Study: Perturbations in the carbon budget of the tropics "The researchers found that tropical forests absorb almost two billion tonnes of carbon each year, equivalent to one-fifth of the world’s carbon emissions, by storing it in their bark, leaves and soil. However, an equivalent amount is lost through logging, clearing of land for grazing, and growing biofuel crops such as palm oil, soya bean and sugar. Peat fires in forests add significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions. " Source.
Study: Impacts of El Niño Southern Oscillation on the global yields of major crops "In the new study, which is published today in the journal Nature Communications, an international team of researchers found that in both El Niño and La Niña years, the global mean yield of corn, rice and wheat is much lower than normal. The response of the soybean yield in La Niña years is unclear, but the study found an increase in El Niño years.
The research also shows that the region in which the yield of crops is negatively affected by La Niña is smaller than the region affected by El Niño; the negative impacts of La Niña affect 9-13% of harvested areas worldwide, compared to 22-24% for El Niño.
However, unlike El Niño years, the area that is affected in a positive way in La Niña years is much smaller than the region that is affected negatively – only 2-4% of harvested areas worldwide." Source.
RENEWABLES 2014 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT: "In contrast to 2004, the use of renewable energy technologies to provide electricity, heating and cooling, and transportation is now widely spread across the globe, and recent trends suggest sustained growth worldwide. A decade ago, renewables had a strong appeal to those who were interested in moving away from conventional fuels for environmental reasons. Today, renewables have demonstrated that, in addition to their environmental benefits, they are also economic drivers, creating jobs, helping to diversify revenue streams, and stimulating new technological developments.
The share of renewables in global electricity generation continues to increase while the share of nuclear power has been declining over the past decade. The idea of achieving very high shares of non-hydro renewable energy was quite radical 10 years ago, yet today it is considered feasible by many experts. Several local, regional, and national governments around the world have committed to 100% renewable energy in one or more sectors within the coming decades.
Nonetheless, the renewable energy sector still faces numerous challenges. Enormous subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power persist, and they continue to vastly outweigh financial incentives for renewables. Many countries are directing increasing resources towards the exploration and extraction of unconventional fossil resources, while most governments remain reluctant to internalise the external costs associated with the extraction and use of fossil fuels.
Further advances and investment in renewable energy, as well as improvements in energy efficiency, must continue if the increase in global temperature is to be limited to 2°C. For this to happen, stable and predictable policy frameworks are key. Integrated policy approaches that incorporate energy efficiency—considered as the low-hanging fruit on the path to sustainability—will further facilitate the global transition to renewable energy.
The past decade has set the wheels in motion for this transition, but a concerted and sustained effort will be required to fully achieve it. With increasingly ambitious targets, innovative policies, and technological advances, renewables can continue to surpass expectations and foster a cleaner energy future."
I try to limit posting a large body of text as much as possible, but the above was well written and very intertwined.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-10-2014).]
At least you don't contest your actions here are immature.
I'd ask for you to find an example, but you still haven't provided a valid example for the previous request.
Still butt hurt over your defeat I see. Your post is ironically just as immature as what you complain. I find it humorous that a sock puppet is complaining about having the same trolling tactired it uses being used against it. Too scared to post under your read ID I see.
Yes, I will use language as lowly as those I am debating. You have the desire to have a immature, childish argument, then have at it.
Still butt hurt over your defeat I see. Your post is ironically just as immature as what you complain. I find it humorous that a sock puppet is complaining about having the same trolling tactired it uses being used against it. Too scared to post under your read ID I see.
Yes, I will use language as lowly as those I am debating. You have the desire to have a immature, childish argument, then have at it.
It's ok to just say you don't believe the overwhelming science and debate facts. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. It's you and others like formula88 that seem to act butt hurt and childish about it.
It's ok to just say you don't believe the overwhelming science and debate facts. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. It's you and others like formula88 that seem to act butt hurt and childish about it.
LOL
The alarmist predictions fail one right after the other. This thread started in 2008. Six years later and the warming we were supposed to experience is still stalled and is going on its 2nd decade of stall.
Are you the hand inside the sock puppet? Did you just forget which account you were logged in with?
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 06-10-2014).]
The alarmist predictions fail one right after the other. This thread started in 2008. Six years later and the warming we were supposed to experience is still stalled and is going on its 2nd decade of stall.
Are you the hand inside the sock puppet? Did you just forget which account you were logged in with?
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Still butt hurt over your defeat I see.
What defeat? Your straw man arguments are alive and well. You dismissively overlooked at least dozen scientific sources to complain about a satirical show on Comedy Central. Again, who needs to discuss scientific evidence when you can complain about the media.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Your post is ironically just as immature as what you complain. I find it humorous that a sock puppet is complaining about having the same trolling tactired it uses being used against it. Too scared to post under your read ID I see.
At least you don't contest you are being a troll.
It's interesting to see who attempts to attack my character by claiming I'm some other person. Always good for a laugh. I suggest you take your concerns up with an admin instead of making baseless accusations.
However by your own admission you're just here to troll, if you stopped attacking my character with imagined claims and actually had to contribute something you wouldn't really have a purpose here.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Yes, I will use language as lowly as those I am debating. You have the desire to have a immature, childish argument, then have at it.
A man too eager to act like a fool based only off his perception will perceive many incorrect things.
You came here looking for an excuse to troll, not a debate. Now you're trying to blame others for your behavior. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT:
Even your trolling is factually erroneous.
That's a duck, not a chicken.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: More hysteria.
It's factually accurate.
But you may not even believe the Earth is 20,000 years old since you consider science a superstition.
Aren't you a creationist?
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: The alarmist predictions fail one right after the other. This thread started in 2008. Six years later and the warming we were supposed to experience is still stalled and is going on its 2nd decade of stall.
I saw this posted on a few news places this morning and wanted to get everyone's thoughts: http://m.phys.org/news/2014...cier-geothermal.html Whether it's true or not, it brings up a question: what can we do about forces beyond our (direct) control? Or should we do something? Let nature take it's course?
I saw this posted on a few news places this morning and wanted to get everyone's thoughts: http://m.phys.org/news/2014...cier-geothermal.html Whether it's true or not, it brings up a question: what can we do about forces beyond our (direct) control? Or should we do something? Let nature take it's course?
Impossible! Look at all of these scholarly articles that all attribute the melting of the Thwaites Glacier to Climate Change! I'll bet 97% of all scientists say that it is due to Climate Change.
I wonder if there is any way to determine whether this volcanic heat transfer has increased in recent years, or whether it has remained a constant: about the same as it is now for many previous centuries?
Without that kind of history, I think it would be impossible to say with any precision that the West Antarctic melt rate is X percent driven by warming air and ocean temperatures, and Y percent driven by volcanic heat transfer.
I still think the preponderance of the evidence comes down on the side of a rapidly warming planet, and that the fingerprints on the thermostat are more than 50 percent from human hands. My hands and yours.
I wonder if there are bookmakers that are taking wagers in this domain? I think the odds are good that we are about to see a return to a persistent El Nino pattern, as we move into the last quarter of 2014. I think that is likely to shatter the perceived reality (I think it's a misperception) of the near 20-year slowdown or hiatus in global warming that was just tacked onto this discussion (again).
If I were actually going to place a bet.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-12-2014).]
I wonder if there is any way to determine whether this volcanic heat transfer has increased in recent years, or whether it has remained a constant: about the same as it is now for many previous centuries?
Without that kind of history, I think it would be impossible to say with any precision that the West Antarctic melt rate is X percent driven by warming air and ocean temperatures, and Y percent driven by volcanic heat transfer.
I'd love for there to be a way to determine that, but like you I don't see there being one. I think that's what's most difficult about new discoveries and computer models. With all our advancements, we still don't know how everything works so we're finding new things that negate, modify, or confirm our current theories all the time. The problem with that of course is that we start out with this: result = x then something new enters in, so we try to factor it in with what we know and what our models' predictions and results have been and get: result = x + y but then there's still some outliers that don't fit the pattern. so we have: result = x + y + ? ( + ?? + ...) etc. Why can't everything be easy formulas like f=ma and e=mc^2?
Originally posted by kwagner: Whether it's true or not, it brings up a question: what can we do about forces beyond our (direct) control? Or should we do something? Let nature take it's course?
The best thing to do is to not erode natural buffer zones with anthropogenic influences in the first place. It's probable the glacier in question, Thwaites, is melting due to geothermal heat according to evidence you presented. It's also melting from warming ocean water in a different location on the same glacier. While the article doesn't quantify a rate of melting in terms of mass lost due to geothermal alone, it's not far fetched to say ocean warming with geothermal warming will collapse the glacier quicker compared to natural geothermal warming alone.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-12-2014).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Without that kind of history, I think it would be impossible to say with any precision that the West Antarctic melt rate is X percent driven by warming air and ocean temperatures, and Y percent driven by volcanic heat transfer.
Not necessarily impossible. The article did give a unit of measure for geothermal heat in watts: "According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about [.1 watts per square meter], with hotspots over [.2 watts per square meter]. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than [.065 watts per square meter]."
By comparison, CO2 forcing is 1.5 watts per square meter. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-12-2014).]
The best thing to do is to not erode natural buffer zones with anthropogenic influences in the first place.
Definitely agreed there, with conservation in general (though IMO there is a balance between complete agrarianism and complete industrialism).
quote
By comparison, CO2 forcing is 1.5 watts per square meter.
That's an interesting chart. assuming the 1.5W/m2 is global, wouldn't that be represented in the radiation of the oceans? Or are the oceans a large enough heat sink to dissipate it? After a certain point, though, there wouldn't be anywhere for it to dissipate to, would there? Of course at 1.5W, I would think that would take a long time.
One amusing takeaway from that chart is if we look solely at the math, the quickest thing we could do to negate our effects is to release more aerosols into the atmosphere
The chart also shows (W/m)2, which I assume is a typo on the placement of the superscript, but would result in much different values than W/(m2).
Originally posted by kwagner: The chart also shows (W/m)2, which I assume is a typo on the placement of the superscript, but would result in much different values than W/(m2).
The science is too important to be bothered with math.
Originally posted by kwagner: That's an interesting chart. assuming the 1.5W/m2 is global, wouldn't that be represented in the radiation of the oceans? Or are the oceans a large enough heat sink to dissipate it?
The oceans have been taking up the vast majority of warming: Source.
quote
Originally posted by kwagner: After a certain point, though, there wouldn't be anywhere for it to dissipate to, would there? Of course at 1.5W, I would think that would take a long time.
It would take a long time. I recall reading that it's theorized Venus had oceans at one point, but over the course of several hundred million years a runaway greenhouse effect vaporized them.
Present day dangers are actually in natural ocean cycles. Oceans take in heat during La Nina years, and expel heat during El Nino years. Just because the ocean absorbed the energy, it doesn't mean its trapped there forever.
quote
Originally posted by kwagner: One amusing takeaway from that chart is if we look solely at the math, the quickest thing we could do to negate our effects is to release more aerosols into the atmosphere.
It would actually work, for a short while. The primary contribution from volcanos is actually cooling due to aerosols, you can see their temporary impact on global temperatures: Source.
Originally posted by kwagner: The chart also shows (W/m)2, which I assume is a typo on the placement of the superscript, but would result in much different values than W/(m2).
Good catch!
I noticed something interesting, when I zoom in on the chart to 300% it moves the square to the proper location. Not sure where the bug is, browser or svg file.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-12-2014).]
The reason why you will never get the truth out of the IPCC:
quote
ROLE 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
The only answer they will ever give to any question posed is that it is caused by Global Warming.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: The reason why you will never get the truth out of the IPCC:
The scientific research speaks for itself. You can take the IPCC completely out of the equation and you still have practically all scientists supporting human induced climate change. The IPCC only summarizes scientific research.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: The only answer they will ever give to any question posed is that it is caused by Global Warming.
Keep peddling hysteria and conspiracy theories. They're really working out for you.
I noticed something interesting, when I zoom in on the chart to 300% it moves the square to the proper location. Not sure where the bug is, browser or svg file.
Hmm interesting (actually all the info in your post is interesting). Thanks for the info
I saw this posted on a few news places this morning and wanted to get everyone's thoughts: http://m.phys.org/news/2014...cier-geothermal.html Whether it's true or not, it brings up a question: what can we do about forces beyond our (direct) control? Or should we do something? Let nature take it's course?
The fact that this was published kinda blows the "All the scientists are in giant conspiracy!" myth out of the water, eh? I mean, scientists report the actual data? *Gasp!*
Second, this is a very localized event. So unless the volcano runs across 2/3'rds the planet, the deniers have all their work ahead of them.
Study: Adaptation potential of European agriculture in response to climate change "Moore and Lobell analyzed yield and profit records from thousands of farms between 1989 and 2009. These originated in the European Union's annual Farmer Accountancy Data Network survey. Combining detailed climate records with the farm data, they were able to understand how yields and profits have changed over time. By comparing yields in warmer and cooler parts of Europe, they could predict how adaptation may help European farmers in the coming decades. Their research is detailed in the latest issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.
"By adaptation, we mean a range of options based on existing technologies, such as switching varieties of a crop, installing irrigation or growing a different crop, one better suited to warmer temperatures," said Lobell, the associate director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford. "These things have been talked about for a long time, but the novelty of this study was using past data to quantify the actual potential of adaptation to reduce climate change impacts. We find that in some cases adaptation could substantially reduce impacts, but in other cases the potential may be very limited with current technologies."" Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-20-2014).]
Article: Oakland City Council Moves on Coal Transport Ban "The Oakland City Council just approved resolutions opposing the transportation of coal and other fossil fuels in Oakland and the East Bay.
The council unanimously approved the resolutions by consent Tuesday evening, citing the problems with using coal trains through the urban area. Such problems included environmental threats, public health hazards, economic pitfalls, and public opposition to exports, specifically coal."
Study (pre-release): Winds of change for the shipping sector "Speaking at the ‘Shipping in Changing Climates: provisioning the future’ Conference in Liverpool today (Thursday), Dr Traut will present research that uses a new model to couple wind-power technologies with weather data to show how in theory, and with supporting incentives, wind energy could cut CO2 and fuel use by as much as 50% on smaller cargo vessels up to 5,000 dead weight tonnes. This would also have a knock-on impact of cutting sulphur and nitrogen oxide and dioxide emissions by reducing the total amount of fuel burnt."
Report: Acidification and warming threaten iconic Mediterranean species "Research professor Patrizia Ziveri from the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the UAB and coordinator of the project says “We knew next to nothing about the combined effects of warming and acidification in the Mediterranean until this study, now we know that they are a serious double threat to our marine ecosystems.”
“Iconic Mediterranean ecosystems such as seagrass meadows, the colourful Coralligene reefs and Vermetid snail reefs are threatened and now facing rapid decline through acidification and warming. These are amazing ecosystem building species, creating homes for thousands of species, and also serve to protect shores from erosion, offer a source of food and natural products to society” says Prof Maoz Fine from Bar-Ilan University in Israel.
“Subsea volcanic activity spews carbon dioxide into the seawater making the waters more acidic and an amazing natural laboratory, showing how a future Mediterranean Sea may look like. Unfortunately this window into a high CO2 sea shows us that life will become difficult for some species, invasive species may do well, biodiversity will decrease and some species will become extinct”, comments Prof Jason Hall-Spencer from University of Plymouth."
