Climate Change general thread
Oh, look, just like the tobacco industry did, the fossil fuel industry has been ignoring their own science advisors and lying to you for 15 years:
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
"For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995. ..."
Comments
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Good Article from Dr.Masters at wunderground today.
Just some snippets to discuss, though I recommend the full read:
Alot of talk going around that quote in particular, and whether or not the mesurements from the PETM are correct. PETM would suggest that the world is far more sensitive to CO2 changes than we had thought (great?), and we'll be potentially approaching some feedback mechanisims. The low end for PETM carbon emissions will be reached by humans in approx 50 years from now if we continue our current rates of emissions.
Tropical crocs in greenland seems a bit off...
Indeed, the Antarctic ice cap began to form ~34mya when atmospheric CO2 level droped to ~450ppmv, which means that wehen (not if) current level reaches ~450ppmv we'll be in a world of hurt and worry.
Chunks of ice are falling off from Antarctica to Greenland and eventually you will notice.
Global warming is a fact, the Pine Beetle situation proves it.
The deniers use and pay the same scientists that claim tobacco is not harmful..
Greedy Capitalists and Corporatists are among the strongest deniers, especially those in the oil industry and those that do not like to share or spread their wealth with their employees or society. It is all about money with them and to heck with the people or environment, it is make all you can as fast as you can and the environment and people be dammed. Just look at what those types have done all over the world from clear cutting, polluting, destroying other countries, usually 3rd world countries environment and treat the people that 'work' for them like slaves.
That is why guys like Chavez, Morales, Castro etc deserve medals as they stand up to these buggers. yet like anyone that stands up to big money you usually get branded as a dictator or commie from the White House propaganda machine that is backed by big money. Individual people are branded as 'conspiracy nuts' and the media does as it is told. It is bought and paid for. There are no real journalists anymore or real news with main stream media, especially in North America. Just read the same story from Canada/US and the same in Europe very different.
Big Oil, the Bankers and greedy politicians who get 'donations' from these scumbags are the reason the planet is in such a mess from social issues to the environment. Their greed and selfishness will be the death of us all and it is foolish to believe otherwise. People need to start opening their eyes.
Not to mention most conservative, republican and people that vote for right wing parties tend to be the deniers. Too bad they wont live long enough to see what their in action will cause and regret it but their children and grandchildren sure will.
no1important : I believe the pine beetle problem has much to do with supressing forest fires, mono-culture and post -logging planting resulting in now older trees all of the same age and species. It is simplistic to blame global warming. FYI the globe has not actually warmed for the past 10 years.
Where the pine beetles are it most certainly can be attributted to warmer temps, and BTW most of beetle devastation is in areas that were original growth not logging replants, and whether the warmer temps are climate change caused by human kind is up for debate though.
And no1important what do you think about the so called "environmentalist" NGO's who are in the pockets of big oil and other corporatists?
Jacki, you are right that those are factors, but the warmer temperatures not producing a freeze deep enough to kill the beetles is a factor as well.
That is complete bullshit though, the majority of those past 10 years are our warmest ever since our record keeping started.
Looks like there is a pretty good chance of a weak to moderate El-Nino event coming for this year as it appears it's trending away from the nuetral status. Should make for increased high level wind speeds over the Caribbean and restrict hurricane developement...probably means we're in for a summer relatively lacking in hurricanes, but the ones that do form will likely show explosive growth and jump from a tropical depression to Major hurricane status in a very short time frame.
FYI the globe has not actually warmed for the past 10 years.
Only if you ignore the fact that 1998 was an anomalously warm El Nino year, and that some temperature records (NASA-GISS) have 2005 rather than as the warmest year ever. The long term trend is still upwards and a strong El-Nino will probably set a new record warmest year.
It'll be a weak to moderate at best this year Policywonk...I really can't see a strong El-Nino cycle this year and the majority of the climate models that work with the current seem to be pointing to the same.
It'll be a weak to moderate at best this year Policywonk...I really can't see a strong El-Nino cycle this year and the majority of the climate models that work with the current seem to be pointing to the same.
I didn't mean this year.
It is not to be ignored - fossil fuels are harming us.
Please keep in mind that even if some people want to argue about the reality of global warming and the relationship to CO2 levels, there are other reasons to get away from using fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.
For one, the harmfull toxic fumes and air pollution.
Two, that renewable energy will actually cost LESS than coal-based electricity within 5 to 10 years of installation [of a wind turbine, for example]. This calculation is based on the long life span of renewable energy equiptment, and that once it is paid for it continues to produce electricity for many years after, all of it basically FREE.
Three, that conflicts and wars are being fought over fossil fuel resources, and major crimes against humanity are being committed over oil in Nigeria.
Four - Importing oil to the USA is creating vast wealth for a certain few Americans, but costing others [customers] a lot of money, creating a financial imbalance. This imbalance is a threat to the entire financial system, as well as the social well being in America.
One more thought - the oilmen have as the basis of their position that "it isn't worth risking economic upheaval for something that may not be real" [referring to the question of global warming being caused by burning fossil fuels]
My response: "it isn't worth the risk of climate change for something that may not be real" [referring to the myth of economic upheaval from replacing fossil fuel derived energy with renewable energy sources wherever possible].
{holy smuck I am fart, eh?]
It is not to be ignored - fossil fuels are harming us.
Please keep in mind that even if some people want to argue about the reality of global warming and the relationship to CO2 levels, there are other reasons to get away from using fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.
For one, the harmfull toxic fumes and air pollution.
Two, that renewable energy will actually cost LESS than coal-based electricity within 5 to 10 years of installation [of a wind turbine, for example]. This calculation is based on the long life span of renewable energy equiptment, and that once it is paid for it continues to produce electricity for many years after, all of it basically FREE.
Three, that conflicts and wars are being fought over fossil fuel resources, and major crimes against humanity are being committed over oil in Nigeria.
Four - Importing oil to the USA is creating vast wealth for a certain few Americans, but costing others [customers] a lot of money, creating a financial imbalance. This imbalance is a threat to the entire financial system, as well as the social well being in America.
To say nothing of the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and production has peaked or will peak at some point. And water pollution and land degradation, particularly with respect to coal mining.
Multi-agency US government report on the impacts of climate change finally released:
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
The report is downloadable in full or in bite-size sections here.
It is really amazing that none of the frauds like Richard Lindzen have taken up the offer of a bet for 2500 euros from the real climate bloggers. You'd think Exxon Mobile would have fronted the money by now.
NASA GISS climate scientist James Hansen has been arrested at a coal mining protest in W. Virginia.
House Passes Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill 219 to 212
The forces of ignorance and psuedoscince lose another battle.
On to the next one.
NASA GISS climate scientist James Hansen has been arrested at a coal mining protest in W. Virginia.
Hansen has been reading Howard Zinn:
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress....
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be "realistic."
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
Just in time for Canada Day.
Canada fails climate change report cardOTTAWA -- Canada is doing the least of any of the world's wealthiest countries to fight climate change, says a damning report card released Wednesday by the World Wildlife Foundation.
Of the G8 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States - Canada is one of the few whose emissions are still increasing, the 2009 Climate Scorecard said, blaming an "expanding exploitation of the tarsands" in Alberta.
"Nowhere else on Earth do fewer people steward more resources, yet Canada now stands dead last among the G8 Nations in protecting our shared home from the threat of dangerous climate change," said foundation spokesman Keith Stewart.
....
According to the report, Germany, the United Kingdom and France have already achieved their Kyoto targets.
But the report says the efforts of those countries won't be enough to keep the global temperatures below the so-called danger threshold - which has been defined by scientists as a two-degree rise of average temperatures around the planet when compared to pre-industrial times.
To prevent climate change to these danger levels, the WWF estimates global emissions must peak and decline well before 2020 and be reduced by 80 per cent by 2050.
Canada and Russia, at the bottom of the ranking, either do not have plans to reach these targets or have not implemented them, the report said.
The Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012, is to be renegotiated and extended at a United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, this December. Countries need to agree on new emission reduction targets and are currently looking at 25 to 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. Many scientists though say targets should be at 40 per cent, as they point to the speed at which the ice caps are melting.
In 2008, Canada ranked second to last in the scorecard, with the U.S. in last place. However, the U.S. improved this year because of the climate initiatives planned by the Obama administration, said the WWF.
....
Canada was one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol on April 29, 1998, but since it has ignored its treaty commitments to reduce emissions by six per cent of 1990 levels, it appears to many other industrialized nations as delivering empty promises.
Link to full story here.
Good graphic Spector.
Of those G8 countries, Canada and Russia might be hit most severely in the early stages of climate change, due to our northerly latitudes and the faster changes there.
The Obama/USA plan is not going to do much to reduce emissions, being based on 2005 levels and so on, but at least it is a legal framework for emissions reductions. That is a lot more than Canada is doing.
A moratorium on tar sands expansion should be called for, eh? Lets demand that much at least.
The 2oC rise can occur at present CO2 levels [380ppm] over time
Globally, we are adding 3ppm per year, which puts us around 500ppm by 2050 [hot!]
"WWF condemns 'offensive' ad with its logo"
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/09/02/world-wildlife-fund-ad-september-attack-trade-center.html
The World Wildlife Fund is speaking out after bloggers and twitterers condemned the environmental group over a tasteless and unapproved ad exploiting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York's World Trade Center.
The online ad shows a swarm of airplanes about to attack New York with a caption reading: "The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it."
The ad bears the WWF's trademark panda logo ...
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme has launched a new composite Climate Change Index in Copenhagen:
The index combines four different climate change metrics -- change in CO2, temperature, sea level and arctic sea ice cover -- into a single composite index, calibrated in deviation from stable climate conditions.
For more info, including a high-resolution pdf, see here
There will never ever be a moratorium on the tar sands. Sorry folks but jobs come before the environment in most people's eyes.
It is also worth noting that currently 44% of Canada's oil comes from the tar sands, and another 18% from heavy crude oil, which is basically "light bitumen". So any talk of shutting down the tar sands entirely needs to be accompanied by a plan to cut our current oil production by more than half.
A few random thoughts:
I had an early start time this morning, and was treated to CBC radio interviews with environmental activists at Copenhagen, talking strategy. None that I heard (before 6:00 AM) even mentined any kind of government restraint on corporations, but were going on about using towels for more than a day at your hotel, or using billboards to get the message out to change people's behaviors. And, I got to work and parked the mini van and looked to the north east and saw a billboard, all lit up for essentially no one to look at it all night.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of a bill board is?
And, I am now more convinced than ever that the issue now is hopeless. I might as well drive a hummer and smoke coal cigars all day.
I've been reading up on glaciation of SW Ontario lately, and it struck me that if we are seeing much more ice free days and much more ice free ocean surface in the arctic and Hudson's Bay, shouldn't we also be seeing more snow in northern Quebec, Labrador and in the area we used to call the District of Keewatin? This was the birth place of the Wisconsin glaciation, and models predict that more open water would mean more snow in these areas.
Anyone know?
Yeah, Tommy, I think you points about environmental activists are pretty well on the mark. Copenhagen is a junket for a lot of politicians and their hangers on. But it is also a junket for many of the environmental activists. That is what they live and breathe for.
The excitement of the fight.
They collect this money all year and spend much of it on a jet ride to northern europe. You get thrown in jaol for a few hours and you are a hero!
I wonder how many of them voted?
It would be more environmentally friendly just to hire some local hudlums or unemployed people to fight the police. and really, Who wants to fight the danish police? Not me for sure.
I have made alternative energy devices for years so I concider myself to be an environmentalist.
I made a pulser pump over 20 years ago. (A river driven pump with no moving parts that oxygenates the water and even removes some of the smelly nitrogen and sulphur compounds that make fish sick). "We do not do research" say the environmentalists . (The only other person to put info about their pulser pump on the web is a guy in England). People would love to know more . (About 115 thousand views of the pulser pump videos online) but "we do not do research". Yeah, and I know why. Because if you did research you would have less money for air travel.
I am currently working on a cheap way to design more powerful safe solar reflectors for unattended cooking. (it seems that the last time someone designed a reflector for unattended cooking was in 2002) (parabolic dishes are dangerous) The "Jig for solar design" costs about 20 bux to make and is an effort to put a poweful design tool in the hands of ordinary people.
Not a single word from the local environmentalists.
Nothing good or bad.
Because? Because they are waiting to be told.
They are waiting for their high priest or high priestess to have an opinion or make a comment that they will follow.
Why think for yourself when you have a leader to do it for you?
And if you actually went out and worked on solutions, would there be a need to do battle in Copenhagen?
In the wake of the "climategate" emails it turns out one of the foundation documents of global warming/climate change denial was not just wrong.
Wegman’s ghostwriter revealed
But then I started thinking about something that had always bothered me. How could a trio of statistical experts, all on their own, hope to write a report on a field, climate science, of which they had no previous knowledge or experience?
The shocking answer is: They didn’t. They had some help from a physicist turned climate skeptic and textbook author (not to mention Wikipedia and a classic sociology text). ...
As one commenter said: "Nobody expects the Google Inquisition!"
Who wants to fight the danish police?
I do, as a probable Celt\Saxon. But that's just for old time's sake, and has nothing to do with the environment.
Transplant's link is excellent, by the way. Well worth a look.
In the wake of the "climategate" emails it turns out one of the foundation documents of global warming/climate change denial was not just wrong.
Wegman’s ghostwriter revealed
But then I started thinking about something that had always bothered me. How could a trio of statistical experts, all on their own, hope to write a report on a field, climate science, of which they had no previous knowledge or experience?
The shocking answer is: They didn’t. They had some help from a physicist turned climate skeptic and textbook author (not to mention Wikipedia and a classic sociology text). ...
As one commenter said: "Nobody expects the Google Inquisition!"
An archaeologists' trick is to look at the feet. Celts have narrow feet and toes straight across. Anglo-Saxons' are wide with an acute angular profile from biggest to little piggy. I've never seen very many pure Celts in England except for maybe Wales and up toward Scotland. And not many in Northern Ontario. Some Italians and Mediterranean types can tend to have Celtic feet I've noticed.
That's superb Doug.
This is staggering but Harper's approach is continue to ignore it.
Something's rotten under the Arctic cap
Homegrown science supports Al Gore's warning at the Copenhagen climate conference this week that polar ice is melting faster than previously believed.
Dr. David Barber, director of Winnipeg's Centre for Earth Observation Science, now predicts the Arctic could be free of summer ice and navigable within the decade, saying the ice cap is shrinking and deteriorating.
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/740882--something-s-rotten-under-the-arctic-cap?bn=1
When you look down on the sea ice you cannot tell if it is a meter thick or 10 meters thick. This is what Harper and his gang are counting on.
But the volume of ice is SO important.
And the reason?
It takes the same amount of energy to convert one ounce of ice at zero degrees C to one ounce of water at zero degrees C as it does to raise one ounce of water from zero to 79 C! This means that melting sea ice is HIDDEN global warming.
Basically once the ice goes, (and it is going really really quickly!),
Ww will finally see the true speed of global warming. Instead of every 1 ounce of ice melting under cover (with no aparent temperature change), you will see 79 ounces of water getting 1 degree warmer. The change from solid to liquid is nearly over across large parts of the artic ocean. It is also very rapidly happening in the permafrost regions. Once the change is substantially complete, we will see climate change happen at a speed that we cannot even dream about.
Please check into the latent heat of fusion (ice to water) and the specific heat capacity of water. It makes a really powerful arguement, I think.
I didn't make it up!
Brian
This is staggering but Harper's approach is continue to ignore it.
Something's rotten under the Arctic cap
Homegrown science supports Al Gore's warning at the Copenhagen climate conference this week that polar ice is melting faster than previously believed.
Dr. David Barber, director of Winnipeg's Centre for Earth Observation Science, now predicts the Arctic could be free of summer ice and navigable within the decade, saying the ice cap is shrinking and deteriorating.
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/740882--something-s-rotten-under-the-arctic-cap?bn=1
What you say is correct Brian, however it works both ways, it takes more cooling to overcome this inertia and chnage the trend, there has been, and it looks like there will be again, more ice in the artic the last 2-3 years, since this is the case it must be significantly cooler as well, cooler than the simple ratio of ice from year to year would imply. It's a small glimmer of hope, but it's something. Im not a global warming denier btw, I know more about the science than most, it is certainly a well founded theory, that said, im not completely convinced it's man made or convinced by the absolute sureity that some scientists present the data, the earth is a very complicated thing. If they tell you they know that it's our fault for 100 percent sure, they are either ignorant or lying. That might not be completely apt, but I heard David Suzuki use that line at a conference once, he was criticizing another group of scientists, he was sure they were wrong about something, of course the other scientists thought he was wrong, humans and thier opinions.
What you say is correct Brian, however it works both ways, it takes more cooling to overcome this inertia and chnage the trend, there has been, and it looks like there will be again, more ice in the artic the last 2-3 years, since this is the case it must be significantly cooler as well, cooler than the simple ratio of ice from year to year would imply. It's a small glimmer of hope, but it's something. Im not a global warming denier btw, I know more about the science than most, it is certainly a well founded theory, that said, im not completely convinced it's man made or convinced by the absolute sureity that some scientists present the data, the earth is a very complicated thing. If they tell you they know that it's our fault for 100 percent sure, they are either ignorant or lying. That might not be completely apt, but I heard David Suzuki use that line at a conference once, he was criticizing another group of scientists, he was sure they were wrong about something, of course the other scientists thought he was wrong, humans and thier opinions.
Sea ice coverage in the Arctic depends on winds and currents as well as temperature. Since 2007 the ice has not recovered to pre-2005 levels (the previous record), and the long term trend is still down (less ice).
Presenting anthropogenic and natural climate change as either/or (or suggesting other people do) is disengenous. The climate doesn't care where the greenhouse gases or black carbon come from, or the sulphate aerosols.
What you say is correct Brian, however it works both ways, it takes more cooling to overcome this inertia and chnage the trend, there has been, and it looks like there will be again, more ice in the artic the last 2-3 years, since this is the case it must be significantly cooler as well, cooler than the simple ratio of ice from year to year would imply. It's a small glimmer of hope, but it's something. Im not a global warming denier btw, I know more about the science than most, it is certainly a well founded theory, that said, im not completely convinced it's man made or convinced by the absolute sureity that some scientists present the data, the earth is a very complicated thing. If they tell you they know that it's our fault for 100 percent sure, they are either ignorant or lying. That might not be completely apt, but I heard David Suzuki use that line at a conference once, he was criticizing another group of scientists, he was sure they were wrong about something, of course the other scientists thought he was wrong, humans and thier opinions.
Sea ice coverage in the Arctic depends on winds and currents as well as temperature. Since 2007 the ice has not recovered to pre-2005 levels (the previous record), and the long term trend is still down (less ice).
Presenting anthropogenic and natural climate change as either/or (or suggesting other people do) is disengenous. The climate doesn't care where the greenhouse gases or black carbon come from, or the sulphate aerosols.
Thank you.
You think 4 or 5 really hot years (some of the hottest recorded) is evidence of cooling? The ice continues to get thinner and thinner in those "cool" years.
Let's look into heat capacity a bit more. OK?
Heat capacity of air this time!
Each tonne of melted ice is the equivalent of heating 79 tonnes of water by one degree. So, about 79 cubic meters of water getting one degree C warmer is equivalent to 1 tonne of ice melting. One cubic meter of water getting one degree warmer is equivalent to about 3,200 cubic meters of sea level air getting one degree warmer. So if 1 cubic meter of ocean water is 1 degree warmer, it is equivalent to the air above it, to maybe 10 or 20km! high getting one degree warmer! (The higher you go the thinner the air gets)
Multiply that by 79 and we get one tonne of ice melting is equivalent to 252,800 cubic meters of sea level air getting 1 degree warmer. Check my figures please. But when you concider that every tonne of ice melting is equibalent to a QUARTER MILLION cubic meters of air getting 1 degree warmer, you might concider that perhaps global warming is really happening but we are not seeing the true speed of the thing.
Here is another of these mind blowing statistics. (And I do agree that they are unreliable because the air heat capacity changes as you go higher).
One tonne of ice melting is the equivalent of ALL the air above that ice (to the edge of the atmosphere) getting? guess how much hotter?
28 degrees! It is effing scary!
Am I still correct?
How soon can we try Harper for crimes against humanity?
Probably within his lifetime!
Would you like to join him?
What you say is correct Brian, however it works both ways, it takes more cooling to overcome this inertia and chnage the trend, there has been, and it looks like there will be again, more ice in the artic the last 2-3 years, since this is the case it must be significantly cooler as well, cooler than the simple ratio of ice from year to year would imply. It's a small glimmer of hope, but it's something. Im not a global warming denier btw, I know more about the science than most, it is certainly a well founded theory, that said, im not completely convinced it's man made or convinced by the absolute sureity that some scientists present the data, the earth is a very complicated thing. If they tell you they know that it's our fault for 100 percent sure, they are either ignorant or lying. That might not be completely apt, but I heard David Suzuki use that line at a conference once, he was criticizing another group of scientists, he was sure they were wrong about something, of course the other scientists thought he was wrong, humans and thier opinions.
We need change, something measureable and achieveable and with a dead line. So far all governments have been able to come up with is discriminatory taxes that repress the poor so the polluter can continue to pollute as common sense tells you if the deterent is only a few cents on the dollar then those without will pay by going without as GST, HST, PST, CPP, Carbon Tax, EI and Income Tax all take their toil on the lowly paycheck.
I beleive we need something that goes after the abuser to stop the pollution and since $=Energy lets go after the polluter not excluding big business with excessive profits. You just gotta know the haves think it is perfectly fine to pollute away with excessive lifestyles while others go without because of influence in their back pockets and thats gotta be good for a plane ride or two. We have a basic tax credit, well what about a basic energy credit and then based on your income and consumption you pay the price and the price for some is going without food and heat while those without any respect or concern for another human being or the planet continue to destory it with excessive lifestyles and profits. Its a no brainer but governments and big business will never let you in on it, their profits that is even if it costs the environment and future generations as greed knows no boundaries and can afford the best ad agencies out their at a price the planet can ill afford.
Anyone seen any predictions on what the climate consequences are of an ice free Arctic in the summer? If we can predict it at all. it being a driver of a lot of the weather we have.
Its Sunny days ahead for the Arctic weather that is, the climate has weathered more than one storm but this I am not to sure of and therefore am a believer in a positive climate action plan. Its needs to be measurable, predictable and do able and reprogramming is needed to help the industrial revolution's babes out of the predicament they are in.
I would love a critical analysis of what I wrote below. It is basically a comparison of the amount of heat needed to melt ice and turn it into liquid water, the heat needed to warm up water by 1 degree C and the heat needed to warm up sea level air by 1 degree C and an attempt to show how much melting sea ice is "hiding" the true speed of global warming. Thanks, Brian . I know it means reaching for the calculators and the physics books, but please do it, because it may be worth it. The figures I quote are hard to deny because they are physical constants. And it might be the only way to get the climate deniers who are just following their leader to let go. Because most people learn about heat of fusion, and heat capacity in school.
The liars that lead the deniers can get away with it because they create doubt. You cannot create doubt about heat capacity and latent heat of fusion.
So, help out and flesh this out a bit. Thanks. Brian
You think 4 or 5 really hot years (some of the hottest recorded) is evidence of cooling? The ice continues to get thinner and thinner in those "cool" years.
Let's look into heat capacity a bit more. OK?
Heat capacity of air this time!
Each tonne of melted ice is the equivalent of heating 79 tonnes of water by one degree. So, about 79 cubic meters of water getting one degree C warmer is equivalent to 1 tonne of ice melting. One cubic meter of water getting one degree warmer is equivalent to about 3,200 cubic meters of sea level air getting one degree warmer. So if 1 cubic meter of ocean water is 1 degree warmer, it is equivalent to the air above it, to maybe 10 or 20km! high getting one degree warmer! (The higher you go the thinner the air gets)
Multiply that by 79 and we get one tonne of ice melting is equivalent to 252,800 cubic meters of sea level air getting 1 degree warmer. Check my figures please. But when you concider that every tonne of ice melting is equibalent to a QUARTER MILLION cubic meters of air getting 1 degree warmer, you might concider that perhaps global warming is really happening but we are not seeing the true speed of the thing.
Here is another of these mind blowing statistics. (And I do agree that they are unreliable because the air heat capacity changes as you go higher).
One tonne of ice melting is the equivalent of ALL the air above that ice (assuming it is a meter square by a little more than a meter deep) (to the edge of the atmosphere) getting? guess how much hotter?
28 degrees! It is effing scary!
Am I correct?
How soon can we try Harper for crimes against humanity?
Probably within his lifetime!
Some good news for once! (Sort of - good for climate, not so good for stuff living in the ocean) It seems that the oceans are not yet getting worse at absorbing carbon dioxide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Some good news for once! (Sort of - good for climate, not so good for stuff living in the ocean) It seems that the oceans are not yet getting worse at absorbing carbon dioxide.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
[/quote
It is not that good
"In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades". "In contradiction to recent studies" just means that he probably made a big mistake somewhere or used larger margins of error than the other guys.
It is probably an octomum type story. Newsworthy because they are searching for something different.
At 387 ppmv CO2 is already higher than it ever has been in at least the last 3 million years, and quite possibly the last 20 million, which means it's higher now than it has been since before the current glacial-interglacial era.
And because we've not just increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 38%, but increased the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle by around 329 Gt [CDIAC], even completely halting future CO2 increase, much less merely reducing the rate of increase, will not prevent us seeing a 3C or more increase and massive rise in sea levels.
In other words, we can ultimately say goodbye to all perennial northern hemisphere ice, plus a good portion of perennial Antarctic ice as well, and recent research tells us not to take any comfort in this happening slowly.
Never mind emission reductions, or even going complete cold turkey with fossil carbon fuels, we need to start removing carbon from the atmosphere at least as fast as we have been adding it.
I guess I'm wondering what the alarmists here think can actually be done to stop this trend or, as would probably need to happen, reverse it. I do remember Suzuki back in the '70s talking about how close we were getting to the "tipping point". My guess is, if there was a tipping point, we passed it a couple of decades ago. This rather late-in-the-game panic and arguing over strategies, as if they would have any significant effect, is futile and misguided, imo. What are you hoping to protect? Life as we know it? Life has never been static, even over a generation. If we've fucked the planet beyond repair, do you really think your personal boycotting of air travel, for example, is going to bring something back?
I think it's important for everyone in the industrial and post-industrial world to understand what has been happening on a large scale, but these discussions about drop-in-the-bucket measures such as cap and trade, or measuring one's personal "carbon footprint" in a way a dieter counts his or her calories, don't make a lot of sense to me, unless it's either about guilt - guilt about one's own personal consumption patterns - or powerlessness: taking control of your personal "carbon footprint" gives you some sense of contributing toward a vague, ill-defined solution.
There is no remedy for this problem - if indeed it exists and is indeed human-caused - as long as we have the kind of means of existence (I was going to say modes of production) that we currently have. There is no way you can remedy "global warming", if it exists, while holding onto industrial mass production. Our entire way of life and of relating to each other and our environment would need to be fundamentally altered. You are not going to do a fucking thing about reducing any kind of carbon (or whatever future pollutant would arise from the new so-called solutions) footprint and hold onto your car manufacturing or your hamburgers or your suburban detached houses or your computers and wide-screen TVs. Like, get fucking real.
I agree, Jas, we might already be fucked and we definitely cannot hang on to this way of life. Did you read my bit about how much global warming is hidden in the ocean and in the melted ice? The oceans were rising 1.8mm per year up to a while ago, now it is 3 mm! (And that is pretty hard to spot even over a lifetime) How much heat does it take to melt enough water and warm the water enough to rise the ocean that much? A lot! We can say 1.2 mm per year is caused by us. (at least) and it is surely increasing.
So you just say screw it and continue to make it worse? CO2 is a fertilizer that affects plant and animal competition directly everywhere in the world. Amphibians breathe through their skin. Every frog and toad and salamander and fish in the world has to contend with a 35% higher "pressure" gradient of CO2 than they had to contend with just a hundred years ago. People will get hit with this too very soon. This really matters. And the governments keep pretending that it is just about the climate getting warmer.
The seas across the planet are starting to have dead zones. It is entirely possible that the next stage is anoxic oceans and a rotten egg smell in the air. It dont matter how rich canada is if that happens. We will start dieing like flys. Hydrogen sulphide is more deadly than cyanide. It just takes a bit more warming, and all hell will break loose.
The sun now sends out conciderably more energy than it did a hundred million years ago. We are heading to that atmosphere again. But a lot more energy hitting it.
The mad fuckers like harper who say "it doesn't exist/ bring it on" might not feel so good in 10 or 15 years when they go on trial for climate genocide.
I guess I'm wondering what the alarmists here think can actually be done to stop this trend or, as would probably need to happen, reverse it. I do remember Suzuki back in the '70s talking about how close we were getting to the "tipping point". My guess is, if there was a tipping point, we passed it a couple of decades ago. This rather late-in-the-game panic and arguing over strategies, as if they would have any significant effect, is futile and misguided, imo. What are you hoping to protect? Life as we know it? Life has never been static, even over a generation. If we've fucked the planet beyond repair, do you really think your personal boycotting of air travel, for example, is going to bring something back?
Anyone who believes or offers up as a straw person that there is only one tipping point doesn't understand the problem. Not even the Permian-Triassic extinction wrecked the planet beyond repair (but it did for most life on earth). Cutting emissions now may not make a difference for a couple of decades, but it may make a huge difference after that, perhaps a between a major extinction event and a great extinction event, or between some form of civilization and human extinction.
If you are claiming the science is not settled, the question is what science? Obviously not everything is settled to the extent gravity is, but some aspects of the science are, and that is worrying enough, even without the uncertainty behind the rest, which goes both ways.
If we continue with industrialization and economic growth at all costs there will be a collapse of some kind, perhaps sooner rather than later. If we don't, something may be salvaged, and we may be able to adapt to and/or mitigate global heating and other environmental shocks.
Well said Pw
Remember too that no science is "settled". Even Gravity. Waiting for the science to be settled is a cop out. If it gets warm enough worldwide for insects to "work" through the winter, imagine the nightmare situation we would have! It is bad enought all ready.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that in the past CO2 levels and warm climate are linked. We also know that in the past when temperature and CO2 levels were a lot higher, the sun was not outputting so much energy as it is now. So it is a reasonable conclusion that if you get high CO2 like in the past, you will get higher temperatures than in the past.
That the economics of perptual growth are totally at odds with "settled" science. Perpetual growth is impossible but Canada, USA and the rest of the worlds economic and political systems depend on perpetual growth.
Now, which is going to break first? Physics or economics?
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
An interesting presentation.
Have a really hard time Jas with the things you have stated denying climate change, while I look out my windows at orange pinetrees for as far as the eye can see!
Thank you policy wonk and brian for putting some facts out there.
Ever since picking up Lovelock's Ages of Gaia in the early 80s, I have been convinced we were on a perilous path. But I have also wondered why all of the practising scientists have not long ago risen up and denounced our collective insanity. Sure, Harper is nuts, but he's counting on Jesus. What is the excuse of the scientific world,..beyond cynicism, condecension and their accumulated pensions?
And I'll certainly second remind's thank you to the scientific element on board babble.
It is an excellent presentation, An hour but worth it.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
An interesting presentation.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
An interesting presentation.
Robert Grumbine just put up the first of a couple posts inspired by that Richard Alley AGU talk The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
See CO2 and temperature for 800,000 years.
Even a coursory look at that scatter plot shows just how far outside of the historical temperature:concentration norm current CO2 levels are: 9 standard deviations outside!
Anyone who denies the reality of anthropogenic global warming is engaing in pure wishful thinking, not critical sketiciism.
... If we continue with industrialization and economic growth at all costs there will be a collapse of some kind, perhaps sooner rather than later. If we don't, something may be salvaged, and we may be able to adapt to and/or mitigate global heating and other environmental shocks.
It's the idea in your last paragraph that I was mainly addressing in my post. What we produce and the way we produce it, whether on a capitalist or socialist model, is what's harming the natural environment and I've found that, quite apart from capitalism's obvious effects, certain brands of socialism too are at odds with a revisioning of our modes of production, our means of existence -- a revisioning that, imo, is likely necessary in order to live in harmony with the rest of the biological world.
Part of my rant was also frustration at hearing or reading at various points the way people justify their personal consumption vis a vis their personal "carbon footprints". I think very few of us in the post-industrial, largely service economies should even be opening our mouths in that regard. Especially those that drive cars daily in communities that have transit.
The Harper government has decided how to deal with global warming: quit funding climate research.
"I am concerned about the lack of information on sustained funding, on the impact it's having on the scientific community," Conway told The Canadian Press in an interview Monday.
"Research teams are being dismantled. Equipment is being taken out of the field and stored because there's no money to run it. Students are looking for opportunities elsewhere ... in some cases leaving the country. There is work that's not being started."
The foundation formally requested $25 million annually over 10 years last winter, but was only told by the government in September that it could continue operating for an extra 12 months, with no extra cash. ...
An explanation for our unusually mild winter here: Winter Temperatures and the Arctic Oscillation
A friend explains it thusly: "The Gulf Stream, instead of heading off towards the British Isles, is going up the Western coast of Greenland. Britain is covered in snow and Greenland and Canada are warm."
That makes sense when you look at the map - my area - just south of Labrador - is one of the areas in red.
This presentation by Jeff Rubin is well worth watching if you have a spare 45 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg
Something else to worry about now. The theorized methane feedback may be starting to show up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/methane-levels-m...
More about climate change and coffee:
Coffee producers "getting hammered" by global climate change
Grizzlies encroach on polar bear territory
Grizzly bears are being spotted in Manitoba, Canada, where biologists say only polar bears are usually found.
More on methane:
A section of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that holds vast stores of frozen methane is showing signs of instability and widespread venting of the powerful greenhouse gas, according to the findings of an international research team led by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov.
It's looking more and more like 2010 is on-track to become the warmest year in the instrument temperature record.
Not only was March 2010 the warmest March in both the UAH and RSS satellite temperature record, and tied for the warmest March in NASA's GISS temperature record, Jan-Feb-March 2010 was the warmest in the satellite records and second warmest in GISS behind 2007.
Here is a NASA comparison (pdf) of the first three months of 2010 with 1998 and 2005 (tied for the warmest annual anomaly):
Also, April 2009 – March 2010 is the warmest 12 month period in the NASA GISS anomaly record, with an average anomaly of +0.637C, vs January 2005-December 2005 and August 2006-July 2007, which are tied for second at +0.621C.
This not a surprise. Many have been suggesting that 2010 could likely set a new record for a couple of reasons.
One is the 2009-2010 El Nino, which although no where near as strong as that of 1997-98 and weakening, has transfered a lot of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere. (Really just moving energy around.)
Another is that solar cycle 24 has finally started, bringing a close to the quietest solar minimum in a century, so the sun is getting brighter. (More energy in).
And a third factor that I haven't seen mentioned is the economic recession, which almost certainly has reduced the aerosol load, thus removing some of the aerosol cooling that masks a portion of existing greenhouse warming. (Also more energy in.)
A triple whammy, if you will, if not quite a "perfect storm."
More at Climate Progress.
Titled Strategic communications objectives and dated 11 March 2010, it outlines the key messages that the Obama administration wants to convey to its critics and to the world media in the run-up to the vital UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico in November.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/12/us-document-strategy-c...
Here on the Quebec coast, we just came through the warmest winter anyone here can remember, including our 80+ year olds. I posted about this earlier, it was due to a phenomenon known as the Arctic Oscillation and a diversion of the Gulf Stream Current to Greenland instead of to Europe, according to frends of mine. I'm curious as to whether we can expect to see this again.
Not sure if the Arctic Oscillation is connected to the Atlantic Converyor, but that theory about the permanent interruption of the Gulf Stream's return flow at great depth, due to the impact of melting glaciers, would suggest we can "expect to see this again", if oscillating conveyors are in it. Then again, maybe the melting ice twixt Greenland and Baffin Island just makes it easier for it to flow up that way, rather than toward Spitzbergen. Any good beaches up your way, Boomer?
Oh, indeed. Lots of them! But no connecting road, alas...
If P.E.T. can paddle across the Gulf Stream near Cuba, any Canuck worth his salt can navigate the Moisie...or is that not the only Northshore barrier? Are you people behind on your taxes, like the rural folk of Ontario? This place is littered with rusted-out, century-old creek crossings, and the counties have learned the trick of downloading responsibility for them to the townships. And the Conservatives at all levels promise "lower taxes" to the salivating citizenry...but no bridges.
Oh, folks have adapted. From Kegaska, you can drive your ATV right to the Natashquan River, then have a pre-aarranged 'water taxi' take you across at that point. Alternatively, you can take the Nordik Express once a week back and forth from Kegaska to Natashquan. Natashquan is the end of Route #138 until you get to Old Fort Bay - there is a road connecting Old Fort Bay right to the Quebec /Labrador border.
ETA: It ain't the Moisie but rather the Natashquan River that cuts off the Lower North Shore from the rest of Quebec.
Photos of Iceland's Eyjafjallajoekull volcano ash cloud.
Well, there goes 2010's chance of setting a new record high annual mean temperature, at least in the northern hemisphere.
NOAA's State of the Climate Global Analysis for March 2010 has just been released.
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 13.5°C (56.3°F), which is 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This was also the 34th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.
- The March worldwide land surface temperature was 1.36°C (2.45°F) above the 20th century average of 5.0°C (40.8°F)—the fourth warmest on record.
- The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.7°F) and the warmest March on record.
- For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.0°C (55.3°F) was the fourth warmest January-March period. This value is 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average.
After looking at a lot more photographs it looks like the overwhelming bulk of the plume is good old water vapour from the melting ice and the bulk of the ash is remaining below the cloud deck. That's why it is so white. This was not a powerful Pinatubo-like explosive eruption by a long, long stretch, so very little if any aerosols will make into the stratosphere. I think any cooling will be short lived and localized.
ETA: Confirmation from this volcanoly blogger
And Dr. Jeff Masters confirms my totally amateur read of things at WeatherUnderground.
Hmmm, when you factor in the unburned jet fuel, turns out so far Eyjafjallajoekull has not only been carbon neutral, but carbon negative!
Just watched The Hottest Place on Earth - in Ethiopia, on the Discovery Channel. Daytime temps in excess of 120F, and the crew in the story were to map out the world's oldest active volcano, which they did, and actually managed to get a probe into the volcano to test for any active organisms (don't laugh - scientists have found living life - microorganisms - in underwater volcano thermal vents). The land surface not far from the volcano rum was in excess of 200F. They also visited a volcanic chasm that erupted a few years ago - also in Ethiopia - a chasm about the length of two football fields - evidence that Africa is tearing itself apart, and may be the location of a new sea in the future (as Africe splits apart, ocean water rushes in).
NB: This doesn't fit with the thread title, but I thought I'd post just how hot Ethiopia is, to give some idea of what to expect in the future if global warming continues. A few years ago, I walked through an inactive volcano in New Mexico, and brought home some fossilized lava samples, which I still have. God, it was hot that day - probably 113F. When I got to Phoenix, Arizona a few days later, the airport tarmac was melting, I could actually feel the tarmac sinking as I walked across it to the plane. While I was in Phoenix, it was hot even in the evening - the only way folks can live there is to use a/c virtually 24/7 from the first of May right through to November. Unreal.
ETA: I grew up in Ottawa, and in the 1950s/1960s I don't recall the temperature in the summer ever approached 95F. When I spent a visit there in the summer of 1995, the temps ranged from 80F to well over 105F. I really don't understand climate change deniers - how can they be so frigging blind???
I am not sure how you got a carbon negative out of that one. It might have reduced the fossil fuel carbon out put, but I doubt that it has removed cabon from the atmosphere.
Relax, Bubbles, it's a joke making the rounds of the climate blogs.
The NOAA State of the Climate Global Analysis for April 2010 is just out today.
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).
- The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the warmest April on record.
- The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the third warmest on record.
- For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.3°C (56.0°F) was the warmest January-April period. This value is 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average.
Climate change makes it too hot for lizards
This talk outlines the things we have to get started doing to cope with climate change - in short, renewable energy everywhere and some large changes in how we personally use energy.
Not sure if this is for real: billions could die from GW.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
That "billions could die" (by 2012) shit is just the stuff that deniers everywhere need to refute the reality of such processes. Leave that for the readers of news at the checkout counters, please.
That "billions could die" (by 2012) shit is just the stuff that deniers everywhere need to refute the reality of such processes. Leave that for the readers of news at the checkout counters, please.
The processes are still real, even if the impacts are speculative, and catastrophic impacts from global heating and resulting political and military responses may occur sooner rather than later. However this seems like Mayan calendar hysteria.
NASA GISStemp June 2010 data update just out:
Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly Index
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
June + 0.59, tied with 2005 for third behind 2009 (0.62) and 1998 (0.69).
Land-Ocean, Nothern Hemisphere only:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts+dSST.txt
June + 0.78, displaces 2005 (.76) for record
Global Land stations only:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
June + 0.86, tied for first with 1998
Land Stations, Nothern Hemisphere only:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
June + 1.04, blows away 2005 (.97) for record
That "billions could die" (by 2012) shit is just the stuff that deniers everywhere need to refute the reality of such processes. Leave that for the readers of news at the checkout counters, please.
The processes are still real, even if the impacts are speculative, and catastrophic impacts from global heating and resulting political and military responses may occur sooner rather than later. However this seems like Mayan calendar hysteria.
Perhaps you don't understand the political implications of giving voice and so a degree of credibility to "Mayan calendar hysteria" ?
Is it me or do most of the threads in Babble tend toward not wanting to do anything about anything? Every aspect of the oil crisis would seem to be the impetus to the discussion of getting unions to embrace green retrofitting not only for North American homes but North American industry but in here or on any other thread, that does not really come to the fore. The Left really does seem to want to fetishize its own ineffectuality and its own marginality.
Would you like to "flesh out" that concern about babblers "not wanting to do anything about anything."? As a lifelong advocate of action over philosophizing, I'm intrigued by your comment, 2dawall.
I made the pulser pump. It got researched at queens universtiy and somewhere in the USA this year and is on Appropedia. And I may have stopped posting about the solar stuff but it is still goin on. In organic islands festival tommorrow and in ideawave on sunday.
And I know remind has been fighting for the Salmon for years and reporting about the dead pine tree landscape in her area.
And I have this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1CwnYY64NU about saving the bee populations. (Basically, many bee types shelter and lay eggs in holes in wood and plant stems). So even if you just bundle up your old raspberry stems, and old vine stems in 1 ft lengths from when you cut them back, you will provide bee habitat. Even if you make "mud pies" and poke holes in the mud with knitting needles, and let the mud set up hard somewhere dry, you are being proactive and helping the insects out. I made some earlier in the year and solitary bees shelter at night in the holes and bees also use the holes for their larvae. If you just compost your old raspberry canes, you are also composting the bee babies inside them!
Lots of people do lots of stuff, it will not all appear here.
You mean we don't brag about the things we do as individuals?
Maybe we're too busy, you knw, doing them.
It isn't bragging. As an individual, I am nothing but if others copy and improve those things, I have worth. So I have to tell them.
How can others possibly do it this way if I do not tell them?
Are you one of those that told my all my stuff was crap and not worth researching? Some got researched a bit this year with more to come.
I talked to a lady today who'se husband did solar research in the mid 70's. After that all his results got canned. But everyone THINKS that all the little and low tech stuff has been researched to perfection. Compare someone in 1975 to you or me. We have lasers, we have ray tracing and ray casting and animation software. We ordinary people have the tools at our disposal to do it better than those researchers could ever imagine. Most people do not bother because either they think it has all been done already or they get shouted down as braggarts if they report any findings.
You mean we don't brag about the things we do as individuals?
Maybe we're too busy, you knw, doing them.
editing
Brian, my reply was directed at 2dawall. I quite agree with you that it is absolutely essential for us to multiply our individual actions by convincing others to also take action and teaching them how to do so. Personally I do plenty of that in the real world, I just don't feel the need to tick off all the things I do because someone thinks the left doesn't back up its talk with action.
Sorry George but it is that on various threads regarding the spill I have asked about green/red alliances that might be using this event to push for more retrofitting, etc. Either there is a Kiwanis-klub like reply that 'that would cost jobs' or there is no mention of anything. Well lots of new policies, ie 'free' trade cost jobs but those are implemented regardless. If anything the conversion to solar/wind/geothermal would create new jobs but any response in Canada to highlight that is invisible. Some people here in Babble just say 'oh well we are doomed.' That attitude would seem to mimic what I see here in Winnipeg; a passive response of despair or capitulation. I am not talking about individual actions but group or coalition responses.
I wonder what the carbon footprint of a bill board is?
And, I am now more convinced than ever that the issue now is hopeless. I might as well drive a hummer and smoke coal cigars all day.
{end of quote}
I was reading this last week for example and that is what brought out my frustration.
Another annoying consequence of climate change...poison ivy!
we think that vines, particularly vines like poison ivy or kudzu or other noxious weeds, seem to show a much stronger response to the change in CO2 than other plant species. So on average, the poison ivy plant of, say, 1901, can grow up to 50 to 60 percent larger as of 2010 just from the change in CO2 alone, all other things being equal.
“The significance of the study is twofold,” Stuart Licht, a chemistry professor at George Washington University, told PhysOrg.com. “Carbon dioxide, a non-reactive and normally difficult-to-remove compound, can be easily captured with solar energy using our new low-energy, lithium carbonate electrolysis STEP process, and with scale-up, sufficient resources exist for STEP to decrease carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels within 10 years.”
Well then, what are we waiting for?
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/03/hottest-july-satellite-record-reco...
The chances of this not being a record warm year are diminishing.
Bill
“The significance of the study is twofold,” Stuart Licht, a chemistry professor at George Washington University, told PhysOrg.com. “Carbon dioxide, a non-reactive and normally difficult-to-remove compound, can be easily captured with solar energy using our new low-energy, lithium carbonate electrolysis STEP process, and with scale-up, sufficient resources exist for STEP to decrease carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels within 10 years.”
Well then, what are we waiting for?
Has anyone seen any mainstream coverage about what Doug posted here? This would seem monumentally huge and a really, really pressing avenue but this link is about the only think I can find. Starting to think 'Bing' is lousy or too bought up.
"...with scale-up, sufficient resources exist for STEP to decrease carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels within 10 years." And lithium carbonate is a popular anti-psychotic drug.
Closing for length.