Remember me
▼ Content

Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change



Page 1 of 212>
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change01-12-2016 11:24
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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).
01-12-2016 13:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
climate scientist wrote: Hi everyone. New paper just out in Nature here.

I don't know if you have heard of formal logic but it is a very useful tool in determing truth values and in assessing semantic contexts.

For example, formal logic tells us that something of the form "if X then Y" is an unfalsifiable statement, and is thus meaningless, if X is false. The thesis statement for this paper is the following:

"If anthropogenic warming stimulates the loss of this carbon to the atmosphere, it could drive further planetary warming. "

"anthropogenic warming" is a WACKY religious dogma of certain "Climate" faiths, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Ergo it can't stimulate anything in this reality. That makes the predicate false and the entire statement meaningless.

The bad news is that the paper rests on this meaningless gibberish. The paper itself, along with any conclusions are meaningless.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 13:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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).

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?
01-12-2016 13:35
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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).
01-12-2016 13:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ok, thanks. I'll have to read around the topic a bit more!
01-12-2016 15:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 15:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration
01-12-2016 16:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?
.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 16:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Yes. Do you?
01-12-2016 16:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Yes. Do you?

Wring answer. That was when you were supposed to admit that you really don't and that you'll reengage after you read up ... on non-warmizombie websites.

Oh wait, you can't do that, can you? Well, nevermind then.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 16:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Yes. Do you?

Wring answer. That was when you were supposed to admit that you really don't and that you'll reengage after you read up ... on non-warmizombie websites.

Oh wait, you can't do that, can you? Well, nevermind then.

Strange, Wikipedia was good enough for you to source your Greenland map, and it appears to have a perfectly valid definition of respiration. Never mind, perhaps you can direct me to a "non-warmizombie" website that gives a definition of respiration that is acceptable to you?
01-12-2016 19:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Surface Detail wrote:Strange, Wikipedia was good enough for you to source your Greenland map,

Someone can't read very well. Go back and try again.

Surface Detail wrote: and it appears to have a perfectly valid definition of respiration.

The rule still applies, if the reference is Wikipedia then it is summarily dismissed.

Surface Detail wrote:Never mind, perhaps you can direct me to a "non-warmizombie" website that gives a definition of respiration that is acceptable to you?

http://www.biology-innovation.co.uk/pages/human-biology/respiration/

Respiration
Respiration is a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place with in the cells of organisms. It stores biochemical energy within adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules. There are two types of respiration, aerobic and anaerobic. Respiration is also the process of making ATP rather that breaking it down.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/respiration

1.2 Biology A process in living organisms involving the production of energy, typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex organic substances.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 19:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Strange, Wikipedia was good enough for you to source your Greenland map,

Someone can't read very well. Go back and try again.

Surface Detail wrote: and it appears to have a perfectly valid definition of respiration.

The rule still applies, if the reference is Wikipedia then it is summarily dismissed.

Surface Detail wrote:Never mind, perhaps you can direct me to a "non-warmizombie" website that gives a definition of respiration that is acceptable to you?

http://www.biology-innovation.co.uk/pages/human-biology/respiration/

Respiration
Respiration is a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place with in the cells of organisms. It stores biochemical energy within adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules. There are two types of respiration, aerobic and anaerobic. Respiration is also the process of making ATP rather that breaking it down.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/respiration

1.2 Biology A process in living organisms involving the production of energy, typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex organic substances.

Yes, that's what I thought, and pretty much the same as that given in Wikipedia. What, then, is so funny about soil respiration? The term simply refers to the respiration of the organisms that live in the soil.

By the way, wasn't the Oxford Dictionary on your blacklist of banned references because of its heretic definitions of terms like "greenhouse effect" and "climate change"? Good to see its been rehabilitated!
01-12-2016 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: Hi everyone. New paper just out in Nature here.

I don't know if you have heard of formal logic but it is a very useful tool in determing truth values and in assessing semantic contexts.

For example, formal logic tells us that something of the form "if X then Y" is an unfalsifiable statement, and is thus meaningless, if X is false. The thesis statement for this paper is the following:

"If anthropogenic warming stimulates the loss of this carbon to the atmosphere, it could drive further planetary warming. "

"anthropogenic warming" is a WACKY religious dogma of certain "Climate" faiths, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Ergo it can't stimulate anything in this reality. That makes the predicate false and the entire statement meaningless.

The bad news is that the paper rests on this meaningless gibberish. The paper itself, along with any conclusions are meaningless.


.


Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.


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
01-12-2016 22:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2016 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.


Okay. I'm glad you let me know that you are not going to respond to that particular post. Very gracious of you.


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
02-12-2016 00:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.


Okay. I'm glad you let me know that you are not going to respond to that particular post. Very gracious of you.

It's just the kind of guy I am.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 00:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.


Okay. I'm glad you let me know that you are not going to respond to that particular post. Very gracious of you.

It's just the kind of guy I am.

Indeed you are. It's nice, isn't it, being able to freely discuss something that you'll never respond to?

.



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
02-12-2016 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
Into the Night wrote:Indeed you are. It's nice, isn't it, being able to freely discuss something that you'll never respond to?

I enjoy freedom in general. I admit that I hate discussions that are awash in obligations, commitments and huge down payments. That's why Climate-Debate is such a relief. It's more of a "pay as you play" arrangement and you are never required to respond if you don't want to.

I think spot's misunderstanding probably comes from taking Hillary's propaganda on face value and now he's in need of grief counseling.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/09/triggered-students-across-country-melt-down-in-response-to-trump-victory/amp/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/09/school-districts-offer-counseling-support-after-trump-victory-as-officials-try-to-calm-fears/?utm_term=.c1fd0ae4694c

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/09/colleges-try-to-comfort-students-upset-by-trump-victory/

http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2016/11/09/teaching-resources-for-the-day-after-the-presidential-election/

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/2016/11/19/college-students-falling-apart-after-trump-victory


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 11:55
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
"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
02-12-2016 12:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
climate scientist wrote:from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

Well done. You discovered an error in Brittanica's usage. You should write them and let them know that not all movement of gases earns the label "respiration."


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 21:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.
02-12-2016 23:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.

If you had any sort of valid argument whatsoever beyond empty fear-mongering hype, you would gladly work within the parameters of the correct wording, i.e. "the corals expel the algae."

However, since all you have is empty, baseless, unsupported fear-mongering hype, you must cling to bogus imagery of caustic chemicals in a death-struggle to save your precious religious dogma that our oceans are somehow turning into battery acid.

"The corals expel the algae."

Gee, there doesn't seem to be that much to panic over when you put it that way.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 23:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.

You can rest assured that I will nitpick the shuck out of every bogus thing you post.

You are welcome to resume lurking if you can't stomach resulting opposing viewpoints.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2016 00:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's the name. For some reason, many people think that the name of something is intrinsically linked to the phenomenon itself.

It's not! I could call ocean acidification "whirlpool edification," and that would be its name. It's an utterly nonsensical name, but the phenomenon that the name refers to would continue. The ocean would still decrease in pH every year. Ever hear "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"?
03-12-2016 01:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's the name. For some reason, many people think that the name of something is intrinsically linked to the phenomenon itself.

It's not! I could call ocean acidification "whirlpool edification," and that would be its name. It's an utterly nonsensical name, but the phenomenon that the name refers to would continue. The ocean would still decrease in pH every year. Ever hear "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"?


Nope. What I see is your dread of embracing the correct "hype-free" wording of "the corals expel the algae"

What I dont see is any other valid point that you are trying to make. Your only objective is to legitimize the fear-mongering hype.

"The corals expel the algae."

"The corals expel the algae."

"The corals expel the algae."

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: Please come back16-03-2022 05:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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).
16-03-2022 06:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.


Void argument fallacy. What etymology?


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
16-03-2022 06:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's the name. For some reason, many people think that the name of something is intrinsically linked to the phenomenon itself.

It's not! I could call ocean acidification "whirlpool edification," and that would be its name. It's an utterly nonsensical name, but the phenomenon that the name refers to would continue. The ocean would still decrease in pH every year. Ever hear "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"?

Tryin' hard, ain't ya?

You can't acidify an alkaline.
It is not possible to measure the global pH of the oceans or even the pH over a region.


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
16-03-2022 06:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

Not much.
sealover wrote:
There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

And you are not participating in them. You deny science.
sealover wrote:
Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

A PhD in a buzzword??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


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
16-03-2022 06:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3975)
climate scientist wrote:...these authors are talking about soil respiration, ...


I wonder if this couldn't be studied in an enclosed experiment (and has it). Like a biodome type setup.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
16-03-2022 07:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
tmiddles wrote:
climate scientist wrote:...these authors are talking about soil respiration, ...


I wonder if this couldn't be studied in an enclosed experiment (and has it). Like a biodome type setup.



How do you measure a buzzword in a biodome?


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
RE: "Climate Scientist" is CORRECT - This is IMPORTANT08-04-2022 02:50
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Climate Scientist" is CORRECT - This is IMPORTANT.

I don't know if there is some way to contact "Climate Scientist" and get him to come back.

As the resident biogeochemist, I will take up this theme for Climate Scientist.

For the moment, this well written, succinct and accurate description of carbon cycling and carbon pools by climate scientists stands on its own.

SOIL CARBON STORAGE or soil carbon LOSS are a BIG DEAL.

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

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
08-04-2022 05:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
sealover wrote:
"Climate Scientist" is CORRECT - This is IMPORTANT.

I don't know if there is some way to contact "Climate Scientist" and get him to come back.

As the resident biogeochemist, I will take up this theme for Climate Scientist.

For the moment, this well written, succinct and accurate description of carbon cycling and carbon pools by climate scientists stands on its own.

SOIL CARBON STORAGE or soil carbon LOSS are a BIG DEAL.


As the resident buzzword user, you will take up space with spam. Climate is not a branch of science. There is no such thing as 'climate science'.

You are now locked into another paradox. You want to fear monger whether carbon is stored or lost.


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
08-04-2022 08:28
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4240)
sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.


Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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).


Nothing has changed, why lie, desperately to bring people back. Is this how you hope to recruit you horde of cult minion, to cleanse this website on May 1st?

I don't even open the email notifications. They just tell me there was some activity on the site, which I'll get around to looking at eventually. If they filled my mailbox, I'd shut them off, or spam filter them.

Most of your post are either complaining, or self promoting. Occassionally, you copy/paste an article, with little discussion.
08-04-2022 10:16
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.It is still a tiny amount
.Nature does 97% and humans 3%
Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.Why are you not capable of doing the testing like I have and finding the truth.Instead you have got suckered in to trolling and fighting with the others.Get it together sea squirt
08-04-2022 20:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18436)
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.


Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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).


Nothing has changed, why lie, desperately to bring people back. Is this how you hope to recruit you horde of cult minion, to cleanse this website on May 1st?

I don't even open the email notifications. They just tell me there was some activity on the site, which I'll get around to looking at eventually. If they filled my mailbox, I'd shut them off, or spam filter them.

Most of your post are either complaining, or self promoting. Occassionally, you copy/paste an article, with little discussion.

Bingo.


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
09-04-2022 01:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
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.
RE: Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.09-04-2022 02:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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!

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





















































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.
09-04-2022 03:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11779)
sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

How are you defining Climate Change?
Page 1 of 212>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems42018-05-2022 18:45
Water Vapor And The Climate, Why Carbon Dioxide Is A Very Minor Player903-05-2022 16:54
Forgivable Carbon Sins...224-04-2022 05:52
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands8023-04-2022 17:38
"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith9308-12-2021 19:31
▲ 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