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: 463 - 413

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

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: 5469
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.
Quoting 457. Snowlover123:
Looking at the Ensembles should give you a better idea of what the pattern going forward will deliver in the Arctic. The CAA and Southern Beaufort are going to get torched, so some higher losses can be expected from there. The good news is that the thinnest ice, and the rest of the Arctic Basin should remain very cold though.


Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 537
Filling in the gaps 2013, here's a look at our PWS network in action.

Published on Aug 2, 2013

At Weather Underground, our mission is provide the most accurate weather information for everyone around the globe. Our PWS (Personal Weather Station) Network is made up of thousands of individual weather station owners who collect and send data to us, giving us more real-time weather data than any official station network.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129780
Federal solar energy program could save U.S. $50 billion per year by 2050

http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/08/Screen-shot-2013-08-02-at-12.08.54-PM.png

more at RawStory.com (CleanTechnica)


SunShot Solar Power Reduces Costs and Uncertainty in Future Low-Carbon Electricity System (Abstract)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 957
The Human collective is a complicated one.

And now with this ever increasing connectivity, the Hive Mind is not taking the BS from the Fossil Fuel Funded denial machine. Everything around you, now think about this carefully, is from Human thought. Everything save for the Natural World.

Now that we've become all we can be in a way, we have to evolve, or our current way of life,brought about by Human thought, will definitely destroy us all.

First of all, AGW/CLimate Change denialist don't matter, and they NEVER have.

People say we can't affect the Planet.

Well I beg to differ, as we have the complete and Final means of destruction 40,000 times over.

That's the approx number of Nuclear Warheads on the Planet currently.

We must evolve in a Mindful way.

Fractures are everywhere, we know things almost in real time that can tip the Balance in a day.

Hold close the thought of evolving.

If not, well, the future is warm, Dim,and short maybe.

Just food for "thought".

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129780
Quoting 456. Snowlover123:


Another small loss on JAXA.

Even if we see 2009-2011 type declines in August, we will still be around 5 million kilometers^2 for the minimum.

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

The extent is doing better, but I'm waiting for the July volume to come out. The volume has been running over 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2012 baseline. Link

Either way you slice it, it's another massive loss of ice during the summer.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3960
Looking at the Ensembles should give you a better idea of what the pattern going forward will deliver in the Arctic. The CAA and Southern Beaufort are going to get torched, so some higher losses can be expected from there. The good news is that the thinnest ice, and the rest of the Arctic Basin should remain very cold though.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:


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.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 454. FLwolverine:
JohnL and Birthmark, could you give some explanation of this and why it's significant? I assume from the context that it's not good but I don't know enough to understand why.

Thanks of putting up with my lack of background.


Birthmark probably understands better than I, but I'll wing it.

The mosiac shows poor ice conditions at the Pole;
the amination predicts a polar dipole forming which leds to ice being blown out the Fram Strait.

There is a discussion of what's going on here at Neven's Forum. Here is an animation of temperatures in the Arctic thru 10 Aug.



So in short, the images show poor ice, warm temperatures and and winds which should disperse the ice. Hope this helps.
BTW, what little I know about ice, I got from Neven's blog and forum.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Quoting 451. JohnLonergan:


I guess you've already seen this

JohnL and Birthmark, could you give some explanation of this and why it's significant? I assume from the context that it's not good but I don't know enough to understand why.

Thanks of putting up with my lack of background.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2438
From Peter Sinclair at Climate Denial Crock of the Week

a href="http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/02/i-for-on e-welcome-our-new-brain-eating-overlords/" target="_blank">I, for One, Welcome our New Brain Eating Overlords…

<

It seems there is an increasing geographic occurrence of infections from an amoeba that attacks brain tissue – it is now being seen in areas further north than has been historically recorded, likely due to warmer water conditions.

I hope I’m not accused of being too flip with this one. Ok, I probably am. The most recent tragedy involving a 12 year old girl is not funny.

But the larger issue of climate denying politicians ignoring warning signals is what’s really important here. Not long ago, uber-denier James Inhofe contracted a severe illness from toxic algae in overheated Oklahoma lake waters, and laughed it off. Maybe the brain-eaters got to him as well.

Add this to the recent report in Science that warmer temperatures lead to increased violence, and you’ve got yourself the ingredients for a zombie apocalypse. That’s all I’m sayin’.

Read more >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
This study demonstrates what I consider a major problem with any adaptation schemes. Climate changes are occurring too rapidly for species to adapt.

Ecosystems Face Unprecedented ‘Climate Change Velocity’

Over the next century, plants and animals on land might be in for a wild and ultimately devastating ride. Warming temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme weather and climate events are likely to increase at a rate and magnitude not seen in more than 65 million years, according to a new study published Thursday in the journal Science.

Couple that with other human-related ecosystem disruptions, from highways to deforestation to pollution, and some species could find themselves pushed to the top of the mountain or the tip of a continent with no suitable habitat left in which to move.


Global average surface temperatures have risen about twice as fast over land during the past century as they have over the ocean, a trend likely to continue into the next century. Based on the current emissions trajectory, temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 9°F over much of the Earth’s land, the study found. The last time the Earth warmed that much was around 55 million years ago. Only the cooling that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs tops the magnitude of change over the past 65 million years.

“The key difference is the rate of change,” said co-author Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, in an interview. “The combination of rate and magnitude over the next century is unprecedented. In the context of the geological record of the last 65 million years, this (change in the 21st century) is likely to be an order of magnitude, or two or three orders, more rapid.”
When Earth warmed 55 million years ago, it did so over 10,000 years. The projected change over the next century provides a small window in which life on Earth, including humans, will need to adapt to a similar change in temperatures.

Read more at Climate Central >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Quoting 450. Birthmark:


Is it me, or is there going to be open water at the North Pole soon?


I guess you've already seen this

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652


Is it me, or is there going to be open water at the North Pole soon?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 448. BaltimoreBrian:


Oooh I didn't see that, adding it to my list now. Thanks!


No need to worry we can adapt back to what we were 65 million years ago...




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 439. Naga5000:
Don't know if it's been posted before, but Scientific American has a good piece on global warming.

"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this." Link


Oooh I didn't see that, adding it to my list now. Thanks!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8850
Several Tornado articles at NY Times by Andrew C. Revkin (a number of other climate related articles as well)

Seeking Clarity on Terrible Tornadoes in a Changing Climate

A Survival Plan for America's Tornado Danger Zone

More on Tornadoes, Floods, Climate and Risk

In Tornado Zones, Seeking Shelter From the Storm

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 957
Quoting 438. OldLeatherneck:


Xulonn,

Those aren't photos of CB's family. That last fella was the Chief Engineer of CB's design team!


In fact so smart is he even a caveman can figure it out..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 430. pintada:



My thoughts in part.

Outstanding post, pintada. I agree completely.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 416. yoboi:



We better learn to adapt.....because I really don't see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.....what are your thoughts??????

Societal collapse, famine, war, and extinction are adaptations...of a sort. I expect the first three, though not necessarily in the ordered listed. The fourth is possible, but highly unlikely.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 412. Snowlover123:


No one disagrees that burning of Fossil Fuels contributes to warming. The central question is how much warming.

As a percentage, somewhere between 70% and over 100%. Depends upon how it is analyzed.

As air temperature, 2.0-4.5C/doubling of atmospheric CO2. The uncertainty isn't in the warming produced by CO2, but by the feedbacks caused by the warming caused by CO2.

You know this.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 405. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, they do have a green team. I cannot tell you how sincere Exxon is with this green team, but at the level they are working on (internerships for highschool students in the Dallas area) is a good PR move and helps to assure that the status quo remains in place for as long as possible. At least this is how I see it. As nothing more than a lip service. Time, in which Exxon is trying to buy here, will tell.

What I can say is that I did some contract work for Exxon for a couple of years. My memory is that they treated their employees very well and were very conscientious generally. Of course, that was pre-Valdez, so it's not terribly recent.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 438. OldLeatherneck:


Xulonn,

Those aren't photos of CB's family. That last fella was the Chief Engineer of CB's design team!


Smart fella isn't he?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Don't know if it's been posted before, but Scientific American has a good piece on global warming.

"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this." Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3960
Quoting 427. Xulonn:
Please stop posting family photos here at the CC forum!!! ;-)


Xulonn,

Those aren't photos of CB's family. That last fella was the Chief Engineer of CB's design team!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
EX-DORIAN @78.5W & 26.5N NE@5 and TWC is running stupid shows on roman wars....LOL..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 435. pintada:


Yes, but look how happy he appears. That Mona Lisa smile is coming from good healthy livin' no doubt.


He's a thinker too look at his head resting on his fist...He knew back then that melting summertime Arctic Ice would cause problems in the future...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 422. cyclonebuster:


Yes let's adapt...



Yes, but look how happy he appears. That Mona Lisa smile is coming from good healthy livin' no doubt.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Isn't that how we looked the last time the summertime Arctic Ice melted out??? What makes us think we won't look like that again?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 431. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am curious as to how he gained access to my family's old photo album. o_0


Negative,that is a look into our future if we let Summertime Arctic Ice melt...That's how we will adapt..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 431. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am curious as to how he gained access to my family's old photo album. o_0


And mine! Somehow he's hacked into all of our ancient family photo albums...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 427. Xulonn:
Please stop posting family photos here at the CC forum!!! ;-)


I am curious as to how he gained access to my family's old photo album. o_0
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting 412. Snowlover123:
No one disagrees that burning of Fossil Fuels contributes to warming. The central question is how much warming.

Quoting 416. yoboi:

We better learn to adapt.....because I really don't see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.....what are your thoughts??????


My thoughts in part.

Sure, lets adapt:

1. You had better learn how to grow your own food.
2. Get used to (and protect yourself from) extreme drought followed by extreme precipitation. (i.e. Locate your farm at the head of a major river and above the 1000 year flood plain. And, your well had better be deep.)
3. Get ready to defend yourself from refugees. Coastal flooding will send them your way.
4. Somehow protect yourself from the current corporatist (soon to be fascist) gomment. I cant help you there except you should learn to keep your head down. (eg This post might come back to bite me. All it would take for me to have problems is one NSA agent in a bad mood.)
5. Protect yourself from wildfire.
6. Mourn the passing of the natural world you grew up in.
7. Mourn the passing of this civilization.

On the other hand, maybe someone could do something rational ... nah.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 427. Xulonn:
Please stop posting family photos here at the CC forum!!! ;-)Quoting 427. Xulonn:
Please stop posting family photos here at the CC forum!!! ;-)


Is that a new rule?
LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
The Rise of Rubber Takes Toll On Forests of Southwest China

Yale Environment 360
01 AUG 2013:
by Mike Ives


Today more than one fifth of Xishuangbanna is planted in rubber, both by individual villagers and large companies, and the noxious smell of rubber processing hangs in the air on Jinhong%u2019s rural outskirts. But those are the least of the problems created as monoculture rubber plantations have replaced exceptionally biodiverse forests and contributed to a host of emerging environmental problems. These include topsoil erosion, rising stresses on watersheds and hydrological cycles, and reduced rates of carbon sequestration, according to scientific studies. The plantations also carve up the habitat of native animals like Asian elephants and white-cheeked gibbons, according to a 2012 study by the scientists R. Edward Grumbine and Xu Jianchu.

The government has outlined in a recent five-year plan a program to convert under-performing rubber plantations back to natural forest while also planting trees along stream beds to prevent erosion and restore animal and bird habitats. However, Janet Sturgeon of Canada%u2019s Simon Fraser University says the program should target state-owned or state-affiliated rubber companies, but that likely would clash with the political status quo.


Read much more at link above.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 422. cyclonebuster:


Yes let's adapt...

Please stop posting family photos here at the CC forum!!! ;-)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1540
Quoting 418. JohnLonergan:
Where SkS-Material gets used - Coursera's Climate Literacy Course

On May 17, 2013 'Climate Literacy' - a MOOC (massive open online course) offered from the University of British Columbia (UBC) via the Coursera platform - kicked off with a first email from the instructors Dr. Sara Harris and Dr. Sarah Burch...snip
I took the course - and thought it was excellent. I didn't learn a lot, since I have a degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from U.C. Berkeley, and have been reading about and studying AGW/CC Climate Change for several years. However, the course did fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge of AGW/CC. Plus, it was fun communicating with and reading posts by people of all ages from around the world who were interested in and concerned about AGW/CC. For many of them, this was their first serious effort to learn the science.

Although I didn't see a number, it was obvious that hundreds of people were taking the course - very encouraging!

I started a thread on climate denialism at the one of the class discussion forums during the first week, and it became by far (about a factor of three) the most plussed, responded to and active thread there. In fact, it was so popular, that the professors changed the rules on the contribution of "plusses" on forum posts to the grading method - LOL!!

I was surprised at the small cadre of vociferous denialists among my cyber-classmates who had actually enrolled in the class. They posted bad-science and non-science denialist crap that was counter to what they supposedly learning. However, just like here at the WU/CC forum, intelligent and mostly articulate people stepped in and rebutted the typical denialist b.s.

And I was pleased to see so much class material taken from SkepticalScience.com, the flagship on anti-denialism science reporting.


Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1540
USCGC Healy has entered the Arctic region. No ice in sight.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:


A NASA map depicts the land surface temperature anomalies occurring in northern Siberia during July 20-27. Areas of red indicate regions where temperatures were above the average during July, while blues indicate cooler than normal temperatures. (NASA)



In this satellite photo, taken on July 25, wildfires burn in the Khanty-Mansiyskiy and Yamal-Nenetskiy districts, a region far north of where Russia’s summer wildfires usually burn. (NASA)

Source
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
‘Frack Gag’ Bans Children From Talking About Fracking, Forever

BY ANDREW BREINER ON AUGUST 2, 2013 AT 12:23 PM | CLIMATE PROGRESS

Interior Secretary Invites Climate Deniers to Visit Public Lands, Right-Wing Freaks Out

BY JESSICA GOAD, GUEST BLOGGER AND MATT LEE-ASHLEY, GUEST BLOGGER ON AUGUST 2, 2013 AT 10:10 AM | CLIMATE PROGRESS

What Are Exxon, Shell, And ConocoPhillips Doing With Their Billions In Q2 Profits?

BY GABRIEL MENDOLA AND TIFFANY GERMAIN, GUEST BLOGGER ON AUGUST 1, 2013 AT 5:30 PM | CLIMATE PROGRESS
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 416. yoboi:



We better learn to adapt.....because I really don't see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.....what are your thoughts??????


Yes let's adapt...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Where is zampaz?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 412. Snowlover123:


No one disagrees that burning of Fossil Fuels contributes to warming. The central question is how much warming.


Enough warming to melt all the summertime Artic Ice at the North Pole... Do you see a problem with that?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
Quoting 416. yoboi:



We better learn to adapt.....because I really don't see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.....what are your thoughts??????


I agree with you Yoboi. These will be no sudden mass exodus from fossil fuels any time soon. It is more likely that the fossil fuels will just price themselves out of the market before it is likely that the people will make a committed effort to oust those in power that will continue to block any efforts to move us towards renewable energy sources that are less prone to adding to the CO2 emissions. (say that in one breath!) While it is true that the Republican leadership has a political platform that denies the science of the AGWT, it is also true that party officials, of any party, from a state that has a fossil fuel industry will stand behind the fossil fuel industry of that state.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Where SkS-Material gets used - Coursera's Climate Literacy Course

On May 17, 2013 'Climate Literacy' - a MOOC (massive open online course) offered from the University of British Columbia (UBC) via the Coursera platform - kicked off with a first email from the instructors Dr. Sara Harris and Dr. Sarah Burch:

"Welcome to Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations. You are among thousands of students from around the world currently registered for this course. Climate Literacy offers an unparalleled opportunity to have a meaningful, informed conversation about climate change. Despite the shifting winds of public opinion and intricate political machinations, it’s hard to miss the ongoing conversation surrounding climate change. Stories are emerging from around the globe: rising sea levels and eroding coral islands in the Maldives; increasing hurricane activity affecting the U.S. eastern seaboard and Gulf coast; drought in central Africa; declining amphibian populations in the Amazon. …."

What followed has been an excellent example of how these types of online courses should be done:
•Professionally produced videos with the instructors addressing us - the students - directly
•Presented by two engaging instructors who clearly put a lot of effort into this first iteration of the course
•Accompanying materials like video-transcripts and slides made available for download
•Clearly structured overall course layout with outlines for each weekly module made available on Fridays
•Reasonable deadlines to turn in course work

Over the course of 10 weeks, we tackled the various aspects of climate change in modules called 'The Conversation', 'Climate System', 'Energy', 'Carbon', 'Models', 'Future Climate', 'Impacts', 'Mitigation', 'Adaptation' and 'Taking Action'. The first 6 modules were presented by Dr. Sara Harris who teaches global climate change, environmental science, and oceanography in the department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia. She has a PhD in Oceanography from Oregon State University and a research background in paleoceanography and paleoclimate. With module 7, Dr. Sarah Burch took over. She is Assistant Professor of Climate and Society at the University of Waterloo, but co-created the course during her time as a Banting Postdoctoral Research Fellow at UBC. She has a PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies from UBC and focuses on climate change and sustainability governance.

Read More >>

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
Quoting 415. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I thought that the answer was obvious. Enough to tip the scales of balance. How heavy handed do you want the contribution to be?

Have you asked the Koch brothers lately about their opinion on agw?


The answer is over 100% and a summary of the peer reviewed literature can be found here:

Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming

The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

Apparently snowlover missed it at post 110.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
416. yoboi
Quoting 409. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Not only does Exxon admit that agw is real, but Rex Tillerson admits that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to the warming. He could have said that it is land use or other means of agw, but he admitted to the fossil fuel use contributions to the warming. He also says that we will adapt to the warming climate. How much faith do you put into those words?



We better learn to adapt.....because I really don't see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.....what are your thoughts??????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 412. Snowlover123:


No one disagrees that burning of Fossil Fuels contributes to warming. The central question is how much warming.


I thought that the answer was obvious. Enough to tip the scales of balance. How heavy handed do you want the contribution to be?

Have you asked the Koch brothers lately about their opinion on agw?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
It's climate scientists, not concern trolls who champion the scientific method
Warren Pearce has mistaken concern trolling for caring about the scientific method.

The Guardian Political Science section recently published an article written by social science researcher Warren Pearce from the University of Nottingham. In that piece, Pearce asked if climate "sceptics" (or "skeptics" in my preferred American English) are "the real champions of the scientific method."

This reminded me of a recent guest post on Pearce's blog that focused on the exchanges between Ed Davey, Andrew Neil, and myself (to which Pearce gave me the opportunity to respond). The author of that post completely ignored the many scientific errors made by Neil and his refusal to consider all available evidence, concluding,
"Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences. Along the way, it is possible that Neil made some inconsequential technical mistakes."


To be clear, Neil's comments were not "inconsequential technical mistakes." They were glaring errors, including ignoring 98 percent of the relevant global warming data and repeating long-debunked climate myths. That is not how to "promote an active understanding of climate science".

Read more in The Guardian
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3652
-53 K on JAXA. The Pacific side looks fantastic compared to 2012 this year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 463 - 413

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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.