Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 16 Apr 2017, 22:18:43

Cid, you make me sound so crazy. How could one so pure as myself ever deny such an obvious tragedy. You liked my rant?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26321
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 01:28:27

pstarr wrote:I don't understand your point ralfy. What do you mean by "should be the other way around"

Do you mean that it should be that oil will last forever but we are fucking the planet right now with emissions? But if that were the case, if oil lasted forever than we could use unimaginable amounts of oil to sequester all the oil gaseous emissions.


Global warming generally brings up concerns, even if those can be watered down through promises of easy mitigation. Thus, companies (not just those involved in oil) will do the opposite: either argue that global warming is a "hoax" or that it can be solved easily. That's what allows people to continue shopping, etc.

Also, why do you imagine this as an either-or situation, i.e., you choose between global warming and peak oil? Why not assume that global problems will involve multiple crises amplifying each other?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

Take note that one aspect of global warming is pollution.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 08:12:53

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/it- ... -1.4069173

Scientists in the Northwest Territories, Alaska and Siberia are now realizing that as the ground under them melts, it will not only make life harder for the people living in the Arctic, but will in fact speed up climate change around the globe…

The thaw is destroying buildings, forcing construction crews to change their methods. Buildings used to be hoisted on stilts sunk five or six metres into the ground. Nowadays, said McDonald, “they’re finding that they have to go down in the 15- or 20-metre range to get a stable enough foundation.”

For decades, the community of Tuktoyaktuk, on the shore of the Arctic Ocean, has relied on an ice road from Inuvik in winter. But because of warmer temperatures, the road’s season is shorter and faces periodic closures as the ice shifts and becomes unstable...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16753
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 08:34:31

No Profanity is not okay and I don't appreciate any of the three of you making work for me yesterday. I have more than enough to keep me occupied with you vicariously swearing for the heck of it and then quoting and re-quoting the swearing into additional messages.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14046
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 09:31:53

donstewart wrote:@vtsnowedin
Don't quote me on it. I could probably find the number after a somewhat disorganized search. But I think about a third of the surplus carbon dioxide in the air comes from the soil. It gets tricky to try to do back of the envelope math, if you are an amateur. For example, a very high percentage of the carbon burned as fossil fuels went into the oceans. If we reduce the carbon dioxide in the air by, for example, making biochar, then that ocean carbon will come back into the air. Albert Bates did some math a few posts ago and concluded that we not only need to engage in regenerative agriculture, we also need to produce recalcitrant carbon in the form of bio-char.

Don Stewart

I don't know by what mechanism carbon will leave the ocean and become airborne?
Soil carbon can be increased by proper agricultural practices in some cases more then doubling it.
Here is a piece you might find interesting.
http://brownsranch.us/category/videos/
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 10:06:04

Cid_Yama wrote:
pstarr wrote:Global warming is a hoax ...


That's all you need to know about pstarr. He tries to play the "I used to be a doomer" card, but it hasn't been since he has been on PO. He is an unapologetic denier of the worst sort.

He has already been informed that any bump in primary production is temporary and the result of increased nitrogen deposition as a result of coal emissions from China and India.

Also as a result of these emissions, increases of sulfate particulate have had a masking effect on global warming.

Nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere only works where Primary Production has been restrained by nitrogen depletion. Studies have shown that once fertilization has taken place, additional fertilization DOES NOT increase Primary Production. And not just for nitrogen, but any other nutrient restraints on plant growth.

Once these emissions are curtailed by changes in energy sources away from coal, we will be hit by the delayed onset of warming and a decrease in primary production due to loss of surface water, excess heat, and drying.

Any carbon previously stored in the plants will quickly return to the atmosphere.

I shouldn't have said that. I don't even believe that. GW is not a hoax perpetuated by the oil companies. It is very real and probable exaggerated by the liberal press and politicians to curry favor, sales. and votes of a vulnerable demographic.

It feels good to get my GW fears aired out. I used to be in a constant state of fear and aggression because I thought we were ******* up the planet forever. I blamed myself and everyone and finally grew to be resentful and angry all the time. Not healthy. But in my defense I have never became a denier, a republican anti-green type. I still am not, I am an agnostic because I believe peak oil is biting much harder, faster and with more finality. I still think we greedy Americans steal far more than a fair share of the planet's wealth on our stupid vain selves. I apologize for upping the stress.

But that does not mean I will stop posting important science, especially on the subject of CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere. It is something that greatly interests me and in a field of my expertise.
Last edited by Tanada on Mon 17 Apr 2017, 10:29:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: profanity removed
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26321
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 10:07:54

"I don't know by what mechanism carbon will leave the ocean and become airborne"

As I understand it, it won't for a while, except perhaps in localized areas. The oceans are still catching up to be in equilibrium to the increase in atmospheric CO2. But when that does happen (after we stop furiously spewing ever more CO2 into the atmosphere), the warmer ocean will indeed start to give up the ~1/3 (iirc) of our extra carbon that it has been soaking up, insuring that global warming continues long, long after we are gone.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16753
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 11:16:41

Tanada wrote:No Profanity is not okay and I don't appreciate any of the three of you making work for me yesterday. I have more than enough to keep me occupied with you vicariously swearing for the heck of it and then quoting and re-quoting the swearing into additional messages.

Hey, you missed one in Pstarr's post above mine. :)
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 14:17:59

Just saw this succinct summation of the predicament we have gotten ourselves into:

...cascading effects are forcing changes that are far outside of the pace that typically occurs in the natural context...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16753
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby donstewart » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 14:33:45

@vtsnowedin
i am very familiar with Gabe Brown.

There is no question we can put a lot of carbon into the soil. Whether we should label it as 'sequestered' is another issue. People used to think that humus was long lived. Then, about 18 months ago, some new research indicated that it is just like other disintegrating carbon. Carbon, in other words, mostly just disintegrates from the time the plant dies until the carbon returns to the atmosphere. (Bio-char is different).

If one is aggressively promoting photosynthesis and practicing regenerative agriculture (e.g., no till, no pesticides, no herbicides), then the plants send about a third of the sugars they make into the soil. There it feeds the microbes. The microbes, of course, are eaten by the rest of the soil food web and some of their carbon is released at each step.

Goreau argues that the labile nature of non-Bio Char carbon means that we can never turn the photosynthesis wheel fast enough to store enough carbon. Which is where Bio-Char comes in. Instead of feed the microbes and soil food web, we divert some of the dead plants to make Bio Char which is stable for a very long time. Goreau uses the phrase 'millions of years', although he admits the question is still debated.

However...no question putting as much labile carbon into your soil as you can is a very good idea.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 18:59:32

pstarr, might I suggest links to your posts. Tired of finding them myself only to discover the paper explicitly says other than what you are saying the paper says, i.e. the paper you keep referring to states explicitly that any greening is temporary.

Also, if you want any credibility here, don't lay claim to expertise in a field you obviously don't understand.

You would be better off posting links to the papers and let the papers speak for themselves. (that is, IF you could find a paper that actually says what you want it to say.)

More directly, this article from Skeptical Science debunks your claims that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better off the plants are.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6942
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 20:28:07

donstewart wrote:@vtsnowedin
i am very familiar with Gabe Brown.

There is no question we can put a lot of carbon into the soil. Whether we should label it as 'sequestered' is another issue. People used to think that humus was long lived. Then, about 18 months ago, some new research indicated that it is just like other disintegrating carbon. Carbon, in other words, mostly just disintegrates from the time the plant dies until the carbon returns to the atmosphere. (Bio-char is different).

If one is aggressively promoting photosynthesis and practicing regenerative agriculture (e.g., no till, no pesticides, no herbicides), then the plants send about a third of the sugars they make into the soil. There it feeds the microbes. The microbes, of course, are eaten by the rest of the soil food web and some of their carbon is released at each step.

Goreau argues that the labile nature of non-Bio Char carbon means that we can never turn the photosynthesis wheel fast enough to store enough carbon. Which is where Bio-Char comes in. Instead of feed the microbes and soil food web, we divert some of the dead plants to make Bio Char which is stable for a very long time. Goreau uses the phrase 'millions of years', although he admits the question is still debated.

However...no question putting as much labile carbon into your soil as you can is a very good idea.

Don Stewart

I don't know how much energy it takes to make and deposit bio-char into the soil so don't know if it would be useful or not. Apparently in tropical climates with abundant rainfall it increases crop yields considerably so may be worth it for that reason alone.
I'm not discouraged by the fleeting nature of carbon levels in top soil. Of course it varies with time of year and the state of the crop growing on the land. Looking at it from a world wide basis and for every place where there is a new crop planted there is another in the opposite hemisphere that is just being harvested (Greater Northern landmass noted) so we should look at averages not highest point of year or lowest or at wet years or drought because on a world wide basis that will mostly average out.
So what if we took the 14,000,000 square kilometers of arable land in the world and increased the "average" carbon content of the top 15 centimeters by two percent by mass from where ever it is now. How many Gigatons of Carbon would that remove from the atmosphere?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby dissident » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 22:57:55

The question was asked how could the carbon exit the oceans. By degassing thanks to surface warming. Most of the carbon cycle is in the biotically active surface layer. Some small fraction of the carbon, in the form of detritus snow, manages to reach the seabed even if most of it is attacked by bacteria and remineralized, releasing CO2 and CH4. It is well known that warming oceans will experience a dynamic isolation between the surface layer and deeper waters. This will confine carbon cycling to the surface layer to a higher degree. Warm water can hold less dissolved CO2 than cold water. That is why the global oceans are net sources of CO2 at low latitudes (tropics and subtropics) and net sinks for CO2 in the polar regions.

The area of ocean CO2 sink will decrease at the same time as the area of the CO2 source will increase. By 2100 we could be very close to a transition where more CO2 degasses from the oceans than is absorbed. This is one of the main problems associated with warming. The oceans hold 50 times more dissolved CO2 than the atmosphere so they can pump CO2 into the atmosphere for thousands of years even if we ignore the changes in the surface biotic carbon pump. Even if humans decide to disappear from Earth together with their industrial and transport activity, the planet will be in a global warming regime for millenia.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 17 Apr 2017, 23:42:56

Cid, the science is clear. An offhand remark by a participant or journal editor does not change the outcome of the study. Read the conclusion of the journal article:

"We find that the observation-based COS record is most consistent with simulations of climate and the carbon cycle that assume large GPP growth during the twentieth century (31% ± 5% growth; mean ± 95% confidence interval). Although this COS analysis does not directly constrain models of future GPP growth, it does provide a global-scale benchmark for historical carbon-cycle simulations."


note: COS is atmospheric carbonyl sulfide and GPP is gross primary production
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26321
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 04:04:04

20th Century... historical carbon cycle simulations

not the paper I referred to, and still no links

Are you just too stupid to understand? That must be it.

I laid it out as simple as I could make it, and even referred you to the article in Skeptical Science that specifically addresses the nonsense you are trying to sell. It's a common Denier myth already debunked repeatedly.

And it was the lead author of the other article that explicitly said the greening was temporary. We've already discussed this and debunked it before.

Do you think we have such short memories, that you can just come back later and try to sell the same nonsense we already debunked, again?
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6942
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 10:24:09

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.

Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.

"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.

A co-author Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, from Exeter University, UK, told BBC News that carbon uptake from plants was factored into Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models, but was one of the main sources of uncertainty in future climate forecasts.

Warming the Earth releases CO2 by increasing decomposition of soil organic matter, thawing of permafrost, drying of soils, and reduced photosynthesis - potentially leading to tropical vegetation dieback.

He said: "Carbon sinks (such as forests, where carbon is stored) would become sources if carbon loss from warming becomes larger than carbon gain from fertilisation.

link


And one more thing, LAI means Leaf Area Index, meaning larger/more numerous leaves, and we all know what happens with leaves in the carbon cycle. No I guess I shouldn't assume that. You've proved your ignorance on too many occasions.

Leaves fall to the ground, decompose and release carbon back to the atmosphere.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Tue 18 Apr 2017, 11:38:09, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6942
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 10:27:36

Don't call me stupid, Cid. Just challenge the simple obvious assumptions, methods, and conclusions in the paper. Just the paper. What is wrong with the paper? It is published in a very important peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps a peer review? I linked to the original Nature journal article in my first post. Read it. Here is another handy phy.org summary. It seems you may have looked at that, as I did. It explains terms and yes, it includes offhand comments by participants. But the phys.org does not refute the paper's very clear concise conclusion.

You claim to have offered a link that refutes the paper. But your above link is merely the opinion of someone else on some other topic. Perhaps you do not understand the scientific process? I don't what mis-directed opinion. It is of no value. I would prefer a link to a discussion that considers the actual study in question. Please summarize it for me. Please offer its refutation, your refutation of the the study. Discuss and comment on the chemistry? Comment on the plant biology? Comment on the ice-core sampling technique. Do anything. Just stop being so damned angry.

How does the lead author know greening is temporary? All the author knows is that one chemical marker, one metabolite of plant photosynthesis (COS) has found to be present in historic atmospheric samples in conjunction with increased CO2. High confidence level speaks louder than your anger.

How can you be so opinionated regarding science when you don't even know how it works?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26321
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 11:44:43

No, these are the AUTHORS of the other paper you keep touting showing an increase in LAI.

Greening of the Earth and it's Drivers

You know, the ones that actually wrote the paper.

In their own words they are telling you their paper doesn't say what you (and your contrarian cohorts) claim it says and why.

Also you are intentionally conflating the second article with the first which says nothing beyond 20th Century Carbonyl Sulfide as a potential historical marker for climate model simulations of the past.

Although this COS analysis does not directly constrain models of future GPP growth, it does provide a global-scale benchmark for historical carbon-cycle simulations.


You show your ignorance every time you post.

The only one around here that appears to be getting angry is you. A little psychological projection perhaps?
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Tue 18 Apr 2017, 12:44:47, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6942
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 12:22:31

You really don't know science, Cid. COS is always a marker for photosynthesis. Now and forever. And if COS keeps rising in lockstep with rising CO2 levels (as it always has been) than there will be more plants. Period. Additional plant growth is the only explaination and the only consequence of the potential rise in COS. Additional plant growth absorbs additional CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Your science ineptitude shows in your love for permaculture. I have an advanced degree in permaculture, but unlike you . . . I understand it limitations.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26321
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 14

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 18 Apr 2017, 12:58:41

No one is arguing against more plant growth, idiot. It just isn't the positive you think it is, nor does it make up for the other effects of climate change. And the greening is temporary, diminishing with time, nutrient and water constraints.

The warming from greenhouse gases will cause increased decomposition, drying and die-back that will surpass any temporary gains from CO2 fertilization. All you are getting right now is a masking effect on the actual consequences of current CO2 levels. That will reverse when the balance shifts, ( if it hasn't already, since the study just ran data through 2009) and sinks becomes sources.

I don't think you actually read what anyone else posts, otherwise you would have already got this. Or is it you just can't comprehend?

If anyone gave YOU a degree in Permaculture they should have their accreditation revoked.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6942
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests