Climate models missing black carbon and resultant CO2 emission

As noted above:
If soils are the largest source of CO2 and produce 10 times more CO2 than all the CO2 emitted by mankind and,
If the climate has changed more than the models have predicted and,
If CO2’s stability in soil were to be adjusted in climate models leading to even lower predictions of warming in these models,
then
AGW proponents may doubtless claim that the models aren’t giving enough weight to mankind’s CO2 emissions. Therefore, from their point of view, the crisis is greater then ever and we have only ten years to act to save the planet from the perils it faces from mankind’s exploitation of its precious treasures.
{yuck — just saying that sort of spiel made my skin crawl}
Let’s try a dose of reality. If the models have not accurately predicted how the climate changes even while over-counting the effects of soil CO2 then how about tossing the models and accept that mankind’s effect on the changing climate is but a mere squiggle on a temperature graph {unless it’s a GISS-generated temperature graph, in which case the whole thing’s a squiggle}.

The disturbing aspect of the northern Australian fires is that they all occur during the dry season and are all man made. In 2001 I drove from Karumba in the gulf across to Broome in WA and it was burning for 2,000 kilometers.
Farmers do it to get an additional flush of grass for their cattle, aboriginal communities do it because they say it’s their tradition.

Besides the forest fires there are underground coal fires.
In China these fires burn about 200 Mt of coal per year = 1/5 of total US coal consumption per year.
Fires are raging in Indonesia, Borneo, India, Africa, Germany, Poland, Australia and the USA. What I did not know is that there is also an underground coal fire in Svalgard.
Fires in China are burning for centuries.
http://www.coalfire.org
http://www.itc.nl
I am sure the surface wild fires are of a much bigger magnitude.
Many of the burning forests ignited by the green policies that promote the use of bio fuels like palm oil.

Once we find a major climate forcing that is either ignored or significantly mis-measured in current AGW computer models.
Yet the model promoters still claim their models are not only correct, but accurate.
This cannot be true.
It seems much more likely that the modelers have slated the mine- decided which data points their models need to show to be credible, and written the code to meet those points.
They are now resorting to either censoring the serious studies that show they are wrong- as is being done to Dr. Spencer, or they simply shouting louder and shriller about the coming apocalypse.
How long until people wake up and realize that AGW is simply a scam?

This is one of many postings that should illustrate that the AGW movement, in the main, is not interested in scientific results. They have what they want. The case for them is settled. It’s time to move on to implementing the political policies that will move us into their ideal world: where the lives of people are circumscribed by policies dictated by beauracrats acting in the name of Government & Gaia. It’s no longer a case where there is an honest disagreement between two well-meaning parties. This is a conflict between two visions of the world, and only one will win out. In short, this is a war. In fact, it has been a war. Once the science was called ‘settled,’ war was declared on any who said it was not. The evidence of this is not in dispute. Of course, we must continue to treat all people regardless of their ideology with comportment and some modicum of respect. But it should be clear to all that the other side, particularly the leadership, is ONLY interested in scientific results insofar as it favors and furthers their ideological agenda – this includes politicians and scientists alike.

Bruce:
I was thinking the same thing
– multi-year ice will inevitably build up soot, causing it to melt quicker
– the new, one-year ice, should be clearer, and able to survive longer, until it too become sooted.
I think it could certainly be a factor in why the ice suddenly collapsed last year, then bounced back (so surprisingly)
– whether that’s the whole picture, remains to be seen….

Tim Clark (12:07:18) :
“Conventional tillage and wheat-fallow systems have resulted in a 30 to 50% loss of original soil organic carbon levels during the last 50 to 100 years in drylands of the Northern Great Plains.
Even more in mollisols (upper Midwest). Considering that estimates of original organic matter % (measured as a volume measurement in the top 6 inches of soil) is 5-8% , this loss results in 2% loss in soil organic matter (about 80% carbon, after degradation for one year), at least. Without doing the calculations, this equates to a sh&^load of CO2 already put into the atsmosphere.”
Thank you for the answer, which I find very interesting. In case the “CO2 already put into the atsmosphere.” is meant to be the CO2 put into the atmosphere by man, then my take on this has to be that man is actually putting a “brake” on nature´s own production of CO2. Hadn´t man existed, the natural amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by now would have been much higher than it is today then. But this also means that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by now is on a steady rise, man cannot be responsible for that. It just proves that nature´s own production of CO2 is so huge and powerful that man´s “brake” by no means can stop it. And also, in case man could stop all of its production of CO2, making it nil ppm today, tomorrow the CO2 would still be on the rise because man´s influence on that system is minuscule.

Most bush fires in Australia are anthropogenic and have been for upward of 40,000 years. See ‘Burning Bush – A Fire History of Australia’ by Stephen J. Pyne. Other continents have experienced anthropogenic fire at a landscape scale for thousands of years, including the Americas, since at least the dawn of the Holocene. As much as a third of N. America was burned by human beings every year for millennia.
Those fires may or may not have shaped Holocene climates but they definitely shaped our vegetation, from prairies to old-growth forests. See ‘Forgotten Fires’ by Omer Stewart. Historical anthropogenic fires were frequent, regular, and seasonal, and were light-burning fires that oxidized annual growth.
In the absence of anthropogenic fire (over the last 150 years) major portions of N. and S. America, Australia, and Africa have experience large fuel build-ups in uncultivated grounds. Today wildfires in fuel-laden areas result in catastrophic combustion at high temperatures.
A recent study of the Biscuit Fire (2002) burned area revealed that soil carbon is also oxidized by catastrophic fire. The authors of ‘Intense forest wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence’ by Bernard T. Bormann, Peter S. Homann, Robyn L. Darbyshire, and Brett A. Morrissette, Can. J. For. Res. 38: 2771–2783 (2008) found that more than 10 tons per acre of soil carbon and between 450 to 620 pounds per acre of soil nitrogen were vaporized by the fire. Some 60% of soil carbon and 57% of soil nitrogen losses came from mineral soil horizons (below the duff and humus top layers). In addition they found that 127 megagrams (127,000 kilograms) of soil per hectare disappeared, leaving a stony rubble. Much of the soil was probably blown away in the intense wind vortexes of the fire since post-fire erosion measurements failed to account for roughly half the missing tonnage.
By my own calculations forest fires were responsible half of all CO2 emissions in Oregon in 2007. In California in 2008 over 1.3 million acres have burned to date in wildfires, releasing an estimated 120 Tg (teragrams, 10^12 grams) of CO2, roughly the equivalent of 22 million cars driven all year.
Catastrophic wildfires in untended, fuel-laden landscapes not only emit CO2, they emit choking smoke, destroy vegetation and habitat, burn homes, farms, and ranches, foul rivers and streams, cause enormous public health and safety problems, alter entire ecosystems, cost $billions to fight, and inflict tens of $billions in lasting damage on- and off-site to resources and economies.

Having seen only 1 computer model (a java based galaxy collision that crashed a lot), I would like to comment on these fantastic climate models that I have never seen. They seem to be causing unending reams of grief. What would a model look like? What type of equations/theorems are driving the computations?

slash & burn ground is not sustainable, so the need to clear more ground is ever present.

But “slash and char” is sustainable; that’s apparently what created the rich “terra preta” soils around Brazil. And as the article which spurred this topic suggests, regular burning traps more carbon in soil than either no burning or irregular burning. Others have pointed out studies of the high-carbon grasslands which Native Americans created by frequent burning across much of North America (for thousands of years).
Fire suppression became popular in North America in the early 20th century. So less carbon being stored in the soil means… more carbon dioxide has been released from North America during the 20th century than earlier because of less burning of land. Well, a man-made carbon dioxide increase on a continental scale. How much of an increase, I wonder.

Yes, I see the complexity. My remaining question then would be:
Are the results from these equations weather patterns that are as finnicky as nature dishes out or ones that follow a normalized baseline with outliers? Or are these something else?
No doubt very taxing on computational power. Mother Nature makes it look so easy.