Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Red Baron Farms]

RBF - those are not numbers.
If you have a differential let's hear it.

Before management.
After a change in management.

Inferentially this is only for farmed land I assume. You need to be specific. I don't care whether it's voluntary or not - that is not relevant.

You are not listening Mac. There is no "before management" because that is from the seeded grassland protocol. In other words the conversion of cropland..ie growing wheat soy and corn, to seeded perennial pasture. Cropland IS a net emissions source. But they are ultra conservative and simply considering it neutral or 0 for the purposes of the program, and measuring only the carbon sequestered after the change to pasture. So the differential is at least .11 to 3.04 MgC per Ha per year or more.

You seem to be stuck on Savory, who also has similar claims, but is making those claims about non arable desertifying rangeland (which is also an emissions source), not arable land like in the Oklahoma Carbon program.

 

[Iamme]

There is occasionally a very fine line between eccentric genius and cracked pot nuttery,...Dyson fell over that line several decades ago.

so you are saying he went.....(cough) [You KNEW i`d do this, didn`t you?] ----------->

 

[Reality Check]

"it is better to be wrong than to be vague." -Dyson.

He is certainly following that dictum in his climate musings!

Oh and BTW I haven't seen anything close to the level of complexity of Biology needed in the AGW models.

What does "close to the level of complexity of Biology" mean, Red Baron Farms?
That sounds like you and Dyson are demanding that climate models include the climate influence of biology down to the level of cells in plants !

What climate models do is include the effects of biology on climate, e.g. the amount of CO2 absorbed and emitted by vegetation. Maybe you have heard of this before, Red Baron Farms?

 

[macdoc]

Like so...

Carbon cycle modelling
For the interpretation of atmospheric CO2 measured in ice cores various different carbon cycle models are used depending on the timescale and question of interest. They are all used to test various hypothesis how changes in the climate system might have affected the global carbon cycle.
1. For long-term changes (10 kyr to 2 Myr) we use the Box model of the Isotopic Carbon cYCLE (BICYCLE) consisting of a modified version of a globally averaged box model of the terrestrial biosphere coupled to an updated version of a multibox model of the ocean/atmosphere subsystem.
While the atmosphere consists of one well mixed box only, the global oceans are resolved by 10 homogeneous reservoirs (five surface, two intermediate, three deep). The ocean model is comparable to well tested models such as PANDORA (10 ocean boxes) or CYCLOPS (14 ocean boxes).

The terrestrial biosphere is considered globally averaged by seven compartments representing C3 and C4 ground vegetation, trees, and soil carbon with different turnover times. The model includes mass balance equations for the carbon stocks of the biospheric compartments, for DIC, total alkalinity, phosphate (chosen as the limiting macro-nutrient) and oxygen in the 10 oceanic reservoirs, for CO2 in the atmospheric reservoir, and the 13C and 14C isotopic signatures in all of them.

http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fach...iologie/palaeoclimate/carbon_cycle_modelling/

You cannot model the atmosphere without the carbon cycle and the carbon cycle includes the biome.

What does this look like from NASA??

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/images/carbon_cycle.jpg

 

[Trakar]

Hmmmm - when I see "variable" I think of stars like Cepheid Variables that shift their luminosity.

From reading a bit more the V in G2V seems to mean that it is in the hydrogen burning phase and offers no indication it is variable in the sense used above.

I don't get any sense of V standing for variable out of this...


http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUN_TYPE

V is misleading here as its a Roman numeral designation for luminosity range
I'll stand by my original comment the sun is not a variable star
I think you are incorrect T.

Sorry, I missed this response earlier.

The variations of the 11-year solar cycle and sunspots themselves are stellar variations and the dim "fossils" of its earlier, more tempest nature.

I may be mistaken about the "V" designation, which I believed was a natural extension of the astronomical classification system used to signify variables in star clusters, but I was not mistaken about our star being a variable star.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/cosmicguide/sun.html

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00179.1

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q217.html

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2004/38/aa0028-04/aa0028-04.html

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-0571-9_5#page-1

(more references available upon request)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

He is certainly following that dictum in his climate musings!

Lame

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Like so...



http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fach...iologie/palaeoclimate/carbon_cycle_modelling/

You cannot model the atmosphere without the carbon cycle and the carbon cycle includes the biome.

What does this look like from NASA??

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/images/carbon_cycle.jpg

And what figures are used in the models for changing cropland to perennial grassland?

 

[macdoc]

Vague and meaningless.....did you even look at the NASA image.
Many papers have been written on the changes in carbon reservoirs.
For starters you are wrong across the board on forests in any meaningful time frame.
The boreal forest alone is a major carbon sink that is in danger of becoming an emitter.
You are woefully ill informed on this.

Here is one open paper where the risks are assessed for managed Canadian forests.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1551.full

and another article covering a paper in Nature.

(Phys.org) —A team composed of researchers from several European countries has found that, due to aging forests and deforestation, Europe's forests appear headed for a carbon sink saturation point much earlier than anticipated. In their paper published in Nature Climate Change, the team describes that the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by forests on the European continent has been slowing since 2005.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-europe-forests-carbon-saturation.html#jCp

There are hundreds if not thousands of papers studying the carbon cycle and the biome is an integral and changing part of it due to both GHG and land management.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Vague and meaningless.....did you even look at the NASA image.
Many papers have been written on the changes in carbon reservoirs.
For starters you are wrong across the board on forests in any meaningful time frame.
The boreal forest alone is a major carbon sink that is in danger of becoming an emitter.
You are woefully ill informed on this.

Here is one open paper where the risks are assessed for managed Canadian forests.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1551.full

and another article covering a paper in Nature.



http://phys.org/news/2013-08-europe-forests-carbon-saturation.html

Oh really? Then if I am so "uninformed" why did you post and highlite "Europe's forests appear headed for a carbon sink saturation point much earlier than anticipated"?

Because after all, "saturation point" is just another way of saying carbon neutral.

In the life of a forest you go from a sink, to neutral, to an emissions source as it ages from young, mature and finally to old growth. But taken as a whole long term, it averages very close to carbon neutral. Healthy grasslands on the other hand are on average net carbon sinks, both short term and long term.

 

[macdoc]

Your claim was that it was not in the models - indeed it is in the models and life cycles are taken into account.
You cannot make a blanket and vague statement without a time frame - "forests are neutral."
Horsepucky.

People are monitoring forests like the boreal, the Amazon and European for their carbon contribution or sequestration because it's an important aspect of monitoring the carbon balance and IS in the models.

Now do you have a meaningful number for increasing the carbon sequestration by management.
I'll take one hectare to start that can be turned from a carbon emitter to a carbon sink with specialized management....and show me the number and the consequences for larger scale.

Not vague handwaving.

•••

and here's your chance to do your very own modelling...

Project: MODEL ARCHIVE
The Model Archive allows users to evaluate the uncertainties of model results in comparison to results from other models in assessment/policy studies. In addition, the archived models allow users to see how models treat individual processes (source code) and what the model inputs were (state parameters, spin-up data, driving variables). For each model the DAAC will have documentation, source code (with version number), input data, example output data, and post-processing or analysis code (if applicable).
Model: Biome-BGC: Terrestrial Ecosystem Process Model, Version 4.1.1
Biome-BGC is a computer program that estimates fluxes and storage of energy, water, carbon, and nitrogen for the vegetation and soil components of terrestrial ecosystems. The primary model purpose is to study global and regional interactions between climate, disturbance, and biogeochemical cycles. Biome-BGC represents physical and biological processes that control fluxes of energy and mass. These processes include new leaf growth and old leaf litterfall, sunlight interception by leaves and penetration to the ground, precipitation routing to leaves and soil, snow accumulation and melting, drainage and runoff of soil water, evaporation of water from soil and wet leaves, transpiration of soil water through leaf stomata, photosynthetic fixation of carbon from CO2 in the air, uptake of nitrogen from the soil, distribution of carbon and nitrogen to growing plant parts, decomposition of fresh plant litter and old soil organic matter, plant mortality, and fire. The model uses a daily time-step, meaning that each flux is estimated for a one-day period. Between days, the program updates its memory of the mass stored in different components of the vegetation, litter, and soil. Weather is the most important control on vegetation processes. Flux estimates in Biome-BGC depend strongly on daily weather conditions. Model behavior over time depends on climate--the history of these weather conditions. A companion file with more information about Biome-BGC and its components is available. Biome-BGC, Version 4.1.1, was developed and is maintained by the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, School of Forestry, the University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, U.S.A. Additional information can be found on their web site at: http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/.

http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=805

 

[Trakar]

so you are saying he went.....(cough) [You KNEW i`d do this, didn`t you?] ----------->

Clinging to old systems and tropes of understanding in areas that you didn't know very well to begin with isn't "crazy." Publically pontificating one's opinions of such issues based upon your former scientific prestige when you know you don't have a strong grasp of the topic is not a very intelligent approach, and frequently deserving of the ridicule such behavior should receive. It is a form of scientific senility sometimes called obscurantism, where a man of no small acclaim within his field, with age, begins to think that his opinions on all matters are correct and they tend to close down their minds and considerations to any new information. I personally have a lot of respect for Dyson's physics of the '50s-'70s (Dyson spheres, nuclear impulse propulsion, the Dyson Transform, etc.), but that respect does not extend to his ramblings in areas where his understanding is apparent in its absence.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Your claim was that it was not in the models - indeed it is in the models and life cycles are taken into account.
You cannot make a blanket and vague statement without a time frame - "forests are neutral."
Horsepucky.

People are monitoring forests like the boreal, the Amazon and European for their carbon contribution or sequestration because it's an important aspect of monitoring the carbon balance and IS in the models.

Now do you have a meaningful number for increasing the carbon sequestration by management.
I'll take one hectare to start that can be turned from a carbon emitter to a carbon sink with specialized management....and show me the number and the consequences for larger scale.

Not vague handwaving.

•••

and here's your chance to do your very own modelling...



http://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=805

Ahh but in your sophisticated predictive model what is the factor they assign to the conversion of cropland to grazed pasture? What is the predicted effect? The very fact that you keep asking me and berating the numbers given to me by the Oklahoma Carbon Program simply tells me that your sophisticated model has no figure at all. If it did and your number was better than the range given to me by OCP then just tell me. Otherwise I'll use the best number I have available to me and that is at least .11 to 3.04 MgC per Ha per year or more.

You obfuscating by trying to impress me with how detailed your forest numbers are is irrelevant. You first sent me a vegetative analysis stating the over all vegetative sequestration rate was close to carbon neutral, then when I claim forests (like all above ground vegetation) are carbon neutral on average. You call it hand waving. Silly.

Lets just bottom line it. MOST the vegetation left on land capable to sequester carbon is forests and low and behold the current vegetative carbon cycle is nearly zero. OOPS

Meanwhile I keep asking you what the climate models claim with respect to the restoration of grasslands from cropland and you ask ME to tell you? I can only assume you have no clue at all, that the models don't even consider it.

If I am wrong, just tell me the figure your models use. I'll compare it with the numbers given me by the OCP and then we can have a meaningful conversation.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

OH ant BTW Mac. I did look at all your links and have yet to see in any list or flow chart the information needed to even THINK about carbon sequestration in the soil.

Here is an example:

New leaf growth and old leaf litterfall Biome-BGC
Sunlight interception by leaves, and penetration to the ground
Precipitation routing to leaves and soil
Snow accumulation and melting
Drainage and runoff of soil water
Evaporation of water from soil and wet leaves
Transpiration of soil water through leaf stomata
Photosynthetic fixation of carbon from CO2 in the air
Uptake of nitrogen from the soil
Distribution of carbon and nitrogen to growing plant parts
Decomposition of fresh plant litter and old soil organic matter
Plant mortality
Fire

NOT a single mention about the creation of stable humus. It isn't even considered, at least in that model. Since ~20% of the total processes of photosynthesis of grasses are extruded as sugars to feed the soil biome. And most of that ends up as humus, stable for 1000's of years. And ~ equal amounts of lignified carbon is shed deep in the soil as the productivity above ground when grazed, by a process called self pruning, and that also mostly ends up as humus after the process of decay, and neither are even considered. All I see is a fundamental flaw in the models.

But hey, if there is a model out there that includes these factors and quantifies them better than the OCP numbers given to me, send me a link.

 

[Trakar]

Robust increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity

Robust increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity under global warming
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058118/pdf

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 5944–5948, doi:10.1002/2013GL058118, 2013


While it should be common knowledge, at this point that the scientific meter on climate sensitivity is clinking upwards (currently trending upwards of 4°C/doubling) what hasn't been as clear until recently, is that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling isn't a fixed value, but rather is variable dependent upon the background state of the planet.

abstract

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a widely accepted measure of Earth’s susceptibility to radiative forcing. While ECS is often assumed to be constant to a first order of approximation, recent studies suggested that ECS might depend on the climate state. Here it is shown that the latest generation of climate models consistently exhibits an increasing ECS in warmer climates due to a strengthening of the water-vapor feedback with increasing surface temperatures. The increasing ECS is replicated by a one-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium model, which further shows that the enhanced water-vapor feedback follows from the rising of the tropopause in a warming climate. This mechanism is potentially important for understanding both warm climates of Earth’s past and projections of future high-emission scenarios.

This closing bit from the conclusion is also of particular interest.

...In particular, estimates of the ECS from climates much warmer than today, such as the Paleocene-Eocene, would naturally yield higher values than studies based on observed recent climate change [e.g., Otto et al., 2013]. The latter, in turn, may not be representative for projecting future high-emission climate scenarios, and so understanding the fundamental physics underlying a possible rise in climate sensitivity in warmer climates is of value and should be more systematically explored in future climate model intercomparisons.

 

[Trakar]

Soil Carbon Sequestration

Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/959/Classes/10689/stegall kandra 11302011 327 pm soilcarbon.pdf

The carbon sink capacity of the world’s agricultural and degraded soils is 50 to 66% of the historic carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon. The rate of soil organic carbon sequestration with adoption of recommended technologies depends on soil texture and structure, rainfall, temperature, farming system, and soil management. Strategies to increase the soil carbon pool include soil restoration and woodland regeneration, no-till farming, cover crops, nutrient management, manuring and sludge application, improved grazing, water conservation and harvesting, efficient irrigation, agroforestry practices, and growing energy crops on spare lands. An increase of 1 ton of soil carbon pool of degraded cropland soils may increase crop yield by 20 to 40 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) for wheat, 10 to 20 kg/ha for maize, and 0.5 to 1 kg/ha for cowpeas. As well as enhancing food security, carbon sequestration has the potential to offset fossil fuel emissions by 0.4 to 1.2 gigatons of carbon per year, or 5 to 15% of the global fossil-fuel emissions.

Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x/abstract

The term ‘carbon sequestration’ is commonly used to describe any increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) content caused by a change in land management, with the implication that increased soil carbon (C) storage mitigates climate change. However, this is only true if the management practice causes an additional net transfer of C from the atmosphere to land. Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite, (ii) the process is reversible and (iii) even if SOC is increased there may be changes in the fluxes of other greenhouse gases, especially nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane. Removing land from annual cropping and converting to forest, grassland or perennial crops will remove C from atmospheric CO2 and genuinely contribute to climate change mitigation. However, indirect effects such as conversion of land elsewhere under native vegetation to agriculture could negate the benefit through increased CO2 emission. Re-vegetating degraded land, of limited value for food production, avoids this problem. Adding organic materials such as crop residues or animal manure to soil, whilst increasing SOC, generally does not constitute an additional transfer of C from the atmosphere to land, depending on the alternative fate of the residue. Increases in SOC from reduced tillage now appear to be much smaller than previously claimed, at least in temperate regions, and in some situations increased N2O emission may negate any increase in stored C. The climate change benefit of increased SOC from enhanced crop growth (for example from the use of fertilizers) must be balanced against greenhouse gas emissions associated with manufacture and use of fertilizer. An over-emphasis on the benefits of soil C sequestration may detract from other measures that are at least as effective in combating climate change, including slowing deforestation and increasing efficiency of N use in order to decrease N2O emissions.

The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880912003635

a b s t r a c t
Soil contains approximately 2344 Gt (1 gigaton = 1 billion tonnes) of organic carbon globally and is the largest terrestrial pool of organic carbon. Small changes in the soil organic carbon stock could result in significant impacts on the atmospheric carbon concentration. The fluxes of soil organic carbon vary in response to a host of potential environmental and anthropogenic driving factors. Scientists worldwide are contemplating questions such as: ‘What is the average net change in soil organic carbon due to environmental conditions or management practices?’, ‘How can soil organic carbon sequestration be enhanced to achieve some mitigation of atmospheric carbon dioxide?’ and ‘Will this secure soil quality?’. These questions are far reaching, because maintaining and improving the world’s soil resource is imperative to providing sufficient food and fibre to a growing population. Additional challenges are expected through climate change and its potential to increase food shortages. This review highlights knowledge of the amount of carbon stored in soils globally, and the potential for carbon sequestration in soil. It also discusses successful methods and models used to determine and estimate carbon pools and fluxes. This knowledge and technology underpins decisions to protect the soil resource.

(any who are having a difficult time accessing the full version of this paper can contact me via PM)

 

[Haig]

Forget the computer models and deal with the facts ...

10 Facts and 10 Myths about Climate Change: Prof Bob Carter

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40ºC over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a link to the source.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/10-facts-and-10-myths-about-climate.html

 

[r-j]

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate."

Even ones that I've never heard of. Like this grassland thing going on here.

 

[Pixel42]

Forget the computer models and deal with the facts ...

OK, let's look at these facts:

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will

A fact that no-one denies. But just because climate change happens naturally doesn't mean that it can't also be caused by human activity. Forest fires happen naturally, but they're also caused by kids fooling around with matches. We need to be prepared to cope with forest fires, but we also need to teach kids not to fool around with matches.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40ºC over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

The UHI effect is taken into account when analysing the data plus there are multiple lines of evidence, not just ground-based thermometers, that show surface temperatures are rising. Weather balloons and satellites don't measure surface temperatures, we don't expect all levels of the atmosphere to warm at the same rate (in fact we expect the stratosphere to cool).

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990,no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

The signal is as unambiguous as can reasonably be expected.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -18ºC rather than the equable +15ºC that has nurtured the development of life.

Correct. Just shows how big an effect those trace greenhouse gases can have, doesn't it?

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (8ºC) of the total greenhouse effect (33ºC), of which in turn at most 25% (~2ºC) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

Also correct. Of course there's a limit to the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold before it condenses out and precipitates; there's no such limit for CO2. And if the original amount of CO2 was responsible for 8ºC of surface warming and we've increased it by 40%, that's how much additional warming?

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

Over geological timescales, the Milankovich cycles are the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (and indeed decrease), yes, with CO2 rising (or falling) as a (far from mild) positive feedback after the usual hysteresis delay. CO2 can, of course, also be a forcing if the amount in the atmosphere rises spontaneously, say as a result of massive volcanic activity or the burning of fossil fuel.

6 and 7 are rubbish, but are irrelevant to a science thread.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

Probably true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can to predict the kind of trouble our grandchildren are likely to be in.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

See the reply to 8.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

Over 90% is not "nearly all"?

 

[a_unique_person]

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate."

Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[a_unique_person]

Forget the computer models and deal with the facts ...

10 Facts and 10 Myths about Climate Change: Prof Bob Carter

That would be the Professor who got sacked because he was an embarresment to the university he worked at.

Climate changes, but it always changes for a reason. We can now analyse why it is changing, the primary reason at this period of time is AGW. This is due to the physical processes that climate operates under, with a significant increase in CO2 being the driver of change. It's hard to argue with the laws of physics, but, as you can see in other topics in this forum that aren't to do with climate change, there are a remarkable collection of crackpots out there who will argue anything. AGW, for political reasons, attracts more crackpottery than most other scientific areas of research.

The climate has been remarkably stable for about 12,000 years till now.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/abruptclimatechange.htm

During that time, civilisation has flourished.