I thought this item might be thought provoking -

"soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact."

- from Science Daily reporting on a recent Cornell study of black carbon research in Australia:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../11/081119120155.htm

What do all our Ubizoo AGW climatological experts think about this?

I'm no expert, but I did note what the article Blutarski provides says:

quote:

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

Lehmann says that existing predictions underestimate the level of climate change. He seems to be arguing that the models are flawed, but the change is real.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I'm no expert, but I did note what the article Blutarski provides says:

quote:

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

Lehmann says that existing predictions underestimate the level of climate change. He seems to be arguing that the models are flawed, but the change is real.

..... The real issue here is that climate change and AGW are quite different animals. Cyclical climate change is a well substantiated fact in the natural history of the earth. The question is to what degree MAN influences it.

The current AGW fashion of the moment is to mark CO2 as the principal culprit and ambitiously gigantic plans are being put forth to reduce human output. The interesting argument presented in this article is that SOILS alone, quite apart from any other sources are responsible for 10X the CO2 output of all human activity taken together. Taking into account other sources of CO2 output, it must be conceded that the human contribution must be respectably and possibly dramatically less than 10 percent of global CO2.

Even in the very unlikely event that there exist NO other natural sources of CO2 emission other than that emerging from soils, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 content cannot be greater than 10 percent. If true, then human production of CO2 cannot be more than a miniscule factor if the crisis benchmark for crisis is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The article in question, as well as others I've read, goes on to argue that science still does not properly model the relationship between CO2 and global temperature even in retrospective cases.

All that long-winded stuff having been said, here is my question: why is the AGW community so prepared to commit not only unprecedentedly vast sums of money, but also impose draconian reductions in global living standards on a scientific theory that has such legitimate doubts dogging its heels? Unless, of course, someone is going to tell me that Cornell is just another lunatic fringe organization.

Blutarski asks:

quote:

....why is the AGW community so prepared to commit not only unprecedentedly vast sums of money, but also impose draconian reductions in global living standards on a scientific theory that has such legitimate doubts dogging its heels?

In case anyone has missed this, the article is about how the levels of black carbon in Australian soils were underestimated, based on the measurements from two savanna sites. Hardly sufficient evidence to abandon the entire scientific theory, I'd have thought...

I'd also like to see evidence to back up the claim that action to reduce CO2 production will cause 'draconian reductions in global living standards', rather than taking this as a given.

Since we are looking at an article from Science Daily, whay not also look at another, linked on the same page:Meteorologists Find That Increased Ocean Temperatures Cause Increasingly Intense Hurricanes. I don't think hurricanes do much to increase living standards on the whole.

quote:

Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Global climate change is very real..

Indeed but hardly the fault of the human race

Scientist need to admit that there could be climate cycles yet to be understood or discovered

quote:

The current AGW fashion of the moment is to mark CO2 as the principal culprit and ambitiously gigantic plans are being put forth to reduce human output. The interesting argument presented in this article is that SOILS alone, quite apart from any other sources are responsible for 10X the CO2 output of all human activity taken together. Taking into account other sources of CO2 output, it must be conceded that the human contribution must be respectably and possibly dramatically less than 10 percent of global CO2.

Even in the very unlikely event that there exist NO other natural sources of CO2 emission other than that emerging from soils, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 content cannot be greater than 10 percent. If true, then human production of CO2 cannot be more than a miniscule factor if the crisis benchmark for crisis is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That's part of the carbon cycle.

From the article:

quote:

Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.

So plants take CO2 from the atmosphere, when they break down in the soil the CO2 is released again. There's no net increase in CO2. It's part of a cycle, CO2 - plant - CO2.

Man's contribution is different. We are taking CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it over an incredibly short period, geologically speaking. We are taking carbon that's part of a millions of years long cycle and releasing it in a few hundred years.

quote:

Indeed but hardly the fault of the human race

Scientist need to admit that there could be climate cycles yet to be understood or discovered

Scientists do. But global warming isn't a theory cooked up to fit the facts of global temperature.

We know that the earth emits infra-red radiation in to space. We know that CO2 absorbs some of that infra-red. We know that CO2 then re-emits the infra-red, in all directions, and that some of it goes back to the earth, instead of escaping in to space.

We know that stopping energy escaping means more energy (ie heat) is retained.

Global warming is a theory based on the behaviour of CO2, not a theory designed to account for a rise in temperature.

quote:

Originally posted by waffen-79:
Indeed but hardly the fault of the human race

i will respect your opinion, if you can give references to back-up this statement.
and it would be appreciated, if the reference could be considered to outbalance the opposite opinion (as referenced in the other recent thread)

quote:

Originally posted by waffen-79:
Scientist need to admit that there could be climate cycles yet to be understood or discovered

in my opinion, this is usually considered.
i understand you right, that you think that no action should be taken regarding the latest results of data-collecting, and the high correlating evidence from climate modelling and weather-simulation - just because answers can perhaps be found in what we don't know yet?

let me ask you, in which timeframe you would find it approppriate to decide on action.
or: considering, that most prognosis estimate only few years (if ever) left, before changes become irreversible and show this century already... how much, would you think, of the still unknown, which buries perhaps answers, can we discover per year?

your argument here is, that the results of actual scientific research and the drawn conclusions on urgent action are not bothering, because there will be other scientific research at some future point and more knowledge?
although i personally can't see the relevance of such argument, it is valid if you do so. nevertheless, i would be interested to know the source of your conclusions... is it by your own research, or have you done time-consuming studies on climate cycles and what scientists need to admit therein?
after all, i wouldn't assume, that such an unconditional statement like 'hardly the fault of the human race' is only a summary of headlines, but much more a long considered result of your own evaluation of sources, would i?


edit:
hop's replies are quite more worthy than mine, which shows only some lost patience, sry.

I think there is a new principle at work here, based on the (correct) assumption that science never knows everything about anything, therefore must be assumed to be wrong, in case false scientific assumptions damage the economy. I suggest we name this the Blutarski-Waffen principal, and apply it in other fields as well:

Medical science doesn't know everything, therefore doctors must no longer prescribe medicines.

Aerodynamicists don't know everything, therefore aeroplanes must no longer be allowed to fly.

Economists don't know everything, therefore money must be abolished. (actually, there is something to be said for this last one )

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I think there is a new principle at work here, based on the (correct) assumption that science never knows everything about anything, therefore must be assumed to be wrong, in case false scientific assumptions damage the economy. I suggest we name this the Blutarski-Waffen principal, and apply it in other fields as well:

Medical science doesn't know everything, therefore doctors must no longer prescribe medicines.

Aerodynamicists don't know everything, therefore aeroplanes must no longer be allowed to fly.

Economists don't know everything, therefore money must be abolished. (actually, there is something to be said for this last one )

..... This sounds clever and amusing only if one is willing to conflate scientifically proven hypotheses with unproven hypotheses on the grounds that, after all, they are both hypotheses. Airplanes DO fly; we can confidently state that as a proven fact. The argument of a significant and perilous human contribution to "climate change" clearly remains unproven. climate modelling methods in use today cannot even reliably model events in historical retrospect in any remotely accurate way. On what grounds should such clearly flawed methods be accepted as reliable predictors of future events, not to mention as justification for the massive proposed economic sacrifices and social dislocations being touted as "the solution"?

quote:

Originally posted by hop2002:
So plants take CO2 from the atmosphere, when they break down in the soil the CO2 is released again. There's no net increase in CO2. It's part of a cycle, CO2 - plant - CO2.

Man's contribution is different. We are taking CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it over an incredibly short period, geologically speaking. We are taking carbon that's part of a millions of years long cycle and releasing it in a few hundred years.

..... Fair comment, but it doesn't explain or clarify its overall impact on global climate. The CO2 absorption rate is not static. Greater amounts of CO2 present in the atmosphere promote a greater rate of absorption. In any case, unit for unit, it is generally understood that simple water vapor is a 100x more influential climate factor than CO2. So why the intense focus opun CO2, whose presence in the atmosphere over the past million or so years yas undergone huge shifts in concentration levels? The climate engine of earth remains imperfectly understood - to the extent that predictive modelling often errs in its results by factors ranging from 100 to 400 percent. This cannot be described as confident science.

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

















Yep, they're just a growin'...

You should take your argument to the USGS, they're the ones who found that the glaciers are growing again. And perhaps you can convince the scientists there that you know more than they do about the subject.

quote:

You should take your argument to the USGS, they're the ones who found that the glaciers are growing again. And perhaps you can convince the scientists there that you know more than they do about the subject.

Mortoma, the original article you linked merely says that for one year, after a below average summer, some Alaskan glaciers have grown. Do you not understand that there is a difference between a long-term global trend and a local fluctuation? Have you asked the USGS what they have to say on the subject? I doubt it very much, as you seem to be able to do nothing to support your arguments beyond name-calling and cherry-picking random 'data' from the internet. Why don't you at least try to understand the replies that are posted to your topics. You don't have to agree with them, but ignoring them, and repeating the same old guff only makes you seem incapable of logical thought.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyJWest:

quote:

You should take your argument to the USGS, they're the ones who found that the glaciers are growing again. And perhaps you can convince the scientists there that you know more than they do about the subject.

Mortoma, the original article you linked merely says that for one year, after a below average summer, some Alaskan glaciers have grown. Do you not understand that there is a difference between a long-term global trend and a local fluctuation? Have you asked the USGS what they have to say on the subject? I doubt it very much, as you seem to be able to do nothing to support your arguments beyond name-calling and cherry-picking random 'data' from the internet. Why don't you at least try to understand the replies that are posted to your topics. You don't have to agree with them, but ignoring them, and repeating the same old guff only makes you seem incapable of logical thought.

Yes, you have good points, all of you do really. But it's easy to claim global warming and show pictures of melting glaciers like urufu did but that still doesn't prove anything except that the glaciers were melting a long time before we could have had an effect on them. I mean look at some of the dates on his 'before' pictures. If there were some 'in between' pictures taken about the 40's with some earlier pictures taken about the turn of the century they would show melting in those periods too. But we hardly could have had much impact on the climate until at least the 70's, if we really were going to impact it. There was large scale glacier melting going on long before humans could have had an impact on climate. Even many of the global warming people admit that there's no way we could have been affecting anything before about 1940. There simply were not enough people nor industries yet at that time.

Remember, there were huge glaciers that covered much of North America over 10,0000 year ago. And guess what? They started retreating and melting before there were many people on the planet!! Looks like the weather has been shaped by other factors before we came along, huh???

Mortoma, the earliest dated photo that U_S gives is from 1928. If pictures of glaciers shrinking shows nothing, then why does data about Alaskan glaciers growing for one year show anything either? As usual, you are cherry-picking.

Nobody is disputing that the weather has been 'shaped by other factors before we came along'. It is the scientific understanding of what processes have driven these changes that makes us better placed to understand the consequences of increased CO2 emmisions etc on the global climate.