Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:26:58 +0000


Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Steve Fish

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:26:58 +0000

Re: Thomas says: 18 Oct 2017 at 9:10 PM, ~#210, and also 212, “Scott has done this since the first day he ever posted here Steve.” I have read most of what Scott has posted here and it is mostly not science. I can only think that you don’t know what a peer reviewed scientific review or research article looks like. I have posted three for Scott to look at and you should also give them a view. But hey, you are so confidant in your assertion that you make a condescending joke about me, so you must have read all of Scott’s links. Please point out his scientific review or research article links that suggest that there is no limit on glomalin production. You have made a strong, unpleasant assertion about me, and yes, as in all science and polite discourse, you should now back it up with verifiable facts. Steve

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Steve Fish

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:43:33 +0000

Re: Scott Strough says, 19 Oct 2017 at 1:21 AM ~#217: “There has never been found to be a limit…” Scott, all you are doing is expressing your lack of knowledge. Are there any of the many soil carbon experts who say that there is no limit? On the face of it, there are indications that there is a limit. If there weren’t, there would be some layers of glomalin that would be tens of meters thick. The 7 to 42 year limit on glomalin was done with carbon dating, and there are several scientific publications that have dated components of glomalin. There is also evidence that it is turned over and renewed constantly. You have also said that science is behind on the glomalin issue, but there are very many peer reviewed scientific publications studying this. Wright and Upadhyaya are cited as being the first to describe Glomalin and its relation to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (1 below) and Wright has several subsequent research articles. I presume that all the peer reviewed studies are the sources of information for Christine Jones because she apparently doesn’t do or publish scientific research. I have selected two scientific literature reviews for you to peruse (2 & 3 below). They should provide many references for you to look up and key words for Google Scholar searches. 1. Extraction of an abundant and unusual protein from soil and comparison with hyphal protein of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (I couldn’t find an open source full text version): 2. Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to soil carbon sequestration: 3. Role of proteins in soil carbon and nitrogen storage: controls on persistence: Enjoy, Steve

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:34:15 +0000

Nigelj, "but please don’t bait Victor." Why not? Works great with rogue elephants, sharks, crocodiles and fish!

Comment on O Say Can You CO2… by Thomas

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:23:37 +0000

Sorry typo .... "Driest warmest winter [period] in [many parts of] Oz." :-)

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Victor

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:45:42 +0000

re #274 I recall a faculty meeting ca. 1999, with all windows wide open and no screens. At first I was concerned, as I expected insects to be pouring in, but none appeared at all. That struck me as very strange indeed and from then on I couldn't help but notice how few insects were buzzing around compared to what I'd noticed in the past, where screen doors and windows were an absolute must. So this report from Germany strikes me as a bit odd, considering that this is a phenomenon that's been evident for many years. Hard to see "climate change" as a factor, since most insects thrive in warm weather. Increased use of pesticides seems more likely.

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by zebra

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:11:57 +0000

nigel 273, I'm not writing a thesis; I'm trying to teach about scientific thinking, engineering, design, and so on...and you are like the student with too many subjects, who only skimmed the reading assignment the morning of class...while eating breakfast. I think you don't get the concept here, and I am not going to keep repeating it for you endlessly. We are trying to think about what happens as the population slows in growth and then begins to decline. So, we pick a hypothetical end-point, to help understand first principles, because that is a simpler (static) case rather than dynamic (varying with time.) We're not starting a civilization from scratch, like one of those simulation games, although that might yield some similar results. So, try thinking it through again. You suggest that people would concentrate in West Virginia rather than New York because...? What do those with a choice do now? Do you think the Koch Brothers live next to their coal mines? You think that people would travel to distant places to mine ore when there is an enormous amount of already processed material to be recycled? There are multiple reasons why people would make the kinds of "ecologically sound" choices I suggest; I'm not going to do all the work for you, and if you want to contradict my conclusions, you have to come up with a serious alternative, logically supported.

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Barton Levenson

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:11:29 +0000

K 255: none of you can even handle “sustainable” yet. BPL: Only Killian holds the key! To achieve enlightenment, you must meditate on his words day and night... night and day... (cue Fred and Ginger).

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Killian

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:18:47 +0000

#271 nigelj said 1. Nothing in regenerative design requires any of these three rigid choices.” Do we get some proof / evidence of this assertion? Do you not know how to google? You can find the principles in many different places. If you can show me any one of the principles must result in the choices - assertions only, hypocrite - you assert, by all means feel free. Better, learn something before opening your mouth. This is basic English. What I said was there is nothing in **regenerative design** that **limits** us to these choices. That is, the choices are not inherent to working within natural systems, they are simply made up by you. In this case, the "proof" - and here you mean evidence, for such a point can *only* be an opinion, technically - is properly termed "evidence." But this is another error you often make. Regenerative design appears to be a system that uses whatever tools are available to aim for perfect sustainability for all eternity. This stupidity can only be intentional. Can you start bore holing any response nigelj to my posts? They really are that useless. Straw Man. Again. Killian has often emphasised very long time scales and possibility of extinction etc so I think I’m fairly representing the case. No, you *know* you are being dishonest. You are 100% conflating defining "sustainable" with the design *process* of permaculture. So if the tools are applied, where is the hard proof they would not take us back to the stone age? This is an incredibly stupid question. Where is the "proof" capitalism won't? Enough... stupid, stupid, stupid.

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by alan2102

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:13:52 +0000

#271 nigelj 22 Oct 2017: "Mal Adapted pointed out...the slide towards non sustainability started with cereal farming and is somewhat locked in now." Locked in now?! Jeezuz. What an outlandish suggestion. We strip-mine the soils for a century or more, never lifting a finger to replace what was removed, and then we imagine that unsustainability is "locked in now"?!

Comment on Unforced variations: Oct 2017 by Hank Roberts

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:01:26 +0000 The world's biggest gamble 27 October 2016 DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000392 Abstract The scale of the decarbonisation challenge to meet the Paris Agreement is underplayed in the public arena. It will require precipitous emissions reductions within 40 years and a new carbon sink on the scale of the ocean sink. Even then, the world is extremely likely to overshoot. A catastrophic failure of policy, for example, waiting another decade for transformative policy and full commitments to fossil-free economies, will have irreversible and deleterious repercussions for humanity's remaining time on Earth. Only a global zero carbon roadmap will put the world on a course to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions and create the essential carbon sinks for Earth-system stability, without which, world prosperity is not possible.