Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

1 ton per acre per year over nearly 1/2 the planet's land surface potentially.

You got a mitigation proposal even approaching that scale? Let's hear it.

Just to clarify, and without getting too far into the details (which is where most of the differences of empiric evidences and anecdote are in disagreement) there is little hope of changing global pasture lands to the process, at least without a single dominant authoritarian government capable and willing to enforce its edicts for such over the entire globe. I don't wish to get into the particulars of your suggestion but under the best studied aspects of your suggested process, the evidence indicates significantly < 1 ton of net carbon being held temporarily in an acre of topsoil under ideal conditions of ample water, mechanical mixing of manure and urine, etc.,. looking at the US alone, which is where an example could be made for others to hopefully follow there are 587 million acres grazing land. Rounding, and assuming that we completely converted to this method and it managed to sequester 1 ton per acre, that's 600M tons of C, US emissions of Carbon from fossil fuels = is around 6B tons per year. If this plan could be fully implemented and worked as well as the researchers advocating it hope that it will, it is only reducing the additional amounts of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere by 10% per year and it won't even begin touching the accumulated trillions of tons on carbon we have added to the active carbon cycle over the last 2 centuries. So we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by more than 90% before this process at its best would begin to reduce the overall carbon levels in the atmosphere. And of course this assumes that everyone else on the planet is reducing rather than increasing their carbon emissions.


As an alternative for comparison the immediate replacement of all coal powered power plants in the US with NG fuelled power plants would cut our annual carbon emissions by nearly 30%
Global emissions are around 30 billion tonnes of Carbon being put into the atmosphere each year.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
1 ton per acre per year over nearly 1/2 the planet's land surface potentially.

once more you screw up by overstating available LAND.
Please move your posts to the correct threads and please take time to understand scale of GHG release.
It's the overstatements that lose you credibility.

Global Carbon Emissions Set To Reach New High In 2013 ...
thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/.../global-carbon-emissions-high-201...‎
By Ari Phillips on November 19, 2013 at 10:13 am ... CO2 emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added eight percent to the emissions from .

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/19/2966111/global-carbon-emissions-high-2013/

and this as well -

Surface exposure to sunlight stimulates CO2 release from permafrost soil carbon in the Arctic
Rose M. Corya,1, Byron C. Crumpb, Jason A. Dobkowskic, and George W. Klingc
aEnvironmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599; bHorn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland, Cambridge, MD, 21613; and cDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved January 4, 2013 (received for review August 15, 2012)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/05/1214104110.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

not much to be done about the Taiga/Tundra and it's a truly enormous portion of land and subjection to Arctic amplification

You have to reached neutrality before you can even begin to sequester. Keep the scale in perspective and keep the analysis in the thread you set up for it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

the evidence indicates significantly < 1 ton of net carbon being held temporarily in an acre of topsoil under ideal conditions of ample water, mechanical mixing of manure and urine, etc.,.

Just to clarify, and without getting too far into the details, that's how I know the "evidence" is woo. They are basing it on mechanical mixing of manure. IE plowing or tilling the manure. That kills the plants and destroys the soil structure. Then the manure does add some benefit, but the over-all picture is one of fighting against yourself. For every part of carbon you add, you are releasing also a lot by tilling. Not to mention that the manure concentrated like that is from a CAFO operation generally. Which is a huge emissions source. So yeah. In that case you are right. I agree. Net effect minuscule.

a single dominant authoritarian government capable and willing to enforce its edicts

Not really. All you got to do is show a profit. Profit is more of a force for change than authoritarian edicts. So instead of that, education is the proper political response. Governments can promote education in these methods and since they are more profitable to the farmer, change will happen at the rate new farmers can learn.

 

[macdoc]

I'm from Missouri on this but just maybe

Trailblazing power plant is first to bury its carbon

05 March 2014 by Catherine Brahic

http://www.newscientist.com/article...is-first-to-bury-its-carbon.html#.Ux5E5NzjP3w

also good stuff....Sweden is meeting goals via biomass

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-small-biomass-power-rural-economies.html

tho the cautions at the end are relevant always.

 

[Trakar]

Just to clarify, and without getting too far into the details, that's how I know the "evidence" is woo.

These are from the references you provided, you call them woo, I tend to agree.

They are basing it on mechanical mixing of manure. IE plowing or tilling the manure.

In the sense that I used the term it simply means "physically mixed," in reference to the sources you cited, I believe this means the "mechanical" mixing provided by a herd of cattle being herded into, around, and back out of the test plot according to a regular schedule.

This said, I see that evidence (even when it is your own) does not impinge upon your considerations, I apologize for striving to find a way to include such beliefs in a reasoned discussion. In order to avoid confusions, I will not discuss any aspects (general or specific) of your pet project outside of the thread designed for that purpose.

 

[Trakar]

I'm from Missouri on this but just maybe

http://www.newscientist.com/article...is-first-to-bury-its-carbon.html#.Ux5E5NzjP3w

also good stuff....Sweden is meeting goals via biomass

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-small-biomass-power-rural-economies.html

tho the cautions at the end are relevant always.

There are several concerns top among these for me are:

How secure is the sequestration? (how much CO2 is going to be released as it is recovered from solvent and pumped into deep ground reservoir - how much CO2 escapes from these reservoirs)
How much of the CO2 is going to be diverted into other short-term reservoir products (eg. glue, plastics, fuels, any carbon product that is not long term stable in the environment)?
What is the cost of the system (coal is already more expensive than gas systems and these costs are increasing before we add capture and sequestration to the price tag)?

As to Swedish biomass, I've seen some good numbers for small wood-fired power plants that grow their own fuel. Not scalable to be a major national energy source, but like I've said before, I prefer a diverse mix of local solutions to help us meet our energy needs, not 1 new source to replace all old sources.

 

[Mikemcc]

Those are really major unknowns, but without attempting to operate such a plant we won't be able to gather definitive data. CCS is still a very new technology, it effects the efficiency of the power plant. IIRC a plant with CCS is approx 75% as efficient as one without it because of the energy required to drive the CCS process. No doubt there will be improvements over time but without attempting it we won't really know what the significant factors are.

 

[CapelDodger]

I agree that it's good we're moving from speculation to application. Now we can get some hard figures.

If CCS is economically feasible it'll likely not be for the least efficient plants, which could help to kill them off earlier than otherwise. Another salami slice, but it's that kind of problem.

 

[Trakar]

Bits and pieces

What global warming looks like New Berkeley time-lapse view of what the Planet's surface temperature looks like as it has evolved from 1850 - 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myZJrVWyuTg

A new economic study by a climate focused public policy advocacy group looking at a range of potential Carbon Tax measures and their impact on the state economy. The data was prepared by an economic analysis firm Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The findings are not surprising to anyone who has seriously investigated carbon taxation systems in the past. The study examined the economic impact of revenue-neutral taxes which start low and level off at $50-, $100- and $200-per-ton on carbon-dioxide emissions.
The findings:

Even at the highest levels ($200/ton of CO2) there were massive benefits to the Californian economy.

• add 300,000 jobs in California,
• increase annual GDP in 2035 by $18 billion,
• increase annual income by $16 billion by 2035,
• and reduce carbon emissions to less than 75% of 1990 levels.

Economically, revenue neutral carbon taxes are well understood and accepted by economists of all political persuasions as effective, efficient and generally beneficial to society.

the full study can be found - http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/REMI-CA-Carbon-Tax.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

Economically, revenue neutral carbon taxes are well understood and accepted by economists of all political persuasions as effective, efficient and generally beneficial to society.

"Generally beneficial to sociey", nice work. Skates nicely over the fact that it's not universally beneficial to all sectors of society. If it were, you'd have said so .

In California, a carbon tax to fund work on water security might get some traction. Things being the way they'll be this summer it's a good time to push something like that. Just a thought; my better work I charge for. My best I'm saving for after the Apocalypse, and that I'll do for food.

 

[CapelDodger]

On a more positive note

What Dr. Seuss Would’ve Liked About The Senate’s Climate Change All-Nighter
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/11/3389851/dr-seuss-climate-change-all-nighter/

“This is a moment, the science is clear, the economics is clear and now the politics is clear,” said Markey. “We’re going to have a big fight about this in 2014. Future generations are going to look back and know that we had debate about the most important issue facing the planet.”

Throughout the night senators echoed Markey’s sentiments. Yet without the support of any Republicans and with so many looming issues, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, as well as the standard distractions of an election year, legislation was not on the table. Gathering attention and showing support were the primary objectives of the session, which didn’t interrupt regular Senate proceedings in any way.

“Tonight is not about a specific legislative proposal,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), one of the organizers of the event and a founder of the Climate Action Task Force. “It’s about showing the environmental community, young people, and anyone paying attention to climate change that the Senate is starting to stir and we want to get some actions going.”

The received political wisdom that AGW is toxic seems not to be so persuasive all of a sudden, and the timing seems good. Extreme weather is on people's minds and the Californis drought is likely to be on their screens over the summer. People will make the connection, and the more a connection is denied the stronger it will get. People, in the main, aren't at all smart. That needs to be exploited, and I sense that a lot of people are tottering in their beliefs. Time to herd them over to our side, using the same tried and true techniques.

At every chance say "I'm not saying that global warming is causing the California Drought", because it says just that in the public mind. When a denier says "A single event can't be linked to global warming" the public mind responds "A single event for you, no frickin' guacamole for me", and again it's a win.

When AGW denial becomes shorthand for "this candidate is a crank or worse" the battle is over, and I think that day is upon us in many constituencies. Far too late, but what the heck.

 

[Trakar]

On a more positive note

What Dr. Seuss Would’ve Liked About The Senate’s Climate Change All-Nighter
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/11/3389851/dr-seuss-climate-change-all-nighter/

The received political wisdom that AGW is toxic seems not to be so persuasive all of a sudden, and the timing seems good. Extreme weather is on people's minds and the Californis drought is likely to be on their screens over the summer. People will make the connection, and the more a connection is denied the stronger it will get. People, in the main, aren't at all smart. That needs to be exploited, and I sense that a lot of people are tottering in their beliefs. Time to herd them over to our side, using the same tried and true techniques.

At every chance say "I'm not saying that global warming is causing the California Drought", because it says just that in the public mind. When a denier says "A single event can't be linked to global warming" the public mind responds "A single event for you, no frickin' guacamole for me", and again it's a win.

When AGW denial becomes shorthand for "this candidate is a crank or worse" the battle is over, and I think that day is upon us in many constituencies. Far too late, but what the heck.

LOL CSPAN actually can be entertaining, I wish more people in our nation were avid participants,...I could see it evolving, with audience interactivity, a technological Roman "thumbs up/down"

If we are to have circuses, we need more "Lions, Tigers, and Bears," bread and beer.

 

[Trakar]

"Generally beneficial to sociey", nice work. Skates nicely over the fact that it's not universally beneficial to all sectors of society. If it were, you'd have said so .

As the boulevard bard related - "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it!..."

In California, a carbon tax to fund work on water security might get some traction. Things being the way they'll be this summer it's a good time to push something like that...

While I can see (and agree with) that as an admirable use, the main idea is to keep it as close to revenue neutral as possible (and while the ones who have a heavier footprint will pay more, those who can least afford the burden will receive recompense in the form of quarterly "reimbursements," once you start diverting funds to "special projects" you run the risk of overdue political influence into the process. and the benefits to society in general (as opposed to very small population special interest groups/corporates) declines). <----one sentence!, kinda.

That said, there are many ways to spread the benefits more broadly by using a small portion of the receipts in targeted corporate tax offsets - say for investment in zero-emission vehicle fleets, LEEDs-type construction standards, work-from-home web-commute employees, manufacturing energy independence (a large range of behaviors that need to first focus on reducing the magnitude of the future problem, and then look at moderating or ameliorating the issues still going to be caused by the future problem) --((where'd this soapbox come from?))

Just a thought; my better work I charge for. My best I'm saving for after the Apocalypse, and that I'll do for food.

Hey, I'm from the A,G, or G era. ((did I mention I pick a mean banjo?))

((hint - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkFnLwqACt4&feature=kp ))

 

[CapelDodger]

Crowdsourced rain samples map Hurricane Sandy's evolution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140311184623.htm

A total of 685 samples were collected from more than 125 volunteers at sites from North Carolina to Indiana to New Brunswick, Canada. The majority of the samples were obtained in regions of the U.S. mid-Atlantic -- where the storm's impact was greatest -- but having samples from the further reaches of the storm was key in allowing the researchers to investigate processes occurring at Sandy's margins.

The samples were shipped to the Utah lab in November 2012 and analyzed for their composition of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, which provide a fingerprint of water sources, transport and rainout in the storm.

Isotopes are subtly different forms of chemical elements that vary in their weight and, as a result, their physical behavior. For example, heavier isotopes evaporate from liquids less readily and condense out of vapor more readily. As water changes state from liquid to vapor and vice versa, the variations in oxygen and hydrogen isotope ratios give researchers a sensitive tool to calculate the hydrologic budget -- that is, the inflow, outflow and storage of water -- of large cyclones.

For the analysis of the rain isotope data Bowen and Good teamed up with graduate student Derek Mallia and associate professor John Lin in the U's department of atmospheric sciences. Mallia and Lin made use of a computer model of the atmosphere which was able to "run the tape backwards" and track the source of the rainwater backwards to the locations that contributed moisture to the storm.

I, for one, am seriously impressed.

"The isotope data give fundamentally different information than can be obtained from satellite imagery or other conventional means of tracking storms," says Good. "Satellite imagery gives you information about the location of clouds and rain, but it cannot tell you where this water, and the energy that it contributes to the storm, came from."

Worth a full read. It's one to bring up the next time someone says "We don't understand clouds".

 

[macdoc]

THAT...is very good science.

 

[!Kaggen]

Okay this is the latest quote used by deniers on Facebook

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ger-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

Any comments ?

 

[Trakar]

Okay this is the latest quote used by deniers on Facebook

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ger-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

Any comments ?

Who cares, what idiocy some facebook fanatic spouts? As there has been no "period of no warming," they might as well be baying at the moon.

 

[!Kaggen]

Yeah maybe your right, except the moon seems to be listening :-(

 

[a_unique_person]

Okay this is the latest quote used by deniers on Facebook

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...ger-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

Any comments ?

Cherry picking from a peak to a trough. The last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

[greybeard]

Given a choice between getting science from people actually involved in scientific research or a lawyer employed by an Institute known to have taken money from the oil industry in the past then it would have to be the lawyer every time. Just like I got my doctor to service my car last week and a car mechanic to give me a colonoscopy.
Seriously though wouldn't there be an outcry if Forbes were continually printing health articles promoting homoeopathic cures without any input from mainstream medical practitioners?
Could it be because there is only a handful of actual climate scientists who doubt the scientific consensus is the reason they have to fall back on lawyers. Just like the Republicans have to fall back on Monckton and AGW denying MP's in the UK have to get someone with a degree in women's studies to put their case.