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: 1163 - 1113

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

1163. pcola57
5:49 PM GMT on September 18, 2013



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 18, 2013


EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Testimony Before House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power

WASHINGTON -- As prepared for delivery.

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

In June, the President reaffirmed his commitment to reducing carbon pollution when he directed many federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and future damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions and to prepare for the anticipated climate changes that have already been set in motion.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human caused climate change is occurring. If our changing climate goes unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United States and the planet. Reducing carbon pollution is critically important to the protection of Americans’ health and the environment upon which our economy depends.

Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security, and environmental imperative that presents an economic challenge and an economic opportunity. As the President has stated, both the economy and the environment must provide for current and future generations and we can and must embrace cutting carbon pollution as a spark for business innovation, job creation, clean energy and broad economic growth. The United States’ success over the past 40 years makes clear that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand.

The President’s Climate Action Plan directs federal agencies to address climate change using existing executive authorities. The Plan has three key pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America; preparing the country for the impacts of climate change; and leading international efforts to combat global climate change.

Cutting Carbon Pollution

EPA plays a critical role in implementing the Plan’s first pillar, cutting carbon pollution. Over the past four years, EPA has begun to address this task under the Clean Air Act.

Our first steps addressed motor vehicles, which emit nearly a third of U.S. carbon pollution. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with the auto industry and other stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for Model Year 2012 to 2025 light-duty vehicles. Over the life of these vehicles, the standards will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and businesses and cut America’s oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons.

EPA’s and NHTSA’s standards for model year 2014 through 2018 heavy-duty trucks and buses present a similar success story. Under the President’s Plan, we will be developing a second phase of heavy-duty vehicle standards for post 2018 model years.

Building on this success, the President asked EPA to work with states, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop plans to reduce carbon pollution from future and existing power plants, which are responsible for about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution.

EPA will soon issue new proposed carbon pollution standards for future power plants, reflecting new information and the extensive public comments on our 2012 proposal. For existing plants, we are engaged in outreach to a broad group of stakeholders with expertise who can inform the development of proposed standards, regulations, or guidelines, which we expect to issue in June of 2014. These guidelines will provide guidance to States, which have the primary role in developing and implementing plans to address carbon pollution from existing plants. This framework will allow us to capitalize on state leadership and innovation while also accounting for regional diversity and providing the necessary flexibility.

The Plan also calls for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to address emissions of methane – a powerful greenhouse gas that also contributes to ozone pollution, but which has substantial economic value. EPA will work with other agencies to assess emissions data, address data gaps, and identify opportunities to reduce methane emissions through incentive-based programs and existing authorities.

Preparing for Impacts of Climate Change

Even as we work to avoid dangerous climate change, we must strengthen America’s resilience to climate impacts we’re already experiencing and those that can no longer be avoided. The President’s Plan calls for a broad array of actions on this front. EPA will incorporate research on climate impacts into the implementation of our existing programs, and develop information and tools to help decision-makers – including State, local and tribal governments – to better understand and address these impacts. Further, EPA is working closely with our federal agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our national resilience, including developing the National Drought Resilience Partnership, ensuring the security of our freshwater supplies, protecting our water utilities, and protecting and restoring our forests in the fact of a changing climate.

International Efforts

Our changing climate is also a global challenge, and the President’s Plan recognizes that the United States must couple action at home with leadership abroad. Working closely with the State Department, EPA will continue to engage our international partners in reducing carbon pollution through an array of activities.. These include public-private partnership efforts to address emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants under the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the Global Methane Initiative, as well as bilateral cooperation with major economies.

Conclusion

The President’s Plan provides a roadmap for federal action to meet the pressing challenge of a changing climate– promoting clean energy solutions that capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth. EPA looks forward to working with other federal agencies and all stakeholders on these critical efforts.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6844
1162. iceagecoming
11:51 AM GMT on September 08, 2013
Cheers! Tony Abbott, who said “Climate change is absolute crap” will become Australia’s 28th prime minister after a decisive victory




By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 7, 2013 7:31 AM

Uh oh: Tony Abbott, who said “Climate change is absolute crap” will become Australia’s 28th prime minister after a decisive victory

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/09/uh-oh-tony- abbott-who-said-change-is.html

Tony Abbott will be Australian prime minister after decisive election victory | World news | theguardian.comTony Abbott will be Australia’s 28th prime minister after a decisive victory became clear almost as soon as ballot counting began, with voters casting a brutal verdict on a divisive Labor era that lasted just six years….Abbott has been a relentlessly negative opposition leader who won the job with a pledge not to recognise Labor’s 2007 mandate to implement its emissions trading scheme, but who now promises a conflict-weary electorate calm, stable “grown-up” government and demands the upper house recognise his electoral mandate to immediately repeal the carbon tax.Australia’s carbon tax debate: key quotes – TelegraphHere are some key quotes on climate change and the carbon tax:Tony Abbott, leader of the opposition, 2009″Climate change is absolute crap.”Tony Abbott, Feb 2011″We will fight this tax every second of every minute of every month.”I think there will be a people’s revolt against this carbon tax.”


http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/07/cheers-ton y-abbott-who-said-climate-change-is-absolute-crap- will-become-australias-28th-prime-minister-after-a -decisive-victory/


Link


The tide is changing, and reality of real science is in and "hockey-stick hoopla" is out.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1078
1161. overwash12
9:50 PM GMT on August 22, 2013
I have A VERY strong feeling that the North Pole will freeze up this Winter,whatcha all be thinkin'?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
1160. yoboi
12:26 AM GMT on August 19, 2013
Quoting 1159. Neapolitan:
That's a pretty harsh assessment, and more than a little unfair...

...To chairs.



Neap Rood created a new blog...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2346
1159. Neapolitan
12:23 AM GMT on August 19, 2013
Quoting 1147. JohnLonergan:


NoTricksZone is the intellectual equivalent of a chair.
That's a pretty harsh assessment, and more than a little unfair...

...To chairs.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13565
1158. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
11:12 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
1157. cyclonebuster
10:14 PM GMT on August 18, 2013

Quoting 1156. JohnLonergan:
Coastal cities face $1tn floods by 2050


In less than 40 years from now the cost to the world%u2019s biggest coastal cities from flooding is expected to have risen to $1 trillion %u2013 0.7% of the value of the entire world economy in 2012.

LONDON, 18 August %u2013 By 2050, flood damage in the world%u2019s coastal cities is expected to reach $1 trillion a year as sea levels rise and global warming triggers new extremes of heat, windstorm and rain.

More than 40% of these prodigious costs could fall upon just four cities %u2013 New Orleans, Miami and New York in the US and Guangzhou in China.

Stephane Hallegatte of the World Bank in Washington and colleagues looked at the risks of future flood losses in the 136 largest of the world%u2019s coastal cities.

Any coastal city is always at some risk %u2013 by definition it is at sea level, and often on an estuary or floodplain, and very often began as a seaport.

But risks increase as the environment changes: some coastal cities are subsiding; sea levels are slowly but surely rising as the oceans warm and the glaciers melt; and for two decades researchers have repeatedly warned that what used to be %u201Cextreme%u201D events such as once-in-a-century floods are likely to arrive considerably more often than once a century.

More at risk

But, Hallegatte and colleagues point out in Nature Climate Change, there is another factor: populations are growing, and even in the poorest nations there is greater economic development. At bottom, for any future disaster, there will be more potential victims, with more investment to lose.

In 2005, average global flood losses are estimated to have reached $6 billion a year. This figure is expected to grow to $50 billion a year, and unless cities put money into better flood defences, losses could pass the $1 trillion mark.

To make their calculations, the authors matched average annual losses (and in a city like New Orleans, much of it already below sea level, this is estimated at $600 million) against a city%u2019s gross domestic product, to provide a measure of how much should be set aside to pay for such losses.

Both New York and New Orleans have already undergone catastrophic flooding this century, and flood hazard can only increase.

Some cities %u2013 Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a classic example %u2013 are highly exposed to flood risk, and the once-a-century flood could cost the Dutch $83 billion, but in fact Dutch sea defence standards are probably the highest in the world. Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and Alexandria in Egypt have less to lose, but in relative terms both are far more vulnerable.

Prophecies such as these are intended to be proved wrong: the idea is that a prophet warns of horrors to come, people take steps, and as a consequence the horrors do not arrive.

Not too late
But as disaster professionals have learned again and again, governments, city authorities, investors and even citizens tend not to listen to prophecies of doom: scientists and engineers repeatedly described what could happen to New Orleans if it was hit by a powerful-enough hurricane, and in 2005, as Hurricane Katrina arrived, the levees gave way, with catastrophic results.

But, the scientists warn, Miami, New York and New Orleans are especially vulnerable, because wealth is high but protection systems are poor, and governments should be prepared for disasters more devastating than any experienced today.

The paper%u2019s authors argue that with systematic preparedness and adaptation, annual flood losses in the great global cities could be cut to $63 billion a year.

Engineering projects can help, but will not be enough, so civic authorities should also be thinking about disaster planning and comprehensive insurance programmes to cover future losses.

Since risks are highly concentrated %u2013 any city piles millions of people and billions of dollars of investment into a relatively small area %u2013 flood reduction schemes could be highly cost-effective. %u2013 Climate News Network

Share this:


1T added to the 70T gives us 71 trillion...No longer 17 trillion owed.. Oh well no one listens to my idea....I tried but no one listens...Sorry..

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1156. JohnLonergan
9:28 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Coastal cities face $1tn floods by 2050


In less than 40 years from now the cost to the world’s biggest coastal cities from flooding is expected to have risen to $1 trillion – 0.7% of the value of the entire world economy in 2012.

LONDON, 18 August – By 2050, flood damage in the world’s coastal cities is expected to reach $1 trillion a year as sea levels rise and global warming triggers new extremes of heat, windstorm and rain.

More than 40% of these prodigious costs could fall upon just four cities – New Orleans, Miami and New York in the US and Guangzhou in China.

Stephane Hallegatte of the World Bank in Washington and colleagues looked at the risks of future flood losses in the 136 largest of the world’s coastal cities.

Any coastal city is always at some risk – by definition it is at sea level, and often on an estuary or floodplain, and very often began as a seaport.

But risks increase as the environment changes: some coastal cities are subsiding; sea levels are slowly but surely rising as the oceans warm and the glaciers melt; and for two decades researchers have repeatedly warned that what used to be “extreme” events such as once-in-a-century floods are likely to arrive considerably more often than once a century.

More at risk

But, Hallegatte and colleagues point out in Nature Climate Change, there is another factor: populations are growing, and even in the poorest nations there is greater economic development. At bottom, for any future disaster, there will be more potential victims, with more investment to lose.

In 2005, average global flood losses are estimated to have reached $6 billion a year. This figure is expected to grow to $50 billion a year, and unless cities put money into better flood defences, losses could pass the $1 trillion mark.

To make their calculations, the authors matched average annual losses (and in a city like New Orleans, much of it already below sea level, this is estimated at $600 million) against a city’s gross domestic product, to provide a measure of how much should be set aside to pay for such losses.

Both New York and New Orleans have already undergone catastrophic flooding this century, and flood hazard can only increase.

Some cities – Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a classic example – are highly exposed to flood risk, and the once-a-century flood could cost the Dutch $83 billion, but in fact Dutch sea defence standards are probably the highest in the world. Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and Alexandria in Egypt have less to lose, but in relative terms both are far more vulnerable.

Prophecies such as these are intended to be proved wrong: the idea is that a prophet warns of horrors to come, people take steps, and as a consequence the horrors do not arrive.

Not too late
But as disaster professionals have learned again and again, governments, city authorities, investors and even citizens tend not to listen to prophecies of doom: scientists and engineers repeatedly described what could happen to New Orleans if it was hit by a powerful-enough hurricane, and in 2005, as Hurricane Katrina arrived, the levees gave way, with catastrophic results.

But, the scientists warn, Miami, New York and New Orleans are especially vulnerable, because wealth is high but protection systems are poor, and governments should be prepared for disasters more devastating than any experienced today.

The paper’s authors argue that with systematic preparedness and adaptation, annual flood losses in the great global cities could be cut to $63 billion a year.

Engineering projects can help, but will not be enough, so civic authorities should also be thinking about disaster planning and comprehensive insurance programmes to cover future losses.

Since risks are highly concentrated – any city piles millions of people and billions of dollars of investment into a relatively small area – flood reduction schemes could be highly cost-effective. – Climate News Network

Share this:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1155. cyclonebuster
9:07 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1154. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I hope that Steven Goddard is on the list so that we may finally discover who this person is.


Along with Wilbur Watts...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1154. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:10 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1153. cyclonebuster:


I bet it is no more than 3% LOL...


I hope that Steven Goddard is on the list so that we may finally discover who this person is.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
1153. cyclonebuster
8:07 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1152. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I sent Congressman Miller an email requiring him supply me with a list of the "I have scientist that I listen to". I will let everyone know how responds.


I bet it is no more than 3% LOL...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1152. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:03 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1144. cyclonebuster:
LOL... He doesn't look at Arctic Ice extent...


Quoting 1144. cyclonebuster:
LOL... He doesn't look at Arctic Ice extent...




I sent Congressman Miller an email requiring him supply me with a list of the "I have scientist that I listen to". I will let everyone know how responds.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
1151. cyclonebuster
7:58 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
As of today we should be in 7th place...

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1150. JohnLonergan
7:49 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Congressional Climate Crock Department:

Crikey! Clueless Congressman Creates New Climate Crock from Whole Cloth


The letter sent out by Nevada Representative Mark Amodei was in response to a letter Amodei received from a constituent on the topic of climate change.

Amodei represents District 2 which encompasses the Northern half of the state. With the exception of Reno, the district is very rural with ranching and mining being the principle industries.

I’ll let the letter speak for itself.

Dear Mr. [...]:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change. Since 1990, the U.S. has spent at least $50 billion on climate research.

With sound science and a clear understanding of the natural climate cycles that the earth undergoes, we will be able to develop effective solutions to the human causes of global warming. As legislation to address this issue comes to the House floor for a vote, be assured I will consider it carefully and keep your thoughts in mind.

I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to apprise me of your opinions and hope that you will contact me again should you have any further comments or concerns. If you would like additional information on my activities in the House, please visit my website,www.Amodei.house.gov or connect with me on facebook.com/MarkAmodeiNV2 and twitter.com/MarkAmodeiNV2.

In closing, please know that I consider it a privilege to serve and represent you and your family in Congress.

Sincerely,
Signature
Mark E. Amodei
Member of Congress

Source

Sheesh what a maroon
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1149. cyclonebuster
7:38 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1147. JohnLonergan:


NoTricksZone is the intellectual equivalent of a chair.


I think the chair is smarter...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1148. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:32 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1144. cyclonebuster:
LOL... He doesn't look at Arctic Ice extent...




Ignorance feeds further ignorance. We elect people to keep people ignorant? This seems to be the case.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
1147. JohnLonergan
7:29 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1140. Patrap:
LOL

NoTricksZone
Not here to worship what is known, but to question it. Climate news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. Gosselin


... warmist scientists, declared a blogger named Pierre Gosselin - NoTricksZone


NoTricksZone is the intellectual equivalent of a chair.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1146. Birthmark
7:18 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Take a look at post #25. It's a satellite shot of the North Pole area. Pretty stunning.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1145. Birthmark
7:15 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1139. CEastwood:

LOL!

Yeah, if there's one thing that will overturn solid science it's poor journalism and denialist websites...or not.

This goes out to all those denialists grasping any straw available. You know who you are.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1144. cyclonebuster
6:58 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
LOL... He doesn't look at Arctic Ice extent...


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1143. cyclonebuster
6:04 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
I got it let's use Browndo to water our crops instead of water because it has electrolites.........

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1142. cyclonebuster
5:50 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
WOW! Today's Great Lake is twice as big as Yesterday's Great Lake at the North Pole...Looks like another one is forming also... Any problem with that folks?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1141. cyclonebuster
5:37 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Great Lakes at North Pole video... It's ok to have Great Lakes at the North Pole isn't it? Isn't that like having an Arctic Ice sheet at the Equator?





...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1140. Patrap
5:00 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
LOL

NoTricksZone
Not here to worship what is known, but to question it. Climate news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. Gosselin


... warmist scientists, declared a blogger named Pierre Gosselin - NoTricksZone
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128691
1139. CEastwood
4:55 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Even the "green" Danish people are starting the see the light:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
1138. JohnLonergan
3:19 PM GMT on August 18, 2013
Heat waves to become more frequent and severe

Climate change is set to trigger more frequent and severe heat waves in the next 30 years regardless of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we emit into the atmosphere, a new study has shown.

Extreme heat waves such as those that hit the US in 2012 and Australia in 2009 – dubbed three-sigma events by the researchers – are projected to cover double the amount of global land by 2020 and quadruple by 2040.

Meanwhile, more-severe summer heat waves – classified as five-sigma events – will go from being essentially absent in the present day to covering around three per cent of the global land surface by 2040.

The new study, which has been published today, Thursday 15 August, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, finds that in the first half of the 21st century, these projections will occur regardless of the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.

After then, the rise in frequency of extreme heat waves becomes dependent on the emission scenario adopted. Under a low emission scenario, the number of extremes will stabilise by 2040, whereas under a high emission scenario, the land area affected by extremes will increase by one per cent a year after 2040.

Lead author of the study, Dim Coumou, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “We find that up until 2040, the frequency of monthly heat extremes will increase several fold, independent of the emission scenario we choose to take. Mitigation can, however, strongly reduce the number of extremes in the second half of the 21st century.”

Under a high emission scenario, the projections show that by 2100, 3-sigma heat waves will cover 85 per cent of the global land area and five-sigma heat waves will cover around 60 per cent of global land.

“A good example of a recent three-sigma event is the 2010 heat wave in Russia, which expanded over a large area stretching from the Baltic to the Caspian Sea. In the Moscow region the average temperature for the whole of July was around 7°C warmer than normal – it was around 25°C. In some parts, temperatures above 40°C were measured,” continued Coumou.

In their study, Dim Coumou, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Alexander Robinson, from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, used state-of-the-art climate models to project changes in the trend of heat extremes under two future warming scenarios – RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 – throughout the 21st century. The historic period was also analysed, and the results showed that the models can accurately reproduce the observed rise in monthly heat extremes over the past 50 years.

Co-author of the study, Alexander Robinson, said: “Our three- and five-sigma thresholds are defined by the variability a region has experienced in the past, so the absolute temperatures associated with these types of event will differ in different parts of the world. Nonetheless these events represent a significant departure from the normal range of temperatures experienced in a given region.”

According to the research, tropical regions will see the strongest increase in heat extremes, exceeding the threshold that is defined by the historic variability in the specific region. The results show that these changes can already be seen when analysing observations between 2000 and 2012.

“Heat extremes can be very damaging to society and ecosystems, often causing heat-related deaths, forest fires or losses to agricultural production. So an increase in frequency is likely to pose serious challenges to society and some regions will have to adapt to more frequent and more severe heat waves already in the near-term,” continued Coumou.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1136. JohnLonergan
1:56 AM GMT on August 18, 2013


EARTH DAY 1971, THAT'S 42 YEARS AGO
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1135. JohnLonergan
1:52 AM GMT on August 18, 2013
From Watching The Deniers:
LEAKED IPCC REPORT CONFIRMS SCIENTISTS HAVE “95% CONFIDENCE” WE’RE CHANGING THE CLIMATE


From the Jakarta Globe:

Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major UN report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades.

The uncertainty is frustrating for government planners: the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the main guide for states weighing multibillion-dollar shifts to renewable energy from fossil fuels, for coastal regions considering extra sea defenses or crop breeders developing heat-resistant strains.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

That shifts the debate onto the extent of temperature rises and the likely impacts, from manageable to catastrophic.

Governments have agreed to work out an international deal by the end of 2015 to rein in rising emissions.


More details to come.

Not that is a surprise to many of us.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1134. JohnLonergan
1:33 AM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1133. JohnLonergan:
NSIDC director and Arctic cyclone specialist Mark Serreze on the NSIDC Icelights blog discusses Arctic cyclones:

Are Arctic cyclones chewing up sea ice?




The Icelights blog post has been posted at Neven's ASIB. Commenter M Owens posted:

here's some perspective on Serreze's outlook, compared to that of Wieslaw Maslowski, from SCIENCE VOL 337 28 SEPTEMBER 2012:

" “There are a lot of deficiencies in the state-of-the-art [climate] models,” says oceanographer Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in Monterey,California. If the rapidly declining ice volume is taken to be the better guide, he says, Arctic sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade. "

" Using “only ice extent is not sufficient if you believe volume can change much faster,” Maslowski says. Large uncertainties remain, he notes, but their extrapolation gives a date of 2016 for a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean, with the end likely to come by the end of the decade. "

" The climate models don’t handle changing rules very well, but Serreze takes a shot at a date for an ice-free Arctic Ocean by adjusting the models’ projections downward by folding in current trends in ice area and volume. “I’m on record [as of 2007] saying 2030 is a reasonable time for” ice-free conditions, he says. "

" Serreze and others think Maslowski’s volume extrapolation exaggerates the problem. “It could happen [by 2016],” Serreze says. “I just don’t think so. I think he’s being too aggressive. ”
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1133. JohnLonergan
1:18 AM GMT on August 18, 2013
NSIDC director and Arctic cyclone specialist Mark Serreze on the NSIDC Icelights blog discusses Arctic cyclones:

Are Arctic cyclones chewing up sea ice?

The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 lifted out of Siberia on August 2nd, swirling in a counter-clockwise rotation up into the Arctic. As one of the most extreme Arctic cyclones ever recorded, its consumption of an already low sea ice extent raised many concerns. Now Arctic cyclones are garnering attention, but is all the hype warranted?

“People seem to have this thought that all this storminess is unusual,” said Mark Serreze, an Arctic climatologist and center director at NSIDC. “Well it’s not. It simply isn’t. Summer is the time for cyclones.” Arctic summers are not calm. In fact, the months of August and September see a maximum amount of cyclonic activity. Not every summer is very stormy, but overall, the Arctic is the Arctic for a reason.

How much did the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 contribute to ice loss? Less than 5 percent, according to a study led by Jinlun Zhang and published in Geophysical Research Letters. The scientists point out that 2012′s record loss was 18 percent greater than the previous low, set in 2007, meaning the record low was going to get there with or without the big one.

The rise of cyclones

Adding to confusion of the Arctic’s storminess, the Atlantic side can be calm in the summer. But this isn’t the area being discussed in terms of cyclone activity. In the Northern Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, summer is tempestuous. “The reason we have storms in the first place is that they do a job—transferring heat and momentum poleward,” Serreze said. In the Northern Hemisphere, winters are stormier because of the temperature gradient between the Arctic, which is dark and cold, and the equatorial regions, which are sunny and warm. “But embedded within that overall pattern, what happens on a regional basis can be quite different,” Serreze said.

During an Arctic summer, temperature gradients develop between the Arctic Ocean and the snow-free land, forming the Arctic frontal zone, where the land heats up strongly in contrast to the ocean along the coast. Most cyclones generate along this frontal zone and then migrate into the central Arctic Ocean.

Are the storms getting stronger? “No,” Serreze said. “Most of the evidence is actually showing that the frequency of stormy months is decreasing, favoring fair weather conditions. It’s not clear why, but it’s what’s been observed lately.”

Photograph of Arctic sea ice
Scientist Julienne Stroeve took this photograph in September 2012 while aboard the MV Arctic Sunrise as part of a team investigating changes in the Arctic sea ice. (Courtesy J. Stroeve)

What do cyclones do to sea ice?

Cyclones do three things to sea ice. They spread out ice to cover a larger area, forming space between ice floes, and increasing ice extent. They bring on cool conditions. And they cause precipitation, which even in the peak of summer is still between 40 to 50 percent in the form of snow. Storms are good for the Arctic. Snow reinforces ice by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back into the atmosphere, helping to cool the region. When rain falls, it is near freezing; so it doesn’t melt snow like a warm rainstorm over snow banks in lower latitudes.

“Statistically speaking,” Serreze said, “summers with lots of cyclones have less ice loss than summers with fewer storms. That’s pretty clear.” That’s what happened this past June. A stormy pattern slowed the rate of ice loss. “Having said that,” Serreze said, “the impacts of an individual storm may not follow that rule, and maybe importantly, the rules are starting to change.”

When a storm breaks up the ice causing ice sprawl, it accelerates ice loss because the darker spaces of open ocean water, absorb more solar energy and increase melting. “If you looked at it that way,” Serreze said, “okay, I’d buy it. But that’s not the only thing that’s happening.” Stormy patterns bring on cool conditions and more precipitation, which tends to increase ice extent. However, individual cyclones may start to change the rules, putting more emphasis on ice break up as a factor in ice loss. Scientists don’t quite know yet if that is the case.

Serreze warned, however, that at some point, the ice becomes so thin it doesn’t matter if there’s a storm or not. “It’s just going to melt anyhow,” he said.

Reference

Zhang, J., R. Lindsay, A. Schweiger, and M. Steele. 2013. The impact of an intense summer cyclone on 2012 Arctic sea ice retreat. Geophysical Research Letters 40: 720-726, doi:10.1002/grl50190.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1132. Xulonn
12:34 AM GMT on August 18, 2013
Quoting 1128. RevElvis:
Exploding Oil Sparks Concerns From Railway and Pipeline Companies

Crude oil really isn't supposed to explode. But according to a Tuesday article in Bloomberg on the investigation of the July 6 train accident in Quebec that killed 47 people, that might not be true of the oil coming from North Dakota's booming Bakken region....snip...
The antics of the energy companies and the iron fist with which they control governments is starting to look like a dystopian movie come to life.

"Move right along, folks. Nothing to see here. The government will make sure big companies are practicing safety procedures that will keep you and your families safe. There is no danger...
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1466
1131. cyclonebuster
9:30 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
I see a Great Lake at the North Pole today.....

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1130. cyclonebuster
8:41 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1129. RevElvis:
Oregon's GOP Chair Wants to Sprinkle Nuclear Waste From Airplanes

The beleaguered Oregon Republican Party elected a new chairman last weekend. His name is Art Robinson, and he wants to sprinkle radioactive waste from airplanes to build up our resistance to degenerative illnesses.

On nuclear waste: "All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean—or even over America after hormesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases." And: "If we could use it to enhance our own drinking water here in Oregon, where background radiation is low, it would hormetically enhance our resistance to degenerative diseases. Alas, this would be against the law."

On climate change: "[T]here is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


more at MotherJones.com


Never mind if the radioactive compounds get in your lungs and cause cancer but then again we can just give the whole world respirators to filter them out...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1129. RevElvis
8:35 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Oregon's GOP Chair Wants to Sprinkle Nuclear Waste From Airplanes

The beleaguered Oregon Republican Party elected a new chairman last weekend. His name is Art Robinson, and he wants to sprinkle radioactive waste from airplanes to build up our resistance to degenerative illnesses.

On nuclear waste: "All we need do with nuclear waste is dilute it to a low radiation level and sprinkle it over the ocean - or even over America after hormesis is better understood and verified with respect to more diseases." And: "If we could use it to enhance our own drinking water here in Oregon, where background radiation is low, it would hormetically enhance our resistance to degenerative diseases. Alas, this would be against the law."

On climate change: "[T]here is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


more at MotherJones.com

*edit - I have to wonder - if this guy was the "winner" - what kind of "interesting" ideas did the loser have?
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1128. RevElvis
8:32 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Exploding Oil Sparks Concerns From Railway and Pipeline Companies

Crude oil really isn't supposed to explode. But according to a Tuesday article in Bloomberg on the investigation of the July 6 train accident in Quebec that killed 47 people, that might not be true of the oil coming from North Dakota's booming Bakken region.

According to Bloomberg, Enbridge Inc., Tesoro Corp., and True companies all won the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to refuse oil that had high levels of hydrogen sulfide, a highly flammable gas that can be a byproduct of oil production, after they started seeing oil with concentrations tens and even hundreds of times higher than what regulators have deemed safe for exposure. The danger of these elevated levels of gas in the oil was thrown into stark relief on July 6, when an unmanned, runaway train crashed carrying 72 cars of oil. Five of them exploded, killing 47.

Bloomberg Writes:

"The fact that there were explosions, and crude oil is not supposed to explode, raises a lot of suspicions as to whether there were other chemicals and so on added to oil in the process before the shipment," Edward Burkhardt, chief executive officer of Rail World Inc., which owns the Montreal and Maine railway, said in an interview.

While derailments of trains hauling crude can create environmental messes, oil doesn%u2019t usually ignite unless exposed to extreme heat, said Lloyd Burton, professor of environmental policy at the University of Colorado in Denver. Gasoline, refined from crude oil, is more more volatile.

"Crude oil doesn't usually explode and burn with the ferocity that this train did," Burton said.

more at MotherJones.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1127. Patrap
5:53 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128691
1126. yoboi
1:45 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1124. JohnLonergan:


You can't drink natural gas and after fracking you can't drink the water.


Give thanks to the jilly jenkins heat transfer process....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2346
1125. Daisyworld
1:32 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1118. JohnLonergan:
Today's Idiocy from WTFUWT from Ingenious Persuits:

Learning math with Anthony Watts

OK, children. Today we are going to do a simple exercise with percentages. What does 95% actually mean?

Let me give a bit of context first. Here is a sentence with the number 95% in it? We need to try to work out what that means in this sentence.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
Does it mean:
a) 95% of scientists think human activities are causing global warming, or
b) there is a 19 out of 20 chance that observed warming is the result of human activities.

You're ahead of me, of course the answer is (a). At least it is if you are Willard Anthony Watts. Why else would you conflate a 95% probability with an observed 97% consensus in this headline@
The IPCC’s new certainty is 95% What? Not 97%??

Because Willard doesn't read, doesn't take time to consider what he's writing and doesn't stop to check. And the duck in an echoic chamber that he operates prattles on without thinking too. Or is it so his Wattbot commenters can just make the usual head nodding murmurs and give their assent to his jottings. For the best science site in the world, it sure is sloppy.

Just in case you didn't get the point, here's Willard's worked example (for those that also missed it, Riger Pielke Sr dissented from the AGU statement the other week, the only one of the 15 who signed it off):
That “squeeze out” is about right, look at Dr. Roger Pielke’s minority view with the AGU:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-res ponse-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
His minority view was one of 15 people that made the statement.
That works out to about a 7% minority view (or 93% majority) on that panel
No, Anthony. It's not about the numbers of people who believe global warming is caused by us. It's about how sure we are that global warming is caused by us.

Will Willard post a correction when someone points out his schoolboy error? Don't bet on it. Bet instead on Essex in the T20 finals tomorrow. You won't win your money back but at least you will have made someone else slightly richer. One is a number as well. Eventually, climate change denial will fizzle because the evidence, already overwhelming, will reach into the grey cells of even those hardest cases. And of course, Orwell knew what a minority of one meant.
By the way, Italy was ruddy hot. Hotter than average. I haven't seen too many posts on the skeptical sites mentioning the European heatwaves this summer.


John, I have to point out that the graphic you posted from the ConsensusProject.org is misleading. Watts and the deniers aren't even in that 2%. The actual article comes from Anderegg, et. al., 2010, who found that "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". The 2% are simply researchers of "relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" who are unconvinced by the tenants of anthropogenic climate change as outlined by the IPCC. They are not necessarily all-out deniers of ACC. Watts and most deniers aren't even literate in the scientific process, let alone actively publishing in the field. So, the graphic you posted is giving credit where credit is NOT due.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
1124. JohnLonergan
1:15 PM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1122. LAbonbon:


Regardless of all potential climate and environmental issues - where will the water come from?? A lot of these lands are already in arid locations, w/ some in areas facing severe water shortages. Natural gas is not a limited resource, as there's plenty of fracking happening on private lands. Water in many locations is a limited resource. Seems to me this will exacerbate a serious, ongoing condition.


You can't drink natural gas and after fracking you can't drink the water.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1123. RevElvis
3:02 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
BP Dolphin Ride - looks like loads of fun!





Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1122. LAbonbon
3:01 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1111. Xandra:
From Forecast The Facts:

TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA: DON'T FRACK ON PUBLIC LANDS

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

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

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

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

THE PETITION

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

Dear President Obama:

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

SIGN HERE


Regardless of all potential climate and environmental issues - where will the water come from?? A lot of these lands are already in arid locations, w/ some in areas facing severe water shortages. Natural gas is not a limited resource, as there's plenty of fracking happening on private lands. Water in many locations is a limited resource. Seems to me this will exacerbate a serious, ongoing condition.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1817
1121. RevElvis
2:57 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
"Tar Sands Timmy" (ain't he cute!)



- Mark Fiore
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1120. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:35 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1118. JohnLonergan:
Today's Idiocy from WTFUWT

And of course, Orwell knew what a minority of one meant.


If you are going to say it, ya gotta say it with CONVICTION!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
1119. cyclonebuster
1:37 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
Quoting 1118. JohnLonergan:
Today's Idiocy from WTFUWT from Ingenious Persuits:

Learning math with Anthony Watts

OK, children. Today we are going to do a simple exercise with percentages. What does 95% actually mean?

Let me give a bit of context first. Here is a sentence with the number 95% in it? We need to try to work out what that means in this sentence.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
Does it mean:
a) 95% of scientists think human activities are causing global warming, or
b) there is a 19 out of 20 chance that observed warming is the result of human activities.

You're ahead of me, of course the answer is (a). At least it is if you are Willard Anthony Watts. Why else would you conflate a 95% probability with an observed 97% consensus in this headline@
The IPCC’s new certainty is 95% What? Not 97%??

Because Willard doesn't read, doesn't take time to consider what he's writing and doesn't stop to check. And the duck in an echoic chamber that he operates prattles on without thinking too. Or is it so his Wattbot commenters can just make the usual head nodding murmurs and give their assent to his jottings. For the best science site in the world, it sure is sloppy.

Just in case you didn't get the point, here's Willard's worked example (for those that also missed it, Riger Pielke Sr dissented from the AGU statement the other week, the only one of the 15 who signed it off):
That “squeeze out” is about right, look at Dr. Roger Pielke’s minority view with the AGU:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-res ponse-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
His minority view was one of 15 people that made the statement.
That works out to about a 7% minority view (or 93% majority) on that panel
No, Anthony. It's not about the numbers of people who believe global warming is caused by us. It's about how sure we are that global warming is caused by us.

Will Willard post a correction when someone points out his schoolboy error? Don't bet on it. Bet instead on Essex in the T20 finals tomorrow. You won't win your money back but at least you will have made someone else slightly richer. One is a number as well. Eventually, climate change denial will fizzle because the evidence, already overwhelming, will reach into the grey cells of even those hardest cases. And of course, Orwell knew what a minority of one meant.
By the way, Italy was ruddy hot. Hotter than average. I haven't seen too many posts on the skeptical sites mentioning the European heatwaves this summer.


Wilbur Watts not Anthony..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1118. JohnLonergan
1:21 AM GMT on August 17, 2013
Today's Idiocy from WTFUWT from Ingenious Persuits:

Learning math with Anthony Watts

OK, children. Today we are going to do a simple exercise with percentages. What does 95% actually mean?

Let me give a bit of context first. Here is a sentence with the number 95% in it? We need to try to work out what that means in this sentence.

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
Does it mean:
a) 95% of scientists think human activities are causing global warming, or
b) there is a 19 out of 20 chance that observed warming is the result of human activities.

You're ahead of me, of course the answer is (a). At least it is if you are Willard Anthony Watts. Why else would you conflate a 95% probability with an observed 97% consensus in this headline@
The IPCC’s new certainty is 95% What? Not 97%??

Because Willard doesn't read, doesn't take time to consider what he's writing and doesn't stop to check. And the duck in an echoic chamber that he operates prattles on without thinking too. Or is it so his Wattbot commenters can just make the usual head nodding murmurs and give their assent to his jottings. For the best science site in the world, it sure is sloppy.

Just in case you didn't get the point, here's Willard's worked example (for those that also missed it, Riger Pielke Sr dissented from the AGU statement the other week, the only one of the 15 who signed it off):
That “squeeze out” is about right, look at Dr. Roger Pielke’s minority view with the AGU:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-res ponse-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
His minority view was one of 15 people that made the statement.
That works out to about a 7% minority view (or 93% majority) on that panel
No, Anthony. It's not about the numbers of people who believe global warming is caused by us. It's about how sure we are that global warming is caused by us.

Will Willard post a correction when someone points out his schoolboy error? Don't bet on it. Bet instead on Essex in the T20 finals tomorrow. You won't win your money back but at least you will have made someone else slightly richer. One is a number as well. Eventually, climate change denial will fizzle because the evidence, already overwhelming, will reach into the grey cells of even those hardest cases. And of course, Orwell knew what a minority of one meant.
By the way, Italy was ruddy hot. Hotter than average. I haven't seen too many posts on the skeptical sites mentioning the European heatwaves this summer.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3357
1117. cyclonebuster
11:24 PM GMT on August 16, 2013
Quoting 1116. barbamz:

Piura’s first neem tree was planted 14 years ago. They often live up to 200 years

An interesting story of hope:
Using neem trees to combat desertification
Deutsche Welle English, August 13
It requires little water, grows fast and lays deep root - we're referring to the neem. An intiative to plant the "miracle" trees in Peru’s arid north has proven to be a boon for the climate and local communities, too. ...

Wikipedia about the neem tree.



I got a better idea...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1116. barbamz
11:04 PM GMT on August 16, 2013

Piura’s first neem tree was planted 14 years ago. They often live up to 200 years

An interesting story of hope:
Using neem trees to combat desertification
Deutsche Welle English, August 13
It requires little water, grows fast and lays deep root - we're referring to the neem. An intiative to plant the "miracle" trees in Peru’s arid north has proven to be a boon for the climate and local communities, too. ...

Wikipedia about the neem tree.

Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 55 Comments: 6037
1115. OldLeatherneck
9:48 PM GMT on August 16, 2013
"Globe for the Flat Earth Society"
Metalwork by: Douglas Garey
Painting by: Phyllis Garey







When President Obama compared Climate Change Deniers to members of the Flat Earth Society, two friends of mine came up with this unique piece of artwork. I saw it for the first time at a local gallery opening last weekend. Yesterday, I went back to take these pictures. ENJOY!!
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
1114. RevElvis
8:22 PM GMT on August 16, 2013


- Tom Toles
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
1113. schwankmoe
5:52 PM GMT on August 16, 2013
Quoting 1110. ScottLincoln:


And your basis for this "I think" is?


he's gotten into Game of Thrones?
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 681

Viewing: 1163 - 1113

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
57 °F
Scattered Clouds