Land use can influence climate more than greenhouse gases
WUWT reader T.G. Brown writes:
My monthly copy of Physics Today arrived today with a cover story on ‘Land Use and Climate Change’, co-authored by Roger Pielke Sr., Rezaul Mahmoud, and Clive McAlpine. While it is largely preaching to a warmest crowd, the message is compelling: …even if global average temperatures were contained, human impacts on climate would manifest in other potentially dangerous ways. . Piehlke et. al. are talking specifically about land use: deforestation, various farming practices, etc.
Toward the end of the introduction, there is a compelling quote by Gordan Bonan (NCAR) NASA Earth Observatory: Nobody experiences the effect of a half a degree increase in global mean temperature … land cover change is as big an influence on regional and local climate and weather as doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide–perhaps even bigger.
It’s a nice article, and available here: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/69/11/10.1063/PT.3.3364
Land’s complex role in climate change
Excerpt:
To date, most reporting on climate has focused on the possibility of catastrophic warming due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The assessment of climate change risk has essentially been distilled to a single metric: the global average surface temperature. That reality was evident at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where the central negotiating point was whether the global temperature rise should be limited to 1.5 °C or 2 °C. Indeed, a 2016 opinion piece by Simon Lewis (University College London and the University of Leeds, UK) states that, “by endorsing a limit of 1.5 °C, the [Paris] climate negotiations have effectively defined what society considers dangerous.”1
But the reality of humans’ impact on climate is exceedingly complex.2 Even if greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated completely, other harmful anthropogenic sources of climate change would remain. And even if global average temperatures were contained, human impacts on climate would manifest in other potentially dangerous ways.
One often overlooked human factor is land use. Deforestation, dryland farming, irrigated agriculture, overgrazing, and other alterations to the natural landscape can disrupt Earth’s natural balances and change weather patterns. As with the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere, the effects can last for decades or longer and affect regions distant from the original offense. Given continued rapid population growth, they threaten to be irreversible.
The article: Download PDF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like the alarmists are searching for the next big scare.
PS: So much for “settled science”.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/08/15/3A2E1BAB00000578-0-Changes_in_the_growth_rate_of_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_The_bla-a-36_1478620026494.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3917244/Is-greenhouse-effect-slowing-CO2-atmosphere-plateaued-12-years.html
Is the greenhouse effect slowing down? Plants have ‘paused’ the growing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
•Plants have helped soak up greenhouse gases from human activity
•The extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere has been used by plants
•By acting as a ‘carbon sink’ plant life has dramatically reduced the impact
•But scientists warn that forests and vegetation should not be viewed as the solution to global warming and rising CO2 levels
Well I never!
Eric… Plants are so, so HAPPY now that they are finally get a CO2 level that is a just bit more than the base subsistence level.
We can make them even more HAPPY by pushing the aCO2 level up towards 700ppm.. then beyond.
•But scientists warn that forests and vegetation should not be viewed as the solution to global warming and rising CO2 levels
=====================
why not? global greening is absorbing more CO2 today than the Paris agreement hopes to stop in 20 years. Human efforts are puny in comparison. Which is probably what irritates the scientists most of all. Doing nothing is working better than all other approaches.
EricHa, that last point “scientists warn that forests and vegetation should not be viewed as the solution to global warming and rising CO2 levels” comes directly from a spurious Jasper Ridge study, deconstructed here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/researchers-against-co2/
If land use changes were so powerful, then the agricultural revolution should have caused massive climate changes, which did not happen. Or are there special land use changes that only the climate “physicists” know have a profound and spiciest effect that defy the laws of thermodynamics?
What happened to the Summer of Love?
Andy, It seems like all the 60s hippies have gone over to the dark side and now want to kill all of the flowers. What will they put in their hair? When will they ever learn?
Ron, That study was a ******* joke!! What a waste of research time and money.
Duster, There is more ecological variety in urban/UHI areas than on your average farm. Easily provable. What is the hippies dark side warning? All garden flowers are invasive species!
When will someone stick up for the plants? The “Greens” ain’t doing it !!!!!
hang on to your wallet.
pielke is in the house
If you are actually going to hunt for “anthropogenic” effects on climate, at least on the micro- to regional scales, then land use is a solid empirical reality. That is all the UHI effect is. There were studies done several years ago that correlated rates of change with classes of land use changes. The author was vaguely surprised to find himself stating that the initial changes from wild land to – say – cereal cropland were actually typically a greater magnitude than the changes related to urban development. CO2 is and always was a side issue.
Pielke Sr. pioneered in analyzing terrain features that made for microclimates with distinctive qualities and differing rates of variation, even when located in close proximity. Land use adds to local variability and works against the illusion of global warming or climate change.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/what-is-climate-is-it-changing/
No, farmers and agronomists have known this for 100 years or more. The west Australian wheat fields get less rain than the once lower rainfall, arid scrub, areas East of the wheat belt. Recent research in the Amazon has also shown this. I am not a global warming believer in any way, but I was once a wool and wheat farmer and have a degree in agricultural science.
And of course if we cover with solar panels, we will be much better off.
An unrelated aside:
It’s election day!…finally. The missus an I performed our civic duty and voted this morning.
Of course that can be taken as two distinct actions.
Your distinct actions would be? Maybe, I should ask what distinct actions would suit you?
My wife and I also voted this morning but we call “performing our civic duty” something else.
wink, wink 🙂
Tom, if you and your missus are calling that something else a duty, you’re doing it wrong. wink, wink, nudge, nudge. :))
It’s every woman’s duty!
Ummm… How often do you sleep in the dog house? lol:))
I have a cat, so if you ask me if I have been in a cat house I would have to say yes but only when I was younger and in the service. 🙂
Ah well, you know what they say. A soldier that won’t f…errr…do his duty to the ladies… won’t fight.
Your civic duty would be to place Clinton under a citizens arrest.
Unfortunately asybot, I don’t think the Secret Service would approve of that, from a professional standpoint. And, I’m not really interested in answering the kind of questions folks who have had their sense of humor surgically might ask.
She won’t have a secret service detail much longer.
Albedo mods plus the ever increasing waste heat / energy flux at and around the surface mean that the surface and lower troposphere are going to be warmer than their “natural state” – no matter what. It is what it is. Warmists would do well to acknowledge this scientific fact.
Nice topical issue from PT.
Just got my copy.
In addition to Pielke’s article, there is one on ocean spray and its effect on weather and climate as well as one on the Carbon cycle in a changing climate. (that one by Heater Graven looks to be standard IPCC fare).
Another irreversible trend!!! Man bad for planet Earth! /sarc
“Given continued rapid population growth, they threaten to be irreversible.”
Well then, the only solution left is to drastically reduce the population. Isn’t that what these scares always boil down to? That is their end game. For some reason, it just isn’t possible in the minds of these alarmists for humans to manage their lands properly. They simply aren’t capable of avoiding cutting down all the trees or overgrazing the land even when it’s in their self-interest to do so. Alarmists prefer a different solution. Getting rid of most, if not all humans seems to be their first, final, and only solution to saving the planet.
Louis,
i think that there is a significant parallel in current events. Immigrants from North Africa are filling boats well passed the carrying capacity of the boats. The boats are frequently swamping, with major loss of life. The boat captains think that exceeding the design capacity is a humanitarian act. Long term, it is a decision that probably results in greater loss of life than if they were to leave some behind. One of my favorite aphorisms is, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Whenever you enter a large auditorium or meeting room, there are prominent signs that say “Maximum Capacity of this Room is XXX.” There are good reasons, which should be obvious, why such restrictions exist! We ignore such lessons at our peril!
Clyde Spencer November 8, 2016 at 11:44 am
I understand the point you wish to make, but the example is wrong. The “boat” is making a one way trip, it is barely sea worthy and the people smuggler is not going. He is paid by the headcount. There will be no repeat costumers, whether they live or die does not matter to him. There will be another group of desperate people to take advantage of, another rotting hulk to pass off as the gateway to salvation and another buck to be made. No humanitarianism involved.
michael
The boat captains think that exceeding the design capacity is a humanitarian act.
Bless.
The boat captains have taken $5000 a head up front, and the boat is a total wreck, and they will abandon it anyway and leave it to the passengers.
Land use changes are certainly a larger influence on flash floods than CO2. Cover the ground with houses, buildings, roads and parking lots. Less ground to soak up rain. More runoff. Result is quicker and bigger flash floods.
More runoff, more flash floods, more overall flooding.
Whenever I see someone on the news claiming, “it never used to flood here” I always want to ask them how many new neighbors they have around them.
..and that’s why temps are adjusted down for UHI
>>>>>>>SNARK
The attempt to connect the mythical “climate change” issue to real issues wrt land use seems like a pasted-on one. It’s a red herring.
Bruce Cobb November 8, 2016 at 11:26 am
“Roger Pielke Sr.” is a legitimate and honorable scientist.
I do not think he throws out red herrings. I have not read his paper yet but I doubt I will be disappointed by it.
michael
wtf? he eats your taxes and cries for more.
do you really think it’s legitimate and honorable to tax your breath?
frikn eloi.
You’re starting to sound like a Trumpkin, everyone who does support us 100% is part of the enemy.
what you typed doesn’t really make much sense.
is that the best you can do?
MarkW
please tell me all about those Trumpkins.
🙂
I think history makes it clear that since humanity has existed the land has changed very little since the top bit was covered in ice upto a mile thick so maybe we need a nice meteor strike just to put things into perspective.
Once there were 65 million buffalo on the American plains now there are 85 million cows I suppose in the scheme of things 20 million ruminants one way or the other must make a difference.
When Maurice Strong coined the phrase sustainable development most thought it was about our finite planet and how to minimise use of resources but it was Strong’s euphemism for population control, nothing changes. Its all our fault well we exist so it couldn’t possibly be anyone elses fault could it?
The impact of the Buffalo /Cow transition is more than simply numbers… Buffalo, despite being larger & faster, are far more efficient and consume only a quarter to a third the amount of feed
Whatever happened to the greening caused by additional CO2? If deforestation can increase temps, then the greening factor should reduce them, right? There is also the fact that once a place is deforested, it cannot be deforested year after year. In other words, changes in land use do not continue ad infinitum. Of course, we have the environets against GMO crops, which produce lower levels of CO2 than non-GMO crops. The environuts’ targetted evils seem to be countering their
goals. Worry, worry, that’s what environuts do, more than anything else, except to complain. Loudly. About things they know very little about.
Very curious about this issue. We have seen other papers documenting the increase in greenery on the planet over the last 30 years. What impact does that have on the climate?
Existing climate models seem to be very focused on physics and minimize the impact of biology and photosynthesis on the climate.
Over the last 30 years, increased CO2 levels seem to have had more impact on increased plant life than increased temperatures.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/08/global-greening-has-slowed-rise-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-study-finds
“Greening” does reduce the temperature — but it is not a 1:1 ratio. Fifty percent of all rainfall comes from evapostranspiratio from. However, mature plants provide most of the net evapotranspiration. Young plants (such as food crops) tend to absorb more moisture from the soil than they yield through evapotranspiration.
So, cutting down mature forests to grow fuel is a bad idea.
I have been pounding this point for over a year. Most of the real effects of climate change have been from land-use change. This should not even be a surprise to anybody. The most significant climate issue in recent memory is the dustbowl of the 1930s.
Following the Stock Market crash, food prices also plummeted. Farmers used deep furrow farming in order to expand their crop yields and earn enough to survive. Within a few years, drought took hold, temperatures rose significantly, and dust covered everything in the Midwest.
Until recently, most temperature charts showed 1934 to be the warmest year on record in the United States — this was directly due to the dustbowl drought.
In addition, here is an article (concerning India) which was published for open review over a year ago. Ironically, Roger Pielke, Sr. was the first to comment on it. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/1765/2016/hess-20-1765-2016.pdf
“Our results also show that Land-use and Land-cover changes (LULCC) alone causes warming in the extremes of daily mean and maximum temperatures by a maximum of 1–1.2C, which is compara-
ble with the observed increasing trend in the extremes. … Decrease in forest cover and simultaneous increase in crops … act together in reducing significantly the moderate rainfall events and the amount of rainfall in that category over central India. ”
The Syrian drought is the same cause. Syria’s population grew by a factor of 4 since 1950 — Assad directed the agricultural systems to engage in non-sustainable agricultural practices, which increased food production initially, but has now resulted in a systemic drought. Those who blame Syria’s civil war on climate change are missing the fact that it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.
Why is this significant? Because the higher temperature over land and changes in drought/flooding are due entirely to land-use and land-cover changes.
Curtailing Carbon Dioxide emissions will do nothing to fix this. Worse yet, a shift to bio-fuels (such as corn-based ethanol) will only make this problem worse.
Lorcanbondal
“Until recently, most temperature charts showed 1934 to be the warmest year on record in the United States — this was directly due to the dustbowl drought.”
I believe you have it the wrong way round: Until recently, most temperature charts showed 1934 to be the warmest year on record in the United States — This directly resulted in the dustbowl drought.
The dustbowl started in 1931 and peaked in 1934. There were high temperatures throughout the 1930s in the United States. In general terms, the over-farming led to drought and the drought led to both the dust bowl and higher temperatures. The long term drought finally ended in 1939 following substantial changes in farming practices instituted in 1938.
The point is that in the 1930s, nobody understood these linkages. Nowadays, everyone should understand them, but most people seem to ignore them in favor of the reigning carbon emissions paradigm. This is problematic as we grow corn to make fuel based ethanol while Brazil is clear-cutting the Amazon to grow cattle feed for our cattle.
” Syria’s population grew by a factor of 4 since 1950 ”
Well between Assad and Daesh, they’ve solved the population problem. Syria will soon be back to 1950 levels.
But the relevant issue is articles “blaming” the Syrian civil war on climate change (rather than despotism). It’s too absurd to consider seriously, but I hear it repeated all of the time.
Most of those folks are making their way to Europe, anyways. Will they cause drought there?
“Until recently, most temperature charts showed 1934 to be the warmest year on record in the United States — this was directly due to the dustbowl drought.”
Or, maybe the dustbowl drought was directly due to 1934 being the warmest year on record (and all the other years of the 1930’s were similarly hot, a decade’s worth of really hot weather).
See above — the dust bowl stemmed from the drought caused by aggressive over-farming at the start of the Great Depression. Yes, the entire decade of the 1930s was warm in the United States. The droughts really did not stop until the conservation efforts of 1938.
These are pretty well understood concepts in this day in age.
lorcanbonda November 8, 2016 at 3:33 pm
“the dust bowl stemmed from the drought caused by aggressive over-farming at the start of the Great Depression.”
Hmm, The over farming may have made the area vulnerable to dust bowl conditions, but over farming is not likely to cause a drought in the same local area. Wind patterns and moisture content tend to have something to do with it.
Also the start of the irrigation projects seemed to have been a factor in the reclamation of the area, you know human intervention to alleviate a natural disaster
“These are pretty well understood concepts in this day in age.”
Yes blaming humans, rather then natural events.
michael
Yes, the overfarming occurred across the entire nation. We had this event called “The Great Depression”. One result was that food prices dropped precipitously. Farmers had to grow extra just to keep even. They plowed over land which they would normally keep fallow and farmed everything.
At the same time, we had developed tractors which had deep furrow plows which destroyed the land. Farmers changed their practices from Pennsylvania to California and Canada which is … like … almost the entire nation.
In case you missed it — this is what this article is about. Fifty percent of rainfall comes from evapotranspiration. When you plow over the land, this evapotranspiration drops because growing crops need to keep their water. The result is a drought.
And, yes, I’m simplifying. People have written books on the subject. Maybe you could read one.
Without being any more snarky — most droughts and floods are caused by natural cyclical events. The primary man-made contributor is land-use and land-cover changes. This is what the science says.
The 1930s dust bowl droughts were far outside the normal cycles and they were predominantly man-made.
This is important that we understand these ideas because the same thing is occurring in other nations right now. The article I cited mentioned that the changes in seasonal rainfall are occurring in India comes from the conversion of jungles to farmland — and this conversion also has added more than one degree to India’s temperature with nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. The massive Syrian drought has natural cyclical components, but the predominant drought has been caused by Assad’s agricultural program.
This doesn’t mean that we stop farming. In 1938, we established changes to the agricultural methods in the United States and the major droughts ended in 1939.
lorcanbonda November 8, 2016 at 7:30 pm
“People have written books on the subject. Maybe you could read one.”
Oh but I have, just not the same ones as you.
The great depression was world wide and had little to do with farming. Also tractors were being used prior to ww1, both in Europe and North America. No dust bowl in Europe, nor any drought. But by golly one dandy of a economic depression.
As for the Great depression it has had many theories for it’s cause. Massive war debts and reparations seemed to get it rolling in Germany, then it spread to the rest of Western Europe. With the U.S. it seems to have been buying stocks on credit. You are correct about crops going to waste, but this is not due to over production but rather that no one had money to buy the farmers produce, or ship it. Their was malnutrition and hunger from lack of food. Any idea as to what the rejection rate was for draftees during ww2 due to the lingering effects from the great depressions malnutrition? Oh yes do read a book or two. Also read about the “food miracle” that the US preformed in Australia and New Zealand in WW2. It quickly enabled those countries to feed the millions of allied troops that flooded the theater. Also the only area that the US government did not impose regulation was agriculture.
The dust bowl was local, and yes droughts can cause them. But again farming practices did not cause the drought. China’s drought and famine during the early 1940s, totally different farming methods but similar results.
michael
lorcanbonda says:
These are pretty well understood concepts in this day in age.
I agree. The ’30s “drought” was prb’ly a natural cycle, but greatly exacerbated by the bare soil. Before, the prairie grasses and trees along drainages would have held the soil and kept the temperatures somewhat in check. Also, the Appalachian forests were almost completely clear-cut in the 30’s and that added to the insult there by reducing the cooling evapo-transpiration. The MD state high-temp record was set in July 1936 at 109F right near me in western MD (same day produced all-time record highs in WV and PA too). Such high temperatures haven’t been approached since.
Morlock — I didn’t claim that the Great Depression was caused by farming. I said that the Great Depression caused farmers to make radical changes in their farming practices due to dropping food prices. These changes were unique to the United States and Canada because of the nature of our economies and geographies.
Yes, the first cause of the Great Depression in America was the stock market crash (following over-extended purchases of high risk stocks on margin.) Germany never really recovered from WWI, but the Great Depression was catastrophic to them.
Bing — Yes, there are natural cycles which affect drought. What made the 1930s drought particularly severe was the deep furrow farming practices. My point has to do with the high temperatures in the United States which were caused by this drought. In modern times, the size of this temperature swing was significant and unique.
The reason for this high temperature swing in the United States was the drought. The temperatures did not cause the drought — the drought caused the elevated temperatures. This is what this article is about.
“I have been pounding this point for over a year. Most of the real effects of climate change have been from land-use change. ”
instead of pounding, publish.
Some people have REAL jobs, Mosh.
You should try it some time.
Who was it who said that he would keep anti-CAGW out of the journals, even if he had to change the meaning of peer review?
The climatic impact of changes in land use is not really a new idea:
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 [1776]
CHAPTER IX: The State of Germany till the Invasion of the Barbarians, in the Time of the Emperor Decius
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/gibbon-the-history-of-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-vol-1
“Some ingenious writers have suspected that Europe was much colder formerly than it is at present; and the most ancient descriptions of the climate of Germany tend exceedingly to confirm their theory. The general complaints of intense frost and eternal winter are perhaps little to be regarded, since we have no method of reducing to the accurate standard of the thermometer the feelings or the expressions of an orator born in the happier regions of Greece or Asia. But I shall select two remarkable circumstances of a less equivocal nature. 1. The great rivers which covered the Roman provinces, the Rhine and the Danube, were frequently frozen over, and capable of supporting the most enormous weights. The barbarians, who often chose that severe season for their inroads, transported, without apprehension or danger, their numerous armies, their cavalry, and their heavy waggons, over a vast and solid bridge of ice.4 Modern ages have not presented an instance of a like phenomenon. 2. The reindeer, that useful animal, from whom the savage of the North derives the best comforts of his dreary life, is of a constitution that supports, and even requires, the most intense cold. He is found on the rock of Spitzberg, within ten degrees of the pole; he seems to delight in the snows of Lapland and Siberia; but at present he cannot subsist, much less multiply, in any country to the south of the Baltic. In the time of Cæsar, the reindeer, as well as the elk and the wild bull, was a native of the Hercynian forest, which then overshadowed a great part of Germany and Poland. The modern improvements sufficiently explain the causes of the diminution of the cold. These immense woods have been gradually cleared, which intercepted from the earth the rays of the sun. The morasses have been drained, and, in proportion as the soil has been cultivated, the air has become more temperate. Canada, at this day, is an exact picture of ancient Germany. Although situate in the same parallel with the finest provinces of France and England, that country experiences the most rigorous cold. The reindeer are very numerous, the ground is covered with deep and lasting snow, and the great river of St. Lawrence is regularly frozen, in a season when the waters of the Seine and the Thames are usually free from ice.”
For the greens, the problem with pinning climate change on deforestation is that it points the finger of guilt at the third world. If the objective is to transfer wealth from the US to the UN so they can dole it out to poor countries (after taking their sizable cut) then deforestation is the wrong way to get there.
It’s not a question of “guilt” — nobody will blame third world nations who need to grow food. It’s a question of where we get our fuel. The world is better getting the fuel from the ground than it is in cutting down forests to grow food.
“… cutting down forests to grow fuel.” is what I meant to say. Why can’t we edit these?
Wild Bison were a lot more active than domesticated cows, so they would require much more food for energy…You don’t see too many cow stampedes on a farm, thankfully…
Hmmmm, this was a reply to Les above, how did it get down here ?? Dang Internet Gremlins again !!
True but trite.
Given the chaotic nature of the system, any change will cause effects that echo forever. It’s like saying that a butterfly flapping its wings in South America will eventually cause a snow storm in Detroit.
Will potentially cause a snow storm in Detroit, Bob . .
” And even if global average temperatures were contained, human impacts on climate would manifest in other potentially dangerous ways.”
Not potentially safer ways, benign or beneficial ways, less severe or anything like that . . ever. Always bad, worse, dangerous, more intense and the like.
Earth would be a paradise, naturally, if only there weren’t so many little people . .
The “Butterfly Effect” is one of the worst analogies or theories in the world. If a butterfly flaps its wings in South America, it will have exactly zero impact in Detroit. There is simply no way that a butterfly could affect wind currents ten feet away let alone ten thousand miles.
There is simply no way that a butterfly could affect wind currents ten feet away let alone ten thousand miles.
I see a complete body of human knowledge has passed you by at 20,000 feet….
No — I understand the concept, but the butterfly makes for a bad analogy. What’s worse is that (like much silly science) this one gets repeated over and over in movies such that people repeat it without understanding.
The name of the butterfly effect comes from “a paper given by Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?.” link If you want to argue with the use of the term “butterfly effect”, you have to argue with Lorenz. You could do that but it would take more reasoning than just your bald assertion for you to be credible.
Yes, I understand the concept. No, I don’t have to argue with Lorenz.
“Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?” The answer is “No”.
FWIW — I’m not arguing against Lorenz’s theory. I agree that small changes in a system can result in more significant changes downstream. Much of this is time based — a small change in politics today can have huge ramifications in fifty years.
However, I hate the butterfly analogy. If a butterfly flapping their wings can cause tornadoes, then our world is in big trouble.
Again, you make a bald assertion. How about supplying a shred of evidence or some logic to fill it out.
commieBob — do I really have to prove that butterflies do not cause tornadoes?
Lorenz demonstrated that the smallest imaginable change in initial conditions eventually changes the climate regime completely. That’s the nature of chaotic systems.
What you said was:
Lorenz demonstrated that, given enough time, such a small input could have a large effect on the system as a whole. Apparently you disagree with that. What you have to demonstrate is that Lorenz is wrong. You can’t say that you don’t disagree with him in one breath and then say that he chose the wrong metaphor with the next breath.
With no disrespect to the researchers/authors….Duh!!!!!
I’ve noticed a few solar panel farms do not have much vegetation growing underneath the panels…. no plant life reduces the absorption of CO2 and lessens the production of O. ‘Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.’
How about “put up a solar plot“?
Land use can certainly have local, and perhaps regional effects on climate, but it is issue conflation to lump that in with the much-ballyhooed and hyped “climate change” issue. For instance, take the snows of Kilimanjaro. Climatists tried to say that the disappearance of snow on Kilimanjaro was due to “climate change”. But it turned out that it was largely due to deforestation around it, which had a drying effect. The snow and ice vanished due to lack of replenishment, and sublimation.
Same thing, right? The cause of the climate change in Kilimanjaro is land use changes.
The issue is that the cause of the receding mountain ice has nothing to do with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. This means that reducing carbon dioxide emissions has nothing to do with these examples of climate change. And that is where the discussion on climate change has been a mess.
There is no reason to doubt that land use affects local and mesoscale weather and climate, which is another reason that widespread deployment of wind and solar power will be detrimental. But aside from the apparent focus of this article, I’d like to note that, if you choose to believe the estimates, Houghton (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html ) has estimated carbon flux to the atmosphere due to land use change from 1850 to 2005. (I already hear the knee jerk “carbon is not CO2”, but CO2 is only one form of carbon in its lifecycle. You can’t talk CO2 without talking about carbon in all of its terrestrial forms) So here’s my point. For CAGW believers (I’m not one), even if you think carbon from CO2 is a problem, ignoring land use change is a MAJOR blunder.
It is estimated that human activity since 1850 has released 436 Petagrams of carbon to the atmosphere (154 Pg from land use change; 282 Pg from combustion), but, natural sequestration has recaptured 60% of that, so the net increase has been only 174 Pg. CO2 has risen from 280 to about 400 ppm during this same period. So if the world practiced modern land use practices as is done in the U.S., which has been a net carbon sink for over 100 years due to improved land use practices, the net carbon flux to the atmosphere would have been only 174 – 154 = 20 Pg. The net CO2 increase of 120 ppm (from 280 to 400 ppm) would have been limited to only 120 ppm x 20/174 = 14 ppm. We’d be at 294 ppm, an insignificant change, and we would not be having this conversation about greenhouse gases at all! I would even conjecture that healthy land use practices, along with greening due to CO2 and natural warming, would be able to completely offset (sequester) emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
So the CAGW alarmists have completely misplaced their emphasis. Instead of depriving world economies of life-giving fossil fuels, they should be focusing on reversing the ravages of land use in developing countries. Where are the real problems happening? Tropical Asia, Latin America, and tropical Africa. Not North America, Western Europe or Australia.
However, this does not fit the CAGW meme of Western eco-guilt. To them, surely everything must be our fault, and combustion of fossil fuels provided by those evil big energy companies in our evil capitalist societies offers the CAGW simpletons an easy target.
… except that no one asked “society” what it thought. It has been a narrow clique of political activists, posing as scientists who have been manipulating the whole process for decades: trying to define what “society” should think and do, not representing what they thing but shoving it down their throats.
Neither was 1.5 ever supposed to be a definition of “dangerous” , even 2 deg C was pretty much an arbitrary figure pulled out of the air.
And 2 degrees was never defined as “dangerous” either, it was estimated to be a figure under which we could be fairly sure that change not be dangerous. That means the more than 2degrees, it where we are getting less sure about how safe it is. That is not the same as 2C = dangerous climate change.
Lewis’ comment is absolutely typical of these political activists, constantly twisting facts into what they would like them to be. All lies and no integrity.
Good to see Rog Sr. pointing out there is more to climate than CO2. For all the work done by IPCC over decades this has finally been distilled down to a arbitrary figure on a physically meaningless metric.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/are-land-sea-averages-meaningful-2/
There is no science in this, it is a charade. A mockery of science.
Human land use changes, such as de-forestation (sustainable use of trees), farming( feeding the nation and the often starving developing world), “etc”, are dwarfed by both the real drivers of climates change, and by natural changes in land status. By the ” real drivers” of climate I mean our Sun’s variable and cyclical activities, ocean currents, jet streams, trade winds, Earths axis tilt changes, Earth orbital changes, Earth’s and our Moon’s and other planets’ magnetic, and gravitational fields, Cosmic rays from space (depending on whether our Solar System is passing through an arm of the Milky Way or not), Earths spin,
volcanic activity both above and below the ocean, and many other variables both known, and unknown.
NOT ONE OF THESE VARIABLE CLIMATE CHANGERS ARE UNDERSTOOD. There are no experts on Earth’s climate, not even close. By natural changes in land “use” or status I mean continual, frequent events such as glaciations or de-glaciations, volcanic activity, land slides ( which can divert rivers, create lakes etc), mountain erosion, river channel erosion, forest fires, earthquakes, mountain range locations and height, ground subduction ( natural sinking) or rising ( such as re-bound after glaciers have melted, in the case of Ireland and Canada for example), hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, droughts, and large meteorites or asteroids etc. These natural environmental events cause a 1000x more changes in the landscape that affect various species than humanity will ever cause. People tend to give humanity far more credit for changes to the environment than we actually have, compared to Mother Nature. The Earth and its various species have been around a long time and is much, much stronger than we are, at this point in time. Although only half of the world’s human population is developed and relatively safe, for the last 100 years or so, we have been succeeding in mitigating our impacts on the environment for 50 years. Give us a minute. Humanity cares about the environment, always has, always will.
“The arrogance of man is assuming that man controls nature, and not the other way around.” – Ken Watanabe, “Godzilla” One of the more profound pieces of movie dialogue, and a spot on description of the whole Climate Change BS story.
As for the land use paper, it brings to the fore the utmost irony – that the land use changes resulting from Eco-N@zi policies will result in more climate impact than the CO2 emissions they aim to prevent, PLUS they result in more CO2 emissions than they “save” us from to begin with. Biofuel plantations replacing rain forest, anyone?!
Yep.
They kind of had me until it mentioned ” Earth’s natural balances”, as if we could keep things balanced and static with the proper behaviour. When will warmists and Humanity-haters wake up to the fact that “Gaia” has always been “self-healing” and will get over any “scars” we might manage to inflict.
disrupt Earth’s natural balances??????????
But of course the current obsession with CO2 WILL PREVENT us taking any useful, logical steps since it is based on an illogical diversion of all resources into a single issue which has not even been proven to be an issue.
This is not surprising since it is not longer about climate at all, as several leading IPCC figures have admitted.
Yes, that’s the key. Our current obsession with CO2 is preventing real actions than can make a difference. I can’t seem to go a week without reading that climate change is destroying coral reefs. However, the biggest cause of damage to coral reefs is overfishing, destructive fishing, and pollution (such as fertilizer runoff.)
The focus on CO2 has become a siren call for science funding, but it distracts from real solutions. It gains press, but no answers.
Nothing in there about land use causing droughts to reefs? Maybe you should read a book on the subject.