Global Warming a fake?

[prometheuspan]

LOL!! Yes, I'm always surprised to find that I don't know everything either! I was as surprised to find that the self-professed "carbon-cycle expert" here at our local "green" university was equally clueless about this new term for "black carbon," which is widely studied in geochemistry. I was equally as honored to fill him in on the idea.

 

its not that i hadn't heard its that i was in no position to say anything meaningful

and didn't remember clearly.

 

reading a lot only helps if you remember ...lol

 

I am always excited to find other people around me who can be competent to information

I can't be. I don't see this as a hole in my knowledge but as a reminder of something

i now feel confident i skimmed over without paying maybe as much attention to this detail

as you have.

 

 

David Laird of the USDA says that, globally, half of the carbon richness has been lost from our agricultural soils. That's a lot of carbon! And biochar can help restore that lost carbon in form and function, to mimick what took nature many ages to build.

 

 

To be truthful i am stil lconfused and unclear.

 

exactly what it is it like it sounds?

 

just trying to add certain things to the soil by charring them?

:Glasses:

[Essay]

To be truthful i am stil lconfused and unclear.

 

exactly what it is it like it sounds?

 

just trying to add certain things to the soil by charring them?

:shrug:

 

Ah yes, details of the bigger picture might help.

 

It is just charcoal, but produced to generate 4 times more charred product (4 times less CO2 evolved) than normal charcoal production. It can be designed to favor certain chemical compositons, designed to benefit different soil types when added to those soils.

The pyrolysis (or gasification) conditions (and the feedstock) that produce biochar can be adjusted or altered to favor acidic or alkaline biochar products, and to develop higher concentrations of certain nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, or sulfur. It is then used as a soil amendment like compost, but its effects are fairly permanent, unlike compost that rapidly decays into CO2 and humic acids.

Biochar has many of the beneficial effects of common soil amendments, but without the bad side effects that over-applications of common soil amendments would cause. Durable improvements in aeration, water-holding capacity, cation-exchange-capacity, and tilth are noted (and greatly reduces leaching --reducing water pollution).

 

It (biochar or natural char) benefits soil structure, function, and durability. It makes soils more productive with less fertilizer input required. It provides some direct fertilization initially, and promotes the biodiversity that keeps soils productive and recycling nutrients on a long-term basis.

 

And it is made from waste biomass (biosequestered CO2), which would have otherwise decayed directly to methane or CO2. Once charred it resists biodegradation from decadal to millennial scales, but still contributes bioactivity to the soil.

===

 

The first textbook on biochar was just published last year in 2009. "Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology" was edited by J. Lehmann, one of the leaders and founding fathers of biochar research. This came from anthropological discoveries surrounding Terra Preta soils in the Amazon. Check out the Terra Preta sub-forum here at Hypography, eh?

 

~Cheers!

[prometheuspan]

makes sense. kind of comes back to me a bit.

 

thanks for clarifying!

 

i once sat down to study permaculture an then realized it was too vast and gave up too early.

 

(lol)

 

i think i remember reading about that but i was fer sure lost till you explained it.

 

thanks again!

:shrug:

[Essay]

makes sense. kind of comes back to me a bit.

 

thanks for clarifying!

 

i once sat down to study permaculture an then realized it was too vast and gave up too early.

 

(lol)

 

i think i remember reading about that but i was fer sure lost till you explained it.

 

thanks again!

Yes biochar can be a part of Permaculture, helping with the low intensity, low input style of sustainable agriculture.

 

No problem though, I'm happy (and honored) to be able to help.

 

Another description of biochar might be as a dried, foamy soot.

 

This is a good description because soot chemistry, with its graphenic components, has been studied and is a good analog for biochar structure and chemistry.

 

A Manhatten Project-style biochar program in the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi watersheds (or just in the Mississippi watershed) would do wonders to clean up the Dead-Zone in the Gulf... from POLLUTION!

 

The production (via gasification process) of biochar works by burning the smoke (instead of the fuel) and so would be a great benefit to Third World families that cook with open fires. It saves on fuel (and uses a wider variety of waste biomass for fuel) and cuts down drastically on smoke production and thus smoke inhalation, which causes respiratory diseases leading to more deaths globally than malaria.

 

So there are several economic (fuel efficiency) and health benefits from making biochar; and then the biochar can either be used or sold as fuel, or used as a soil amendment to reduce subsistance farmer's water and other input costs and improve productivity, especially in tropical areas with already degraded soils. I sent one of these gasifier cookstoves to a hospital administrator in central Nigeria--hoping that just by demonstrating the process, people will understand that there is a better way. It's been fun trying to explain all of this to the guy.

 

And it's one of the most fascinating things I've ever seen (but my degree is in chemistry, so learning about what is going on at a molecular level made it so much more meaningful/fun). Essentially the gasification process causes biomass (wood, grass, paper, bone, dung, algae, etc.) to undergo a coalification process. I guess in a way it's like replacing all that coal we've stolen from Gaia.

 

All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned.... :shrug: ...But biochar can help....

[CraigD]

global warming denialism is summoning the perfect storm.

 

with 700 mile per hour winds and meters instead of inches for over night rainfalls.

Pan, you need to support your meta-claim of backing up your claims with direct references by ... actually backing up your claims with links or references! :shrug:

to my knowledge i have already supplied this forum with more links and references than any other participant. I hope you didn't miss out since page 22 or so.

You’ve not adequately supported your claim that a storm with 700 MPH winds is being summoned by global warming denialism, or even that such a storm is physically possible.

 

To do so, you must provide links or citations to a legitimate scientific paper or article supporting your claim. In some cases, where a claim is esoteric (which is not the case here), its acceptable to post original work. For example, you state

lets just back to the central understanding here that i do simulation mechanics ...

Several of us write simulations, so the source code, and example input and output of simulations – toy or otherwise – are an effective and terse way to support claims about simulation results. We can independently compile or interpret your code, confirming or finding faults with it or its results. So, if you have an atmospheric simulation program showing a storm with 700 MPH winds, please post its source code, input and output. In addition to being considered good-faith support of your claim, it will win you mad props, even if its fatally flawed, as atmospheric simulations are hard, and extreme simulations very hard.

 

Posting many links that don’t specifically support a particular claim is not adequate – as the adage goes, quantity is no substitute for quality.

we used to have magnitude 14 quakes hundreds of millions of years ago every few months or so. How do you think the mountains formed?

This is an intriguing and extraordinary claim!

 

Though you should back it up with a link or reference, Pan, assuming by “magnitude 14” you’re referring to the standard MMS scale for earthquakes (which, for common values, is about equivalent to the older Richter measurement scale), you can make some interesting order-of-magnitude calculations to see if a magnitude 14 earthquake is even sensible.

 

MMS magnitudes are simply logarithmic work (or energy) measurements, which can be straightforwardly converted into the standard SI unit, the Joule. As an exercise to the reasonably scientifically educated reader (and, in this case, to the claimant – that’s you, Pan), calculate the energy of raising a really, really big mountain – say, a 10,000 m high wall circling the Earth (don’t worry that the Earth’s crust isn’t necessarily thick enough in all places to do this). All the information you need to do this can be found in the common encyclopedic sources such as the wikipedia article moment magnitude scale, and a more difficult-to-find reference to an approximate value of the shear modulus of the Earth’s crust, such as this UM term project webpage.

 

For some real fun, using the same technique and an additional datum, the binding energy of the Earth, calculate the largest possible MMS value – that is, the magnitude of the Earthquake that would break the planet into little pieces and disperse it into space. Some binding energy of the Earth values, and discussion of them, can be found in How to destroy the Earth, a fun old thread.

[prometheuspan]

So, you seem to want me to run google for you.

 

Anatomy of a super cell - by Tammy L Mahan - Helium

 

global warming supercell storms - Google Scholar

 

"global warming" "supercell storms" - Google Scholar

 

 

https://secure.ametsoc.org/MEET/fainst/200824SLS_abstracts.pdf

 

ScienceDirect - The Science of The Total Environment : Catastrophic wind damage to North American forests and the potential impact of climate change

 

Global warming

 

effects of global warming - Google Scholar

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/reply_globwarm.pdf

 

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/reply_globwarm.pdf

[prometheuspan]

"MMS magnitudes are simply logarithmic work (or energy) measurements, which can be straightforwardly converted into the standard SI unit, the Joule. As an exercise to the reasonably scientifically educated reader (and, in this case, to the claimant – that’s you, Pan), calculate the energy of raising a really, really big mountain – say, a 10,000 m high wall circling the Earth (don’t worry that the Earth’s crust isn’t necessarily thick enough in all places to do this)."

 

yes, i know.

 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here aside from that the numbers i put forth are on the outside

outer limit.

 

Fine, 400 mile per hour winds would be more than enough to have virtually the same consequences.

 

And fine, a magnitude 20 quake would shatter the planet- and theres not enough energy in the system to cause it.

 

I get the feeling that you are trying to say

 

"thats two hyperboles for two."

 

If thats what you are getting at, I think we all have a tendency to shoot for the dramatic numbers- most people do anyways.

 

My numbers here are certainly at the range of worst case scenario, but they are not impossible.

 

700 mile per hour winds are a likely probable outcome of global warming. If 700 seems too big for you,

that doesn't really matter to the argument, because there will still be more storms and faster winds

no matter whose simulation mechanics you are using.

 

300 mile per hour winds are enough to plant hay into brick like bullets.

 

We don't really need 700 mile per winds for the argument to work.

 

Just 300 mile per hour winds becoming commonplace.

 

No, i don't have climatology materials handy to just shuffle them off to you.

 

would you like a change of topic to what i do have on my hard drive?

 

All of this is silly and irrelevant when we could be designing all electric hover cars instead of staying technologically primitive in order to support coal and oil.

 

Those I do have on my hard drive, would you prefer a car or bus sized model?

 

:hyper:

[Bored Wombat]

Didn't look at the graph did you? The current rate of warming is much slower than it has occurred in previous eras.

 

Current warming is about 0.16K per decade. From last decade to this decade is was about 0.2K, according to satellite measurements.

 

The end of a glaciation, such as occur in the ice core record show warming of about 10K over about 5000 years. That's 0.02 K per decade, or about one tenth of the rate of current warming.

 

BTW, since you've got so much posting energy perhaps you could fill us in on the cause of Mars' global warming...

 

The scientists who discovered this suggested a mechanism at the same time. Dust albedo feedback. How come you managed to find out that Mars was warming, but not the reason?

[Bored Wombat]

Warming is quite natural and during both the Ordovician and Permian eras it happened faster than it is now.

 

Can you be more specific, and perhaps give a reference?

 

When scientists break down the current warming into the climate's response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, the conclusion is that the current warming is very much not natural. (see Meehl et al, 2004).

 

 

 

See how the current warming is not only mostly anthropogenic but natural forcing would be resulting in a slow cooling?

 

That is in keeping with the ice core record. An interglacial starts with a sudden and monotonic warming, followed by a slow diatonic descent into the next glacial period. There is nothing natural about the current warming.

 

As to the warming in the Ordovician and Permian eras, can you show whose estimate of the rate of warming you are using? I'm not familiar with this claim.

 

Over the life of the planet it has historically held a much higher average global temperature than we have now.

True, but irrelevant.

 

Face it, global warming is here to stay whether or not man contributes to it.

Untrue. The current warming is caused by greenhouse emissions, mostly CO2 from fossil fuel use. Without this contribution by humanity, there would be no warming. In fact there would be a slow cooling.

 

The dinosaurs lived without polar ice caps. Man will likely experience the same some day if the species lasts long enough.

True but irrelevant.

 

If you want to bring up Exxon and carbon based fuels and their effects on the planet then you need to be complaining about the pollution, not the warming. Many will have grounds to argue about how much man contributes to warming. There's really not much to argue about if you just call it man made pollution. It is what it is and it's hard for anyone to argue that it's something else.

 

The warming is the bigger problem right now. It has been causing disruptions to rainfall patterns in Africa and Asia. That has caused starvation and conflict.

[prometheuspan]

As to the warming in the Ordovician and Permian eras, can you show whose estimate of the rate of warming you are using? I'm not familiar with this claim

 

I am. Nobody knows what caused the warming and nobody can prove how fast it actually happened.

 

As far as we can tell , it happened very quickly in geological time but still over hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Its the same old same old. They want to compare apples and oranges, blow real science out of proportion, find a real event somewhere or a real contributing factor, and distort it.

 

The claim that the warming then was faster is entirely rhetorical, and propagandistic. The warming then was fast, and we don't know fer sure how fast. But still probably not as fast as human caused global warming, not by orders of magnitude.

 

IF it did happen very quickly, we would be looking for trigger causes. On dominant theory about why the dinos had it so warm is that plant life created a global thermal blanket.

 

And caused a green house effect then.

 

In any case, none of that matters, as it is ancient history and has nothing to do with global warming now.

 

:hyper:

[Bored Wombat]

The claim that the warming then was faster is entirely rhetorical, and propagandistic. The warming then was fast, and we don't know fer sure how fast. But still probably not as fast as human caused global warming, not by orders of magnitude.

 

Interesting.

 

Do you agree with that C1ay?

 

The warming might have been as fast as today, but it also might have been orders of magnitude slower?

[C1ay]

Don't take my word for it. Look at the slope of the curves in this graph for various era for yourself....

[prometheuspan]

on that graph, how many pixels is one million years?

 

one hundred thousand?

 

 

:hyper: :cheer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

 

 

In short, nothing can be determined for that graph relative to human time scales, because the graph shows such a very vast amount of time that we are looking for differences equal to looking at a graph on a paper - from out of the window of an airplane.

 

I could snag that graph into autocad or sketchup, and we could play propper scale with it. You'd see very quickly that ;

 

THE TWENTY YEARS GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN GOING ON BECAUSE OF HUMANS IS TOO SMALL OF A SPACE TO EVEN REGISTER AS A PERCENTILE OF A SINGLE PIXEL.

 

In short, that graph says nothing at all about his claims about human time scales. The end.

[Bored Wombat]

Don't take my word for it. Look at the slope of the curves in this graph for various era for yourself....

 

Do you agree that that graph:

 

 

Covers about 600 million years, and is 1500 pixels tall.

 

So that the last 100 years of warming is represented by the top 0.025% of the last pixel?

[prometheuspan]

yep, about right. to graph the last one hundred years, on this graph, it would look identical,

because it would all happen in far far less than a single pixel.

 

In fact, if we zoomed down in scale a whole order of magnitude, it would still be too small.

 

To make it even equal to a single pixel, we would have to zoom, and then zoom, and then zoom down in scale, until the graph was easily larger than say a football field.

 

So once again, we have an argument from ignorance which assumes that we are also ignorant, and which uses a merely rhetorical argument and pretends that they have submitted evidence; when in fact theres nothing there. At all.

 

Less than a point. A simple proof, again, that people who argue against the facts about global warming don't have the first clue about what they are talking about.

[C1ay]

It is just as ignorant to try and plot 2 points 20 years apart on a 4 billion year graph and project the outcome to some point in the future when the very data set used to plot that point has variables we don't even know of or understand yet.

 

The bottom line is this. Our planet has historically returned to a tropical environment time and time again after every plunge to an ice age. Over the life of the planet the average global temperature has been significantly higher than it is now and it is reasonable to believe it will repeat this pattern again. Natural global warming is real. The quantity of man's contribution is questionable and you can argue that until the moon turns blue, it will resolve nothing.

 

OTOH, man's contribution to the pollution of the environment on the planet is hardly debatable. Man made pollution is man made pollution and no one can argue that it is anything else. It is an aspect of the global warming argument that both sides need to focus on and act on. Just because the planet is warming with or without our contribution is no reason for us to continue to piss in our own bathwater.

[freeztar]

OTOH, man's contribution to the pollution of the environment on the planet is hardly debatable. Man made pollution is man made pollution and no one can argue that it is anything else. It is an aspect of the global warming argument that both sides need to focus on and act on. Just because the planet is warming with or without our contribution is no reason for us to continue to piss in our own bathwater.

 

I agree, though I find some fault with this line of thinking.

 

If man-made pollution is nearly un-debatable, then is it such a stretch to consider that this same pollution might be affecting global climate? In fact, we know it is. The only debate I can see is "How much?".

 

You're correct though, Clay. There's no need to debate pollution. If we just focused on reducing that, the whole AGW argument would probably become moot.