Thanks for tropical forests

[shunyadragon]

What I meant is I thought any plate could subduct under another plate, it would just depend on which plate was lower, and the relative motion of the plates.

Blessings,
Lee

Totally misunderstand plate techtonics. IT is unbelievable, and not related to your original subject. It is not true that any plate can subduct between another plate.

[TheLurch]

Here is the referenced article, again on LiveScience:

Source: LiveScience

Espírito-Santo found that dead Amazonian trees emit an estimated 1.9 billion tons (1.7 billion metric tons) of carbon to the atmosphere each year. In a normal year, the Amazon rainforest absorbs about 2.2 billion tons (2 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide, studies suggest. And the big storms that blow down millions of trees at once barely budge the forest's carbon output, the study found.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds pretty comprehensive! .3 billion tonnes per year.

Your "comprehensive model" is... two estimates?

Seriously?

But there needs to be a way to reconcile the figures, I think I've done that, taking your calculations as a starting point.

No, you haven't. You've come up with a figure for total stored carbon that is incompatible with the amount of carbon available to be stored, and the physical space in which it needs to be stored.

Your "reconciliation" is just to repeat your original argument.

I've also linked you to papers that show that the figures you're trying to derive are completely bogus.

No, you haven't, and if you understood basic logic, you'd realize that.

All of the figures i've used are completely compatible with the with the Amazon presently sequestering carbon, which is what you're arguing about. They're simply not compatible with that rate having been maintained for the entire history of the Amazon, and/or the storage it experiences is stable indefinitely.

And, as i've explained:
Permanent storage at the rate you propose would empty the entire store of carbon currently involved in the carbon cycle.
The majority of the last few million years have been cold, dry, and featured low atmospheric CO2, all of which would suppress the plant growth that Amazon storage depends on.

Your response to these facts has been to say that you like your numbers better. Which, well, isn't exactly an argument in their favor.

[lee_merrill]

Your "comprehensive model" is... two estimates?

Yes, simulation estimates:

Source: Nature

Once the disturbance spectrum of AGB loss is defined we can infer the s.d. introduced into an ensemble of growth rates from forest censuses using the simple stochastic forest simulator of the form dM = G x dt–D x dt introduced above, which predicts forest carbon mass change per area (M) due to growth (G) and loss (D) due to mortality10,12,20 during the time interval dt. For G we used as input parameters growth from 484 forest censuses10 covering N = 135 plots and N = 1545 census years, and mortality (AGB loss) from our new disturbance spectrum analysis. To generate random numbers distributed according to our observed distribution we use the inverse transform method10. For growth we use specifically GBN(m,s) with m = 2.5 or 2.75 (Mg C ha^-1 y^-1), respectively, and s = 0.85 (Mg C ha^-1 y^-1), the mean value for the Amazon region according to the RAINFOR data10 and Eastern Amazon, respectively. For D, we used our Amazon forest mortality frequency distribution (Fig. 3) and modifications thereof for the purpose of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of our approach (see main text and Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

Source

© Copyright Original Source

No, you haven't. You've come up with a figure for total stored carbon that is incompatible with the amount of carbon available to be stored, and the physical space in which it needs to be stored.

And you are again assuming the Amazon is a closed system.

All of the figures i've used are completely compatible with the with the Amazon presently sequestering carbon, which is what you're arguing about. They're simply not compatible with that rate having been maintained for the entire history of the Amazon, and/or the storage it experiences is stable indefinitely.

Your figures are incompatible with the rate having been maintained? Then I question them. But I've used them to derive 1.67 millimeters of leaf litter / year, which is surely reasonable.

Permanent storage at the rate you propose would empty the entire store of carbon currently involved in the carbon cycle.
The majority of the last few million years have been cold, dry, and featured low atmospheric CO2, all of which would suppress the plant growth that Amazon storage depends on.

Well, we're talking 60 to 120 million years, and you are treating the carbon cycle as storage, whereas the stored carbon is part of the cycle, in an open system.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Yes, simulation estimates:

[cite=Nature]Once the disturbance spectrum of AGB loss is defined we can infer the s.d. introduced into an ensemble of growth rates from forest censuses using the simple stochastic forest simulator of the form dM = G x dt–D x dt introduced above, which predicts forest carbon mass change per area (M) due to growth (G) and loss (D) due to mortality10,12,20 during the time interval dt. For G we used as input parameters growth from 484 forest censuses10 covering N = 135 plots and N = 1545 census years, and mortality (AGB loss) from our new disturbance spectrum analysis. To generate random numbers distributed according to our observed distribution we use the inverse transform method10. For growth we use specifically GBN(m,s) with m = 2.5 or 2.75 (Mg C ha^-1 y^-1), respectively, and s = 0.85 (Mg C ha^-1 y^-1), the mean value for the Amazon region according to the RAINFOR data10 and Eastern Amazon, respectively. For D, we used our Amazon forest mortality frequency distribution (Fig. 3) and modifications thereof for the purpose of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of our approach (see main text and Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

How much of that do you actually understand? Can you explain any of it to me?

It's just a method of estimating current carbon flux. It's not a means of estimating what the flux might have been at other times.

And you are again assuming the Amazon is a closed system.

No, i'm not. I've already discussed what happens to carbon that is no longer stored there. I know you're aware of it because you didn't like what i told you, and spent some time telling me as much (though, as usual, presented no evidence other than "i don't believe that"). So, you're willfully misrepresenting my position now. Good show.

Your figures are incompatible with the rate having been maintained? Then I question them. But I've used them to derive 1.67 millimeters of leaf litter / year, which is surely reasonable.

Speaking of "i don't believe it for no good reason", here we go again. I've explained why physical reality makes it impossible to have had the present rate of sequestration for much of the past. If you want to disagree, you need to explain how a drier, colder Amazon with less access to CO2 can incorporate as much carbon through plant growth as the present one dose. If you don't do that, then you don't have an argument. All you have is what you usually have: you disagree with reality whenever it doesn't suit what you'd like to believe.

Well, we're talking 60 to 120 million years, and you are treating the carbon cycle as storage, whereas the stored carbon is part of the cycle, in an open system.

Once again, you've completely forgotten what the argument's about. Why don't you reread the thread and explain to me what you think the argument is?

[lee_merrill]

How much of that do you actually understand? Can you explain any of it to me?

I understand most of it (I assume GBN is a normal distribution).

It's just a method of estimating current carbon flux. It's not a means of estimating what the flux might have been at other times.

Only they use 1500 years of data, so they should get a good idea what the average per plot of forest is.

No, i'm not. I've already discussed what happens to carbon that is no longer stored there. I know you're aware of it because you didn't like what i told you, and spent some time telling me as much (though, as usual, presented no evidence other than "i don't believe that"). So, you're willfully misrepresenting my position now. Good show.

How is this allowing for an open system, though? "You've come up with a figure for total stored carbon that is incompatible with the amount of carbon available to be stored, and the physical space in which it needs to be stored."

Speaking of "i don't believe it for no good reason", here we go again. I've explained why physical reality makes it impossible to have had the present rate of sequestration for much of the past. If you want to disagree, you need to explain how a drier, colder Amazon with less access to CO2 can incorporate as much carbon through plant growth as the present one dose.

The current era seems to be at a midpoint between colder and warmer eras, and over 60-120 million years, such fluctuations I expect would even out.

Once again, you've completely forgotten what the argument's about. Why don't you reread the thread and explain to me what you think the argument is?

.3 billion tonnes of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year should substantially deal with a gradually more luminous sun, re Hugh Ross's statement.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I understand most of it (I assume GBN is a normal distribution).


Only they use 1500 years of data, so they should get a good idea what the average per plot of forest is.


How is this allowing for an open system, though? "You've come up with a figure for total stored carbon that is incompatible with the amount of carbon available to be stored, and the physical space in which it needs to be stored."


The current era seems to be at a midpoint between colder and warmer eras, and over 60-120 million years, such fluctuations I expect would even out.


.3 billion tonnes of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year should substantially deal with a gradually more luminous sun, re Hugh Ross's statement.

Blessings,
Lee

I already documented citing research the fact that the amount of carbon stored is decreasing due to global warming. You know ner loss over time.

[TheLurch]

Only they use 1500 years of data, so they should get a good idea what the average per plot of forest is.

So, clearly, you don't actually understand it. That's 1500 cumulative years spread over 135 plots, so only an average of roughly 10 years per plot. So really, it's only representative of current climate conditions.

Which was my point. Which you are arguing against purely out of ignorance. When will you start acting like your understanding is as poor as it actually is, and start asking people who actually understand to explain things to you, instead of arguing all the time?

How is this allowing for an open system, though? "You've come up with a figure for total stored carbon that is incompatible with the amount of carbon available to be stored, and the physical space in which it needs to be stored."

Because if carbon leaves the system then by definition it is not stored. It goes back into the carbon cycle. It may ultimately be stored elsewhere, but in that case, the Amazon is irrelevant to it.

The system is wide open. When carbon leaves the system, it's not stored. This is not a difficult combination of concepts.

The current era seems to be at a midpoint between colder and warmer eras, and over 60-120 million years, such fluctuations I expect would even out.

Then, frankly, you're stupid. Because even if your initial assumption were right (which it's not), whether it would even out or not would depend entirely on the amount of time spent in the different climate states. There's also the unstated assumption that the rate of carbon storage is directly proportional to the temperature, which is false as well.

You made all of those errors in one sentence.

That's impressive on its own. What really pushes your performance over the top is that you never acknowledge that you've made any, and just blunder on as if you honestly believe you understand this stuff.

"Willing to learn" my posterior.

[lee_merrill]

That's 1500 cumulative years spread over 135 plots, so only an average of roughly 10 years per plot.

The natural interpretation of 1545 years is a period of 1545 years per plot.

Because if carbon leaves the system then by definition it is not stored. It goes back into the carbon cycle. It may ultimately be stored elsewhere, but in that case, the Amazon is irrelevant to it.

But carbon in a form that is not CO₂ or some other gas, is stored still as far as I am concerned.

Because even if your initial assumption were right (which it's not), whether it would even out or not would depend entirely on the amount of time spent in the different climate states. There's also the unstated assumption that the rate of carbon storage is directly proportional to the temperature, which is false as well.

Well, this image from NASA does seem to even out at about -4C. So we seem to be in a relatively warm period over the last 1500 years, I was mistaken. But I don't think I am assuming this about the rate of carbon storage.

epica_temperature.png
Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

The natural interpretation of 1545 years is a period of 1545 years per plot.

Is that the natural interpretation when the abstract mentions "using a novel combination of forest inventory, airborne lidar and satellite remote sensing data". Please explain to me how they got satellite data in the year 500. For that matter, please explain how they would have any data from the year 500.

You really are a terrible person who will say anything if they thought it would help their argument.

But carbon in a form that is not CO₂ or some other gas, is stored still as far as I am concerned.

But you have no idea what happens to it after it leaves the Amazon, do you?

You just have what you want to believe. Which you treat as if it's fact.

I was mistaken.

Let's be a little more clear about that: you were mistaken because you ignored the accurate information that i provided you earlier in this thread. You would have known better and avoided that mistake if you'd recognized that this is an area of science that I know better than you do.

In any case, acknowledging it now is an important (and commendable) first step. But there should be two consequences to recognizing a mistake:

You evaluate what caused you to make it, which should help you avoid making similar mistakes in the future. In this case, that should cause you to be hesitant about starting arguments about topics you clearly don't understand well.

You recognize that one of the consequences of that mistake is that the argument you were trying to support with it is based on erroneous assumptions, and therefore should be withdrawn.

[lee_merrill]

Is that the natural interpretation when the abstract mentions "using a novel combination of forest inventory, airborne lidar and satellite remote sensing data". Please explain to me how they got satellite data in the year 500. For that matter, please explain how they would have any data from the year 500.

This combination was to characterize "the frequency distribution of disturbance events", for which recent data would be pertinent.

But you have no idea what happens to it after it leaves the Amazon, do you?

Most any fraction of 18 quadrillion tonnes would be substantial.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

This combination was to characterize "the frequency distribution of disturbance events", for which recent data would be pertinent.

So, when i point out that the data is only from the last decade or so, you immediately suggest that it's from the last 1,500 years. When i then show that this can't be the case, you turn around and say the equivalent of "obviously, they needed recent data."

What is wrong with you?

In any case, you're also laughably wrong here. Frequency distributions can work over any time scales, not just recent ones. Your desire to mislead everyone here is truly pathological.

Most any fraction of 18 quadrillion tonnes would be substantial.

It's already been shown that you don't understand:
plate tectonics
the carbon cycle
carbon sequestration
historic climate change

You have no intellectual foundation to make any arguments here. Give up.

[lee_merrill]

So, when i point out that the data is only from the last decade or so, you immediately suggest that it's from the last 1,500 years.

No, that's from the article, 1545 years, which is not a multiple of the number of plots, so I think they're talking about a 1545 year period.

When i then show that this can't be the case, you turn around and say the equivalent of "obviously, they needed recent data."

But I meant that the forest survey etc. was for recent disturbances, not for carbon sequestration measurement. And if only a tenth of the Amazonian carbon gets sequestered, that's still 1.8 quadrillion tonnes, according to LiveScience, which is substantial.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

The natural interpretation of 1545 years is a period of 1545 years per plot.


But carbon in a form that is not CO₂ or some other gas, is stored still as far as I am concerned.


Well, this image from NASA does seem to even out at about -4C. So we seem to be in a relatively warm period over the last 1500 years, I was mistaken. But I don't think I am assuming this about the rate of carbon storage.

epica_temperature.png
Blessings,
Lee

I documented that in recent history there is a net loose of stored carbon duero global warming.

[TheLurch]

No, that's from the article, 1545 years, which is not a multiple of the number of plots, so I think they're talking about a 1545 year period.

At this point, you really should admit that you don't know how to read a science paper. Or couldn't be bothered to read it beyond what you thought you needed in order to extract something to use in an argument.

They surveyed the plots using technology that has been available for far less than 100 years. They did not start every single survey on the same date - the authors didn't even do all the surveys, but relied on publicly available data in many cases. So you wouldn't expect an even multiple.

All of that is in this paper, and this is typical for all papers of this sort. So, you haven't read the paper carefully, and you are unfamiliar with this entire class of scientific research.

Instead of recognizing that, you just make a guess, and suggest that your guess is better than an evaluation done by someone with a PhD in the sciences.

What gives you such completely unjustified confidence?

But I meant that the forest survey etc. was for recent disturbances, not for carbon sequestration measurement. And if only a tenth of the Amazonian carbon gets sequestered, that's still 1.8 quadrillion tonnes, according to LiveScience, which is substantial.

Is there any evidence that could possibly convince you you're wrong about this? Doesn't being catastrophically wrong about so much else give you the slightest bit of pause?

[lee_merrill]

Well, I'm down to repeating myself, so I will let you have the last word, and let any readers decide who has the better argument.

Blessings,
Lee