Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (922928)	2/24/2016 2:16:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578183

New Paper Shows Global Warming Hiatus Real After All Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago February 24, 2016 Climate researchers have published a new paper this week in the journal Nature Climate Change that acknowledges there has been a global warming slowdown from 2000-2014. Their research shows a hiatus did indeed occur and continued into the 21st century, contradicting another study last June that said the hiatus was just an artifact that “vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.” This is not the first time activists have tried to hide the hiatus by using dodgy methods. –Thomas Richard, The Examiner, 24 February 2016 … An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected. Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real. “There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” … Ups and downsThe debate revolves in part around statistics on temperature trends. The study 1 that questioned the existence of the slowdown corrected known biases in the surface temperature record maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), such as differences in temperature readings from ships and buoys. This effectively increased the warming recorded, and the researchers also extended the record to include 2014, which set a new record high for average temperatures. That work, led by Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina, calculated the rate of global warming between 1950 and 1999 as being 0.113 °C per decade, similar to the 0.116 °C a decade calculated for 2000–14. This, Karl said, meant that an assessment done by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013 3 showing that warming had slowed was no longer valid. Fyfe and his colleagues argue 2 that Karl’s approach was biased by a period of relatively flat temperatures that extended from the 1950s into the early 1970s. Greenhouse-gas emissions were lower then, and emissions of industrial pollutants such as sulphate aerosols were cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Fyfe says that his calculations show that the planet warmed at 0.170 °C per decade from 1972 to 2001, which is significantly higher than the warming of 0.113 °C per decade he calculates for 2000–14. Fyfe says that the advantage of this approach is that it takes account of events that affect decadal temperature trends. For instance, researchers have found that climate models underestimated the cooling effect of volcanic eruption and overestimated the heating from solar radiation at the beginning of the twenty-first century 4. Other researchers are investigating variability in the Pacific Ocean, including a measure of sea surface temperatures known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) 5. All these things can affect the climate, and mask the longer-term warming trend. Bumps and wigglesSusan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically. –Jeff Tollefson, Nature, 24 February 2016 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/24/new-paper-shows-global-warming-hiatus-real-after-all/

To: Brumar89 who wrote (922928)	2/24/2016 2:26:32 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578183

Perhaps they should be comparing the increase in soil carbon with the increase in concrete carbon. How Much Carbon Can Soil Store Key points Increasing the total organic carbon in soil may decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide and increases soil quality. The amount of organic carbon stored in soil is the sum of inputs to soil (plant and animal residues) and losses from soil (decomposition, erosion and offtake in plant and animal production). The maximum capacity of soil to store organic carbon is determined by soil type (% clay). Management practices that maximise plant growth and minimise losses of organic carbon from soil will result in greatest organic carbon storage in soil. Background Recent interest in carbon sequestration has raised questions about how much organic carbon (OC) can be stored in soil. Total OC is the amount of carbon in the materials related to living organisms or derived from them. In Australian soils, total OC is usually less than 8 % of total soil weight (Spain et al., 1983) and under rainfed farming it is typically 0.7 – 4 %. Increasing the amount of OC stored in soil may be one option for decreasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Increasing the amount of OC stored in soil may also improve soil quality as OC contributes to many beneficial physical, chemical and biological processes in the soil ecosystem (figure 1) (see Total Organic Carbon fact sheet). When OC in soil is below 1 %, soil health may be constrained and yield potential (based on rainfall) may not be achieved (Kay and Angers, 1999). Figure 1: Some of the beneficial physical, chemical and biological processes in soil that total OC contributes to. Carbon budgets in soil – Inputs and losses of organic carbonThe amount of OC stored in soil is the difference between all OC inputs and losses from a soil. The main inputs of OC to soil in rainfed farming systems are from plant material, such as crop residues, plant roots, root exudates and animal manure. Inputs of plant material are generally higher when plant growth is greater. Losses of OC from soil are from decomposition by microorganisms, erosion of surface soil and offtake in plant and animal production. Decomposition occurs when microorganisms use OC in soil to obtain the carbon, nutrients and energy they need to live. During decomposition, OC is lost from soil because microorganisms convert about half of the OC to carbon dioxide gas (CO2). Without continual inputs of OC, the amount stored in soil will decrease over time because OC is always being decomposed by microorganisms. Losses of OC from erosion of surface soil can have a large impact on the amount of OC stored in soil. This is because OC is concentrated in the surface soil layer as small particles that are easily eroded. In Australian agriculture, erosion can cause the annual loss of 0.2 t/ha of soil from a pasture, 8 t/ha from a crop and up to 80 t/ha from bare fallow. Offtake of OC in plant and animal production is also an important loss of OC from soil. Harvested materials such as grain, hay, feed and animal grazing all represent loss of OC (and nutrients) from soil. Figure 2: The influence of soil type, climate and management factors on the storage of organic carbon (OC) that can be achieved in a given soil. Based on Ingram and Fernandes (2001). Soil type determines the potential storage of organic carbonThe potential storage of OC in soil depends on the soil type (figure 2). Clay particles and aggregates can reduce losses of OC by physically protecting organic matter from decomposition. Particles of organic matter can become adsorbed to clay surfaces, coated with clay particles or buried inside small pores or aggregates. All of these processes make it difficult for microorganisms to come in contact with organic matter. Therefore, the amount of OC stored in soil tends to increase with increasing clay content (figure 3). In contrast, in sand soil microorganisms are able to more easily access OC. This causes greater loss of OC by decomposition. The potential storage of OC in soil is rarely achieved because climate reduces inputs of OC to soil. Figure 3: The relationship between clay content and the organic carbon content of 220 soils in a 10 hectare area of a paddock under cereal-legume rotation in the central agricultural region of Western Australia. Climate determines the attainable storage of organic carbonClimate determines the attainable storage of OC in soil by regulating plant production (figure 2). Under dryland agriculture, rainfall is the climate factor that has most influence on plant productivity and therefore inputs of OC to soil. In regions with high rainfall, soils tend to have greater attainable storage of OC than the same soil type in a lower rainfall region. Although it is not possible to increase the attainable storage of OC in soil, management practices determine whether or not the attainable storage of OC in soil is achieved. Management determines the actual storage of organic carbon in soilManagement practices determine the actual storage of OC in soil by increasing inputs and decreasing losses (figure 2). Practices that can increase the amount of total OC stored in soil include: Increased plant growth generally increases inputs of OC to soil in shoot material, roots and root exudates, e.g. optimal nutrition, increasing water use efficiency, decreasing disease. Growing plants for longer periods each year generally increases inputs of OC to soil, e.g. shorter fallow, conversion from cropping to pasture, conversion from annual to perennial pasture. Improving soil structure can increase the amount of OC stored in soil by reducing losses of OC from soil by decomposition and erosion, e.g. retaining stubble, maintaining ground cover and reducing compaction by vehicles and stock. soilquality.org.au