Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Having cruised the commentary now on the RC article which RBF claims so deficient in math.

I had a 10 acre property that I would dearly love to have now. Had a spring fed pond and everything. I hand planted 700 trees there so I know very well the joys and back pain of such work! In the context of emissions, this is helpful but hardly a cure. Some perspective. While working in the Amazon, I decided to start running some calculations of just how important the deforestation problem and its converse (planting for carbon offets) were. I got out an envelope and started doing my proverbial calculations on the back (figurative witticism – actually I worked in a spreadsheet). I calculated the biomass (50% of biomass is carbon) of the entire Amazon (roughly 6 million square kilometers naturally forested (think 2/3 the U.S. including Alaska)), added in every bit of carbon I could come up with from leaf to root and all the soil carbon. I took the fossil fuel emissions levels of that period (1998) and divided it into the total carbon in the Amazon. I just couldn’t believe the numbers so I tried everything I could think of to correct them but kept coming up with the same numbers. So, I rang up one of the world’s leading experts on carbon emissions (who worked at the institution that employed me at the time – WHRC) and had him look over the numbers. Bottom line was that he agreed with my calculations. The take home message was that at that time (1998) the entire stock of Amazonian carbon equalled only 17 years of our collective fossil fuel emissions. I haven’t gone back to revisit those calculations since but the fossil fuel emissions have gone up substantially while the biomass of the Amazon has increased relatively slightly. I support Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) but we are simply not going to be able to plant our way out of this. At 1998 rates, we’d have to somehow create new Amazon forests every 17 years to offset all emissions. Clearly impossible. Does this mean it is useless to plant trees, no! They have lots of uses and will help ameliorate carbon issues but they are not going to be a huge part of emissions reductions going forward. There are no silver bullets. We have a lot of hard decisions and harder work ahead of us.

Comment 13

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ne-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/#more-16057

bottom line - useful agrarian practice....minimal impact on emissions let alone reversing them.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Having cruised the commentary now on the RC article which RBF claims so deficient in math.

...At 1998 rates, we’d have to somehow create new Amazon forests every 17 years to offset all emissions. Clearly impossible....

Comment 13

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ne-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/#more-16057

bottom line - useful agrarian practice....minimal impact on emissions let alone reversing them.

Did it ever occur to that skeptical mind of yours why they are discussing the amount of wood contained in the trees of a forest, when the issue on the table is the amount of humus contained in the soils of a grassland?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Having cruised the commentary now on the RC article which RBF claims so deficient in math.



Comment 13

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ne-commentary-on-savory-ted-video/#more-16057

bottom line - useful agrarian practice....minimal impact on emissions let alone reversing them.

Agreed. I've always been on the optimistic side of this debate and my estimation is that these excellent soil practises may be able to offset between 10-15% of emissions during the next 30 years without compromising much feeding the herd of featherless bipeds, if those practises are enthusiastically promoted, financially backed and fully adopted worldwide at once, and that depending on the emissions in year 30 and us willing to relinquish part of competing biofuels. It could be a bit better with innovative techniques (I've recently read some Argentine and Brazilian papers about the use of agricultural gypsum and limestone and their power to increase soil carbon a bit, both organic and inorganic, even in contexts of ploughing, besides other techniques to increase inorganic carbon in soils as a sink itself). After those 30 years, its healing ability diminishes but fortunately some other technological changes will take its place.

The inability of this to solve "the problem" doesn't make it a triviality. Something that might offset as much atmospheric carbon as today the cement industry throws and wind power prevents together is not a bench player in the game. As the joke says, we have 1429 solutions, we have to use all of them at the same time. A couple of dozen solutions relate to soil management.

It's nice to fantasize that "momma Gea" may heal by herself as our planet is so massive, rich and complex. But entranced in such pastoral speculations, people ignore the rotund effect of the human hordes: Human beings exhale 0.3 Pg of carbon a year, which compared with those 123 of "vegetation" -including seas- happens to be quite a number. The mass of human beings and all their enslaved farm animals and pets largely exceeds the mass of the rest of mammals, marsupials and birds in the face of the Earth together. If you managed to liposuck all overweighted Mexicans and Usians -the most obese countries in the world-, you would manage to provide all the energy used by Guatemala, Belize and probably El Salvador together during a whole year. Believe It or Not!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

After those 30 years, its healing ability diminishes but fortunately some other technological changes will take its place.

One of the primary differences between a grassland and a forest is that a grassland sequesters carbon undiminished even over deep geologic time. Whereas a forest sequesters carbon in its youth but over time ends up being a nearly carbon neutral biome. Primarily this is due to the difference between storage in plant tissue vs sequestration in the formation of mollic soils.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

 

[Reality Check]

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.

What is this "gross figure 123 PgC/yr", Red Baron Farms?
If you mean the gross emission of CO2 from all sources then this is fairly irrelevant - it is our emissions of CO2 that is the primary driver of global warming. We have to deal with our emissions of CO2 either at source or after emission.

The Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video blog entry seems clear enough.
We emit 8 Petagrams per year.
Vegetation absorbs 2.6 Petagrams per year.
To sequester 8 Petagrams per year in vegetation (and so in soil - assuming 100% conversion of vegetation carbon into soil organic carbon which is wrong!) we need to triple absorption into vegetation.
Grasslands are not all vegetation. That adds another factory of about 5. A 15-fold increase in sequestration in vegetation and thus soil is not reasonable.

There is a backlog of "approximately 240 more Petagrams (Pg) of carbon in the atmosphere than in pre-industrial times" to also sequester.

 

[Reality Check]

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!

Well you need to actually read what you quote from Cows, Carbon and the 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.

Tripling a number that does not appear in the article like 123 PgC/yr is an absurdity !

I will emphasize this, Red Baron Farms: The amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year. It is not 123 PgC/yr.

ETA: Both figures are net figures (see Gross vs Net).
8 Petagrams per year is not the gross emission of C - it is the part of the total from our emissions, i.e. a net emission rate.
2.6 Pg per year is not the gross absorption of C - it is the part of the total for vegetation, i.e. a net absorption rate.
They are the parts of the totals that are of interest in the calculation.
This points out an approximation made in the estimate (which the pamphlet in the Savory Institute web site also makes): Treat the carbon involved in other cycles, e.g. the ocean-atmosphere cycle, as constant.

 

[aleCcowaN]

One of the primary differences between a grassland and a forest is that a grassland sequesters carbon undiminished even over deep geologic time. Whereas a forest sequesters carbon in its youth but over time ends up being a nearly carbon neutral biome. Primarily this is due to the difference between storage in plant tissue vs sequestration in the formation of mollic soils.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

No, that doesn't relate at all with the topic at hand nor with my assertion about the weakening of the "solution" after 30 years of technical innovation. You are mixing up peaches with shooting stars when you try to use a paper about change in soils along a 66 million-year era, in response and providing feedback to slow changes in the whole planet, as if it presented evidence of intense transformations in a matter of a few years and in a context of providing to human economic needs. If you wanted an example of epistemological hedonism, reflect about what made you think this paper backed your case. Keep looking for papers that DO provide information about carbon soil capture together with farm productivity, as the ones I found in Spanish, mostly related to those 7-10% of Earth's mollisols called The Pampas and Chaco Plain.

Your fail to provide such papers after months and hundreds of posts or yours about this subject speaks volumes about the validity of your assertions beyond the strictly farming technology and into the climate change topic -the only topic of this thread- (Teague's doesn't provide at all what is necessary). And please, stop savoryzing the conversation.

 

[Reality Check]

One of the primary differences between a grassland and a forest is that a grassland sequesters carbon undiminished even over deep geologic time. Whereas a forest sequesters carbon in its youth but over time ends up being a nearly carbon neutral biome. Primarily this is due to the difference between storage in plant tissue vs sequestration in the formation of mollic soils.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

That is not a primary difference.
Both grasslands and forests "sequester carbon undiminished even over deep geologic time", i.e. they keep carbon within them for long periods of time. As an example of a long lasting forest, look at the Amazon Forest (at least 33 million years old).
Both grasslands and forests sequester carbon both in vegetation and soil.
One primary difference is that grasslands sequester most of their carbon in soil organic matter while forests sequester most of their carbon in vegetation (i.e. trees).

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling (PDF) is about how the expansion of grasslands at the expense of woodlands probably contributed to global cooling in that period. No one is suggesting that we convert the Amazon Forest to grasslands .

 

[aleCcowaN]

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling (PDF) is about how the expansion of grasslands at the expense of woodlands probably contributed to global cooling in that period. No one is suggesting that we convert the Amazon Forest to grasslands .

And a planet -lacking hordes of humanoids- that goes drier while it cools along endless millenia also helps to keep larger amounts of carbon ditched.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What is this "gross figure 123 PgC/yr", Red Baron Farms?
If you mean the gross emission of CO2 from all sources then this is fairly irrelevant - it is our emissions of CO2 that is the primary driver of global warming. We have to deal with our emissions of CO2 either at source or after emission.

The Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video blog entry seems clear enough.
We emit 8 Petagrams per year.
Vegetation absorbs 2.6 Petagrams per year.
To sequester 8 Petagrams per year in vegetation (and so in soil - assuming 100% conversion of vegetation carbon into soil organic carbon which is wrong!) we need to triple absorption into vegetation.
Grasslands are not all vegetation. That adds another factory of about 5. A 15-fold increase in sequestration in vegetation and thus soil is not reasonable.

There is a backlog of "approximately 240 more Petagrams (Pg) of carbon in the atmosphere than in pre-industrial times" to also sequester.

123 is the gross vegetative uptake, and 2.6 is the net vegetative uptake. Again, I am not blaming you. You simply were fooled by the very misleading West and Briske article.

In a grassland the net vegetative uptake that stays in the plant is nearly zero like forests, but the difference doesn't necessarily return to the atmosphere, a significant % is sequestered in the soil. That % that stays in the soil does vary according to the biology and/or management.

This is why the figures used by West and Briske are wildly and hugely misleading. Instead of tripling the entire vegetative absorbtion of the planet as Briske implies, What Savory is really talking about is a relatively smaller % increase in total vegetation uptake, combined with a relatively smaller change in the % of that gross vegetative carbon being sequestered into the soil. (when viewed on a global scale)

Just to give you a truer picture of the real scales involved, if you increased the total vegetative uptake just 10% and increased the % of that gross uptake that is sequestered in the soil instead of re-released into the atmosphere by 10%, you would decrease the gross atmospheric carbon by roughly 13.5 PgC/year. Our gross FF emissions are around 8 PgC/year. So around a 5 PgC/year net decrease.

Now I am not necessarily saying Savory's methods can accomplish either one of those benchmarks. But it gives you a much more realistic and useful benchmark to compare and study to either prove or disprove.

The West and Briske figures presented are useless in understanding the scale of the problem or the potential agricultural/vegetative solutions.

 

[Reality Check]

Please provide a citation for the gross vegetative uptake being 123 Pg per year

123 is the gross vegetative uptake, and 2.6 is the net vegetative uptake.

Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video states that "the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year".
Please provide a citation for the "gross" amount of carbon taken up by vegetation actually being 123 Pg per year, Red Baron Farms.

In a grassland the net vegetative uptake that stays in the plant is nearly zero like forests, but the difference has to necessarily return to the atmosphere as in the forests. If it did not then the forests and grasslands will have to contain every bit of carbon that they ever absorb over millions of years. It is a cycle with storage.

ETA: You still do not get the basic point that the 8 Petagrams per year we emit is a net amount and so has to be compared to a net amount, i.e. "2.6 is the net vegetative uptake".
The total emission of C from all sources (the gross emission) is not all emitted by humans!

ETA2: I thought that that 123 number looked familiar!
123 PgC is the estimated total net carbon emission from land use change, 1850-1990 mentioned in "Capturing Carbon and Conserving Biodiversity: The Market Approach".
I hope that this is not your number, Red Baron Farms.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The only solution I find to deal with this endless nonsense is making an epistemologically hedonistic analysis of Teague's:

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

W.R. Teague ,S.L. Dowhower , S.A. Baker , N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, D.M. Conover

WARNING: The following analysis is just for dupes. Also, Teague's wasn't intended to get the conclusions in the following analysis. It'll be a misuse of the paper.

Epistemological hedonism scans quickly the paper looking for the bits that support one's expectation:

• comparison of rotational multi-paddock grazing, heavy continuous grazing and light continuous grazing
• same cattle in the first pair
• neighbouring farms, 9 years doing the same, in three Texan counties
• excellent soil analysis, they really know their manure
• the result is soil organic matter carbon in the first 90 cm: heavy continuous, 2.49%; light continuous, 3.24%; rotational, 3.61% Yay!

Let's see: they manage to get 1.12% more carbon in 9 years in average Texan farms just by changing the grazing method. As 1% of additional carbon means 0.57 T of carbon per hectare and inch, in those 36 inches they gained 23 tons of carbon in 9 years, that is 2.55 T/ha.yr. Multiply that for half of the grazing lands in the world: 2.55 T/ha.yr * 3.5 Gha /2 and we have 4.5 GT of carbon absorbed just in grasslands. As agriculture has similar promises and there's also the other half of grasslands, we need to offset 8 - 2.6 = 5.4 GT C, then we not only would sequester all the carbon we add but we also can slowly absorb all the carbon we already released.


Problem solved! The Earth saved!

Later (or tomorrow), the analysis of Teague's for serious mindful people.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video states that "the amount of carbon taken up by vegetation is about 2.6 Pg per year".
Please provide a citation for the "gross" amount of carbon taken up by vegetation actually being 123 Pg per year, Red Baron Farms.

The citation is in post #476 by aleCcowaN

 

[Reality Check]

The citation is in post #476 by aleCcowaN

Here is that post and it is easy to see that you have forgotten about the other half of the cycle as shown in Figure 6.1.
The gross photosynthesis absorption is 123 GT per year.
This is offset by the total respiration and fire emission of 118.7 GT per year.

We are interested in sequestering the human emission of 8 GT per year. Thus we need to look at the land absorption flux of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year. That is the Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video about 2.6 Pg per year.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here is that post and it is easy to see that you have forgotten about the other half of the cycle as shown in Figure 6.1.
The gross photosynthesis absorption is 123 GT per year.
This is offset by the total respiration and fire emission of 118.7 GT per year.

We are interested in sequestering the human emission of 8 GT per year. Thus we need to look at the land absorption flux of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year. That is the Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video about 2.6 Pg per year.

Excuse me? Try reading post 530 again and tell me again how I have forgotten the other 1/2 of the cycle?

 

[Reality Check]

Excuse me?

Excuse yourself - you have just confirmed that you are talking about 1/2 of the cycle (gross photosynthesis absorption ) and ignoring the other half, Red Baron Farms.

It is the land absorption of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year that incorporates both halves of the cycle:

• gross photosynthesis absorption.
• total respiration and fire emission.

It is this that has to be increased to offset human emissions.

As for post 530 - I will point out that no one really knows what Savory is talking about. What we have are some comments in a video. What we do not have is any scientific publications authored by Savory containing actual calculations on carbon sequestration from grassland management changes being able to reasonably solve global warming.

The closest we have is a pamphlet on the Savory Institute web site which is basically an ad for their "Holistic Management^tm" program. This pamphlet is just a rewrite of a book chapter. This pamphlet has the unreasonable assumption that the percentage of organic matter in soil in grasslands can be increased 40-fold (from 1% by 1% per year for ~40 years) !

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Excuse yourself - you have just confirmed that you are talking about 1/2 of the cycle (gross photosynthesis absorption ) and ignoring the other half, Red Baron Farms.

It is the land absorption of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year that incorporates both halves of the cycle:

• gross photosynthesis absorption.
• total respiration and fire emission.

It is this that has to be increased to offset human emissions.

As for post 530 - I will point out that no one really knows what Savory is talking about. What we have are some comments in a video. What we do not have is any scientific publications authored by Savory containing actual calculations on carbon sequestration from grassland management changes being able to reasonably solve global warming.

The closest we have is a pamphlet on the Savory Institute web site which is basically an ad for their "Holistic Management^tm" program. This pamphlet is just a rewrite of a book chapter. This pamphlet has the unreasonable assumption that the percentage of organic matter in soil in grasslands can be increased 40-fold (from 1% by 1% per year for ~40 years) !

Trying again to get me angry by telling lies? The 2.6 figure is in post 530. It is not forgotten by me and in fact I addressed both the uptake and respiration side of the equation in my post. YOU are the one who was completely ignorant of the 123 figure as multiple posts by you prove. But you were basing your comments on a highly misleading article by West and Briske, so I don't blame you for that. Their misleading article had the desired effect on you, that's for sure.

Now if you want to actually talk about anything realistic to test, confirm, or deny Savory's claims.....try this. Figure out a way to quantify the actual change in sequestration rates of grasslands. Because in barren desertified land a much higher than 10% increase can be accomplished in both vegetative uptake and net % sequestered in the soil with a change in management, but in a nominally well managed and functioning grassland biome the net change in % sequestered when changing management is much smaller.

eta: I'll give you a hint, tripling the vegetative uptake of the entire planet as suggested by West and Briske is most definitely the WRONG answer.

 

[Reality Check]

The 2.6 figure is in post 530.

Yes the 2.6 figure is in post 530. As is 123. As is a few other numbers !
The fact remains that your insistence on using only the 123 GT per year figure is insisting on ignoring the other half of the cycle.
When you add in that half of the cycle you get the 2.6 figure and that is what is used to show that Savory's comment in the video is unreasonable because it needs a ~15-fold increase in the net absorption of C by vegetation.

Savory's clam in the video is "debunked" in the simple article by West and Briske: Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video as above.

I have no idea what other Savory claim you are thinking of.
The Savory Institute has a more unreasonable claim than in Savory's video - a 40-fold increase in soil organic matter.

ETA: I will also give you a hint - the first step in sequestering carbon in soil is to sequester it in vegetation. The current sequestration of carbon in vegetation is an absorption of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year. The current emission of carbon by humans is ~8 GT per year.
How do you propose to sequester enough carbon in vegetation (and so soil) to offset human emissions without increasing the sequestration of carbon in vegetation, Red Baron Farms ?

ETA2: I will also give you a hint about the scientific world, Red Baron Farms.
It is Savory's claim that grasslands can sequester enough carbon to return us to pre-industrial levels. It is up to him to provide evidence to support his claim. There is no supporting evidence that I could see in the TED talk (and I would not expect any in a TED talk!).
If you want to support Savory's claim then it is up to you to provide the supporting evidence, e.g. do the calculations that you are demanding that I (and others?) do.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Yes the 2.6 figure is in post 530. As is 123. As is a few other numbers !
The fact remains that your insistence on using only the 123 GT per year figure is insisting on ignoring the other half of the cycle.
When you add in that half of the cycle you get the 2.6 figure and that is what is used to show that Savory's comment in the video is unreasonable because it needs a ~15-fold increase in the net absorption of C by vegetation.

Savory's clam in the video is "debunked" in the simple article by West and Briske: Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video as above.

I have no idea what other Savory claim you are thinking of.
The Savory Institute has a more unreasonable claim than in Savory's video - a 40-fold increase in soil organic matter.

ETA: I will also give you a hint - the first step in sequestering carbon in soil is to sequester it in vegetation. The current sequestration of carbon in vegetation is an absorption of 2.6 +/- 1.2 GT per year. The current emission of carbon by humans is ~8 GT per year.
How do you propose to sequester enough carbon in vegetation (and so soil) to offset human emissions without increasing the sequestration of carbon in vegetation, Red Baron Farms ?

Keep insisting on using the wrong figures in the wrong place? Using your warped view of the problem I would naturally assume it is impossible. But the fact remains that you are ignoring the vegetative uptake is far larger than 2.6 PgC/yr.....it is in fact 123 PgC/yr, and the proposed way to mitigate the 8 PgC/yr emissions is to increase the 123 PgC/yr vegetative uptake by restoring desertified lands, and decrease the respiration rate by locking a higher % in the soil. Taken as a whole, a 10% improvement on both sides of the cycle will achieve a mitigation of 13.5 PgC/yr, and will offset the 8 PgC/yr emissions from fossil fuels very roughly in the range of ~5 PgC/yr left over that can actually start reducing atmospheric carbon.

Now the big question. Can Savory's method, adopted on enough land, achieve those results? Personally I don't know. What I do know is the West and Briske article is completely misleading.

 

[Reality Check]

Keep insisting on using the wrong figures in the wrong place?

I keep on insisting on not ignoring a side of the cycle and so using the values given in the article by West and Briske: Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video.

The fact remains that I (and West and Briske) are including the vegetative uptake (123 PgC/yr) and the vegetative emission (118 PgC/yr), i.e. both sides of the cycle.


Feel free to ignore the vegetative emission (118 PgC/yr), Red Baron Farms, in your calculations but do not claim that other people are following your lead:

• I am not.
• West and Briske are not.
• The Savory Institute is not.
• What Savory is doing is not known.

Now the big question.

Can Savory's method, adopted on enough land, achieve those results claimed by Savory?

• Not reasonably according to the Savory Institute's need for a 40-fold increase in soil organic matter.
• Not reasonably according to the simple calculation in Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video (~15-fold increase in carbon sequestration by grasslands).
• No cited evidence that Savory's method even if adopted on "enough" land can sequester enough carbon.
• Savory's method has its critics.
  As far as I can see, most people agree about its worth in restoring degraded land. Its worth in improving normal grasslands is in doubt: "the majority of range scientists have not been able to experimentally confirm that rotational grazing systems do show a benefit, and note that managers' reports of success are anecdotal.[44][45]"
  So where does this "enough" land come from?

And the real world questions that we need to think about

• If we convert grasslands to only grazing then what will we do with the glut of cattle?
  Just kill them and plough them into the soil?
• If we convert grasslands to only grazing then what will we do about the loss of corn, wheat, soybean, etc. from farmed grasslands?
  Human beings also eat corn, wheat, soybean, etc.
• How would it be possible to convert farmers from arable use of grasslands to grazing when the current economics favor crops?
• How would it be politically possible to get many countries around the world to do this?
  Current agreements do not even enforce carbon emissions, e.g. a few days ago Japan Bails Out on CO2 Emissions Target.