise in climate science. He does not know

• How much carbon is produced by us (~8 trillion kilograms per year)
• The sequestration by all vegetation is ~2.6 trillion kilograms per year.
• There is 240 trillion kilograms more carbon than in pre-industrial times.

Jason West and David Briske have taken such a block on Savory's comments in the video because the facts say that he is very probably wrong.
He requires at least a 3 fold increase in grassland carbon sequestration in the simplest scenario (ignore what is happening to all other vegetation. e.g. the Amazon forest; ignore the continuing increase in human output of carbon; ignore the need to get rid of the excess carbon).
More realistically he needs about a 15 fold increase just to break even:
Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video

Again, you are making the same mistake. You quoted many improperly used statistics based on carbon stored in grass plants, not the carbon sequestered in the soil by way of the grass, which is many times larger. You also haven't taken into account that this management in fact does increase the productivity of grasslands by up to 5 times or more above ground, and even more carbon sequestration below ground in the soil. (and the associated benefits of doing that) Secondly you said "ignore the need to get rid of the excess carbon" What? Are you even listening at all? The whole project is addressing "the need to get rid of the excess carbon". Our waste carbon being put to good use by enriching the soil! That's the whole point!
Now as far as your meaningless arguments about "Holistic Management^TM" vs "holistic management". You need to do some homework. Savory did copyright his management system. That is true. But Savory left Holistic Management International long ago. He left that non profit to do for profit consulting work and founded The Savory Center. When he left he made an agreement with them. It is entirely proper to use the term holistic management in the context I used it. I have even discussed this personally and directly on the phone and online with the current CEO of Holistic Management International, Peter Holter. I did this because when I was researching the science behind it, for potential use myself in the future, I was as confused about the name as you seem to be now. I have spent over a year researching this and it was me that wrote the wiki page holistic management. So I am well aware of the situation with the name.
Regardless of the name, the adaptive rotational grazing systems that have been proven to work (holistic management is just one of many proven management systems, that's why I posted the links to Undersander and Teague) are very different than the prescribed rotational grazing systems Briske drew his conclusions from. So my point stands. Briske drew his conclusions: "from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables"-Briske In other words, just to be clear, Briske's results can only be applicable to prescribed rotational grazing and are NOT applicable to adaptive rotational grazing.
Another thing you are clearly missing is that ~70%+/- of the cropland in the USA and ~40%+/- worldwide is currently being used at least in part for other than human food crops. The vast majority of that is to grow livestock feed to support the CAFO business model. That vast acreage is definitely not sequestering carbon for the most part. So your comments about rainforests are a complete red herring. It is not about destroying forests or natural deserts to raise cattle. It is about restoring soils and biosystems that we destroyed instead and raising those cattle using biomimicry.

You might want to consider why Briske took a 1/2 step backwards in his next paper and why Teague left completely to publish his own paper showing it can work.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you want to attract attention these days, attach your work to climate change, however spuriously. This is what Savory is doing, with no apparent effort to look at the actual numbers.

 

[CapelDodger]

Again, you are making the same mistake. You quoted many improperly used statistics based on carbon stored in grass plants, not the carbon sequestered in the soil by way of the grass, which is many times larger.

That is not what anybody is doing. The numbers being used refer to rates - of sequestration and of emissions. Grass cannot sequester carbon at a greater rate than it takes it up.

You also haven't taken into account that this management in fact does increase the productivity of grasslands by up to 5 times or more above ground ...

"Up to ... or more" is utterly meaningless. It includes zero and every number above it.

Even if you multiply all the carbon taken up by grass by 5 you still only get 30% of the current rate of emissions. That's far more than any sensible best case, but there it is.