[Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? - RWL part 2.

[Peter Read]

Hi everyone

Yes, of course the preponderance of evidence is that not only are we in for global warming but also that there is a significant risk of passing a tipping point for irreversible catastrophic abrupt climate change.

As to what to do about it, maybe take a look at Peter Read, 2008. "Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay"  Climatic Change  87/3-4 305-320   

As regards the science, there is much uncertainty and the possibility of freeze up should not be discounted.  Learning HOW to release a lot of clathrate methane in a hurry is not a bad idea as a precautionary policy. But DON'T ACTUALLY DO IT NOW !  Stored compressed CO2 in deep strata, as the result of CCS applied to coal fired power stations, could also be released if the need arises to warm the planet. 

One strand of evidence that is relevant is how to account for the fairly stable climate over the last ~8000 years, that has seen settled agriculture and the growth (and collapse) of civilizations.  According to  

Ruddiman W (2003) The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Clim Change 61:261 - 293

it appears that clearance by fire of forest for settled agriculture has supplied enough CO2 to atmosphere to prevent the planet from sinking into deep freeze over these recent millennia.  Ruddiman is even able to account for cold phases as the climatic response to plague episodes that decimated populations, reducing agriculture and allowing forest regrowth on abandoned agricultural land that took carbon out of the atmosphere, causing the cooler climate until expanding populations, agriculture and forest re-clearance restored the warmer trend.

Cheers

Peter

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sean K. Barry 
  To: 'terra pretta group' ; Ron Larson 
  Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? - RWL part 2.


  DOUGH!!

  Hi Ron,

  You said it (below in blue)!  I'll back you, Ron, on all of that.  I know the sources that support our shared view.  I know the GREAT PREPONDERANCE of scientific data and repeated and repeatable analysis of experiment that supports it.  I have read the skeptics, too, and I know and see the weaknesses in there arguments.  Mostly this is usually a lack of any real experimental data and an overabundance of ill-informed opinion, all paid for by the self-interested.

  You are correct to cite the debunking of skeptics for us (the "Big Lie" about "Global Cooling") and you are correct to demand that the skeptics in this discussion need to cite their articles for us.

  Kurt is right about the need for prompt action and Ron is right that we don't need action to combat Global Cooling.

  Regards,

  SKB
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Ron Larson 
    To: 'terra pretta group' 
    Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:35 AM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Ice-age anyone? - RWL part 2.


    List members:   Kurt said today:

    1.   "There are those who say the earth is cooling and they also have plausible reasons why this is so."
        Please cite just one such plausible reason.  I absolutely believe there is no plausible reason for such a belief.  This was my reason for the last posting, using the word "lie".

    2.  You also said:  "I believe that TP is useful...."  
            [RWL:  I assume close to 100% agreement by the list on this.  The questions we need to answer are how useful, how costly, when not useful, why it works, etc.  I look forward to hearing from people who aren't yet convinced on likely utility.]

    3.  "....and may be of help with either result, but only time will tell which will come to pass."   
            [RWL:   Kurt's "either" refers to warming or cooling.   I write again to make these assertions:
            1.    that world temperatures are rising at an annual pace never previously observed  - we do not need more time to know the direction.
            2.    that this temperature change is primarily because of anthropogenic CO2 and that scientific theory only predicts this direction
            3.   that this unprecedented rate of temperature change is of crisis economic proportions in misery and dollar terms
            4.   that biochar/TP can only act to lower atmospheric CO2 and therefore lower temperatures - never the converse
            5.   that support and funding for biochar R&D, introduction, and benefits should not and will never come from those who believe in global cooling
            6.   that those who believe world temperatures are falling are slowing down the study and introduction of biochar/TP and the work of this list
            7.   that deniers of global warming owe it to this list to cite their sources of information, so we can know how to argue with you on a matter of extreme importance to the vast majority of us
            8.   that those who believe all of the above have an obligation to confront both deniers and doubters.

       So in order to get back soon to item #2 above,  I ask Kurt and any others who think there is a "may" here,  which of these above assertions do you disagree with - and why?]

       4.  Kurt lastly said:  'The problem is, that if warming should come to pass, we need to be on it right now to help reduce that, and vice versa."
            [RWL:  It is only the "vice versa"  with which I am disagreeing.  That option is illogical and discussing it is slowing this list's work down.  If you find "vice versa" to be logical. please cite reasons and authorities.  
        My own reasons are given above.  My favorite authority is James Hansen - who has fortunately finally (not yet published) endorsed biochar.  Tim Flannery is another authority of big importance to me, because of his combined biochar enthusiasm and world reknown on environmental matters.  Unfortunately, many climate experts still have not yet even heard the word - and they will wonder how we can possibly be talking about "vice versa" when they get to this site. 
            I'll wager that warming deniers will also soon deny the utility/efficacy of biochar as well.]

    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org


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


  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080428/8e324543/attachment.html