Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Red Baron Farms]

No, it is a completely different sort of forcing, turning forests into grasslands for grazing, or for crops, especially irrigated crops is a different beast than CO2 increase.. Land use change has immediate and undeniable effects on both local climate - temperature/rainfall, as well as unexpected effects from albedo changes, especially in winter. Paving and building structures has even more dramatic effects on temperature and rainfall, as does draining wetlands or damning rivers.

Most people ignore or forget about land use changes, but they are no small factor.

I agree it is no small factor, but look at your list.

Man alters the planet surfaces in diverse ways trough urbanization, suburbanization,
deforestation, foresting former grasslands, irrigating desert land for crops, damming
rivers to create man-made lakes and reservoirs, land-filling swamps and marshlands, etc.
These factors affect the climate on scales ranging from the macroscale to the microscale.

Where is converting grassland to cropland? Where is converting a grazing system of animal husbandry to a CAFO system? Where is converting to "green revolution" management with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides? Where is range-land mismanagement? Where are the vast man made deserts like the entire center of Australia, most of the Middle East? etc.. in those "land use change" calculations? Taken as a whole it is 1/2 the planet's land surface.

All of those affect the carbon cycle orders of magnitude greater than the ones listed.

Oh and BTW it is the same forcing. Because failing to sequester carbon in the soil and emitting carbon with FF both have the same effect, increasing atmospheric CO2. It is primarily the increased CO2 that forces AGW.

Now Mac and a whole lot of climate scientists turn a blind eye to agriculture, measuring only minor changes on the fringes, and ignoring the main problem, but I didn't expect you to ignore it too. The world's arable land amounts to ~1,380 M ha, out of a total ~4,883 M ha land used for agriculture. That's not even counting the vast man made deserts. It is the 300 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. Land that used to be a net carbon sink, that now largely functions as a net carbon emissions source.

And why do climate scientists ignore it? Because it is considered a necessary evil that is impossible to fix without starving the world. Unfortunately it isn't true. Nearly every bit of agricultural land absolutely can be managed in such a way as to restore the natural carbon sequestration cycle. And instead of reducing productivity of food per acre, it can actually increase productivity.

 

[macdoc]

You dodge the question....there is no mechanism to the trophosphere..

Geomagnetic affects are not solar radiation

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

That is however a good read and it would be good news indeed if a weak sun was counteracting some warming in the atmosphere......
that however is yet to be determined and still does not in the least account for the ocean which if anything is getting warmer faster.......

got an explanation for that???...maybe dwarves stoking the fires of Mordor...

•••

Tell you what.

You admit the role of CO2 increase in AGW as the primary driver of climate change as the rest of the planet has and I'll give your solar thesis some credence for a possible regional cooling impact.

 

[macdoc]

RB - you make claims without showing magnitude.....you've been pinned on this before.
Show the scale of the effect you claim. Just like Haig you've got some neat concepts but no quantifiable magnitude.
You at least have a mechanism, he doesn't even have that.

It's largely ignored because it's largely neutral.

Indeed it does have local weather impacts and changes some timing of of the carbon cycle but IT IS NOT THE PRIMARY DRIVER.

C02 levels did not rise 40% because of land use primarily but due to the chartable, quantifiable, traceable use of fossil fuels.

You've been asked before, what magnitude, show us how much of the 40% rise in C02 is attributable to the mechanism you postulate.

 

[Trakar]

At times of a weaker sun, such as now, the coronal holes migrate from the poles to the mid-latitudes where they are more effective at transmitting energy to the planets.

Alfvén waves emitted from coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth's magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.
[qimg]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/558961main2_alfven-waves-670.jpg[/qimg]
The magnetic fields from the center of coronal holes in the sun's atmosphere have large fluctuations known as Alfvén waves, while those from the sides have smaller fluctuations. The side fields do not transfer energy as well from the sun to Earth's magnetosphere. Credit: NASA/Park
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html

The NASA page you link to does not suggest that there is a transfer of energy from the sun into the Earth's climate through any linking of the Sun's magnetic field to the geomagnetic field, by what specific mechanism are you proposing that this process has an influence upon the Earth's climate?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

RB - you make claims without showing magnitude.....you've been pinned on this before.
Show the scale of the effect you claim. Just like Haig you've got some neat concepts but no quantifiable magnitude.
You at least have a mechanism, he doesn't even have that.

It's largely ignored because it's largely neutral.

Indeed it does have local weather impacts and changes some timing of of the carbon cycle but IT IS NOT THE PRIMARY DRIVER.

C02 levels did not rise 40% because of land use primarily but due to the chartable, quantifiable, traceable use of fossil fuels.

You've been asked before, what magnitude, show us how much of the 40% rise in C02 is attributable to the mechanism you postulate.

I posted this as an example:
Mitigating livestock greenhouse gas balance through carbon sequestration in grasslands

And that is comparing conventional best management practices (BMP). It isn't even using data from Savory's holistic management, MIRG systems, mob grazing etc which are dramatically higher yet. That's enough all by itself.

I posted the White paper by Teague et all.
RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING Which the primary benefit is that it is a break through in management for areas not possible to use a European style BMP primarily due to "brittleness"...ie timing and duration of rainfall and humidity as opposed to total rainfall.

Again this improvement is enough by itself.

There is no exacting data on most the arable land, because the original biome was already destroyed before people started taking measurements. However, it is clear that soil that used to have 10%+ SOC 2,3 feet or more deep, that now has 1-2% SOC and hits hard pan at 4-6 inches is a HUGE turnaround. Luckily most of that went to the ocean as erosion instead of the atmosphere. If you can call sending all your mollisols to the oceans "Lucky". But in either case it certainly isn't sequestering carbon now as it once did to get all that carbon in the soil in the first place.

Places like Australia? Where the main damage was done 40,000 years ago? And then the remnant destroyed shortly after European colonization by improper grazing management? Who knows how to quantify it exactly? Grasslands are a net carbon sink, but no one measured the unaffected biome 40,000 years ago to be able to quantify the exact rate. There are millions of acres now in Australia using permaculture and Holistic management that are being restored. We can measure that rate. 1 ton per hectare per year C sequestration rate even in that dry climate is conservative. But much is so degraded it will be a long time (if ever) before it can be restored.

Honestly I wish I could find data to quantify it all in a nice neat figure for you. But unfortunately I can't. Most climate scientists are not even taking relevant data. As I said it is the 300 pound gorilla in the room no one even wants to think about, so it isn't even in the statistics. So when a farmer in Ohio sequesters 4 tons per acre per year and still gets record maize production without a single drop of nitrogen fertilizers for for 17 years, it gets called "anecdotal" and ignored. Or at least it used to be ignored. That is changing rapidly due to the USDA NRCS actively teaching farmers how to do it now.

In fact I just made an agreement yesterday with a local agricultural consulting group who has agreed to show me how to design my own project in a way that generates scientifically relevant data and even help me to publish. I can't even give you the "quantifiable" data on myself yet. But I will in a few years. All I can tell you is that my preliminary results were favorable enough to merit a more rigorous scientific trial.

I know that is unsatisfying to you. But it is just the way it is. I just have to bite my tongue and take the criticism until I can prove otherwise with hard data.

 

[macdoc]

No you can't because it's not there. Your's may well be one of the million Manhattan Projects needed to deal with AGw impact....just keep the claims in line with reality not wishful thinking.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No you can't because it's not there. Your's may well be one of the million Manhattan Projects needed to deal with AGw impact....just keep the claims in line with reality not wishful thinking.

Your claim is just as false and not even backed by anecdotal evidence. At least when we get enough data to prove it is not just anecdotal, it will be at a significant enough magnitude. Remember, just over 1/2 a % increase in SOC only 30cm down annually yields a 8.7 ppm DECREASE in atmospheric carbon per year. (gross) 1/2 a % is far below MOST modern scientific organic methods. You can say it is not there and it could only be an insignificant "one of a million Manhattan projects" all you want. But it is being done now already on millions of acres at far greater than that rate. The difference is that farmers and ranchers are doing it, very few scientists. Once the scientific community finally catches up, the whole equation will change.

 

[Yerushalmi]

What, to your considerations, makes Goddard's presentation "valid?"

Attributing the same exact effect to two equal and opposite causes is a very strange state of affairs that requires a very good explanation to support it. If there is one, great. But I find it difficult to believe that the Earth is in this "sweet spot" sort of stasis in which both an increase in temperature and a decrease in temperature not only leads to catastrophic weather events but the same catastrophic weather events. It strains credulity.

 

[macdoc]

Goddard is a climate crank - he is NOT a climate scientist.

Steven Goddard
Credentials

Bachelor of Science.
Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
Source: [1]

Background

Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name "Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym, and there is a suggestion that Anthony Watts of WUWT knows Goddard's real name. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled "Real Science" blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

Stance on Climate Change

"Global temperatures in 2012 are cooler than they were 22 years ago. The only colder period since 1990 was after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

Scientists have been quite lucky about the lack of large volcanic eruptions this century, which has allowed them to continue fooling the particularly weak-minded about global warming." [5]

Key Quotes

"The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss." [3]

Key Deeds

June, 2012

Goddard was quoted by Heartland senior fellow James Taylor as having showed "how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades." [6]

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

THESE are climate scientists....

The current permanent contributors to content on this site are: Gavin Schmidt Michael Mann Caspar Ammann Rasmus Benestad Ray Bradley Stefan Rahmstorf Eric Steig David Archer Ray Pierrehumbert Thibault de Garidel Jim Bouldin - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/#sthash.izXy302Z.dpuf

just Gavin

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.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/#sthash.IAJ15l99.dpuf

Now which one are you going to pay attention to????

Gavin - one of the highest profile climate scientists on the planet or an anonymous crank who posts on a denial site funded by Heartland et al.

You have limited time...choose your sources accordingly.

 

[DC]

One think you will find in that article, is that a sure prediction for CO2 forced global warming is that warming is predicted to be greatest over NH land masses in winter. This has been a critical point ignored, denied and twisted around for almost a year in this topic. to the point that some actually are claiming global warming predicted colder winters. Of course it is, it's an obvious and impossible to miss point. It won't matter, global warming can justify anything, explain anything, and nothing can disprove it. If you believe the madness that passes for climate science here.

No, it is a completely different sort of forcing, turning forests into grasslands for grazing, or for crops, especially irrigated crops is a different beast than CO2 increase.. Land use change has immediate and undeniable effects on both local climate - temperature/rainfall, as well as unexpected effects from albedo changes, especially in winter. Paving and building structures has even more dramatic effects on temperature and rainfall, as does draining wetlands or damning rivers.

Most people ignore or forget about land use changes, but they are no small factor.

the only ones that ignore land use change is the deniers.
climate scientists don't. would you read about the science on AGW, you would know that.

 

[Haig]

You dodge the question....there is no mechanism to the trophosphere..

Geomagnetic affects are not solar radiation

RB - you make claims without showing magnitude.....you've been pinned on this before.
Show the scale of the effect you claim. Just like Haig you've got some neat concepts but no quantifiable magnitude.
You at least have a mechanism, he doesn't even have that.

The NASA page you link to does not suggest that there is a transfer of energy from the sun into the Earth's climate through any linking of the Sun's magnetic field to the geomagnetic field, by what specific mechanism are you proposing that this process has an influence upon the Earth's climate?

You guys need to do your own digging into how eletro-magnetic changes/events on the sun change and affect All the planets in the solar system including the earth's weather and climate. It's how Piers Corbyn is able the accurately forecast long range extreme weather events and changes in the Jet Stream. http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact48

Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) are one such effect. In turn driving changes to the Jet Stream and hence our weather and climate.

Tropospheric circulation changes associated with stratospheric sudden warmings: A case study
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Waves in Planetary Atmospheres
http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/pdf/Walterscheid_08.pdf

Let's not forget this ...

Clouds blown by the solar wind

Published 20 December 2013
Abstract
In this letter we investigate possible relationships between the cloud cover (CC) and the
interplanetary electric field (IEF), which is modulated by the solar wind speed and the
interplanetary magnetic field. We show that CC at mid–high latitudes systematically correlates
with positive IEF, which has a clear energetic input into the atmosphere, but not with negative
IEF, in general agreement with predictions of the global electric circuit (GEC)-related
mechanism. Thus, our results suggest that mid–high latitude clouds might be affected by the
solar wind via the GEC. Since IEF responds differently to solar activity than, for instance,
cosmic ray flux or solar irradiance, we also show that such a study allows distinguishing one
solar-driven mechanism of cloud evolution, via the GEC, from others.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045032/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045032.pdf

Earth's Global Electric Circuit - Atmospheric Electricity

We live inside Earth's "global electric circuit," sharing our atmosphere with sprites, elves, blue jets, and other electric phenomena. Scientists have been studying our planet's electrical environment for a century or so, from the charged particles at the top of the atmosphere, to electrical storms in clouds, to lightning that sometimes reaches the ground. But we haven't had a way to study all of it, as a system, until now.

The Global Electric Circuit project is building a virtual representation of Earth's electric environment in one computer model. The model will allow scientists throughout the world to experiment with the system and advance our knowledge about the electricity in our atmosphere—a central component of the world we live in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7-0YRiln7E&feature=youtu.be

 

[Yerushalmi]

Goddard is a climate crank - he is NOT a climate scientist.

I never claimed he was a climate scientist or even a reliable source. I had no idea who he was when I got linked to him. After all, it really doesn't matter who pointed out the discrepancy. Goddard, my brother-in-law, Stephen Hawking, the guy at the falafel store. The information is accurate no matter who brought it to my attention.

All information should always be analyzed in a vacuum; that's one of the most basic principles of science. It doesn't matter who brought it up, all that matters is the information itself, and what it can tell you. Considering the source should only be done in cases where the information being presented is suspected of being actively untrue, or deliberately misleading.

(I hasten to add, given my constant fighting against alternative medicine idiots, that "the method by which the information was obtained" is considered part of the information, not part of the source - bad experimental design leads to inaccurate information.)

In this case, of course, the information actually is true, because the method by which it was obtained is easily reproducible (by going to the Time Magazine website). Time Magazine really did take the same weather event forty years apart and use it to defend two equal and opposite climate change theories.

I do not, however, immediately leap to the conclusion Goddard did. That's also part of evaluating the information presented: deciding whether the evidence justifies the claim. What he wrote about Time Magazine is true. The question is whether there is an explanation. I do not immediately upon hearing this decide "global warming is BS", because frankly it's not unheard of for two equal and opposite causes to have the same effect (try raising or lowering somebody's body heat by a hundred degrees. Either way they'll die!). But I do demand that the seeming contradiction be resolved because it sounds odd.

 

[Haig]

Interesting post on WUWT ...

Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave

The CERES dataset contains three main parts—downwelling solar radiation, upwelling solar radiation, and upwelling longwave radiation. With the exception of leap-year variations, the solar dataset does not change from year to year over a few decades at least. It is fixed by unchanging physical laws.

The upwelling longwave radiation and the reflected solar radiation, on the other hand, are under no such restrictions. This gives us the opportunity to see distinguish between my hypothesis that the system responds in such a way as to counteract changes in forcing, and the consensus view that the system responds to changes in forcing by changing the surface temperature.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/upwelling-solar-upwelling-longwave/

 

[Iamme]

Oh, great! Haig, you`re back.
Intermission is over. Time for the show to start again. Cant wait!

 

[DC]

Interesting post on WUWT ...

Upwelling Solar, Upwelling Longwave

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/upwelling-solar-upwelling-longwave/

I see, you are still too scared to addressing my points......

very telling. it nicely demonstrates your dishonesty.

you are exposed as the liar you are......
no wonder people don't take deniers serious anymore.

 

[DC]

If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html

http://www.clim-past.net/9/1879/2013/cp-9-1879-2013.pdf

this paper was listed among those papers that allegedly Show the sun as the Drivers. but actually when you read it, it contradicts that claim. how come, can you explain how it shows what you claim?

or will you like most Deniers, run away from questions?

 

[DC]

If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html

this blog lists also this paper

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO310008/abstract

A modern Maunder Minimum would not stave off global warming

can you explain how this paper supports the claim by the blog?

it also contradicts the claim directly, yet the denier blog still lists it.....

why do you guys need such dishonesty? why the misrepresentation of science?

run haig run

 

[Haig]

Why do the warmists sink to ad-homs ? Can you answer that question DC

If you really want answers to your questions, re-read my posts and try to see the big picture my friend.

A new solar theory using planetary influence including earth's weather and climate ...
Do Uranus & Neptune Control the Sun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HakM_HpT8g8&feature=youtu.be

 

[DC]

Why do the warmists sink to ad-homs ? Can you answer that question DC

If you really want answers to your questions, re-read my posts and try to see the big picture my friend.

A new solar theory using planetary influence including earth's weather and climate ...
Do Uranus & Neptune Control the Sun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HakM_HpT8g8&feature=youtu.be

its not an ad hom, I merely pointed out your dishonesty.
and even now, you refuse to answer my questions.

lets start with those 2 papers. how are they supporting your claim that the Sun controls the climate? explain it, they contradict your claim.

and I already found more papers in that list that actually show the exact opposite of what is claimed.

it indeed seems to be merely a list of papers that mention climate and sun......

its the usual dishonest nonsense we see all over the science denial blogs like WUWT, Climate depot and Hockeyschtick.

 

[Belz...]

Why do the warmists sink to ad-homs ?

Why do deniers sink to ignorance ?