uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Sounds like you solved the AGW problem. When can we expect your peer-review paper on this?
Moderated Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Tricky
- Start date
- Status
Sounds like you solved the AGW problem. When can we expect your peer-review paper on this?
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
You are just making a case for humus, which is less each year because of the human population. What you are trying to say here is indeed an utterly false notion: being carbon part of a cycle within a system, any excess in carbon will be taken care by the system itself, and any indicator of distress is just an indicator of the necessary imbalance which provoke changes in the future as it is solved by itself, so that "alarming" imbalance is just the sign of beneficial changes to come That's indeed a sub-type of the fallacy of incomplete evidence. My grandma would have called it a publicity stunt.
The false notion and analysis you are promoting in fact is a very common one in many a field: expand the monetary base, by means of a lower key interest rate of by printing new bank notes not as a replacement of worn out ones, and let the government spend more and fairly. Unemployed people will have new jobs and health care and the new money (new carbon dioxide) will lubricate the economy (will boost the flora and crops) until everyone is rich. Do it again and again (burn fossil fuels) , inflation doesn't exist (global warming doesn't exist, or it is a circumstantial problem or a problem of lesser importance, as it is a little bit of inflation when economy is in leaving a slump behind) and surely hyper-inflation doesn't exist at all (burn local coal, it's cheap).
The sad truth is that a +7 milliard mankind -and growing- causes less humus and biomass to exist, so there's no room within the cycle for carbon that already was there, no way there's room for carbon that was left outside the cycle tens of millions of years ago. Insisting in the opposite is just appealing to a lot of other fallacies and exploiting misinformation and ignorance of the facts. You may follow your argument a bit further, but make yourself sure you have figures and how one is related to another; there's no such thing as "verbal" science.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Huh?
Considering the amount fossil fuel is contributing to GHG what do you think you are talking about?
care to throw some figures out?
macdoc
Philosopher
They can't at the scale we are releasing them.
Emissions ARE the problem with the altering climate.
Release of fossil carbon is outside the carbon cycle and so it acting as a forcing on the climate.
Emissions ARE the problem with the altering climate.
Release of fossil carbon is outside the carbon cycle and so it acting as a forcing on the climate.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
If it weren't for the emissions there'd be no problem, so yes, emissions are the problem.
I don't think you have any sense of the scales involved. We emit 30+ billion tons of CO2 per annum, and you're talking about absorbing that into agricultural land every year. This is not short-term remediation here, this is a continuing process. I don't know how much carbon that amounts to per unit area per annum, but a broad-brush estimate suggests it's a fantasy.
If you've got any numbers I'd love to check them over.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
That is typical. They read about a carbon cycle recycling ~300 GT of C each year (part of those GT accounted many times) and they "deduct" that accommodating some new 10 GT each year is not a problem. They're like the chap with very high blood pressure that having enough of one insipid meal after another, he decides to add some 5 grams of salt a day because he learnt that his body contains 100 grams of Na and his kidneys deal with the excess. Both cases show the same style of epistemological hedonism. They may claim that the problem is the land use or the kidneys. And it is, in some hardly "actionable" percentage.
In the end, epistemological hedonism is behind any quick conclusion that emerges from a bad understanding of what a stock variable (C in the atmosphere) and a flux variable are (C exchanges involving the atmosphere), which hides the lack of any grasp of basic concepts like integral and derivative, what is essential if you even want to hazard an opinion about AGW or lack thereof.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
So what if our fields love some access CO2? It solve the other issues.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
You are right. I am talking about humus, not carbon that quickly recycles annually, but stabilized humus that can be sequestered in the soil 500-1000 or more years by simply changing agricultural methods.
“the maximum potential rate of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) sequestration of three billion tonnes of carbon per year is high enough to almost nullify the annual increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 3.4 billion tonnes per year.” -Dr Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources, Director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State's Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
And that probably is low actually. He is a published scientist though. His reputation is important to him. I have seen estimates far greater than that before, depending on both the agricultural model and the mathematical model.
If you add vegetation and unstable carbon that recycles, but slowly, like for example a newly planted forest that will eventually be harvested and used, the figure is much higher, but won't be lasting. It will give you a quick fix though that will last long enough to develop even more efficient agricultural practices and more efficient, less polluting forms of energy.
Just food for thought.
pun intended 
“the maximum potential rate of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) sequestration of three billion tonnes of carbon per year is high enough to almost nullify the annual increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 3.4 billion tonnes per year.” -Dr Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources, Director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State's Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
And that probably is low actually. He is a published scientist though. His reputation is important to him. I have seen estimates far greater than that before, depending on both the agricultural model and the mathematical model.
If you add vegetation and unstable carbon that recycles, but slowly, like for example a newly planted forest that will eventually be harvested and used, the figure is much higher, but won't be lasting. It will give you a quick fix though that will last long enough to develop even more efficient agricultural practices and more efficient, less polluting forms of energy.
Just food for thought.
pun intended macdoc
Philosopher
You are talking about terra preta
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/research/terra preta/terrapretamain.html
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/research/terra preta/terrapretamain.html
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Terra preta is but one of many, but yes something similar.
There are many methods of sequestering carbon in the form of humus into the the soil. A long time ago, before the pseudo scientific activists and the governments got involved, that concept was scientifically called "organic agriculture" because the one common denominator from all these systems that was scientifically verifiable was humus in the soil. Humus is organic matter that has decayed to the point it can no longer decay from biological processes and becomes stable. This carbon has unique properties in the soil that improve fertility. Mostly because carbon can absorb nutrients like a sponge and hold them until the biology in the soil unlocks them and uses the nutrients for plant growth. Most people actually know this about carbon, which is why we use activated carbon or activated charcoal in filtration systems. But humus is far more complicated than simple activated carbon because while in the soil there are complex interactions between plants, microbiota, and animals that evolved around that carbon. Back in the early days before the term "organic" was applied to agriculture, this was called "humus farming". and there were all sorts of methods steeped in tradition and pseudo science. Then in the early 1900's till around 1940, Sir Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, both accomplished Cambridge trained botanists, applied their formal scientific training to many of these methods and coined the term "organic farming" to describe this scientific way to extract and use the verifiable basis for these various methods from the cultural and even sometimes mythological or pseudo-scientific traditions in which they were steeped. Since the common denominator for nearly all these methods was humus, and humus is carbon, and the science of the chemistry of carbon compounds is called organic chemistry, it was natural to use the term to differentiate it from less scientific but similar methods, while at the same time differentiate it from the growing dependence in agriculture on synthetic chemical inputs.
Pity the modern organic activists forgot their roots and allowed much of that pseudo-science to filter back into organic agriculture.
The good news is that while society and these activists may have forgotten the scientific roots, science hasn't forgotten. The many scientific fields supporting organic agriculture have continued to march on steadily. So that now when we are faced with a carbon emission problem from FF use, the solution to both agricultural problems AND the solution to atmospheric carbon turn out to be the same thing!
MY OH MY What irony!DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
Terra preta is but one of many, but yes something similar.
There are many methods of sequestering carbon in the form of humus into the the soil. A long time ago, before the pseudo scientific activists and the governments got involved, that concept was scientifically called "organic agriculture" because the one common denominator from all these systems that was scientifically verifiable was humus in the soil. Humus is organic matter that has decayed to the point it can no longer decay from biological processes and becomes stable. This carbon has unique properties in the soil that improve fertility. Mostly because carbon can absorb nutrients like a sponge and hold them until the biology in the soil unlocks them and uses the nutrients for plant growth. Most people actually know this about carbon, which is why we use activated carbon or activated charcoal in filtration systems. But humus is far more complicated than simple activated carbon because while in the soil there are complex interactions between plants, microbiota, and animals that evolved around that carbon. Back in the early days before the term "organic" was applied to agriculture, this was called "humus farming". and there were all sorts of methods steeped in tradition and pseudo science. Then in the early 1900's till around 1940, Sir Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, both accomplished Cambridge trained botanists, applied their formal scientific training to many of these methods and coined the term "organic farming" to describe this scientific way to extract and use the verifiable basis for these various methods from the cultural and even sometimes mythological or pseudo-scientific traditions in which they were steeped. Since the common denominator for nearly all these methods was humus, and humus is carbon, and the science of the chemistry of carbon compounds is called organic chemistry, it was natural to use the term to differentiate it from less scientific but similar methods, while at the same time differentiate it from the growing dependence in agriculture on synthetic chemical inputs.
Pity the modern organic activists forgot their roots and allowed much of that pseudo-science to filter back into organic agriculture.
The good news is that while society and these activists may have forgotten the scientific roots, science hasn't forgotten. The many scientific fields supporting organic agriculture have continued to march on steadily. So that now when we are faced with a carbon emission problem from FF use, the solution to both agricultural problems AND the solution to atmospheric carbon turn out to be the same thing!
pseodo scientific activists? who are you refering to here? i guess you are not calling climatologists and other researching the climate and AGW as pseudo scientific?
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Let me say first that I have been and am very keen supporter of carbon sequestration in soils and forests. But, Red Baron Farms, your assertions -though very enthusiastic and optimistic- can't stand scrutiny.
No, if you want people to continue to eat meat and poultry. If fact, high carbon soils agriculture is part of the premium food offer affordable only by rich people.
I'm sorry, but that quotation -if it was ever said- is 25 years or more outdated -it's from the 80's-. The actual emissions are >9.5 milliard tonnes and the annual increase in the atmosphere is >4.5 milliard tonnes per year.
The argument is also faulty because the difference is taken by the oceans, but that uptake depends on an imbalance. If agricultural land is going to absorb that carbon dioxide, then, it is going to take care of an increasing part of the imbalance. An increasing part of an increasing imbalance.
So, the base number is wrong, the comprehension of the process is wrong, and the inference is wrong.
The bit "I have seen estimates far greater"? For what I've read from you, I rather don't trust your eyes. Could you care to share those estimations in a one by one base?
Remember, this subject has been discussed in this forum many times. There's no sign you have bothered in looking for that before start posting unsupported claims.
I'm afraid your argumentation will boil down to "we can solve current emissions with technology; any technology except those ones aiding to curb emissions".
No, if you want people to continue to eat meat and poultry. If fact, high carbon soils agriculture is part of the premium food offer affordable only by rich people.
I'm sorry, but that quotation -if it was ever said- is 25 years or more outdated -it's from the 80's-. The actual emissions are >9.5 milliard tonnes and the annual increase in the atmosphere is >4.5 milliard tonnes per year.
The argument is also faulty because the difference is taken by the oceans, but that uptake depends on an imbalance. If agricultural land is going to absorb that carbon dioxide, then, it is going to take care of an increasing part of the imbalance. An increasing part of an increasing imbalance.
So, the base number is wrong, the comprehension of the process is wrong, and the inference is wrong.
And that probably is low actually. He is a published scientist though. His reputation is important to him. I have seen estimates far greater than that before, depending on both the agricultural model and the mathematical model.
If you add vegetation and unstable carbon that recycles, but slowly, like for example a newly planted forest that will eventually be harvested and used, the figure is much higher, but won't be lasting. It will give you a quick fix though that will last long enough to develop even more efficient agricultural practices and more efficient, less polluting forms of energy.
Just food for thought.
The bit "I have seen estimates far greater"? For what I've read from you, I rather don't trust your eyes. Could you care to share those estimations in a one by one base?
Remember, this subject has been discussed in this forum many times. There's no sign you have bothered in looking for that before start posting unsupported claims.
I'm afraid your argumentation will boil down to "we can solve current emissions with technology; any technology except those ones aiding to curb emissions".
Terra preta is but one of many, but yes something similar.
There are many methods of sequestering carbon in the form of humus into the the soil. A long time ago, before the pseudo scientific activists and the governments got involved, that concept was scientifically called "organic agriculture" because the one common denominator from all these systems that was scientifically verifiable was humus in the soil. Humus is organic matter that has decayed to the point it can no longer decay from biological processes and becomes stable. This carbon has unique properties in the soil that improve fertility. Mostly because carbon can absorb nutrients like a sponge and hold them until the biology in the soil unlocks them and uses the nutrients for plant growth. Most people actually know this about carbon, which is why we use activated carbon or activated charcoal in filtration systems. But humus is far more complicated than simple activated carbon because while in the soil there are complex interactions between plants, microbiota, and animals that evolved around that carbon. Back in the early days before the term "organic" was applied to agriculture, this was called "humus farming". and there were all sorts of methods steeped in tradition and pseudo science. Then in the early 1900's till around 1940, Sir Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, both accomplished Cambridge trained botanists, applied their formal scientific training to many of these methods and coined the term "organic farming" to describe this scientific way to extract and use the verifiable basis for these various methods from the cultural and even sometimes mythological or pseudo-scientific traditions in which they were steeped. Since the common denominator for nearly all these methods was humus, and humus is carbon, and the science of the chemistry of carbon compounds is called organic chemistry, it was natural to use the term to differentiate it from less scientific but similar methods, while at the same time differentiate it from the growing dependence in agriculture on synthetic chemical inputs.
Pity the modern organic activists forgot their roots and allowed much of that pseudo-science to filter back into organic agriculture.
The good news is that while society and these activists may have forgotten the scientific roots, science hasn't forgotten. The many scientific fields supporting organic agriculture have continued to march on steadily. So that now when we are faced with a carbon emission problem from FF use, the solution to both agricultural problems AND the solution to atmospheric carbon turn out to be the same thing!
From an earlier thread, but it looks as if increasing levels of CO2 could be detrimental to agriculture.
Yes it is my opinion that more conflict and more severe conflict is adverse. Unless you are a shareholder in defence companies. And even then, tension is probably better than war, because there is the continual updating of equipment, without direct destruction of the economic base.
Why? Adding climatic stress, i.e. migration pressures, and movement of fertile land to a region where there is already tension, seems very similar to adding more fuel and fire to a region of housefires.
Did you read your link?
This is showing that raised levels of CO2 in the absense of any other climatic change, reduces " the amount and quality of forage available to livestock".
In other words, it has a directly adverse effect on forage available to livestock.
Did I say that?
You implied it with this statement:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
LOLZ
@ DC That is correct, no we're not. That was directed at certain people in the organic movement, not real scientists.
@ aleCcowaN I find it ironic you are blaming me for simply posting a quote made by someone else because it doesn't fit your own preconceived notions of what is "right".
Personally I chose to use a quote by a well respected scientist primarily for the exact reason I am not interested in the quibbling of minutia and thus loose the bigger picture. I couldn't argue it even if I was interested in that particular argument. That's not my field of expertise. So since it isn't my field of expertise, but you asked for numbers, I chose a quote by one of, (if not the single most), top scientists in that particular field. It would take a wall of text to simply list his credentials, but the Norman E. Borlaug Award sums it up nicely. The statement was made by Dr Rattan Lal in 1998 at the Soil Science Society of America symposium, and while the numbers may be slightly off on both sides of the equation, the principle remains valid.
The rest of your statement in the form of a strawman you made: "we can solve current emissions with technology; any technology except those ones aiding to curb emissions" is categorically false. I specifically said, "will last long enough to develop even more efficient agricultural practices and more efficient, less polluting forms of energy."
@ DC That is correct, no we're not. That was directed at certain people in the organic movement, not real scientists.
@ aleCcowaN I find it ironic you are blaming me for simply posting a quote made by someone else because it doesn't fit your own preconceived notions of what is "right".
Personally I chose to use a quote by a well respected scientist primarily for the exact reason I am not interested in the quibbling of minutia and thus loose the bigger picture. I couldn't argue it even if I was interested in that particular argument. That's not my field of expertise. So since it isn't my field of expertise, but you asked for numbers, I chose a quote by one of, (if not the single most), top scientists in that particular field. It would take a wall of text to simply list his credentials, but the Norman E. Borlaug Award sums it up nicely. The statement was made by Dr Rattan Lal in 1998 at the Soil Science Society of America symposium, and while the numbers may be slightly off on both sides of the equation, the principle remains valid.
The rest of your statement in the form of a strawman you made: "we can solve current emissions with technology; any technology except those ones aiding to curb emissions" is categorically false. I specifically said, "will last long enough to develop even more efficient agricultural practices and more efficient, less polluting forms of energy."
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Looks as if? Could be? So now idle speculation without evidence is treated as facts in your argument? The loss of good forage and encroachment of woody growth is a direct result of removing BOTH the wild herds AND the livestock from the land. The wild life is a keystone species, and the livestock being removed and placed in CAFO's can't replace that niche, so the environment suffers.
The good news is the best way to renew the health of that grassland is to graze it in a way that mimics nature. The forage will increase AND carbon will be sequestered. One action, at least 3 problems solved. ie carbon sequestration, renewal of important ecosystems, increased food productivity. (there are more benefits, but that would begin to drift off topic
)aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Wait a minute, blaming you? about what? That's what you quoted.
You quoted something that is incomplete and outdated and it doesn't serve your argument. Do you know the origin of that quote? You used that quote as basting for that aparent argument of yours: "nature can handle most of it, it only needs a little help from us". That's what is left when you strip the hand waving. If your are saying something different, explain yourself clearly.
It seems you have started here with the wrong foot. Maybe you thought that you had to strip your argumentation of any science and hard data and that marketing vocabulary would do the trick of casting attention about the ideas you wanted to share. Please, start it again from the beginning, this time including studies, papers and hard data substantiating your claims. Otherwise it looks like a salesperson that repeats a speech about a product she scarcely knows.
You didn't selected that quote among everything available that would suit to your argumentation. There's a lot there on the subject. We have discussed it here before.
And no, you don't seem to have "the bigger picture" to what that might be "minutia", as lots of basic information are absent in you ruminations, mainly hard data: figures, scientific principles, criteria to evaluate them, etc.
You made assertions, but you can't follow them because it is not your field of expertise? That excuse won't work here. You shouldn't have chosen to participate in a science forum is you can't provide science, or at least, understanding about science.
Suppose the quote is true, because you're using the fallacy of argumentum ad auctoritatem without even bothering about the whole picture. Would you care to cite how those 3 gigatons are divided? Uptake where and how? You wrote about even higher values; you forgot to tell that the same auctoritas signed an estimation of just 0.4 to 0.6 gigatons per year.
No, it was clear that your long term assertion ("it will last long enough...") is what you wanted to promote here. The other long term elements are just an adornment in the ideas you're advocating.
You can try another verbal loop like many others use to do, but you can better provide information about how quick are those implementations, specially quicker than developing "less polluting forms of energy" (which were already developed from before our births)
If you have a solid argument, it will bright by itself the minute you expose it here with all the necessary backing science. Everybody here applaud a solid argument. If you're being contested it is because you don't have one at all.
As I said, try to start again more on the scientific side of the subject.
macdoc
Philosopher
http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
There are hundreds of experiments and reports in circulation and one prevalent reality is that the outcome is in no way all positive or all negative but for all cases it will induce change in nutrition and yield.
Something that would have been best avoided....but we won't.
http://www.agcanada.com/grainews/2013/03/20/climate-change-and-crop-impacts/
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
You are missing an important part of the puzzle. If agriculture is used to sequester the excess carbon from FF in the atmosphere, so that the level is no longer rising, but instead starts dropping, then you have your well proven benefits of increased carbon in the soil AND don't need to deal with the unknowns of further increasing atmospheric carbon.
Courier
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,229
The Big Boys agree: Earth is warming
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Is the warming ALL due to human industry?
Do natural sources of GHGs play a part?
Do sunspots and earth's natural variation of its angle of rotation play a part?
Does the Earth's variation in its distance from the Sun play a part?
I think its absurd to claim to know for sure what's causing it and to discount with 100% certainty that other factors play no part.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Is the warming ALL due to human industry?
Do natural sources of GHGs play a part?
Do sunspots and earth's natural variation of its angle of rotation play a part?
Does the Earth's variation in its distance from the Sun play a part?
I think its absurd to claim to know for sure what's causing it and to discount with 100% certainty that other factors play no part.
lopeyschools
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 397
And I think it's absurd someone missed the big climate change thread and started their own.
But alas, c'est la vie.
But alas, c'est la vie.
- Status