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: 1113 - 1063

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 1110. ScottLincoln:


And your basis for this "I think" is?


he's gotten into Game of Thrones?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cross posted from Birthmark's blog:

I found this on Bart Verheegan's blog:

The fallacy of the middle ground

here’s been quite some climate discussion in the Political Science section of the Guardian lately. Warren Pearce had an invited post in which he asked the rhetorical question “Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?”

He makes some good observations about the dynamics of the public debate and the nature of skepticism (e.g. most contrarians don’t deny the basic physics underlying the greenhouse effect, but rather dispute the magnitude of warming that would result from an increased greenhouse effect). On the other hand, he misses the mark in other areas (e.g. he correctly describes how contrarians see themselves but doesn’t investigate how their argumentation really stacks up; often they are guilty of what they accuse mainstream science of).

My main beef with his piece though is his flawed argument of why a well-known contrarian blogger like Anthony Watts, according to Pearce, should be seen as someone who “seeks to uphold standards, through transparent and auditable scientific practice” and “a ‘mainstream’ sceptic who can challenge key areas of climate science without entering into pseudoscience”. Why this praise? Because Watts publicly disagreed with the fringe group Principia Scientific who deny the basic physics underlying the greenhouse effect (which was first established in the 19th century).

That is not a logical argument to make though: Regardless of what one may think of Watts, contrasting an extremist with someone who is even more extreme doesn’t make him mainstream. Regardless of what one thinks of Watts, contrasting someone who frequently flirts with pseudoscience with an all-out pseudo-science lover doesn’t free the former from any link with pseudo-science.

That is what I would call the fallacy of the middle ground.




Dana Nuccitelli described it as follows:

Pearce’s question is like asking whether moon landing conspiracy theorists are the real champions of the scientific method because they don’t believe the moon is made of cheese.

That shows the illogical nature of Pearce’s argument quite well. I tried (rather unsuccessfully) a very dry analogy to take the heat out of the argument by tweeting

3 is smaller than 10 even though 1 is even further removed from 10

Regarding Watts’ position on climate science, Dana correctly states

However, aside from accepting the 150-year-old science behind the greenhouse effect, Watts will latch onto any argument so long as it suggests that the human role in global warming is minimal – an attitude also known as ABC (Anything But Carbon).

In response to my criticism that he had fallen victim to ‘the fallacy of the middle’ Warren Pearce asked me on his Guardian post:

Hello Bart, thanks for your comment – much appreciated. Of course, it would be wrong to argue that someone occupied the ‘middle ground’ just because someone else holds a more extreme position.

The point I was trying to make was not that Watts necessarily ‘became’ a mainstream figure by distancing himself from Principia Scientific, only that such an act was a necessary precursor of him having any scientific credibility (I provide no argument here on whether Watts does or does not have such credibility).

You argue that Watts “frequently flirts with pseudoscience”. If you have time, I would be interested to know why you think Principia were treated the way they were, and whether other ‘pseudoscience’ has been given a more sympathetic hearing.

It seems that he is packpedaling a little bit here, or perhaps I misunderstood him the first time around? I have no beef with the argument that someone who aligns themselves with the dragon-slayers has no scientific credibility, but the reverse (having credibility because of distancing oneself from this fringe group) is not necessarily true. As Dana wrote, that’s setting a very low bar. Pearce sure gave many readers the impression of arguing that Watts has such credibility.

Pearce asks why imho Watts would have distanced himself from the slayers. I can think of various reasons, but I don’t claim to know how (un)important these were for Watts:

- Perhaps he understands enough physics to know that they don’t have a leg to stand on

- Perhaps he accepts basic physics because it’s been around un-falsified and confirmed for so long

- Perhaps he takes his cues from the more scientifically minded contrarians (such as Roy Spencer and Judith Curry), who have publicly chastised the dragon-slayers for having no credibility whatsoever.

- Perhaps he felt that aligning himself with this fringe group (who are criticized by most scientifically minded contrarians) would marginalize him.

- Perhaps he felt that it was a strategically smart move to criticize people with even more contrarian ideas, so that he could place himself (or be placed) in the middle ground (i.e. appealing to the fallacy of the middle by moving the Overton Window). It worked, apparently.

The second question that Pearce asks if other ‘pseudoscience’ has been given a more sympathetic hearing. One example I can think of is the argument that the increase in CO2 concentration may not be human induced after all, but of natural origin. The isotopes of atmospheric CO2 are however as clear a sign as you can get in science that most of the excess concentration originates from fossil fuel burning. This is only marginally less ‘pseudo’ than denying the greenhouse effect. Or trying to explain global warming by curve fitting, also a popular pastime at contrarian blogs, but very befitting of the pseudoscience label.

The bottom line: Ideas that are clearly nonsense do not gain in credibility if someone comes up with an even more nonsensical idea.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3178
1111. Xandra
From Forecast The Facts:

TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA: DON'T FRACK ON PUBLIC LANDS

According to President Obama, fracked natural gas “can provide not only safe cheap power, but it can only help reduce our carbon emissions.”

Unfortunately, the facts of fracking tell a different story: damaged water supplies, poisoned land, air pollution, and a global-warming impact that could be as bad as or worse than burning coal. It appears the Obama Administration has decided that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas -- fracking -- is safe and climate-friendly without regard to the scientific facts.

The Bureau of Land Management has proposed a set of rules that will allow fracking on 600 million acres of federal land, and is accepting public comments until August 23. We need to flood them with comments opposing this policy.

We’re joining with Daily Kos activists with a petition to President Obama demanding a ban on fracking on all federal lands. We will hand deliver your signatures and comments to the Bureau of Land Management before the August 23 deadline.

THE PETITION

The following petition will be delivered to President Barack Obama and the Bureau of Land Management:

Dear President Obama:

Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. Please ban fracking on public lands now.

SIGN HERE
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting 1088. overwash12:
I think the weather cycle of colder winters is upon us. Let's see what effect Global warming has on this cycle,shall we?


And your basis for this "I think" is?
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3170
Quoting 1108. Birthmark:


That's an outstanding video, John. It puts things in the right perspective in terms almost anyone can understand.


My percentages were 93 percent survival if I took chemotherapy.... 7 percent chance of it not working...

97% chance of death in 3 years if I refused chemotherapy..

Which choice do you think I picked...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1103. JohnLonergan:
Decision making under uncertainty
A. E. Dessler Video


That's an outstanding video, John. It puts things in the right perspective in terms almost anyone can understand.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1107. barbamz
Weird weather in parts of Europe and a threat for farming. It's too dry in most parts of Germany, too (link to the drought monitor), and though the forecast of more days and weeks of fine summer weather is convenient for daily life, it isn't for nature and agriculture.

Drought shrivels harvest in Central Europe
Deutsche Welle English, August 16, 2013
Farmers in Austria and Hungary are rethinking climate change as a bitter drought tears through their fields. How will they grow food if the weather is so unpredictable? ...
For farmers in Austria and across the border in Hungary this is just the latest bout of extreme weather to ravage their fields. In March, temperatures dropped to record lows. This was followed in May and June by some of the worst flooding the region has seen in recent history. Now, high temperatures and poor rainfall threaten to wipeout what is left of this year's harvest...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1104. SouthernIllinois:

Volume, area, AND extend looking bleak. The Arctic is warming fast.

We've had a bit of a bounce-back this year that will probably hold through the season. We had a similar bounce-back after the dramatic 2007 minimum, in both 2008 and 2009. I can guess what the denialists will say this year because of what they said in 2008.

Expect to hear the word "recovery" and probably some percentages and rampant speculation (or outright claims) that the ice will now continue to expand. (Of course it will...all winter.)

I've seen this show a couple of times.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1105. yoboi
Quoting 1104. SouthernIllinois:

Volume, area, AND extend looking bleak.


sounds like a viagra commercial......;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Decision making under uncertainty
A. E. Dessler Video

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3178
Quoting 1101. Birthmark:

...is better than no ice?

(I'm pretty sure I know what you mean and it's not in the article, but others reading it may need an explanation.)


You mean a Tutorial?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1099. cyclonebuster:


Fast ice...

...is better than no ice?

(I'm pretty sure I know what you mean and it's not in the article, but others reading it may need an explanation.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1098. goosegirl1:


Awesome blog, and I have already put a miles-long comment there. Did anyone ever warn you not to allow me a place to speak freely? I always take advantage!

Feel free. I've already taken the liberty of disagreeing with you by 0.000000001 in that thread, so we have the makings of a first-rate geek-off. lol

Oh, and thanks.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1097. RevElvis:
Melting Ice Caps Could Trigger Tsunamis

Example of a submarine landslide complex along the southern New England continental margin

If melting ice caps trigger rapid sea level rise, the strain that the edges of continents could experience might set off underwater landslides, new research suggests.

Submarine landslides happen on every continental margin, the underwater parts of continental plates bordering oceanic plates. These underwater avalanches, which can happen when underwater slopes get hit by earthquakes or otherwise have too much weight loaded onto them, can generate dangerous tsunamis.

A staggering half of all the Earth moved by submarine landslides over the past 125,000 years apparently happened between 8,000 and 15,000 years ago. "This time period coincides with the period of most rapid sea level rise following the end of the last ice age," said study co-author Daniel Brothers, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Coastal and Marine Science Center in Woods Hole, Mass

more at LiveScience


Fast ice...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1084. Birthmark:

It's already in there already. I posted three blogs today. And that's all I'll do for a while.


Awesome blog, and I have already put a miles-long comment there. Did anyone ever warn you not to allow me a place to speak freely? I always take advantage!
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
Melting Ice Caps Could Trigger Tsunamis

Example of a submarine landslide complex along the southern New England continental margin

If melting ice caps trigger rapid sea level rise, the strain that the edges of continents could experience might set off underwater landslides, new research suggests.

Submarine landslides happen on every continental margin, the underwater parts of continental plates bordering oceanic plates. These underwater avalanches, which can happen when underwater slopes get hit by earthquakes or otherwise have too much weight loaded onto them, can generate dangerous tsunamis.

A staggering half of all the Earth moved by submarine landslides over the past 125,000 years apparently happened between 8,000 and 15,000 years ago. "This time period coincides with the period of most rapid sea level rise following the end of the last ice age," said study co-author Daniel Brothers, a geophysicist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Coastal and Marine Science Center in Woods Hole, Mass

more at LiveScience
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1096. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1093. overwash12:
Your not buying it,that's ok. You don't believe the weather follows patterns? Cycles of harsh winters. Like ones of recent past they were having in Eastern Europe.

Cycles have causes. Humans are very good at seeing patterns, so good in fact that we frequently see patterns where none actually exist. So IMO, if we don't have a cause, in general we don't have a cycle. It is possible that cycles exist which we can't explain, but such cycles (again, IMO) require fairly rigorous statistical support to ensure that we aren't just fooling ourselves.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Lot's of thin ice..


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1090. Birthmark:

What cycle is that, overwash?
Your not buying it,that's ok. You don't believe the weather follows patterns? Cycles of harsh winters. Like ones of recent past they were having in Eastern Europe.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting 1088. overwash12:
I think the weather cycle of colder winters is upon us. Let's see what effect Global warming has on this cycle,shall we?

What cycle is that, overwash?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1087. SouthernIllinois:

It's all good! I do the exact same thing....EVERY saturday morning. haha.

There's a morning on Saturday? Huh.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
I think the weather cycle of colder winters is upon us. Let's see what effect Global warming has on this cycle,shall we?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting 1085. SouthernIllinois:

Ummmm. Sarcasm. H-E-L-L-O. :) Common BM I know you're all tired for generating all your blogs today and taking in all the traffic but my friend humour is still my number 1 baby!! :P

Nat

Yeah, I just woke up. (I tuckered myself out earlier thinking about doing some work. Sleep is my natural defense to avoid actually *doing* any work.)

Sorry.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1082. goosegirl1:


I am so down for this :)) I will try to keep a watch for your new blog.

It's already in there already. I posted three blogs today. And that's all I'll do for a while.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1061. SouthernIllinois:

Oh this sucks. Time to re-calculate the data and start fresh.

Nope. The inaccuracies are accounted for in the data.

Turns out...scientists are really smart! Who knew?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 1056. zampaz:

Hi everyone, been busy, but happy to everyone still hard at work in the wunderground. I'm looking forward to Birthmark's new blog! :)
Regarding the philosophy of science, I love the everything from the "Scientific Method" to the history of science/mathematics. You cannot possibly go wrong with your idea Birthmark.
As I'm busy with other projects at the moment Birthmark, pop me a wumail so I don't miss your first post.


I am so down for this :)) I will try to keep a watch for your new blog.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
Quoting 1080. goosegirl1:


Best of luck with that... those with the highest IQs will normally lack the most "street smarts". Just look to academia for evidence.


Yep!Already at a disadvantage right from the get go... But there are those who do say it works so I have trust in them...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1078. cyclonebuster:


1.) Geo-engineering ruined the day without the geoengineers even knowing it.. If they can ruin the day then they can save the day... Still working it though... I just need someone who is smart with common sense...


Best of luck with that... those with the highest IQs will normally lack the most "street smarts". Just look to academia for evidence.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
The hardest thing to learn about physics is knowing where,when,why and how to use it....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 1076. Xulonn:
1) I don't believe that geo-engineering will save the day.

You're not doing squat these days, CB, and the proof is that all you can do it lash back when someone calls you on it. And of course, when, 20 years from now, when your scheme is long forgotten, you'll blame others for it's failure - and never, ever admit that you did little or nothing to promote your idea. Your scheme is a dream that just cannot seem to gain any traction for serious pilot-scale evaluation and testing. How many years has it been since you proposed your tunnels? What is the current status? Are you passionate enough about your idea to work hard and relentlessly every day to give it a chance, or are just hanging out here and doing nothing to advance your idea? And all the while you do nothing, you hope and pray that someone will recognize your genius and jump in, take command, and make it happen. It's sad that all you can do is give a quick retort and avoid giving us an update when we challenge you about your progress.

2) I do my part by living a life that is quite frugal, and do not propose pie-in-the-sky grandiose schemes. Until major governments stand up to the fossil fuel industry - and they won't until it's too late - nothing will happen. I don't have a lot of hope for our civilization.

3) I have a feeling that you will issue a quick and short response and ABSOLUTELY AVOID MY CHALLENGE, because you have nothing to show for all your bluster.

Take this as a challenge, and perhaps you'll make some progress.


1.) Geo-engineering ruined the day without the geoengineers even knowing it.. If they can ruin the day then they can save the day... Still working it though... I just need someone who is smart with common sense...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
1077. Xulonn
Quoting 1067. SteveDa1:


CEastwood, nobody needs to alter temperature records when glaciers worldwide are receding, summertime arctic sea ice is vanishing, sea levels are rising, and (most obvious of all...) the rest of the world is getting warmer--not just the U.S.
Although I have CEastwood on ignore, it appears from others' responses to his b.s. that he is totally clueless about the term "multiple lines of evidence."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1076. Xulonn
Quoting 1052. cyclonebuster:


At least I am doing something about it.. What's your plan?
1) I don't believe that geo-engineering will save the day.

You're not doing squat these days, CB, and the proof is that all you can do it lash back when someone calls you on it. And of course, when, 20 years from now, when your scheme is long forgotten, you'll blame others for it's failure - and never, ever admit that you did little or nothing to promote your idea. Your scheme is a dream that just cannot seem to gain any traction for serious pilot-scale evaluation and testing. How many years has it been since you proposed your tunnels? What is the current status? Are you passionate enough about your idea to work hard and relentlessly every day to give it a chance, or are just hanging out here and doing nothing to advance your idea? And all the while you do nothing, you hope and pray that someone will recognize your genius and jump in, take command, and make it happen. It's sad that all you can do is give a quick retort and avoid giving us an update when we challenge you about your progress.

2) I do my part by living a life that is quite frugal, and do not propose pie-in-the-sky grandiose schemes. Until major governments stand up to the fossil fuel industry - and they won't until it's too late - nothing will happen. I don't have a lot of hope for our civilization.

3) I have a feeling that you will issue a quick and short response and ABSOLUTELY AVOID MY CHALLENGE, because you have nothing to show for all your bluster.

Take this as a challenge, and perhaps you'll make some progress.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1073. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Great! Now we know that the arctic sea ice and world glacier mass loss is due to improperly sited weather stations. ... CEastwood, would mind sticking those thermometers into a freezer so the ice will recover? Let us know when you have have this done so that we can take more observations of the ice and see if that fixed it.


Whatever floats CEastwood,Foxnews and Wilbur Watt's boat..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
1074. zampaz
Quoting 1060. CEastwood:
This is for those who argued against the laws of physics as they applied to climate change or lack thereof. I suppose the improperly sited weather stations were an embarrassment for NOAA, which refused to acknowledge that a thermometer placed next to asphalt might have the capability of altering proper temperature records:

Link

Yeah, those physics law deniers are trouble makers.
I saw a guy floating around on the string the other day next to a balloon. I warned him to come down before he got busted. Damn gravity denier.
Speaking of physics CEastwood, you really should try some at least once. It's good stuff assuming you have the maths to fire it up with. It's good for learning how to use maths safely too without poking your eye or sticking your neck out;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1060. CEastwood:
This is for those who argued against the laws of physics as they applied to climate change or lack thereof. I suppose the improperly sited weather stations were an embarrassment for NOAA, which refused to acknowledge that a thermometer placed next to asphalt might have the capability of altering proper temperature records:

Link


Great! Now we know that the arctic sea ice and world glacier mass loss is due to improperly sited weather stations. ... CEastwood, would mind sticking those thermometers into a freezer so the ice will recover? Let us know when you have have this done so that we can take more observations of the ice and see if that fixed it.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting 1071. SteveDa1:
I think she was being sarcastic.


Doubtful. CEastwood posts a lie or misinformed half-truth, and SouthernIlinois backs him/her up with a supporting statement or defends him/her against rebuttals.

That's how those two roll in here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think she was being sarcastic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1060. CEastwood:

This is for those who argued against the laws of physics as they applied to climate change or lack thereof. I suppose the improperly sited weather stations were an embarrassment for NOAA, which refused to acknowledge that a thermometer placed next to asphalt might have the capability of altering proper temperature records:

Link
Quoting 1061. SouthernIllinois:

Oh this sucks. Time to re-calculate the data and start fresh.


OK, now you're BOTH posting lies. You can rewrite and reframe them any way you wish, but they're still misleading statements about climate science. I don't know (or care) where you're getting it from, but a lie is a lie, whether or not you choose to agree with it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1068. Naga5000:


Besides, the satellites aren't poorly cited. ;)


Nope, they are calibrated to read an increase of 0.5 to 1 C to the actual temperature, of course. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1067. SteveDa1:


CEastwood, nobody needs to alter temperature records when glaciers worldwide are receding, summertime arctic sea ice is vanishing, sea levels are rising, and (most obvious of all...) the rest of the world is getting warmer--not just the U.S.


Besides, the satellites aren't poorly cited. ;)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3296
Quoting 1060. CEastwood:
This is for those who argued against the laws of physics as they applied to climate change or lack thereof. I suppose the improperly sited weather stations were an embarrassment for NOAA, which refused to acknowledge that a thermometer placed next to asphalt might have the capability of altering proper temperature records:

Link


CEastwood, nobody needs to alter temperature records when glaciers worldwide are receding, summertime arctic sea ice is vanishing, sea levels are rising, and (most obvious of all...) the rest of the world is getting warmer--not just the U.S.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1061. SouthernIllinois:

Oh this sucks. Time to re-calculate the data and start fresh.


Well considering they all ready adjusted for poor citing, and planned on closing those they found to be the worst offenders (According to their published plan in 2011), this is nothing more than the denialists reading us the headline from "No Crap" Magazine.

Edited to say: The statistical methodology used to correct the data is amazing. I've posted it a few times, well worth the read.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3296
Quoting 1064. SteveDa1:
This is the first sentence of the Fox News article shown at link above.

Suffice to say I stopped reading there.

"Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer."


Oh really?!


Like the Arctic Ice appears to be melting..LOL..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
This is the first sentence of the Fox News article shown at link above.

Suffice to say I stopped reading there.

"Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer."


Oh really?!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1063. Patrap
but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.

Watts and FOX....?

O dats rich, LoL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1113 - 1063

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.