Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lenny]

No surprises there, then.

a bit unfortunate, as if true it implies the uncertainty in the surface temp has been badly underestimated. prior to 1960 this cannot be "fixed" with satellites and as one goes back further data coverage gets worse...

what implication does this hold for the change in (surface) temp since 1900?

 

[CapelDodger]

Tropical Pacific remains ENSO-neutral
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

All atmospheric and oceanic indicators of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remain within neutral bounds. While the tropical Pacific has gradually warmed over the past three to four months, it remains close to the long-term average. International climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that the tropical Pacific will warm slightly over the coming months, but remain ENSO-neutral for at least the coming southern summer.

The next El Nino is likely to have horrific consequences in Central America. There's already been 15 years of hillside development since the last one.

 

[CapelDodger]

a bit unfortunate, as if true it implies the uncertainty in the surface temp has been badly underestimated. prior to 1960 this cannot be "fixed" with satellites and as one goes back further data coverage gets worse...

what implication does this hold for the change in (surface) temp since 1900?

As far as the Arctic is concerned, infilling over oceans from the nearest observations does appear to be skillful, so the implications probably aren't that great.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Revision

«The surface trade winds in the equatorial Pacific are part of the Walker Circulation--a pattern of rising and sinking air along the Equator that the El Nino/La Nina cycle influences. A strong Walker circulation means there is lower pressure over Indonesia, which pulls in more air at the surface along the Equator from the east, increasing the easterly trade winds. As these trade winds strengthen, they pull surface ocean waters away from South America, allowing cold water to upwell to the surface. This is a La Niña-like situation, which takes heat energy out of the atmosphere, putting it into the ocean, keeping global surface temperatures cooler than they would otherwise be. A weakened Walker circulation is the reverse, resulting in weaker trade winds, and a more El Niño-like situation with higher global surface temperatures.»

From Jeff Masters' blog

As long as the stronger Walker circulation that has been in place since the early 1990s holds, global surface temperatures should stay cooler than they otherwise would be, prolonging the slow-down in global surface warming that has received much attention this year. There may also be a greater chance of super typhoons and higher storm surges affecting the Philippines, due to the warmer sub-surface waters and re-arranged ocean currents. A 2013 paper by L’Heureux et al. notes that the climate models predict that the Walker circulation should weaken (a more El Niño-like situation)--the reverse of what has been observed the past twenty years. The researchers took the observed pressure patterns over the Pacific in recent decades and removed the atmospheric response to the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The resulting pattern they found showed a steady strengthening of the Walker circulation, in concert with global rising temperatures. So, are we seeing a failure of the climate models? Or is the recent speed-up of the Walker circulation a decades-long temporary "speed bump" in the climate system? Time will tell. It is worth pointing out that a just-released paper by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global surface temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated...

By the way, both Trenberth and Masters were interviewed yesterday in PBS about the topic "Why the strongest storms are getting stronger" (duration 6:38)

 

[lenny]

As far as the Arctic is concerned, infilling over oceans from the nearest observations does appear to be skillful, so the implications probably aren't that great.

so how can one manage to combine admitting significant increase in the uncertainty in the previous estimated GMT over the last ten years (implied by the large revision reported) due to poor data coverage without accepting a similar increase in the uncertainty of GMT further back in the past? (when the data coverage was likely worse!)

(apologies in advance for not reading the paper yet myself, day job...)

 

[CapelDodger]

so how can one manage to combine admitting significant increase in the uncertainty in the previous estimated GMT over the last ten years (implied by the large revision reported) due to poor data coverage without accepting a similar increase in the uncertainty of GMT further back in the past? (when the data coverage was likely worse!)

There's a short video from York Uni at http://planet3.org/2013/11/13/thie-disappearing-hiatus which explains what they've done. They tested two methods of filling in the data missing from HADCrut : infilling from nearest observations and using satellite data (see from about 1:20 into the video). Infilling works well over oceans, which would include the Arctic Ocean of course, so that method could be extended back before the satellite era for that region. This is what GISS does anyway, but HADCrut is used to create the "hiatus".

The size of the revision is down to the rapid warming in the period covered (since 1997), which I think it's reasonable to say didn't occur in the pre-satellite era.

 

[Puppycow]

I hope this is considered on-topic:

Japan slashes climate reduction target amid nuclear shutdown

Japan is to significantly slash its greenhouse gas reduction target in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

It will now aim to achieve a 2020 target of 3.8% below 2005 levels.

This replaces a previous commitment to reduce emissions by 25% from 1990 levels.

The moves come with all of Japan's nuclear power plants currently offline - forcing the country to increase its burning of fossil fuels.

The move was announced in Tokyo by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. The new target represents a 3% rise over 1990s emissions levels, a comprehensive turnaround from the 25% reduction target.

But Mr Suga said the previous target - set under a government led by the now-opposition Democratic Party - had been "totally unfounded".

"Our government has been saying... that the 25% reduction target was totally unfounded and wasn't feasible," he said.

'Less ambition'

Speaking at UN climate change talks in Warsaw, Japan's chief negotiator said the move was based on new circumstances.

"The new target is based on zero nuclear power in the future. We have to lower our ambition level," said Hiroshi Minami.

 

[lenny]

There's a short video from York Uni ...

Thx. I will look on the weekend.

 

[CapelDodger]

I hope this is considered on-topic:

Japan slashes climate reduction target amid nuclear shutdown

But Mr Suga said the previous target - set under a government led by the now-opposition Democratic Party - had been "totally unfounded".

So nuclear shutdown or not, it wasn't going to happen.

Entirely predictable (and predicted). When faced with a difficult issue, set up a committee to report later, in the hope it will all go away. If it doesn't go away, set targets for some comfortably distant future and call it "taking action". When that comfortable time has passed and the targets are missed, blame the previous management.

We're screwed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

As you say "What matters only is at what rate the atmospheric carbon can be sequestered into that sink." That requires that the atmospheric carbon be first sequestered into the vegetation feeding the soil sink. Then we are back to

• the rate of atmospheric carbon sequestered into the vegetation feeding the soil sink: 2.6 Petagrams per year.
• the rate of human emission: 8 Petagrams per year.
• The backlog to get rid of: "approximately 240 more Petagrams (Pg) of carbon in the atmosphere than in pre-industrial times".

I will repeat myself: The entire "equation" used on the blog and every statistic is a meaningful rough estimate that shows that Savory's claim in the video is not reasonable.

...
P.S. You do not need to go on about advances in farming techniques increasing the amount of organic carbon in soil. This is obvious.
The question is whether these advances support Savory's claim in the video and the answer is:

Only by indulging in wishful thinking (or to be more blunt, fantasies).

​

I'll try again.
The gross figure 123 PgC/yr should have been used, if it is compared to the gross fossil fuel emissions of 8 PgC/yr. Then you are looking at a much more manageable increase of 123 to 131. Or less than 10% worldwide improvement, not the 300% worldwide increase the bad math using the net figure leads you to believe. Anything over that starts reducing the 240 PgC total increase since pre industrial times.

Considering Savory is talking about desertified and poorly managed land and you admit I do not need to go on about advances in farming techniques increasing the amount of organic carbon in soil, there really shouldn't be a big controversy. 10% worldwide improvement is not a pie in the sky fantasy. It is certainly reasonable especially when you consider the other things that can be done like conservation, reforesting, new sources of energy like solar and wind, etc.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'll try again.
The gross figure 123 PgC/yr should have been used, if it is compared to the gross fossil fuel emissions of 8 PgC/yr. Then you are looking at a much more manageable increase of 123 to 131. Or less than 10% worldwide improvement, not the 300% worldwide increase the bad math using the net figure leads you to believe. Anything over that starts reducing the 240 PgC total increase since pre industrial times.

If you liked to play with figures in a convincing way you shouldn't have speculated with increasing the yearly uptake by vegetation (123 to 123+8) AND inhibit such vegetation to breath at the same time: living beings synthesize and metabolize substances to their own goal, not yours, and you should have realised first that (108.9 + 14.1) counterbalanced (107.2 + 11.6) so if you liked the 4.3 difference to be (4.3 + 8) you should have done your math and, empowered by rule of three, arrived to (108.9 + 14.1 + 26.3) and then explained how the 26.3 -a 20% increment- are achieved.

But you couldn't do that because you don't know the carbon cycle and the reasons of those figures in red in the IPCC Report's figures: the main reasons have been deforestation, intensive grazing and conversion into short period crops. That is included in the figure for land use change, a 1.1 flux in 2012, and the change in vegetation, -30 +/- 45 stock.

Your argumentation has gone beyond any possible defence and you switched from figureless posts to posts with figures used in a random fashion as it becomes more evident, post by post, that you don't know the very carbon cycle you are proposing to tame into a global warming solution.

You wanted to propose other solutions? then, why don't you propose them and explain them with figures? I mean, you have said before a lot of things that boil down to "sequestering carbon ... and that's it" which sounds to me more like "they lived happily ever after". We have asked you for months about detailed examples of an acre of whatever being worked in some way it ends with an increased "carbon capital" while it continues to provide food for humans. So far, what you have replied resembling it the most are useless words like "I talked by phone to Gabe .... 16000 grazed .... he brought from <2% to >7% ... it's documented ... contact Führer".

And don't feel harshly treated as these very fora are devoted to undertakings that often involve to ask people to come back down, park their magic carpets and put their **** together. If you allow yourself to make sloppy argumentations like your «Anything over that starts reducing the 240 PgC total increase since pre industrial times» -what really meant "abracadabra" and the 8 new PgC were gone just by you considering it feasible by means of unknown mechanisms just because the percentage you came up with sounded reasonable to your ears- don't be surprise then you got the kind of replies you're collecting.

Your certainty about the world-climate-healing power of humus while farming produce flourishes clearly comes from epistemological hedonism and not from any science, good or bad. And this has gone on for months in exactly in the same style, what reinforces the notion it is epistemological hedonism and nothing more. Does anyone but you doubt this?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If you liked to play with figures in a convincing way you shouldn't have speculated with increasing the yearly uptake by vegetation (123 to 123+8) AND inhibit such vegetation to breath at the same time: living beings synthesize and metabolize substances to their own goal, not yours, and you should have realised first that (108.9 + 14.1) counterbalanced (107.2 + 11.6) so if you liked the 4.3 difference to be (4.3 + 8) you should have done your math and, empowered by rule of three, arrived to (108.9 + 14.1 + 26.3) and then explained how the 26.3 -a 20% increment- are achieved.

But you couldn't do that because you don't know the carbon cycle and the reasons of those figures in red in the IPCC Report's figures: the main reasons have been deforestation, intensive grazing and conversion into short period crops. That is included in the figure for land use change, a 1.1 flux in 2012, and the change in vegetation, -30 +/- 45 stock.

Your argumentation has gone beyond any possible defence and you switched from figureless posts to posts with figures used in a random fashion as it becomes more evident, post by post, that you don't know the very carbon cycle you are proposing to tame into a global warming solution.

You wanted to propose other solutions? then, why don't you propose them and explain them with figures? I mean, you have said before a lot of things that boil down to "sequestering carbon ... and that's it" which sounds to me more like "they lived happily ever after". We have asked you for months about detailed examples of an acre of whatever being worked in some way it ends with an increased "carbon capital" while it continues to provide food for humans. So far, what you have replied resembling it the most are useless words like "I talked by phone to Gabe .... 16000 grazed .... he brought from <2% to >7% ... it's documented ... contact Führer".

And don't feel harshly treated as these very fora are devoted to undertakings that often involve to ask people to come back down, park their magic carpets and put their **** together. If you allow yourself to make sloppy argumentations like your «Anything over that starts reducing the 240 PgC total increase since pre industrial times» -what really meant "abracadabra" and the 8 new PgC were gone just by you considering it feasible by means of unknown mechanisms just because the percentage you came up with sounded reasonable to your ears- don't be surprise then you got the kind of replies you're collecting.

Your certainty about the world-climate-healing power of humus while farming produce flourishes clearly comes from epistemological hedonism and not from any science, good or bad. And this has gone on for months in exactly in the same style, what reinforces the notion it is epistemological hedonism and nothing more. Does anyone but you doubt this?

Nope. I could have done all that. I was trying to keep it extra simple for Reality Check by showing the (also extra simplified) numbers used in the RealClimate blog were comparing gross fossil fuel emissions with net vegetative uptake in order to slant and mislead. Par for the course for Briske. Sure I could have run rough estimates using the far more complicated net figures. But that would simply confuse and confound. That battle has been going on a very long time. Here is a formal rebuttal of some of the earlier bad science performed by Briske to misleadingly attack Savory.
Regarding Holechek and Briske, and Rebuttals by Teague, Gill & Savory

and here is some real scientifically sound evidence changing the management system actually can change the carbon properties of the soil. It is certainly not "abracadabra". LOLZ

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

Of course if you should already know that, since it was in my original post. Oh and BTW I did call Gabe Brown, and many others too. Because unlike 99% of the posters on this issue, I did my research and am still doing it. You call yourselves "skeptics", well maybe you are? I don't know about that. But last I knew, a skeptic actually not only scours the net for research both pro and con, then investigates both thoroughly, then even after all that actually wants to find documented real world examples. Even that's not enough. You still need to talk to ordinary farmers and ranchers that actually used the management system. Even that's not enough. There is still the trials you need to do for yourself. I have done all of the above for going on 2 years now. And I started preliminary trials this year.

Did you know that at least one of the so called "scientific studies" used to "prove" Savory wrong was actually taking a single grass plant grown in a flower pot and clip it with scissors to "simulate grazing". Sorry, but there are some ridiculous claims being made. There is some "abracadabra" science. There is some "epistemological hedonism". But it sure as heck ain't being done by Savory. Whether I personally am suffering from "epistemological hedonism" or not is none of your damn business. If I want a psychological evaluation, I'll go to a professional. As far as everything I can see, Savory, if nothing else, is as grounded in the real world as any scientist could be.

PS Your use of personal attacks at me as an excuse for your own lack of thorough research is duly noted.

 

[aleCcowaN]

First part

Nope. I could have done all that. I was trying to keep it extra simple for Reality Check by showing the (also extra simplified) numbers used in the RealClimate blog were comparing gross fossil fuel emissions with net vegetative uptake in order to slant and mislead.

That comparison sounds the very right thing to do. I rarely read the RealClimate blog, though it's good, and I won't start with the part of it you consider it opposes to your preferred notions. You have a problem with what is called in pretty innumerate environments "variables of stock and variables of flux", that is, the derivatives and primitives of different orders, so you may be imagining conceptual problems where there are none, just because what contradicts the notions you prefer to be true must be wrong.

Par for the course for Briske. Sure I could have run rough estimates using the far more complicated net figures. But that would simply confuse and confound. That battle has been going on a very long time. Here is a formal rebuttal of some of the earlier bad science performed by Briske to misleadingly attack Savory.
Regarding Holechek and Briske, and Rebuttals by Teague, Gill & Savory

If you consider that doing things right confuses and confounds, you have a heck of a problem. Maybe is it just that you get easily confounded doing the math that backs your favourite claims? specially when they point to you being wrong about it? Don't make it look like you chose the side of simplicity for pedagogical reasons.

And that link would interest me, how?

and here is some real scientifically sound evidence changing the management system actually can change the carbon properties of the soil. It is certainly not "abracadabra". LOLZ

No, I said the evidence exists and you are not able to manage it, that's why YOU are on the "abracadabra" side of the debate. If you don't get it yet, you make assertions without providing foundation, some of them are founded -being you in that knowledge or not- and some of them are unfounded. Every time I or another poster caught you in unfounded assertions you change the topic to one the founded ones and dismiss the critic. That's how rhetoric works, not carbon sequestration.

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

Quote from here the figures you consider to be pertinent to what you were asked. "Read this" is not a valid way to discuss, as it is just a rhetorical trick to swamp the opponent with unnecessary tasks.

[The rest of your post in other message]

It's so simple to provide a table with the before and after on a yearly or multi-yearly period involving one acre and some farming activity done with certain techniques and show that carbon can go up in a way it can contribute quite significantly to curb climate change while food production still can be sustained in current values -or better- in a commercially sound way. It's extremely simple, like the list of evidence needed to prove bigfeet real.

PS: "99% of the posters on this issue" (are there even a 100 posters?) and "going on 2 years now" are the only figures in your whole post. As always, you can't express in figures what you tell in words...

 

[Red Baron Farms]

double post

 

[aleCcowaN]

really?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Of course if you should already know that, since it was in my original post. Oh and BTW I did call Gabe Brown, and many others too. Because unlike 99% of the posters on this issue, I did my research and am still doing it. You call yourselves "skeptics", well maybe you are? I don't know about that. But last I knew, a skeptic actually not only scours the net for research both pro and con, then investigates both thoroughly, then even after all that actually wants to find documented real world examples. Even that's not enough. You still need to talk to ordinary farmers and ranchers that actually used the management system. Even that's not enough. There is still the trials you need to do for yourself. I have done all of the above for going on 2 years now. And I started preliminary trials this year.

And the objections are still the same: among them, no data about production and costs, specially about the winter and dry periods, when it was supposed the animals were sent to the markets and not fed with bales brought from elsewhere; no data before the study started, we have to trust all the fields and camps (potreros) were actually equal in soil quality and profile before the 9-year period started, but we know they didn't though we don't know how much.

Too many induced inferences (something married to epistemological hedonism).

There is some "epistemological hedonism". But it sure as heck ain't being done by Savory. Whether I personally am suffering from "epistemological hedonism" or not is none of your damn business. If I want a psychological evaluation, I'll go to a professional. As far as everything I can see, Savory, if nothing else, is as grounded in the real world as any scientist could be.

You don't have the faintest idea what epistemological hedonism is! If you did, you'd have noticed that it is not only OUR business -certainly not yours- but these very fora are devoted to fight epistemological hedonism as one of their most important goals.

There's a large list of things you don't know that you're bound to, judging from the tone of your discourse.

PS Your use of personal attacks at me as an excuse for your own lack of thorough research is duly noted.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You don't have the faintest idea what epistemological hedonism is!

As far as I know it is a form of self delusion and lack of critical thinking that goes something like this, If it feels good, believe it. Or If it sounds right, trust it. But the same could be said (but in reverse) of the people blindly following the bad math and propaganda in the RealClimate blog. ie If it doesn't feel good or sound right, it must be wrong. I have shown exactly why the math used is bad, and why it probably was chosen precisely to have that effect on the readers and completely ignores the real world results that have been repeated over and over around the world. Why does it ignore those results? Because when Briske tried to contend with those results he was torn up in the peer review, and lost a whole lot of prestige. So much so in fact, he published another paper shortly after taking a 1/2 step backwards and admitting the flaws in his research. I don't know Briske personally, but I suspect that had to be a tough thing to do. I actually kind of admire him for that. Many scientists will hold onto even proven bad science with an ever increasing tenacity just due to the huge egos involved.

The bottom line is, whether intentional or not, this statement in the RealClimate blog is completely misleading due to the math error of mixing gross figures on one side of the equation, with net values on the other.,

"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."

How do I know it is misleading? Just look at Reality Check's message to me. Clearly shows it fooled him.

Points 1 and 2 together give a minimum requirement that the rate of amount of carbon taken up by all of the vegetation in the world needs to be tripled just to sequester the carbon that we produce.

Well if the rate of amount of carbon taken up by all of the vegetation in the world were actually to triple, that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 369 PgC/yr! An absurd figure that is not even close to Savory's claims and as far as I know, pretty much impossible at our current technology.

So the absurd claims are not Savory, and not me, they are in the RealClimate article by West and Briske. If you want to attack the prevalence of epistemological hedonism and peoples lack of critical thinking or wishful thinking or denial of the evidence and just accepting what a person says because he is an "authority", your sights are targeting the wrong side of the debate. As I tried to point out in an earlier post, a lot of people are wasting a huge amount of effort in wishful thinking, trying to debunk Savory, and giving a free pass to West and Briske. I am not saying you shouldn't put effort into investigating Savory and many of the other breakthroughs in land management. I know I did. But I also looked just as carefully at Briske and that Luddite like resistance to change as well.

Oh and BTW there are many more misleading statements made by West and Briske in the RealClimate article. I simply used that one because I was addressing where Reality Check was led astray.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's a large list of things you don't know that you're bound to, judging from the tone of your discourse.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/333255287ed00ef630.gif

Let's all remember to pay attention to our tones of discourse.

 

[CapelDodger]

But the same could be said (but in reverse) of the people blindly following the bad math and propaganda in the RealClimate blog.

It's not bad math nor is it propaganda. Also see above.

I think we can all agree there'll be no meeting of minds on this subject, not is it particularly relevant since none of it's going to happen. Climate change, in contrast, is going to happen so any issues are actually going to resolve themselves one way or another.

 

[macdoc]

Red Baron Farms View Post
But the same could be said (but in reverse) of the people blindly following the bad math and propaganda in the RealClimate blog.

wow - if you are talking about the authors on RealClimate you just lost any shred of respect I might have had for your ideas.
Do you really understand who you are talking about ??? !!!!

Gavin A. Schmidt
Filed under: Contributor Bio's Extras — gavin @ 6 December 2004

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize and was the EarthSky Science communicator of the year in 2011.

You are just completely offbase with comment and Gavin is only one of numerous top climatologists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004

You really want to take on Gavin in math???!!!!...pardon my laughter but you seem to have a notable propensity NOT to understand the math.