<div dir="ltr">Paul:<div><br></div><div>So now you are getting fussy about time periods and such. Ruddiman and Unger are relevant still, but they are not incorporated in the currently fashionable climate models as far as I know. </div><div><br></div><div>Your "eventually" is what - 300 years, about the time duration over which climate policy models are run (to 2100, 2200, 2300; might be longer now)? <br><br>If it is 86 years - the threshold for computing premature mortality of people, how do you know that your assertion of "A living plant takes in CO2... " holds true? <br><br>Now let me ask you - do you mean all living plants, including in oceans? Or just those plants owned and affected by humans -- say, leaves in front of my home right now, the trees and plants around, or timber in my home, paper, animal feed and excretions?<br><br>But that is not relevant to IPCC inventorying. They ASSUME biomass to be CO2-neutral except when there are LULUCF considerations (Land Use, Land Use Changes, and Forestry). What is the basis for this assumption, and what data do we have to accept or reject the assumption that it is only the LULUCF that has affected biomass balances? <br><br>The more one delves in the inventorying methods of the climate establishment, the hoakier things get. <br><br>For carbon stocks, soil carbon is computed, and for carbon flows, plant respiration is also computed. How do you know that in the aggregate, carbon balances out for any given time period? <br><br>We know for a fact that vast land use changes have happened not just in Ruddiman time periods but our own lifetimes and those of our great-grandparents. Their messing up of biomass carbon balances has brought a great deal of luxury and security -- from food to timber, for example. <br><br>LULUCF also changes water balances. In fact, we change water balances across regions -- irrigation canals -- and between surface and ground -- irrigation pumping -- precisely for the reasons of disturbing biomass balances. <br><br>Where, pray tell, can you find a verification of your assumption - that biomass carbon is in balance for the last 200 years or the next 200 years? Inasmuch as water vapor is the most significant GHG, where do you think our disturbances with the water balances show up in greenhouse effect? <br><br>Now let's talk about non-CO2 emissions from biomass -- either by rotting or by combustion. Some have short atmospheric lifetimes before converting into CO2 or depositing on to the ground or surface waters. Their radiative forcing can be much stronger than that of CO2, and is reflected in the Global Warming Potentials (GWP). When the total GHG-load from a poorly combusted ton of solid wood is counted (my preference is 20-year GWP for all warming gases, with credit for cooling gases as appropriate), there is no way "GHG neutrality" is assured in, say, a 70-year period. <br><br>Except by assumption. Agreement among experts to scratch and pat each other's backs. A good part of science is simply accepting other people's instructions and assumptions. <br><br>***</div><div><br>There is more -- such changes in land and water use affect the LOCAL and regional climates. After all, the global climate is both a sum of local climates as well as a determinant of local climates (a dirty little secret you don't read much of in the pop media on climate). <br><br>So, if we are going to look not just as some "project boundaries" and assumptions for CDM projects or IPCC inventories, we would need to assess climatic impacts of biomass changes within our lifetimes, or 200 years before and after us. <br><br>For all we know, UNFCCC circus of assumptions and entertainment might not survive 200 years after us. Climate will change, nobody would be able to tell why. People will still die prematurely and from floods and droughts. <br><br>****<br><br>In sum, dear sir, your assertion about GHG-neutrality - or climate neutrality of biomass - is a matter of faith, not science. <br><br>I have no problem talking about "sustainability" and all that jazz - so long as all biomass and all uses are covered. But I would like CDM masters of methodologies to recognize that non-CO2 GHG emissions from traditional solid fuel consumption can be much higher, so that efficiency improvements in biomass or coal use - like your TLUD stoves or Crispin's heating stoves in Central Asia - are properly given the credit for gross emissions reductions they achieve in practice (i.e., without netting out "renewable" biomass from biomass stoves). <br><br>The relevance to this list is not the global balance of biomass carbon - as I argue there is no reason to assume the balance - but the pernicious anti-poor effect of treating biomass as "GHG neutral". It is a conspiracy of the accountants. <br><br>Let's wait till Ron gets back after reading Kirk Smith. He shook my faith in "renewable biomass" being good for the poor. <br><br>Nikhil</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Nikhil,<span class=""><br>
<br>
You wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
“<i><b>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period</b>. "</i><br>
<br>
This time I will give you some suggestions to read - <a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf" target="_blank">Ruddiman</a> and <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Unger_un02100s.pdf" target="_blank">Unger</a>. Also <a href="http://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis" target="_blank">this</a>. Prove me wrong. </blockquote></span>
I looked at the abstracts of those three documents and did not see
support for your statement. Certainly there have been changes in
the atmospheric CO2 in past thousands of years. But that is not the
essence of what is being stated, which is:<br>
<br>
A living plant takes in CO2, grows, dies and CO2 eventually goes
back into the atmosphere (allowing for delays while the root rot, or
for geologic time for formation of fossil fuels, etc., which is not
what is being discussed).<br>
<br>
For me, this specific topic is concluded.<span class=""><br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_626148705779993138moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_626148705779993138moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_626148705779993138moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>