Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/25/2018, 5:25 pm

You people are just crazier than shit, aincha?

https://newatlas.com/sandwiches-global-warming/53128/

Is the humble sandwich a climate change culprit?

David Szondy
13 hours ago

Scientists at the University of Manchester have found a surprising global warming culprit – sandwiches. In the first study of its kind, the researchers carried out an in-depth audit of various sandwiches throughout their life cycles and found the triangular meals could be responsible for the equivalent annual carbon emissions of 8.6 million cars in Britain alone.
In 1762, or so the story goes, the fourth Earl of Sandwich rocked the culinary world when he couldn't be bothered to leave the gambling table to eat and ordered the servants to just stick some meat between two slices of bread for him. Since then, the modern sandwich has become one of the most popular of food formats.
According to the British Sandwich Association (BSA), the United Kingdom spends £8 billion (US$11.3 billion) annually on 11.5 billion sandwiches, with half made at home and the other half bought at shops, supermarkets, kiosks, and service stations. To better understand the environmental impact of all these sarnies, the Manchester team looked at over 40 different sandwich types, recipes, and combinations as well as how they are made, packaged, transported, and stored. In addition, they considered the waste produced in making them, as well as the stale, rotten, or simply outdated sandwiches that are thrown away.
What the researchers found was that not all sandwiches are created equal and that some varieties have larger carbon footprints than others. The highest footprint was found in premade, prepackaged, all-day-breakfast sandwiches. These contain eggs, bacon, and sausage and are kept packaged and refrigerated until sold and eaten – all of which is estimated to add up to 1,441 g (3.18 lb) of carbon dioxide equivalent, or roughly the same as driving a car for 12 miles (19 km).
By contrast, the smallest footprint is that of a homemade ham and cheese sandwich. Overall, making your sandwiches at home potentially halves the carbon emissions compared to their prepackaged equivalents.
According to the team, a number of factors affect the sandwich's carbon footprint. Ingredients is one of them, with items like meat in general and pork in particular, cheese, prawns, lettuce, and tomatoes being particularly large footprint culprits. Producing these ingredients, as well as the bread and condiments, can account for 37 to 67 percent of the carbon dioxide produced. Other factors are the packaging, which makes up 8.5 percent of emissions, transportation (especially in refrigerated trucks) for 4 percent, and refrigeration at point of sale making up another 25 percent.
The Manchester researchers aren't anti-sandwich, but they do say that changing recipes and packaging while reducing waste could result in a 50 percent drop in sandwich-related carbon emissions. Along with the BSA, they claim that something as simple as reforming the sell-by-date system could save over 2,000 tonnes of sandwiches in Britain being wasted each year.
"We need to change the labeling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative," says team member Professor Adisa Azapagic. "Commercial sandwiches undergo rigorous shelf-life testing and are normally safe for consumption beyond the use-by date stated on the label."
The research was published in the Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption.
Source: University of Manchester

Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/25/2018, 10:00 pm

Trump Worshiping Troll wrote:
You people are just crazier than shit, aincha?

https://newatlas.com/sandwiches-global-warming/53128/

Is the humble sandwich a climate change culprit?

David Szondy
13 hours ago

Scientists at the University of Manchester have found a surprising global warming culprit – sandwiches. In the first study of its kind, the researchers carried out an in-depth audit of various sandwiches throughout their life cycles and found the triangular meals could be responsible for the equivalent annual carbon emissions of 8.6 million cars in Britain alone.
In 1762, or so the story goes, the fourth Earl of Sandwich rocked the culinary world when he couldn't be bothered to leave the gambling table to eat and ordered the servants to just stick some meat between two slices of bread for him. Since then, the modern sandwich has become one of the most popular of food formats.
According to the British Sandwich Association (BSA), the United Kingdom spends £8 billion (US$11.3 billion) annually on 11.5 billion sandwiches, with half made at home and the other half bought at shops, supermarkets, kiosks, and service stations. To better understand the environmental impact of all these sarnies, the Manchester team looked at over 40 different sandwich types, recipes, and combinations as well as how they are made, packaged, transported, and stored. In addition, they considered the waste produced in making them, as well as the stale, rotten, or simply outdated sandwiches that are thrown away.
What the researchers found was that not all sandwiches are created equal and that some varieties have larger carbon footprints than others. The highest footprint was found in premade, prepackaged, all-day-breakfast sandwiches. These contain eggs, bacon, and sausage and are kept packaged and refrigerated until sold and eaten – all of which is estimated to add up to 1,441 g (3.18 lb) of carbon dioxide equivalent, or roughly the same as driving a car for 12 miles (19 km).
By contrast, the smallest footprint is that of a homemade ham and cheese sandwich. Overall, making your sandwiches at home potentially halves the carbon emissions compared to their prepackaged equivalents.
According to the team, a number of factors affect the sandwich's carbon footprint. Ingredients is one of them, with items like meat in general and pork in particular, cheese, prawns, lettuce, and tomatoes being particularly large footprint culprits. Producing these ingredients, as well as the bread and condiments, can account for 37 to 67 percent of the carbon dioxide produced. Other factors are the packaging, which makes up 8.5 percent of emissions, transportation (especially in refrigerated trucks) for 4 percent, and refrigeration at point of sale making up another 25 percent.
The Manchester researchers aren't anti-sandwich, but they do say that changing recipes and packaging while reducing waste could result in a 50 percent drop in sandwich-related carbon emissions. Along with the BSA, they claim that something as simple as reforming the sell-by-date system could save over 2,000 tonnes of sandwiches in Britain being wasted each year.
"We need to change the labeling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative," says team member Professor Adisa Azapagic. "Commercial sandwiches undergo rigorous shelf-life testing and are normally safe for consumption beyond the use-by date stated on the label."
The research was published in the Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption.
Source: University of Manchester
Science,Math,&Logic....Run for your lives wingnuts!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3150

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/26/2018, 12:44 am

It's just more propaganda from the Deep State, headed by Mueller and Al Gore.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/26/2018, 10:24 am

Advocate for the Murder of Police Officers 60438 wrote:
   Science,Math,&Logic

Bacon & lettuce & tomato  - OH MY!!!!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/27/2018, 10:40 am

Kinda makes you wonder if the Great Sandwich Crisis is also based upon research by a 9 year-old - perhaps one whose mother was trying to force him to finish his liverwurst.



http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-restau


California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws

This sucks.

Christian Britschgi|Jan. 25, 2018 10:10 am



Ian Calderon wants restaurateurs to think long and hard before giving you a straw.
Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California's lower house, has introduced a bill to stop sit-down restaurants from offering customers straws with their beverages unless they specifically request one. Under Calderon's law, a waiter who serves a drink with an unrequested straw in it would face up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
"We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and oceans," Calderon explained in a press release.

This isn't just Calderon's crusade. The California cities of San Luis Obispo and Davis both passed straws-on-request laws last year, and Manhattan Beach maintains a prohibition on all disposable plastics. And up in Seattle, food service businesses won't be allowed to offer plastic straws or utensils as of July.
The Los Angeles Times has gotten behind the movement, endorsing straws-on-request policies in an editorial that also warned that "repetitive sucking may cause or exacerbate wrinkles on the lips or around the mouth." Celebrity astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson (always up for a little chiding) and Entourage star Adrian Grenier have appeared in videos where an octopus slaps them in the face for using a plastic straw.
The actual number of straws being used is unclear. Calderon, along with news outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San Francisco Chronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle.
Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old.
Cress, who is now 16, says that the National Restaurant Association has endorsed his estimates in private correspondence. This may well be true, but the only references to the 500 million figure on the association's website again points back to the work done by Cress.


More important than how many straws Americans use each day is how many wind up in waterways. We don't know that figure either. The closest we have is the number of straws collected by the California Costal Commission during its annual Coastal Cleanup Day: a total of 835,425 straws and stirrers since 1988, or about 4.1 percent of debris collected.
Squishy moderates on the straw issue have pushed paper straws, which come compostable at only eight times the price. Eco-Cycle skews a bit more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign—sponsored in part by reusable straw makers—that urges the adoption of glass or steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the environment.
In any case, criminalizing unsolicited straws seems like a rather heavy-handed approach to the problem, especially since we don't actually know how big a problem it is. But don't take my word for that. Ask Milo Cress.
"If people are forced not to use straws, then they won't necessarily see that it's for the environment," he tells Reason. "They'll just think it's just another inconvenience imposed on them by government."
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/29/2018, 2:18 pm

Trump's view that ice caps 'setting records' baffles scientists
Quote :
OSLO (Reuters) - Scientists puzzled on Monday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertion that ice caps are “setting records” when much of the world’s ice from the Alps to the Andes is melting amid global warming.
FILE PHOTO - A supplied image shows a penguin standing atop an iceberg in Antarctica, November 17, 2006. John B. Weller-Pew Charitable Trust/Handout via REUTERS

Trump cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change in an interview aired on Britain’s ITV channel on Sunday night, saying “there’s a cooling and there’s a heating”.

“The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now. But now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level,” he said.

Many people use the term “ice cap” to refer to polar sea ice or vast ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. It is also a technical term for smaller masses of ice on land, ending in glaciers.

“Glaciers and ice caps are globally continuing to melt at extreme rate,” said Michael Zemp, director of the World Glacier Monitoring Service which tracks hundreds of glaciers. Melting ice is contributing to push up world sea levels.
Quote :

Trump’s implication that glaciers and ice caps are growing “is simply wrong. Or maybe he is referring to a different planet,” Zemp said.
Yes..perhaps Planet Wingnuttia
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   1/31/2018, 2:59 pm

Guess who's back...
Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s Environment Pick: Fossil Fuels Ended Slavery, CO2 Is Good for You
Quote :
Trump’s nominee bombed her Senate hearing. But a Daily Beast investigation reveals years of blog posts promoting conspiracy theories, quack science, and fake history.

Jay Michaelson
01.31.18 11:43 AM ET

One of the most embarrassing political flops of 2017 was Donald Trump’s nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, a longtime fossil-fuel advocate, to direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Her confirmation hearing was a disaster, captured for posterity on YouTube. While she made it out of committee on party lines, the full Senate declined to consider her nomination as part of a bipartisan deal.

Now, she’s back.

To the surprise of Hill-watchers, White has been re-nominated, setting up a showdown with Democrats and Republicans alike. (Per Senate rules, nominees not confirmed at the end of the year must be re-submitted.) One observer called her “the most endangered of President Trump’s environmental nominees.”

Why?

We’re all used to the “fox guarding the henhouse” phenomenon in this administration: a longtime opponent of public schools heading the Education Department, a man who made his name suing the Environmental Protection Agency now heading it, and on down the line. So it’s not surprising that White has spent her career taking money from ExxonMobil and the Koch network and spouting nonsense about how fossil fuels ended slavery, emit “plant nutrients,” and, of course, do not contribute to global climate disruption.

What was surprising was how awfully she performed at that hearing.

First, it was revealed that many of her written answers to the committee were apparently cut and pasted, word for word, from the answers submitted by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his assistant Bill Wehrum.

Then came the hearing itself.

At one point, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse asked White to estimate how much of the excess heat from climate change is stored in the oceans—a detailed question for you or me, but pretty standard for a climate-policy person. White said she didn’t know, but said there were many opinions and “no right answer.” That’s the fossil-fuel industry’s refrain, of course.

Whitehouse asked if there was a “serious scientific opinion that it’s below 50 percent.” White said yes. Whitehouse said, “Wow.”

The actual answer is 90 percent, and there is no dispute about that.

Then Sen. Whitehouse asked if White agreed that water expands as it heats, a principle that can be proven on any kitchen stovetop. White said, “I do not have any kind of expertise or even much layman’s study of the ocean dynamics.”

Of course, water does expand as it heats, which is why hundreds of millions of people will likely have to flee coastal areas in the next few decades.
I read some of her answers and I start believing that I'd be more qualified for the position. affraid
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   4/15/2018, 7:22 am

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/charred-body-found-prospect-park-walking-path-article-1.3933598

Famed gay rights lawyer sets himself on fire at Prospect Park in protest suicide against fossil fuels


NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Saturday, April 14, 2018, 12:53 PM

A nationally known advocate for gay rights and the environment died Saturday in a fiery Prospect Park suicide, with his self-immolation meant as a wake-up call to save the planet.

The charred remains of David Buckel, 60, were discovered shortly after sunrise when firefighters responded to a 6:40 a.m. blaze in the southwest corner of the sprawling Brooklyn park.

“I am David Buckel and I just killed myself by fire as a protest suicide,” read a hand-written suicide note left near the blackened circle of burned grass. “I apologize to you for the mess.”

A second, longer note — left with the first inside an envelope marked “For the police” — said Buckel doused himself in “fossil fuel” before starting the fatal fire as a metaphor for the destruction of the planet.

“My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves,” he wrote. “A lifetime of service may best be preserved by giving a life . . . Honorable purpose in life invites honorable purchase in death.

“I hope it is an honorable death that might serve others.”

.........

“He will be remembered for his kindness, devotion, and vision for justice.”

.........



He will also be remembered for the large blob of charcoal left in the park.
Don't the hydrocarbon emissions from his self-immolation kind of cancel out the entire rationale for his protest?

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   4/19/2018, 10:56 am

https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Forest-bathing-takes-tree-hugging-to-new-12844868.php

‘Forest bathing’ takes tree hugging to new extremes

By Steve Rubenstein
April 18, 2018 Updated: April 18, 2018 3:10pm

There’s a revolutionary new way to walk through the forest. V-e-r-y slowly.

Take a few steps. That’s far enough. Now sit down and talk it over with the person next to you, for a long time.
It’s a New Age thing in Sonoma County. Walking very slowly through the forest — while thinking about walking very slowly through the forest — is a full-blown movement. It could be a paradigm. The people who do this call it “forest bathing.” It doesn’t involve actual bathing, the kind with water. It’s figurative bathing. You soak in the wonders of the forest. Take your time, a whole lot of it. And bring a cushion.

About a dozen of us forest bathers were sitting on the ground the other morning at Quarryhill Botanical Garden, in Glen Ellen (Sonoma County), to find out what it was all about. We had taken an hour to meander from the parking area 50 yards down a manicured garden trail overlooking a vineyard. The idea was to look closely at absolutely everything. Examine all twigs. Inspect all leaves. If you see an ant, stop and take it in. Get up close and personal with your ant.
At a half dozen steps per excruciating minute, covering 50 yards takes some doing.
“It feels good to sit here and not go anyplace,” said Amos Clifford, the man in charge, the fellow who helped dream up very slow forest walking and who just wrote a book about it. His $15 paperback, “Your Guild to Forest Bathing,” has climbed like a trumpet vine to No. 3,726 on the Amazon best seller list.

“The slower you go, the more you experience,” Clifford said. “We’re always in such a hurry to go from ‘here’ to ‘there’ that we never fully experience ‘here.’”
There was a lot to talk about the other morning. There was a long discourse about a hummingbird. Several of us had seen it. The hummingbird had been amazing, we agreed. Also amazing was a wild rose bush, a honeybee, the sound of a distant stream and some purple flowers that nobody knew the name of.
“It doesn’t matter if you do not know the name of the species,” said Clifford. “Learning biology is important but it’s not what we do. We tell people to go find another place to do that.”
What’s important is your relationship to the purple flower. Think it over. Take your time. The flower isn’t going anywhere.
Such sentiments are quite at home coming from Clifford, 63, of Santa Rosa. The longtime Zen meditation student worked as a traditional Sierra hiking guide and a mental health counselor before getting into the forest bathing trade about six years ago, adapting it from a similar Japanese practice.
Clifford has turned his slow walks into a cottage industry. He leads $50 forest bathing treks for newbies. He teaches $3,400 forest bathing workshops for wannabe leaders. He lectures and writes. From Sonoma County, the spiritual home of forest bathing, he flies around the world in jets to tell people they’re moving too fast.
But you cannot go on a nature walk, even a slow one, without eventually walking. Now, Clifford said, it was time for each of us to walk around — not very far, and not very fast — and pick out a tree and talk to it..

Clifford called it an “invitation.” Forest bathing walks are a series of invitations to do something, like “embody awareness” or “notice what you’re noticing” or “talk to a tree.”
“I want everybody to find a tree that’s your twin,” said Clifford. “Talk to your tree. Ask your twin about yourself. Find out all you can from your tree. Put your hand on your tree. Take your time to get to know your tree.”
And so it was that a dozen people walked around, slowly, talking to trees. Like the purple flowers, the trees remained anonymous. We didn’t have to know what kind they were, only what was on their minds.
After 20 minutes of human-tree conversation — much of it one-sided — we forest bathers returned to the same spot and sat down in the same circle to share our conversations with our trees.
“My tree asked me why I was so afraid,” said one forest bather.
“My tree said it thought that we could grow together,” said another forest bather.
One older woman observed that the leaves at the top of her tree swayed in the breeze, but that the trunk of her tree did not move, being thick and solid and stuck in the ground. She called it an interesting contrast — although it could just be the nature of the trunk-leaf paradigm. (This reporter ventured that trees are bloodthirsty, pushy little devils, and there is nothing tranquil about the life-or-death struggle they wage with their fellow trees for sunlight. Hardly a life form to have a friendly conversation with.)
After everyone had spoken his or her piece about their twin trees, Clifford brewed up a pot of tea taken from plants gathered during the walk. This was an iffy prospect, as Clifford had revealed earlier that he wasn’t exactly sure what poison oak looks like — not the sort of thing to pass most nature guides’ lips. But the group sipped, and survived, and at long last the forest bathing was over.

It turned out that the botanical garden had been the second choice for the day’s forest bath. The actual forest where Clifford usually conducts his forest bathing — Sugarloaf Ridge State Park in Kenwood, up the road — was closed because a nasty rainstorm made the trails unsafe. Like a quarterback at the line of scrimmage, Clifford audibilized. Nature is always in flux, he said, and humans must adapt when their chosen forest is padlocked. The nearby botanical garden would do, he said, even if the trees and plants were accompanied by those pesky little signs that can supply more information than a forest bather really needs. Botanical garden bathing is close enough to forest bathing that only sticklers would find fault.
When it was all over, three hours later, one of the forest bathers, Anne Cardosa, of Sacramento, said she enjoyed forest bathing so much (“I felt hypnotized”) that she had signed up for Clifford’s course on how to be a forest bathing guide. Cardosa said she would soon be running her own forest bathing programs in the Sierra foothills near Placerville.
“I want to help other people heal,” she said. “I want them to feel the sense of complete calmness that I did.”
That idea, Cardosa said, came from her inner spirit, not from her tree. The tree hadn’t said anything, one way or the other.
We stood up and brushed off the forest from the seats of our pants, where a forest tends to gather when one sits down in the middle of it. Then we walked back to our parked cars, actually covering a little ground this time, now that it no longer counted.




Wherever there is liberalism, extreme gullibility cannot be far behind.
Sonuvabitch - why didn't I think of this?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   4/19/2018, 2:58 pm

Trump Worshiping racist wrote:

Wherever there is liberalism, extreme gullibility cannot be far behind.
Sonuvabitch - why didn't I think of this?
Too busy cleaning your gunz? Ooops I meant penis extenders.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 6382

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   4/19/2018, 3:55 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Trump Worshiping racist wrote:

Wherever there is liberalism, extreme gullibility cannot be far behind.
Sonuvabitch - why didn't I think of this?
Too busy cleaning your gunz? Ooops I meant penis extenders.

Your ravenous obsession with my genitalia never ends, does it?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   5/18/2018, 7:33 am

Literally the "Dumb as a box of Rocks" Award goes to....
Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise
Quote :
The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet.

Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.

A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.

The purpose of the hearing was to focus on how technology could be deployed for climate change adaptation. But the hearing frequently turned to the basics of climate science. Many of the questions by Republicans and Democrats alike were directed to Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he was bothered that established climate science has not been questioned more by the committee, which has accused federal climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating climate data and subpoenaed their records.

"I'm a little bit disturbed by, No. 1, over and over again, I hear, 'Don't ever talk about whether mankind is the main cause of the temperature changing and the climate changing,'" he said. "That's a little disturbing to hear constantly beaten into our heads in a Science Committee meeting, when basically we should all be open to different points of view."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

"To solve climate change challenges, we first need to acknowledge the uncertainties that exist," Smith said in his opening remarks. "Then we can have confidence that innovations and technology will enable us to mitigate any adverse consequences of climate change."

At one point, Smith showed a slide of two charts that he said demonstrated how the rate of sea-level rise does not equal the sharp spike in the consumption of fossil fuels. When Smith pointed out that rates of sea-level rise have only increased slightly compared with the rate of fossil fuel use, Duffy pointed out that his chart was from a single tide gauge station, near San Francisco, and that sea levels rise at different rates around the world. Smith did not show rising atmospheric CO2 levels or temperatures, both of which have climbed steadily in recent decades as emissions have increased.
Quote :

 Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.
   Representative Mo Brooks (R–AL)

"The rate of global sea-level rise has accelerated and is now four times faster than it was 100 years ago," Duffy told Smith in response to the charts.

"Is this chart inaccurate, then?" Smith asked.

"It's accurate, but it doesn't represent what's happening globally; it represents what's happening in San Francisco," Duffy said.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) questioned Duffy on the factors that contribute to sea-level rise, pointing out that land subsidence plays a role, as well as human activity.

Brooks then said that erosion plays a significant role in sea-level rise, which is not an idea embraced by mainstream climate researchers. He said the California coastline and the White Cliffs of Dover tumble into the sea every year, and that contributes to sea-level rise. He also said that silt washing into the ocean from the world's major rivers, including the Mississippi, the Amazon and the Nile, is contributing to sea-level rise.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said.

Duffy responded: "I'm pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects."

Brooks added that Antarctic ice is growing. That was true a few years ago, and scientists say it does not disprove the theory of global warming because different factors affect the Arctic and Antarctic rates of melting.

"We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage," Duffy said.

"I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're getting your information, but the data I have seen suggests — " Brooks said.

Duffy answered: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

"Well, I've got a NASA base in my district, and apparently, they're telling you one thing and me a different thing," Brooks said. "But there are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic."

Earlier this year, NASA researchers determined that Antarctica's ice loss has accelerated in the last decade. More broadly, sea ice extent at both poles set a record low last year. Scientists are racing to better understand the changes occurring in Antarctica because much of its ice is land-based, meaning it could drive sea-level rise around the world as it melts.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical — if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."

Posey responded: "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

Correction, 5/17/2018, 12:35 p.m.: A previous version of this story mischaracterized a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which claimed climate change is not the cause of sea-level rise.

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2018. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   

Back to top Go down
 
Anthropogenic Global Warming 101
Back to top 
Page 16 of 16Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: The Environment-
Jump to: