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: 513 - 463

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

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Rising ocean temperatures are rearranging the biological make-up of our oceans, pushing species towards the poles by 7kms every year, as they chase the climates they can survive in, according to new research.

The study, conducted by a working group of scientists from 17 different institutions, gathered data from seven different countries and found the warming oceans are causing marine species to alter their breeding, feeding and migration patterns.

Surprisingly, land species are shifting at a rate of less than 1km a year in comparison, even though land surface temperatures are rising at a much faster rate than those in the ocean.

%u201CIn general, the air is warming faster than the ocean because the air has greater capacity to absorb temperature. So we expected to see more rapid response on land than in the ocean. But we sort of found the inverse,%u201D said study researcher Dr Christopher Brown, post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Queensland%u2019s Global Change Institute.

Brown said this may be because marine animals are able to move vast distances, or it could be because it%u2019s easier to escape changing temperatures on land where there are hills and valleys, rather than on a flat ocean surface.

The team looked at a wide variety of species, from plankton and ocean plants to predators such as seals, seabirds and big fish.

%u201COne of the unique things about this study is that we%u2019ve looked at everything,%u201D said Brown.

%u201CWe covered every link in the food chain and we found there were changes in marine life that were consistent with climate change across all the world%u2019s oceans and across all those different links in the food chain.%u201D

The warming oceans are shortening winter and bringing on spring and all the events that come with it %u2013 like breeding events and plankton blooms %u2013 earlier than normal.

For the species that can%u2019t keep moving towards the colder waters, this could have dire consequences.

%u201CSome species like barnacles and lots of shellfish are constrained to living on the coast, so in places like Tasmania, if they%u2019re already at the edge of the range there%u2019s nowhere for them to go. You could potentially lose those,%u201D said Brown.

The scientists found that 81% of the study%u2019s observations supported the hypothesis that climate change was behind the changes seen.

To combat this, Brown said people have to think about changing activities to adapt.

%u201CFor example, fisheries might need to move their ports to keep track of the species they prefer to catch,%u201D he said.

%u201CThe obvious one is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will slow or reduce the rate of warming in the oceans, but there%u2019s a long lag time in that. Even if we reduce emissions now then those effects won%u2019t be seen for 20 years or so.%u201D
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742
Quoting 509. Birthmark:


There's another big blow coming to the Central Arctic Basin according to the models. Wonder if it will do anything *this* time? lol


From commenter Born fron the Void at Neven's ASIF:

THURSDAY


FRIDAY


More images and discussion here
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742
How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous century, and could rise between 50cm to 1.5 metres by 2100


Measuring Sea Levels

Sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion and melting of land-based ice. Global warming is causing the oceans to absorb a lot of extra heat (up to 90%). This makes the volume of water expand, and sea levels rise. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, and many of the world’s glaciers, are all slowly melting. The runoff feeds into rivers and directly into the oceans. This too adds to sea levels.

Prior to the use of satellite systems, measurements were taken using tide-gauges, devices that measure the height of a water level relative to a fixed point on land. Global estimates of sea level rise were subject to substantial differences in measurement from different parts of the world.

Sea levels change all the time. They are affected by seasons, astronomical tides, storm surges, currents and density, among other influences. Tidal gauges reflect these short term influences, introducing a large margin of error.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report described studies that estimated sea level rise for the 20th century between 0.5 and 3.0 mm a year. The most likely range, according to the IPCC, was between 1.0 and 2.0 mm a year.

Satellite altimetry since 1993 provides a more accurate measure of global sea level rise. Three different satellites take measurements: TOPEX/Poseidon (launched 1992), Jason-1 (launched 2001) and Jason-2 (launched 2008).

...

...Conclusion

Based on the new mid-range IPCC RCP4.5 scenario - around 650 ppm CO2 and equivalents producing a forcing of approximately 4.5 watts/metre2 - the most likely sea level rise by 2100 is betweem 80cm and 1 metre. Longer term, sea levels will continue to rise even after emissions have been reduced or eliminated.



Complete article at Skeptical Science:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742


There's another big blow coming to the Central Arctic Basin according to the models. Wonder if it will do anything *this* time? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
The daily Arctic mosaic from the Terra satellite is available here at 4km resolution. It can be completely addictive :-)

Wow - those fires in Siberia look huge!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And here is the Greenland melt-pond landscape:



These things can drain quite suddenly, into moulins:


For that water to be able to drain, it must be entering a preexisting system that is in hydraulic communication with atmosphere or ocean somewhere downslope.

Tracers study reveals rivers beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet

13 March 2013

Meltwater flow beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet has been traced up to 60km from the ice margin by a team of scientists from the Universities of Bristol, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Aberystwyth. Their work, which represents the first successful attempt to trace meltwater flow through thick ice and over distances of some tens of kilometres on an ice sheet, is published in Nature Geoscience this month.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 500. no1der:
The daily Arctic mosaic from the Terra satellite is available here at 4km resolution. It can be completely addictive :-)

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subset s/?mosaic=Arctic.2013216.terra.4km

That link is for day 216 of 2013. I've lost track of the higher-level link that makes it easier to select by day, so I just navigate by changing the day# or year. Data go back to 2009. Click on any part of the mosaic to get that specific tile, and from there you can go all the way to the 250m imagery.

There's also a very nice developmental interface (global data) here:
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/
Sediment plumes - merely a qualitative observation. The year starts with low flow from the glaciers, and clearer water in the fjords. When melt season picks up, the plumes extend. Glacial-derived sediment has a lot of fines that take a long time to settle. All other things being equal, seeing plumes extending farther by same date one year to another would tend to indicate that more meltwater had passed the gate, but I wouldn't make too much of it and maybe shouldn't even have mentioned. 



Thanks so much for the links and the quick response! I'm going to give them a look tomorrow when I have a bit of time. I'm actually very happy you pointed out the sediment loading. I find that part intriguing. I think I'm going to look into it anyway; I mean, how much sediment is available after all this time? You'd think a lot would have washed out by now, unless perhaps the flow is increasing and scouring out more.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Koch brothers hire lobbyists to fight carbon tax, save poor and old people

Carbon-tax proposals are going nowhere in Congress, but the Koch brothers aren’t taking any chances.

A few non-office-holding Republicans and a few actual-office-holding Democrats are calling for a carbon tax, but the current Congress would never pass one, and even the Obama administration has said it doesn’t want one.

Still, a grandstanding Republican representative, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, is pushing a House resolution declaring that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy” and “to American families and businesses,” and that it would “fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes.” (Never mind that many carbon-tax proposals are designed specifically to ease burdens on low-income Americans. Facts are not of interest here.)

The billionaire oil-mogul Koch brothers — who’ve convinced many politicians to sign a “No Climate Tax Pledge” — have now hired a gang of lobbyists to push Scalise’s pointless resolution

Just how would a tax on carbon pollution hurt American families and businesses? Well, it might take a bite out of the Koch family’s coffers and the Kochs’ businesses.

Still, the Kochs really are concerned about the poor. In fact, Charles Koch is pushing his own plan for lifting people out of poverty; one key component is eliminating the minimum wage.


more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Sally Jewell doesn’t want any climate deniers at Interior

Obama has staffed his second-term team with a couple of kickass women ready to take the lead on climate action. Two days after EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called bullshit on the notion that environmental regulations kill jobs, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, in an address to her employees, made clear that she won’t tolerate any debunked theories, either. “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said

E&E News reports:

If there are any [deniers], she invited them to visit public lands managed by the agency — be it the melting permafrost in Alaska or shrinking snowpacks in the Sierra Mountains — as proof. “If you don’t believe in it, come out into the resources,” she said.

Interior will be following through on President Obama’s climate change plan, including achieving 20 gigawatts of renewable power on public lands by 2020, she said.

“You and I can actually do something about it,” she said several times. “That’s a privilege, and I would argue it’s a moral imperative.”

Right-wingers flipped out over Jewell’s comments about employees who might not be conversant in basic scientific facts. Don’t be surprised if deniers start twisting her statement into a form of workplace discrimination.

more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Former Republican EPA chiefs back Obama on climate change

What do Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush have in common?

Yes, OK, obviously they were all Republican presidents. But now there’s something else that ties them all together.

EPA administrators who worked for all of those presidents have come out in support of stronger actions on climate change, co-signing a powerful op-ed in The New York Times supporting Barack Obama’s climate plan and arguing that “the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change.”

Here are some highlights from the op-ed, which was written by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman:

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

highlights at Grist.org

A Republican Case for Climate Action (Op-Ed N.Y. Times) - by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
TransCanada plans colossal trans-Canada oil pipeline

While the Obama administration dithers over whether to approve TransCanada’s planned Keystone XL pipeline, the pipeline builder announced Thursday that it will pursue an even bigger project connecting Alberta’s tar-sands oil fields with refineries in the nation’s east.

The 2,700-mile, $12 billion Energy East Pipeline would carry 1.1 million barrels per day, making it more than a third larger than Keystone XL, which is intended to carry 800,000 bpd.

As you would expect, Canadian environmentalists are appalled at the thought of shipping so much dangerous, climate-changing cargo across their country:

While cross-Canada political support was mostly strong, environmental groups that have resisted projects to pump crude across the Rocky Mountains to Canada’s Pacific Coast are already attacking TransCanada’s new plan. …

“The same people-power movements that have stalled other ill-conceived tar sands pipeline projects will rise up to tell our governments we need to invest in clean energy, not tar sands expansion,” Mike Hudema, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada, said in a statement.

Even if the Energy East line is built, TransCanada will still want Keystone XL.

more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Greenhouse gas emissions explained, in seven balloons

In 2010, human activity caused 50 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent in emissions.

The emissions were 76 percent carbon dioxide, 16 percent methane, 8 percent nitrous oxide, and 2 percent F-gases.

The biggest emitters were China (23 percent), the U.S. (14 percent), Europe (10 percent), India (5 percent), and Russia (5 percent).

And the primary sources of emissions were energy (35 percent), industry (18 percent), transport (13 percent), agriculture (11 percent), forestry (11 percent), buildings (8 percent), and waste (4 percent). The sources are explained in more detail in the balloons below:

Greenhousegases

more at Grist.org

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
The daily Arctic mosaic from the Terra satellite is available here at 4km resolution. It can be completely addictive :-)

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subset s/?mosaic=Arctic.2013216.terra.4km

That link is for day 216 of 2013. I've lost track of the higher-level link that makes it easier to select by day, so I just navigate by changing the day# or year. Data go back to 2009. Click on any part of the mosaic to get that specific tile, and from there you can go all the way to the 250m imagery.

There's also a very nice developmental interface (global data) here:
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/
Sediment plumes - merely a qualitative observation. The year starts with low flow from the glaciers, and clearer water in the fjords. When melt season picks up, the plumes extend. Glacial-derived sediment has a lot of fines that take a long time to settle. All other things being equal, seeing plumes extending farther by same date one year to another would tend to indicate that more meltwater had passed the gate, but I wouldn't make too much of it and maybe shouldn't even have mentioned. 
Quoting 499. LAbonbon:


These are very interesting comparative images (also pretty cool to look at in detail). If this is from a public website, can you share the link?

Question regarding the extent of the sediment plumes - how do we know this is indicative of increased seasonal runoff? Could it be a variation within a season itself? Put another way, is the sediment plume 'stable' for a certain period of time, or does it shift up/down-fjord within a season? Or, due to constant flow, does the silt & clay stay suspended for an extended period of time? Not sure if my original question is clear. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly sediment flow is used as a quantitative or qualitative metric in this situation.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 498. no1der:
Terra images from S. of Ilulissat, W. Greenland, showing the ablation zone of the ice sheet, with 'Dark Snow' and melt ponds and channels.





Between 2009 and 2013:
The 'Dark Snow' is noticeably more so, and has expanded 10's km up-slope.
The melt ponds have increased several-fold in both number and size, and have colonized higher on the slope.
The sediment plumes from the outlet glaciers extend farther down-fjord, indicating increased seasonal runoff of meltwater.
Above the 'Dark Snow' of the ablation zone, the network of incised drainage channels and melt ponds seems much better developed and extensive in 2013 than in 2009.





These are very interesting comparative images (also pretty cool to look at in detail). If this is from a public website, can you share the link?

Question regarding the extent of the sediment plumes - how do we know this is indicative of increased seasonal runoff? Could it be a variation within a season itself? Put another way, is the sediment plume 'stable' for a certain period of time, or does it shift up/down-fjord within a season? Or, due to constant flow, does the silt & clay stay suspended for an extended period of time? Not sure if my original question is clear. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly sediment flow is used as a quantitative or qualitative metric in this situation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Terra images from S. of Ilulissat, W. Greenland, showing the ablation zone of the ice sheet, with 'Dark Snow', melt ponds and channels.






Between 2009 and 2013:
The 'Dark Snow' is noticeably more so, and has expanded 10's km up-slope.
The melt ponds have increased several-fold in both number and size, and have colonized higher on the slope.
The sediment plumes from the outlet glaciers extend farther down-fjord, indicating increased seasonal runoff of meltwater.
Above the 'Dark Snow' of the ablation zone, the network of incised drainage channels and melt ponds seems much better developed and extensive in 2013 than in 2009.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
496 - we have a political party that is determined to take us back several hundred years - to superstition, witch trials, and the "Spanish Inquisition"

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
The science behind EPA standards is clear

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology attacks the Environmental Protection Agency for lack of transparency and suggests that more scientific information is needed to develop standards for air quality and climate change. In his attacks, Rep. Smith nitpicks the details of modeling systems while ignoring the public, widely available and overwhelming evidence of the high costs to public health and the economy of inaction on climate change and air quality.

The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus

The science behind EPA standards is clear

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology attacks the transparency of the EPA and claims that more scientific information is needed for the EPA to develop standards for air quality and climate change. The health and financial costs of inaction if we don’t pursue cleaner air will only go up, and experts agree that acting now to reduce emissions is the most cost-effective way to protect ourselves from climate change.

The claim: Rep. Lamar Smith attacks the EPA, portraying it as secretive about the science behind its decisions, including its regulation of airborne particulates, ozone and its estimation of the social cost of carbon (SCC). Smith implies that the release of more scientific information would offer new revelations about whether the decisions are justified.

The facts: The science documenting the need for action on ozone and particulate matter is extensive, and the EPA’s research and links to peer-reviewed literature are documented on its own website. In addition, the social cost of carbon -- an economic estimate taken into account when developing carbon pollution standards -- relies on peer-reviewed research from many scientific disciplines, including physics, biology, economics, oceanography, atmospheric science, medicine, and more. Accumulated peer-reviewed research from these fields tells us that carbon pollution is already costly to humans. Costs of carbon pollution take many forms:
■Health impacts of infectious diseases, extreme heat, and ozone smog, and more. One study of six climate-related events since 2000 estimated the health costs alone at $14 billion.
■Lost property and businesses due to extreme weather, which included $107.2 billion worth of damage in the U.S in 2012 according to reinsurer Munich Re. Furthermore, Munich Re says, “The climatic changes detected are in line with the modeled changes due to human-made climate change.”
■Infrastructure overhauls to accommodate sea level rise, for example a proposed $206 million renovation to Miami’s Beach’s water system to forestall the influx of salt water. Projected infrastructure costs for Florida reach into the billions.

Every major scientific authority, including the IPCC, the National Climate Assessment, and the National Academy of Sciences has verified that carbon pollution causes warming and warming worsens these costly and dangerous impacts.

The EPA estimates the social cost of carbon to be $36 per ton by using a set of economic models, including three called FUND, PAGE and DICE. Rather than overestimating the SCC (as Smith suggests by seeking more information about the work behind the models), these models have come under criticism from economists for underestimating it. Other estimates of the social cost of carbon clock in at:
■$83 per ton as calculated in 2009 by the U.K. government
■Over $100 per ton according to a peer-reviewed study by economists Chris and Mat Hope.
■Up to $900 per ton according to a report by the E3 Network, which concluded that despite uncertainty over the exact cost of carbon, “it is unequivocally less expensive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than to suffer climate damages.”

In his attacks on the transparency of the EPA, Rep. Smith is seeking to nitpick over the details of modeling systems while persistently ignoring the public, widely available and overwhelming evidence of the high costs of inaction on climate change and air quality to our public health and the economy.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742
According to IJIS we dropped below the average summer minimum for arctic sea ice extent in the 1980s on July 24th. It should fall below the 1990s average summer minimum later this week.

Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8004
Quoting 492. Some1Has2BtheRookie:

The Invisible Brain would be a more fitting title for a novel about ol' "triple point." In evidence of that, I encourage one and all to google: Steve Goddard "triple point". Read whatever comes up. It's hilarious in any form.

It's also what got him booted from Tony the weatherguy's satire site.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Quoting 487. yoboi:



I followed the link and I found out Steven Goddard uses weather Under ground.....Has he ever been on this blog??????? Attached is the link showing his visit....





Link


Yoboi, there is no way of knowing who Steve Goddard is and therefore impossible to know where this person has been. (I call him Steve because it is almost as if I could get to know him, but not really know this person at all. Steve and I are close like that) When you read the page in the link, did it read like a science based article or more as someone that can only express themself using childish attempts at a put down on someone else? Did you read the comments section? Not much science happening there!

I wonder if H.G. Wells had Steve in mind when he wrote this book?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 486. RevElvis:
PetCoke Cloud over Detroit




more at CrooksAndLiars.com

There is a certain political party in the US that I refer to as orcs. There is a reason for that.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Quoting 487. yoboi:



I followed the link and I found out Steven Goddard uses weather Under ground.....Has he ever been on this blog??????? Attached is the link showing his visit....





Link

If Goddard has been here, he doesn't seem too inclined to make his presence known. And that's a good thing for everybody.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Quoting 482. CEastwood:


Now warmists call the truth "smears and lies". Who are the deniers now?

The deniers are the deniers. Morano is a hack with no legitimate scientific background in climate, and isn't too dainty to use fiction when fact fails...which is almost always.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Quoting 487. yoboi:



I followed the link and I found out Steven Goddard uses weather Under ground.....Has he ever been on this blog??????? Attached is the link showing his visit....





Link
From what people here have said, no one knows who Steven Goddard is. So, yes, he could have been here. Your guess is as good as mine.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
487. yoboi
Quoting 473. FLwolverine:
It's even worse than that, Pat. Climate Depot refers back to the Steven Goddard website (which for some reason they don't link to).

But they are all using a daily mean temperature chart from the DMI site, and that's pretty interesting. Site here: Link sorry, I haven't advanced to the stage of posting images yet. :-)



I followed the link and I found out Steven Goddard uses weather Under ground.....Has he ever been on this blog??????? Attached is the link showing his visit....





Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1978
PetCoke Cloud over Detroit




more at CrooksAndLiars.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Galvestonhurricane, if you are here to talk climate science, good for you. If you are here to disrupt the blog with nonsense, you might find a really difficult time ahead.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2677
Quoting 476. Birthmark:

So summer is over then? I ask because it appears to be summer still on my calendar. Is he using a metric calendar or something? lol


I tried to explain that sea ice volume is still two standard deviations lower (including July now), and that extent is looking like 4th or 5th all time so far this year, but to no avail. Sometimes people have strict blinders on. Assuming climate depot is correct, this year is totally screwed, that should tell us something, huh?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2677
Quoting 482. CEastwood:


Now warmists call the truth "smears and lies". Who are the deniers now?


'Warmists' isn't even a word. If the planet was cooling we'd be 'coldists'? Or, even better, 'coolists'? (I really wish the planet was cooling now!)

If it's raining outside and we acknowledge that it does are we called rainists?

In any case, the only truth here is the fossil-fuel funded denial industry which you are eagerly perpetuating. Sad.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
Quoting 478. Xandra:

From Media Matters for America:

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called "the Matt Drudge of climate denial," the "king of the skeptics," and "a central cell of the climate-denial machine," and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a "con job" based on "subprime science." Morano gained prominence working for two of the most vocal climate deniers in the U.S.: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who notoriously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and Rush Limbaugh, who we named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year in 2011 for his steadfast denial of climate science and wild conspiracy theories about the climate change "hoax."

These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media's attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 "Climategate" controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed "deliberate manipulation of facts and data" by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

Due to his history of smears and lies, Morano's media influence is usually confined to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. But in December, CNN invited him to "debate" Bill Nye on climate science, and in doing so elevated his marginal views to the mainstream press for the first time all year. For all this, Marc Morano has earned the distinction of 2012 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

Read More>>



Now warmists call the truth "smears and lies". Who are the deniers now?
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
73 degrees N, Chukchi Sea, Sept. 20 1913: 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_voyage_of_the_K arluk

73 degrees N, Chukchi Sea, Aug 3 2013 (USCG Healy): 


I suppose that both examples pass the conventional 15 and 30% extent thresholds.
But between the two, the Arctic of ship-crushing pack ice, of surface expeditions to the Pole, of Amundsen overwintering three years in the Northwest Passage... has vanished right before our eyes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
480. yoboi
Link


fracking gag order............
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1978
Current Political System Incapable of Meeting Social, Economic, Environmental Challenges (Op-Ed)

It's a commonplace sentiment that politics in America is broken. Each week brings more evidence of deadlock in Washington, of social and economic decay and of disillusionment. The debased nature of politics, however, is only the most superficial symptom of our problems. Beneath the surface-level partisan bickering, much deeper currents have begun to shift.

Recent polls, for instance, show that roughly 80 percent of Americans believe their Congressional representatives to be "more interested in serving the needs of special interests groups" than "the people they represent." Almost four out of five believe a few rich people and corporations have much too much power. And only 37 percent - not much more than a third of the population - have confidence in the most solemn and august of American institutions, the Supreme Court.

It is clear that something different is going on - both with the economy and, more fundamentally, with democracy itself. The data on long-running trends are clear:

Real wages for roughly 80 percent of American workers have not gone up more than a trivial amount for at least three decades. At the same time, income for the top 1 percent has jumped from 10 percent of all income to roughly 20 percent. Put another way: Virtually all the gains of the entire economic system have gone to a tiny, tiny group at the top - for at least three decades.

Another disturbing trend: Almost 50 million Americans live in officially defined poverty. The rate is higher, not lower than in the late 1960s. Moreover, if we use the measuring standard common throughout the advanced world - half of median income - the number would be just below 70 million, and the rate almost 23 percent.

This is to say nothing of an unemployment rate that, if properly measured, is stuck in the range of roughly 14 to 15 percent. At the same time, a record 46.7 million Americans were on food stamps in 2012, up by 51 percent from the depths of recession in October 2008: another milestone on our collective road of decay.

And looming over all this, of course, is the mother of all difficulties: the building climate crisis.



more at Truth-Out.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 467. galvestonhurricane:

North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that’ climatedepot.com

From Media Matters for America:

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called "the Matt Drudge of climate denial," the "king of the skeptics," and "a central cell of the climate-denial machine," and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a "con job" based on "subprime science." Morano gained prominence working for two of the most vocal climate deniers in the U.S.: Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who notoriously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and Rush Limbaugh, who we named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year in 2011 for his steadfast denial of climate science and wild conspiracy theories about the climate change "hoax."

These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media's attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. The site was instrumental in manufacturing the 2009 "Climategate" controversy, which Morano incorrectly claimed exposed "deliberate manipulation of facts and data" by climate scientists. Morano is a darling of the organization most committed to climate denial, the Heartland Institute. He regularly speaks at their conferences and defended their controversial billboard comparing those who accept climate science to "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" including the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

Due to his history of smears and lies, Morano's media influence is usually confined to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. But in December, CNN invited him to "debate" Bill Nye on climate science, and in doing so elevated his marginal views to the mainstream press for the first time all year. For all this, Marc Morano has earned the distinction of 2012 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.

Read More>>

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Two Energy Futures: Barriers to Clean Energy Political, Not Technological

For Canadians looking for inspiration in the fight for a cleaner and fairer energy future, there’s a valuable new resource available at Two Energy Futures. Created by the activist group UK Tar Sands Network, the website provides visitors with a detailed infographic that shows the contrast between a fossil-fuelled future and a future powered by clean, renewable energy.

Projecting from our current energy usage, the first future shows that continued reliance on fossil fuels would mean a steady expansion of extreme energy sources, including fracking, deep-sea drilling and the tar sands. The climate impacts of these dirty energy sources will be increasingly severe, and the social implications include intensified global conflicts and the further exploitation of vulnerable populations.

While the parameters of our current trajectory should be familiar, the cleaner, fairer energy future contains a surprise: the world’s energy needs could be met using current levels of technology in wind, solar and other renewables. Coupled with transformations in transportation infrastructure and the elimination of the undue political influence of fossil fuel companies, this future presents an outline for averting the worst effects of climate change and building more just societies.

The aim of Two Energy Futures is not simply to help us envision a better world. What the site shows is that we have the technology right now to phase out fossil fuel production and transition to an economy that relies on clean, renewable energy. The next time someone tells you that we have to be reasonable when it comes to energy policy, show them the Two Futures site. There’s nothing reasonable about continuing fossil fuel production.

Read more at DeSmogBlog

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742
Quoting 467. galvestonhurricane:
North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold %u2013 Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record %u2014 %u2018Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that%u2019
Link

So summer is over then? I ask because it appears to be summer still on my calendar. Is he using a metric calendar or something? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Took me a year to figure out the image thingee myself.

And boy now I have a lot of Bandwitdh being chewed up after 7 years on wu.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125552
Quoting 473. FLwolverine:
It's even worse than that, Pat. Climate Depot refers back to the Steven Goddard website (which for some reason they don't link to).

But they are all using a daily mean temperature chart from the DMI site, and that's pretty interesting. Site here: Link sorry, I haven't advanced to the stage of posting images yet. :-)


Who in his/her right mind would link to Goddard's site?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2742
Quoting 470. Patrap:
The "Climate Depot" is a avowed Denialist Website that has NO base in Science what so ever.
.
It's even worse than that, Pat. Climate Depot refers back to the Steven Goddard website (which for some reason they don't link to).

But they are all using a daily mean temperature chart from the DMI site, and that's pretty interesting. Site here: Link sorry, I haven't advanced to the stage of posting images yet. :-)
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
Quoting 464. Birthmark:

Who is this "poster on another board?"
Look in the lower lefthand corner of the graph. It looks like the data are from here:

The IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS) is a geoinformatics facility for satellite image analysis and computational modeling/visualization in support of international collaboration in Arctic and global change research at the International Arctic Research Center in cooperation with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
Quoting 469. RevElvis:

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

- "Life-Line" by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939



RevElvis - that is a fantastic quote. Definitely a keeper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The "Climate Depot" is a avowed Denialist Website that has NO base in Science what so ever.


Climate Depot

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125552
Arizona's biggest power utility wants to tax solar

Arizona's biggest power utility, Arizona Public Service (APS), has announced their intention to implement what would effectively be a tax on the sun. The whole idea behind net-metering is that if you install a solar system on the roof of your house or business, you can buy power from the grid when you need it, and sell extra power when you have a surplus. Often these rates are advantageous to provide an incentive for renewable energy adoption, a very fair thing considering all the subsidies, direct and indirect, that fossil fuels have had for decades.

But APS would like to start charging a monthly fee to sell clean power back to the grid (in their Orwellian language, they call it a "convenience charge"). A source says that that the fee could be of around $100/month or $1,200/year, enough to change the economic attractiveness of small systems. It's not entirely clear if the fee scales up for larger systems, but that seems likely.

In a conference call before the Arizona plan was submitted, APS executives estimated that the average net-metering return today is between $0.15-$0.16 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), saving the average residential customer about 70% off their bill, reports GreentechMedia. The first option proposed by APS would reduce the customer's return to $0.06-$0.10 per kWh. The second would reduce a system owner's savings by about 50%. (source)

Arizona boasts the highest installed solar capacity per capita in the U.S. at 167 watts/person, or about 1,097 megawatts (MW) of cumulative capacity. But that's just the beginning, the state has huge untapped solar potential, but it's not by attacking net-metering policies and that they will be developed.

more at TreeHugger.com


"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

- "Life-Line" by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Alpine glaciers "protect mountain peaks from erosion"

Instead of wearing mountains down, evidence from Europe's high Alps shows that glaciers shield summits from erosion, acting as a protective lid.

French scientists studied erosion on Mont Blanc, western Europe's highest peak, below and around its glaciers.

Cold ice at the highest points froze to the mountain rock and played little part in erosion, the team said.

In contrast, water and rain eroded glacier-free areas 10 times faster than areas protected by the glacier.

Around the globe, mountain glaciers - especially those at low latitudes - are retreating in response to climate change, scientists say.

Reports earlier this year indicated that glaciers around Mount Everest had lost more than one eight of their area in the past 50 years, and the snowline had retreated 180 metres up the mountain sides.

Dr Godon's results suggest that changes like these could change the shapes of the world's highest mountains, and that climate and mountain landscape are intimately linked.

more at www.bbc.co.uk
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record — ‘Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that’
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 464. Birthmark:

Who is this "poster on another board?"


Lil Anthony Watts we presume maybe ?

ACK !



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125552
Big Nuke Company Decides Renewables Are a Better Bet in the US

The world's largest operator of nuclear power plants is dumping its stake in American reactors, turning its focus instead to wind and solar power.

French utility company EDF announced this week that it will sell its stake in Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which operates five nuclear reactors in New York and Maryland.

EDF cited cheap power produced by fracked natural gas as the big reason why it's abandoning its American nuclear facilities. But the company said it will now focus its American business strategy not on fossil fuels but on renewable energy.

The French utility's pullout comes as nuclear power plants shutter in California, Florida, and Wisconsin. The price of operating nuclear power plants has risen as the plants have grown older. Hopes of nuclear power being "too cheap to meter" were long ago dashed. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow at the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment, recently published a 40-page obituary [PDF] for the nuclear industry. From an article published a couple of weeks ago in The Plain Dealer:

Cooper, who thinks nuclear energy's cost overruns and frequent shutdowns have always made it more expensive than it appears, recommends that the industry develop an orderly closing plan over the next few years, avoiding the rate chaos that unplanned closings might create.

"In 2013, more (nuclear) capacity retired early than in any year of the U.S. commercial nuclear sector," he said in a press briefing. "In recent months, four reactors have been closed in early retirement, five major up-rates (increases in generating capacity) were cancelled.

"The bottom line is that the tough times the nuclear power industry faces today are only going to get tougher. Over three dozen reactors in almost two dozen states are at risk of early retirement. And a dozen face the greatest risk of being shut down," he said.

more at ReaderSupportedNews.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 456. Snowlover123:


Another small loss on JAXA.

Even if we see 2009-2010 type declines in August, we will still be around 5 million kilometers^2 for the minimum.



Graph above made by a poster on another board.

CT has not seen much in the way of losses for about a week or so now.


Who is this "poster on another board?"
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176
Quoting 462. no1der:
Cold in the central basin, yes, but depending on how the dipole sets up, a lot of ice could get pushed out the Fram. 
And strangely enough, could that dispersion even inflate the extent metric enough to offset the expected losses in the Beaufort? At this stage, the overall extent numbers are not a useful indicator of the health of the system. That's for Sept.


I agree. No single metric can tell the story of the melting season while it's in progress.

And there are some aspects that don't show up in the numbers directly. The Pole Hole above, for example, isn't going to produce anything remarkable in the numbers. But it may be (or may not be) a remarkable situation.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5176

Viewing: 513 - 463

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

Scattered Clouds
45 °F
Scattered Clouds