How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu May 04, 2017 10:38 am

The Arctic Is Melting and Little Is Being Done to Stop It

For the 60,000 Inuit people living there, the climate apocalypse is all too real.

It's pretty easy to get apocalyptic when describing US President-elect Donald Trump's stance on climate change.

He has said global warming is a hoax made up by China for to disadvantage American manufacturers (which China's government has since refuted).

He's tapped fellow deniers for key roles, including a Republican congressman who believes the earth's atmosphere is actually cooling as energy adviser, and a turtle cleverly disguised as a fossil fuel loving-loving think tank analyst to head up the transition for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In his first 100 days, Trump is also planning to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, approve the TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline and rescind federal regulations on drilling, fracking and coal mining.

It's a disaster for the environment.

But let's not kid ourselves. For people living in the Arctic—especially the 60,000 Inuit people living in 53 communities throughout four massive regions—the climate apocalypse is already here.

"The sea level rise and melting permafrost have combined for some of our communities to have literally fallen into the sea, especially in the Western Arctic," Natan Obed, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, told VICE. "There are immediate concerns that we have about the sustainability of some of our communities based on climate change."

Climate scientists and analysts agree the globe must stay below two degrees Celsius—or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit—of warming above pre-industrial averages by 2100 in order to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic levels of climate change.

Some countries, including Canada, agreed to an "aspirational goal" of a 1.5 degrees Celsius limit at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference; the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming "marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime," according to a recent study written by climate researchers.

But in the Western Canadian Arctic, the annual average temperature has already gone up five degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times, says Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law and author of Who Owns the Arctic?: Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North.

The entire region is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the world due to a trend known as "polar amplification." There's ongoing debate about what causes this phenomenon, with potential factors including large weather systems transporting heat to the poles, increasing snow and ice cover loss, and changes in cloud cover and atmospheric water vapour.

Whatever the reason, the situation has reached absolute crisis level. Sea ice levels in both the Arctic and Antarctica are currently at record lows, while temperatures over the Arctic Ocean are currently 20 degrees Celsius hotter than usual.

"The Arctic exists in a balance between ice and water, between the frozen and unfrozen," Byers told VICE. "A change of just a couple of degrees can dramatically change the Arctic environment. It can transform ice-covered ocean into open water. The effects of climate change are brutally visible in the Arctic today."

To be sure, the trend has been noticed for decades by Inuit elders, hunters, trappers and fishers.

Paul Crowley, director of the WWF's Canadian Arctic Program, says that Indigenous people had long observed the sun was coming up at a different time of year and angle than usual, only to be dismissed as "crazy" by white Southerners. It turned out that atmospheric conditions had indeed changed, resulting in more humidity and refraction. The elders were right.

That was only the beginning. There have been major shifts in caribou populations in the Eastern Arctic, requiring a hunting moratorium on Baffin Island. Obed says elders have noticed a decline in the quality of the taste of meat from animals, as well as skins for use in clothing.

Invasive species have spiked with the shrinking of tundra; there's been new growth of willows, shrubs and other non-tundra organisms. Skidoos collapse through paths that have been driven on for the last 40 years. Roads are becoming more dangerous. Weather is becoming less predictable. The ice, which Obed describes as "our highway for eight to 10 months of the year," is forming later in the fall and disappearing more quickly in the summer.

"The very basis of of the foundation of our safety in the Arctic is being undermined from a world that now is very different than it once was," says Obed, who emphasizes that Inuit communities still depend on traditional food sources.

Many Northern mines rely on permafrost to contain tailings waste; Crowley—who served as principal secretary to former Nunavut premier Eva Aariak—notes the potential consequences of a warming Arctic on such structures are "considerable."

He says there's much more in common between Arctic communities and "small island developing states" that are going to literally disappear with rising sea levels: "What's at stake here is much more dramatic and impactful than it is perhaps in the more temperate areas of Canada," says Crowley, who helped create the organization Many Strong Voices that connects the struggles of, for instance, Fiji and Iqaluit.

There are very critical needs on the climate policy front.

Canada will have to find a way to cut annual emissions by an additional 91 megatonnes to meet its moderate 2030 targets and Paris Agreement obligations, which will likely require burning of political capital in Alberta to reject proposed projects like the Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain pipeline and TransCanada's Energy East pipeline (which experts suggest would allow for oilsands expansion that would push emissions far past acceptable limits).

Any international progress made on climate change will have to be expanded as the Americans withdraw.

That will require a decision to help Arctic communities decarbonize as quickly as possible. Obed says all 53 Inuit communities currently operate on diesel generation. Over 70 communities in Alaska use "hybrid renewable systems," in which multiple power sources such as wind, solar and hydro are combined. There aren't any such systems in Canada.

Climate-resilient infrastructure for drinking water, wastewater and solid waste disposal will also have to be built in order for communities to maintain self-sufficiency.

But that necessitates a reminder: the Canadian government has never cared about the North, save for access to resource extraction projects such as Giant Mine and the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (the latter of which was rebuffed in the 1970s following heavy opposition from Dene, Inuit and Métis people, but has since been resurrected).

There's been a "distinct underinvestment in the Northern territories," to quote Crowley. That's resulted in a serious "poverty trap" and inability for territorial governments to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.

There have certainly been some strong initiatives taken at the local level. In early November, the Nunavut government announced the creation of a Climate Change Secretariat, while the WWF and Ecojustice are teaming up with ongoing Inuit-led fight for an expanded national marine conservation area in Lancaster Sound.

Much more will be needed. That's where the federal government must start investing serious dollars in the North.

"You address the suicide crisis," says Byers, who notes funding is the one thing the Feds can bring to the table which Indigenous people cannot. "You address the housing crisis. You address the education crisis. It is complex, but the fact of the matter is that Northern Indigenous peoples need increased supports from the federal government so they can become those strong allies in the fight against climate change and other challenges in the North."

Byers says the surprising resignation of former fisheries minister Hunter Tootoo, who was the lone representative of Arctic constituents in cabinet, "resulted in a lack of focus on Arctic issues." He also notes the election of Trump will likely result in six months of "wait and see in Ottawa with very, very little decision making on policy."

But the deadline to be able to take action by is coming very soon. It may have already passed. There's been more positive rhetoric about climate policy and the Arctic since the Liberals were elected. Obed says there needs to be far greater urgency, with mitigation and adaptation measures implemented as soon as possible.

"I don't think we have a lot of time," he says. "It isn't just a matter of it being five degrees hotter in the summer and having to put on an extra layer of sunscreen. It is a matter of us being able to rely on the foundations of our society and pass that information onto our children. It's that foundation because our society is so much based on ice and snow and cold."
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby BenDhyan » Fri May 05, 2017 7:44 am

Hope this study helps...

Full article behind a paywall...http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/xap0000105

Climate change helplessness and the (de)moralization of individual energy behavior.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.

Although most people understand the threat of climate change, they do little to modify their own energy conservation behavior. One reason for this gap between belief and behavior may be that individual actions seem unimpactful and therefore are not morally relevant. This research investigates how climate change helplessness—belief that one’s actions cannot affect climate change—can undermine the moralization of climate change and personal energy conservation. In Study 1, climate change efficacy predicted both moralization of energy use and energy conservation intentions beyond individual belief in climate change. In Studies 2 and 3, participants read information about climate change that varied in efficacy message, that is, whether individual actions (e.g., using less water, turning down heat) make a difference in the environment. Participants who read that their behavior made no meaningful impact reported weaker moralization and intentions (Study 2), and reported more energy consumption 1 week later (Study 3). Moreover, effects on intentions and actions were mediated by changes in moralization. We discuss ways to improve climate change messages to foster environmental efficacy and moralization of personal energy use.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Blue » Fri May 05, 2017 8:26 am

Moreover, effects on intentions and actions were mediated by changes in moralization. We discuss ways to improve climate change messages to foster environmental efficacy and moralization of personal energy use.

Sounds like bullshit to me. At this point it doesn't fucking matter one whit whether I reduce my personal carbon footprint to zero or not and all the self-love moralizing of my personal energy to change the world amounts to less than zero because it's delusional. The massive volumes of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere daily by industry, transportation and the feedback loop of permafrost melt are beyond individual control.

And then there is this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up

There are diseases hidden in ice, and they are waking up
By Jasmin Fox-Skelly
4 May 2017

Throughout history, humans have existed side-by-side with bacteria and viruses. From the bubonic plague to smallpox, we have evolved to resist them, and in response they have developed new ways of infecting us.

We have had antibiotics for almost a century, ever since Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin. In response, bacteria have responded by evolving antibiotic resistance. The battle is endless: because we spend so much time with pathogens, we sometimes develop a kind of natural stalemate.

However, what would happen if we were suddenly exposed to deadly bacteria and viruses that have been absent for thousands of years, or that we have never met before?
We may be about to find out. Climate change is melting permafrost soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, and as the soils melt they are releasing ancient viruses and bacteria that, having lain dormant, are springing back to life.


In August 2016, in a remote corner of Siberian tundra called the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Circle, a 12-year-old boy died and at least twenty people were hospitalised after being infected by anthrax.

The theory is that, over 75 years ago, a reindeer infected with anthrax died and its frozen carcass became trapped under a layer of frozen soil, known as permafrost. There it stayed until a heatwave in the summer of 2016, when the permafrost thawed.

This exposed the reindeer corpse and released infectious anthrax into nearby water and soil, and then into the food supply. More than 2,000 reindeer grazing nearby became infected, which then led to the small number of human cases.

The fear is that this will not be an isolated case.
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby PufPuf93 » Tue May 09, 2017 3:00 pm

The Doomsday Glacier

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... er-w481260

This is a long and excellent article that I could not get to copy to RI about the melting glaciers of Antarctica.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Blue » Wed May 10, 2017 10:05 am

Earth Could Break Through a Major Climate Threshold in the Next 15 Years, Scientists Warn

Posted on May 9, 2017

By Chelea Harvey / The Washington Post (via Truthdig)

Global temperatures could exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels within the next 15 years, according to a new scientific study, crossing the first threshold under the Paris climate agreement and placing the world at a potentially dangerous level of climate change.

The report comes as climate agreement participants are watching the United States - where the Trump administration is debating whether to withdraw from the Paris accord - and as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are working on a special report about the 1.5-degree goal (equivalent to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and the consequences of overshooting it.

That IPCC’s upcoming special report and the increasing urgency about minimizing global warming were one impetus for the study, according to co-author Benjamin Henley, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia. “We are working on a number of scientific avenues to help inform that report,” he told The Washington Post.

The study focuses on a natural planetary system known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO (it’s also sometimes referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It’s an alternating pattern of ocean temperatures that shifts periodically between warm and cool phases, helping to drive temperature and weather patterns all over the world.
During cool, or “negative,” phases, tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean tend to be colder, and the global mean temperature is lower. The system is similar to the El Niño/La Niña cycle, the major difference being that phases of the IPO tend to last much longer - sometimes a decade or more. The phenomenon is believed to be a natural form of climate variability unrelated to human-caused climate change, although it does have the potential to influence the progression of global warming.

For most of the 2000s, the IPO has been in a negative phase, and scientists think its cooling effect has helped to slightly offset the effect of climate change, an explanation for the so-called global warming pause in the first part of the 21st century. As multiple studies have pointed out, this temporary slowdown is consistent with the overall long-term warming trend and in no way suggests that human-induced climate change is not occurring. Rather, this natural variation in the global climate helped to slightly blunt those effects.

Many scientists believe that the planet is now transitioning back into a positive, or warm, phase, which could amplify, rather than offset, human-caused climate warming. This means we could reach milestone temperature thresholds faster than we would if the IPO had remained in its negative phase.

That’s the conclusion of the new study, written by Henley and Andrew King of the University of Melbourne. Using model projections of future climate warming under a business-as-usual scenario, they suggest that the Earth could hit the 1.5-degree temperature threshold as early as 2025, while the continuation of the negative phase probably would delay this event until after 2030.


more at link
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Blue » Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:28 am

Huge Crack In The Antarctic Ice Shelf Could Just Create The Largest Iceberg Ever Recorded

According to scientists, the rift on the ice shelf grew by 11 miles in the past six days and if and when it breaks off, it'll be the world's biggest icebergs ever recorded.

Scientists at the University of Swansea said the break off could produce a new iceberg of about 1,900 square miles, state reports. The ice shelf called Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica.

Scientists have been monitoring the progress of Larsen C in a study called Project MIDAS. Adrian Luckman of Project MIDAS warned that “there appears to be very little to prevent the iceberg from breaking away completely.”


"When it calves, the Larsen C ice shelf will lose more than 10 per cent of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula," state scientists who are part of Project MIDAS.

This phenomenon is set to draw more attention with President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement.


Image
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:42 pm

My latest blog post on global warming. It's both a review of Naomi Klein's book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate and an examination of the possibility geoengineering might be employed to deal with global warming.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

This Changes Everything Should Mean Everything

Several years ago, (six to be precise) I posted a column by Naomi Klein titled Capitalism vs. the Climate. It is a brilliant piece that was published in The Nation, and it was refreshing to read thoughtful research that explained to a mainstream, albeit left-leaning, audience the environmental and economic correlation between peak oil and global warming, i.e. the Carbon Crisis. I've been a fan of Klein ever since I read The Shock Doctrine so I was glad to see that in her research she had come to a lot of the same conclusions I had. She spelled out quite clearly that we cannot have an economy based on infinite growth when we're stuck on one planet with finite resources, that the Carbon Crisis has brought civilization to the point that in order to survive, "it demands a new civilizational paradigm." Klein even referenced the positive efforts of the Transition Town movement and warned of how Jevon's Paradox could undo the savings from energy efficiency if that savings is "simply plowed back into further exponential expansion of the economy, reduction in total emissions will be thwarted."






Image
Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything Source: Wikimedia Commons


When I found out Klein was writing a book on climate change and capitalism, I was eager to read her further research. Not too eager; the hardcover edition of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate was published in 2014 and I waited until last year to read it when the paperback was on sale. My take on it? It is extremely well researched and well written. I would grade it as being a very good book, but for certain reasons I'll elaborate on later, it falls shy of being a great book. Klein does succeed in elaborating on the immediacy of our predicament and the necessity of the "new civilizational paradigm" mentioned in the initial column. As she writes on page 347, "We know that we are trapped within an economic system that has it backward; it behaves as if there is no end to what is actually finite (clean water, fossil fuels, and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions) while insisting that there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually quite flexible: the financial resources that human institutions manufacture, and that, if imagined differently, could build the kind of caring society we need."

This Changes Everything is really good when it takes on the shortcomings of politicians and activists on both sides of the issue. It's pretty easy to tear apart the mindset of deniers, which Naomi Klein does with aplomb. But she is even more incisive in her critiques of so-called environmentalists that have grown cozy with Big Business, green billionaires like Richard Branson that talk a good game to the press, but don't always put their money where their mouth is, and anyone who thinks that carbon offsets constitutes a sound policy to stop global warming. To quote her on page 223: "The problem is that by adopting this model of financing, even the very best green projects are being made ineffective as climate responses because for every ton of carbon dioxide the developers keep out of the atmosphere, a corporation in the industrialized world is able to pump a ton into the air, using offsets to claim the pollution has been neutralized. One step forward, one step back. At best, we are running in place."

more...

http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2017/ ... -mean.html
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:37 pm

Ketan Joshi‏ Verified Account @KetanJ0 10. June 2017

A simple, 105 year old explanation of climate change

Image

Retweets 14 Tsd. Likes 22 Tsd.

https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/873450943832084480
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Blue » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:06 pm

Very cool graphic of Antarctic ice flowing to sea

Edited to add: when you look at the moving graphic, notice how small the (currently collapsing) Larsen ice shelf is compared to the huge Ronne and of course, Ross ice shelves are. When they start to collapse, game over.

MILES OF ICE COLLAPSING INTO THE SEA
May 18, 2017

Recent computer forecasts suggest that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at a high level, parts of Antarctica could break up rapidly, causing the ocean to rise six feet or more by the end of this century. That is double the maximum increase that an international climate panel projected only four years ago.

But those computer forecasts were described as crude even by the researchers who created them. “We could be decades too fast, or decades too slow,” said one of them, Robert M. DeConto of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. “There are still some really big question marks about the trajectory of future climate around Antarctica.”

Alarmed by the warning signs that parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet are becoming unstable, American and British scientific agencies are joining forces to get better measurements in the main trouble spots. The effort could cost more than $25 million and might not produce clearer answers about the fate of the ice until the early 2020s.

For scientists working in Antarctica, the situation has become a race against time.

Even as the threat from global warming comes into sharper focus, these scientists understand that political leaders — and cities already feeling the effects of a rising sea — need clearer forecasts about the consequences of emissions. That urgent need for insight has led scientists from Columbia to spend the past two Antarctic summers flying over the Ross Ice Shelf, a floating chunk of ice larger than California.
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:12 pm

I meant to make this comment months ago and completely forgot it until now, but it's just such a great example of how intellectually bankrupt the skeptic/denier crowd can be. The quotes are from page 179 of this thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&start=2670).

Sounder wrote:
Lack of interest or ability to account for undersea volcanoes produces another hole in the computer modeling.


I wrote a rebuttal with a quote from the author of the paper in question saying the exact opposite of what Sounder was insinuating.

Sounder replied:
It is all very fine to have a theory in regard to motive forces for undersea volcano activity, that may or may not be correct, but the truth is we do not know how much undersea volcano activity there is, so I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory.


So, when he thinks the paper supports his position it's A-OK, but when it turns out it does the exact opposite it suddenly becomes "I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory".

This is the denier mentality in a nutshell. Bullshit arguments with nothing to back it up and then quietly slinking away when called on it.

This is why there's no point in arguing with these people, because they do not have honest intentions. They want to obfuscate and confuse and sow doubt, either because they're paid to do it (surprising amount of overlap with the old tobacco lobby), or because they fell for the blatantly obvious disinfo that's being vomited all over the internet by the paid shills working for big oil and coal, or it makes them feel special for being part of the small contrarian clique who "gets it" and sees through the evil science plot (because all the climate researchers want the world to go to hell :wallhead: ).

PS! I'm not posting this to single out Sounder in particular, he just happened to be the guy who posted those two snippets.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:27 pm

"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smoking since 1879 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:01 pm

Project MIDAS
@MIDASOnIce
A UK-based research project, studying the effects of melting on the Larsen C ice shelf, Antarctica | @mewo2 tweeting

https://twitter.com/MIDASOnIce


"I’ve studied Larsen C and its giant iceberg for years – it’s not a simple story of climate change"
July 12, 2017 10.43am BST

http://theconversation.com/ive-studied-larsen-c-and-its-giant-iceberg-for-years-its-not-a-simple-story-of-climate-change-80529?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1499857702


:shrug:
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Burnt Hill » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:51 pm

Seaweed shown to reduce 99% methane from cattle

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/seaweed-shown-to-reduce-99-methane-from-cattle-1.3156975?mode=amp

Image

Tim O'Brien

Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 20:06

News that a slight dietary change could dramatically reduce the amount of environmentally harmful methane gas released by cattle has been given an enthusiastic welcome by Irish farmers.


Researchers at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, found the addition of less than 2 per cent dried seaweed to a cow’s diet could reduce their methane emissions by as much as 99 per cent.


The study builds on the experience of a Canadian farmer who discovered in 2012 that cattle eating wind-blown seaweed were not just more healthy than others, but enjoyed a longer mating cycle. Researchers Rob Kinley and Alan Fredeen subsequently confirmed the results as well as finding seaweeds and similar plants reduced methane emissions.


This was further substantiated by the Australian study, which was led by Prof of Aquaculture Rocky De Nys in collaboration with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.


Agriculture and transport are the largest contributors to Ireland’s climate change emissions and there have long been suggestions that the population should eat fewer burgers and steaks in an effort to reduce cattle numbers and protect the environment.


The gas is released via burps and flatulence by the estimated 1.5 billion cows as a byproduct of their biology. Cows, with the help of stomach bacteria, digest their food through a process called enteric fermentation, which allows them to live on a cellulose-heavy diet of grass.


Harmful

The end result of their digestive habits is the daily leakage of some 200 to 500 litres of methane, which is about 25-times more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time span.


The Irish Farmers’ Association gave a broad welcome to the study saying the research provides the opportunity to continue to build on Ireland’s “sustainable grass-based model of food production”.


The association’s environment chairman, Thomas Cooney, called on Irish researchers “to immediately investigate the potential for this research in an Irish agriculture context, and in the context of the opportunity that may exist for indigenous seaweed production”.


Ireland has a long tradition of harvesting seaweed, much of it by hand to help fertilise small holdings where the land is poor in nutrients. Frequently known as dulse or dillisk along the west coast, seaweed has long been regarded for its health-giving properties.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:13 am

DrEvil » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:12 pm wrote:I meant to make this comment months ago and completely forgot it until now, but it's just such a great example of how intellectually bankrupt the skeptic/denier crowd can be. The quotes are from page 179 of this thread (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&start=2670).

Sounder wrote:
Lack of interest or ability to account for undersea volcanoes produces another hole in the computer modeling.


I wrote a rebuttal with a quote from the author of the paper in question saying the exact opposite of what Sounder was insinuating.

Sounder replied:
It is all very fine to have a theory in regard to motive forces for undersea volcano activity, that may or may not be correct, but the truth is we do not know how much undersea volcano activity there is, so I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory.


So, when he thinks the paper supports his position it's A-OK, but when it turns out it does the exact opposite it suddenly becomes "I see no reason to accept this theory until empirical evidence is shown to support said theory".

This is the denier mentality in a nutshell. Bullshit arguments with nothing to back it up and then quietly slinking away when called on it.

This is why there's no point in arguing with these people, because they do not have honest intentions. They want to obfuscate and confuse and sow doubt, either because they're paid to do it (surprising amount of overlap with the old tobacco lobby), or because they fell for the blatantly obvious disinfo that's being vomited all over the internet by the paid shills working for big oil and coal, or it makes them feel special for being part of the small contrarian clique who "gets it" and sees through the evil science plot (because all the climate researchers want the world to go to hell :wallhead: ).

PS! I'm not posting this to single out Sounder in particular, he just happened to be the guy who posted those two snippets.


Here's a working link to the article Elvis & Blue refer to:

http://api.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3551&page=10

Image
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smoking since 1879 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:41 pm

great news about the seaweed :)
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests