Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

August 2000 Harris poll

72% believe the theory of global warming
20% did not
(Harris Interactive)

September 2002 Harris poll

74% believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures
19% said they did not believe this
(Harris Interactive).

This avoidance of answering the questions about AGW is not making me look bad. I know the theory well, and of course what the predictions are. I'm just surprised how nobody here seems to know, or even worse, how you claim it doesn't exist!

Too funny.

 

[Trakar]

Okay so we have an improvement from neutral ( tho that seems odd ) to 0.11 up to 3.04 ...is that milligrams or micrograms of carbon per hectare.

It looks like a C&P excerpt, so I would say it is probably Mega-grams (which is roughly a metric ton if I'm not mistaken)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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



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

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

Thanks for the links. I have seen all or parts of them before, usually as reference to part of another paper.

There are a couple things that I find troublesome, although the over-all gist is fair enough, as far as that goes.

A couple things that are bothering me that we could discuss.

"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"

It seems to me they have completely ignored the possibility of converting to a food forest, or converting to grazed land, both of which can be quite productive in food, eliminating the undesirable indirect effect of needing to convert native vegetation to cropland elsewhere. And actually over all increasing total food production. In these cases "of limited value for food production" do not apply. This leads me to believe they are only considering conventional ag in this paper. I could have read that wrong though, because the wording in the text is somewhat less than precise. They might actually agree, but if so have created an internal conflict in their paper. In either case, converting cropland to grazed grassland does not necessarily reduce production at all. Particularly if the cropland was previously being used to grow livestock feeds which will then no longer be needed due to the animals eating grass. (or biofuels) The trend is exactly the opposite as stated actually. The more grassland converted to cropland, the more the pressure is to convert even more to cropland, because cropland is not nearly as productive as perennial grassland, all else equal.

Another problem I see with that one is " Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite" or from the other study "Thus, the potential is finite in capacity and time. Nonetheless, soil C sequestration buys us time until the alternatives to fossil fuel take effect."

That's true, I mean sure the carbon on earth is finite. The % of that carbon in soils is finite. The coal oil and gas reserves are finite. It's all finite.

However, the implication is that you'll be able to sequester X in the soils, after that the soils will be "full" and we won't be able sequester more. Well, the forest biome does actually act that way in most cases. Exceptions being peat that gets ever deeper, and swamps that have a similar process, or areas of extreme cold where temperature halts the process of decay. But by far the majority of forests do approach a limit over time. So that's cool. No problem there.

Grasslands are different though. The way they sequester carbon is fundamentally different. They follow a completely different curve. It is not from leaf litter on top of the soil. It is a specific biological evolutionary adaptation grasses have for feeding the biome deep in the soil.

You can understand this better if you first understand Endomycorrhizal fungi, and Ectomycorrhizal fungi. As a general rule (with a fair number of exceptions) grasses use endo and trees and shrubs ecto. There is a specific mutualistic relationship between grasses and Endomycorrhizal fungi where the plant feeds the mycorrhizal fungi with sugars down deep where it would have no chances of surviving without help. The fungi repays this debt by supplying the plants with hard to get nutrients and with improved disease and pest resistance. ~ 20% of the products of photosynthesis are pumped directly into the soil biology as sugars feeding that biome, mostly Endomycorrhizal fungi. Then something else happens when a grass is grazed. It then has too much roots in ratio to growing top and to get back in balance it sheds a large quantity of root mass to achieve balance again within hours of being grazed. Endomycorrhizal fungi require a living root to survive. So that triggers the Endomycorrhizal fungi to spore up and the bulk of it dies. So that creates a large % of decaying material from both the plant roots and the Endomycorrhizal fungi which starts the food chain for a whole web of life deep in the soil where the greenhouse gasses have little chances of escaping. This ultimately results in new mollic soil creation and carbon sequestration for thousands of years. As the soil becomes more fertile, instead of tapering off towards a finite limit as in forests, it actually accelerates. This process continues into deep geological time unabated unless the biome is disturbed. (by something like a glacier, volcano, or human plow etc...)

Forests don't do this, they primarily use ectomycorrhizal fungi, and instead feed the soil biology from the top down with leaf litter. A large % of which after decay escapes to the atmosphere. Annual crops don't do this because although they do use Endomycorrhizal fungi their roots are by and large much too small and/or shallow, which allows the greenhouse gasses to escape at a rate close to or sometimes even exceeding the sequestration rate. That's why long term trends for these are either near net carbon neutral (forests), or an emissions source (annual crops).

There are a few more things I saw. But that gets the conversation started.

 

[Trakar]

August 2000 Harris poll

72% believe the theory of global warming
20% did not
(Harris Interactive)

September 2002 Harris poll

74% believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures
19% said they did not believe this
(Harris Interactive).

You feel that these polls from more than a decade ago refute or support what?

 

[macdoc]

RB - read your PM.
Here is one that could be included

The Case for Low Methane-Emitting Cattle
Jan. 10, 2014 — A new research project looks into the possibilities of adapting every aspect of cattle husbandry and selection processes to lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140110131013.htm

••••

Here's one for the you can't fool the plants....

Walden Pond Trees Leafing out Far Earlier Than in Thoreau's Time
Jan. 13, 2014 — Climate-change studies by Boston University biologists show leaf-out times of trees and shrubs at Walden Pond are an average of 18 days earlier than when Henry David Thoreau made his observations there in the 1850s. However, not all plants respond in the same way, the result of which is that native species eventually may be threatened and lose competitive advantage to more resilient invasive shrubs such as Japanese barberry, according to a study published in the new edition of New Phytologist.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113114756.htm

This biome change more than almost anything else is an obvious indicator of change to a warmer climate regime.
Especially across the north.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks for the links. I have seen all or parts of them before, usually as reference to part of another paper.

There are a couple things that I find troublesome, although the over gist is fair enough, as far as that goes.

A couple things that are bothering me that we could discuss.

"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"

It seems to me they have completely ignored the possibility of converting to a food forest, or converting to grazed land, both of which can be quite productive in food, eliminating the undesirable indirect effect of needing to convert native vegetation to cropland elsewhere. And actually over all increasing total food production. In these cases "of limited value for food production" do not apply. This leads me to believe they are only considering conventional ag in this paper. I could have read that wrong though, because the wording in the text is somewhat less than precise. They might actually agree, but if so have created an internal conflict in their paper. In either case, converting cropland to grazed grassland does not necessarily reduce production at all. Particularly if the cropland was previously being used to grow livestock feeds which will then no longer be needed due to the animals eating grass. (or biofuels) The trend is exactly the opposite as stated actually. The more grassland converted to cropland, the more the pressure is to convert even more to cropland, because cropland is not nearly as productive as perennial grassland, all else equal.

Another problem I see with that one is " Limitations of C sequestration for climate change mitigation include the following constraints: (i) the quantity of C stored in soil is finite" or from the other study "Thus, the potential is finite in capacity and time. Nonetheless, soil C sequestration buys us time until the alternatives to fossil fuel take effect."

That's true, I mean sure the carbon on earth is finite. The % of that carbon in soils is finite. The coal oil and gas reserves are finite. It's all finite.

However, the implication is that you'll be able to sequester X in the soils, after that the soils will be "full" and we won't be able sequester more. Well, the forest biome does actually act that way in most cases. Exceptions being peat that gets ever deeper, and swamps that have a similar process, or areas of extreme cold where temperature halts the process of decay. But by far the majority of forests do approach a limit over time. So that's cool. No problem there.

Grasslands are different though. The way they sequester carbon is fundamentally different. They follow a completely different curve. It is not from leaf litter on top of the soil. It is a specific biological evolutionary adaptation grasses have for feeding the biome deep in the soil.

You can understand this better if you first understand Endomycorrhizal fungi, and Ectomycorrhizal fungi. As a general rule (with a fair number of exceptions) grasses use endo and trees and shrubs ecto. There is a specific mutualistic relationship between grasses and Endomycorrhizal fungi where the plant feeds the mycorrhizal fungi with sugars down deep where it would have no chances of surviving without help. The fungi repays this debt by supplying the plants with hard to get nutrients and with improved disease and pest resistance. ~ 20% of the products of photosynthesis are pumped directly into the soil biology as sugars feeding that biome, mostly Endomycorrhizal fungi. Then something else happens when a grass is grazed. It then has too much roots in ratio to growing top and to get back in balance it sheds a large quantity of root mass to achieve balance again within hours of being grazed. Endomycorrhizal fungi require a living root to survive. So that triggers the Endomycorrhizal fungi to spore up and the bulk of it dies. So that creates a large % of decaying material from both the plant roots and the Endomycorrhizal fungi which starts the food chain for a whole web of life deep in the soil where the greenhouse gasses have little chances of escaping. This ultimately results in new mollic soil creation and carbon sequestration for thousands of years. As the soil becomes more fertile, instead of tapering off towards a finite limit as in forests, it actually accelerates. This process continues into deep geological time unabated unless the biome is disturbed. (by something like a glacier, volcano, or human plow etc...)

Forests don't do this, they primarily use ectomycorrhizal fungi, and instead feed the soil biology from the top down with leaf litter. A large % of which after decay escapes to the atmosphere. Annual crops don't do this because although they do use Endomycorrhizal fungi their roots are by and large much too small and/or shallow, which allows the greenhouse gasses to escape at a rate close to or sometimes even exceeding the sequestration rate. That's why long term trends for these are either near net carbon neutral (forests), or an emissions source (annual crops).

There are a few more things I saw. But that gets the conservation started.

or even the "conversation"

Actually, if you really want to discuss these issues, I would really prefer to have each of the points you bring up referenced to specific statements in specific papers (context is important to proper understanding). These papers are general discussions of separate considerations, and while they are all about soil carbon content and sequestration potential, there are different parameters and focal points for each paper.

Meanwhile, I will review your post in more detail and try to add comments and questions where I feel they may enhance the discussion of the topic, and when you tie your questions to specific quotes from specific papers, I will try to understand and reply with my understandings of what the papers are saying and how that compares with your statements and questions.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

or even the "conversation"

Actually, if you really want to discuss these issues, I would really prefer to have each of the points you bring up referenced to specific statements in specific papers (context is important to proper understanding). These papers are general discussions of separate considerations, and while they are all about soil carbon content and sequestration potential, there are different parameters and focal points for each paper.

Meanwhile, I will review your post in more detail and try to add comments and questions where I feel they may enhance the discussion of the topic, and when you tie your questions to specific quotes from specific papers, I will try to understand and reply with my understandings of what the papers are saying and how that compares with your statements and questions.

Another senior moment! However the faux pas turned into quite a funny and appropiate malapropism. I wish I could say I did it on purpose.

As far as references, I wrote that post based on my own general education, knowledge and experience on the subject, which although is far from knowing everything, is not trivial either. If there are some things you need a scientific study to confirm, I will be happy to use Google scholar, wikipedia or whatever. Let me know what doesn't sound right to you. Just keep in mind I didn't pull that from Google or Wikipedia or answers dot com. I wrote that myself.

 

[macdoc]

It looks like a C&P excerpt, so I would say it is probably Mega-grams (which is roughly a metric ton if I'm not mistaken)

thanks - that's a good number to work with ....I like tons

 

[r-j]

The post I was responding to was moved, but since it's still up there above, a retraction.

QUOTE=Trakar;9761646]Please support your assertion, or admit that it is an incorrect and fallacious assertion.

I like your style, " when you say it is an incorrect and fallacious assertion", that is certainly a more elegant way to call something a lie, or false, or untrue. I'm sure I got you confused with the other members who always use that word, so I retract the statement, otherwise it would indeed be "an incorrect and fallacious assertion". The only thing worse than making a mistake is refusing to correct it. I also apologize for confusing you with those other people. I really feel bad about that.

Speaking of those "other people",

Why should he? "Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread,

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

Those are obviously incorrect and fallacious assertions. (I actually despise the use of the word lie, or liar when it comes to arguing data and science

"For clarity's sake" ask about the actual thing you mean, not a Theory Of Global Warming

I was asking about what YOU mean by AGW, as well as talking about the predictions made from the theory of global warming. The two are not the same thing.

Nobody but you is using the term.

More incorrect and fallacious assertions.

What is being talked about is the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by the injection of CO₂ into the atmosphere. An enhanced greenhouse effect implies an increase in surface temperatures (details available on request), and it has most certainly been increased - 40% more CO₂ will do that.

If that is what YOU mean when you say global warming, or AGW, then just say so. But don't try and sell me that there is no global warming theory. That is incorrect.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lennart Hyland]

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

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

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

And where are the sources to his claims?

 

[Trakar]

Another senior moment! However the faux pas turned into quite a funny and appropiate malapropism. I wish I could say I did it on purpose.

As far as references, I wrote that post based on my own general education, knowledge and experience on the subject, which although is far from knowing everything, is not trivial either. If there are some things you need a scientific study to confirm, I will be happy to use Google scholar, wikipedia or whatever. Let me know what doesn't sound right to you. Just keep in mind I didn't pull that from Google or Wikipedia or answers dot com. I wrote that myself.

The "need" deals more with your questions and issues and with what you understood these papers to be saying (and again, these are just a selected sampling from among the papers I have stored in my personal database in reference to soil carbon sequestration). I have no problem just discussing the issue in general terms, but if you want specific comments about issues discussed in specific papers, I really need specific quotes and paper references to those quotes. I did not think that such was pulled from another source as I did not see any attributions to other sources. My reference to MacDoc about "C&P excerpt" was in reference to specific number sets/terms which I believe you mentioned as having been given to you from the OK Ag office/organization?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The "need" deals more with your questions and issues and with what you understood these papers to be saying (and again, these are just a selected sampling from among the papers I have stored in my personal database in reference to soil carbon sequestration). I have no problem just discussing the issue in general terms, but if you want specific comments about issues discussed in specific papers, I really need specific quotes and paper references to those quotes. I did not think that such was pulled from another source as I did not see any attributions to other sources. My reference to MacDoc about "C&P excerpt" was in reference to specific number sets/terms which I believe you mentioned as having been given to you from the OK Ag office/organization?

Yes, I have them. I also moved the conversation to a separate thread so we wouldn't be bothered by denier spam and can find the posts with references easier. But to answer your question. The quotes I used are from the links you sent me.

 

[Mikemcc]

...

More lies. I asked what YOU mean when you say "AGW" or global warming. I asked what the theory is. What the predictions are. How can we know if it's human caused warming? That isn't semantics. It was the alarmists crowd here that tried to make it either complicated and confusing, or pretend there is no theory, hence no predictions. Oops, just like we see still being claimed. Lies. When I see NASA scientists, or NOAA, or a climate researcher, anyone using the term "Theory of Global Warming", or AGW or global warming, there is no doubt they mean something by it. And of course there is a theory. You can't predict the future of a chaotic system like climate with out theory...

I know that Trakar is not keen on blogs, but SkS is the obvious site of choice because it provides hot-links to the relevant scientific papers. In this case the evidence for human fingerprints are glaringly obvious:

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Attribution50-65.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

Taken from this source:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

Almost all studies totally attribute warming to human emissions, in the realm of 90 -130% (don't forget the oceans are getting more acidic, so that explains values > 100%). Then there's isotopic studies of the atmospheric CO2 that shows that the excess comes from fossil fuels, and the decrease in O2 concentration that indicates that the effects are due to combustion of fossil fuels... arguements about attribution really are the easiest ones to shoot down

 

[Trakar]

I know that Trakar is not keen on blogs,..

The are only two real problems I have with blogs:

1) by the nature of blogs they are unreliable and often unaccountable with regard to their content, and

2) they are most often misused as primary sources of research and understanding, rather than as guides to the opinions of the authors and the true primary sources that those authors used to form and support their opinions.

I used to be a regular contributor and commenter on RealClimate and spent a lot of time discussing issues on Skeptical Science the first year of its existence. Again, there are some (and used to be more) really good science blogs, but there are so many bad ones (and even the good ones occasionally push the line) and it is difficult explain how to distinguish the good from the bad on a consistent basis to people who only have a nodding acquaintance with math and science to begin with, that it is easier to simply abstain from using blog references to support arguments - as an example, if nothing else.

As you mention, the better blogs usually supply lots of references and links to the information, and I'd much rather read and talk about the information and understandings a poster has grokked from published references than what he has read about some third party's opinion of the reference. I can't question the third party, but I can ask questions of any poster expressing his own opinion, considerations and understandings.

WOW, long response to a nine-word mention! Apologies, but thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify my position

 

[r-j]

I can't question the third party, but I can ask questions of any poster expressing his own opinion, considerations and understandings.

Good point.

Maybe that is why most everyone avoids answering the questions about global warming thepory, the predictions from it, how we can measure and know if the predictions are true, and the related issues. If somebody answers, they can be questioned about it. Or the claims can be examined. Who wants that?

But shucks, at this point I would accept a link to a third party. At least there would be a starting point for discussion. The biggest problem is that the scant links offered don't even contain the word "theory", much less explain it.

Instead we still get this "there is no theory", or "there are lots of different things that make up global warming", or "it's just a fact, "or some other such nonsense.

 

[CapelDodger]

August 2000 Harris poll

72% believe the theory of global warming

[snip]

74% believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures

So there's the Theory of Global Warming you've been asking for.

This avoidance of answering the questions about AGW is not making me look bad. I know the theory well, and of course what the predictions are. I'm just surprised how nobody here seems to know, or even worse, how you claim it doesn't exist!

Too funny.

So what is this Theory of AGW which you know so well?

 

[CapelDodger]

Instead we still get this "there is no theory", or "there are lots of different things that make up global warming", or "it's just a fact, "or some other such nonsense.

So tell us all about the theory.

 

[CapelDodger]

So here's what's happening in the real world : r-j's waiting for the next squirrel. The US cold-snap has gone away and there are no ships stuck in Antarctic ice.

In fact, there's nothing new coming from the deniers these days. The same old lame old interspersed with shouts of "Squirrel!" and the mindless humming r-j's engaged in. Dull, frankly.

 

[Trakar]

Good point.

Maybe that is why most everyone avoids answering the questions about global warming thepory, the predictions from it, how we can measure and know if the predictions are true, and the related issues. If somebody answers, they can be questioned about it. Or the claims can be examined. Who wants that?

But shucks, at this point I would accept a link to a third party. At least there would be a starting point for discussion. The biggest problem is that the scant links offered don't even contain the word "theory", much less explain it.

Instead we still get this "there is no theory", or "there are lots of different things that make up global warming", or "it's just a fact, "or some other such nonsense.

I have repeatedly given you direct answers of what AGW means to me, which is in accordance with what mainstream science comports with the term AGW, as well, I have provided you with an explanation of what is meant by the commonspeak understanding of what researchers are referring to when they talk about the theory of global warming. Your refusal to accept or acknowledge these responses does not refute those responses, nor does it support your assertions that you have not been given accurate/valid responses. If there are issues that you wish to discuss regarding CO2 forced climate change or any of the other more specific climate change issues that fall under the general group heading of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), please proceed. Otherwise, I am losing interest in your concerns regarding the issues of this thread, and this rhetorical semantic knot sub-thread in particular.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nobodies trying to claim they are smarter than Freeman Dyson.

Let me take this opportunity to do so. A ridiculously over-rated intellect, not least by himself (a poor judge, in my far from humble opinion).

All his life he's thrown stuff at the wall and later on pointed to the bits that stuck. He jumps from one field to another not because he's a footloose polymathic genius but because he might otherwise get found out. Faced with the simple intellectual challenge of understanding AGW he fluffs it completely.

I'm a lot smarter than that.