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: 763 - 713

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 761. Daisyworld:

Complete and utter lies. This individual has no shame.

Why does WU allow this person to post in a climate science forum? This is totally counter-productive to science communication.

I agree. I've never seen that poster post anything other than crank "science" and weather reports.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 748. CEastwood:


Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades.
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited.
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked.
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures.
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside.

And it goes on and on and on. Just exactly why should we believe in anything that warming proponents forecast?
(not rhetorical)

Complete and utter lies. This individual has no shame.

Why does WU allow this person to post in a climate science forum? This is totally counter-productive to science communication.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There's a nice write up about Neven" sites in The Guardian today:


Global warming, Arctic ice loss, and armchair scientists
Armchair scientist Neven provides valuable insights into the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice


As humans put more and more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth's climate changes; we all know that. Some of the trickier questions are, how fast is it changing, what can we expect in the future, what are the costs of slowing emissions (compared to the costs of doing nothing), and what changes are we already observing that give us such confidence in our predictions?

Perhaps the poster child of climate change is in the Arctic, where sea ice has been declining at an astonishing rate. Over the past few decades, satellite information has been gathered which shows huge declines in ice extent (the area covered by ice). The declines are enough that it is possible that in a few years, there will be little or no ice left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season. ...

...While these institutions gather and make available important Arctic information, a wider community has taken a very active role in interpreting the data. These "armchair" scientists play a particularly important role in telling the rest of us what the data actually means for our future.

Perhaps the best example is the Arctic Sea Ice blog which was started in 2010 by Neven, a 38 year old freelance writer who set up the blog to draw more attention to the Arctic and create a central place for the exchange of information and ideas concerning Arctic sea ice. He also set up the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs website that is a collection of graphs, maps and other pieces of information regarding Arctic sea ice, and he formed a forum to allow community discussion.

Neven, like many other armchair scientists has little formal training. But, he makes up for that with a doggedness that would impress anyone. While he describes his blog as basically weather reports, many publishing researchers turn to him for a comprehensive view of current conditions. Do you want to know what the short term ice conditions will likely be? Ask Neven. Interested in learning about impacts of current conditions on the atmosphere? Ask Neven.

Not only is he a great resource, but the commenters provide insightful thoughts as well. And very often, they are not in agreement with each other. It is refreshing to see people engage in polite yet candid discussions of various views of our Arctic...

Read the entire article>>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3121
Despite the "record cold", still looks like we might be able to go boating at the North Pole in a week or two.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 757. BaltimoreBrian:


His post is crap. weatherhistorian has blogged about the all-time record heat in Siberia, and just recently Fairbanks AK passed their record for the most 80+ degree days in a summer. Greenland ice sheet melting has been above average. Can't take anything he says seriously.


Oh, I don't. Believe you me, I don't. I just want to make sure that those who casually read this blog don't take his nonsense seriously, either.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 756. Birthmark:

1. Evidence?
2. If true...so what?


His post is crap. weatherhistorian has blogged about the all-time record heat in Siberia, and just recently Fairbanks AK passed their record for the most 80+ degree days in a summer. Greenland ice sheet melting has been above average. Can't take anything he says seriously.

Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8550
Quoting 750. CEastwood:


Changing climate? Yes, for certain. The Arctic average temperature for the past summer has been the coldest in fifty years.

1. Evidence?
2. If true...so what?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 748. CEastwood:
Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades.

Completely wrong.

Quoting 748. CEastwood:
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited.

...which is a problem only in the minds of the anti-science crowd.

Quoting 748. CEastwood:
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked.

Again, completely wrong.

Quoting 748. CEastwood:
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures.

More nonsense based on nothing real.

Quoting 748. CEastwood:
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside.

Again, completely wrong. You certainly aren't very informed on this topic. That probably comes from taking seriously joke sites like WUWT and "Triple-point" Goddard's black hole of stupid. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 748. CEastwood:
Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades. Completely incorrect.
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited. Verifiably false.
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked. Take your pick: an outrageously ignorant statement, or a blatant lie.
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures. No, fallacious models can't. But scientifically-valid models have, and do.
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside. Not remotely close to being in the same ballpark as the truth.

And it goes on and on and on. Just exactly why should we believe in anything that warming proponents forecast?
(not rhetorical)

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 750. CEastwood:


Changing climate? Yes, for certain. The Arctic average temperature for the past summer has been the coldest in fifty years.


You and your buds at hockeyschtick don't even understand the paper you posted. You realize its a paper talking about the issues with a newly released model, correct? It has nothing to do with all climate models, or has anything to do with global warming. You are a little slow on the uptake, huh?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Quoting 748. CEastwood:
Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades.
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited.
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked.
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures.
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside.

And it goes on and on and on. Just exactly why should we believe in anything that warming proponents forecast?
(not rhetorical)

Link


Right, because the interweb bloggers say so. Why don't they publish anything, then? You aren't even worth debunking anymore, quite frankly, your job to post conspiracy weather links is a joke, what are you paid anyways?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Quoting 745. Patrap:
Living with climate change in Greenland - in pictures

Joe Raedle joined Getty Images in 2000 and is based in Miami. His work has varied from outlandish festivities in the bayous of Louisiana, to the mountain peaks of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq.

Here, he covers the landscape again, capturing images of Greenlanders adapt to the changing climate as researchers from the National Science Foundation and other organisations study the melting glaciers and the long-term ramifications for the world.


Potato farmer Arnaq Egede stands on the front steps of her home in Qaqortoq. The farm, the largest in Greenland, has seen an extended growing season due to climate change
Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images


Changing climate? Yes, for certain. The Arctic average temperature for the past summer has been the coldest in fifty years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Chain reaction shattered huge Antarctica ice shelf

Draining of meltwater lakes from surface explains sudden demise of Larsen B.


It took decades for global warming to slowly melt the surface of the Larsen B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula, forming nearly 3,000 lakes. But at the end of the Antarctic summer of 2002, all the lakes drained away in the space of a week. And then the 2,700-square-kilometre ice shelf, which was some 220 metres thick and might have existed for some 12,000 years, rapidly disintegrated into small icebergs, leaving glaciologists scratching their heads.

Researchers have been wondering ever since what could have caused the sudden draining of the lakes, and whether this caused the demise of the ice shelf. Now, a study led by MacAyeal might answer both questions.

The researchers showed that if there are many lakes on an ice shelf, the disappearance of one lake could result in fractures under others - an effect that can spread rapidly throughout the ice shelf. "This chain reaction could explain why the lakes drained all together," MacAyeal said.

Most of the lakes were about 1,000 metres wide, according to a poster presentation at the same meeting by study co-author Alison Banwell. Once drained, each would leave behind a ring fracture about 4,000 metres wide. When lakes are tightly packed together, as they were on the Larsen B ice shelf, the chain of fracturing would result in thin icebergs calving off, Banwell said.

"This is a cool idea that could neatly explain the peculiar phenomenon of the Larsen B breakup," says Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

"It adds into a more complete picture of ice-shelf disintegration," says Christina Hulbe, a geophysicist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. But, she says, it remains to be seen how it works together with other mechanisms %u2014 such as sustained propagation of natural fractures caused by prolonged surface melting, or ice-shelf thinning owing to warming oceans - to produce the catastrophic event seen with Larsen B.

article at Nature.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades.
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited.
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked.
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures.
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside.

And it goes on and on and on. Just exactly why should we believe in anything that warming proponents forecast?
(not rhetorical)

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A Texan tragedy: Plenty of oil, but no water

Across south-west Texas, residents of small communities like Barnhart are confronting the reality that something as basic as running water, as unthinking as turning on a tap, can no longer be taken for granted.

Three years of drought, decades of overuse and now the oil industry’s outsize demands on water for fracking are running down reservoirs and underground aquifers. And climate change is making things worse.

In Texas alone, about 30 communities could run out of water by the end of the year, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Nearly 15 million people are living under some form of water rationing, barred from freely sprinkling their lawns or refilling their swimming pools. In Barnhart’s case, the well appears to have run dry because the water was being extracted for shale gas fracking.



more at RawStory.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Could that be this paper, SI Akasofu, On the Present Halting of Global Warming, which was recently published in a MDPI journal?

Indeed it was, John. The short paper was so lame, that I had to wonder if MDPI even deserved the lukewarm reception some non-denialists have given it. I am assuming that MDPI is an example of the business model "we'll do anything for money." Seems like scientific prostitution to me.

These new scientific publishing "businesses" allow bad and mediocre "peer-reviewed scientific papers" to be published for a fee, giving the appearance of legitimacy to the eyes of the ignorant and ill-informed.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1395
Living with climate change in Greenland - in pictures

Joe Raedle joined Getty Images in 2000 and is based in Miami. His work has varied from outlandish festivities in the bayous of Louisiana, to the mountain peaks of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq.

Here, he covers the landscape again, capturing images of Greenlanders adapt to the changing climate as researchers from the National Science Foundation and other organisations study the melting glaciers and the long-term ramifications for the world.


Potato farmer Arnaq Egede stands on the front steps of her home in Qaqortoq. The farm, the largest in Greenland, has seen an extended growing season due to climate change
Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


faster and faster
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This should be added to #742:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu has quite a history with bad science, here is his stance on global warming:

Stance on Climate Change

". . . climate change during the last few hundred years may be interpreted mainly in terms of a combination of the recovery effect and the multi-decadal oscillation. These are natural changes. Thus, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the warming between 1900 and 2000 may be attributable to the greenhouse effect. In this view, the predicted temperature change in 2100 is about 0.5°C ± 0.2°C."


More at DeSmogBlog>>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3121
Xulonn @239

Then he gave me a parting shot of a really badly written short paper with a graph that was cherry-picked and manipulated with analysis that would make most scientists and statisticians cringe. It originated at MDPI, Switzerland, one of those new "for-profit-scientific paper mills" where you pay good money to get your paper published if it won't pass muster at an established, respected scientific journal. Their "peer-review" process is pretty lax.


Could that be this paper, SI Akasofu, On the Present Halting of Global Warming, which was recently published in a MDPI journal?

It is making the rounds in the denialsphere. Eli has a post at Rabett Run

Eli sez:

In other words, what you can read everyday over at Willard Tony's, the usual confusion between increase in CO2 mixing ratio and increase in CO2 forcing, a bunch of mathturbation on rates, etc.

However, there have been some consequences. Two of the editorial board said sayonara, and the publisher is a bit perturbed

It has recently been brought to our attention by members of the scientific community that a paper published in Climate (ISSN 2225-1154, http://www.mdpi.com/journal/climate) has raised some controversy regarding its originality, overall quality, and the scientific validity of the data presented. Moreover, two members have resigned from the Editorial Board, stating they are not willing to be associated with a journal where such articles are published. The paper they referred to was “Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11”, published in the first issue of Climate in May 2013 [1]



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3121
With another month of melt left in the Arctic it looks like we will be well within the NEW normal range for area,extent and mass...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20390
It's starting to look like as if a lane may be opening right across the Arctic. 

Adapted from this Bremen map.




There is a surface expedition sailing/hauling a specially designed boat right through this area, from Barrow to Spitsbergen. They are currently in the northern Chukchi seeking entry to the central basin.

Project details (French)

Journal (French)

More information and English translations of journal entries (delayed)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This is the first "installment" of some writing I am doing on a recent e-mail exchange I had with a casual friend regarding AGW/CC. I will call my friend "Steve" (not his real name). I am fascinated by the climate denial "industry" (Google climate change denial - it's real, it's studied in academia, and it's a problem). The power of older white conservative males to derail any possible AGW/CC mitigation efforts, and of the rich ones to promote the denial industry, is astounding. Fortunately, many young Republicans are not getting on the denialist bandwagon, and will eventually force the party to confront the problem and related issues head on. However, by then it may be too late for mitigation of some very serious future problems.

I just finished a fascinating exchange with Steve in which he used climate denial industry funded and related websites exclusively for his points, and could and did not refute a single point or rebuttal I wrote. Then he gave me a parting shot of a really badly written short paper with a graph that was cherry-picked and manipulated with analysis that would make most scientists and statisticians cringe. It originated at MDPI, Switzerland, one of those new "for-profit-scientific paper mills" where you pay good money to get your paper published if it won't pass muster at an established, respected scientific journal. Their "peer-review" process is pretty lax. So, over several weeks and several exchanges, I was presented only one bit of information from the world of hard, respected science, a paper from Nature on the suspicion that carbon-cycle sensitivity may be lower than previously thought. Of course, this lead Steve to conclude that carbon-cycle feedback "is not as big a deal as formerly theorized and as you seem to believe." The sad part is that I was not talking about the basic carbon-cycle feedback, but the fact the water-vapor provides a positive feedback, amplifying the atmosphere's response to increased CO2. Steve either overlooked that, or is very bad at understanding what he reads.

He sent me a link to an anti-AGW/CC video of Dr. John Theon, a former scientist and NASA Administrator who gave a talk at a Heartland Institute climate conference in 2009. After all, Dr. Theon is retired and has no financial incentive to lie like the active climate scientists who need to lie to get grants, right?? Well, that speech was all generalizations and opinion, and bitching about how, as a funding administrator, he had to approve funding for James Hansen at NASA because of pressure from above.

So I countered by referring Steve to a 2009 video of then-active Rear-Admiral David Titley, a scientist and U.S. Navy's chief oceanographer at the time - and the Navy's top climate science officer at the time. It is an excellent presentation, and fully supports the conclusions of the mainstream world of climate science. The Navy is worried about climate change, primarily because of the Arctic opening up and the fact that nearly all Naval bases and shipyards, and many of the U.S. oil refineries are at sea level. The Navy is acutely aware of AGW/CC, and it wants to plan for the problems that will be caused by future sea level rise. I am aware that Steve is a retired Navy officer, and thought that he might respect this man's words. But unfortunately, he immediately - and gleefully - misinterpreted the Admiral's point about "old CO2" (which anyone with a clue about climate knows is from fossil fuel burning) being added to the atmosphere. Steve misinterpretation was that he thought the Admiral meant that this "old CO2" coming from the oceans, when, in fact, the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the increase of CO2 being absorbed because of higher levels in the atmosphere. (Although there is a fairly rapid "exchange" of oceanic and atmospheric CO2 that moves much of the "old" fossil fuel CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans after about five years.)

I finally accepted, as I expected to, that Steve, an active conspiracy theorist/believer and fitting to a tee, the previously mentioned cohort of "older American conservative white male climate change deniers" was psychologically incapable of recognizing anything that went against his beliefs. During the entire period of the exchange did not rebut my points, but rather sent me more information from denialist websites that have an obvious bias and agenda (with the one exception noted above), but I'm sure he found that (real science) at a denialist website as well. He sourced no information from websites or journals that simply study and interpret science, but rather used websites dedicated not only to the denial of AGW/CC as a reality, but that use every denialist trick in the book to claim that it is not happening.

Steve objects to me using the term "climate denier" and "climate denialist," but he did not earn the right to be called a "climate skeptic" as defined under the current definitions used by many people as well as psychologists studying climate denial. Climate change denial is a very active area of research in psychology these days, and Steve fits the definition of a climate denialist almost perfectly.

In the world of pure science and active objective scientific research climate, scientists seldom mention any doubt about AGW/CC in their work or papers, because like gravity, they are aware of its reality. So they go about the study of the various aspects of climate and climate change, including refinement of knowledge and information, identification and quantification of changes and tweaking and fine-tuning models as results come in and inaccuracies and errors are identified. The vast majority of active - and many retired - scientists are dismayed by AGW/CC denialism, and there is a growing movement among scientists to improve their communication skills (not many are great communicators like Dr. Richard Alley and a few others) - but they are concerned about the denialism, and beginning to speak out more and more.

On the other side of the coin, a number of vocal professor emeritus scientists, even some who did work in climate and atmospheric physics, offer their support to the climate denial industry, write books, give talks, and blog.

David
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1395
Quoting 721. Birthmark:

Funny how "they" smoked out Tamino despite Tamino's wish to remain anonymous, but they can't be bothered to apply the same standard to Goddard. Very strange, one would be tempted to say it is hypocritical.

Except that at this point, Tamino doesn't really care that he is not anonymous. He links to his own books on his website. His name hasn't been a secret for some time now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 734. BaltimoreBrian:
RE comment 732. Don't ever name your boy Dana. It just makes him bitter for life.

I'm still impressed by his ability to be wrong about *everything*! You'd think he'd get something right just by chance, every now and then. Nope. Not Dana.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Hey all, please check out my blog and give some feedback if any. I am going to do a super fun project here (hopefully), and would love some discussion before I implement it.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
RE comment 732. Don't ever name your boy Dana. It just makes him bitter for life.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8550
Quoting 732. RevElvis:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a senior member of the House Science Committee "Global Warming a 'Fraud' to "Create Global Government"

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a senior member of the House Science Committee "Global Warming a Fraud to Create Global Government"


Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 729. RevElvis:
In addition to consulting heavily with industry sources, the company relies on payments from these same companies. In addition to the payments IHS CERA receives from the energy companies who pay for its services, several sponsor and participate in its annual CERAWeek executive conference. Among the sponsors of the 2013 conference in Houston were those likely to benefit from the pipeline: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil. Top executives from the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and BP are just a few of the interested parties who will be participating.

more at ThinkProgress.com

Now, now. We all know that the really big money is in being a professor at a university. /sarcasm
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
(Real) Major Report Shows Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Would Worsen Climate Change and Fails President’s Climate Test (7/23/2013)

WASHINGTON (July 23, 2013) – The proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would significantly boost the carbon pollution that drives climate change, failing the test set by President Obama, according to a detailed analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In just one key way, over its 50-year life, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would add up to 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than if it carried conventional crude. That is more than every car in the United States releases into the air in an entire year.

Furthermore, the overall increase in carbon pollution triggered by Keystone XL would be similar to the emission reductions from one of the most ambitious initiatives now underway: new U.S. heavy truck emission and efficiency rules.


Natural Resources Defense Council Press Release


For an executive summary of NRDC’s white paper, click here: http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_13072301a.pd f
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Industry Front Group conducts "independent study" - predicts Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have “no material impact” greenhouse gas emissions.

On Thursday, an industry research firm announced a new study predicting that construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would have “no material impact” greenhouse gas emissions. But while proponents and media outlets quickly reported on this “independent study,” the for-profit energy research firm behind the report is anything but independent.

The findings contradict a July study by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which found that over its 50-year life, the pipeline would add 1.2 billion metric tons more carbon pollution than if it carried conventional crude — more than every car in the United States releases into the air annually. The Environmental Protection Agency, in criticizing an earlier State Department analysis, warned that much more information is needed in order to accurately predict what impact the pipeline may have on the environment.

IHS is an information company that provides research for a variety of companies, at a fee. Its Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) division calls itself “a leading advisor to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers.”

To complete the Keystone XL study, IHS CERA relied on a “base of knowledge” from several oil sands dialogue studies, a spokesman told ThinkProgress. Among the stakeholders participating in the company’s 2012 focus group on greenhouse emissions from oil sands, he noted, were several oil companies and trade associations — many with a direct stake in the pipeline. These included the American Petroleum Institute, BP Canada, Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Chevron Canada Resources, ConocoPhillips In Situ Oil Sands Alliance, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy Inc., and even the pipeline’s owner, the TransCanada Corporation.

In addition to consulting heavily with industry sources, the company relies on payments from these same companies. In addition to the payments IHS CERA receives from the energy companies who pay for its services, several sponsor and participate in its annual CERAWeek executive conference. Among the sponsors of the 2013 conference in Houston were those likely to benefit from the pipeline: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil. Top executives from the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and BP are just a few of the interested parties who will be participating.

more at ThinkProgress.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Brings tears to my eyes when the they demolished these two units today.... I literately cycled Cutler units 5 and 6 on and off the grid thousands of times during my 20 year career at FPL... Many fond memories there... Oh and the Snook fishing was out of this world there in the winter when the warm water discharge was exiting the condenser units.......



Link

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20390
.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20390


Talk about cults...




Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20390
CEastwood citing the anonymous racist Steve Goddard again? Just goes to show he can't find a link from a real climate scientist that agrees with him!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8550
Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

Himalayas to be wetter and warmer over next century

WRAPUP 1-In North Asia, a growing crisis of confidence in nuclear power

Aloha! Flat-topped coral shows up off Oahu coast for first time
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8550
Re 714 & 715: So tragically ironic that denialist nonsense is immediately followed by a story of the terrible effects of climate change on the Masai people. Of course, CEastwood (or Steve Goddard) would probably say "It's just a cycle; they've starved before; get over it."
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2305
Swedish men told to beware of testicle munching fish

Very odd story this. The fish is a pacu, related to piranhas, and usually found in freshwater in Amazonia. Some have been introduced into New Guinea as a food fish, and there are stories of some unfortunates there having their dangly bits bitten off, and bleeding to death.

I know global warming will result in species redistributions, but this is ridiculous. Moreover, it was caught in salt water, between Denmark and Sweden. I've a feeling it might turn out to be a hoax, but who knows?

Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 718. Some1Has2BtheRookie:
When you can tell us who Steven Goddard is I will be able to show you a practitioner of the psuedo-sciences. Are you able to tell us who Steven Goddard is? It just might help to know your source.

Funny how "they" smoked out Tamino despite Tamino's wish to remain anonymous, but they can't be bothered to apply the same standard to Goddard. Very strange, one would be tempted to say it is hypocritical.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 717. JohnLonergan:
The whole situation is made more dangerous by the fact that China, India and Pakistan all have nukes, I foresee that water is going to become a major source of conflict in the future.

You got that right, imo! It could get very ugly in that region. Epically ugly.

I hope that they can reach reasoned agreements through peaceful methods.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 714. CEastwood:
Do the people hanging out on this site really believe in this deteriorating CO2 fallacy?

Link

Goddard? Not even Tony the Weather Clown puts up with Old "Triple Point Goddard!" LOL

If anything Goddard says *ever* has any validity...I'll just wait for it to turn up somewhere reputable. In the meantime, I just assume everything Goddard posts is a lie or gross misunderstanding on his part. Saves a lot of time.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
When you can tell us who Steven Goddard is I will be able to show you a practitioner of the psuedo-sciences. Are you able to tell us who Steven Goddard is? It just might help to know your source.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
China and India 'water grab' dams put ecology of Himalayas in danger
More than 400 hydroelectric schemes are planned in the mountain region, which could be a disaster for the environment


The future of the world's most famous mountain range could be endangered by a vast dam-building project, as a risky regional race for water resources takes place in Asia.

New academic research shows that India, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan are engaged in a huge "water grab" in the Himalayas, as they seek new sources of electricity to power their economies. Taken together, the countries have plans for more than 400 hydro dams which, if built, could together provide more than 160,000MW of electricity – three times more than the UK uses.

In addition, China has plans for around 100 dams to generate a similar amount of power from major rivers rising in Tibet. A further 60 or more dams are being planned for the Mekong river which also rises in Tibet and flows south through south-east Asia.

Most of the Himalayan rivers have been relatively untouched by dams near their sources. Now the two great Asian powers, India and China, are rushing to harness them as they cut through some of the world's deepest valleys. Many of the proposed dams would be among the tallest in the world, able to generate more than 4,000MW, as much as the Hoover dam on the Colorado river in the US.

Read more >>

The whole situation is made more dangerous by the fact that China, India and Pakistan all have nukes, I foresee that water is going to become a major source of conflict in the future.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3121
Quoting 714. CEastwood:
Do the people hanging out on this site really believe in this deteriorating CO2 fallacy?

Link


Lol, get a clue.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Climate change threatens Africa's Masai
Deutsche Welle English, August 9

Persistent droughts have forced Masai cattle herds to the brink of starvation. For these legendary warriors, the next battle means combatting climate change through education and adaptation. ...

The rainy season has become short and unpredictable. Grass doesn't have time to grow before the next drought comes, which means the cattle have nothing to eat. Some Masai herdsmen end up walking for weeks to find pastures for their cattle. Others slaughter their herds or sell off their ancestral land, in order feed the families. Ole Ntimama blames the changing climate. He said it has been a catastrophe not only for the Masai but for the land.

"The cows at times do not produce a lot of milk because of water shortages caused by severe droughts, which claim their lives," Ntimama said. "The grass is also not sufficient for all our animals, and we keep many animals. Water is becoming so hard to find, and in some places grass has completely stopped growing." ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Do the people hanging out on this site really believe in this deteriorating CO2 fallacy?

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

Link
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2305

Viewing: 763 - 713

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.