Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:25 AM GMT on July 27, 2013

Share this Blog
24
+

Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

In the last blog there was a comment by peregrinepickle on the emissions from agriculture. It started:

“It sounds like they may be putting the cart before the workhorse with this study. A 2010 survey of the literature found that too few studies on GHG emissions and the impact of various alternative farming practices have been done in US agricultural regions, including the Great plains Ironically, more research is being done in this vein in China. So it seems premature to appeal to US farmers re: willingness to adopt certain practices before knowing exactly where you are going with it.

Agriculture, compared to other sources, is not a huge contributor to GHGs, relative to the contributions by industry, transportation, and utilities. In the US farming is responsible for 6% of the overall emissions of the six major GHGs. However, farming does contribute about 25% of all CH4 emissions in the US, which is major, as this gas is 21-33 times more potent in warming potential than CO2.”

Back in April and May I wrote two entries on the emissions from agriculture (first entry, second entry). These two entries highlighted both the complexity of calculating the greenhouse emissions related to agriculture as well as suggested some of the controversy associated with the calculation. The controversy is especially high in the calculation associated with livestock.

The amount of direct fossil fuel emissions from use of fuels in machinery and pumps for agriculture is modest, as stated in peregrinepickle’s comment. Those numbers are based on a 2010 inventory by the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is a link to the chapter that details the agricultural inventory. The greenhouse gas emissions compiled in the chapter on agriculture are for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, especially methane and nitrous oxide. For the EPA inventory, the carbon dioxide associated with agriculture is accounted for in the energy inventory. Additional emissions and removal of greenhouse gasses are calculated with land use, land change and forestry. The national forests are part of the Department of Agriculture.

The accounting with soils and forests influences, greatly, the budget of emissions associated with agriculture. Based on soil management agriculture can remove and store substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. In the U.S. agriculture is a mature and extensive enterprise, and we are not aggressively converting forest to agricultural land. In fact, the amount of forest is increasing and, therefore, can be accounted as an agricultural removal of carbon dioxide. This fact of increasing forest land is not the case in much of the world. World-wide, deforestation as forest is converted to agricultural use, especially rangeland, accounts for much of the carbon footprint of agriculture. Phil Robertson in an article to appear in the Encyclopedia of Agriculture estimates the total greenhouse gas footprint of agriculture is between 26 and 36 percent (thank you Professor Robertson). This range seems soundly based in the synthesis of research, and the number I would quote based on the current state of knowledge.

As detailed in Livestock’s Long Shadow and stated in the entirety of peregrinepickle’s comment, the impact of agriculture reaches far beyond the relevance to climate change. Notably there are impacts on water quality and land quality, and, in my opinion, the impact of nitrogen (fertilizer) pollution is one of the most under appreciated sources of environmental degradation. Management of this whole portfolio of environmental impacts is one of the special challenges of the agricultural sector of human activities.

The mix of greenhouse gas emissions, the details of the practice of land use, the role of biological processes, and the potential to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and store them in soil and biomass characterize the climate impact of agriculture. Agriculture is also vulnerable to climate change. Since agriculture is a highly competitive, market-dependent undertaking, market response to weather and climate can amplify weather-related impacts. Agriculture becomes more entangled with the climate problem, when we consider the possibility of biofuels to replace some of our fossil fuels. This complexity complicates the accounting of climate impacts, but also offers some of our best opportunities to improve our management of the environment. Agriculture is no doubt an important player in our management of climate change, and notably absent in President Obama recent speech on climate change.

A primary source of agricultural information is Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. An often cited document is the 2006 documentLivestock’s Long Shadow. 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 an earlier blog in this series, there is substantial controversy about the impact of agriculture. Therefore, I end here with a set of reference materials that I have used.

EPA National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

PDF of Agriculture Chapter of EPA Inventory of Emissions

Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Chapter 8: Working Group 3: IPCC 2007

Energy Efficiency of Conventional, Organic and Alternative Cropping …

Livestock and Climate Change

and to appear

Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions and their Mitigation, G. Philip Robertson, W.K. Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060

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: 713 - 663

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Here's an article from robertscribbler on the heat in the Far East. The info about effects of high heat plus high humidity is very interesting. Even knowing about heat wave deaths in Russia and elsewhere, I never visualized huge numbers of people in China (for example) dying from heat the way they would from an epidemic .

Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2403
Quoting 711. Xulonn:
Right on. Mybrain hurts from researching and rebutting a denialist friend all day. Although I was on the Skeptical Science website extensively for other subjects today, the CO2 residence issue came up as an aside, and I missed the bit you linked to, which seems to answer the question. Indeed, anthropogenic CO2 isotopes would leave the atmosphere while the overall CO2 concentration remained steady or grew with additional CO2 entering the atmosphere.


Don't think we can afford thousand year or more residence time nor can the Arctic Ice if you want man to survive......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 708. Birthmark:
This is an old one making the rounds again, as they all do. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-tim e.htm
Right on. Mybrain hurts from researching and rebutting a denialist friend all day. Although I was on the Skeptical Science website extensively for other subjects today, the CO2 residence issue came up as an aside, and I missed the bit you linked to, which seems to answer the question. Indeed, anthropogenic CO2 isotopes would leave the atmosphere while the overall CO2 concentration remained steady or grew with additional CO2 entering the atmosphere.
Quoting SkepticalScience:
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.


It looks like we're ready with the rebuttals if the denialist Whack-A-Moles show up with this subject.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 709. Naga5000:


Thanks. It also seems that particular paper only exists in the land of that symposium from 2012. Couldn't find anything in the University database or Google.

Well, I'm sure denialists wouldn't just make something up...unless they had an opportunity.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 708. Birthmark:

This is an old one making the rounds again, as they all do. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-tim e.htm


Thanks. It also seems that particular paper only exists in the land of that symposium from 2012. Couldn't find anything in the University database or Google.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3601
Quoting 705. Xulonn:
Anyone want to tackle this one?

This is an old one making the rounds again, as they all do. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-tim e.htm
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 705. Xulonn:
Anyone want to tackle this one?

Although this was posted today at the HockeySchtick website today, it is about a paper that was presented in a 20-minute window 4 years ago at the June 2009 NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Seventeenth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties in Boulder, Colorado. (Although the hockeyschtick website mentions the 17th Symposium, it does not say that the date of the symposium was four years ago.)

This is not a peer-reviewed paper, and has not gained traction in the real world of atmospheric science, so I am assuming that it was flawed and ignored by real scientists in related fields. The first questions that come to my curious and skeptical mind are:

1) If fossil fuel combustion CO2 emissions are increasing at a steady rate, and the concentration of of atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising, what is the alternative explanation for source the massive amounts of "new" CO2 remaining in the atmosphere.

2) Could the research and analysis that supports the paper be flawed?

Unfortunately, the fact that hockeyschtick posted it today means that it may quickly grab attention and take on a life of its own in the climate denialist blogosphere, and live on for years as another "fact" that "destroys" the "myth" of AGW/CC and CO2. If it follows that pattern, it has the potential to create additional work for our current intrepid crop of dedicated denialist and skeptic fighters if the climate denial crowd here gets riled up.



We need to see the paper to see what it actually says. Basing arguments on the abstract seems to be a denialist hobby.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3601
Finally a decently clear view of the East Siberian Sea. 




Source Terra 250m image
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 535
Anyone want to tackle this one?

Although this was posted today at the HockeySchtick website today, it is about a paper that was presented in a 20-minute window 4 years ago at the June 2009 NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) Seventeenth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties in Boulder, Colorado. (Although the hockeyschtick website mentions the 17th Symposium, it does not say that the date of the symposium was four years ago.)

This is not a peer-reviewed paper, and has not gained traction in the real world of atmospheric science, so I am assuming that it was flawed and ignored by real scientists in related fields. The first questions that come to my curious and skeptical mind are:

1) If fossil fuel combustion CO2 emissions are increasing at a steady rate, and the concentration of of atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising, what is the alternative explanation for source the massive amounts of "new" CO2 remaining in the atmosphere.

2) Could the research and analysis that supports the paper be flawed?

Unfortunately, the fact that hockeyschtick posted it today means that it may quickly grab attention and take on a life of its own in the climate denialist blogosphere, and live on for years as another "fact" that "destroys" the "myth" of AGW/CC and CO2. If it follows that pattern, it has the potential to create additional work for our current intrepid crop of dedicated denialist and skeptic fighters if the climate denial crowd here gets riled up.

Quoting The HockeySchtick [link]:
A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I haven't posted this for a couple of pages. Despite what the numbers say, that ice is in pretty poor shape.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 700. RevElvis:
150 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths

Over 100 one-liners for arguing with a climate “skeptic” or climate disinformer, with links to the science behind them.

Planetsave.com

I appreciate it, but that's one area where I don't need help (or encouragement). I'll be spitting out one-liners two hours after I'm dead.

I've already made the necessary arrangements. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
A Growing Sense of Urgency - Bill Richardson (Former U.S. Energy Secretary, Governor of New Mexico and UN Ambassador)

As I prepare to take part in an event on hurricanes and extreme weather in Miami, Florida later today, it's clear just how much climate change threatens the state's local communities. Florida is the most vulnerable U.S. state to sea-level rise, with seas projected to rise along the state's coast by as much as 2 feet by 2060 -- threatening valuable infrastructure, homes, and communities. Even Superstorm Sandy - which had the greatest impacts in New York and New Jersey -- caused significant damages along Florida's east coast while centered miles offshore. Rising seas contributed to Sandy's storm surge and tidal surges, causing flooding throughout Miami-Dade County and sweeping away portions of State Road A1A in Fort Lauderdale.

But as overly concerned as I am of the climate change impacts Florida faces, I'm also encouraged. Florida has something that few other states have: A bipartisan collaboration to address global warming's disastrous impacts.

The carbon pollution we continue pumping into the atmosphere is already causing our air and oceans to warm, glaciers and ice sheets to melt, and sea levels to rise at alarming rates. Increasingly warming oceans and melting ice are yielding rising sea levels that not only provide a springboard for storm surge to reach further inland, but also fuel hurricanes like Sandy with additional energy - threatening more of our coastal communities.

Regarded as by far the most vulnerable state to sea-level rise, Florida is also home to the most vulnerable city to sea-level rise in the United States -- Miami. By choosing to stay on our carbon-intensive path, seas will only continue rising, further increasing the vulnerability of cities like Miami to costly damages associated with extreme weather and sea-level rise.

more at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
150 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths

Over 100 one-liners for arguing with a climate “skeptic” or climate disinformer, with links to the science behind them.

Planetsave.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 672. cyclonebuster:


Better yet common sense...
Quoting 698. goosegirl1:


Notice how there doesn't seem to be any? :))

We have already had this conversation a few months ago, but evidently we need to review again- population studies are done by extrapolation, not exact numbers. No one knew in 1970, and no one knows now, the exact number of bears. In truth, we don't have to know. We already know that their habitat is deteriorating, and that this will change the carrying capacity of the habitat. A change in carrying capacity means fewer bears, or bears live in sub standard habitat- really not much choice. Neither situation will help sustain the bear population.

When the rubber meets the road, the issue is not really about how many bears there are. It's more about preserving the habitat and managing for a sustainable population going forward. If we cannot stop the runaway melt in the Arctic, we don't stand a snowball's chance in Churchhill of preserving the polar bear habitat.

Link

Link

Link


672. cyclonebuster 11:30 AM GMT on August 09, 2013 2

Quoting 665. Birthmark:

Evidence?



Better yet common sense...

Can they even change a flat tire? Let alone talking to chairs...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 665. Birthmark:

Evidence?


Notice how there doesn't seem to be any? :))

We have already had this conversation a few months ago, but evidently we need to review again- population studies are done by extrapolation, not exact numbers. No one knew in 1970, and no one knows now, the exact number of bears. In truth, we don't have to know. We already know that their habitat is deteriorating, and that this will change the carrying capacity of the habitat. A change in carrying capacity means fewer bears, or bears live in sub standard habitat- really not much choice. Neither situation will help sustain the bear population.

When the rubber meets the road, the issue is not really about how many bears there are. It's more about preserving the habitat and managing for a sustainable population going forward. If we cannot stop the runaway melt in the Arctic, we don't stand a snowball's chance in Churchhill of preserving the polar bear habitat.

Link

Link

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 696. Birthmark:

So get your kid to do it for you. Problem solved.


You think kids these days care about this stuff after what Fox News teaches them?? LOL..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 691. cyclonebuster:
My kid could do it in 15 mins..

So get your kid to do it for you. Problem solved.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
695. yoboi
Quoting 694. schwankmoe:


great, now you've uncovered the other thing i didn't want getting out; i'm a 'communists'. i have multiple personalities, and they're all communists.



And.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
Quoting 682. yoboi:



I was just asking about the shortest summer....I never called anyone a communists......


great, now you've uncovered the other thing i didn't want getting out; i'm a 'communists'. i have multiple personalities, and they're all communists.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Owned By Duke Energy, Closing Due To Botched Repairs

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) %u2014 The largest U.S. electricity company said Tuesday it will permanently close a Florida nuclear power plant after botched repairs and use $835 million from an insurance settlement to refund consumers forced to pay for higher-cost replacement power.

But Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy also said it will seek to recoup from customers its $1.65 billion investment in the Crystal River Nuclear Plant, about 70 miles north of Tampa. The company said it is starting a closing process that may take 60 years before the nuclear site is decontaminated and dismantled and considering whether to build a new, natural-gas-fueled power plant to replace the power lost.

The nuclear plant operated by Duke Energy subsidiary Progress Energy Florida has been shut down since 2009, when its concrete containment building cracked during a maintenance and upgrade project. A 2011 repair attempt resulted in new cracks in other parts of the containment structure. Estimates put repair costs at between $1.3 billion and $3.4 billion.

The federal operating license for the nuclear plant, which began operating in 1977, was due to expire at the end of 2016, meaning Duke Energy would have had to wage a regulatory fight to extend its authority to operate.

"We believe the decision to retire the nuclear plant is in the best overall interests of our customers, investors, the state of Florida and our company," Duke Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Rogers said in a statement.

Rogers' expected successor following Duke Energy's merger last July with Raleigh-based Progress Energy, which owned Crystal River, was unexpectedly fired within hours after the combination was completed. Duke Energy board members said they dumped former Progress Energy CEO Bill Johnson in part because of dissatisfaction over his handling of the Crystal River closing.

Duke said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it would seek to recover its investment in Crystal River over a 20-year period beginning in 2017, an amount that spokesman Mike Hughes said was $1.65 billion.

Progress Energy Florida provides electricity to more than 1.6 million Florida customers, including the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater and the area surrounding Orlando.

Florida Public Counsel J.R. Kelly called the company's decision a bad one for consumers, who face the potential of higher rates to pay for more expensive alternate power sources. The settlement of Duke Energy's dispute with Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. shortchanged ratepayers because the additional $530 million the insurer agreed to pay was less than half the lowest projected repair cost, said Jon Moyle Jr., a lawyer for the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, which advocates for manufacturers.

Florida utilities regulators will decide when customers see refunds to compensate for higher bills Progress Energy passed along because it had to replace electricity not produced by the nuclear plant with higher-priced power.

Florida's Public Service Commission last February allowed a $150 million increase in base rates but directed Progress Energy Florida to refund customers $288 million over two years for costs related to the nuclear plant shutdown. That money started to be included last month, Mike Hughes said. Another $100 million is due to customers in 2015 and 2016 because repairs on Crystal River had not begun by the end of 2012.

Duke Energy spent $338 million through the end of 2012 to repair the nuclear plant, $143 million of which was covered by payments by insurance. How much of the cost to close the plant will be covered by customers or absorbed by shareholders will be decided by Florida regulators, Hughes said.

"The ultimate allocation of those costs will be determined in the future, so I don't have any specific percentage that we anticipate that customers might pay, a specific percentage that we anticipate shareholders might pay. That will be determined by the proceedings" convened by state regulators, Hughes said.

The Knoxville, Tenn.-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said it applauded Duke Energy for its decisive decision to close Crystal River.

"Crystal River clearly demonstrates the vulnerabilities of being overly dependent on a high-risk energy source like nuclear power, which exposes ratepayers to high financial risks and residents to unnecessary health and environmental risks," executive director Stephen Smith said.

Duke Energy has 7.1 million customers in Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana.







Link








...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nuclear power plant in South Carolina at risk for shutdown

A nuclear power plant located near Hartsville, South Carolina is at risk for being shut down, according to a research study conducted at the Vermont Law School. However, the plant has a license to operate until 2030 and operators Duke Energy say they have no plans to retire it early.

Maintaining older nuclear power plants can be very expensive. So much so that plants in California (San Onofre) Wisconsin and Florida have been shut down or are slated for retirement. These kinds of plants generate tremendous amounts of energy, but repair costs and decreasing costs of other forms of power are causing them to be seen as increasingly unfavorable. (Also, a plan for a new, smaller nuclear plant in Iowa was called off.)

The H. B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant employs one Westinghouse 735 MW pressurized water reactor. There are nearly 900,000 people living within about 50 miles of it. Of course, there are also many domesticated and wild animals in the area as well.

Alternative energy seems to be frowned upon by South Carolina’s energy providers. It has been reported that they also have a monopoly on energy production there.


more at RawStory.com

(meanwhile in Florida)

State regulators OK Duke nuke rate hike for Shuttered Nuke Project (The Tampa Tribune

Duke Kills Florida Nuclear Project, Keeps Customers' Money (Business Week)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
I thought this was a funny exchange between Breman University and I about looping their sea ice maps......


Patrick McNulty

Aug 8 (1 day ago)

to heygster
In this day and age why can't you guys have a 30 to 40 day or so loop link of the ice maps on your web site??


Sincerely,

Patrick McNulty

Georg Heygster

10:37 AM (2 hours ago)

to me
Dear Patrick McNulty,

thank you for your interest in our sea ice maps, and for your feedback.
We will be looking into your suggestion. However, our service is based on best effort, and under these conditions improvements will take a time.

Best regards

Georg Heygster

Patrick McNulty

1:20 PM (8 minutes ago)

to Georg
My kid could do it in 15 mins..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
690. yoboi
Quoting 686. SouthernIllinois:
.




I agree......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
From the Weather Historian Wunderground:

South America

In spite of a brief intense cold snap in July, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina are experiencing unprecedented winter heat. Temperatures have averaged more than 10°F above normal for the past month with readings as high as 103°F in Brazil and Bolivia, 100°F in Paraguay and 97°F in Argentina. The very unusual circumstances of heat alerts in the middle of winter have been issued in some locations.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Uni Hamburg's ASIv6 AMSR2 3.125km image:


Link to larger image.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Arctic Dipole and low pressure at the pole still kicking in...

Link




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
14th place now.Welcome to the new normal since 2002...


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Sun?

Yeah, they forgot about that one forcing.

LOL

What part is it in the 11-12 years cycle that we see that forcing o watted one?


Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089
Spiegel English, August 9, covers too:
Scientific Feud: Does Global Warming Make Us More Violent?
A group of scientists recently released a paper claiming that global warming makes violent conflict more likely. Others, though, have sharply criticized the study, leading to a widening scientific tiff. In related news, it has been a hot summer. ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
682. yoboi
Quoting 681. schwankmoe:
i'm afraid it's true, yoboi. those of us who believe in the basic science of absorption and emission of radiation by greenhouse gases such as CO2 are, in fact, all communists.

you got us. we tried to hide it, but "a guy on the internet" found us out.





I was just asking about the shortest summer....I never called anyone a communists......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
i'm afraid it's true, yoboi. those of us who believe in the basic science of absorption and emission of radiation by greenhouse gases such as CO2 are, in fact, all communists.

you got us. we tried to hide it, but "a guy on the internet" found us out.


Quoting 675. yoboi:
619. bjrabbit 3:08 PM GMT on August 09, 2013 +1
I find it highly interesting that Dr Masters has ignored to news events that contradict GW that have come to light this week.

First, there was an article on how the Arctic had their shortest "summer" in terms of temps in years.

Next was the following article that I have linked to which references the fact that the sun has much more influence on our climate than CO2. (Sorry Communists) Link

Perhaps we can get a little more balanced coverage next week but I am not holding my breath.

Bert

Is this true??????????????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From the How Low Can Anthony Go department:

An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine“An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine“ (2013-08-04). This is awesome for Anthony Watts. One his best buddies, Willis Eschenbach, has just been published in Science!

Oh wait, it’s just an astoundingly condescending and sexist, as well as painfully long,”Open Letter” containing the usual Gish Gallop of denialist rants written for Willis’ private wish-fulfillment. Probably a frustrated response to the Science special issue, A Once and Future Climate two days earlier (hint: no one thinks the planet is turning into a tropical paradise). Also, Al Gore.

Summary: Yer good lookin’, so pandering limp-wristed climatologist men have fed yer hippie inclinations. Listen to someone rugged like me copying and pasting denialist crap, not your own 30 years of real active scientific work!

So Willis Eschenbach, a trained masseuse, blowhard blogger and unpublished 1975 psych major, tells Dr. McNutt, a PhD geophysicist with direct research credentials in environmental topics, that “people laugh at the bumf that passes for climate science in your pages”? There’s laughter take place Willis, you got that right.

Anthony’s readers naturally salute Willis’ courage in speaking truth to power, albeit with about 30 grammatical suggestions and a certain amount of wincing.

Note: I didn't post a link to WTFUWT because I refuse to them any hits.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Yoboi, several days ago someone posted about "summer is over on the arctic". As Nea said, the link was to some denialist site - I've forgotten which one - but they were referring to the chart of mean daily temperatures put out by the Danish Meteorological Institute here. Link

The idea was that because daily mean temperature went below 0deg C, then summer i,e, the melting season, must be over. Wrong. Other people can tell you more than I can about this, but I did find this article from SkepticalScience explaining how the DMI data is often misused. Link.

Here's an article on arctic summers from climatecentral: Link. Study finds arctic summers warmest in 600 years. Maybe this will be helpful in getting a perspective on the arctic warming problem.

Can I just say it's much nicer to be answering your questions than to be yelling at you! Keep thinking - you're doing good.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2403
Quoting 677. yoboi:



I did not know that summer was over yet.....that's why I was asking.....just so I am clear...is it still summer time?????

It is still summer in the entire Northern Hemisphere. No way around that...no matter how hard some deny it.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
677. yoboi
Quoting 676. Neapolitan:
The "article" on the "shortest summer" was a bit of nonsensical tripe on one of those uber-ignorant denialist sites, and is therefore not worthy of discussion at an actual science site. I'm not sure about the other article of which you speak, but I can tell you that denialists are always latching onto the latest bit of blather that gives them hope that the very laws of physics have been overturned by some quack posting a comment on a far-right blog.

So far as "balanced coverage", you should know by now that there's science, and then there's not science; giving supporters of the latter equal audience with the former is as far from "balanced" as one can possibly get.



I did not know that summer was over yet.....that's why I was asking.....just so I am clear...is it still summer time?????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
Quoting 675. yoboi:
619. bjrabbit 3:08 PM GMT on August 09, 2013 1
I find it highly interesting that Dr Masters has ignored to news events that contradict GW that have come to light this week.

First, there was an article on how the Arctic had their shortest "summer" in terms of temps in years.

Next was the following article that I have linked to which references the fact that the sun has much more influence on our climate than CO2. (Sorry Communists) Link

Perhaps we can get a little more balanced coverage next week but I am not holding my breath.

Bert

Is this true??????????????
The "article" on the "shortest summer" was a bit of nonsensical tripe on one of those uber-ignorant denialist sites, and is therefore not worthy of discussion at an actual science site. I'm not sure about the other article of which you speak, but I can tell you that denialists are always latching onto the latest bit of blather that gives them hope that the very laws of physics have been overturned by some quack posting a comment on a far-right blog.

So far as "balanced coverage", you should know by now that there's science, and then there's not science; giving supporters of the latter equal audience with the former is as far from "balanced" as one can possibly get.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
675. yoboi
619. bjrabbit 3:08 PM GMT on August 09, 2013 +1
I find it highly interesting that Dr Masters has ignored to news events that contradict GW that have come to light this week.

First, there was an article on how the Arctic had their shortest "summer" in terms of temps in years.

Next was the following article that I have linked to which references the fact that the sun has much more influence on our climate than CO2. (Sorry Communists) Link

Perhaps we can get a little more balanced coverage next week but I am not holding my breath.

Bert

Is this true??????????????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2386
Quoting 671. Neapolitan:
Tamino over at Open Mind has a great new detailed post that again shows the pathetically desperate depths to which the denialist crowd will go to hide the truth about what's going on. It begins with multiple instances of cherry-picking--the most-used arrow in the fake skeptic's quiver--but doesn't stop there, waltzing straight into lying, making false assumptions, and displaying an amazing amount of willful ignorance. The bottom line--and this will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone with an IQ over 50--is that those who show slavish devotion to the swill Anthony Watts publishes are, quite frankly, fools.


At Tamino's, commenter Lars Rosenberg says:

Nils-Axel Mörner’s father, Stellan Mörner, was a famous swedish surrrealist painter, about whom he has written, in a pamphlet from 1980: “My dad’s relation to his art is identical to my relation to my science.”


Mörner’s science is surreal, to say the least.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Quoting 665. Birthmark:

Evidence?


He Who Talks to Chairs don't need no stinkin' evidence.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
Quoting 665. Birthmark:

Evidence?


Better yet common sense...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tamino over at Open Mind has a great new detailed post that again shows the pathetically desperate depths to which the denialist crowd will go to hide the truth about what's going on. It begins with multiple instances of cherry-picking--the most-used arrow in the fake skeptic's quiver--but doesn't stop there, waltzing straight into lying, making false assumptions, and displaying an amazing amount of willful ignorance. The bottom line--and this will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone with an IQ over 50--is that those who show slavish devotion to the swill Anthony Watts publishes are, quite frankly, fools.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 650. JohnLonergan:
Sustainability Media Lab G+ Hangout: Should climate scientists advocate for policy?

Gavin Schmidt, Richard Betts, and Judith Curry appear on a Google hangout (cited at DotEarth and elsewhere) about Tamsin Edwards.


I wasn't planning on staying up but this video is interesting. Thanks for linking it.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
Quoting 650. JohnLonergan:
Sustainability Media Lab G+ Hangout: Should climate scientists advocate for policy?

Gavin Schmidt, Richard Betts, and Judith Curry appear on a Google hangout (cited at DotEarth and elsewhere) about Tamsin Edwards.

Thanks for that, John. I'm less impressed with Curry than ever.

I was surprised by Gavin Schmidt, too. I had no idea that he was from England. It wasn't a negative surprise, just a "Oh, I didn't know that!" sort of thing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 658. CEastwood:


Please don't start with this polar bear hoax again. The bear probably died from overpopulation. Polar bears are at an all time high and arctic sea ice is nowhere near a minimum. In fact, the entire Arctic Circle is at freezing temperatures or below.


But but but, reality is different from your fantasy. Better load up another hit and run link from a crazy website that obviously knows so much more about the real situation that they fail to actually publish any real research. Lol.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3601
He's crazy... Western Nunavut--above the arctic circle--is experiencing record high temperatures.

KUGLUKTUK, NUNAVUT
High and low temperature in degrees Celsius for the last five days:

03 -- 22.8/6.4
04 -- 29.8/11.0
05 -- 30.3/16.0
06 -- 26.9/10.8
07 -- 27.7/13.6
Source


Figure 1: Environment Canada

Averages:
High: 14
Low: 5

August record high
29.2 set on 01/2000
Records go back to 1977. (Not very old but still remarkable.)
Record beaten twice already and we might have to make that three times on Saturday, August 10.
Source

Another addition to a rather short list:

-Alaska
-Southwestern U.S.
-Northern Siberia
-Western Nunavut
-Central Europe
-Central South America
-Eastern Asia
-Greenland

...Have all experienced record high temperatures since early June. And not just daily record highs but monthly and even all-time highs in many cases.

Credit to Environment Canada for the data. Links provided.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1298
Heat Wave Deaths Can Happen Fast, Without Obvious Warning

Heat waves can harm people's health in unexpected ways, according to a new report.

While it has been thought that in cities, people living alone or in big apartment buildings are the most susceptible, a new analysis of heat-related illnesses and deaths in New York City suggests the real problem is not necessarily where a person lives, but that hyperthermia can kill a person quickly without showing obvious warning signs.

For the report, New York City health officials looked at heat waves that struck the city between 2000 and 2011, and found that unlike what previous studies suggested, people who died from hyperthermia were not more likely to live in multifamily apartment buildings, or to live alone than the general population of the city.

Most people affected by hyperthermia were at home, and none of them had a working air conditioner. Temperatures inside a home can reach 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) higher than outside temperatures, which can reach 95 to 100 F (35 to 38 C) or higher during heat waves in New York.

Hyperthermia happens when a person's body absorbs more heat than it dissipates, which leads to dangerously high body temperatures that require medical attention.

One sign of hyperthermia is dry skin, which occurs as the body fails to cool down through sweating. Headaches, dizziness and nausea are other symptoms.

Every year, about 650 Americans die from hyperthermia — a death toll greater than that of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes combined, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

more at LiveScience.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 658. CEastwood:


Please don't start with this polar bear hoax again. The bear probably died from overpopulation. Polar bears are at an all time high and arctic sea ice is nowhere near a minimum. In fact, the entire Arctic Circle is at freezing temperatures or below.

Evidence?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 659. CEastwood:


The warmists change the "definitions" of climate daily to adhere to their invented propaganda. They modify temperature records to the points of hilarity.

Neat! Any evidence to back up your hysterical claim, or are you just randomly saying things? LOL

Climate has been defined as thirty years for...well, longer than I've been researching GW. You appear to be making things up.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Continue your normal routine.

There is nothing wrong with the Thermostat of your Planet.

Continue to use the sequestered carbon at a faster rate in all your endeavors Globally.


That is all.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129089

Viewing: 713 - 663

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog 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
52 °F
Mostly Cloudy