Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
OKIsItJustMe
OKIsItJustMe's Journal
OKIsItJustMe's Journal
August 1, 2017
An inevitable warm-up for Earth
Published: July 31, 2017
Even if humans could instantly turn off all emissions of greenhouse gases, Earth would continue to heat up about two more degrees Fahrenheit by the turn of the century, according to a sophisticated new analysis published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
If current emission rates continue for 15 years, the research shows, odds are good that the planet will see nearly three degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius) of warming by then.
“This ‘committed warming’ is critical to understand because it can tell us and policymakers how long we have, at current emission rates, before the planet will warm to certain thresholds,” said Robert Pincus, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a partnership of the University of Colorado Boulder and NOAA. “The window of opportunity on a 1.5-degree [C] target is closing.”
During United Nations meetings in Paris last year, 195 countries including the United States signed an agreement to keep global temperature rise less than 3.5 degrees F (2 C) above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts that would limit it further, to less than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 C) by 2100.
…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3357
An inevitable warm-up for Earth
http://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/07/31/inevitable-warm-earthAn inevitable warm-up for Earth
Published: July 31, 2017
Even if humans could instantly turn off all emissions of greenhouse gases, Earth would continue to heat up about two more degrees Fahrenheit by the turn of the century, according to a sophisticated new analysis published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
If current emission rates continue for 15 years, the research shows, odds are good that the planet will see nearly three degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius) of warming by then.
“This ‘committed warming’ is critical to understand because it can tell us and policymakers how long we have, at current emission rates, before the planet will warm to certain thresholds,” said Robert Pincus, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a partnership of the University of Colorado Boulder and NOAA. “The window of opportunity on a 1.5-degree [C] target is closing.”
During United Nations meetings in Paris last year, 195 countries including the United States signed an agreement to keep global temperature rise less than 3.5 degrees F (2 C) above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts that would limit it further, to less than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 C) by 2100.
…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3357
August 1, 2017
Methane-eating microbes found beneath Antarctica's melting ice sheets
July 31, 2017
Rachel Damiani
photographer: Reed Scherer
Lurking in a lake half a mile beneath Antarctica’s icy surface, methane-eating microbes may mitigate the release of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as ice sheets retreat.
A new study published today in Nature Geoscience traces methane’s previously unknown path below the ice in a spot that was once thought to be inhospitable to life. Study researchers sampled the water and sediment in Antarctica’s subglacial Whillans Lake by drilling 800 meters through ice for the first time ever. Next they measured methane amounts and used genomic analyses to find that 99 percent of methane released into the lake is gobbled up by microbes.
These tiny microorganisms may have a big impact on a warming world by preventing methane from seeping into the atmosphere when ice sheets melt, said Brent Christner, a University of Florida microbiologist and co-author on the study.
“This is an environment that most people look at and don’t think it could ever really directly impact us,” Christner said. “But this is a process that could have climatic implications.”
…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2992
Methane-eating microbes found beneath Antarctica's melting ice sheets
http://news.ufl.edu/articles/2017/07/methane-eating-microbes-found-beneath-antarcticas-melting-ice-sheets-.phpMethane-eating microbes found beneath Antarctica's melting ice sheets
July 31, 2017
Rachel Damiani
photographer: Reed Scherer
Lurking in a lake half a mile beneath Antarctica’s icy surface, methane-eating microbes may mitigate the release of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as ice sheets retreat.
A new study published today in Nature Geoscience traces methane’s previously unknown path below the ice in a spot that was once thought to be inhospitable to life. Study researchers sampled the water and sediment in Antarctica’s subglacial Whillans Lake by drilling 800 meters through ice for the first time ever. Next they measured methane amounts and used genomic analyses to find that 99 percent of methane released into the lake is gobbled up by microbes.
These tiny microorganisms may have a big impact on a warming world by preventing methane from seeping into the atmosphere when ice sheets melt, said Brent Christner, a University of Florida microbiologist and co-author on the study.
“This is an environment that most people look at and don’t think it could ever really directly impact us,” Christner said. “But this is a process that could have climatic implications.”
…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2992
June 28, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068999.
Methane not escaping into the atmosphere from Arctic Ocean
https://cage.uit.no/news/methane-not-escaping-into-the-atmosphere-arctic-ocean/[font face=Serif]27/05/2016
[font size=5]Methane not escaping into the atmosphere from Arctic Ocean[/font]
[font size=4]Methane gas released from the Arctic seabed during the summer months leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.[/font]
[font size=3]“Our results are exciting and controversial”, says senior scientist Cathrine Lund Myhre from NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, who is cooperating with CAGE through MOCA project.
The results were published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The scientist performed simultaneous measurements close to seabed, in the ocean and in the atmosphere during an extensive ship and air campaign offshore Svalbard Archipelago in summer 2014. As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere.
…[/font][/font]
[font size=5]Methane not escaping into the atmosphere from Arctic Ocean[/font]
[font size=4]Methane gas released from the Arctic seabed during the summer months leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.[/font]
[font size=3]“Our results are exciting and controversial”, says senior scientist Cathrine Lund Myhre from NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, who is cooperating with CAGE through MOCA project.
The results were published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The scientist performed simultaneous measurements close to seabed, in the ocean and in the atmosphere during an extensive ship and air campaign offshore Svalbard Archipelago in summer 2014. As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere.
…[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068999.
June 28, 2017
Why Has a Drop in Global CO2 Emissions Not Caused CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere to Stabilize?
This comes from the keepers of the Keeling Curve (note this is a “blog” post from 2016.)
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/05/23/why-has-a-drop-in-global-co2-emissions-not-caused-co2-levels-in-the-atmosphere-to-stabilize/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Why Has a Drop in Global CO2 Emissions Not Caused CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere to Stabilize?[/font]
May 23, 2016 | Rob Monroe
[font size=3]Note: Readers have asked why there has been no stabilization in the measured levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when reported emissions of CO₂ have fallen. Scripps CO₂ Group Director Ralph Keeling gave this response:
There’s a pretty simple reason why the recent stabilization in global emissions hasn’t caused CO₂ levels to stabilize. The ocean and land sinks for CO₂ currently offset only about 50 percent of the emissions. So the equivalent of 50 percent of the emissions is still accumulating in the atmosphere, even with stable emissions. To stabilize CO₂ levels would require roughly an immediate roughly 50 percent cut in emissions, at which point the remaining emissions would be fully offset by the sinks, at least for a while.
Eventually, additional emissions cuts would be required because the sinks will slowly lose their efficiency as the land and ocean start to saturate. A permanent stabilization at current levels therefore requires both an immediate 50-percent cut as well as a slow tapering thereafter, eventually approaching zero emissions. The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts.
– Robert Monroe[/font][/font]
May 23, 2016 | Rob Monroe
[font size=3]Note: Readers have asked why there has been no stabilization in the measured levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when reported emissions of CO₂ have fallen. Scripps CO₂ Group Director Ralph Keeling gave this response:
There’s a pretty simple reason why the recent stabilization in global emissions hasn’t caused CO₂ levels to stabilize. The ocean and land sinks for CO₂ currently offset only about 50 percent of the emissions. So the equivalent of 50 percent of the emissions is still accumulating in the atmosphere, even with stable emissions. To stabilize CO₂ levels would require roughly an immediate roughly 50 percent cut in emissions, at which point the remaining emissions would be fully offset by the sinks, at least for a while.
Eventually, additional emissions cuts would be required because the sinks will slowly lose their efficiency as the land and ocean start to saturate. A permanent stabilization at current levels therefore requires both an immediate 50-percent cut as well as a slow tapering thereafter, eventually approaching zero emissions. The recent stabilization in emissions might be viewed as a very small first step toward the required cuts.
– Robert Monroe[/font][/font]
May 31, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22899
We're on the brink of mass extinction -- but there's still time to pull back
http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/were-brink-mass-extinction-theres-still-time-pull-back-268427[font face=Serif][font size=5]We’re on the brink of mass extinction — but there’s still time to pull back[/font]
[font size=4]News
Both ominous and hopeful, a new report paints a picture of the value of biodiversity, the threats it faces and the window of opportunity we have to save species before it’s too late[/font]
Published: 31 May 2017
[font size=3]Imagine being a scuba diver and leaving your oxygen tank behind you on a dive. Or a mountain climber and abandoning your ropes. Or a skydiver and shedding your parachute. That’s essentially what humans are doing as we expand our footprint on the planet without paying adequate attention to impacts on other living things, according to researchers from the University of Minnesota and McGill University. Because we depend on plants and animals for food, shelter, clean air and water and more, anything we do that makes life harder for them eventually comes around to make life harder for us as well.
But, reporting with colleagues from around the world in this week’s special biodiversity issue of the scientific journal Nature, the researchers also note that all is not lost, and offer specific strategies for turning that tide before it’s too late.
Forest Isbell, of University of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences, McGill biologist Andrew Gonzalez and coauthors from eight countries on four continents provided an overview of what we know and still need to learn about the impacts of habitat destruction, overhunting, the introduction of nonnative species, and other human activities on biodiversity. In addition, they summarized previous research on how biodiversity loss affects nature and the benefits nature provides — for example, a recent study showing that reduced diversity in tree species in forests is linked to reduced wood production. Synthesizing findings of other studies, they estimated that the value humans derive from biodiversity is 10 times what every country in the world put together spends on conservation today — suggesting that additional investments in protecting species would not only reduce biodiversity loss but provide economic benefit, too.
“Human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances many benefits people reap from nature, such as wood from forests, livestock forage from grasslands, and fish from oceans and streams,” said Isbell, who served as lead author the paper. “It would be wise to invest much more in conserving biodiversity.”
…[/font][/font]
[font size=4]News
Both ominous and hopeful, a new report paints a picture of the value of biodiversity, the threats it faces and the window of opportunity we have to save species before it’s too late[/font]
Published: 31 May 2017
[font size=3]Imagine being a scuba diver and leaving your oxygen tank behind you on a dive. Or a mountain climber and abandoning your ropes. Or a skydiver and shedding your parachute. That’s essentially what humans are doing as we expand our footprint on the planet without paying adequate attention to impacts on other living things, according to researchers from the University of Minnesota and McGill University. Because we depend on plants and animals for food, shelter, clean air and water and more, anything we do that makes life harder for them eventually comes around to make life harder for us as well.
But, reporting with colleagues from around the world in this week’s special biodiversity issue of the scientific journal Nature, the researchers also note that all is not lost, and offer specific strategies for turning that tide before it’s too late.
Forest Isbell, of University of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences, McGill biologist Andrew Gonzalez and coauthors from eight countries on four continents provided an overview of what we know and still need to learn about the impacts of habitat destruction, overhunting, the introduction of nonnative species, and other human activities on biodiversity. In addition, they summarized previous research on how biodiversity loss affects nature and the benefits nature provides — for example, a recent study showing that reduced diversity in tree species in forests is linked to reduced wood production. Synthesizing findings of other studies, they estimated that the value humans derive from biodiversity is 10 times what every country in the world put together spends on conservation today — suggesting that additional investments in protecting species would not only reduce biodiversity loss but provide economic benefit, too.
“Human activities are driving the sixth mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances many benefits people reap from nature, such as wood from forests, livestock forage from grasslands, and fish from oceans and streams,” said Isbell, who served as lead author the paper. “It would be wise to invest much more in conserving biodiversity.”
…[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature22899
May 3, 2017
James Hansen -- Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend -- No Alligator Shoes!
This comes from 2008: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf
[font face=Serif][font size=5][center]Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend – No Alligator Shoes![/center][/font]
[font size=3]The charts for my talk (Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy) on 3 June 2008 at the PACON 2008 conference (Energy and Climate Change: Innovative Approaches to Solving Today’s Problems) are available as a pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/HawaiiPACON_20080603.pdf
or powerpoint http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/HawaiiPACON_20080603.ppt
The “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend” chart warrants discussion. Tax and dividend is the policy complement that must accompany recognition of fossil carbon reservoir sizes for strategic solution of global warming (the physics: reservoir sizes imply the need to phase-out coal emissions promptly and quash unconventional fossil fuels).
Tax and 100% dividend can drive innovation and economic growth with a snowballing effect. Carbon emissions will plummet far faster than in top-down or Manhattan projects. A clean environment that supports all life on the planet can be restored.
“Carbon tax and 100% dividend” is spurred by the recent “carbon cap” discussion of Peter Barnes and others. Principles must be crystal clear and adhered to rigorously. A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably. You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot. “Cap”, in addition, is a euphemism that may do as much harm as good. The public is not stupid.
…[/font][/font]
[font size=3]The charts for my talk (Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy) on 3 June 2008 at the PACON 2008 conference (Energy and Climate Change: Innovative Approaches to Solving Today’s Problems) are available as a pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/HawaiiPACON_20080603.pdf
or powerpoint http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/HawaiiPACON_20080603.ppt
The “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend” chart warrants discussion. Tax and dividend is the policy complement that must accompany recognition of fossil carbon reservoir sizes for strategic solution of global warming (the physics: reservoir sizes imply the need to phase-out coal emissions promptly and quash unconventional fossil fuels).
Tax and 100% dividend can drive innovation and economic growth with a snowballing effect. Carbon emissions will plummet far faster than in top-down or Manhattan projects. A clean environment that supports all life on the planet can be restored.
“Carbon tax and 100% dividend” is spurred by the recent “carbon cap” discussion of Peter Barnes and others. Principles must be crystal clear and adhered to rigorously. A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably. You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot. “Cap”, in addition, is a euphemism that may do as much harm as good. The public is not stupid.
…[/font][/font]
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Mar 6, 2006, 04:51 PMNumber of posts: 19,938
