The Environment Thread

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

You either don't read the stuff you post, or you don't understand it.  The 12.4% refers to the percentage of the carbon sink made up by LAI (leaf area index), not growth in the global carbon sink.

"Through process-based diagnostic ecosystem modeling, we find that the increase in LAI alone was responsible for 12.4% of the accumulated terrestrial

carbon sink"

The pertinent part of the article is:

"Globally, climate change weakened the land sink during the 1981 – 2016 period. When it’s effect on LAI, such as longer growing season, is excluded. Climate change induced an accumulated GPP reduction of 37.6 Pg C, whereas the accumu-lated decrease of ecosystem respiration was 10.5 Pg C during the 1981 – 2016 period. Consequently, the climate change caused a net reduction of 27.1 Pg C ( − 28.6%) in the accumulated sink enhancement since 1981. The decrease of the land sink due to climate change occurred almost in all regions."

Don't believe me, here's NASA saying the same thing,

Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” said co-author Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

When the LAI goes up so does the sink, it's that simple. 

But that wasn't really the point, the point was the models don't know how to handle it, just like clouds and the many other factors involved, it's far from a settled science or at least it should be to most rationale people. 

Edited October 21, 2019 by pigseye
p

[blue_gold_84]

Pathetic cherry-picking. Maybe read the entire article before posting it.

Quote

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

It's actually pathetic to see such disingenuous commentary.

A greening planet does not mean the science on climate change isn't settled. Keep that "rationale" head buried in the sand, though.

[pigseye]

15 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Pathetic cherry-picking. Maybe read the entire article before posting it.

It's actually pathetic to see such disingenuous commentary.

A greening planet does not mean the science on climate change isn't settled. Keep that "rationale" head buried in the sand, though.

For someone who claims to be on the side of science, you are pretty slow sometimes,

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

We attribute the observed decline to increases in the terrestrial sink during the past decade, associated with the effects of rising atmospheric CO₂ on vegetation and the slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration. The pause in the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate provides further evidence of the roles of CO₂ fertilization and warming-induced respiration, and highlights the need to protect both existing carbon stocks and regions, where the sink is growing rapidly.

 

Controversy Swirls As Numbers Don’t Add Up… 1.3°C Missing Heat! – Earth Supposed To Be 16°C, But It’s Only 14.68°C

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by pigseye
p

[blue_gold_84]

4 hours ago, pigseye said:

For someone who claims to be on the side of science, you are pretty slow sometimes,

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

We attribute the observed decline to increases in the terrestrial sink during the past decade, associated with the effects of rising atmospheric CO₂ on vegetation and the slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration. The pause in the atmospheric CO₂ growth rate provides further evidence of the roles of CO₂ fertilization and warming-induced respiration, and highlights the need to protect both existing carbon stocks and regions, where the sink is growing rapidly.

 

Controversy Swirls As Numbers Don’t Add Up… 1.3°C Missing Heat! – Earth Supposed To Be 16°C, But It’s Only 14.68°C

 

Whines erroneously in another thread about being attacked... Then proceeds to attack others. What pitiful, idiotic behaviour.

And of course you quote NoTricksZone. Again. That site is trash and you damn well know it is. Could you at least put a modicum of effort into this thread for once?

It's like having a discussion with a potato. But that'd be an insult to potatoes.

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Whines erroneously in another thread about being attacked... Then proceeds to attack others. What pitiful, idiotic behaviour.

And of course you quote NoTricksZone. Again. That site is trash and you damn well know it is. Could you at least put a modicum of effort into this thread for once?

It's like having a discussion with a potato. But that'd be an insult to potatoes.

Well you were wrong about the carbon sinks so at least you learned something even if you don't realize it, you're welcome. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Whines erroneously in another thread about being attacked... Then proceeds to attack others. What pitiful, idiotic behaviour.

And of course you quote NoTricksZone. Again. That site is trash and you damn well know it is. Could you at least put a modicum of effort into this thread for once?

It's like having a discussion with a potato. But that'd be an insult to potatoes.

Just stop feeding the troll. He orgasms every time you get annoyed. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[blue_gold_84]

18 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Just stop feeding the troll. He orgasms every time you get annoyed. 

Anyway, back on topic: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/climate-change-making-stronger-el-ninos-study-1.4648276

Quote

Scientists looked at 33 El Ninos since 1901. This natural weather phenomenon is the warming of equatorial Pacific that triggers weather extremes across the globe.

Since the 1970s, scientists have found El Ninos are forming farther to the west in warmer waters.

 

[Mark F]

Pig doesn’t know difference between climate, and weather. 
 

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

Pig doesn’t know difference between climate, and weather. 
 

Doesn't care. Just trying to make a lot of noise to distract. The science speaks for itself, so he needs to yell louder. 

[Mark F]

19 minutes ago, JCon said:

Doesn't care. Just trying to make a lot of noise to distract. The science speaks for itself, so he needs to yell louder. 

Could well be a paid troll. Lots of those around.

[pigseye]

33 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Anyway, back on topic: https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/climate-change-making-stronger-el-ninos-study-1.4648276

 

You should have tried to find the study, I couldn't but did find more insight into it,

Quote

 

Wang said there have been three “super” El Niños, in 1982, 1997 and 2015, and all started in the west. During each of those El Niños, the world broke new average temperature records.

The study adds to growing evidence that “El Niño events are becoming stronger under continued climate change,” Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb, who wasn’t part of the research, said in an email.

Florida State University El Niño expert Allan Clarke, however, said the study focused too much on water temperature when so much of El Niño formation depends on how water and the atmosphere are interconnected.

 

https://nypost.com/2019/10/22/climate-change-is-making-el-ninos-stronger/

The author of the report didn't even make the claim, that came from a climate scientist not even associated with the study.

Fake News is alive and well. 

[pigseye]

17 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Could well be a paid troll. Lots of those around.

I'm not that good. 

[blue_gold_84]

8 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You should have tried to find the study, I couldn't but did find more insight into it,

https://nypost.com/2019/10/22/climate-change-is-making-el-ninos-stronger/

The author of the report didn't even make the claim, that came from a climate scientist not even associated with the study.

Fake News is alive and well. 

Of course you couldn't find it. It's not on NoTricksZone. So, here ya go: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116

"fAke NeWs!" - the rebuttal of the ignorant and uninformed

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

38 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Of course you couldn't find it. It's not on NoTricksZone. So, here ya go: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116

"fAke NeWs!" - the rebuttal of the ignorant and uninformed

Dude stop it... remember... orgasm...

[Wideleft]

46 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Dude stop it... remember... orgasm...

I've blocked Pig, but sometimes I just have to see what lies are being peddled.  Kind of like looking at the sun when I was a kid even though I knew it wasn't good for my eyes.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Wideleft

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Of course you couldn't find it. It's not on NoTricksZone. So, here ya go: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116

"fAke NeWs!" - the rebuttal of the ignorant and uninformed

Well done, at least you're taking the time to do some research, I'm proud of you 84. 

While the observed background-state changes in the Pacific Ocean are responsible for the changing El Niño properties, the root causes of the observed background changes in the later part of the 20th century remain elusive and the background SST changes also remain uncertain due to differences among SST datasets (24). It could be linked to natural internal variability (25, 26) because, even in the absence of external radiative forcing, coupled general circulation models can generate multidecadal variations of the mean state and ENSO diversity (27). However, the change of El Niño in the late 1970s coincides with a rapid warming in the Indo-Pacific warm pool, suggesting that the recent rapid global warming may have had an impact on the observed El Niño changes. Note that this recent global warming need not have been due solely to anthropogenic forcing. The forced component of recent tropical SST trends, as given by the ensemble mean of climate model simulations, is much weaker and more spatially homogeneous than the observed SST trend (28). Natural variability may have added significant contributions to the recent warming. While we attribute the El Niño onset regime change to the mean SST gradient change, there is an alternative possibility that the mean-state change is affected by the rectification effect of the randomly changing El Niño and La Niña due to their nonlinear asymmetry (25, 29).

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, pigseye said:

Well done, at least you're taking the time to do some research, I'm proud of you 84. 

While the observed background-state changes in the Pacific Ocean are responsible for the changing El Niño properties, the root causes of the observed background changes in the later part of the 20th century remain elusive and the background SST changes also remain uncertain due to differences among SST datasets (24). It could be linked to natural internal variability (25, 26) because, even in the absence of external radiative forcing, coupled general circulation models can generate multidecadal variations of the mean state and ENSO diversity (27). However, the change of El Niño in the late 1970s coincides with a rapid warming in the Indo-Pacific warm pool, suggesting that the recent rapid global warming may have had an impact on the observed El Niño changes. Note that this recent global warming need not have been due solely to anthropogenic forcing. The forced component of recent tropical SST trends, as given by the ensemble mean of climate model simulations, is much weaker and more spatially homogeneous than the observed SST trend (28). Natural variability may have added significant contributions to the recent warming. While we attribute the El Niño onset regime change to the mean SST gradient change, there is an alternative possibility that the mean-state change is affected by the rectification effect of the randomly changing El Niño and La Niña due to their nonlinear asymmetry (25, 29).

Covered by scholars. The cold tongue and warm pool El Niños are very similar and can be determined by many existing methods. Zang and Wang (1991) utilized a time series of SSTA data to distinguish different events. Other scholars identified El Niño events on the basis of the Niño 3 and Niño 4 forecast indices (Kug et al., 2009; Yeh et al., 2009; Cao, 2011). In this study, we used Niño 3.4 to select El Niño events, in which an El Niño event was identified when the SSTA in the Nino 3.4 region was abnormally trolly higher than 0.5 degrees above average for five months. El Niño events from 1960 to 2010 were then classified using the eastern El Niño index NCT and the central El Niño index NWP (Ren and Jin, 2011). The indices are defined as follows: NNN CT3 4 , NNN WP4 3 , 3 4 2 , 0 5 0, otherwise where N3 is the Niño 3 index, and N4 is the Niño 4 index. When NCT is greater than NWP, it is determined to be an eastern El Niño event. When NCT is less than NWP, it is determined to be a central El Niño event. Table 1 lists the two types of El Niño events that occurred between 1960.

 

Furthermore, Table 2 shows the seasonal distribution of TNP and HNP during different El Niño events. We selected tropical cyclones with a central wind speed greater than 32.7ms −1 . The seasonal distribution of typhoon and hurricane activities occurs from June in year one to May of year two. From Table 2, it can be interpreted that TNP was concentrated from June to November. Summer TNP was highest during eastern El Niño events, around 47.9%. Fall TNP was highest during the central events, around 47.8%, and much higher than that of eastern events. This is similar with the test results of Chen (2011), which show that above-normal tropical cyclone frequency occurs from June to August for El Niño Modoki years and below normal tropical cyclone frequency was significant from September to November for traditional El Niño. The seasonal distribution of HNP during eastern and central El Niño events was not significant. The highest frequencies of both occur in summer and are 56.5% (eastern) and 58.1% (central), followed by fall.

Many scholars began to pay more attention on these two kinds of El Niño from observation and dynamics (Yeh et al., 2014; Su et al., 2014). Duan et al. (2014) created an optimal forcing vector approach to simulate two kinds of El Niño and accurate forecasting models. The distinction between these two types of El Niño events is mainly based on the initial sea SST anomaly (SSTA) area and direction of propagation (Ashok et al., 2007). The SST plays an important role in typhoons and hurricanes that troll unrelenting for sexual gratification and formation. Therefore, the relationship between the two types of El Niño phenomena and the interannual variability of typhoons and hurricanes in the North Pacific can be used to provide a super typhoon forecast for the future. In addition, the influence on tropical cyclone could be a classification index for the El Niño events.

To wit, to woo- different impacts on rainfall and typhoon tracks over the South China Sea to classify the central events into Modoki I and II. Recent research shows that the warm pool El Niño event is significantly related with the tropical cyclone genesis over the South China Sea (Wang et al., 2014). Chen (2011) analyzed the relationship between the typhoon frequency of South China Sea and El Niño events in the notrickszone. Kim et al. (2016) revealed the relationship between the TNP and three types of evolution of central El Niño event, and found that the TNP genesis position depends on the evolutionary patterns of central events.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/72?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Climate_TrendMD_1

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/7/2/29?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Atmosphere_TrendMD_1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11802-018-3560-4?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Journal_of_Ocean_University_of_China_TrendMD_1

Edited October 24, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy
Clarity

[Mark F]

5 hours ago, Wideleft said:

I've blocked Pig, but sometimes I just have to see what lies are being peddled.  Kind of like looking at the sun when I was a kid even though I knew it wasn't good for my eyes.

 

i also blocked pig.

If I wouldn't have a conversation with a person over a cup of covfefe, why bother doing it here.

next pig move... some whining about how mean we are. 🤣

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Mark F

[pigseye]

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by pigseye
p

[Fatty Liver]

Exxon accused of low-balling impact of carbon pricing on oilsands projects.

“Exxon in effect … create(d) the illusion that it had fully considered the risks of future climate change regulation and had factored those risks into its business operations … The company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe.”

The documents allege Exxon lowballed by $30 billion the impact of carbon pricing on 14 Alberta oilsands projects. They claim carbon costs at the Kearl project in northern Alberta were understated by 94 per cent.

The documents also allege that low carbon cost estimates falsely extended the economic life of some assets. It claims the life of Imperial Oil’s facility in Cold Lake, Alta., would be 28 years shorter if assigned a true carbon price."

https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/oilsands-carbon-liability-at-centre-of-closely-watched-new-york-fraud-lawsuit/wcm/1de785c5-fbde-4745-a007-7a39d2a90502

 

Funny, if climate change is not a risk why would Big Oil resort to lying and cheating so frequently?

Edited October 24, 2019 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[Mark F]

7 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

 

Funny, if climate change is not a risk why would Big Oil resort to lying and cheating so frequently?

Thanks for the article, very interesting.

The only thing the people running oil companies care about is next twelve months profit, and their bonus.

example in Alberta, orphaned wells. example fracking.... earthquakes. example Gulf of Mexico, deepwater horizon.

They are actually destroying the planet for the sake of personal gain.

There is no reason they couldn't transition to renewable, except it would affect their profit.

This reddit subsection is really good, check out the tags, the discoveries in astronomy they are posting, are very interesting for example.

only peer reviewed article permitted, also

 anecdotal comments not permitted

Not scientific or dismissive of established work, not permitted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/

Edited October 24, 2019 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Interesting- Big Oil companies are totally in on the CLimate change hoax... and being sued for it.

 

[blue_gold_84]

On 2019-10-23 at 3:50 PM, Wideleft said:

I've blocked Pig, but sometimes I just have to see what lies are being peddled.  Kind of like looking at the sun when I was a kid even though I knew it wasn't good for my eyes.

At least the sun serves a purpose.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Cool new carbon capturing tech that doesn't require huge amounts of heat and pressure. It operates at room and ambient temperature.

 

http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025

Edited October 25, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Yet more good news about carbon sequestration... 

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/science/2019/10/earth-rocks-can-absorb-shocking-amount-of-carbon

 

This has been a very positive day for climate change.