Comments for Climate Etc.

Rob, There really isn’t any useful estimate. The uncertainty in land and ground water sink change is huge. We do know though that conservation agriculture and water shed/wetland restoration will be more beneficial than once thought. That also has some nice fringe benefits, but since it is low hanging fruit it just isn’t sexy enough for the geniuses.

Tony

That was not the question though.

Rud — I’ll ask my original question again: What are the agreed to draconian market forces that FL is referring to?

Rud — Your opinion is quite different than FL’s statement.

Capt– Again I am only asking what readers think is the best science on a very specific topic. I don’t think conservation ag has a real impact

Lou Maytrees: “You folks do live in a dream world.”

LOL!

You’re funny.

Rob

If you go to section 3 of my link as I suggested I think you will find the answer to your question which I took to be about the half life of Atmospheric co2

Tonyb

Steven Mosher: “This justifies using the global CO2 forcing since 1880 as a linear surrogate for all the anthropogenic forcings”

I seriously doubt it.

Tony

The link you posted stated-
“That means that every single CO2 molecule from human or natural origin has a 20% chance per year to be incorporated in vegetation or dissolved into the oceans.”

The conclusion was based on;
“This was confirmed by the fate of 14C, increased due to atomic bomb testing, after the tests stopped.”

I did a read of the study upon which the conclusion was based and it seemed flawed in that it assumed the degrading of the isotope being measured in the local area only occurred due to absorption. What about distribution via circulation?

I am not writing that it is wrong, but I did not read that the issue was addressed.

I just think, if you are measuring mass, it is better to use gravity than height. It’s from physics.

Land use impact is in the 400 to 1000 gigaton range and ground water only holds about 10 to 100 times more CO2 that the atmosphere which could put it in the 100 to 1000 gigaton range. Of course the ground water CO2 depends on the organic soil carbon in the recharge zone. Healthy soil would not only increase CO2 in the soil but could double or more the CO2 content of ground water. .

I have justified it several times already. You take the population increase rate and the per capita CO2 increase rate due to development and you get 700 ppm by 2100 or thereabouts. Anything less means we have successfully replaced some fossil fuel burning by other means, mitigation in other words, and/or that you have restricted developing countries from increasing their carbon footprint somehow.

Sorry that should be total carbon not just CO2

The word “bowl” will do as a description, although the geological term is “basin”

The other comments following yours are completely bereft of any knowledge of structural geology – and they’re not even funny

Capt

You believe those actions would have what percentage increase in total CO2 absorption planet wide. Sorry, but it would appear to be VERY small

Joseph,
I didn’t say I like it. I did say I wouldn’t expect them to find anything. But I do advocate compliance with the law. It’s up to you to chose otherwise or when you ‘believe’ that compliance is appropriate. There are laws I don’t care for, but if/when I chose to not comply then I must suffer the associated consequences including a suspicion of impropriety.

start here.

then read his paper

Jim D,
There must exist some sort of algorithm to support/reject the variance.

“You believe those actions would have what percentage increase in total CO2 absorption planet wide. Sorry, but it would appear to be VERY small”

Without the ground water factor I have seen estimates from 10% to 25% reduction in atmospheric CO2. Since NH atmospheric CO2 varies by around 40 ppm seasonally it makes sense. It isn’t a forever and ever thing though, you reach a saturation level if you don’t sequestrate the plant carbon and soil microbes/insects etc. can reduce efficiency. I believe around 30% of the land surface is degraded, so yes I believe those actions would have a significant impact.

U.N. behemoth.

the hunger of this U.N. behemoth is legendary
it has taken in many victims
back off from this goliath
it has drawn in yer feet
back off from this gargantua
it has drawn in yer legs
this polyphemus has had yer up to here
belch
this godzilla aint got no manners
yer cant call our from this U.N. colossus.

H/t ‘n apologies to Ishmael Reed.

Steve

Do you believe what was stated regarding “adjustment time” is accurate?

It would seem to assume that the system does not change the rate of CO2 uptake as conditions change which seems inaccurate. Is CO2 uptake the same now as when at 280ppm? Uptake per plant increases right?

Latest Images