Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Unfortunately, if you cannot comprehend your own sentences then it's probably fair to say you're the one that needs helping out.

Just saying.

I said:

It's beyond certain that excessive consumption of fossil fuels is a stupid and wasteful practice, and for many other reasons besides climate change. Why do you oppose making an entirely rational moderation of our use of them?

... and you said:

Why do you infer I oppose the use of fossil fuels? You have just made an unfounded assumption.

In what universe does my statement suggest that I think you OPPOSE the use of fossil fuels?


(I am explaining this to a CC denying troll, I know. Thread death threatens anew)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

ROFL

"Ahh, another that thinks anyone that shares a different view to their own"... should just go away. (Not happening btw.)

Nice spin.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I said:
... and you said:
In what universe does my statement suggest that I think you OPPOSE the use of fossil fuels?


(I am explaining this to a CC denying troll, I know. Thread death threatens anew)

Jeez, I dunno. When you asked why I opposed reducing fossil fuels completely out of context of the discussion, perhaps?

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nice spin.

Actually? No spin, but thanks all the same.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

....Comparing Berkerley Earth 2019 and 2020 reports makes interesting reading.

2019 graph...


2020 Graph


Notice the difference?.....

Quote from 2019 report...

Quote from 2020 report...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Aside from warming the present and cooling the past, changing Y axis values for dramatic effect .... Nothing I guess.....

I don't know why Berkeley Earth 2019 used 1951-1980 as their average, but the IPCC uses 1850-1900 as their baseline average, so it makes sense that Berkeley Earth 2020 would use the same 1850-1900 baseline average that the IPCC uses.

How close are we to 1.5°C?

Summary: Human-induced warming has already reached about 1°C above pre-industrial levels at the time of writing of this Special Report. By the decade 2006–2015, human activity had warmed the world by 0.87°C (±0.12°C) compared to pre-industrial times (1850–1900). If the current warming rate continues, the world would reach human-induced global warming of 1.5°C around 2040.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Aside from ..... twiddling the past numbers so the consecutive year can be claimed to be hotter yet again? Nothing I guess.....

You need to take another look at the two graphs.

2016 was the hottest year, and 2015 was the second hottest year.

Then 2019 became the second hottest year.

But 2020 was hotter than 2019, but not as hot as 2016. Therefore 2020 became the second hottest year and 2019 became the third hottest year.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You need to take another look at the two graphs.

2016 was the hottest year, and 2015 was the second hottest year.

Then 2019 became the second hottest year.

But 2020 was hotter than 2019, but not as hot as 2016. Therefore 2020 became the second hottest year and 2019 became the third hottest year.

But, can you explain how all the temperatures jumped 0.3°-0.4° from one year to the next?


See, this kind of crap and all this "we're going to be underwater in five years" nonsense is exactly why many people don't believe it. You swear that the science is conclusive, coherent and [seemingly] infallible. And that we're all going to die any second. But obviously none of that is quite true.



Not that the other side isn't guilty, too. Maybe if both sides dialed it back a bit, there'd be more agreeing and less name-calling. IDK.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know why Berkeley Earth 2019 used 1951-1980 as their average, but the IPCC uses 1850-1900 as their baseline average, so it makes sense that Berkeley Earth 2020 would use the same 1850-1900 baseline average that the IPCC uses.

How close are we to 1.5°C?

Summary: Human-induced warming has already reached about 1°C above pre-industrial levels at the time of writing of this Special Report. By the decade 2006–2015, human activity had warmed the world by 0.87°C (±0.12°C) compared to pre-industrial times (1850–1900). If the current warming rate continues, the world would reach human-induced global warming of 1.5°C around 2040.

You need to take another look at the two graphs.

2016 was the hottest year, and 2015 was the second hottest year.

Then 2019 became the second hottest year.

But 2020 was hotter than 2019, but not as hot as 2016. Therefore 2020 became the second hottest year and 2019 became the third hottest year.

You might want to re-read what I quoted including the bolded text. This isn't my interpretation, it's straight off the site as of today.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

But, can you explain how all the temperatures jumped 0.3°-0.4° from one year to the next?

They did not jump from one year to the next, as ReefMagnet will tell you.

If you look at the right-hand scale it says "Global Temperature Anomaly." What is being shown is the temperature difference from some base average (the location of which is what Reef and I were discussing earlier). It does not show an absolute temperature. The zero point could be put anywhere as long as the temperature scale does not change -- and it didn't between the two graphs.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You might want to re-read what I quoted including the bolded text. This isn't my interpretation, it's straight off the site as of today.

I don't know why there is a one-hundredth of one degree C difference between the two quotes. But I fail to see how that makes a significant difference to the primary argument for AGW?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know why there is a one-hundredth of one degree C difference between the two quotes. But I fail to see how that makes a significant difference to the primary argument for AGW?

Who says it makes a difference to the primary argument against AGW?


Not me. Rather, it's an example of how the climate crisis boogeyman works.


I suppose pointing out that the difference between 2019 and 2020 is +0.02 deg C in their own summary for 2020 while saying elsewhere that 2019 was 1.27 deg C and 2020 was 1.28 deg C over the same baseline might not seem like a big deal to the true believers. I know school has changed a lot over the years and a university education isn't what it used to be but unless 1.27 - 1.28 now equals +0.02, this glaring inability to make the numbers add up calls the whole method of determining the annual anomaly into question. This is disturbing (to use alarmist parlance) because this is what gets parroted in news reports and fed to the public and it isn't data extracted from TheWaybackMachine that hasn't been corrected. This is stuff still current on the website and presented as fact.




And if you think that switching to 1850's temperature which...

• Is not likely to be accurate
• Is in the midst of The Little Ice Age and at the coldest period in the last two millenia

makes more sense then using the more accurate and representative of modern society 1950 temperature as a baseline for purposes intended for anything other than scaring the masses, then you are deluding yourself.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

They did not jump from one year to the next, as ReefMagnet will tell you.

If you look at the right-hand scale it says "Global Temperature Anomaly." What is being shown is the temperature difference from some base average (the location of which is what Reef and I were discussing earlier). It does not show an absolute temperature. The zero point could be put anywhere as long as the temperature scale does not change -- and it didn't between the two graphs.

They did between 2017 and 2018.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What is being shown is the temperature difference from some base average (the location of which is what Reef and I were discussing earlier).

I do see that they are comparing the temperatures to two different time periods. I missed that earlier. Thank you. But why even change the reference?



That does not change my opinion that we all need to work together toward solutions for meeting our future energy needs - and that the best way to do that is to ease up on the sensationalism and extremism.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SailOar

...But I fail to see how that makes a significant difference to the primary argument for AGW?

Was going to stay out of this repeat of the multiple-logical-fallacy approach debate from the self-and-vested-interest-delusional 'side', but I'll say this;

It doesn't.

The reason I was staying out was because I knew the answer for it and was pretty sure it was stated on the page in question.

But as the projection from the delusional side grew more and more intense, I had to satisfy my curiosity...


Sure enough, from the linked-to 'bogeyman' analysis;


"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay, an issue that is more likely this year due to the US government shutdown. Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


This is standard operating procedure in western science and has been for at least 400 years. That the delusional deniers don't know this only reflects the shortfalls of their own education, not some mythical systemic degradation of the educational infrastructure. Any human devised and operated organization has to be subject to variations in the quality of its performance; to expect otherwise from a dynamic system only illustrates the same misconception displayed by some here; that scientific analysis is a static endeavour.

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

But, can you explain how all the temperatures jumped 0.3°-0.4° from one year to the next?


See, this kind of crap and all this "we're going to be underwater in five years" nonsense is exactly why many people don't believe it. You swear that the science is conclusive, coherent and [seemingly] infallible. And that we're all going to die any second. But obviously none of that is quite true.



Not that the other side isn't guilty, too. Maybe if both sides dialed it back a bit, there'd be more agreeing and less name-calling. IDK.

Except nobody of consequence says that "we're going to be underwater in five years" or "that the science is conclusive, coherent and [seemingly] infallible. And that we're all going to die any second". (see the explanation for the supposed 'fact-fudging' above for an example of the acknowledgedly inconclusive, somewhat coherent and not infallible, but extremely valuable contributions of science to the understanding of physical world)

That you, apparently, choose to form conclusions based on personal opinion and biased information from second and third-hand vested-interest sources kinda puts-paid to your kum-by-ya call for comity.

Maybe if the 'side' promoting frivolous, false, ill- or a- logical claims, largely or mostly based on mis or incomplete reading or understanding of the relevant facts, processes, scientific studies, reports, analyses, etc., stopped promoting such claims, started or attempted understanding the relevant facts, processes, etc., your comity call'd have a leg on which to stand.

Until that time it's going to fall on pretty deaf ears.

The reality-based world is getting pretty tired of having to deal with squeaky wheels, especially those that have no need of lubrication...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Was going to stay out of this repeat of the multiple-logical-fallacy approach debate from the self-and-vested-interest-delusional 'side', but I'll say this;

It doesn't.

The reason I was staying out was because I knew the answer for it and was pretty sure it was stated on the page in question.

But as the projection from the delusional side grew more and more intense, I had to satisfy my curiosity...


Sure enough, from the linked-to 'bogeyman' analysis;


"This report is based on such weather observations as had been recorded into global archives as of early January 2020. It is common for additional observations to be added to archives after some delay, an issue that is more likely this year due to the US government shutdown. Consequently, temperature analysis calculations can be subject to revisions as new data becomes available. Such revisions are typically quite small and are considered unlikely to alter the qualitative conclusions presented in this report."


This is standard operating procedure in western science and has been for at least 400 years. That the delusional deniers don't know this only reflects the shortfalls of their own education, not some mythical systemic degradation of the educational infrastructure. Any human devised and operated organization has to be subject to variations in the quality of its performance; to expect otherwise from a dynamic system only illustrates the same misconception displayed by some here; that scientific analysis is a static endeavour.

Oh well that clears it up then. Teams of overworked scientists battling government enforced shutdowns are still pouring over the 2019 data even today. No doubt the website will be updated as soon as the latest results come to hand.

[GordMay]

A few common bacterial groups gobble up the majority of carbon in soil

Just a few bacterial groups, found in ecosystems across the planet, are responsible for more than half of carbon cycling in soils, according to new findings [1] from researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Northern Arizona University, published in Nature Communications. [1]

The new research [1] suggests that despite the diversity of microbial taxa found in wild soils gathered from four different ecosystems, only three to six groups of bacteria common in these ecosystems were responsible for most of the soil carbon use.

Those bacteria, Bradyrhizobium, the Acidobacteria RB41, and Streptomyces, were better than their rarer counterparts at using, both, existing soil carbon, and nutrients added to the soil. When carbon and nitrogen were added to soils, these already dominant lineages of bacteria consolidated their control of nutrients, gobbling up more, and growing faster, relative to other taxa present.

Though the researchers identified thousands of unique organisms, and hundreds of distinct genera (collections of species), only six were needed to account for more than 50 percent of carbon use, and only three genera were responsible for more than half the carbon use, in the nutrient-boosted soil.

Mapping carbon flow through different microbial taxa, as demonstrated here, is crucial in developing taxon-sensitive soil carbon models, that may reduce the uncertainty in climate change projections.

Soil contains twice as much carbon as all vegetation on earth [2], and so predicting how carbon is stored in soil, and released as CO2, is a critical calculation in understanding future climate dynamics.

The research team is asking how such key bacterial processes should be accounted for in earth system and climate models.

[1] “Nutrients cause consolidation of soil carbon flux to small proportion of bacterial community” ~ by Bram W. Stone et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23676-x

Peer Review Comments and Rebuttal Letters ➥ https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM2_ESM.pdf


[2]“Forest Soil Carbon and Climate Change” ~ by David D'Amore & Evan Kane,
➥ https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/forest-soil-carbon