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: 1013 - 963

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 1002. yoboi:


I disagree.....how is an ad blitz attacking people helping?????? why not do an ad blitz with showing how to fix the problem.......


I disagree with your disagreement, Yoboi. :) Ads, like these, are a part of fixing the problem. We need to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, who are the elected officials that cave to the corporate interests and their own ideologies over the rights for all of us to enjoy clean air, clean water and a healthy environment. Until these elected officials that will follow the psuedo-sciences are thinned out to the point that they are no longer a strong enough force to subvert the efforts made that would make some differences concerning the problems a warming climate will bring to every person on this planet, then any efforts made to correct the problems will be blocked by these elected officials. (wow! is there any way to shorten that sentence and still retain the context of the sentence?)You must clear the trash and debris out of the way before you can make a foundation on which to build.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
1012. yoboi
Quoting 1011. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Those would have been the wrong types of ads to run 20 years ago. Many of the elected members of the Republican party were less involved with the spuedo-sciences then than they are now.

President Richard Milhouse Nixon(R) signed an executive order that created the EPA in 1970. The EPA was given the charge of enforcing the laws that Congress create to protect the health of the public and the environment. This included the enforcement of the Clean Air Act(1970) and the Clean Water Act(1970) that are also products of the Nixon administration.

The proper ads that should have been ran 20 years ago, and continued through to date, are ads focused on the corporations that have made their efforts to subvert the EPA, The Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Act. Their attempts had been made and are still being made to financially influence (is bribe too harsh of a word to use here?) our elected officials to make the efforts to dismantle the EPA and these two Acts. Although continued efforts to eliminate them outright have failed there has been sufficient progress made to limit funding to the EPA as to render it to be far less effective than it was designed to be, by a Republican president. ... The ads then, and now, should be on bringing to light the efforts made by corporations to deny the citizens of this United States of American the right to clean air, clean water and a healthy environment in which to live.



Rookie.....the profit that the fossil fuel companies are getting they laugh at EPA fines.....BP settlement with the gulf coast only cut 3 months of their profit.....the whole system is a joke.....Look at the BP well with how many problems they were having before it blew.....someone got paid to continue drilling knowing there was a problem.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 1001. Daisyworld:


Ads like these should have been released about 20 years ago...


Those would have been the wrong types of ads to run 20 years ago. Many of the elected members of the Republican party were less involved with the spuedo-sciences then than they are now.

President Richard Milhouse Nixon(R) signed an executive order that created the EPA in 1970. The EPA was given the charge of enforcing the laws that Congress create to protect the health of the public and the environment. This included the enforcement of the Clean Air Act(1970) and the Clean Water Act(1970) that are also products of the Nixon administration.

The proper ads that should have been ran 20 years ago, and continued through to date, are ads focused on the corporations that have made their efforts to subvert the EPA, The Clean Water Act and The Clean Air Act. Their attempts had been made and are still being made to financially influence (is bribe too harsh of a word to use here?) our elected officials to make the efforts to dismantle the EPA and these two Acts. Although continued efforts to eliminate them outright have failed there has been sufficient progress made to limit funding to the EPA as to render it to be far less effective than it was designed to be, by a Republican president. ... The ads then, and now, should be on bringing to light the efforts made by corporations to deny the citizens of this United States of American the right to clean air, clean water and a healthy environment in which to live.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Sequestration Ushers In A Dark Age For Science In America

HuffingtonPost.com

U.S. Air Force: Space Fence Shutdown To Save $14 Million Annually (replacement on hold due to sequester)

SpaceNews.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 1008. JohnLonergan:
Net radiative flux at Top of Atmosphere(2006-2013)

Interesting. Run the animation up to August 2012 and look at Greenland. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Phreeeow!"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Net radiative flux at Top of Atmosphere(2006-2013)

Earth's net radiation, sometimes called net flux, is the balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere. It is the total energy that is available to influence the climate. Energy comes in to the system when sunlight penetrates the top of the atmosphere. Energy goes out in two ways: reflection by clouds, aerosols, or the Earth's surface; and thermal radiation—heat emitted by the surface and the atmosphere, including clouds. The global average net radiation must be close to zero over the span of a year or else the average temperature will rise or fall.
These maps show monthly net radiation in watts per square meter. Places where the amounts of incoming and outgoing energy were in balance are yellow. Places where more energy was coming in than going out (positive net radiation) are red. Places where more energy was going out than coming in (negative net radiation) are blue-green. The measurements were made by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) sensors on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.
Over the course of a year, the most obvious pattern is seasonal changes in net radiation. Incoming sunlight increases in the hemisphere experiencing summer, which makes the energy imbalance strongly positive (more watts of energy coming in than going out). As the September equinox approaches, a zone of positive net radiation is nearly centered over the equator, and energy deficits lie over the poles. As the season changes into winter, the net radiation becomes negative across much of the Northern Hemisphere and positive in the Southern Hemisphere. The pattern reverses on the March equinox.
Averaged over the year, there is a net energy surplus at the equator and a net energy deficit at the poles. This equator-versus-pole energy imbalance is the fundamental driver of atmospheric and oceanic circulation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

Research has shown that a grand solar minimum would offset no more than 0.3°C of global warming

Recent articles in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (translation available here) and in the Irish Times both ran headlines claiming that another grand solar minimum could potentially trigger an "ice age" or "mini ice age" this century. These articles actually refer to the Little Ice Age (LIA) – a period about 500 to 150 years ago when global surface temperatures were approximately 1°C colder than they are today. This is quite different from an ice age, which are more like 5°C colder than today. The LIA was not actually very cold on a global scale.

So, in order to trigger another LIA, a new grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1°C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human-caused global warming of 1 to 5°C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.

In the Jyllands-Posten article, Henrik Svensmark (the main scientist behind the hypothesis that the sun has a significant indirect impact on global climate via galactic cosmic rays) was a bit more measured, suggesting,

"I can imagine that it will become 0.2°C colder. I would be surprised if it became 1–2°C"


So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6°C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century. Is it plausible that a grand solar minimum could make that happen?

The short answer is, 'No.'

Read the long answer in The Guardian
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1002. yoboi:


I disagree.....how is an ad blitz attacking people helping?????? why not do an ad blitz with showing how to fix the problem.......


Because there are 10 elected officials on the House Science Committee who still deny climate change with colorful language like "fraud" and "hoax". Because people are still misinformed and misled. Having public support makes it easier for individuals, local government, state government, and the federal government to fix the problem.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3281
Quoting 1002. yoboi:


I disagree.....how is an ad blitz attacking people helping?????? why not do an ad blitz with showing how to fix the problem.......

No solutions will be enacted as long as the impediments to progress, like those targeted in the ads, occupy public office.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1001. Daisyworld:


Ads like these should have been released about 20 years ago...

Hopefully, we won't wait another 20 years for the crimes against humanity charges to be filed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1000. RevElvis:
Climate-denier politicians under attack by new ad campaign







more at Grist.org

A couple of errors in the ads, one germane, one not. The germane error is that 97% of scientists do not agree on AGW/CC. 97% of climatologists do. This is the sort of error that denialists will bleat on about and are likely to spot.

The non-germane error is showing a picture of a planetary nebula while stating "discovering galaxies." This is the sort of error that denialists wouldn't have known about until they read this post. Now, the vast majority will have to google "planetary nebula." lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1002. yoboi
Quoting 1001. Daisyworld:


Ads like these should have been released about 20 years ago...


I disagree.....how is an ad blitz attacking people helping?????? why not do an ad blitz with showing how to fix the problem.......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 1000. RevElvis:
Climate-denier politicians under attack by new ad campaign

http://www.youtube.com/v/cNAUYSHvvOI

http://www.youtube.com/v/hlUX4bTWSzY

http://www.youtube.com/v/OJaERZy-0Lo


more at Grist.org


Ads like these should have been released about 20 years ago...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate-denier politicians under attack by new ad campaign







more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
999. yoboi
Quoting 998. Birthmark:

I guess that's good, but I'm going off-grid as soon as I can possibly arrange it.


I lived 3 yrs off-grid....the good ole days....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 997. RevElvis:
White House calls for increased grid spending

I guess that's good, but I'm going off-grid as soon as I can possibly arrange it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
White House calls for increased grid spending

NEW YORK (AP) -- The cost of weather-related power outages is high and rising as storms grow more severe and the U.S. electric grid gets older, according to an Obama Administration report that calls for increased spending on the nation's electric power system.

Power outages cost the economy $18 billion to $33 billion per year, according to the report, a figure that has been rising steadily over the past 20 years. That can rise to $40 billion to $75 billion in years with severe storms such as 2008's Hurricane Ike and last year's Superstorm Sandy.

The White House report, released Monday, said spending to make the grid stronger and more flexible will save the economy "billions of dollars and reduce the hardship experienced by millions of Americans when extreme weather strikes."

The administration proposes spending on training and preparation, stronger equipment such as concrete poles, and more advanced sensing and diagnostic equipment that can predict failures, prevent them from getting worse, and restore power faster after it has gone out.

Seven of the ten costliest storms in U.S. history occurred between 2004 and 2012. Eleven times last year weather-related outages led to losses of $1 billion or more, the second most on record, behind 2011, according to the report. Climate scientists expect ever more intense and destructive weather as climate change increases global temperatures, adding more energy to storms and shifting patterns of drought and precipitation.

more at AP.org

Blackout: What's wrong with the American grid? (boingboing.net) 8/3/2012
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Organizing For Action Delivers Unicorn Trophies To 135 'Climate Deniers' In Congress

Following President Barack Obama's pledge to bring his climate change plan to fruition, Organizing for Action volunteers on Tuesday delivered congressional naysayers their very own "Climate Denier Awards": unicorn trophies.

The awards feature mounted unicorns with engraved messages "honoring" recipients for "exceptional extremism and ignoring the overwhelming judgment of science." OFA zeroed in on a contingent of conservative lawmakers dismissing climate change and global warming, including Reps. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). According to an email distributed by OFA, a total of 135 members of Congress can expect to receive a trophy at their offices today.




more at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948


There’s a very interesting graph comparing the PAGES 2k results and the Mannean Hockey Stick (MBH99).

PAGES 2k validates the Hockey Stick.

Graph caption:

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 991. ILwthrfan:
I am sparticus on FOX blog right now... haha


I created an account to join in the discussions as well. When I looked at my member profile I am ranked as "Rookie". How did they know it was me? LOL
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Break out your T shirt time in Alaska...

Weather for Alaska
Search Results
Place Alerts Temp. Humidity Pressure Conditions Wind Updated
Anchorage 63 °F 88% 29.99 in (Steady) Overcast WNW at 6 mph 12:00 PM AKDT Save
Barrow 42 °F 89% 30.09 in (Steady) Overcast NW at 14 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Cantwell 66 °F 68% 29.96 in (Rising) Partly Cloudy SE at 4 mph 12:16 PM AKDT Save
Dutch Harbor 53 °F 77% 29.64 in (Rising) Overcast WSW at 10 mph 11:56 AM AKDT Save
Fairbanks 65.3 °F 75% 29.96 in (Falling) Smoke Calm 12:20 PM AKDT Save
Fort Yukon 66 °F 64% 29.97 in (Steady) Clear SW at 6 mph 10:50 AM AKDT Save
Haines 64.1 °F 72% 30.01 in (Falling) Clear SE at 2.0 mph 11:57 AM AKDT Save
Juneau 66 °F 70% 30.01 in (Falling) Mostly Cloudy Variable at 5 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Ketchikan 59 °F 96% 30.10 in (Steady) Overcast ESE at 8 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Kodiak 50.8 °F 99% 29.99 in (Steady) Mostly Cloudy Calm 12:23 PM AKDT Save
Kotzebue 56 °F 77% 30.04 in (Falling) Partly Cloudy North at 7 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
McGrath 65 °F 65% 29.95 in (Falling) Scattered Clouds Calm 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Nome 60.3 °F 70% 29.98 in (Steady) Scattered Clouds ENE at 9.0 mph 12:20 PM AKDT Save
Petersburg 63 °F 72% 30.06 in (Steady) Overcast Calm 11:55 AM AKDT Save
Seward 58.0 °F 91% 30.04 in (Rising) Overcast Calm 12:23 PM AKDT Save
Sitka 59 °F 87% 30.06 in (Steady) Overcast SSW at 7 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Skagway 62 °F 72% 29.99 in (Falling) Clear SW at 4 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Talkeetna 63 °F 84% 29.99 in (Falling) Overcast Calm 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Valdez 54.0 °F 82% 30.04 in (Steady) SSW at 7.0 mph 11:43 AM AKDT Save
Willow 63 °F 77% 29.99 in (Steady) Mostly Cloudy West at 6 mph 12:16 PM AKDT Save
Wrangell 57 °F 88% 30.09 in (Rising) Overcast Calm 12:16 PM AKDT Save
Yakutat 60 °F 78% 30.03 in (Steady) Scattered Clouds WSW at 6 mph 11:53 AM AKDT Save
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
fizzzzzzzle,..
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127592
I am sparticus on FOX blog right now... haha
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 988. ILwthrfan:
Cyclone buster.

I read that article today and got into an argument with bloggers at the bottom of the page. About 5 minutes into it my head wanted to explode, so I found the nearest wall and pounded my head on it until the pain lessened. It really was depressing...sigh

I used post 973 and posted it to their blog, hopefully one person gets curious and does research for themselves and not from what any given media portrays to them.



Yeah Willard doesn't know what he is talking about and won't show his degree...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
More Nuke mayhem... Just shoot it at the sun with this..



Mystery memos fuel battle between Nevada, DOE over nuclear waste

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/fight-b etween-nevada-and-doe-over-nuclear-waste-heats-up/ ?test=latestnews#ixzz2bsaluamf


U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz plans to meet with Nevada%u2019s governor on Tuesday to discuss an escalating dispute between the state and the federal government over where to dump hundreds of canisters of radioactive waste, FoxNews.com has learned.

Tensions have risen in recent weeks over who should be forced to keep the nuclear material. The federal government says Nevada signed off on a series of memos agreeing to take it, but Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval says those talks never happened -- and says his state shouldn%u2019t have to shoulder the burden of burying toxic waste in its backyard.

%u201CThe state of Nevada is not aware of any signed memos between the state and DOE regarding the approval of the material in question,%u201D Mac Bybee, the governor%u2019s communication director, told FoxNews.com.

Both Sandoval's office and the Department of Energy confirmed that Moniz and the governor will meet on Tuesday.

Bybee says his office hasn%u2019t located any memo from any state-level agency that has had contact with the Energy Department regarding the security, transportation or disposal of nuclear material.

That%u2019s a problem because Moniz testified under oath during a July 30 Senate hearing to their existence.

%u201CThere were long discussions held, many memos signed on specifically this particular low-level waste movement,%u201D Moniz told senators. %u201CThe department agreed to special activities for the disposal. The department agreed to do something unprecedented %u2013 to move this in secured transports.%u201D

DOE spokeswoman Keri Fulton told FoxNews.com that Moniz %u201Clooks forward to having a productive conversation with Governor Sandoval tomorrow to resolve this important issue."

Sandoval, a former federal judge and state attorney general, has also accused the DOE of trying to set a dangerous precedent by exploiting a regulatory loophole to classify the waste as a low-level hazard so that it can be buried at a nuclear test location about an hour northwest of Las Vegas.

The canisters in question carry about 2.6 kilograms of uranium-233 and uranium-235 %u2013 two products that require safety escorts and can only be handled with remote-controlled cranes. The material is left over from a government research project in the 1980s called Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Project.

Tennessee currently has possession of all 403 welded steel containers of the bomb-making material.

The material was set to be transported from Oak Ridge National Laboratory -- the government%u2019s only facility for handling, processing and storing weapons-grade uranium -- to Nevada earlier this year but that never happened. And if Nevada has its way, it never will.

Uranium-233 was first commissioned by the federal government when it was trying to find fuel for reactors and bombs. The government and the private sector created a man-made substitute and then went on to make 3,400 pounds of it. The government says it doesn%u2019t need it anymore and now is left with the prickly task of finding a way to get rid of it.

Uranium-235 is an isotope made up of 0.72 percent of uranium and was attractive to the government because it could undergo induced fission %u2013 something that%u2019s needed for making nuclear power.

Earlier this year, FoxNews.com spoke with Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies about the serious safety and proliferation concerns around the material.

%u201CI went over to the headquarters, talking to project managers. They all sort of gave me the %u2018I don%u2019t know%u2019 response,%u201D Alvarez said. %u201CNobody wants to deal with it.%u201D

Sen. Harry Reid, and Rep. Dina Titus, both Democrats from Nevada, have also spoken out against the plan.

This isn%u2019t the first fight Nevada has had over nukes.

The state and its federal elected officials have fought for more than three decades to block federal plans to ship and dump radioactive waste that%u2019s been piling up at nuclear power plants around the country to Yucca Mountain.


Link




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Cyclone buster.

I read that article today and got into an argument with bloggers at the bottom of the page. About 5 minutes into it my head wanted to explode, so I found the nearest wall and pounded my head on it until the pain lessened. It really was depressing...sigh

I used post 973 and posted it to their blog, hopefully one person gets curious and does research for themselves and not from what any given media portrays to them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Willard Watt's and Fox News at it again...Thinking they know more than the 97% of the scientists...

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming



Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.

"The question remains as to why they continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations," Watts told FoxNews.com.

'They continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations.'

- Anthony Watts

Watts has for years searched for weather stations that have flaws. And he points to a still-open station at Yosemite park as an example of one with “heat sinks” – objects that store heat, and then release it at night. Heat sinks can cause stations located in or near them to give off useless data -- generally in the form of inflated temperatures not representative of the broader area.

“The heat sinks are a road, a building, and stacked metal pipe and beams surrounding the station,” he said.

After the heat sinks were added at Yosemite, temperature readings show a curious trend: minimum nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime temperatures. Watts says that's because the concrete structures store heat that is released at night, and that such a trend backs up the idea that the "heat sinks" are having an effect.

But the government agency that compiles the temperature data says that such concerns are unfounded because of statistical methods used to adjust the data.

"There is no doubt that NOAA's temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable," NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen told FoxNews.com. "To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects."

Smullen added that the recent station closures, which were made after "an extensive six-month review by all National Weather Service forecast offices," make the system even better.

He said the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data. But Watts says that closures are something of a vindication of a years-long project to identify stations with problems.

Some of the first official notice of Watts’ findings were in the leaked “Climate-gate” emails from 2009, in which the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the NOAA appeared to take Watts’ findings seriously.

“He has a website of 40 of the USHCN [weather] stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out,” Thomas Karl, the director, wrote in an internal email.

Then the Government Accountability Office -- the government agency which issues reports evaluating other agencies -- looked into the issue of inappropriately-sited stations, interviewing Watts twice.

In an August 2011 report titled “NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” the GAO concluded that “NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy… whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open… or should be moved or closed.”

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said that the NOAA’s recent review and closure of stations over the last two years is far more extensive than the investigation Watts conducted.

“While some of the 600 sites we targeted for closure may overlap with some sites Mr. Watts has questioned, we understand that his study looked only at siting criteria at a 1,200-site subset of our overall network, while we reviewed the entire network, and siting criteria was just one factor we considered.”

So how serious is the problem of poorly-sited stations for the overall historical climate record? And does it have implications about the extent of manmade global warming?

Watts says it does, and that if one looks only at pristine stations, they show a temperature increase of 1.1° Farenheit over the years 1979 to 2008. That is noticeably lower than the government estimate of 1.7° Farenheit, which includes readings from all stations, including those with potential problems, which it tries to adjust for statistically.

But many scientists concerned about global warming say that the statistical adjustments work, and they point out that many other measurements of temperature match closely with NOAA’s historical data.

“Watts' analysis is an outlier… Analyses by several groups using global land temps, ocean temps, and satellite-inferred temps (no thermometers there!) show very similar warming rates [to the NOAA data],” Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at SUNY Suffolk, said.

Watts says he doesn’t dispute the satellite data.

“I don’t dispute the satellite measurements, but they are measuring temperature of the atmosphere above the Earth, and that includes all cities and populated areas as well as rural open space… My premise is this: if you want to see the effect of CO2 on warming, you need to look in areas that have not been affected by urbanization to find the true signal.”

In other words, Watts says the data show that global warming is due relatively more to increased urbanization than to greenhouse gases. Such a finding would be relevant for whether government should further restrict greenhouse gasses.

“Questions should then be asked about… decisions all the way up the food chain,” Watts said.




Link











..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting 984. Birthmark:
From Jeff Masters' blog, this is just too good not to share:


???


30 days of melt left and they think the summer melt off is done already.. LOL..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Seasonal carbon dioxide range expanding as more is added to Earth's atmosphere
Northern Hemisphere land-based ecosystems 'taking deeper breaths,' scientists find


Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise and fall each year as plants, through photosynthesis and respiration, take up the gas in spring and summer, and release it in fall and winter.

Now the range of that cycle is expanding as more carbon dioxide is emitted from burning fossil fuels and other human activities, according to a study led by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).

The findings come from a multi-year airborne survey of atmospheric chemistry called HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations, or HIPPO.

Results of the study are reported in a paper published online this week by the journal Science.

The National Science Foundation (NSF), along with the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Office of Naval Research funded the study.

"This research provides dramatic evidence of the significant influence the land-based biosphere can have on the amplitude [amount of change] in seasonal trends of carbon dioxide exchange," says Sylvia Edgerton, program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.

Observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide made by aircraft at altitudes between 3 and 6 kilometers (10,000-20,000 feet) show that seasonal carbon dioxide variations have substantially changed during the last 50 years.

The amplitude increased by roughly 50 percent across high latitude regions north of 45° N, compared with previous aircraft observations from the late 1950s and early 1960s.

This means that more carbon is accumulating in forests and other vegetation and soils in the Northern Hemisphere during the summer, and more carbon is being released in the fall and winter, says study lead scientist Heather Graven of SIO.

It's not yet understood, she says, why the increase in seasonal amplitude of carbon dioxide concentration is so large, but it's a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems.

"The atmospheric carbon dioxide observations are important because they show the combined effect of ecological changes over large regions," says Graven.

"This reinforces ground-based studies that show that substantial changes are occurring as a result of rising carbon dioxide concentrations, warming temperatures and changing land management, including the expansion of forests in some regions and the poleward migration of ecosystems."

Adds Peter Milne, a program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, "We can easily measure the greenhouse gas budget from a single smokestack, but somewhat less well for a stand of trees. Knowing that for the entire planet is much more challenging.

"Taking advantage of the long-duration and high-altitude-profiling capabilities of the NSF Gulfstream V aircraft [also known as HIAPER], the HIPPO project was designed to take a 'snapshot' of the global troposphere [Earth's lowest atmospheric layer] to see whether we can explain and model greenhouse gas distribution."

In the study, the scientists compared the recent aircraft data with aircraft data gathered from 1958 to 1961 using U.S. Air Force weather reconnaissance flights.

The older data were analyzed by SIO geochemist Charles David Keeling, the father of Ralph Keeling, also an SIO scientist and a member of the research team.

These aircraft measurements were done at the time Charles Keeling was beginning continuous carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

While the Mauna Loa measurements are now widely recognized as the "Keeling Curve," the early aircraft data were all-but-forgotten.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have varied between 170 and 280 parts per million during the last 800,000 years.

When Charles Keeling began collecting data at Mauna Loa in 1958, the concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million.

In May, 2013, daily carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa exceeded 400 parts per million--for the first time in human history.

Recent observations aboard the Gulfstream V were made during regular flights conducted during the HIPPO campaign, from 2009 to 2011.

The aircraft repeatedly ascended and descended from a few hundred meters to roughly 12 kilometers (40,000 feet) in the skies between the North Pole and Antarctica. The goal was constructing a unique snapshot of the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

Additional recent data comes from regular flights conducted by NOAA at a network of locations.

Increasing carbon dioxide amplitude since 1960 had already been observed at two ground-based stations: Mauna Loa and Barrow, Alaska.


Other stations operated by Scripps and NOAA only began measuring carbon dioxide in the 1970s to 1990s.

The aircraft-based observations uniquely show the large area in northern high latitudes where carbon dioxide amplitude increased strongly since 1960.

The exact reasons for the wider seasonal swings in carbon dioxide concentration remain to be determined, say the researchers.

Although plant activity can increase with warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide concentrations, the change in carbon dioxide amplitude over the last 50 years is larger than expected from these effects.

Carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 23 percent, and average temperature north of 30°N has increased by one degree C, since 1960.

Other factors may be changes in the amount of carbon in leaves, wood or roots; changes in the extent or species composition of ecosystems; or changes in the timing of plant photosynthesis and respiration.

Simulating complex processes in land-based ecosystems with models is a challenge, scientists have found.

The observed change in carbon dioxide amplitude is larger than that simulated by models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While this underestimate does not call into question the response of climate to carbon dioxide concentration in the IPCC models, the researchers say, it does suggest that a better understanding of what happened during the last 50 years could improve projections of future ecosystem changes.

The bottom line, according to Graven, Ralph Keeling and colleagues, is that Northern ecosystems appear to be behaving differently than they did 50 years ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Jeff Masters' blog, this is just too good not to share:

Quoting 1933. trunkmonkey:


Yeah, the North Pole is ice covered, first time this early in years...

???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Robinson's a whiny little thing, isn't he? Also, a pretty bum scientist. Most worthy of the garden shed that is OISM.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Eli Rabett comments on "Proof positive that there is a God."


And he has a great sense of humor.

Oregon Republicans elect Art Robinson of OISM as head of the state party. Some of the comments are terrific:


What is the difference between Art Robinson and The Three Stooges?

The Three Stooges have a more profound, science-based policy platform.
That and they actually appeal to younger voters.

and

As the Greek generals said after their 1967 coup, "The previous regime brought us to the edge of a precipice, and we have now taken a step forward."

It is as if the Onion wrote the story, with this perfect close to the traditional August silly season. The former Republican EPA administrators who argued that there was a Republican case for action on climate change. R Street, Bob Inglis and Eli Lehrer who have been blogging up a storm on same. Tamsin Edwards on why not to have an opinion and James on why to.

Stephan Lewandowsky was right, denial is a lifestyle and the Republicans in the US have it bad but anybunny trying to "reason" with them is delusional.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
At 979, Some1Has2BtheRookie asked "So, what is the American Physical Society and what is the society's stance on climate change?"

Here is what the membership felt about the ""Responding Open Letter by 82 Climate Scientists.".

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
980. yoboi
Quoting 979. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The probable reason that he has 4-5 websites is to give the appearance that that there is more skepticism among scientist concerning climate change than there actually is.

You have already come a long ways, Yoboi, in your interest to discover the truth concerning agw. I believe that you have reached a point to where you can research information you find a little further on your own. Take a look at the "Open Letter by 18 Climate Alarmists.". Now look at the list of names that signed this letter:

emphasis is mine

John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University

Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University

Michael Mann, Penn State University
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University

Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center

*Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Now take a look at the "Responding Open Letter by 82 Climate Scientists.". Now look at the list of 36 names that signed this.

Signed by,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1

1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences

So, what is the American Physical Society and what is the society's stance on climate change?


I do not pretend that I know every climatologist, but the only name I recognize as an actual climatologist is Roy Spencer. Of these 36 people, 15 are emeritus or retired. The rest of the 82 are only 33 names that have only endorsed the letter.

Endorsed by:

Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Really???
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources Really??? - Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics Really??? Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV Really???
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Really???
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment Really??? Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC Really???
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources Really??? QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates Really???
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1 Really???
Art Horn, Meteorologist Really The "Art" of Weather
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute Really???
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1 Really??? Robert Lerine
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1 Really???
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV Really???
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated Really??? Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc. Really??? Starfire
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org Oh good grief!!!
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc. Oh good grief!!!
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org Oh good grief!!!

1 – Emeritus or Retired (80) - does anyone know why there is an 80 in parenthesis here?- quick math: 36+33=69. Where are the other 13 names that would add up to 82?

Soooo, it appears that Dr. Berry has lied at least twice on his blog. There are not 82 names on the combined lists of "signed" and "endorsed" and I only see one that is an actual climate scientist. Oh, and the "endorsed" are associated across a variety fields of study and none of the fields of study is climatology.



Thanks Rookie.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 964. yoboi:




here is a link to 1 of his 4 sites....I am confused to why he has 4 or 5 sites......


Link


The probable reason that he has 4-5 websites is to give the appearance that that there is more skepticism among scientist concerning climate change than there actually is.

You have already come a long ways, Yoboi, in your interest to discover the truth concerning agw. I believe that you have reached a point to where you can research information you find a little further on your own. Take a look at the "Open Letter by 18 Climate Alarmists.". Now look at the list of names that signed this letter:

emphasis is mine

John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University

Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University

Michael Mann, Penn State University
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University

Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center

*Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Now take a look at the "Responding Open Letter by 82 Climate Scientists.". Now look at the list of 36 names that signed this.

Signed by,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1

1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences

So, what is the American Physical Society and what is the society's stance on climate change?


I do not pretend that I know every climatologist, but the only name I recognize as an actual climatologist is Roy Spencer. Of these 36 people, 15 are emeritus or retired. The rest of the 82 are only 33 names that have only endorsed the letter.

Endorsed by:

Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Really???
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources Really??? - Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics Really??? Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV Really???
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Really???
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment Really??? Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC Really???
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources Really??? QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates Really???
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1 Really???
Art Horn, Meteorologist Really The "Art" of Weather
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute Really???
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1 Really??? Robert Lerine
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1 Really???
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV Really???
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated Really??? Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc. Really??? Starfire
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org Oh good grief!!!
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc. Oh good grief!!!
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org Oh good grief!!!

1 – Emeritus or Retired (80) - does anyone know why there is an 80 in parenthesis here?- quick math: 36+33=69. Where are the other 13 names that would add up to 82?

Soooo, it appears that Dr. Berry has lied at least twice on his blog. There are not 82 names on the combined lists of "signed" and "endorsed" and I only see one that is an actual climate scientist. Oh, and the "endorsed" are associated across a variety fields of study and none of the fields of study is climatology.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting 975. FLwolverine:
Google scholar yielded several (but I think not 40) papers by E X Berry, mostly on cloud droplet formation, the latest in 1981. One listing was a comment on another author's article on the greenhouse effect, but when I followed the link, I discovered from the description (article not being available) that the subject was real greenhouses!


Hmmm..so there may be good reasons his publications aren't listed on his website(s):

- Not current
- Not relevant to AGW
- Not peer-reviewed

Thanks for checking. Yoboi you can sleep well tonight-you didn't miss anything :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Welcome yoboi.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
976. yoboi
Quoting 975. FLwolverine:
Google scholar yielded several (but I think not 40) papers by E X Berry, mostly on cloud droplet formation, the latest in 1981. One listing was a comment on another author's article on the greenhouse effect, but when I followed the link, I discovered from the description (article not being available) that the subject was real greenhouses!



why do you think he has so many websites????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 971. LAbonbon:


Good luck to you. I could find neither hide nor hair of his publications...on any of his websites, though you found more sites than I did.

Google scholar yielded several (but I think not 40) papers by E X Berry, mostly on cloud droplet formation, the latest in 1981. One listing was a comment on another author's article on the greenhouse effect, but when I followed the link, I discovered from the description (article not being available) that the subject was real greenhouses!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
974. yoboi
Quoting 973. BaltimoreBrian:
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

Power Companies Urged to Shield U.S. Electric Grid

Oil-Sands Industry Turns to Algae to Appease Obama


Chile investigates unexplained Andean condor deaths

A tale of two planets


Seasonal Carbon Dioxide Range Expanding as More Is Added to Earth's Atmosphere


Novel Worm Community Affects Methane Release in Ocean

Young or Old, Song Sparrows Experience Climate Change Differently from Each Other

Climate Benefit for Cutting Soot, Methane Smaller Than Previous Estimates


Planning by Postcode: How Prepared Are Cities for Climate Change?

Protein That Helps Plants Tolerate Drought, Flooding, Other Stresses Discovered

Melting Water's Lubricating Effect On Glaciers Has Only 'Minor' Role in Future Sea-Level Rise

Soil Biodiversity Will Be Crucial to Future Land Management and Response to Climate Change

Irrigation in Arid Regions Can Increase Malaria Risk for a Decade

Simulating Flow from Volcanoes and Oil Spills

Scientists Have Found New Evidence to Show How Early Humans Migrated Into Europe

South Korea warns of power shortages amid nuclear shutdowns


Fukushima nuclear plant: 10 workers exposed to radiation

A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox


Timing a Rise in Sea Level

Talent Lies Within. But Where? (book review)

How to Share Scientific Data


Superstorm Sandy changed how we look at weather threats

Neanderthals polished hides with tools made of deer ribs

Jigsaw puzzle of tectonic plate patterns detailed


Thanks Brian........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

Power Companies Urged to Shield U.S. Electric Grid

Oil-Sands Industry Turns to Algae to Appease Obama


Chile investigates unexplained Andean condor deaths

A tale of two planets


Seasonal Carbon Dioxide Range Expanding as More Is Added to Earth's Atmosphere


Novel Worm Community Affects Methane Release in Ocean

Young or Old, Song Sparrows Experience Climate Change Differently from Each Other

Climate Benefit for Cutting Soot, Methane Smaller Than Previous Estimates


Planning by Postcode: How Prepared Are Cities for Climate Change?

Protein That Helps Plants Tolerate Drought, Flooding, Other Stresses Discovered

Melting Water's Lubricating Effect On Glaciers Has Only 'Minor' Role in Future Sea-Level Rise

Soil Biodiversity Will Be Crucial to Future Land Management and Response to Climate Change

Irrigation in Arid Regions Can Increase Malaria Risk for a Decade

Simulating Flow from Volcanoes and Oil Spills

Scientists Have Found New Evidence to Show How Early Humans Migrated Into Europe

South Korea warns of power shortages amid nuclear shutdowns


Fukushima nuclear plant: 10 workers exposed to radiation

A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox


Timing a Rise in Sea Level

Talent Lies Within. But Where? (book review)

How to Share Scientific Data


Superstorm Sandy changed how we look at weather threats

Neanderthals polished hides with tools made of deer ribs

Jigsaw puzzle of tectonic plate patterns detailed
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
972. yoboi
Quoting 971. LAbonbon:


Good luck to you. I could find neither hide nor hair of his publications...on any of his websites, though you found more sites than I did.




thanks...I think I need alot of luck finding it....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 970. yoboi:



I am going to spend a few days going thru all his websites.....It be very interesting what I find.....


Good luck to you. I could find neither hide nor hair of his publications...on any of his websites, though you found more sites than I did.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
970. yoboi
Quoting 969. LAbonbon:
Something of curious note, and in badassBerry's own words:

"From 1994 through 2000, Dr. Berry applied mathematical artificial intelligence methods developed for weather forecasting to the valuation of single-family homes. In side-by-side testing against other home valuation methods, Berry’s method proved significantly superior. Berry is an expert in Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) for property valuations."

and

"Dr. Ed Berry is also an expert in property valuation mathematics. He is the author of automated valuation model (AVM) software (using a method of artificial intelligence developed in atmospheric science) that scored highest in a Bank of America test. This experience qualifies him an expert witness in legal trials where challenges are made to government property valuations for tax purposes."

Now, if I were conspiracy-minded, I'd wonder about Dr. Ed's (another of his own bylines) development of home valuation models during the period of 1994-2000, how it ties into BoA, and the timing of the housing bubble (see
Link for graph).

(Sorry, I haven't advanced to posting graphics yet...)

Curious, no? Likely entirely coincidental, but still a bit curious.



I am going to spend a few days going thru all his websites.....It be very interesting what I find.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Something of curious note, and in badassBerry's own words:

"From 1994 through 2000, Dr. Berry applied mathematical artificial intelligence methods developed for weather forecasting to the valuation of single-family homes. In side-by-side testing against other home valuation methods, Berry’s method proved significantly superior. Berry is an expert in Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) for property valuations."

and

"Dr. Ed Berry is also an expert in property valuation mathematics. He is the author of automated valuation model (AVM) software (using a method of artificial intelligence developed in atmospheric science) that scored highest in a Bank of America test. This experience qualifies him an expert witness in legal trials where challenges are made to government property valuations for tax purposes."

Now, if I were conspiracy-minded, I'd wonder about Dr. Ed's (another of his own bylines) development of home valuation models during the period of 1994-2000, how it ties into BoA, and the timing of the housing bubble (see
Link for graph).

(Sorry, I haven't advanced to posting graphics yet...)

Curious, no? Likely entirely coincidental, but still a bit curious.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
968. yoboi
Quoting 958. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


This is what Dr. Berry says in the link you provided:

"Yet, today we have global warming alarmists claiming everything that happens %u2014 and even some things that don%u2019t happen but which they think should happen %u2014 is caused by global warming. This is preposterous. In global warming, we cannot repeat our experiments, we have no control earth with which to compare our experiments, and we cannot do double-blind studies. It is a statistical inference problem that is impossible to solve.

Therefore, many alarmist claims about cause and effect are total junk. Yet they teach this nonsense in our universities and make students pay for their junk classes and they give academic credit for something that should remain in the world of illusion.
"

There may be people making statements that are exaggerated concerning climate change. When he uses the language that he uses he lowered himself to the standards that Rush of Sean would use in their statements of their opinions. Had the Dr. provided links to any actual climatologists making these claims then the Dr. may have a point worth discussing. All he offers us is his own opinion and without the evidence that any climatologists have made these claims.

He is correct that we have no control Earth in which to compare the results. But why is a control Earth required to collect data and make observations? All the Dr. is trying to do is to make an end run around The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics and not providing the slightest bit of evidence as to how it can be done. He is, essentially, trying to compare the AGWT with String Theory. Unlike String Theory, the AGWT can be tested, retested, data collected and direct observations made. Do we really need a control Earth when we can study planets such as Venus and Mars or our own moon as to how atmospheric chemistry and density plays a part in how the planet retains or loses heat due to its atmosphere, or lack of?



rookie I am having a hard time finding his peer reviewed papers.....it leads me to 7 different web sites that he runs......

edit: is this steve goddard????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
967. yoboi
Quoting 955. Neapolitan:
No. He's got a well-deserved reputation as a self-aggrandizing, radically-right, pro-Big Energy believer in the denialist darling "Clouds!!!" theory, and a man thoroughly convinced that he and he alone holds The Keys To Ultimate Climate Knowledge that have escaped the grasp of thousands of actual experts in the field. Bonus: he's a Birther, and a staunch proponent of every goofy conservative conspiracy theory known to man.

Yes, a real genius is Dr. Berry...



hey Neap do you really want to tangle with aka badassberry?????????? lmao....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
966. yoboi
Quoting 965. LAbonbon:


OMG, yoboi! You gave me the best laugh - see this byline he uses for some of his postings:

"by Dr. Ed Berry, aka badassBerry"

I am still laughing. This guy really does love himself.

Re: multiple websites - looks like there's one for his company to fight a petition in Montana (Climate Physics LLC), one to pretty much fight Al Gore and global warming (ClimatePhysics.com), his own you posted earlier, his wife's, and who knows, there could be more.



yeah I thought that was funny.....I have found 7 sites and still counting....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 964. yoboi:




here is a link to 1 of his 4 sites....I am confused to why he has 4 or 5 sites......


Link


OMG, yoboi! You gave me the best laugh - see this byline he uses for some of his postings:

"by Dr. Ed Berry, aka badassBerry"

I am still laughing. This guy really does love himself.

Re: multiple websites - looks like there's one for his company to fight a petition in Montana (Climate Physics LLC), one to pretty much fight Al Gore and global warming (ClimatePhysics.com), his own you posted earlier, his wife's, and who knows, there could be more.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
964. yoboi
Quoting 962. LAbonbon:


I'm sure he does. My question was actually rhetorical, and sorry, a bit sarcastic.

What really gets me about these guys, is this. He is a legitimate scientist. He's gone all the way through to a Ph.D. He has, apparently, a load of experience. He went into the private sector, had his own company, etc. Now he's obviously on one side of the AGW 'debate'. Where is his life's work? Scientists at the Ph.D. level, who are heavily published, consider the body of their publications to be a significant component of their life's work, along with successful projects. He profiles the projects, but where are the papers?

I would actually read any peer-reviewed research he put forth refuting AGW theory. Why? Because he actually has the credentials to back it up. But, based on the language on his website, fraught with disparaging remarks about 'environmentalists', 'ecologists', and fellow scientists, I'm leaning towards skepticism of his science, solely based on his demeanor.

I have no problems with scientists who legitimately disagree w/ AGW, or specific components of it (such as extent, rate, ramifications, etc.). I think some of them have legitimate questions. But scientists typically respectfully disagree, and they do it with research, presentations, and publications.

It's just very odd that he highlights his athletic achievements (kudos to him), but his academic bio is limited. Someone at his level would have several pages of a curriculum vitae. I hazard a guess that if he really wanted to swing scientists to his point of view, he would offer up his science on his website. It seems to me he's not aiming for scientists at all; he's going for popular opinion of the public at large. And that is one of the worst sort of scientist, in my opinion.

Thanks, Yoboi, for asking about this guy. Otherwise I never would have seen his 'bio' (limited as it is).




here is a link to 1 of his 4 sites....I am confused to why he has 4 or 5 sites......


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
963. yoboi
Quoting 962. LAbonbon:


I'm sure he does. My question was actually rhetorical, and sorry, a bit sarcastic.

What really gets me about these guys, is this. He is a legitimate scientist. He's gone all the way through to a Ph.D. He has, apparently, a load of experience. He went into the private sector, had his own company, etc. Now he's obviously on one side of the AGW 'debate'. Where is his life's work? Scientists at the Ph.D. level, who are heavily published, consider the body of their publications to be a significant component of their life's work, along with successful projects. He profiles the projects, but where are the papers?

I would actually read any peer-reviewed research he put forth refuting AGW theory. Why? Because he actually has the credentials to back it up. But, based on the language on his website, fraught with disparaging remarks about 'environmentalists', 'ecologists', and fellow scientists, I'm leaning towards skepticism of his science, solely based on his demeanor.

I have no problems with scientists who legitimately disagree w/ AGW, or specific components of it (such as extent, rate, ramifications, etc.). I think some of them have legitimate questions. But scientists typically respectfully disagree, and they do it with research, presentations, and publications.

It's just very odd that he highlights his athletic achievements (kudos to him), but his academic bio is limited. Someone at his level would have several pages of a curriculum vitae. I hazard a guess that if he really wanted to swing scientists to his point of view, he would offer up his science on his website. It seems to me he's not aiming for scientists at all; he's going for popular opinion of the public at large. And that is one of the worst sort of scientist, in my opinion.

Thanks, Yoboi, for asking about this guy. Otherwise I never would have seen his 'bio' (limited as it is).



He claims to have over 40 peer reviewed papers I am trying to find them.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329

Viewing: 1013 - 963

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.