Josh, Thank you for your thoughts. I do not have a prejudice against academia. Much research has been done and accurate, logical conclusions have been brought about through diligent and unbiased methodology. I also am familiar with some of the "business" associated with many in our field of science within the university circles. There are many on the take concerning this issue and some others.
When one critically/carefully examines the collected data, listens to the logic and arguments presented, and the unwillingness of a logical public debate (there are many scientists who do not agree that the collected data leads un-mistakenly to this conclusion), one is able to realize that this issue is one of politicians and agendas rather than sound (logical, accurate) science. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lee Frelich Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 2:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow industrial biochar Josh: We have good direct records of atmospheric CO2 that go back 800,000 years. During that time, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has had a major cycle with peaks around 2x the lowest levels 8 times, and in each case the temperature change has been about 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F). At this time we are well beyond the highest CO2 concentrations in the 800,000 year record. When we balance the various forcings on the climate we have: CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases, positive forcing (as established by Arrhenius in 1896, and confirmed repeatedly since then each time better equipment that can make more accurate measurements has been developed), black soot (positive forcing), human aerosols (negative forcing), albedo changes (net positive forcing in a warming climate due to shrinking ice sheets and snow cover), and change in energy output from the sun which goes up and down a tiny amount, but had a tiny net positive effect in the last 100 years, the overall net effect is positive, i.e. towards higher temperatures, and CO2 has a growing proportion of that positive forcing, easily dwarfing changes in the sun. We know that the current rise in CO2 is not one of the natural cycles observed in the 800,000 year record because CO2 derived from fossil fuel burning has a unique isotopic signature compared to carbon derived from other sources, which is showing up in the atmosphere. The volume of CO2 derived from fossil fuel burning (minus that that goes into the ocean and the vegetation) is equivalent to the annual increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the annual upward step in CO2 content corresponds to known measures of economic activity (i.e. the increase in the Keeling curve is smaller in years with recessions, and smaller in earlier years of the record when the economy was smaller--the annual increase throughout the record is proportional to the amount of fossil fuels burned in a given year). Also, the long-term natural temperature trend over the last few thousand years has been downwards, and would be expected to continue downwards in the absence of human influence. As was pointed out in 1977, cycles in the earth's orbital parameters are changing the distribution of solar energy across the earth's surface in such as way as to start a long term downward trend in temperature towards the next glacial period. However, the human/CO2 influence at this point is pushing in the opposite direction with much greater magnitude. With regard to climate models--they are really doing quite well. In 1988, James Hansen published predictions for CO2 content of the atmosphere and the resulting temperature increase through the year 2020, based on the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) global circulation model. A comparison was made of the predictions and actual observed temperatures for the year 2005, and the predictions first published in 1988 matched 2005 almost perfectly (the observed temperature increase was slightly larger than predicted). Todays models are much better than the ones available in 1988. The models run without the CO2 and other human effects (with only natural forcings included) cannot duplicate the observed temperature changes during the last century, while they can come close with CO2 included. These results have been duplicated with 16 different global circulation models from various research labs around the world. In addition, as Hansen has recently pointed out, the same predictions for worldwide mean temperature can and have been made via direct physics with a simple formula on a hand calculator, or as Arrhenius did with amazingly accurate results in 1905, with paper and pencil. The problems arise in trying to predict what might happen in a given location and time (i.e. weather rather than climate--weather is less predictable). Regarding university research funding, there is an emphasis on climate change, but the majority of funding is still given out for other topics. Its hard to see how anyone would have to do climate change research just to get funding. I managed to be ranked among the top 1% of all scientists in the world as of 2006 without publishing a single paper on global warming. I am doing some global warming research now, but so far have not been able to get any funding for it. Lee Josh Kelly wrote: > Steve, > > I strive to maintain an open mind about climate change. The climate > is changing and has always changed - the climate of Pleistocene being > a dramatic, and relatively recent, example compared to today. I think > the evidence that people are helping to drive the current climate > through industrial activity to be stronger than the evidence that > there is nothing aberrant going on. Lee Frelich might chime in with > something more convincing than I. > > As for the 100,000 years worth of measurements of CO2 concentrations, > they are not modelled. We have reliable CO2 measurements from ice > cores going back at least that far. The CO2 concentration of the > atmosphere today is far higher than at any time within that time > frame, and has increased exponentially over the past 100 years, a > period for which we have accurate measurements. And, relating to this > forum, we have chronoligies of tree rings going back well over 1,000 > years from numerous sites around the globe that inform our knowledge > of climatic trends. > > Jeff Masters at weatherunderground.com had a quality blog post a while > back about climate change denial in the U.S., and it wasn't just the > climate scientists that were over-whelmingly convinced of climate > change. Nearly 90% of all natural scientists are. I tried to dig up > that blog, but could not find it. I think the comparison between the > evidence that humans are driving climate change and that cigarettes > are bad for the health is appropriate. Cigarette companies spent 30 > years funding research, spokes people, and lobbying government to deny > the health risks of smoking. Energy companies are using the same > tactics today to deny the risks of burning fossil fuels. The sad > thing is, it's working pretty well in the U.S. We wouldn't want to do > anything to shake up this great economy we've been enjoying. We're > here to serve the economy (the new god) and not the other way > around. > > While there may be some prejudice in my thinking, most of my opinions > on global warming (or climate change; they're basically synonymous) > come from the critical thinking skills I obtained in my education, > including physics, chemistry, math, biology and humanities. > > I don't share your prejudice towards academia. The practice of > tenuring professors is meant to, and most times does, lead to an > independence of thought and opinion that, I believe, greatly enriches > our society. I have checked out organizations like the Heartland > Institute and, while they bring together some credible and some not-so- > credible folks to bash the notion of human induced climate change from > any angle, as an organization they are driven by ideology and > corporate sponsorship, not a desire for the truth. The fact that > science fiction writer Michael Crichton is one of their experts pretty > much sums up their credibility. Their advocacy of "market based > solutions" is code for "money rules", and who has more cash, academia > or petro-chemical companies? > > There is a very slim chance that my opinions on climate change are > incorrect, and I hope they are. Until the evidence for that is > strong, I will continue to look for ways to reduce my energy > consumption and resource use and encourage others to do the same. > There's 6.5 billion of us, and we've got to start getting along and > sharing resources for the planet and its forests to be a nice place > for future generations to live. > > Well, having said all that, I don't expect to change your mind and > wouldn't presume to be able to. I figured I would give you a glimpse > at my thought process, which you might find to be valid even if you > disagree with my conclusions/beliefs. > > Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be an example of "good > science"? > > Respectfully, > Josh > > On Apr 3, 9:52 am, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sorry Josh, this is a model-induced fallacy! As is the argument that the majority of scientists agree with this line of reasoning. It may true that the "climate scientists" have a majority regarding agreement to this doctrine; however, could it be possible that the proverbial "dog in the fight" of maintaining the climate change hysteria is to insure continued funding for position, kind of like your example of Exxon-Mobile? >> >> Hard data at 150 years does not equal 100,000 years worth of pure speculation regardless of who may espouse such. Future generations of world-wide scientists will look back on our day and the induced hysteria referred to first as "Global Warming" then changed to "Climate Change" depending on audience, will recognize this for what it is: poppycock and not good science. >> >> I encourage you to look deeper into this subject without prejudice and outside of a college campus. >> >> Steve Springer >> Urban Forester >> City of Bartlett >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Kelly >> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:36 AM >> To: ENTSTrees >> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow industrial biochar >> >> The fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are higher than >> they have been in the past 100,000 years and that the curve of >> increase in CO2 over the past 100 years matches the curve of >> temperature increase over that same period is not a hypothesis - it is >> an empirical fact. But hey, Exxon-Mobile has spent a lot of money >> casting doubt on the 97% of climate scientists that view our current >> climate as being increasingly anthropogenically altered, and what does >> Exxon-Mobile have to lose from our economy going carbon negative? >> >> I encourage folks interested climate change solutions and forests to >> read the chain under David Yarrow's initial post. There are many >> interesting concepts in it to grapel with. I had a guy with the >> Southern Alliance for Clean Energy tell me that they were promoting >> the notion of replacing power generation by coal with biomass energy >> from North Carolina's 18 million acres of forest (mostly hammered >> already) and sequestering the leftovers as terra preta via >> torefaction. Seems like a great way to degrade our biodiversity and >> the productive capacity or our soils to me, which would also impair >> the soils and forests ability to sequester carbon. >> >> Josh >> >> On Apr 3, 9:18 am, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Interesting philosophy here, however, not all of us accept the premise >>> of a world-wide climate change actually occurring! Give me a minimum of >>> 1,000 years of temperature data then come to me with an established >>> pattern at averaged world-wide temperature increases, not 150 years >>> worth. Until then, this doctrine remains a hypothesis at best.... >>> >>> Steve Springer >>> >>> Urban Forestry >>> >>> City of Bartlett >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of David Yarrow >>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:08 AM >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: [ENTS] Fw: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow >>> industrial biochar >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: David Yarrow <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> To: danny day <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> Cc: alan page <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:29 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow industrial >>> biochar >>> >>> yes, there is serious transcontinental backlash underway against the >>> idea of industrial biochar. and with good reason, i think. we have too >>> many examples of doing a great idea stupid. or, to rephrase in the >>> specific context, industrial solutions won't solve our >>> industrial-created troubles. a corollary idea is that truly wise >>> thinkers are rare. and too many people are single shot, silver bullet >>> thinkers: we must make enough biochar to sequester enough carbon to >>> offset all our emissions and fix global warming. >>> >>> i've had disagreements with folks who believe making biochar from trees >>> is our ideal way to implement a modern terra preta strategy, convinced >>> that ancient indigenous amazon tribes cleared the forest and charcoaled >>> the trees. this is almost a reflex, since most people's idea of >>> charcoal is hardwood char for cooking, and few have heard of making char >>> from anything else. and further, it's an american tradition: before >>> coal mining became industrial scale, most eastern forests were cleared >>> and burned in heaps to make potash and char for industry. >>> >>> first of all, i doubt hardwood trees are our best source of biomass to >>> char. last year i had the chore to bust up char made from woody >>> underbrush. very hot, sweaty job that took quite a while. >>> >>> on the other hand, last year we made char from softwood, corn stalks, >>> weeds, leaves, straw, hay, horse manure, and weathered boards. that >>> stuff crumbles to powder in your hand -- and likely is more attractive >>> habitat for microbes. cleared forest land sprouts with vigorous, dense >>> non-woody underbrush and weeds that can be easily cleared and charred >>> every year. >>> >>> second, any sensible shift to renewable energy begins with "reduce" -- >>> energy & resource conservation. 25 years ago i coined the phrase "more >>> is better, but less is best." buckminster fuller, who learned system >>> design on board naval vessels said "do more with less." we can't >>> sustain our current extravagant consumption of energy no matter what >>> energy source we exploit. this is not a technological issue -- it is a >>> moral and ethical challenge. how much is enough? our first response >>> must be to consume less, share more and leave more for future >>> generations. >>> >>> third, early in geological evolution, micro-organisms in sea and soil >>> generated the earth's atmosphere by their respiration, and maintain the >>> composition of gases necessary for more advanced, complex life forms. >>> microbes form the basal tissue of earth's lungs whose breathing in & out >>> to sustain the atmosphere. together with microbes, trees and forests >>> evolved later as earth's secondary lung tissue to sustain the atmosphere >>> to stabilize climate and moderate weather. trees and microbes are also >>> earth's primary engine to create new topsoil. >>> >>> cutting forests to cure climate change is like surgical removal of lungs >>> to fix respiratory disease -- like the poverbial cutting off your nose >>> to spite your face. the wise response is to regenerate our trees and >>> forests to restore and strengthen this crucial respiratory function of >>> the biosphere, not initiate a new cycle of deforestation and soil >>> degradation. >>> >>> however, that said, forests today are in catastrophic condition due to >>> decades of bad, exploitative forestry practices. left alone, forests >>> will slowly regenerate, but in our onrushing global warming emergency, >>> intelligent intervention can accelerate forest regeneration. benign >>> neglect is not an option. at the least, selective cutting to remove >>> chaotic undergrowth and excess sapling trees can upgrade forests while >>> we generate significant streams of biomass for carbon negative energy >>> and biochar, and create vast new job markets. then we have functional >>> forests plus energy, fertile soil and sustainable economic recovery. >>> such "timber stand improvement" is an excellent first step toward an >>> intelligent practice of sustainable forest stewardship. >>> >>> as an ancient forest advocate, the idea of degrading the complex biotic >>> diversity of these sylvan communities into tree factories to chip up >>> into biochar & bioenergy is unacceptable -- another example of "stuck on >>> stupid." so i share the outrage against plantation forestry to feed >>> industrial biochar production. i believe we can have both mature >>> forests and biochar & bioenergy production in a sensible, balanced >>> strategy. >>> >>> toward this urgent possibility, i plan to develop a broader definition >>> of "carbon negative" to embrace ancient forests and conservation >>> grasslands as well as biochar strategy. so, i startedwww.ancientforests.usandat our fall biochar symposium i hope to have a >>> speaker outline an intelligent strategy for forest stewardship that >>> includes soil restoration with biochar, rock dust, sea minerals and >>> inoculants. the current trouble is i don't know anyone who can advocate >>> such and approach, but i just rejoined ENTS (eastern native tree >>> society:www.nativetreesociety.org) and initiated an email inquiry with >>> alan page. i hope by the november symposium we will have something >>> solid to say about how to effect a successful carbon negative marriage >>> of forest stewardship with biochar & bioenergy extraction. >>> >>> given all else i am doing, this seems unrealistically ambitious. but >>> perhaps if i think and meditate and write a bit on this, others will >>> appear to carry this idea into fuller expression and action. i can only >>> do my best to advocate and advance this line of thought. and pray. >>> >>> for a green & peaceful planet, >>> David Yarrow >>> Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary >>> 44 Gilligan Rd, East Greenbush, NY 12061 >>> cell: 518-881-6632www.carbon-negative.uswww.ancientforests.uswww.nutrient-dens e.infowww... >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: danny day <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> To: David Yarrow <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:52 PM >>> >>> Subject: Fwd: Dr. Hansen and associates, please fully disavow >>> >> ... >> >> read more >- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
