How Much Does It Cost: What Can I Do? (6)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:18 AM GMT on May 09, 2013

Share this Blog
17
+

How Much Does It Cost: What Can I Do? (6)

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 rather than taking the conventional view of looking at greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, I presented an accounting of the emissions associated with agriculture. My primary points were that agriculture was a major emitter of greenhouse gases, and, therefore, the choices we make individually and collectively about what we eat have large environmental consequences.

I want to explore more the impact of agriculture, particularly livestock. First, however, I want to remind folks of the series on calculating budgets. Last summer I did a series where I compared the basic methods of climate science to keeping a budget – just like a checking and savings accounts. One of the entries in that series looked specifically at complexity. The idea being that despite the fact that maintaining a budget is a relatively simple matter of addition and subtraction, if you consider all of the ways we get and spend money, then it can become remarkably complex.

I implied the complexity of accounting for the greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture in the previous entry. The amount of emissions from the direct use of fossil fuels is relatively small. Big sources of emissions come from removing trees and changing forests to agricultural lands and soil management. Many aspects of soil management influence how much carbon and nitrogen is stored in the soil. There is also the need to consider greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide: for example, methane associated with ruminates and solid waste from livestock and nitrous oxide associated with fertilizer. Emissions also depend on:

- what crops are grown and what animals are raised

- agricultural practice, for example, whether the land is plowed or no-till methods are used

- policy, for example, renewable energy policy provides incentives and disincentives on what to grow

- biological processes that are different from field to field, region to region, year to year, and that are not highly quantified

The calculation of the budget of emissions from agriculture is a difficult problem. We can say with certainty the emissions are large and they change based on many factors. We can also say that the impact of agriculture on the environment is more far reaching than climate change. Anecdotally, most people think of the impacts of pesticides and herbicides, the issues of genetically modified organisms, soil erosion and water quality before they think of how agriculture and climate change play together. Agriculture is also a major focus of those who think about sustainability.

I ended the previous entry with a relatively weak statement that what we chose to eat or not eat does make a difference. I stated that at the top of the list, perhaps, the easiest decision is to eat less meat. The issue of eating meat, of course, steps into a set of the more controversial subjects of our society. For example, there are the issues of personal choice and intrusion into individual's lives. Also, there are those who place high value on the ethics of raising and slaughtering animals. There is no doubt, however, that livestock production uses immense resources.

The source of much of the material in my previous entry was Livestock’s Long Shadow a 2006 publication of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In that report they conclude:

“Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reduction in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.”

As strong as this statement is, there is a school of thought that Livestock’s Long Shadow is a significant underestimation of the emissions due to livestock. Most notably is an analysis by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, Livestock and Climate Change, which does a different accounting of the budget of emissions of greenhouse gases. In Livestock and Climate Change it is maintained that there is significant undercounting and misallocation in the United Nations budget calculation. A point that is particularly important is that the proliferation of livestock production is human-made just as much as any building, road or power plant. Therefore, for example, the carbon dioxide of respiration of the animals needs to be considered in the budget calculation. Taking all of the budget changes in Livestock and Climate Change, the conclusion is that livestock is responsible for 51 percent of the total emissions. With this number, a far larger intervention is needed than “eat less meat.”

In December 2009, I took a group of students to the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. When I got off the subway at the conference center, there were two loud groups of advocates. One was People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who had gone around Copenhagen and placed markers on utility poles and in trees where sea level would be if the Greenland ice sheet melted. Another group claimed that if we were all vegetarian, then we could reduce global warming by 70 percent.

The numbers in Livestock and Climate Change follow from a well-reasoned argument in the calculation of the budget of the emissions due to livestock. However, they are not without controversy. This controversy can be found in a number of places on the web: Columbia Journalism Review and Lifting Livestock's Long Shadow, Nature Climate Change and Measuring Livestock's Long Shadow, NYTimes. At the center of the controversy is another accounting of the impact of livestock, Cleaning the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change by Maurice Pitesky and others. This paper takes a vastly different accounting and concludes that impact of livestock is much smaller than in the United Nations Report, Livestock’s Long Shadow. An interesting aspect of its argument is that “The fact that land-use changes associated with livestock (i.e., forested land converted to pasture or cropland used for feed production) are a significant source of anthropogenic GHGs in Latin America and other parts of the developing world is apparent. However, it is likely that any kind of land-use change from the original forestland will lead to great increases in global warming.” The argument being that development in countries with growing population will lead to deforestation. Their argument is carried further “The United States and most other developed countries have not experienced significant land-use change practices around livestock production within the last few decades. Instead, over the last 25 years forestland has increased by approximately 25 percent in the United States and livestock production has been intensified (concentrated geographically), thus reducing its geographical footprint.”

The line of reasoning in Cleaning the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change contributes to the argument that concentration into highly efficient, mass producing farms is a more practical way forward than reducing consumption (Livestock production and the global environment: Consume less or produce better?, by Henning Steinfeld and Pierre Gerber).

In this food niche of strategies to mitigate climate change, we see the same arguments emerge as in the discussion of fossil fuels. We could be more efficient in our use of resources. With efficiency, however, in the face of a growing population and growing consumption, we are still faced with a growth of emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, if climate-change and broader environmental issues are given priority, then we must consume less of those products that are responsible for our largest greenhouse emissions. We can conceive of sources of renewable energy that are free of carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is more difficult to imagine how we raise livestock without the methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and these greenhouse gases cannot be dismissed.

My original list topper on diet was eat less meat. If we take the high emissions scenario as correct, then a climate priority calls for an intervention into our dietary practices that is comparable to the intervention required for reducing fossil fuels. This is a change in diet that I assert will be more difficult than the change in our energy system. Therefore, back to the original question, “What can I do about climate change?” – eat (a lot) less meat. Vegetarianism is good for the planet. This from a man who does eat a lot less meat than he used to, but has been, I maintain, overidentified with BBQ.

r

Some dietary resources: I have not checked these out too closely!

Environmental Working Group: Meat Eaters Guide (I do like this group’s approach to things.)

Climate Diet

Human Media: The Diet-Climate Connection


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

We Are What We Eat Counting agriculture and its emissions of 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: 289 - 239

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting SouthernIllinois:


Not too surprised to see this. I live in Southern Wisconsin and it seems several of them are popping up in my back yard almost like an invasive species. Too bad buckeyes aren't edible.

Or if these fell off of them yummie!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you listen closely, you can actually hear the sound of my eyes rolling as it echoes through the universe.

Tell you what, eat animals, don't eat animals, do whatever you want to do. We'd have less toxic emissions if whiners would quit whining.

In honor of this ridiculous blog, I'm going to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat, and leave my car running the entire time it takes to grill it. (Using old growth hardwood brought in on a barely loaded truck with an exhaust issue)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
That's going to be a tough sell. "Say, China! Despite the fact that every person in our country creates more than three times as much CO2 as every person in your country, we need your people to sacrifice and produce even less before we do a darn thing. Thanks!"

I don't think that's going to go over very well...


It's a "tragedy of the commons" class of problem, to argue that we may as well go along with it is the
"Someone's been peeing in the village well, therefore I may as well pee in it too." approach.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174

America's first climate refugees


Newtok, Alaska is losing ground to the sea at a dangerous rate and for its residents, exile is inevitable.


Sabrina Warner keeps having the same nightmare: a huge wave rearing up out of the water and crashing over her home, forcing her to swim for her life with her toddler son.

"I dream about the water coming in," she said. The landscape in winter on the Bering Sea coast seems peaceful, the tidal wave of Warner's nightmare trapped by snow and several feet of ice. But the calm is deceptive. Spring break-up will soon restore the Ninglick River to its full violent force.

In the dream, Warner climbs on to the roof of her small house. As the waters rise, she swims for higher ground: the village school which sits on 20-foot pilings.

Even that isn't high enough. By the time Warner wakes, she is clinging to the roof of the school, desperate to be saved.

Warner's vision is not far removed from a reality written by climate change. The people of Newtok, on the west coast of Alaska and about 400 miles south of the Bering Strait that separates the state from Russia, are living a slow-motion disaster that will end, very possibly within the next five years, with the entire village being washed away.

The Ninglick River coils around Newtok on three sides before emptying into the Bering Sea. It has steadily been eating away at the land, carrying off 100ft or more some years, in a process moving at unusual speed because of climate change. Eventually all of the villagers will have to leave, becoming America's first climate change refugees.

It is not a label or a future embraced by people living in Newtok. Yup'ik Eskimo have been fishing and hunting by the shores of the Bering Sea for centuries and the villagers reject the notion they will now be forced to run in chaos from ancestral lands.

But exile is undeniable. A report by the US Army Corps of Engineers predicted that the highest point in the village – the school of Warner's nightmare – could be underwater by 2017. There was no possible way to protect the village in place, the report concluded.

More:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Now we just have to get China aboard. They are the largest polluters by far. Not by per capita but overall.
That's going to be a tough sell. "Say, China! Despite the fact that every person in our country creates more than three times as much CO2 as every person in your country, we need your people to sacrifice and produce even less before we do a darn thing. Thanks!"

I don't think that's going to go over very well...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
On WU news today: Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Increased leaf damage from chewing and mining insects is well-documented from the PETM atmospheric Carbon excursion, ca. 56Ma.

Currano et al.'Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' PNAS 105 no. 6 (2008)

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960.long

Quoting yonzabam:
Regarding the CO2 fertilisation effect. I read about experiments some year ago which proved that plants grew more with increased CO2, but this was highly variable between species, some growing much more than others.

Plants have tiny holes on their surfaces that take up CO2. When CO2 levels are high, the numbers of these holes can be reduced, so there's a mechanism to restrict CO2 uptake. Plants transpire water through the same holes, so it's possible that increased CO2 might improve drought tolerance in some species.

Regarding the increased growth, the protein proportion of the plant is reduced, so insects that feed on them would need to eat more to get their daily protein requirement. In doing so, they'd probably consume more calories than they need. Who'd have thought that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would result in an insect obesity epidemic?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Regarding the CO2 fertilisation effect. I read about experiments some year ago which proved that plants grew more with increased CO2, but this was highly variable between species, some growing much more than others.

Plants have tiny holes on their surfaces that take up CO2. When CO2 levels are high, the numbers of these holes can be reduced, so there's a mechanism to restrict CO2 uptake. Plants transpire water through the same holes, so it's possible that increased CO2 might improve drought tolerance in some species.

Regarding the increased growth, the protein proportion of the plant is reduced, so insects that feed on them would need to eat more to get their daily protein requirement. In doing so, they'd probably consume more calories than they need. Who'd have thought that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would result in an insect obesity epidemic?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



If you have time search kobe beef, it might give you some ideas. Thanks for the response I understand what you are saying and agree with parts of it.


What do you mean "agree with parts of it" ? What a linp response. After attacking me and making fun of my position, I try to engage you in a serious response and all I finally get is a "parts of it". Which parts? What don't you agree with?

This is why everyone thinks you are a troll. You seemingly give a rational reasonable response but actually all you are doing is avoiding the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. You just use the seeming reasonableness to make youself sound good while at the same time making it seem like parts of what other people are saying is wrong.

It is a cheesy technique.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Poison Ivy Itchier, More Plentiful With Warming, Study Says
One of the pleasant surprises I found upon retiring to the tropical highland forests of Panama is that there are no "itchy" plants here like poison ivy and poison oak.

There also seems to be very little research on the possible impacts of AGW/CC here.

The 2013 rainy season in the mountains is two months late! Shall I tweak the deniers and blame it on global warming?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'd prefer that Morocco use the wind and solar-generated electricity itself so that the country could improve its standard of living.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Europe not likely to get North African electricity

A project that envisaged supplying solar and wind energy from Morocco to Europe has been shelved. Observers say the question is now whether it will be possible to revive at a later stage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cowpeas are just black eyed peas. Maybe Monsanto will come up with a GM plant with ears of black eyed peas.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


I find this video to be particularly convincing that elevated CO2 levels do have a noticeable impact on the plant growth rate. I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure if it would lead to more CO2 absorption in the process, but there is some sort of an undeniable effect.


C3 plants typically respond better to atmospheric CO2 enrichment than do C4 plants in terms of increasing their rates of photosynthesis and biomass production [see C4 Plants (Biomass and Photosynthesis)].

Cowpeas are a C3 plant

Hopefully they will point out that while yes c3 plants benefit from higher co2 levels c4 plants largely don't. We mainly grow c4 plants here in the midwest (e.g. corn).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cambridge scientist Joe Farman who helped find ozone 'hole' dies
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
5 Achievements from Germany’s “Energiewende”




Een klein windpark. Photo credit: Evert Kuiken, Flickr


Germany is in the midst of an unprecedented clean energy revolution. Thanks to the “Energiewende,” a strategy to revamp the national energy system, Germany aims to reduce its overall energy consumption and move to 80 percent renewable energy by 2050. The country has already made considerable progress toward achieving this ambitious goal.

In fact, other countries like the United States can learn a lot from the German clean energy experience. That’s why WRI is hosting a German energy speaking tour in the United States this week, May 13th-17th. Rainer Baake, a leading energy policy expert and key architect behind the Energiewende, and WRI energy experts will travel to select U.S. cities to share lessons, challenges, and insights from the German clean energy transformation. They will be joined by Dr. Wolfgang Rohe and Dr. Lars Grotewold from Stiftung Mercator.

5 Facts About the German Clean Energy Transformation

Baake and others will discuss how Germany’s experiences with clean energy could inform U.S. policies and plans. A few of the stories and statistics they’ll share include:
1.
Germany now gets almost 25 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, up from just below 7 percent in 2000.

2.
Since 2004, investments in Germany’s clean energy sector grew by 122 percent, creating an industry that supports almost 380,000 jobs. Germany has a low unemployment rate, at 5.8 percent.

3.
Since 1990, Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 25.5 percent, exceeding its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol of a 21 percent reduction by 2012.

4.
Under the Energiewende, Germany plans to expand its share of renewable energy to 80 percent by 2050 and reduce its energy consumption by 50 percent by 2050. This plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and by 80-95 percent by 2050.

5.
The Energiewende is expected to create 500,000 jobs by 2020 and 800,000 by 2030.


Learning from the Energiewende

Of course Germany’s clean energy revolution hasn’t come without its challenges, and what works within one national context won’t necessarily work in another. But as the United States and other countries consider their strategies to expand renewables and energy efficiency, it’s important that they learn from the global leaders in this space. Germany is certainly one of those clean energy leaders to watch.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Dr.Eli Rabett sez Weeds grow well in high CO2. Crops?

"The top card in the denialist deck is that global warming is good for plants. There are three reasons for this.

•Lengthened growing seasons.
•Increased CO2 decreases evaporation from leaves, increasing drought resistance
•Increased atmospheric CO2 makes more CO2 available in C3 plants (rice, wheat, etc. ) but not in C4 plants (maize, aka corn).
More on the details below. Recently Eli pointed to a study which showed that poison ivy was REALLY fertilized at high CO2 levels. Not good. Now comes Long, Ainsworth, Leakey, Noesberger and Ort in Science 312 (2006) 1918, to offer us " Food for thought: Lower than expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations"

This is a meta (study of studies) study of experiments which monitored plant growth in high CO2 concentrations.

Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by 50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change

This is a very well written summary accessible to non-experits and Prof. Rabett would encourage all with access to read it and Schimel's perspective on page 1889 of the same issue. The results, if they hold up will be important to climate change policy (remember tho according to the usual and unusual suspects, everything published in Science is crap - something that yr humble hare considers crap, but what do you expect from the internet).

The bottom line is
•There is no CO2 fertilization effect for C4 crops although increased drought resistance may be significant.
•FACE studies show that current ag models significantly overestimate CO2 fertilization for crops
•C3 crop CO2 fertilization saturates somewhere between 600 and 800 ppm CO2

•Crop breeders should work on developing strains that can benefit from higher CO2
The paper has a concise paragraph which describes the biological origin of CO2 fertiliztion which is worth reproducing

Crops sense and respond directly to rising [CO2] through photosynthesis and stomatal conductance, and this is the basis for the fertilization effect on yield . In C3 plants, mesophyll cells containing ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase - oxygenase (RuBisCO) are in direct contact with the intercellular air space that is connected to the atmosphere via stomatal pores in the epidermis. Hence, in C3 crops, rising CO3 increases net photosynthetic CO2 uptake because RuBisCO is not CO2 -saturated in today's atmosphere and because CO2 inhibits the competing oxygenation reaction leading to photorespiration. RuBisCO is highly conserved across terrestrial plants, so instantaneous responses to increased [CO2] may be generalized across C3 plants, including rice, soybeans, and wheat. In theory, at 25°C, an increase in [CO2] from the present-day value of 380 ppm to that of 550 ppm, projected for the year 2050, would increase C3 photosynthesis by 38%. In contrast, in C4 crops such as maize and sorghum, RuBisCO is localized to bundle sheath cells in which CO2 is concentrated to three to six times atmospheric [CO2]. This concentration is sufficient to saturate RuBisCO and in theory would prevent any increase in CO2 uptake with rising [CO2]. Although C4 crops may not show a direct response in photosynthetic activity, an indirect increase in the efficiency of water use via reduction in stomatal conductance may still increase yield."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting Snowlover123:
An interesting observation made by meteorologists on another weather forum, is that the GISS Temperature anomaly can roughly be predicted based off of the WeatherBell CFS temperature anomalies. To get a rough idea of what the Global Temperature Anomaly for a month will be, simply add 0.55 Degrees C to the WeatherBell anomaly.

The CFS model temperature anomalies use 1980-2010 as their base period. GISTemp uses 1951-1980 as their base period. That ~0.55C difference is basically the global warming of the near-surface air temperature that occurred over those 30 years, roughly 0.18C/decade, not including possible interpolation differences and measurement uncertainties.

You really aren't "predicting" anything, it's more that you are just converting baselines to make them directly comparable.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3169
Poison Ivy Itchier, More Plentiful With Warming, Study Says





Global climate change may soon make our planet a much itchier place.

Rising levels of carbon dioxide—a so-called greenhouse gas that traps heat within Earth's atmosphere—can fuel booming poison ivy growth, a new study reports.

Even worse, the rash-inducing vines may become more potent.

Working in a Duke Univerity-owned forest near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, researchers used a system of carbon dioxide-pumping pipes to create atmospheric CO2 levels that were some 200 parts per million higher than the current norm.

Many global warming models predict that such levels will be a reality by 2050. (Related: "Global Warming Could Cause Mass Extinctions by 2050, Study Says" [April 12].)

Poison ivy growth surged some 150 percent in the carbon dioxide-rich forest plots.

Poison ivy afflicts countless people each year—more than 350,000 Americans alone are miserable enough to seek professional treatment.

Found in woody areas across North America, the plant also grows in Central America and parts of Asia, and has been introduced to Europe, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.

About 80 percent of all people are allergic to poison ivy's sap or resin. Sufferers experience a red, bumpy, itchy, and sometimes blistering skin rash when they come into contact with urushiol—the plant's carbon-based active compound.

Unfortunately, the study also found that carbon dioxide-enhanced poison ivy boasts a stronger strain of urushiol, which may prove even more poisonous to humans.

"That was a bit of a surprise," said lead author Jacqueline Mohan, a postdoctoral scientist at the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

"It was not actually producing more of the carbon compounds but producing a more poisonous form."

The six-year study's results were published in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting Snowlover123:


I find this video to be particularly convincing that elevated CO2 levels do have a noticeable impact on the plant growth rate. I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure if it would lead to more CO2 absorption in the process, but there is some sort of an undeniable effect.

Ignoring for a fact that you went from being an unsure non-biologist to assuming something is "undeniable," it probably is important to point out that the experiment in the video was one plant, evolved to live in today's climate, undergoing a single experiment. It certainly suggests that for that species, it may be CO2-limited, such that growth would be faster at a higher concentration (all else being equal). It also suggests that further experimentation could be warranted. But "particularly convincing" for the general plant growth rate? Undeniable effect for all plants? That's a bit of a stretch based upon the provided information.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3169
snowlover123 the video does not say whether other factors such as light and watering were the same with those two pea plants.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Tracking cities' carbon footprints
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:


Not so. Plants did very well when CO2 levels were less than half today's. Experiments show that when plants are exposed to even higher levels of CO2 than today they don't absorb any more CO2


I find this video to be particularly convincing that elevated CO2 levels do have a noticeable impact on the plant growth rate. I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure if it would lead to more CO2 absorption in the process, but there is some sort of an undeniable effect.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Not sure if this was posted yet or not, but GISS came in with a +0.50 Degrees C anomaly for April 2013. Came in as the 12th warmest April on record. Roughly in agreement with RSS/UAH.

An interesting observation made by meteorologists on another weather forum, is that the GISS Temperature anomaly can roughly be predicted based off of the WeatherBell CFS temperature anomalies. To get a rough idea of what the Global Temperature Anomaly for a month will be, simply add 0.55 Degrees C to the WeatherBell anomaly. This worked very nicely with the previous month. Of course, there are some anomalies, where the GISS temperature falls below the CFS predicted temperature and vice versa, but it's an interesting and pretty good indicator of predicting monthly Global Temperatures.

Applying this correlation to May, with a little over a third of the month through in the image above, we can roughly predict a GISS anomaly of 0.55 Degrees C for May. Of course, this is likely to change as the month goes by.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss


Climate change is expected to have significant influences on terrestrial biodiversity at all system levels, including species-level reductions in range size and abundance, especially amongst endemic species1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. However, little is known about how mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions could reduce biodiversity impacts, particularly amongst common and widespread species. Our global analysis of future climatic range change of common and widespread species shows that without mitigation, 57±6% of plants and 34±7% of animals are likely to lose ≥50% of their present climatic range by the 2080s. With mitigation, however, losses are reduced by 60% if emissions peak in 2016 or 40% if emissions peak in 2030. Thus, our analyses indicate that without mitigation, large range contractions can be expected even amongst common and widespread species, amounting to a substantial global reduction in biodiversity and ecosystem services by the end of this century. Prompt and stringent mitigation, on the other hand, could substantially reduce range losses and buy up to four decades for climate change adaptation.


At a glance







Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Quoting RevElvis:


,... - but we're not true carnivores ,...


I stand corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, because gnawing on the cooked carcasses of semi-intelligent mammals that have been force fed hormones to fatten them quickly, that have been knocked unconscious by a captive bolt pistol upon reaching the desired size, that have had their carotid arteries slashed wide open, that have been hung from hooks by their rear legs to help them bleed out completely, that have been beheaded and dismembered and flayed to strip them of their hide, that have had their muscle tissues ground into little bits for our easy digestion--yeah, that certainly isn't disgusting...

(FWIW, I do eat animal from time to time. But I do think it's funny what we humans choose to look upon as "disgusting".)


Nea - I was going to add that - I don't know that the general public would actually be allowed a tour of a feed lot / slaughter house facility & witness what we're actually eating. (I'm mostly vegetarian these days)

Most of us also don't realize it - but we're not true carnivores - we're more along the lines of crabs & buzzards - we eat carrion - somebody else did the killing for us. The term I've seen used is - "carnivores by proxy".
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yeah, because gnawing on the cooked carcasses of semi-intelligent mammals that have been force fed hormones to fatten them quickly, that have been knocked unconscious by a captive bolt pistol upon reaching the desired size, that have had their carotid arteries slashed wide open, that have been hung from hooks by their rear legs to help them bleed out completely, that have been beheaded and dismembered and flayed to strip them of their hide, that have had their muscle tissues ground into little bits for our easy digestion--yeah, that certainly isn't disgusting...

Well, when you say it *that* way, sure it's disgusting. :^)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting RevElvis:
But the authors admitted that “consumer disgust remains one of the largest barriers to the adoption of insects as viable sources of protein in many Western countries”.
Yeah, because gnawing on the cooked carcasses of semi-intelligent mammals that have been force fed hormones to fatten them quickly, that have been knocked unconscious by a captive bolt pistol upon reaching the desired size, that have had their carotid arteries slashed wide open, that have been hung from hooks by their rear legs to help them bleed out completely, that have been beheaded and dismembered and flayed to strip them of their hide, that have had their muscle tissues ground into little bits for our easy digestion--yeah, that certainly isn't disgusting...

(FWIW, I do eat animal from time to time. But I do think it's funny what we humans choose to look upon as "disgusting".)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Yes let's eat bugs while the oil tycoons eat caviar.....


I get what you're saying - but I don't know what water creatures will be available in 20-30 years for human consumption(quality or quantity). Beside our climate changing legacy - we're also creating a "toxic legacy" that future generations will be "thanking us" for.

Jeremy Jackson: Ocean Apocalypse

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting RevElvis:
Bugs are the food of the future: UN

RawStory.com

Beetles, caterpillars and wasps could supplement the diets of billions of people globally and help feed livestock, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Monday, calling for more investment in edible insect farming.

“One of the many ways to address food and feed insecurity is through insect farming,” the report said, pointing out that insects were “nutritious, with high protein, fat and mineral contents”.

“Insects are everywhere and they reproduce quickly, and they have high growth and feed conversion rates and a low environmental footprint,” it said.

But the authors admitted that “consumer disgust remains one of the largest barriers to the adoption of insects as viable sources of protein in many Western countries”.



Yes let's eat bugs while the oil tycoons eat caviar.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Bugs are the food of the future: UN

RawStory.com

Beetles, caterpillars and wasps could supplement the diets of billions of people globally and help feed livestock, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation said on Monday, calling for more investment in edible insect farming.

“One of the many ways to address food and feed insecurity is through insect farming,” the report said, pointing out that insects were “nutritious, with high protein, fat and mineral contents”.

“Insects are everywhere and they reproduce quickly, and they have high growth and feed conversion rates and a low environmental footprint,” it said.

But the authors admitted that “consumer disgust remains one of the largest barriers to the adoption of insects as viable sources of protein in many Western countries”.

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting allahgore:


When will you start filming? At conception? At birth? How will you power the webcams? what happens if a few of your 263 webcams break? Do you have standby webcams? How will you monitor 24-7-365? What kind of redundency is built in? what happens if a cow jumps the fence and goes out of range of webcams will you bring a mobile cam to document that you treated the cow nice while bringing it back inside the fence?How will you store all this video? Will you be able to provide all video was not edited? How long will this take me to view video from 263 webcams 24-7-365 for 2 yrs? How much added cost for the 100 cattle being purchased? Before we move forward we need to have a contract with you explaining my concerns! I think the questions that I have asked are fair.TIA



These are fair questions, and since you have finally got around to asking serious questions, I will try to answer them. But note that you could have saved us all time if you had done it in the beginning instead of assuming that your objections were so brilliant that you could move straight to the snarky comment stage.

I am going to rephrase the questions:

1. Farmers don't want to do it. (Not listed above but stated earlier.)

True. Farmers in my limited experience are ornery kings torn between ego and fear that the peasants will revolt (peasants in this case being lack of rain, disease, market prices, etc.) They are also conservative but at the same time would happily lose $5000 if it meant thier neighbor lost $10000.

The social levers are not that this is a great idea that will save the world. The social levers are 1) profit and 2) keeping up with thier joneses, in this case not wanting to see anyone else make more money than them.

As agreed, this will work on small farms. Start with a small farm then. Prove the concept; i.e. take away the social stigma off failure, show that profit can be increased and lightly boast abotu plans for expansion.

2. When, where, how to film? Ideally all times and areas of the farm are covered. For areas rich in grass and relatively open, this is not as much data as you would be made to believe, but lets skip the data question for a moment.

Why so much coverage? Both to work as mistreatment disincentive and because people get involved in individual animals. From dogs that get adopted at the kennel because their photos and histories are posted on line to cows that people adopt and go visit in person, helping to take care of and eat their products.

But I wouldn't just use cameras. I'd also go with RFID tags, e.g. the internet of things so that the movement of the cows could be shown live on a map of hte farm. You wouldn't have to search through video feeds to find your favorite cow, you could click onits name, find it on a map, locate the camera for that area and then watch it.

This is at a lower scale than full factory farming but higher than individual cows. Here I suppose the upper limit is probably a large family farm/dairy. However for large parts of the world, this is sufficient, e.g. Europe.

3. How much will it cost per 100 head of cows? Assume a large family farm is 100 cows ("large" depends on area of world, I know). Lets say 1 camera for every 6 cows inside the barn (20 to keep it round), one camera for every large indoor area in the farm; another 20, and 1 camera per acre at 2 acres per cow, another 200.

So that is 240 cameras filming 24/7/365 for the sake of argument. (not that in reality, this much video wouldn't be needed since cows don't graze on all acres all at once, but for calculating the cost of cameras, plus solar feeds plus wifi and server with internet connection, lets say $25000. Divide by 100 cows and that is $250 per cow for the first year. Lets use 3 years, so now it is roughly $80 per cow. Assume 700 lbs at 55/45 is 385 lbs or an extra 20 cents per pound of beef. Assuming beef is around $4 per lb in the us (I really don't know, that is a advertisement price), this adds about 5%. Assuming the farmer sold his cow at organic beef prices of $5.48, the farmer would stand to make about $490 more per cow. (Note, I have no clue about prices)

4. How would this idea be spread? The thin end of the wedge is small niche farmers and local farmers. They establish an idea of 'pain free beef', they advertise their meat that way, in the spirit of good ald fashioned capitalism exagerated claims. By comparison the other beef becomes 'pain filled beef'. Soon local burger places (not the chains) are advertising they carry pain free beef.

By default, all other beef becomes factory farm beef. This sin't true of course, there is a range of other options besides pain filled beef but that is the default.

What happens? The issue is raised in communities, the focus becomes on how pain free to make beef, etc. There is a slight tide that raises the level of treatment of all animals.

5. But back to the practical questions. How does all of this video get monitored?

Some various answers:

A. It doesn't. It is available and that is enough.

B. Sampling theory. The data is available and only 1% is sampled and only 4% of the video frames are needed. (That is still a lot in that sense that 1% is one cow or 2.4 cameras and 4% of frames over (two year you said?) is 4% of 700 days times 2.4 equals 67 days of video per cow.)

C. However, in reality, the video is much less. Cows outside in the sun don't need near as much video sampling. If they are going to be abused, it probably won't be outside. Same thing at night. A much lower sample rate is sufficient, at least assuming that abuse is incedental not purposeful.

D. What about the farmer that hides the specific video of a case of abuse? First, the system requires better conditions in general just to be able to 'fake' good intentions, so if isolated cases of abuse slip through, that is better than no monitoring at all. Second, the video frames can be tracked, perhaps even certified by an outside body. Third, it is much easier to compare video frames for duplication by computer.

E. Speaking of which, there are lots of programs that will skip through video and select portions that are salient, i.e. have very different behavior than normal. Thus humans wouldn't necessarily have to watch more than the computer identified irregularities.


So, with apologies for the length of probably one of the last posts for a while, while this system may not be perfect, rejecting it out of hand is wrong. Better ideas have sounded more foolish in their early stages.

This is the same reason why you don't get any reaspect with your global warming comments. You don't understand the problem, you try to understand it, you never refute or discuss any of the science, all you do is cut and paste junk. when people question the junk, you never respond honestly, you just do one liners and paste more junk. You do have a talent for one liners though, i will give you that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Below are excerpts from a blogpost at CARBON BRIEF' I have outlined the most important points in the post there is much more explanation in the post


"What's causing the surface warming slowdown? Scientists tell us what they think


Despite greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise fairly steadily, earth's surface - that's the land and top of the oceans - has warmed relatively slowly over the past fifteen years or so.

We asked climate scientists to give us their thoughts about what's causing the recent slower pace of surface warming. Here's what they told us.

Recent slower warming isn't unusual

To draw conclusions about climate change, climate scientists tend to look at long time periods - temperatures measured over decades, or whole centuries. The last 15 years or so is a relatively short amount of time to measure temperatures over.


Natural variability in the climate system is the most likely reason

Natural changes in the sun's energy, volcanic eruptions and ocean cycles such as the El Ni%uFFFDo Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influence global temperature from year to year.

Most of the scientists we spoke told us the main reason for a slowdown in surface warming is that natural variability is currently obscuring the full extent of greenhouse gas warming.

One team of scientists made an effort to strip out the known effects of natural variation from the temperature record. When they did so, the warming trend due to human activity in the past few decades was pretty clear - as the video below from Skeptical Science shows.

The oceans are warming more, which might explain why there's less surface warming

Surface temperature is, relatively-speaking, a small part of climate change. The oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of the sun's energy that hits earth

Other signs of climate change aren't slowing

It's not just about the atmosphere and the oceans - there are many other indicators of the changing climate which show little sign of pausing.

Arctic sea ice is diminishing more rapidly than scientists expected, while ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating.

Dr Richard Allan, climate scientist at the University of Reading, points out that taken as a whole, there's little sign climate change is slowing:

"Some aspects are changing more quickly than predicted by climate simulations (e.g. Arctic ice) and others are slower than the projections (e.g. surface temperature over last 15 years)."


Recent surface temperatures don't change our best estimate of climate sensitivity

It's been proposed one reason surface temperatures haven't risen as much as expected recently could be because the climate isn't as sensitive to greenhouse gases as scientists previously thought. So is it evidence that "climate sensitivity" - how much the planet will warm as we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - is lower than thought?

The current best estimate of climate sensitivity comes from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which put forward a "likely" range for climate sensitivity of between two and 4.5 degrees Celsius. But the organisation didn't rule out values up to six or seven degrees, although they were seen as less likely."



"Arctic sea ice is diminishing more rapidly than scientists expected, while ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating."

While the heat flows to the cold to melt more Northern Arctic ice the ocean surface doesn't warm as fast during this period.. After the Northern Arctic ice is gone from the surface that is when you will see a more rapid increase in warming of the oceans surface... That is how heat flows from warm to cold....Once the cold is gone the heat has nowhere to flow anymore and so the temperature starts to rise faster...This is very similar to what happens in a power plant if you let the condensate temperature in the water box go above 130 degrees F...If your condenser water box tubes become fouled then the transfer of heat does not occur and so the the steam exiting the low pressure turbine does not condense back to water as efficiently and it becomes warmer and the turbine exhaust hood temperatures start to rise like a tipping point.... If the exhaust hood temperature rises to much usually (225F) you get a steam turbine/generator trip until the problem is fixed. Usually have to go in and clean the condenser water box tubes.

So you can bet once that ice is gone there is no guarantee it will refreeze (tipping point) in the winter because of the amount of heat we are adding to the oceans... Remember 90% of the heat goes to heating the oceans. The ocean is one huge heat sink and that gigantic heat sink may not allow ice to reform in the winter. Especially when we are adding more GHG's at the same time which will trap even more heat on land sea and air..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Below are excerpts from a blogpost at CARBON BRIEF' I have outlined the most important points in the post there is much more explanation in the post


"What's causing the surface warming slowdown? Scientists tell us what they think


Despite greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise fairly steadily, earth's surface - that's the land and top of the oceans - has warmed relatively slowly over the past fifteen years or so.

We asked climate scientists to give us their thoughts about what's causing the recent slower pace of surface warming. Here's what they told us.

Recent slower warming isn't unusual

To draw conclusions about climate change, climate scientists tend to look at long time periods - temperatures measured over decades, or whole centuries. The last 15 years or so is a relatively short amount of time to measure temperatures over.


Natural variability in the climate system is the most likely reason

Natural changes in the sun's energy, volcanic eruptions and ocean cycles such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influence global temperature from year to year.

Most of the scientists we spoke told us the main reason for a slowdown in surface warming is that natural variability is currently obscuring the full extent of greenhouse gas warming.

One team of scientists made an effort to strip out the known effects of natural variation from the temperature record. When they did so, the warming trend due to human activity in the past few decades was pretty clear - as the video below from Skeptical Science shows.

The oceans are warming more, which might explain why there's less surface warming

Surface temperature is, relatively-speaking, a small part of climate change. The oceans absorb more than 90 per cent of the sun's energy that hits earth

Other signs of climate change aren't slowing

It's not just about the atmosphere and the oceans - there are many other indicators of the changing climate which show little sign of pausing.

Arctic sea ice is diminishing more rapidly than scientists expected, while ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating.

Dr Richard Allan, climate scientist at the University of Reading, points out that taken as a whole, there's little sign climate change is slowing:

"Some aspects are changing more quickly than predicted by climate simulations (e.g. Arctic ice) and others are slower than the projections (e.g. surface temperature over last 15 years)."


Recent surface temperatures don't change our best estimate of climate sensitivity

It's been proposed one reason surface temperatures haven't risen as much as expected recently could be because the climate isn't as sensitive to greenhouse gases as scientists previously thought. So is it evidence that "climate sensitivity" - how much the planet will warm as we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - is lower than thought?

The current best estimate of climate sensitivity comes from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which put forward a "likely" range for climate sensitivity of between two and 4.5 degrees Celsius. But the organisation didn't rule out values up to six or seven degrees, although they were seen as less likely."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Some excerts from an essay in THE NATION:

Thoreau's Radicalism and the Fight Against the Fossil-Fuel Industry


What would it mean if we were to walk in his footsteps?

[...] When Brune announced the Sierra Club’s decision in January, in a short, eloquent piece titled “From Walden to the White House,” he explicitly invoked the legacy of Henry David Thoreau and, of course, Thoreau’s most famous essay, “Civil Disobedience.” For Brune, as for many other activists, engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience is a sacred American tradition. “We’ll be following in the hallowed footsteps of Thoreau,” he wrote, “who first articulated the principles of civil disobedience 44 years before John Muir founded the Sierra Club.”

And yet, as the climate movement embraces the legacy of “Civil Disobedience,” perhaps it’s worth taking a step back and remembering just how radical Thoreau really was—and why. We should remember what it was, exactly, that made him so. Not his night in the Concord jail—that was the easy part—but something else: a readiness to speak the truth, forcefully and without compromise, no matter how fanciful or extreme it may have sounded to jaded ears or what risks it might have entailed. What’s more, if we’re going to invoke Thoreau, we should remember that he was less an environmentalist (a term that would have made no sense to him) than a radical abolitionist—and that the logic of “Civil Disobedience” led directly, a decade later, to “A Plea for Captain John Brown.”

If that thought doesn’t make you pause, it should. We might want to ask ourselves if we’re really ready to walk in Thoreau’s footsteps, and what it might mean, at this radical moment, if we did.

Despite its global reputation for greatness, I have to admit that I’ve never much liked “Civil Disobedience,” the essay Thoreau began drafting in his cabin at Walden Pond in the fall of 1846. The tone is a little too arch, his performance somewhat preening. “I was not born to be forced,” he writes. “I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.” Regardless of such posturing (or perhaps because of it?), you can’t help feeling that there’s not a whole lot at stake for him personally—that he was, in a way, slumming it there in jail for a night—so that it takes on the air of a privileged intellectual exercise, a kind of abstract thought experiment to be conducted, after a good dinner, in Mr. Emerson’s parlor.

Still, for all the mannered poses, there’s a reason the essay has lasted, that its influence extends across continents and centuries. So it’s worth reminding ourselves what Thoreau is really saying in “Civil Disobedience.” From a relatively minor incident, now wrapped in legend, in the last week of July 1846—he was stopped on his way into town to get a shoe repaired and asked to pay his poll tax, which he refused to do, though it meant jail—Thoreau gets down to first principles. The country was engulfed in controversy over the Mexican War, a flagrant act of aggression to expand slave territory to the west, and there was even secession talk in the North. But why, Thoreau wants to know, should he wait for a vote in the State House? “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?”

The moral equation, Thoreau is saying, isn’t terribly complicated. There are expedient reasons to recognize the authority of a government, as he admits. But he insists that we recognize those situations “in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may.” He goes on, in the very next lines, to offer a stark analogy: “If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself…. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.”

From this straight-up, no-nonsense formulation, Thoreau lays down a marker, a point from which he’ll navigate. “Action from principle,” he tells us, “the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divides states and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.”

This is strong stuff—and prophetic, in more ways than one. What we have here is a kind of working definition of Thoreau’s radicalism: call it the willingness to face the “essential facts” (as he put it in Walden), and then to act as both facts and conscience require. Doing so, he assures us, “is essentially revolutionary”—the only real way to change the world. [...]


It sounds crazy. But just as Thoreau and other radical abolitionists were willing to push the boundaries, so climate activists must be willing to say and do “crazy” and “radical” things—like put their bodies in the way of coal shipments, or demand that universities divest from fossil fuel companies—not because it’s politically expedient, but because it’s morally imperative. When the truly sane courses of action—putting a heavy price on carbon, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, massively scaling up clean energy, urgently seeking the necessary global commitments—lie outside the limits of political “realism” and “reasonable” debate, it’s time to ask who has the firmer grip on reality and reason.

And it’s time to take the strongest nonviolent action. As climate radicals, we need to be true to our understanding of the facts, and to our principles, our perception of right, even as conscience compels us to act—to be, crazy as it may sound, revolutionaries.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
Pole-land
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets


> Home >


HadCRUT4

Update: An updated version of HadCRUT4 is now available. HadCRUT4 is now at version HadCRUT.4.2.0.0. Details of this update can be found here.

HadCRUT4 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 reference period. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

HadCRUT4 has been updated to version HadCRUT.4.2.0.0. Release notes for this version are available here. Previous versions of the HadCRUT4 dataset are available here.

Brief description of the data

The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset. The dataset is presented as an ensemble of 100 dataset realisations that sample the distribution of uncertainty in the global temperature record given current understanding of non-climatic factors affecting near-surface temperature observations. This ensemble approach allows characterisation of spatially and temporally correlated uncertainty structure in the gridded data, for example arising from uncertainties in methods used to account for changes in SST measurement practices, homogenisation of land station records and the potential impacts of urbanisation.

The HadCRUT4 data are neither interpolated nor variance adjusted.





Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3174
David Suzuki seems to think the same about the oceans also...








...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting RevElvis:
If the Oceans Die - We Die

http://truth-out.org

Thanks to our society's toxic addiction to fossil fuels, unprecedented levels of CO2 are being pumped into our environment each and every day.

But why have CO2 concentrations increased so much over the past few decades?

Part of it has to do with increased industrialization and reliance on dirty fossil fuels, but part of it also has to do with the world's oceans.

According to Richard Bellerby, Research Scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, the oceans have "been performing a huge climate service over the last 200 years."

That's because oceans have the ability to absorb CO2, which prevents it from escaping into the atmosphere. By holding the CO2 in the oceans, they've been slowing, or at least postponing, the speed of global climate change.

In fact, the world's oceans, especially the coldest waters, have absorbed about 50 percent of the CO2 that we've emitted, and continue to take up about a quarter of the CO2 that we produce every day now.

But the oceans and the ecosystems within them are now paying a steep price for taking in all that CO2.

As the oceans become more acidic, they're less able to absorb CO2, which means more of what we're blowing out our tailpipes and smokestacks will stay in our atmosphere and speed up global warming and climate change.

But more importantly, ocean acidification leads to mass ocean species extinction.

One example of a possible species extinction that the scientists at the conference gave was of the brittle star.

When exposed to the ocean acidification conditions that can be expected in the decades to come, the eggs of the brittle star die within days.

If the brittle star dies off, than the species that feed on it could die off as well and there would be a massive chain reaction of oceanic species extinctions.

And if the oceans die, we die.

It's that simple.



If the oceans die we die... That's correct...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Engineering the $325,000 Burger
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
New oldest living tree identified last year. 5,063 years old. But will it last?
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558

Viewing: 289 - 239

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog 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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
59 °F
Mostly Cloudy