not anymore - no trees left

Spot

Soil can sequester carbon at the following rates

Croplands…………………………………………………..0.25 to 1.0 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually
Pastures………………………………………………………0.1 to 0.175 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually
Permanent crops…………………………………………0.5 to 1.0 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually
Salt affected & chemically degrade soil………0.3 to 0.7 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually
Physically degraded & prone water erosion….0.2 to 0.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually
Susceptible to wind erosion………………………..0.05 to 0.2 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually

Multiply by 3.67 to convert to CO2

Croplands…………………………………………………..0.918 to 3.67 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually
Pastures………………………………………………………0.367 to 0.6423 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually
Permanent crops…………………………………………1.835 to 3.67 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually
Salt affected & chemically degrade soil………1.101 to 2.569 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually
Physically degraded & prone water erosion….0.734 to 01.835 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually
Susceptible to wind erosion………………………..0.1835 to 0.734 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually

Australian land area = 769.2 million hectares

Instead of trying to do the calcs and sorting out what percentage is crop land, pastures etc, I got lazy and refer you to this,

This paper by (Cf Barret 2002) estimated CO2 exchange between atmosphere and the Australian soil at 700 million tonnes every year.

Therefore it can be said that just the Australian land soil sequestration of CO2 from our atmosphere is greater than Australia’s CO2 emissions.

.........................560 < 700.

If we do go to market for an Emission Trading Scheme we shouldn't pay anything at all, after all we are carbon neutral.

In fact we can sell the extra (sink capacity) as carbon derivatives.

But hey I wouldn't really want to go there.

Death to the oligarchy controlled United Nations and all their schemes.........

https://www.dairyingfortomorrow.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Soil-Carbon-Sequestrat...

PZ547 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 1:25pm:


Thanks mate...........

Gordon wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 1:58pm:


If nuclear energy wasn't as dangerous as it is I would agree with you, remember Chernobyl.

As for hydrogen cars you will be sitting on a bomb not unlike LPG cylinders, because they are pressurized.

I'll address Ajax and PZ here.

Modern Nukes are safe. Chernobyl was the result of inherent design flaws due to design cost cutting and the incompetence of Soviet regime safety regulations.

Hydrogen cars: both Kia and Toyota are gearing up for hydrogen cars. It's going to happen.

Hydrogen is no more or less dangerous than other flammable fuels, including gasoline and natural gas. In fact, some of hydrogen's differences actually provide safety benefits compared to gasoline or other fuels. However, all flammable fuels must be handled responsibly.


https://hydrogeneurope.eu/hydrogen-safety

not sure WE as humans need not to do any more ajax..

we! us humans have got very complacent..take far too much for granted  the stuff we throw away these days is causing no end of trouble...[ and we think Nuclear waste is a problem]   have you taken a look in the bins your send out once a week to collections....thats just "you"  imagine every home office shop restaurant   

its mind boggling.....we take rubbish pick up for granted we dont give it another thought... totally reckless....

this time of the year   we kind double up if not treble up on everything....

we can do better and we should be better...

recycling doesnt seem to be the answer   part maybe but not all ...

we must do better...why cant our rubbish be turned into fuel for instance..

all we seem to do is make more[i] toys for grown ups that can be thrown away every 6 months..

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 2:53pm:



No petal. Natural emissions are not anthropogenic.
Remember what the satellite showed? Australia was a net carbon sink. And that was despite your faulty logic of conflating two years of anthro emissions into one.

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 2:59pm:


I never said they were

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 2:53pm:


How dare you barny.....?

Don't you know that Cods has reviewed and endorsed my climate change qualifications (see below), say no more.....!

Now about your crazy statement above my goodness man how much do you want to move the goal posts.

Last I locked the natural flux of CO2 that goes up into the atmosphere is

750 Giga tonnes

Compared with mans emissions of

10 Giga tonnes

Not even the IPCC is that ambitious, to sequester the whole Natural flux of CO2 that goes up into the atmosphere every year.

You talk a lot of sh@t barny, we did have 7000ppm of CO2 in out atmosphere before and there wasn't a problem with absorbing it or with a runaway green house effect.

Merry Christmas.....

Recycling stuff is fine but most of it goes to landfill anyway.

The World has changed, grocers no longer fill paper bags with whatever you want and you used those paper bags to start the fire in the combustion stove to keep the hot water working.

Do people really want to go back to the Old Days? I doubt it.

Recycling stuff is fine but most of it goes to landfill anyway.


Spot on,,, and all the extra trucks on the road, the extra bins all adds to carbon emissions.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 9:50am:



And Australia is a carbon sink!

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 12:21pm:



I'll just leave this here and check back later to see if lee has managed to come up with anything 

What's this thing called "sea bins"? Saw something on TV about them collecting rubbish from the sea but it didn't say how they were going to dispose of that rubbish. Most of it didn't look "recyclable" at all. 

Ajax wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 8:49am:


Before we go way off topic I'll ask you again.

In your opening post why have you failed to include natural CO₂ emissions in your calulations?

If you only include natural sequestering and human emissions then you are missing a very important part of the carbon cycle and your conclusion will be wrong

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 26^th, 2019 at 11:38am:


Human emissions is what its all about right barny....?

Can we agree on that point, because I haven't found a document that tackles natural CO2.

So then when you invest in a tree plantation for the purpose of sequestering CO2 out of the atmosphere for carbon credits are you sequestering manmade CO2 or natural CO2, or just CO2 from the atmosphere.

Which is it barny.......???

Quote:


Rather dumb excuse for being irresponsible while emissions are still increasing..

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:


How good is cherry picking?

lee wrote on Dec 26^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:


Quote:


Do you think that Australia is isolated from the overall result ?

Will Australia survive if the rest of the world doesn't ?

Should we do our share or not ?

Making decisions based on a localise bit of good fortune is no real help overall.

https://mobile.twitter.com/pwafork/status/1210009377446350848

Question: If CO2 is the enemy, why aren't the Extinction Rebellion/Greta mob out in force in front of every Chinese consulate and embassy in the world?

Answer: CO2 isn't their real target.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 8:59am:


Care to give some examples............???

If we invest in cleaner technology and retrofit existing plants this will reduce our emissions will it not........??

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/80577810_1683913255078062_57575589...

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2019 at 11:54am:


So why then are you using natural CO₂ absorption in you OP?
You can't have it both ways.
You can't count natural absorption but then ignore natural emissions.

Ajax wrote on Dec 26^th, 2019 at 11:54am:


That's a completely different question. Your OP related to the CO₂ absorption of natural forests and grasslands

All of which is currently releasing all of its CO₂ in the bushfires through out the country (but of course you don't count this, you only count it when forests and grasslands absorb CO₂)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 9:44am:



oh noes. Quoting wiki?

So youbelieve wiki over peer-reviewed articles?

"Our results show a strong carbon uptake in Australia from the end of 2010 to mid‐2012. This uptake coincided with record‐breaking rainfall and consequent soil moisture increase that lead to increased growth of vegetation as shown by the increased SIF and the observed peak in biomass burning emissions, as well as the large increased flux uptake shown in the inversion results."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065161

From one of your previous posts -

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 20^th, 2019 at 9:41am:


From that report from the CSIRO -

"From October 2010 to March 2011, an extraordinary rainfall event occurred over most of Australia, which resulted in three-quarters of Queensland being declared a flood disaster zone – an area as big as France, Germany and Italy combined."

https://blog.csiro.au/record-rains-made-australia-a-giant-green-global-carbon-si...

So on the one hand you misquote them and on the other you deny the science.

Of course October in the US is Autumn.

Now see if you can do the job properly.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:



And the "FALL" is the leaves falling AKA Autumn.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:


Also, 2009 and early 2010 were very dry years due to a strong El Niño. At the end of 2010, however, this shifted dramatically as the combined effect of a strong La Niña with enhancing influences from the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode causing record‐breaking precipitation over large parts of Australia. This lasted well into 2012 and has been associated with a global 7 mm drop in the ocean levels [Fasullo et al., 2013].



Figure 4
Carbon flux IAV for a TM5‐4DVAR GOSAT‐based inversion and a CASA‐GFED TM5 forward model run

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065161

Note the carbon flux decreasing from the GOSAT satellite in 2010.

That's what the science says petal.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:


Nope. Peak growing is Spring. Ripening happens from October to December. You don't know much about growing seasons do you?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:



And yet it is data from a Japanese satellite.  You, like random, like to shoot the messenger.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:


So you disagree with the paper from the American Geophysical Union? How novel.

From your own source

Quote:


Don't forget that all I need to show is that 2010 was not a typical year and that whatsupwiththat were cherry picking their data. This I have proved.

So. have you got any data from any year other than 2010?

from your own link

Quote:



Now clearly 2010 was not a typical year which has been unscientifically cherry picked by whatsupwiththat.com


I will ask you once again.
Do you have any evidence that Australia is a carbon sink other than a cherry picked 2010 

lee wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:



I suggest you look up what a negative carbon flux is 

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 10:41am:


Wow lee
Even when you are shown to be completely wrong you still can't admit it
I guess this proves you are just a troll

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 11:19am:


Name one other component that has changed over the past 150 years?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 11:25am:


Clouds

Air pollution (solid particles) Remember London Smog? Smoke and fog. Individual coal burners. No smoke traps. 

They are collectively known as Global Brightening.

And all in the last 150 years.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 11:25am:

Name one that hasn't.

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 12:26pm:


You are so desperate to get the last word in that you are posting complete bollocks 
You do realise that everyone reading this thread knows what a dishonest prick you are 

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:


You're the one who thought that negative fluxes were CO₂ emissions and now you are lying about it to try and save face.

You have zero credibility lee, and you have shown that you are a complete waste of time debating on this forum.
Grow a pair and face the fact that you are wrong and you are now lying about it.

Since you have successfully discredited your own argument about 2010 
Can you please present some evidence that Australia is a CO₂ sink that isn't 2010? 

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 3:57pm:


You are a pathetic coward lee.

Still haven't got any proof that Australia is a carbon sink except the 2010 figures which you conveniently discredited yourself.

Come on lee. just admit that you are wrong and that you are a liar and then we can move forward.
You are only making yourself look more like a dick by continuing to post your BS.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 4:05pm:



Only because I proved you wrong.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 29^th, 2019 at 4:05pm:



Oh dear. Forgotten the CSIRO blog you quoted with approval?

lee wrote on Dec 27^th, 2019 at 6:33pm:




The modelled net carbon uptake of the Australian landscape in December 2010 at the start of the big wet(top), compared with December 2009 (bottom).

ibid

As I said then if you reduced that figure by 60% it would still show sequestration of about 88MT for 2010. But the 60% was for 2011 and yet you can't get past 2010 being a year of sequestration as well.

We have tried doing nothing for the last 25 years, I hear the Temperature is expected to reach 47 degrees through the week ?

Looks like doing nothing is going just great.

Barny you talk a lot sh@t pal.

Too much at times.......!



https://wentworthgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Optimising-Carbon-in-the-A...

There you go barny you were so desperate to see how much degassing goes on.

14% of Australia's CO2 emissions come from land clearing.

No:1 above

Quote:

Oh BTW

That's storage we're talking about not annual fluxing...

Quote:


Just in case you get confused............!

Ajax wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 6:36am:


Estimated potential doesn't mean a lot
Nothing else you've posted is exactly relevant to Australia being a carbon sink. Especially when you ignore those pesky bushfires we have 

Neither you nor lee have been able to prove anything.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 3:37pm:


Hi Barny

It’s one thing to claim that my logic and or calculations may not be right.

It’s another thing to not believe the CSIRO when I call up one of their papers that doesn’t suit your agenda.

And then you quote something from the exact same source CSIRO when it does suit your agenda.

And on top then claim who are we going to believe little o’l me (Ajax) against CSIRO scientists.

Therefore the only conclusion one can come to is that you are in denial of anything other than the blue print of Anthropogenic Global Warming as preached by the IPCC.

And further to that is that you cannot have a logically conversation about anything when it comes to AGW because you believe in the IPCC dogma so much.

So I'm quoting the CSIRO and still you do not believe.

Ajax wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 7:23pm:


No you won't

The thing about denialists like you and lee is that no evidence will ever be enough.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 28^th, 2019 at 9:37am:


I'm also gobsmacked that you can't understand that theses are 2 separate events,
The millennial drought broke in March 2010.
The extraordinary rainfall event was October (spring) 2010 to March 2011
They are 2 separate events

And how did all this start?
You produced a whatsupwiththat.com article that claimed Australia was a carbon sink, but that only provided data for 2010.
I pointed out that 2010 was unrepresentative as we had bad bush fires in 2009 and the long drought ended in 2010 so there would have been enormous plant growth.

Any sane person would have either acknowledged that 2010 was not a representative year and/or would have provided further evidence that didn't rely on cherry picked data.

lee however, is not a sane person.
His arguments became increasingly pedantic, circular and irrelevant to the point where he was trying to argue that October isn't Spring (it's "coming into summer" apparently  )

Having re read this thread I have come to the conclusion, lee, that you are completely insane

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 12:15pm:



And yet the CSIRO, which you quoted, said that 2011 was 60% above normal. I know you don't do maths. So I did them for you. 

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2019 at 3:54pm:


"While atmospheric carbon dioxide still rose in 2011, it grew at a much lower rate – nearly 20% lower – than the average growth over the previous decade."

So 2011 was 60% higher than "normal".

Why don't you like the CSIRO anymore?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 1:12pm:


Not sure why you have suddenly started talking about 2011. I could have sworn your arguments were about 2010
But then, you never do like explaining yourself because you like to be vague 
But I haven't got the time or the patience to keep engaging you when you clearly have no interest in having an honest debate. 

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 3:06pm:



You wanted another year petal. You got it.

As I said about 2010 even if I used the 60% figure for it it would still have been  sequestration.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 1^st, 2020 at 3:06pm:



So tell me why you don't like the CSIRO any more?

Quote:


https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science...

Ajax wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 8:49am:


Except of course that you haven't included bushfires in your calculation. And if it takes 100 years to reabsorb all the CO2 released in the bushfires then your claim that Australia is carbon neutral is debunked

Quote:

Ajax wrote on Dec 24^th, 2019 at 8:49am:


lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2020 at 5:27pm:


As usual lee completely misses the point

If Australian forests reabsorb all the CO₂ emitted by bushfires for net zero emissions I guess that backs up my claim that Ajax's calculations are wrong in the OP and that Australia is not a Carbon sink

Thanks for once again inadvertantly supporting my argument