2013: CO2 grew at fastest rate since reliable record-keeping began
 

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/09/1328282/-Carbon-dioxide-concentrations-grew-at-the-fastest-rate-since-reliable-global-records-bagan[/URL]

[QUOTE]The volume of carbon dioxide, or CO2, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, was 396.0 parts per million (ppm) in 2013, 2.9 ppm higher than in 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since 1984, when reliable global records began.The WMO also reports that methane levels grew has grown at about the same rate for the last five years, reaching 1824 parts per billion. [/QUOTE][QUOTE]We need to wake up and realize that we are not doing anywhere near enough "to keep global warming with 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), which is the goal the scientists and the U.N. set as the maximum amount of global warming our planet can endure without moving into a range that will great vast additional dangers and disruptions to our current environmental conditions.[/QUOTE]

‘Monster’ Fracking Wells Guzzle Water in Drought-Stricken Regions
 

[URL]http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/24/fracking-wells-guzzle-water/[/URL]

I've spent time in places like Atascosa. If the water table gets sucked out of reach, there's gonna be some dead cows. Of course, agriculture of all sorts dies, since it depends on irrigation.

[QUOTE]The [URL="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/fracking-2/"]fracking[/URL] industry likes to minimize the sector’s [URL="http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/18/trading-water-for-fuel-fracking-crazy/"]bottomless thirst[/URL] for often-scarce water resources, saying it takes about 2-4 million gallons of water to frack the average well, an amount the American Petroleum Institute describes as “the equivalent of three to six Olympic swimming pools.” That’s close to the figure cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well.

But a [URL="http://www.ewg.org/research/monster-wells"]new report[/URL] released by Environmental Working Group (EWG) located 261 “monster” wells that consumed between 10 and 25 million gallons of water to drill each well. Among the conclusions EWG teased out of data reported by the industry itself and posted at [URL="http://fracfocus.org/"]fracfocus.org[/URL] is that between April 2010 and December 2013, these 261 wells consumed 3.3 billions of water between them, a average of 12.7 million gallons each. And 14 of the wells topped 20 million gallons each.But a [URL="http://www.ewg.org/research/monster-wells"]new report[/URL] released by Environmental Working Group (EWG) located 261 “monster” wells that consumed between 10 and 25 million gallons of water to drill each well. Among the conclusions EWG teased out of data reported by the industry itself and posted at [URL="http://fracfocus.org/"]fracfocus.org[/URL] is that between April 2010 and December 2013, these 261 wells consumed 3.3 billions of water between them, a average of 12.7 million gallons each. And 14 of the wells topped 20 million gallons each.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]EWG also found that 2/3rds of the monster wells were in areas suffering from extreme drought, including 137 of the ones in Texas.
“Like almost all of the Lone Star State, Atascosa County, south of San Antonio, is in a severe and prolonged drought,” said EWG. “Last year, the state water agency cited oil and gas exploration and production as a factor in the dramatic drop of groundwater levels in the aquifer underlying the Eagle Ford formation.”
[/QUOTE]

EDIT: I know this is tangential to the topic, but it does involve some of the causes of climate disruption. Burning fossil fuels, with lots of methane escaping raw during fracking and production, has to play some role in these patterns of extreme drought.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/obama-administration-muzzling-climate-scientists.html]Obama Administration Muzzling Its Climate Scientists[/url] | Naked Capitalism

"It's not 'muzzling' -- it's 'enhanced messaging management'," said an administration spokesman. /sarc

[QUOTE=ewmayer;105457]The issue is not whether global warming is occurring, it is to what extent it is the result of human activity.

When earth came out of the last ice age, that was global warming (and of a scale and rapidity that utterly dwarfs the present-day going'-on), too. And there were only a few tens of thousands of people on the planet at that time.[/QUOTE]

"Climate change" versus "global warming" - we have to well define the first to be able to determine whether
the latter is true. Only then, as you point out, can we focus on the extent of our involvement in it.

Sorry about bringing up the past as in this old post, but I'm behind on this hot discussion topic.

From earlier in this thread:

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?
Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?
The majority is not necessarily right.
Even if no conspiracy was involved.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375133]97% of [B]climate[/B] scientists accept the fact that Earth is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific surveys of published scientists, and surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I think the most illuminating of these surveys was by Stephen Schneider, who reported not only percentages who agreed with the basic propositions that the Earth is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, but also compared the scientific achievements of those who understand the scientific consensus versus those who dispute it. It turns out that the few practicing scientists who reject the scientific consensus are markedly less published and less cited by their peers. In summary, they are the least competent in their field.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on in whose evaluation.
[quote]
No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.[/quote]Nope. An individual or small minority might be right on any controversial issue.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.
It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?
Only time will eventually tell.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375159]Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=petrw1;375164]:razz:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;375173]So what this says is global warming is a good thing ...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.
Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropomorphic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.
But, sadly, we as a species are still mostly driven by "money".
And there is a lot of money to be made by converting Carbon into Carbon Dioxide (and Methane, etc...).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375358]Thanks for clarifying that it's the physical scientists studying the climate who you see in the role of Galileo. I wholeheartedly agree.
[/QUOTE]
Not everyone else does.
[quote]
I know that around the same time that at Frank Luntz's advice they stopped saying "global warming" and switched to exclusively saying "climate change" because focus groups showed that the latter term biased participants against recognizing that the phenomena are problematic, the Bush administration illegally interfered with the publication process but Dr. Hansen eventually prevailed and the politicos dropped that issue with a whimper.
Regarding supposedly interrelated topics, scope of the thread and its recent name change, there is absolutely no "political and economic evidence" [B]of[/B] climate change. There are political and economic [B]ramifications[/B] of policy decisions, but the [B]evidence[/B] of global warming is all physical science. There are also political, economic, psychological, and social contributors to each individual's opinions about and understanding of the facts, but none of these alter what the facts really are. When the title was "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence," the clear message was that this is about the facts which physical science tells us about global warming.
The recent name change re-frames the topic in a manner that happens to be preferred by petroleum and coal industry communications experts because it blurs the distinction between the physical facts and the much more arbitrary social factors, politics and economics; and because it allows them to cynically manipulate findings from the social sciences, especially psychology, to discourage low information voters from dealing with the facts at all. Again, all the [B]evidence[/B] comes from physical science.
As long as the word "evidence" remains in the title, the terms "political" and "economic" are simply non sequiturs.[/quote]In what sense are the politics/economics of this issue not relevant to the scientific validity issue?
Scientists are people, and people are economic and political if nothing else !

[url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/west-virginia-school-board-alters-climate-change-education-standards/[/url]

[URL="http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/05/06/11291/organic-carbon-burial-fjords-absorb-huge-amounts-of-carbon-and-could-help-combat-man-made-climate-change/"]Fjords, next to forests, might be our last hope in reversing climate change[/URL]
[QUOTE]Fjords take up only 0.1% in the biosphere’s ocean surface but it shockingly accounts to 11% of the natural carbon in plants, soil, and rocks, which get buried in sea deposits annually after being washed off the land by the river.
/.../
Fjords are good in absorbing carbon dioxide because they are deep, accept heavy flows of carbon-rich water from rivers, and have still, oxygen-starved waters in which organic material sinks without being broken down by bacteria.

According to the study that observed fjords around the world in Nordic nations, Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Chile, New Zealand and Antarctica, fjords soak up approximately 18 million tons of carbon a year.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;391272][url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/west-virginia-school-board-alters-climate-change-education-standards/[/url][/QUOTE]

Old King Coal was a merry old soul...

[QUOTE=only_human;401828][URL="http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/05/06/11291/organic-carbon-burial-fjords-absorb-huge-amounts-of-carbon-and-could-help-combat-man-made-climate-change/"]Fjords, next to forests, might be our last hope in reversing climate change[/URL][/QUOTE]

Have you heard the old joke...

A PhD was professing that while many languages were logically consistent with double positives resulting in a negative, the English language showed no such examples.

"Yeah. Right..." was heard from the back of the classroom....

[QUOTE=chalsall;401936]Have you heard the old joke...

A PhD was professing that while many languages were logically consistent with double positives resulting in a negative, the English language showed no such examples.

"Yeah. Right..." was heard from the back of the classroom....[/QUOTE]
I picked it mainly because of the use of "fjords." The anaerobic sequestration doesn't sound that implausible as that might also be true for peat bogs and perhaps even in accumulated stores of clathrites. Although this is a single study, the stating of an actual estimate and also the disproportionately small area versus a larger influence and being new information to me, made the article punch above its nominal weight.

Sure the title is grandiose but at least it appears to be upbeat without obvious drumming for funding. That plus the use of "fjords" got the dread parrot ross' squawk of approval.

[QUOTE=only_human;401939]The anaerobic sequestration doesn't sound that implausible as that might also be true for peat bogs and perhaps even in accumulated stores of clathrites.[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me. I am interested in this domain.

But...

Fjords are relatively small. They could consume 1,000% of their mass in carbon and not really make that much of a difference.