We Are What We Eat: What Can I Do? (5)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:38 AM GMT on April 30, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

We Are What We Eat: What Can I Do? (5)

Revised: May 9, 2013

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” Links to the previous entries are listed at the end.

Last week I made a list of categories to classify the types of actions that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The second item on that list is food. But first, I want to start with some more sets of categories.

When we think of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas come to forefront. We often think of coal as dirty and natural gas as clean, in terms of air quality, climate change and general environmental damage. All of these forms of fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide when they burn, and that carbon dioxide is for practical human time in either the atmosphere or ocean permanently. Therefore we can’t simply replace coal and oil with natural gas and declare that we will avoid global warming.

If we examine how we use energy, then those uses can be divided into three categories: power generation, transportation and direct use for heat. For the past few decades, coal has dominated power generation and petroleum has dominated transportation. All three contribute to direct use for heat. Recently in the U.S., natural gas has been replacing coal for power generation, but worldwide, coal is still the dominant fuel (natural gas and coal, TON, NPR). Oil dominates transportation.

Taking another cut through our energy use, we can categorize use as residential, commercial, industrial and for transportation. Industrial uses create products from raw materials: manufacturing, cement making, mining and agriculture. Commercial uses include shops, government buildings and where governments spend money. Residential and commercial uses include a large part of electricity, heating and cooling of buildings, and heating of water. An interesting point: next to the burning of fossil fuels, cement making is the largest nonagricultural source of carbon dioxide emissions. It’s on the order of 5 percent.

If we return to the question of “What Can I Do?,” then the items discussed in the previous entries on efficiency focus primarily on the better management of buildings (residential and commercial) as well as on +choices in transportation. In fact, an alternative way to categorize use is for buildings, transportation and industry. If one were to think about government regulation, then emissions from coal-fired power plants are relatively easy to target because there are not that many power plants and they don’t move around. Transportation is harder to regulate because there are, globally, billions of cars and trucks and they do move around. The different categories I have described demonstrate both the easy opportunity for regulation, power generation, and the challenges of climate policy – that there is no single thing to fix the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now to food – If we were to make a special food and agriculture category, then agriculture is responsible for about the same amount of emissions as, say, transportation or heating. Now, however, we have to become more holistic about what we mean by emissions. For agriculture, we have carbon dioxide emissions, which come mostly from deforestation. Cutting and burning forests to make new rangeland for cattle make up about 10 percent of the total annual carbon dioxide emissions. There is some emission from the use of fossil fuels for tractors and irrigation, and about half of the agricultural carbon dioxide fossil fuel emissions come from the manufacture of fertilizer. There are also other land use and soil management decisions made in agriculture that affect carbon dioxide emissions.

Beyond carbon dioxide, agriculture is responsible for about a third of methane emissions and close to two-thirds of the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. These are greenhouse gases that are more potent than carbon dioxide; they are in much lower concentrations in the atmosphere.

So, what we eat can make a difference. When I was in college in the 1970s, I was introduced to Frances Moore Lappe’s book, Diet for a Small Planet. What I remember from that book was that if you took all of the calories needed to grow a pound of beef and instead feed those grains to people, you could feed many more people than you could with a pound of beef. It was my first introduction to sustainability. It takes much land and energy to make the well-marbled porterhouses that my father fed me in one-pound servings. No matter how you count, livestock production, in particular, beef production, releases a lot of greenhouse gases.

There are many marketing appeals in food and food supply. These appeals are to make personal decisions that affect the world, and individual choices the public makes about food and food supply do affect the world. We have appeals to buy grass-fed beef, organic meat and produce, locally produced and sustainable agriculture. We are faced with issues of packaging, preprocessing, natural, raw and prepared. There are no easy algorithms. In February, an apple from Chile might take less energy in transportation than an apple from Virginia takes in cold storage. We demand fresh fruit, vegetables and meat all winter. We demand exotic spices, fine coffee, tea and chocolate. The global demand for meat and nonlocal food increases as the world’s wealth increases.

So what rules of food selection matter? My personal evaluation is that reducing meat consumption is at the top of the list, and at the top of the meat list is beef. Pasture-raised might be better than feedlot, but life cycle studies show that beef is a relatively inefficient use of energy. Chicken is far more energy-efficient. Should we choose sustainable, local or organic meat and produce? From an emissions point of view, I hear sustainable advocated as best if there are actual standards and certification of sustainability--then local, then organic. I have made the controversial claim that since our current practice of organic, local and sustainable agriculture demands high payment for produce and meat, and since most of our generation of money requires high fossil fuel energy use, there is a hidden cost to the climate that comes from high-value crops.

It’s not easy, but what we eat does make a difference to the environment. We usually think of this difference in terms of pesticides, herbicides and erosion, but there is also a climate impact. And as is often the case, the connection is indirect, far in the future and difficult to know how to value.

r

Note: The source of much of the material in this entry is based on Livestock’s Long Shadow a 2006 publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. There has been much criticism of this report, especially in its calculation of the emissions of the transportation sector. The original authors did modify their specific statements about transportation. As noted in the next blog in this series, there is substantial controversy about the impact of agriculture. My evaluation is that the agriculture numbers in this report are as robust as any I know. My opinion would be that the agriculture emissions in this report are more likely an underestimate than an overestimate. As for comparisons to other sources of emissions, when fossil fuel emissions are broken down as described in this blog, the different sectors, residential, commercial, transportation and industrial, are all large and no single one is dominant. Therefore, the conclusion that agriculture is comparable to these sectors seems reasonable.


Previous Entries in the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases


Moderation of comments: I have been getting more and more complaints about what is going on in the comments. WU and I will be addressing this. To start, here is a modified version of Dr. Master’s Blog Contents Rules.

Rood's Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes.
2. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil.
3. No spam.
4. Stay on the topic of climate change or the entry topic.
5. Foul language is not allowed.
6. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information.
7. Threats and intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with accordingly.
8. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less; please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 895 - 845

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

895. Neapolitan
12:01 PM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:
For those of you that have not had the chance to see it, Dr. Masters posted this image on his blog:



My understanding is that in a warmer world, the Poles warm faster than the Tropics, which decreases the temperature differential between the Poles and the Tropics. Since there is now less of an extreme temperature differential, the overall storminess decreases, and you get less tornadoes overall.

Any thoughts on this?
My first thought is to wonder about all those who claimed that the record high number of Jan-Apr 2011 tornadoes was due not to an actual glut of tornadoes but solely to people moving into tornado-prone areas. Will those people now, I wonder, claim that the record low number of Jan-Apr tornadoes this year is due not to an actual dearth of tornadoes, but solely to people moving out of those tornado-prone areas. And I wonder whether anyone who made the 2011 claim will now have the intellectual honesty to admit, at least to themselves, that their 2011 claim was utterly ludicrous.

FWIW, I see yet another instance of "whiplash" weather--a rapid extreme from one side of the meteorological pendulum to the other--most likely exacerbated (note to the forum's simpletons: not "caused") by a change in global weather patterns due to a combination of factors including the disappearance of 80% of Arctic sea ice over the past three-and-a-half decades.

And those are my thoughts...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
894. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:18 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
893. cyclonebuster
4:25 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
RE:892


Quoting RevElvis:
Senator Whitehouse responding to a colleague's comment "God won't allow us to ruin our planet".



RevElvis I am here to do HIS work.......






....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
892. RevElvis
3:56 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Senator Whitehouse responding to a colleague's comment "God won't allow us to ruin our planet".

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
890. schistkicker
3:11 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting allahgore:



Can you provide a list of 7,000 to 10,000 scientists that support AGW? I would like to research what they have to say. TIA


You haven't read a single thing anyone's actually tried to give you for a link (or else you'd have stopped spouting Zombie Arguments months ago), why would anyone actually think you'd research 7000-10000 webpages or make that many Google searches for these individuals? Unlike Stanford (apparently), they still teach critical analysis at other schools.

If you really REALLY want to do this, though, I suggest you contact the professional organizations that have signed position statements supporting the concept of AGW (a list was posted in the last couple hundred comments, probably in response to some other drivel). Ask them nicely for a membership directory, maybe make a spreadsheet and weed out duplicates crosslisted in multiple professional organizations, and get started on your quest!
Member Since: June 13, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
888. cyclonebuster
2:36 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


Agreed that there are likely many factors impacting tornadoes besides changes in temperatures.

In the chart I posted, the trend is pretty flat, and the recent record low probably offsets the record high we had a couple of years ago.

I think the real indicator for tornado trends should be the large EF3-EF5 tornadoes. While EF-0 tornadoes were hard to detect decades ago if they were unseen, large twisters would be able to make their impact known. There is a slight decrease in the number of EF3-EF5 tornadoes, while temperatures increased.



I think the real indicator should be all tornadoes just like we try to indicate all hurricanes.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
887. sirmaelstrom
2:26 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 883
Quoting Snowlover123:


Agreed that there are likely many factors impacting tornadoes besides changes in temperatures.

In the chart I posted, the trend is pretty flat, and the recent record low probably offsets the record high we had a couple of years ago.

I think the real indicator for tornado trends should be the large EF3-EF5 tornadoes. While EF-0 tornadoes were hard to detect decades ago if they were unseen, large twisters would be able to make their impact known. There is a slight decrease in the number of EF3-EF5 tornadoes, while temperatures increased.



Hmmm...I don't think I've seen that before, or I've forgotten. Interesting, assuming it's correct.

I would have to look into it more. From a purely statistical point of view there does seem to a negative correlation there, although there seems to be rather sudden dropoff around 1980. Could there be a relationship with the climate shift around 1977 (e.g. seen in the PDO shift negative to positive around the same)? I do seem to recall that La Niñas seem to lead to busier tornado seasons when considering F1+ tornadoes, and one would expect more La Niñas during a negative PDO cycle.

* * *

I'm going to have to step away for a bit. I'll probably check back briefly tonight.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
886. ScottLincoln
2:12 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:
Snowlover you have been making some terrific points the past couple days here. You knowledge of climate science is very very impressive.

L...O...L...!
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
885. Xulonn
2:07 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Instead of disturbing and announcing that to the entire blog, just go ahead and do it. We are not interested in whom you choose to put on ignore.
Speak for yourself - I'm interested in why she did it, I and have been considering the same action. And I find it comforting, not disturbing!

Now I'm trying to figure out why I'm interested in you're not interested in.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1447
884. ScottLincoln
2:05 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:

When they say that there is a "cooling factor" that stifled the rise in Global Temperatures "caused by Global brightening," could that be referring to a negative feedback reducing warming? Just asking a question.

You are posting information that is not accurate, then when called out on it, you retreat to "I'm just asking questions?"

At this point, I don't buy it. You are far beyond the point of "just asking questions." You're trying to use that as a cover.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3192
883. Snowlover123
2:01 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
%u2116 880


Hypothetically that sounds reasonable, although it's unlikely to be as simple as that, since tornado formation relies on a lot of other regional factors.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any long term change in trend of tornadoes.


Agreed that there are likely many factors impacting tornadoes besides changes in temperatures.

In the chart I posted, the trend is pretty flat, and the recent record low probably offsets the record high we had a couple of years ago.

I think the real indicator for tornado trends should be the large EF3-EF5 tornadoes. While EF-0 tornadoes were hard to detect decades ago if they were unseen, large twisters would be able to make their impact known. There is a slight decrease in the number of EF3-EF5 tornadoes, while temperatures increased.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
882. sirmaelstrom
1:56 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 880
Quoting Snowlover123:
For those of you that have not had the chance to see it, Dr. Masters posted this image on his blog:



My understanding is that in a warmer world, the Poles warm faster than the Tropics, which decreases the temperature differential between the Poles and the Tropics. Since there is now less of an extreme temperature differential, the overall storminess decreases, and you get less tornadoes overall.

Any thoughts on this?


Hypothetically that sounds reasonable, although it's unlikely to be as simple as that, since tornado formation relies on a lot of other regional factors.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any long term change in trend of tornadoes.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
881. cyclonebuster
1:49 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
880. Snowlover123
1:47 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
For those of you that have not had the chance to see it, Dr. Masters posted this image on his blog:



My understanding is that in a warmer world, the Poles warm faster than the Tropics, which decreases the temperature differential between the Poles and the Tropics. Since there is now less of an extreme temperature differential, the overall storminess decreases, and you get less tornadoes overall.

Any thoughts on this?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
879. pcola57
1:39 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
%u2116 866


I'm not 100% sure what you're asking but you can get IARC-JAXA comma-delimited data from here, if you want make your own spreadsheet (and graphs). Someone will probably provide you with some other links as well, but that's the only one I have handy at the moment. You should be able to load it directly into Excel or OpenOffice.


I use open office when I have a choice..
Thanks for the data link as well..

Quoting JohnLonergan:


Have you ever been to Neven's? There are lot of people
who are real good with graphic and seem willing to help. I will spend alot of time lurking there when the ice starts going. also Old Leatherneck and Neapolitan are there a lot.


No I haven't been to Neven's..
I need to check that out..
Thanks..


***A Hearty Thanks to sirmaelstrom and JohnLonergan for taking time out and helping me through the previous posts.. :)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
877. cyclonebuster
1:35 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
876. Snowlover123
1:32 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
This is pretty interesting. This image from De Wit and Waltermann 2010, compares three Total Solar Irradiance datasets since 1979. The ACRIM TSI dataset is in blue, and is from Willson and Morvdinov 2003. The red line is the PMOD reconstruction from Frohlich 2006. A third TSI reconstruction is the SARR reconstruction from Dewitte and Mekaoui 2008. The SARR reconstruction is interesting, because it appears to agree with the ACRIM reconstruction on an increasing trend over the late-20th Century with the solar minima, but not to the magnitude that ACRIM suggested that it increased. However, it appears to have the largest trend upward in solar maxima out of all three of the solar TSI datasets. Food for thought.



Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
874. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:30 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 171 Comments: 53790
873. JohnLonergan
1:30 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting pcola57:


John ,yes, I was thinking about a clearer graph for myself so as to visualize it better..
I think some of these graph images leave alot to be desired..
Anyway I can't accomplish it so I will move on..
Just trying to educate myself a little more..
Thanks tons John.. :)


Have you ever been to Neven's? There are lot of people
who are real good with graphic and seem willing to help. I will spend alot of time lurking there when the ice starts going. also Old Leatherneck and Neapolitan are there a lot.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
872. sirmaelstrom
1:29 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 868
Quoting pcola57:


Thats it and thank you sirmaelstrom.. :)


You're welcome.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
871. sirmaelstrom
1:26 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 866
Quoting pcola57:


Yes thats pretty close..
So I'm looking at the monthly Artic Ice Extent and it's monthly variations from 2006-2013 in Millions/km..
From the chart am I also looking at the variations in previous ice extent peaks and current?
Can I extract a number that corresponds in Millions/km and determine an area loss?


I'm not 100% sure what you're asking but you can get IARC-JAXA comma-delimited data from here, if you want make your own spreadsheet (and graphs). Someone will probably provide you with some other links as well, but that's the only one I have handy at the moment. You should be able to load it directly into Excel or OpenOffice.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
870. JohnLonergan
1:24 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting pcola57:


Yes thats pretty close..
So I'm looking at the monthly Artic Ice Extent and it's monthly variations from 2006-2013 in Millions/km..
From the chart am I also looking at the variations in previous ice extent peaks and current?
Can I extract a number that corresponds in Millions/km and determine an area loss?


If your're looking for numbers, there links to NSIDC daily and monthly data in .csv format at the Arctic Sea Ice site.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
869. pcola57
1:21 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:


pcola, Are you trying to make your own graphs from their data? If so, I wouldn't be much help, if your're just compare years, I'd say go here: Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Graphs.


John ,yes, I was thinking about a clearer graph for myself so as to visualize it better..
I think some of these graph images leave alot to be desired..
Anyway I can't accomplish it so I will move on..
Just trying to educate myself a little more..
Thanks tons John.. :)

Edit: Also that is a fantastic link you turned me on to John..I think I can settle in on it and make some headway..
Thanks once again.. :)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
868. pcola57
1:17 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 860



I tried to upload it to an image server and it still doesn't show. I'm not sure but I think that the Link function of the WU interpreter can't show PNG files. You'd probably have to convert it to a JPG,GIF, or similar.

In the meantime, below a link to the image that you were trying to display.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/ijpsg


Thats it and thank you sirmaelstrom.. :)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
867. JohnLonergan
1:15 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting pcola57:
Try this one Re:Post#855

Trying to post the image and no go..
Was running data set 2006-2013..
Right side bar selector..
From what I see and don't understand is it seems to show Artic ice extent is rising??
The graph states "Ice extent in Millions of sq. km..
My understanding is the ice retreat was ongoing and even during seasonal re-freeze that there were less area covered..
I just don't get this Graph..
I need an interpreter..Lol.:)


pcola, Are you trying to make your own graphs from their data? If so, I wouldn't be much help, if your're just compare years, I'd say go here: Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Graphs.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
866. pcola57
1:15 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Continued reponse to № 855:

As far as how to interpret:

It's just bimonthly values for arctic sea ice extant. It seems to roughly correspond to the following:



Could be slightly different data, though, maybe a different sensor or a moving average of the same data. Curiously the minimum of 2012 seems to be missing.


Yes thats pretty close..
So I'm looking at the monthly Artic Ice Extent and it's monthly variations from 2006-2013 in Millions/km..
From the chart am I also looking at the variations in previous ice extent peaks and current?
Can I extract a number that corresponds in Millions/km and determine an area loss?
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
865. sirmaelstrom
1:09 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 860

Quoting pcola57:
Try this one Re:Post#855

Trying to post the image and no go..
Was running data set 2006-2013..
Right side bar selector..
From what I see and don't understand is it seems to show Artic ice extent is rising??
The graph states "Ice extent in Millions of sq. km..
My understanding is the ice retreat was ongoing and even during seasonal re-freeze that t5here were less area covered..
I just don't get this Graph..
I need an interpreter..Lol.:)


I tried to upload it to an image server and it still doesn't show. I'm not sure but I think that the Link function of the WU interpreter can't show PNG files. You'd probably have to convert it to a JPG,GIF, or similar.

In the meantime, below a link to the image that you were trying to display.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/ijpsg

* * *

Added:

The graph you were trying to show has a different trend line for each year from 2006-2013. It's not rising, 2012 was the lowest extent, but each year is not necessarily lower than the year preceding it. 2012 and 2007 are the two lowest minima on the graph. I'm not sure why you're interpreting it as increasing...Is it because the right side of the graph shows an increasing slope. Those are October through December for each individual year 2006 through 2012. The arctic sea ice extent always finishes each calendar increasing.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
864. JohnLonergan
1:07 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
@ Snowlover123

So tens of thousands of scientists all over the world don't have a clue, but you have. LOL

My last words to you before I put you on ignore will be the same words that I wrote to you in April last year.

These words:

Snowlover. You are a denier and not a skeptic. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views and therefore you are a denier. […]


In the D-K link you posted, Al Franken had a good term "common sense, unfortunately , not fit for this blog or SNL either.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3279
863. Snowlover123
1:02 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
@ Snowlover123

So tens of thousands of scientists all over the world don't have a clue, but you have. LOL

My last words to you before I put you on ignore will be the same words that I wrote to you in April last year.

These words:

Snowlover. You are a denier and not a skeptic. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views and therefore you are a denier. […]


Feel free to call me whatever you want, and put me on ignore if you'd like. I've done nothing but add to the discussion here. That's your choice.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
862. Xandra
12:58 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
@ Snowlover123

So tens of thousands of scientists all over the world don't have a clue, but you have. LOL

My last words to you before I put you on ignore will be the same words that I wrote to you in April last year.

These words:

Snowlover. You are a denier and not a skeptic. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views and therefore you are a denier. […]
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
861. cyclonebuster
12:54 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


What caused the artic to be Ice free before?



When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) show that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 -3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.

Link



...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
860. pcola57
12:53 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Try this one Re:Post#855

Trying to post the image and no go..
Was running data set 2006-2013..
Right side bar selector..
From what I see and don't understand is it seems to show Artic ice extent is rising??
The graph states "Ice extent in Millions of sq. km..
My understanding is the ice retreat was ongoing and even during seasonal re-freeze that there were less area covered..
I just don't get this Graph..
I need an interpreter..Lol.:)
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
859. sirmaelstrom
12:45 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Continued reponse to № 855:

As far as how to interpret:

It's just bimonthly values for arctic sea ice extant. It seems to roughly correspond to the following:



Could be slightly different data, though, maybe a different sensor or a moving average of the same data. Curiously the minimum of 2012 seems to be missing.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
857. sirmaelstrom
12:35 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
№ 855
Quoting pcola57:
A little off topic, but not really..
I ran across this and am kinda stuck on how to interpret.. :(

Please go HERE TIA


Your link doesn't work: apparently you cannot direct link to the image.

You can go here and manually select 2006 and 2013 to get the image you're looking for.

Everyone else will have to do that as well, unless you want to save and upload it to an image server.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
856. cyclonebuster
12:26 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


The central heating unit; Is it powered by solar, wind or fossil fuels? Would it make a difference how it is powered? I am trying to understand how 11% of warming is caused by AGW how can we say all warming now is caused by co2? I go back to the 16 yr period warming trend and also look at the 16 yr rise in co2, The temps should be higher. Now people on here say it's trapped heat in the oceans ok if I assume the trapped heat when did the heat start getting trapped? How does it get set free? Will upwelling the deep depths need to occur? What would cause the upwelling besides hurricanes? I know alot of people on here dont like Dr Roy Spencer but his cloud theory make sense to me. I know thats alot of questions but anyone on here can answer? TIA


Upwelling

Link

A Profile of the Charleston Bump

Link


And the Marathon Hump.


Link


And of course you know what else....






...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
855. pcola57
12:21 AM GMT on May 09, 2013
A little off topic, but not really..
I ran across this and am kinda stuck on how to interpret.. :(

Please go HERE TIA

Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6819
852. Birthmark
11:49 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
schistkicker ably demonstrated the logical error you've made.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
850. bappit
11:21 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe:
noooo! criticism of al gore is like kryptonite to us!!! NOOOOOOOOOO


Auntie Em! Auntie em!

Oh, we're in trouble now.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6021
849. bappit
11:20 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting RevElvis:
TransCanada Lashes Out at EPA Over Keystone, Asserts Canadian 'Sovereignty'

LOL
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6021
848. schwankmoe
11:14 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
noooo! criticism of al gore is like kryptonite to us!!! NOOOOOOOOOO

Quoting Birthmark:

I think you meant to post that on a political blog. That's where it belongs.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 678
847. RevElvis
11:13 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
TransCanada Lashes Out at EPA Over Keystone, Asserts Canadian 'Sovereignty'

http://insideclimatenews.org

The Canadian builder of the Keystone XL pipeline has lashed out at the Environmental Protection Agency for recommending that the United States and Canada work together to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from the tar sands crude that the pipeline would carry to refineries on the U.S. gulf coast.

The suggestion "ignores the fundamental sovereignty of the Canadian government," said Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, in a message to reporters on Tuesday.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
846. RevElvis
11:04 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
Arkansas Residents Sick From Exxon Oil Spill Are on Their Own

http://insideclimatenews.org

For more than a month, residents of Mayflower, Ark. have been told not to worry about lingering fumes from a March 29 oil spill that shut down a neighborhood and forced the evacuation of 22 homes.

"Overall, air emissions in the community continue to be below levels likely to cause health effects for the general population," Arkansas regulators wrote on a state-operated website that tracks Mayflower's air monitoring data.

Despite these reassurances, residents have suffered headaches, nausea and vomiting—classic symptoms of short-term exposure to the chemicals found in crude oil.

"Figuring out how to protect people after a disaster like this is very hard," said Aaron Bernstein, a public health expert and associate director of Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment. "People living near the spill early on could definitely have gotten sick" from the concentrations present in the air.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
845. RevElvis
10:58 PM GMT on May 08, 2013
In China, Breathing Becomes a Childhood Risk

NYTimes.com

Levels of deadly pollutants up to 40 times the recommended exposure limit in Beijing and other cities have struck fear into parents and led them to take steps that are radically altering the nature of urban life for their children.

Parents are confining sons and daughters to their homes, even if it means keeping them away from friends. Schools are canceling outdoor activities and field trips. Parents with means are choosing schools based on air-filtration systems, and some international schools have built gigantic, futuristic-looking domes over sports fields to ensure healthy breathing.

“I hope in the future we’ll move to a foreign country,” Ms. Zhang, a lawyer, said as her ailing son, Wu Xiaotian, played on a mat in their apartment, near a new air purifier. “Otherwise we’ll choke to death.”


Beijing Air Pollution Off The Charts (Link)

Affluent are taking "Fresh Air Vacations" to less polluted parts of China
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948

Viewing: 895 - 845

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.