The good folks at “The Economist” went to the North American Biochar Conference 2009 in August. I’ve been bitten by the biochar bug. See my post here, plus the article I wrote for Grist. The virtues of biochar - A new growth industry? has some good insights, many of which were gleaned from the papers given at the conference.
One paper spoke of “…another advantage if poor-world farmers can be brought in. Many of them burn wood, waste and dung indoors for heating and cooking. The soot released into the air as a consequence is also a climate-changer because, being dark, it absorbs heat. Much worse, though, about 1.6m people are killed each year by inhaling it. But pyrolytic stoves produce almost no soot-the carbon is all locked into the biochar. Worldstove, a firm based in Italy, seeks to provide small and simple pyrolising stoves to poor countries.”
I’ve written about the problem of black carbon from cooking a number of times, including here from April. It’s an insidious problem and the Economist is right to note that biochar production is one way to solve it.
9 Comments So Far»
The following quotes are from the 2007 IPCC report. How much confidence does this verbage portray given the [error bar] levels and the stated “low” levels of understanding?
“The direct RF of the individual aerosol species is less certain than the total direct aerosol RF. The estimates are:
sulphate, –0.4 [±0.2] W m–2;
fossil fuel organic carbon, –0.05 [±0.05] W m–2;
fossil fuel black carbon, +0.2 [±0.15] W m–2;
biomass burning, +0.03 [±0.12] W m–2;
nitrate, –0.1 [±0.1] W m–2; and
mineral dust, –0.1 [±0.2] W m–2.
“Black carbon aerosol deposited on snow has reduced the surface albedo, producing an associated RF of +0.1 [±0.1] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding. Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding.“
You can read this yourself:
IPCC AR4 Report,
Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change,
Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing,
Page 132
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
How can anyone be more certain of the sum of factors than in the certainty of the individual factors? Error analysis 101 is the total error is the square root of the sum of the square of the errors. For the list of individual aerosol species above, the total and error would be -0.42 [±0.36].
Oh, for heavens sake, that means cooling! The scientific understanding is LOW. Oh yeah, the model told me so! And a 1% change in low level cloud cover globally, that would be a radiative forcing 10 times greater than the above, and the understanding of clouds and how to include them in the models is very low. Keep drinking the Cool-aid.
Remember that the IPCC doesn’t do original science. It collates hundreds of studies on thousands of datasets and expert panels review these. The BC studies were not as advanced prior to the Fourth Assessment Report, issued in 2007, as they are now. See, for instance, this study from NASA that buttresses support for the importance of BC. See also my post from a year and a half ago that references other groundbreaking work, plus this article in Nature Reports Climate Change. Finally, you might delve into this piece from the “Christian Science Monitor” science columnist. You wouldn’t exactly characterize Nature and CSM as other than scientifically conservative, would you?
By the way, if you are trying to convince me and the readers of this blog of your point of view, why do you use the abusive approach? “Keep drinking the Cool-aid.” You seem, by this, to not be particularly interested in convincing folks of your view.
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.
The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
These stoves can be very low cost ,($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease. http : : //terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems with the Congo Basin Forest
Fund (CBFF). The Biochar Fund recently won $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world’s poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.
It’s hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel. Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.
Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.
Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
“Feed the Soil Not the Plants” becomes;
“Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !”.
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.
This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of penitence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.
Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic “capture” collectors are up and running, the “storage” sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.
There are dozens soil researchers on the subject now at USDA-ARS.
and many studies at The up coming ASA-CSSA-SSSA joint meeting;
http : //a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Session5675.htm
Major Endorsements:
Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
NASA’s Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
Dr. James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) says Biochar is “The only hope for mankind”
Charles Mann (”1491″) in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
Tony Blair & Richard Branson in the UK and conservative party opposition leader John Turnbull in Oz.
Internationally, the work of the IBI fostering the application by 20 countries for UN recognition of soil carbon as a sink with biochar as a clean development mechanism will open the door for programs across the globe.
Reports:
This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http : //assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .
This is the single most comprehensive report to date, covering more of the Asian and Australian work;
http : //www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf
Given the current “Crisis” atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Cheers,
Erich
Erich - Thanks for your continuing useful input on biochar.
NucEngineer - Can you please document your statement here? “There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years.”
It would seem to me that the data show otherwise: See this, for instance, from the US EPA. They say that:
* Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
* The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
* The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.
Bill Hewitt:
Glad to provide an easy reference for you on measured global temperatures.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998
In this plot, global monthly temperatures are plotted for 1998 to present. Two of the sources are NASA GISS and HADLEY which use sea surface and land surface thermometer readings. The other two sources are UAH and RSS which use satellite sounding of the atmosphere. Also added to this plot is a linear regression over the last 8 years using the average of all 4 temperature sources.
Remember the last time you were on a rollercoaster? the time at the top was the higest for several seconds, then whoosh.
Erich J. Knight :
How about cheap, affordable electricity for Africa? Wouldn’t that solve all their problems?
Irrigation, education, jobs, progress.
Why not go right to the sources? The Hadley Centre says here that “The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years.” NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has a series of graphs laying out the ever-higher temperatures here. I continue to wonder how you and others can so blithely argue with thousands of datasets and their interpretation in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals over decades. Remember one thing, please, in all of this: Scientists are conservative. They simply don’t make unsubstantiated judgements.
Bill,
I realize that it is popular to argue that the lack of new annual high global temperatures since 1998 is not important to the issue of anthropogenic (man caused) global warming. Instead, lump the last 11 years in with the 26 years between 1972 and 1998 when warming was apparent. Between 1945 and 1972 there was no warming (actually cooling if looking at the raw data instead of the latest versions of HADCRUT and GISS which add corrections opposite to the urban heat island effect).
However, more than 1-1/2 years ago the heads of both the IPCC and WMO said otherwise. I am sure they would like to retract these statements, but this is the Reuters article from January 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1171501720080111
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (more than 1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
“One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
Also in this article from more than 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.
Several more years! If 2 years is several (and decreasing temperatures can be regarded as at least flat), then we are more than three quarters of the way to being significant.
What is the impact on these holy grail General Circulation Models? Which independent variables may need adjusting? Which hypotheses in the models may need modification or rejection? What new hypotheses need to be incorporated? You have seen my post of 20:21 on 15/09/2009 above concerning how GCMs are assembled and used.
Bill, you also mentioned “thousands” of data sets.
Actually, there are some data sets for temperature reconstruction that use reliable proxies (like O-18 for temperature) and then there are less reliable proxies. For example, tree ring width is affected not only by temperature but also by rainfall, CO2 levels, number of cloudless days, etc.
Now, if you are talking about data sets like flower blooming dates, migrating animal arrival dates, altitude of species distribution, etc., these are effects of warming. These do not, repeat, do not indicate in any way whether warming is anthropogenic.
Leave Comments Below»