[QUOTE=Uncwilly;419376]Conversion of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] reduces the greenhouse effect by a fair bit. CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is generally considered to be between 9x and ~40x the warming power of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Gas from landfills is typically between 40% and 60% CH[SUB]4[/SUB] and 40% to 55% CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (YGMV). There are many projects that capture the gas and burn it to create power. This can have a net benefit, by converting waste to power, offsetting the need for fossil fuels. There are several other technologies that aim to accelerate the change and get a larger power capture. Even for locations that have flares, the emissions from the surface can be a significant source of gas.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Flaring is better than the gas just seeping out and blowing away. Burning it for energy is far better. It does seem that complete capture could be pretty difficult.

Nick: Thanks for the Dutch landfill piece. With the country's stake in sea-level rise, I suspect that the engineering will be first class.

[QUOTE=davar55;419214]What if the small increase in average temperature is beneficial?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=xilman;419216]Beneficial to whom? Polar bears?[/QUOTE]

Beneficial to most of us conscious conscientious reasoners.

A few degrees of greater warmth might thaw this species.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/10-foods-that-may-disappear-thanks-to-climate-change.html]10 Foods That May Disappear Thanks to Climate Change[/url] | naked capitalism

[Minor quibble re. the Chocolate entry: Ivory Coast == Côte d’Ivoire.]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;420256][URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/10-foods-that-may-disappear-thanks-to-climate-change.html"]10 Foods That May Disappear Thanks to Climate Change[/URL] | naked capitalism
[Minor quibble re. the Chocolate entry: Ivory Coast == Côte d’Ivoire.][/QUOTE]

Scare tactics. Won't happen.

Capitalism is well clothed in principle and in principles.
That site is not pro-capitalism. It should be.

[QUOTE=davar55;420275]Scare tactics. Won't happen.

Capitalism is well clothed in principle and in principles.
That site is not pro-capitalism. It should be.[/QUOTE]
No it shouldn't. Their mission statement is: "Fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power."

It shouldn't be pro anything in particular.

You may like rah rah politics and baby boom boosterism but I prefer sharp, incisive analysis.

They at least quote reasons and sources to justify saying that some crops seem to be in adverse or worsening circumstances.

[url]http://youtu.be/YIvpOIUqKKA[/url]
[YouTube]YIvpOIUqKKA[/YouTube]

[QUOTE=only_human;420277]No it shouldn't. Their mission statement is: "Fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power."

It shouldn't be pro anything in particular.
...[/QUOTE]

I just meant their web site title "naked" capitalism
draws me in, but they read more as "knock" capitalism.
Just a first impression.

[SIZE=3][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/28/freak-storm-in-north-atlantic-may-push-temperatures-70-degrees-above-normal-at-north-pole/"]Freak storm in North Atlantic[/URL] to lash UK, may push temperatures over 50 degrees above normal at North Pole
[/SIZE]
:max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max::max:
[QUOTE]The vigorous low pressure system that helped spawn devastating tornadoes in the Dallas area on Saturday is forecast to explode into a monstrous storm over Iceland by Wednesday.

Big Icelandic storms are common in winter, but this one may rank among the strongest and will draw northward an incredible surge of warmth pushing temperatures at the North Pole over 50 degrees above normal. This is mind-boggling.

And the storm will batter the United Kingdom, reeling from recent flooding, with another round of rain and wind.

Computer model simulations show the storm, sweeping across the north central Atlantic today, rapidly intensifying along a jet stream ripping above the ocean at 230 mph.
[/QUOTE]

As in-[INDENT]When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout.
[/INDENT]

[QUOTE=kladner;420613][SIZE=3][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/28/freak-storm-in-north-atlantic-may-push-temperatures-70-degrees-above-normal-at-north-pole/"]Freak storm in North Atlantic[/URL] to lash UK, may push temperatures over 50 degrees above normal at North Pole
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]The URL says 70-degrees and the text 50. Both are, presumably in Fahrenheit. In the rest of the world that's between 28 and 39 degrees warmer, which tallies with the report I read here yesterday of a buoy near the pole reading +1C and two others at -2C, whereas the average temperature at this time of the year is -26C --- or so I've been led to believe.

And it has indeed been rather damper than normal on western side of the British Isles.

I had assumed Fahrenheit. This was confirmed when 'freezing' was referred to as '32".

What can I say? I live in a country which refuses to join the logical system of temperatures, EDIT....and measures of all sorts, too.

[QUOTE=kladner;420707]What can I say? I live in a country which refuses to join the logical system of temperatures, EDIT....and measures of all sorts, too.[/QUOTE]You can say lots of things. You live in a country where people who know what they're doing with respect to physical quantities use SI units.

FWIW, I see road signs calibrated in miles, buy beer in pints (real pints, not the short measures which the colonials fall for) and measure fuel consumption in miles per gallon (real gallons, not the ...) though I do purchase fuel by the litre.

At least I don't spend cash in a mixed-radix system (12/20/10...) any more. We joined the real world over 40 years ago. You can tell my age, though, that I can still calculate in real money with ease.

[QUOTE=xilman;420708]At least I don't spend cash in a mixed-radix system (12/20/10...) any more.[/QUOTE]

But you do keep time in one.

As a computer geek, I appreciate the base-2 aspect of many of the 'obsolete' system, e.g. w.r.to liquid measures (or better, measures which I use liquidly here, or something):

[The pattern breaks down at the small end at '3 teaspoons in a tablespoon', but still easy to remember]
2 tablespoons in a fluid ounce;
16 fluid ozs in a pint (as Paul notes, Brits are weird here in terms of multiple, tho I support the "more beer" aspect);
2 pints in a quart;
4 quarts in a gallon;
64 gallons in a hogshead (of beer - wines are weird in that respect);
4 hogsheads in a tun (= 256 gallons, or ~2048 lbs of water weight, very close to a short weight-ton).

For dry goods:

8 quarts in a peck;
4 pecks in a bushel

For firewood:

128 ft^3 in a cord.