Remember me
▼ Content

Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change



Page 2 of 2<12
RE: I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.09-04-2022 03:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention.

There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification".

Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context.

One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions!

If this is your only game, find someone else to play with.

I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------





















IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

How are you defining Climate Change?
09-04-2022 03:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:How are you defining Climate Change?
I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

Great. Then your assertion is summarily discarded as FALSE, i.e.
sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

Thanks for playing.
09-04-2022 05:51
duncan61
★★★★★
(2021)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.


I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.If plants consume everything why is there any at all?
The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.
I am very proud of the Australian Prime minister.He was clearly reluctant to go to COP 26 in Glasgow but was pressured politically.He stood up and declared Australia is meeting its commitments and came back the next day.Approval has been given to build the Scarborough gas project which will take a metric shitload of gas out the ground and sell it to who ever wants it.Australia has been accused of being climate criminals and I like it.


duncan61
10-04-2022 00:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21579)
sealover wrote:
I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

Yes you do. You STILL haven't defined 'climate change'. You have been doing everything possible to evade defining this phrase.
sealover wrote:
As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention.

Science isn't a community. It isn't discoveries either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.
sealover wrote:
There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification".

Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context.

Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions!

Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
If this is your only game, find someone else to play with.

It is YOU playing this game. Inversion fallacy. Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls.

Inversion fallacy. YOU are the troll. You are still evading. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-04-2022 00:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21579)
duncan61 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.


I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2.
duncan61 wrote:
If plants consume everything why is there any at all?

If you consume oxygen why is there any at all?
duncan61 wrote:
The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

This is also not possible to measure. They are random numbers.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-04-2022 00:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
duncan61 wrote:I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

I have disputed the claim, with you specifically, for as long as you have been on this board. You have never contributed anthing useful.

Now you are claiming that plants will refuse to consume additional CO2.

You are so wise.

duncan61 wrote:IIf plants consume everything why is there any at all?

Yep, your level of stupid again. Did Pete Rogers order you to ask that question in such an absolute form.

You are a fuqqing genius.

duncan61 wrote:The carbon cycle is natural

Nice term. Would you mind defining it for me?

duncan61 wrote:and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

You won't take issue with anything stupid. You only take issue with people trying to help you.

You are so wise.
12-04-2022 18:09
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
Thanks for playing.

And now, for our next contestant on...

IS CLIMATE CHANGE ALL RIGHT!


come on down
16-06-2023 08:29
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).
16-06-2023 08:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
climate scientist wrote:
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but wouldn't the same changing climatic conditions that promote increased respiration also promote increased photosynthesis? I'd have imagined that the latter effect would typically more than outweigh the former, thus resulting in a net uptake of carbon by soils, rather than a net loss (hence giving a negative rather than a positive feedback effect). Is this not correct?


Yes, you are correct that for plants, the CO2 fertilisation effect will likely outweigh the increased CO2 flux from plant respiration. But these authors are talking about soil respiration, which is an additional source of CO2 to the atmosphere that is separate from plants, and does not have any associated photosynthesis flux.

Soils are a large reservoir of organic carbon on the land, and soil respiration (by microbes) is mostly driven by temperature (and partially driven by moisture).
16-06-2023 08:31
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744
16-06-2023 08:39
James_
★★★★★
(2204)
sealover wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744



The 20% figure for CO2 being released from soil suggests that atmospheric
gasses influences conserved CO2.
16-06-2023 08:41
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

On March 9, 2022, "sealover" (PhD) posted for the first time.

Of the approximately 100 most recent threads at the time, only three of them were related to climate change.

Most of the posts about climate debate are about DEBATE and not CLIMATE.

The word games are utterly absurd.

Most people aren't going to suddenly disbelieve the dictionary based entirely on unsupported contrarian assertions made by a flaming a**hole.

The idea seems to be that no debate is legitimate until AFTER all the hecklers in the peanut gallery are satisfied with unambiguous definitions, blah, blah, blah.

AND CALLING PEOPLE "LIARS" IS AN AUTOMATIC AD HOMINEM! DUH!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Scientist started this thread in January, 2016

I wish I had the chance to interact with another trained scientist at this website.

The subject of this thread is of major importance.

Another thread treats the subject in much more detail.

"Maximizing carbon sequestration in terrestrial agroecosystems"

If Climate Scientist were to return, there would be the opportunity to discuss this subject with someone who is a scientifically literate peer.

My own publications about carbon and nitrogen cycling are widely cited in newer papers about the topic of this thread.

The last time I attended a national soil science and agronomy conference was in 2009. Even then, many of the posters and presentations were about soil organic matter loss aggravated by climate change.

Improved methods to optimize carbon sequestration were needed just to keep pace with changing conditions. It would no longer be enough to keep adding new organic matter to soil at the previous rate. The rate of soil respiration is increasing, and increasing inputs of organic matter are needed to prevent net loss.
16-06-2023 09:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
sealover wrote:Climate Scientist started this thread in January, 2016. I wish I had the chance to interact with another trained scientist at this website.

Well, Climate Scientist was a fraud. He felt that the only way anyone would pay him any credence and believe as he directed was to tell everyone that he was a "climate scientist." Unfortunately, he was a scientifically illiterate moron.

I began noticing egregious errors of basic science, and upon requesting clarification, he could only make more errors. It was very disappointing.

sealover wrote:The subject of this thread is of major importance.

Then you did the right thing by creating a separate thread. Nothing that Climate Scientist had to post was particularly value-added.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems82709-02-2024 03:41
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers106-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon3006-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands9623-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'821-06-2023 12:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact