5 ms·

>4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion. Erosion is not the result of global warming. Erosion is the largest sour

by danjoc 9y ago

>4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion. Erosion is not the result of global warming. Erosion is the largest source of CO2 on Earth. It's an order of magnitude larger than all fossil fuel combustion combined. http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html Not picking on you specifically. It's a common misunderstanding. The media has badly misinformed people in an effort to push an agenda.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I think chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms, which increases the weather; not saying that increased erosion leads to climate change. Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The way I reconcile both those comments is that 'chicob suggests there is - or might be soon - a positive feedback loop here.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    That would also be wrong. Earth is a buffer system, not something easily tipped into runaway Armageddon.
    - chicob 9y ago
      A buffer system within small scale perturbations. Take anthropogenic CO2 emissions: they are changing the entire planet's climate. Take permafrost, for instance. A small increase in the temperature might lead to an even bigger one. This is well documented.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms Storms lead to weathering. Weathering is a carbon sink. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711001648 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711... >Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's. Ice cream doesn't lead to hot summer days. It's the other way around. Erosion exposes further, deeper, top soil to erosion. By the time layer 1 is eroded to expose layer 2, layer 1 is already a done deal. You can pave over it if you like, but the CO2 is already gone. Close the barn! The horses escaped... too little, too late.
estreeper 9y ago
I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. The article you posted states clearly that fossil fuels are the largest net contributor (4-5 gigatons/year) to atmospheric carbon: "Before the industrial revolution, the main source of fluctuation in atmospheric carbon was from changes in biomass and soil organic carbon. Now, fossil fuel burning is the greatest factor in atmospheric carbon fluctuations." Lots of carbon is absorbed into the soil and lots is released as part of the normal carbon cycle, with the net effect being: "The soil organic matter pool is currently losing about 1 to 2 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmospheric pool." > Erosion is not the result of global warming If global warming causes more droughts, and droughts cause soil loss, then isn't global warming contributing to erosion?
- danjoc 9y ago
  >isn't global warming contributing to erosion? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14515367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14515367
strainer 9y ago
Sorry but you have blatantly misquoted and confused your reference which gives "Soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" at 62GtC/yr --as part of an existing cycle which has been balanced with 110GtC/yr absorbed by photosyntheis. The modern fossil fuel carbon output of 4.5GtC/yr is additional to the long established natural cycle. Your source and almost the entire amount of professional and informed review on this subject recognises the fossil fuels additional output is of great effect and danger to global climate.
- danjoc 9y ago
  Since you've arrived to share your opinion, let me ask you which sounds easier: a) Reduce erosion by 10% b) reduce fossil fuel combustion by 100%
  - strainer 9y ago
    It is likely completely impossible to reduce erosion globally by 10% and neither is all soil oxidation dependant on erosion. Soil oxidation and erosion should not be confused as the same process.
    - danjoc 9y ago
      >likely completely Well you probably certainly showed me. I'm glad we resolved that argument and can now continue doing nothing to solve problems like the destruction of arable soils. It'll be interesting to see what boogeyman agribusiness can dream up after we've all switched over to solar and it can't shout about "muh fossil fuels" anymore.
      - strainer 9y ago
        Im not trying to deal "my opinion" or to show you up. My corrections to your comment are not simply relate-able to the arable soil problem, because the reference that you mistook, did not include any information on erosion of arable soils. It included mention of "global soil erosion" as an unquantified contribution to carbon emissions of "global soil oxidation". It is "likely completely impossible" to reduce global soil erosion by 10% because when you consider that it includes all soil erosion globally (running off the sides of Mongolia.. Amazon.. Siberia.. etc.) -- I hope you can appreciate it is not what you took it to be at first glance.

by danjoc 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

I think chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms, which increases the weather; not saying that increased erosion leads to climate change. Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
The way I reconcile both those comments is that 'chicob suggests there is - or might be soon - a positive feedback loop here.
- danjoc 9y ago
  That would also be wrong. Earth is a buffer system, not something easily tipped into runaway Armageddon.
  - chicob 9y ago
    A buffer system within small scale perturbations. Take anthropogenic CO2 emissions: they are changing the entire planet's climate. Take permafrost, for instance. A small increase in the temperature might lead to an even bigger one. This is well documented.
danjoc 9y ago
>chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms Storms lead to weathering. Weathering is a carbon sink. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711001648 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711... >Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's. Ice cream doesn't lead to hot summer days. It's the other way around. Erosion exposes further, deeper, top soil to erosion. By the time layer 1 is eroded to expose layer 2, layer 1 is already a done deal. You can pave over it if you like, but the CO2 is already gone. Close the barn! The horses escaped... too little, too late.

estreeper 9y ago

I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. The article you posted states clearly that fossil fuels are the largest net contributor (4-5 gigatons/year) to atmospheric carbon: "Before the industrial revolution, the main source of fluctuation in atmospheric carbon was from changes in biomass and soil organic carbon. Now, fossil fuel burning is the greatest factor in atmospheric carbon fluctuations." Lots of carbon is absorbed into the soil and lots is released as part of the normal carbon cycle, with the net effect being: "The soil organic matter pool is currently losing about 1 to 2 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmospheric pool." > Erosion is not the result of global warming If global warming causes more droughts, and droughts cause soil loss, then isn't global warming contributing to erosion?

danjoc 9y ago
>isn't global warming contributing to erosion? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14515367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14515367

strainer 9y ago

Sorry but you have blatantly misquoted and confused your reference which gives "Soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" at 62GtC/yr --as part of an existing cycle which has been balanced with 110GtC/yr absorbed by photosyntheis. The modern fossil fuel carbon output of 4.5GtC/yr is additional to the long established natural cycle. Your source and almost the entire amount of professional and informed review on this subject recognises the fossil fuels additional output is of great effect and danger to global climate.

danjoc 9y ago
Since you've arrived to share your opinion, let me ask you which sounds easier: a) Reduce erosion by 10% b) reduce fossil fuel combustion by 100%
- strainer 9y ago
  It is likely completely impossible to reduce erosion globally by 10% and neither is all soil oxidation dependant on erosion. Soil oxidation and erosion should not be confused as the same process.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >likely completely Well you probably certainly showed me. I'm glad we resolved that argument and can now continue doing nothing to solve problems like the destruction of arable soils. It'll be interesting to see what boogeyman agribusiness can dream up after we've all switched over to solar and it can't shout about "muh fossil fuels" anymore.
    - strainer 9y ago
      Im not trying to deal "my opinion" or to show you up. My corrections to your comment are not simply relate-able to the arable soil problem, because the reference that you mistook, did not include any information on erosion of arable soils. It included mention of "global soil erosion" as an unquantified contribution to carbon emissions of "global soil oxidation". It is "likely completely impossible" to reduce global soil erosion by 10% because when you consider that it includes all soil erosion globally (running off the sides of Mongolia.. Amazon.. Siberia.. etc.) -- I hope you can appreciate it is not what you took it to be at first glance.