So, does this mean that the Cult of Climastrology can just move on?
Climate change escalating so fast it is ‘beyond point of no return’
New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are ‘beyond point of no return’
Global warming is beyond the “point of no returnâ€, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.
The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.
Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.
Dr Crowther, speaking to The Independent, branded Donald Trump’s sceptical stance on climate change as “catastrophic for humanityâ€.
What this is all about is blaming what is a natural process, the release of CO2, which they unscientifically refer to as “carbon”, during a typical Holocene warm period, on Mankind’s supposed increase in temperature. Why? Because that’s what cult’s do.
Of course, despite total doom
“It’s fair to say we have passed the point of no return on global warming and we can’t reverse the effects, but certainly we can dampen them,†said the biodiversity expert.
In other words, they want more of the same Big Government policies that increase energy costs, increase the cost of living, redistribute hard earned money, and decrease liberty and freedom.
IF there’s an increase in CO2 or other organics (e.g., methane) from the soil it’s likely from the warming that’s taking place. What climate scientists refer to as positive feedback. Another example is loss of polar ice. As the temperature warms resulting in less ice, the dark ocean water revealed by the ice loss absorbs more of the Sun’s heat.
We should all hope that the scientists are wrong.
from the abstract:
Teach: You should contact the scientists and explain to them how they misuse the word “carbon”!
If this result holds, this is bad news, not good news.
Some things to consider.
Total Organic Carbon of soil….especially as it relates to farmers and farmland.
Key points of emphasis in which to evaluate the total carbon in a soil used to farm, and soils in which forest land or organic grasses reside.
The Total organic carbon is a measure of the carbon contained within soil organic matter.
Continuous pasture builds organic carbon quicker than other rotations…..As Ive often said that failing to rotate crops increases the co2 expulsion in soil.
Plant residue removal and constraints to crop growth reduce organic inputs…or in other words the failure to rotate crops reduces the effectiveness of the soil by reducing the carbon stored because its been expelled.
Any type of Erosion events remove topsoil which contains the bulk of a soil’s organic matter. This can take years of good management to replace….it is the topsoil in which we find the bulk of the Carbon which when expelled become Isotopes of differing kinds.
Micro-organisms breakdown soil organic carbon as an energy source – this occurs faster when the soil is moist and warm….ergo as soils are exposed by receeding glaciers for example the output of carbon increases dramatically from the carbon rich soil.
The proper Cultivation of soil can also enhance breakdown as soil aggregates are disrupted; making protected organic matter available to micro-organisms to decompose and because better soil aeration increases microbial activity.
These are just the basics of the typical soil primarily used for farming, ranching and forestry…..differing soil in differing climates offer greater or lessor carbon…..If you look at the AMAZON RAIN FOREST FOR EXAMPLE…you will see above that moist and warm soil tends to breakdown and release carbon faster AFTER IT IS CLEARCUT….Not only did the trees expel tremendous amounts of co2 into the air but the exposed WARM and MOIST soil now have their release of carbon to continue on.
I totally understand what the author is saying….perhaps it is you that should open your mind to the possibilities of what earth has to offer rather then your brain being reduced to political talking points.
The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven’t taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.
Have I not been saying this for two years Jeffery….in which you continued to ridicule me because you were so obsessed with making Exxon pay…….
I keep telling you guys that the AGW groupies are doing a disservice to mankind and that our real culpability is going to be in deforestation and the massive uses of fertilizers which prevent proper crop rotation….thus adding immense co2 into the atmosphere.
This was in the abstract:
They estimate that 12-17% of the total man-made CO2 comes from the soils, which show a temperature dependent increase in CO2 release. Why are soils releasing CO2 now? The most likely reason is the increased surface temperature.
In point of fact Exxon (and transportation) is not the greatest polluter – it’s electricity generation, primarily from coal burning.
If I remember correctly you’ve been claiming without evidence that most of the increase in CO2 was from deforestation and soils.
Do you have reason to believe that more than 17% of the increased atmospheric CO2 is from soils instead of burning fossil fuels?
If I remember correctly you’ve been claiming without evidence that most of the increase in CO2 was from deforestation and soils.
No Jeffery you fail to understand the basic science…I said the SPIKE occuring in the last 40 years coincides with the Deforestation of the Amazon rain forest which does three things.
1. The buring of the rainforest increases co2.
2. The underlying land is then exposed to release an additional amount of co2.
and lastly and most importantly.
3. The removal of 20 percent of the rain forest along with clear cutting around the world REMOVES CARBON SINKS FROM THE PLANET……
hence the spike can be attributed to LAND usuasge combined with fossil fuel buring.
And the Nature paper estimates the CO2 increase from land use changes at 12-17% of the total.
Do you agree with their conclusion?
from the conclusions in the article:
Wouldn’t it have been great if they had found that soils were absorbing a significant part of the rapid 40% increase in atmospheric CO2? Alas, their findings support the idea that warming is causing the soils to release MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. If true, this is not good.
Let’s hope the thawing permafrost and formerly permanent sea ice don’t start releasing trapped methane. Already happening? Not good.
While our leader twits over Broadway shows, TV skits, newspaper photos of him and whether global warming is a Chinese hoax, the Earth continues to warm. And it may be getting worse. Most regions of the Earth are already seeing the effects of retaining more and more of the Sun’s energy.
And the Nature paper estimates the CO2 increase from land use changes at 12-17% of the total.
Do you agree with their conclusion?
Basically….Ive seen numbers closer to 20 percent….right now the science is iffy and the calculations are based upon impure data that must take into account 198 countries reporting their crop yields, rotations and the amounts of fertilizers that are heavily nitrate based…..
Even accepting 20% from land use changes, 80% of the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Land use changes are contributing significantly to global warming.
Even accepting 20% from land use changes, 80% of the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Land use changes are contributing significantly to global warming.
Your not following the trail here…..the clear cutting of forestry is causing a loss of CO2 sinking ability by the planet.
The use of Nitrogen fertilizers causes farmers not to rotate crops further and drastically reducing the ability of the LAND to SINK co2.
This is one of the main drivers as to why co2 has spiked in the last 40 years.
The AGW crowd is on the wrong bandwagon and are doing a disservice to the planet because a few scientists want to keep their research fully funded……
Something you wrote:
Alas, their findings support the idea that warming is causing the soils to release MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. If true, this is not good.
My response:
Plant residue removal and constraints to crop growth reduce organic inputs…or in other words the failure to rotate crops reduces the effectiveness of the soil by reducing the carbon stored because its been expelled.
My firm does environmental impact studies…. all of this stuff is not anywhere nearly new to us as it is to the guys writing these papers…..Which is why its always been my mission to try and get people to look at every side of the scientific debate about co2 and not just fossil fuels….
focusing on fossil fuels does a great disservice to mankind.
Let me digress a bit…..
for all intents and purposes their are 3 types of Carbon isotopes we need to be concerned with c12, c13, c14…..c14 is of no consequence and can be ignored.
Plants and trees etc….are of two major varieties….c3 and c4…meaning they each EAT differing types of carbon…..
How one would differentiate which is which and how much is how much is beyond anything I know….but for the sake of this brief discussion…..
AGW scientist use the concept that the ratios of C12 to C13 carbon in the air proves that the rising Co2 comes from buring fossil fuels…..because fossil fuels produce c13 carbon and the rate of c13 carbon is increasing and skewing the c12/c13 ratio out of balance.
Now:
Farmers and ranchers and agriculturists seek out and plant c4 types of plant life…they are much better at giving higher yields and are more desirable in their efficiency and hardiness…..the C4 plants eat C13 and do nothing very little with c12….thus putting more c13 in the soil because a plant that eats c13 will ultimately release this c13 back into the atmosphere.
This increase in c13 being then reintroduced into the atmosphere causes the ratios to be skewed and the AHAH moment that AGW scientists have over the ratio of c12/c13 carbon can for the most part be explained.
so we were left with this conundrum…while c13….or fossil fueled carbon is increasing and causing the c12/c13 ratios to get out of balance historically this can be explained in the vastly growing populations and the wholesale change to c13 eating vegetation along with the use of nitrogen based fertilizers which force improper crop rotation which feeds this sequestered c13 back into the air.
The need to feed….along with the removal of c13 carbon sinks in the amazon and around the world has thrown the ratio out of balance which has forced a conclusion that MAY or MAY NOT be valid but certainly much more research needs to be done in order to establish a real link between c12/c13 and the loss of carbon sinking as the world demands more and more food daily.