Composting plastic: Sustainability and Climate Change (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:33 AM GMT on August 29, 2011

Share this Blog
8
+

Composting plastic: Sustainability and Climate Change (2)

It has been a challenge in the realm of WU’s climate change blogger. Sick computer, and on Tuesday I was giving a talk at the Climate Program Office when the great D.C. Earthquake came. It was a webinar, and, within a minute, savvy scientists were reporting, “5.9, Mineral, Virginia.” The earthquake, which I had successfully identified in my talk, eliminating both “train” and “terrorist attack,” led to a natural separation of those who went to doorways in the interior of the building and those who went to the large picture window and said, “cool, all the buildings are shaking.” This was followed by building evacuation, and a typical D.C. response of gridlock and people walking away from wherever they were, with perhaps, the assumption that wherever they were walking to was safer. Considering all of the fallen stones and bricks, it is quite fortunate that people were not seriously injured.

This was, of course, followed by the march of Hurricane Irene up the coast, which leads to a certain type of hurricane-anticipation hysteria. I believe that the Weather Channel and CNN amplified this hysteria with exaggerated and unwarranted statements of the lack of historical precedents for such a storm. There is perhaps an over reporting of people on beaches in a spot light saying, “It is only going to get worse.” Is this the way to get people to take these storms seriously? Anyway, the storm came ashore near my old stomping grounds on the Neuse River where I hear there were nearly 8 foot surges. This was at the end of the funnel, and it is the funneling of water up the creeks that make for the greatest flooding. It will be another billion dollar storm.

Still … I have started this blog three times and my sick computer has destroyed it. I want to get back to sustainability, composting, and those plastic cups.

Let me start by saying that I recycle. I will toss plastic cups in my luggage to take them to a place that will recycle, say, number 6 plastics. My father had me separating metals and pulling nails from miles of lumber in the 1960s for reuse. That said, I have been confused by corn-plastic, compostable plastic cups. If you take one of these cups and put it in your compost heap, well, it doesn’t compost. If you think about plastics and plastic making, then you’re not really sure what it might compost into. So you call and ask about this, and they say they were designed for commercial composting facilities, which operate at high temperature in carefully controlled environments. Then you find out that your municipality does not do such composting, so you are left with a cup that can’t be recycled, will not be composted, and to a naïve person like me seems like garbage. It’s garbage, when it could have been a recyclable number 1 plastic cup. This opens up all sorts of opportunities for greenwashing and the pursuit of irritating, good-intentioned, ineffective environmental policies and practices.

Irritating: I have been on the edge of a couple of zero-waste events in the last couple of years. One of the places where cities and counties exercise zero-waste policies is street festivals and county fairs. These are often places where there are traveling vendors, and a mix of activities that range from demolition derbies to face painting to costumed goats and prized cattle. There is eating of odd food. The point, there are a lot of people that are perhaps, not of the zero-waste jurisdiction or culture. One source of tension is those plastic cups. Let’s say they cost a little more, but let’s assume that if the event is in a place that supports zero-waste events, then people will pay a little more for their lemonade. The requirement to use compostable cups has some practical issues. They might not fit lemonade making equipment; they don’t stand up to heat; they require special stocking. They challenge some people’s view that the market price should determine what they choose. And, given where I started above, that they don’t seem so compostable, they challenge sensibilities. That list looks a lot like the range of responses to addressing the climate-change problem.

Sustainability: Sustainability is about a lot more than climate change. It is about landfills and soil management and energy use and all of those resources that we need to support ourselves. So in that sense, climate change, or let’s be precise, the emission of carbon dioxide, is a subset of sustainability. There are a lot of things that can be done in the spirit of sustainability that don’t address the emissions of carbon dioxide. For example, if you focus on energy security, some would argue that coal would address our needs long enough to get by, and hence would argue that coal is part of a sustainable energy policy – same with tar sands. Both coal and tar sands contribute to more and more carbon dioxide emissions; hence, they are in the long run agents that will lead to, for example, several meters of sea level rise. There are many initiatives in the efforts to promote sustainability, that don’t obviously help climate change. (Think about the locally grown apple kept in refrigeration for 8 months versus the apple from Australia that is not stored as long. Think about the electric car that charges up from the coal power plant.)

Composting: I’ve composted for years – let me restate that, I have composted vegetative matter for years. As a kid we did not call it composting, but we piled up mountains of leaves inside of a large fenced area and then used it gardening. It makes sense to a gardener, but it also makes sense to someone whose father was the mayor of a town and challenged with what to do with a lot of leaves and not really wanting to promote backyard bonfires on dry October days. So composting leaves and garden waste makes intuitive sense, but what about prescribed policies on composting of food waste and yard waste and, maybe, scraps of lumber? Again, if you are a city then you want to control the amount of garbage you have to deal with. Garbage is expensive – buying land, transporting it, burying it – so you start to think about what might composting do for my garbage problem. There are several ways that that leads to plastic, because plastic has infiltrated everything we do, and it lasts practically forever. Also, it comes from oil. In some sense, plastic is a lot like carbon dioxide. Perhaps thinking about plastics and waste plastic is a good way to think about carbon dioxide waste, because we can see plastic waste everywhere. But I digress.


This is a blog about climate, so let’s bring the composting and climate together. It is easy to make the casual argument that composting in your backyard is good for climate change. Or, at least, it might be. One of the climate benefits of composting in your backyard comes from not trucking the stuff away. So if you buy a gas-powered chipper or shredder, you’re likely to do away with that benefit. I’ve had a number of student projects looking at composting and climate change, especially composting food from cafeterias, and the answer is complicated. One of the big factors in the composting equation is transportation. If you have to ship the stuff many miles out of town, it’s not likely composting will help climate change. But if you can keep it nearby, have a good commercial-scale facility, and can start with a clean stream of compostable material it can help a lot. It helps a whole lot when you realize that if buried in a landfill, it usually makes methane. (To imagine how complex this gets, sometimes it is better to dump the waste in the sewer and let the sewage experts deal with it, and often, the best thing to do is to burn it for fuel. So it is not an easy calculation and decision.)

So back to those plastic cups. I try to be a responsible blogger so I did a little research. I hope I did enough research to not make a fool of myself. I put some links to articles down at the end of blog. I want to line up some conclusions, but, first, the observation that most of the work investigating plastics in waste streams that I found was coming from Northern Europe, China, and Africa. OK some conclusions. I was right that some of those plastic cups don’t break down in home composting. Home composting is simply not active enough to break down those cups. At best they become some sort of plastic sand. But other plastics and compressed papers break down pretty well even at home. In commercial composting, where there is a lot of stirring and a lot of biodegrading going on, they breakdown pretty well, and they don’t do anything bad to the compost. And at street festivals and fairs, if there are compostable cups, then when people throw away all of their eating stuff in the same garbage, which people are prone to do, then the compostable cups (and forks and plates) clean up the stream for the much larger mass of food waste. Therefore at big events, cafeterias, and restaurants, the compostable cups can have a large impact on waste management – but it does require an easy and visible and clearly marked place to put compostable garbage.

Above I said that zero-waste and compostable cups can challenge one’s sensibility. The effort I have gone through here is more effort than the average person is going to exert to worry about their garbage. I am sure that some of the people I know who find the zero-waste policy, perhaps, silly, would find that it makes sense when you think about the stream of compostable material made possible by compostable cups. But as often presented, in the absence of information, in the spirit of prescriptive policy that is “good” in some sense, it serves to discredit the whole culture of sustainability. It poses “good” and suggests that what others are doing is “bad.” And inevitably here in the good ol’ USA of 2011, it becomes a matter of politics, of culture.

But this is a blog on climate change. What about the compostable cups and climate change? So if the impact of the compostable cup on climate change is measured by its carbon footprint, then the difference between the compostable cup and old-fashioned plastic cup is hard to determine. If a locality is set up with a good commercial-grade composting facility that is not far away, then the impacts can be substantial. In one of my students’ projects, composting food waste from University of Michigan cafeterias was the equivalent of removing 100 cars from the road. In this situation, the compostable cup cleans up the compost stream and allows the food to be composted. But, in any case, what is best for the climate is to use metal utensils and washable plates, and to wash the dishes. And if a business or town hands out compostable cups WITHOUT a composting plan and facility, they mess up their recycling program as the cups get mixed into the recycling stream.

It’s never easy. I am often asked what individuals can do about climate change. It is “be efficient,” use compact fluorescents, composting and recycling can be good, insulate, insulate, insulate. Sometimes I say quit being an eco-tourist. In the end though, assuming we consume as we view our prerogative to consume, we must de-carbonize our energy. We must quit making so much of our stuff to be disposed. All of the little steps are important; they might raise our awareness; they might make us feel better about our consumption; they buy us a little time – maybe, but they cannot solve that big problem of burning coal, oil, and natural gas to supply our wealth. As long as we are not thinking about our energy use and our energy waste, we are not really addressing the zero-waste and sustainability issues of climate change.

r

Razza et al., Compostable Cutlery …

Song et al., Biodegradable and compostable plastics …

Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling …

Mohee and Unmar, Determining biodegradability …

Rockstrom et al., A safe operating space for humanity


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 249 - 199

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

249. MelDawn99
6:30 PM GMT on June 09, 2014
 I think it's great that we're concerned about the environment. Finding composter usa provides an ecofriendly solution to recycling!
Member Since: June 9, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
248. iceagecoming
2:24 AM GMT on September 12, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
This site has really become quite boring. Cyclone will keep pointing at Arctic ice and avoid global temperature averages. someone else will point at Texas and avoid the southern hemisphere. The warmists will continue to call the skeptics denialists. Nothing that is said, especially facts, really matters and character assassinations are the norm her.

Too much politics involved with science creates pseudo science.in the long run, maybe 5 more years, we will have our answer. The numbers will verify one side or the other.



Quite right, however the loony left will never quit the
dis-information trend because there are always new minds to corrupt. Eco terrorists have moved from bombs
and fires to very sharp/harsh words and ideas. Science
be damned.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1078
247. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:36 PM GMT on September 11, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
" If anyone truly believed the CERN study debunked AGWT, all they need do is have peer-reviewed and published their own paper based on the CERN data. That we've heard of no one planning to do so speaks volumes..."

Gosh, it's been almost a whole month and nobody has got a peer reviewed paper on that study published yet.

You're a real piece of work Neopolitan.


I am not certain how this works but, should a scientific paper not be peer reviewed before it is published? I really do not know the answer to this. I think that it would be logical to have your study peer reviewed before making scientific claims. Else, what stops me from publishing a "scientific" paper on how clouds will turn dark red in the absence of light and therefore the water vapor is less efficient? Considering, of course, that I paid for the publication myself or had it sponsored. Would that qualify as science?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
246. yonzabam
3:27 PM GMT on September 11, 2011
So, how would the cosmic rays/clouds hypothesis explain the fact that warming of the Earth's surface has happened at the same time as the stratosphere has cooled?
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
245. martinitony
3:07 PM GMT on September 11, 2011
" If anyone truly believed the CERN study debunked AGWT, all they need do is have peer-reviewed and published their own paper based on the CERN data. That we've heard of no one planning to do so speaks volumes..."

Gosh, it's been almost a whole month and nobody has got a peer reviewed paper on that study published yet.

You're a real piece of work Neopolitan.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
244. Neapolitan
11:52 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
Speaking of politics:


Sep 10, 2011
Who pays the piper?
By Rachel Moran, Saturday, 10 September 2011

Late last month, without much fanfare, scientific titan CERN released new evidence that could dramatically alter the balance of the global warming debate. Potentially vindicating the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, new CERN research from their CLOUD project demonstrates that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. As a result tiny changes in the earth%u2019s cloud cover could account for the earth%u2019s variations in temperature. Such a revelation throws into question whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening, or whether cosmic rays and the sun are the dominant controllers of the earth%u2019s climate.

Such an important discovery should surely be big news. However CERN%u2019s Director General has attempted to play down the study and it%u2019s potential conclusions in order to avoid %u201Cthe highly political arena of the climate change debate.%u201D So, instead of what should be a debate concerning the causes of global warming we are struck by an entirely different debate, the autonomy of scientists who receive government funding. CERN receives millions of euros in funding from it%u2019s member states, the top three being Germany, France and UK, a list which is ever growing as more countries clamour to join the well-respected establishment. However such government funding undermines the very credibility that makes CERN the scientific goliath it claims to be. Nigel Calder makes a similar point, arguing that:

%u201CCERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It%u2019s OK to enter %u201Cthe highly political arena of the climate change debate%u201D provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark%u2019s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.%u201D

The scientists behind the CLOUD experiment have been in a battle for over a decade to continue and publish the results of the project due to their state-funded position.

Jasper Kirby, a CERN scientist, postulated back in 1998 that the cosmic ray theory would %u201Cprobably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth%u2019s temperature that we have seen in the last century.%u201D This admittance of a hypothetical alternative to anthropogenic theories was apparently a step too far for global warming activists who pressured the Western governments that control CERN%u2019s funding to suspend the project. It is only after a decade of negotiation that the project was allowed to continue, and even now it%u2019s results are being stifled by a need to placate political influences. As a result last week%u2019s CLOUD paper perhaps reveals more about the distortion of science by government intervention than it highlights any real scientific breakthrough.

You didn't attribute your post to a publication, so I had to look it up, and found that--surprise!--it's from a blog on Joe D'Aleo's denialist site Icecap.us, and that got me to wondering: will they change their name to "watercap.us" when all the ice is melted? ;-)

At ant rate, the writer's basic statement: "Such a revelation throws into question whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening..." My basic response: had she taken the time to actually read the CERN study, she'd have noted that the report does absolutely nothing of the kind.

Bottom line: the denialosphere is--again, and predictably--angrily foaming at the mouth and talking about "political correctness" because no credible scientist has jumped up at the CERN study's release and proclaimed AGWT as debunked. If anyone truly believed the CERN study debunked AGWT, all they need do is have peer-reviewed and published their own paper based on the CERN data. That we've heard of no one planning to do so speaks volumes...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
243. martinitony
10:28 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
Speaking of politics:


Sep 10, 2011
Who pays the piper?
By Rachel Moran, Saturday, 10 September 2011

Late last month, without much fanfare, scientific titan CERN released new evidence that could dramatically alter the balance of the global warming debate. Potentially vindicating the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, new CERN research from their CLOUD project demonstrates that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. As a result tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for the earth’s variations in temperature. Such a revelation throws into question whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening, or whether cosmic rays and the sun are the dominant controllers of the earth’s climate.

Such an important discovery should surely be big news. However CERN’s Director General has attempted to play down the study and it’s potential conclusions in order to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” So, instead of what should be a debate concerning the causes of global warming we are struck by an entirely different debate, the autonomy of scientists who receive government funding. CERN receives millions of euros in funding from it’s member states, the top three being Germany, France and UK, a list which is ever growing as more countries clamour to join the well-respected establishment. However such government funding undermines the very credibility that makes CERN the scientific goliath it claims to be. Nigel Calder makes a similar point, arguing that:

“CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”

The scientists behind the CLOUD experiment have been in a battle for over a decade to continue and publish the results of the project due to their state-funded position.

Jasper Kirby, a CERN scientist, postulated back in 1998 that the cosmic ray theory would “probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” This admittance of a hypothetical alternative to anthropogenic theories was apparently a step too far for global warming activists who pressured the Western governments that control CERN’s funding to suspend the project. It is only after a decade of negotiation that the project was allowed to continue, and even now it’s results are being stifled by a need to placate political influences. As a result last week’s CLOUD paper perhaps reveals more about the distortion of science by government intervention than it highlights any real scientific breakthrough.

-----------
COMMENTS:

Bridgett Hollowell

It is all quite silly isn’t it. The point is we are causing most of the problems, by the way in which we have disrespected the earth and its resources. Eventually, the earth is going to strike back. Call it what you will, the song remains the same.

On the road to hell

So we did not break the ‘Establishment’s’ control of science, post Galileo, after all. The road to ruin beckons without impediment now.

Alister McFarquhar

This is a vital blog not just because economic recovery will be even more prolonged because of the Carbon Scam which I have been promulgating here for a decade if not since last century.

The evidence, dodgy as manipulated temperature is, shows no support for the notion that man is influencing measurably climate, or that climate change is abnormal. Many including Caldwell know of the evidence that Sun affects climate. It didnt require extravagant CERN to demonstrate this.

What this shows is that Science if not dead as a Python Parrot is rapidily dying as it depends increasingly on Government for funds. So the results of science are increasingly political fodder. Galileo showed this politicision of science is not unique. But the post WW2 enlightenment associated with Popperian falsifications seems past. Sociology and philosophy have made science relative like morality and so irrelevant-just a branch of politics.

In deference to the masochistic Malthusiasm of the first comment, reality on climate does not mean mans damage to the environment should escape constant scrutiny. Falsifying evidence as in Carbon Scam will make this scrutiny less likely as folk take science with a fistful of salt.

Alister McFarquhar, M.A.,Ph.D.[Downing], Cambridge.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
242. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:41 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Yep, good to see at least some of us are sentient beings that visit this blog ..................

Just sayin :)




Ossqss, I am so pleased that you brought the sentient beings into the conversation. Perhaps we should ask the Vulcans to share their planet with us, since we seem to be wearing out our welcome, on this one. Should logic prevail, their reply will be a resounding, NO! Vulcans have compassion but, their logic will prevail.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
241. Birthmark
1:37 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Yep, good to see at least some of us are sentient beings that visit this blog ..................

Just sayin :)




Any examples of politics entering the science?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
240. Ossqss
1:24 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
This site has really become quite boring. Cyclone will keep pointing at Arctic ice and avoid global temperature averages. someone else will point at Texas and avoid the southern hemisphere. The warmists will continue to call the skeptics denialists. Nothing that is said, especially facts, really matters and character assassinations are the norm her.

Too much politics involved with science creates pseudo science.in the long run, maybe 5 more years, we will have our answer. The numbers will verify one side or the other.



Yep, good to see at least some of us are sentient beings that visit this blog ..................

Just sayin :)


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
239. Birthmark
1:15 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
@ 237:
Some1Has2BtheRookie, that is one of the more outstanding posts that I have read in a long time. Thanks for that.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
238. cyclonebuster
1:11 AM GMT on September 11, 2011
OUCH!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
237. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:48 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
This site has really become quite boring. Cyclone will keep pointing at Arctic ice and avoid global temperature averages. someone else will point at Texas and avoid the southern hemisphere. The warmists will continue to call the skeptics denialists. Nothing that is said, especially facts, really matters and character assassinations are the norm her.

Too much politics involved with science creates pseudo science.in the long run, maybe 5 more years, we will have our answer. The numbers will verify one side or the other.



I agree with you, martitony. Politics should never be a part of science. Where do you think the political debate began? Was it the scientist that started the political debate or was it with those that denied the science?

Perhaps, as you say, in another 5 years the evidence will be undeniable, even for most skeptics. ( I hope there will always be some amount of skepticism, over any issue. )Those that deny the science, for political, economic, religious and/or ideological reasons will persist in denying the science. 5 years or even 50 years will not make any difference to them.

Facts, speak for themselves. The confusion begins when others will say that they are not facts. One prime example would be that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we, mankind, through our activities, release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a fact, no matter what else is said.

How is all of this boring? Does the science bore you or is it those that defend the science that bores you? When asked to show evidence to support the claims then the data is presented. This is usually through such visuals as charts. Cyclone does display many charts showing the ice content of the Arctic. These charts do need to be shown, unless you wish to not know.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
236. Birthmark
11:38 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
This site has really become quite boring. Cyclone will keep pointing at Arctic ice and avoid global temperature averages. someone else will point at Texas and avoid the southern hemisphere. The warmists will continue to call the skeptics denialists. Nothing that is said, especially facts, really matters and character assassinations are the norm her.

Too much politics involved with science creates pseudo science.in the long run, maybe 5 more years, we will have our answer. The numbers will verify one side or the other.


What's a "warmist?" As near as I can tell it's someone who accepts the published science. Is that about right? If so, then you should change "warmist" to "realist."

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
235. martinitony
11:21 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
This site has really become quite boring. Cyclone will keep pointing at Arctic ice and avoid global temperature averages. someone else will point at Texas and avoid the southern hemisphere. The warmists will continue to call the skeptics denialists. Nothing that is said, especially facts, really matters and character assassinations are the norm her.

Too much politics involved with science creates pseudo science.in the long run, maybe 5 more years, we will have our answer. The numbers will verify one side or the other.

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
234. Birthmark
9:39 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
No,but it also seems that these extremely hot summers come every 30 years or so. Like it is some sort of cycle going on. Also,what about all the urban areas contributing to the problem. Air conditioners,hot asphalt roofs,paved parking lots,ect.. So,not just co2 but some extra heat could be coming from these sources. Just my way of thinking,though.

All of those, except "cycle", are included "human activities", and along with CO2 release account for most of the current warming.

There is no known cycle causing any noticeable warming, AFAIK.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
233. Neapolitan
8:52 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
Certainly,where a forest once stood it would tend to be cooler underneath that canopy,whereas you put up a black asphalt heat conducting parking lot that would tend to store more heat. That is just common sense!

Precisely! Now, many denialists swear that it's the height of hubris for anyone to claim that man can alter the climate, yet you've just shown that we can do so merely by laying down a pad of blacktop. Imagine, then, what we can do with 40 trillion liters a day of CO2...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
232. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:47 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
Sure,I agree. Mankind is not very conservative in his usefulness of resources at hand,we waste too much and expect way too much in return!I never said burning fossil fuels is good for the environment,btw. I wish we could find other ways to power our everyday needs.


I agree with you 100%. I believe that sound, global conservation practices would help to alleviate many of the problems that face us now and in the future. Shipping natural resources thousands of miles to have them at least partially assembled and then shipping them back thousands of miles makes absolutely no sense to me. That is one the biggest wastes of energy that I can think of.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
231. overwash12
6:35 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I fully agree with you that AGW may not be the primary culprit here but, all of the examples you provided to explain away AGW, as a partial cause, are also unnatural man induced heating. Either way, the finger is beginning to point at mankind's activities. Would you not agree?
Sure,I agree. Mankind is not very conservative in his usefulness of resources at hand,we waste too much and expect way too much in return!I never said burning fossil fuels is good for the environment,btw. I wish we could find other ways to power our everyday needs.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
230. overwash12
6:30 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Glad to see that above you acknowledge other ways in which man contributes to the overall warming of the environment.
Certainly,where a forest once stood it would tend to be cooler underneath that canopy,whereas you put up a black asphalt heat conducting parking lot that would tend to store more heat. That is just common sense!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
229. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:23 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
No,but it also seems that these extremely hot summers come every 30 years or so. Like it is some sort of cycle going on. Also,what about all the urban areas contributing to the problem. Air conditioners,hot asphalt roofs,paved parking lots,ect.. So,not just co2 but some extra heat could be coming from these sources. Just my way of thinking,though.


I fully agree with you that AGW may not be the primary culprit here but, all of the examples you provided to explain away AGW, as a partial cause, are also unnatural man induced heating. Either way, the finger is beginning to point at mankind's activities. Would you not agree?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
228. Neapolitan
6:20 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
Like it is some sort of cycle going on. Also,what about all the urban areas contributing to the problem. Air conditioners,hot asphalt roofs,paved parking lots,ect.. So,not just co2 but some extra heat could be coming from these sources. Just my way of thinking,though.

Glad to see that above you acknowledge other ways in which man contributes to the overall warming of the environment.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
227. Neapolitan
6:15 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
Humm, once again, much rhetoric.

OK, let's try this again.

Please tell us where this is wrong.

No really, tell us specifically :)

Do ya want the link on the ice core DNA )not opinion( about Greenland again?



How about that cloud creation item ?


Still no actual science? Just one discredited denialist after another, after another, after another?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
226. overwash12
6:07 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


What do you think set up those conditions to where they were so extreme this time? Gravity? Well, gravity is just another theory. What do you think it was then? No, I do not suggest that AGW is the sole cause for the present conditions. I cannot rule out that AGW has played a part in it. Are you able to do so?
No,but it also seems that these extremely hot summers come every 30 years or so. Like it is some sort of cycle going on. Also,what about all the urban areas contributing to the problem. Air conditioners,hot asphalt roofs,paved parking lots,ect.. So,not just co2 but some extra heat could be coming from these sources. Just my way of thinking,though.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
225. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:58 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
You think that's why Texas was so hot this summer,high pressure not budging an inch,hardly any clouds?


What do you think set up those conditions to where they were so extreme this time? Gravity? Well, gravity is just another theory. What do you think it was then? No, I do not suggest that AGW is the sole cause for the present conditions. I cannot rule out that AGW has played a part in it. Are you able to do so?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
224. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:53 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
Humm, once again, much rhetoric.

OK, let's try this again.

Please tell us where this is wrong.

No really, tell us specifically :)

Do ya want the link on the ice core DNA )not opinion( about Greenland again?



How about that cloud creation item ?



Really? This is the best you have to offer? You would wish to add more sulfuric acid and ammonia into the atmosphere to possibly offset any rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to mankind's activities? I do not expect to win any Nobel Peace Prizes. I suggest that you do not hold close to the phone expecting for them to call you either.

This is a quote from Birthamrk's link - "Firstly, we have shown that the most likely nucleating vapours, sulphuric acid and ammonia, cannot account for nucleation that is observed in the lower atmosphere." ... Well, back to the drawing board.

BTW, Ossqss. Who do you think I am now?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
223. Birthmark
4:03 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
Humm, once again, much rhetoric.

OK, let's try this again.

Please tell us where this is wrong.

No really, tell us specifically :)

Do ya want the link on the ice core DNA )not opinion( about Greenland again?



How about that cloud creation item ?



What is it you think is important about the sourthern coast of Greenland once being warmer than it is at present?

And what cloud creation item? Do you mean this one: Link
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
222. overwash12
3:24 PM GMT on September 10, 2011
You think that's why Texas was so hot this summer,high pressure not budging an inch,hardly any clouds?
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1477
221. Ossqss
3:22 AM GMT on September 10, 2011
Humm, once again, much rhetoric.

OK, let's try this again.

Please tell us where this is wrong.

No really, tell us specifically :)

Do ya want the link on the ice core DNA )not opinion( about Greenland again?



How about that cloud creation item ?

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
220. Birthmark
7:48 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Another warmist caught "cherry-picking."

Link


(SNORT!) Wait, Dessler demonstrates that Spencer was wrong, using Spencer's data and...Dessler was cherry-picking?

Priceless!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
219. yonzabam
7:35 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHREVEPORT LA
1010 AM CDT FRI SEP 9 2011

...FOUR STATE AREA SUMMER OF 2011 SETS ALL TIME UNITED STATES RECORDS...

THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER HAS DECLARED FOR THE SUMMER OF 2011...THREE STATES IN THE FOUR STATE AREA TOOK 3 OF THE 4 TOP SPOTS AS THE HOTTEST SUMMER EVER FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

HERE ARE THE NEW ALL TIME RECORDS...FOR TOP 4 HOTTEST SUMMERS PER STATE...FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES...

1. TEXAS 2011 - 86.8 DEGREES
2. OKLAHOMA 2011 - 86.5
3. OKLAHOMA 1934 - 85.2
4. LOUISIANA 2011 - 84.5

IN ADDITION...OKLAHOMA SET AN ALL TIME RECORD FOR THE HOTTEST MONTH EVER...FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES IN JULY 2011...WITH AN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF 88.9 DEGREES.



This tells the story better


Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
218. Patrap
7:01 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHREVEPORT LA
1010 AM CDT FRI SEP 9 2011

...FOUR STATE AREA SUMMER OF 2011 SETS ALL TIME UNITED STATES RECORDS...

THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER HAS DECLARED FOR THE SUMMER OF 2011...THREE STATES IN THE FOUR STATE AREA TOOK 3 OF THE 4 TOP SPOTS AS THE HOTTEST SUMMER EVER FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES.

HERE ARE THE NEW ALL TIME RECORDS...FOR TOP 4 HOTTEST SUMMERS PER STATE...FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES...

1. TEXAS 2011 - 86.8 DEGREES
2. OKLAHOMA 2011 - 86.5
3. OKLAHOMA 1934 - 85.2
4. LOUISIANA 2011 - 84.5

IN ADDITION...OKLAHOMA SET AN ALL TIME RECORD FOR THE HOTTEST MONTH EVER...FOR ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES IN JULY 2011...WITH AN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF 88.9 DEGREES.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128749
217. Neapolitan
6:48 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
What Do 98% Believe?


Again I have to ask: do "skeptics" ever link to any actual scientific sites? Or is the denialist side so bereft of science that all they have in their arsenals is one "skeptic" site after another? It seems all I see here and elsewhere is a constant stream of misinformation and distortion from guys like Taylor--not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but an employment law attorney who moonlights for the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute. Which leads me to yet another question: do folks who get their science only from business magazines also listen to only that financial advice which comes from scientific publications?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
216. martinitony
6:47 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:


That the 'debate' is phoney, like giving equal credence to both sides in the faked moon landings 'debate'.



I can't think of a way to describe how pathetic that response was.

Again, the fact is the 98% figure so oft reported and referred to is a total of 77 scientists, not thousands.

The response is to two simple questions. One that virtually everyone knows is true, that the Earth's temperature is higher these days than 200 years ago. The second question is does man have any significant effect. Who doesn't believe that the heat island effect has a significant effect on temperatures or that other green house gases such as methane have some effect?

In other words, the polling questions are bogus and the sample is insignificant. A statistical analyst would laugh at the poll and the results.

Using such statistics is dishonest, disingenuous and disgusting.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
215. yonzabam
6:23 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
What Do 98% Believe?



That the 'debate' is phoney, like giving equal credence to both sides in the faked moon landings 'debate'.

Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
214. martinitony
5:28 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
What Do 98% Believe?

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
213. PurpleDrank
5:11 PM GMT on September 09, 2011

Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
212. yonzabam
3:37 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Another warmist caught "cherry-picking."

Link


Another global warming denialist site. Calls itself 'Real Science', much like the way the old Soviet propaganda rag called itself 'Pravda' (Truth).
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
211. JBastardi
2:26 PM GMT on September 09, 2011
Another warmist caught "cherry-picking."

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
210. AlwaysThinkin
3:45 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!




New record?
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
209. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:36 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
The Texas months of June through August were the hottest three months ever recorded in the history of the United States


I can personally attest to this. Consider this peer reviewed!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
208. cyclonebuster
1:12 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
207. cyclonebuster
1:09 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

Really? You're going with that? LOL

In the unlikely event that you are serious, please provide peer-reviewed evidence that volcanic activity is having any significant effect on global ocean temperature.

Besides differences in salinity, wouldn't warmer water at the surface tend to remain at the surface if it were warmed by the atmosphere (which in itself is difficult to believe that air could warm water)?

Probably...if the ocean wasn't constantly in motion. But it is in motion.


That doesn't matter as heat rises to the surface over time. These jack wagons think the heat stays there at the bottom.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
206. sirmaelstrom
12:51 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
№ 205
Quoting Neapolitan:

Interesting why? I've mentioned the 1950s years-long drought nearly every time I've talked about this year's. But the main thrust of my comment was the incredible and record-breaking summertime heat; the drought was secondary.


Well...I haven't been here in a while and haven't read very far back as of yet so I'll take your word for the prior mention of the 1950's drought. I still think it was worth including in your post to give people the most complete and accurate information, but, it is what it is.

As far as the drought being a secondary part of your post, fair enough, but you did mention it; had you only referred to the temperature record I likely would not have addressed it at all.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
205. Neapolitan
12:37 AM GMT on September 09, 2011
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 202


Interesting that you quoted almost the entire article, yet stopped right before the next sentence, which follows here:

"The drought itself, which started for most of the state last September following Tropical Storm Hermine, is now the second worst in the state's history behind a drought in the mid 1950s that lasted for several years."


Anyway...it looks like the drought in Texas will continue for some time, as the La Niña conditions that contributed to it seem poised to return for Autumn-Winter 2011/12. Depending on how long the upcoming La Niña lasts, it is conceivable that the current drought could approach the record.

* * *

As an aside, for anyone interested in the long-term precipitation trend for Texas, I'll supply a map showing the 1958-2008 trend for the US.

From one of Dr.Master's previous blog entries.

Interesting why? I've mentioned the 1950s years-long drought nearly every time I've talked about this year's. But the main thrust of my comment was the incredible and record-breaking summertime heat; the drought was secondary.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
204. sirmaelstrom
11:47 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
№ 202
Quoting Neapolitan:
Scorching Texas summer heat trumps Dust Bowl record

This year's scorching Texas summer heat, in a dubious honor, broke a national record once held by Oklahoma that had stood since the Dust Bowl changed the face of the country in the 1930s.

On Thursday, the National Weather Service confirmed what Texas climatologists and residents already suspected: The Texas months of June through August were the hottest three months ever recorded in the history of the United States.

The record was formerly held by Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl of 1934, said state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

The average 24-hour statewide temperature during that time, including overnight lows and blistering daytime highs, was 86.8 degrees, he said.

That is more than a degree hotter than the 77-year record of 85.2 degrees. Oklahoma broke its own records this year, but held its average to two-tenths of a degree cooler than Texas, Nielson-Gammon said.

Texas is not generally known as one of America's hottest states. There are several areas in the country which routinely record hotter daily temperatures than Texas, such as southern Arizona and southeastern California. But those states also have higher elevations that bring down the statewide average.

Not so with Texas.

"It has been scary hot from one end of Texas to the other," Nielson-Gammon said, adding that Texas has been so hot essentially because it has been so dry.

"The dryer it is, the hotter the ground gets during the summer, and it becomes a cycle that feeds on itself," he said. "It gets dryer, and it gets hotter."

The 12 months ending on August 31 were the driest 12 months in Texas history, with most of the state receiving just 21 percent of its annual average rainfall.


Not to worry, though; Joe Bastardi promises cooling will get underway in 1999 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2010 2011 just a few more months...


Interesting that you quoted almost the entire article, yet stopped right before the next sentence, which follows here:

"The drought itself, which started for most of the state last September following Tropical Storm Hermine, is now the second worst in the state's history behind a drought in the mid 1950s that lasted for several years."


Anyway...it looks like the drought in Texas will continue for some time, as the La Niña conditions that contributed to it seem poised to return for Autumn-Winter 2011/12. Depending on how long the upcoming La Niña lasts, it is conceivable that the current drought could approach the record.

* * *

As an aside, for anyone interested in the long-term precipitation trend for Texas, I'll supply a map showing the 1958-2008 trend for the US.

From one of Dr.Master's previous blog entries.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
203. iceagecoming
11:26 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
Cape Town - The South African Weather Service has issued several weather warnings for the southern and south-western parts of the country, forecasting cold and stormy conditions for the next few days.

The Western and Eastern Cape have been warned to expect gale to strong gale-force winds between Plettenberg Bay and Port Alfred, with rough seas.

Temperatures in Cape Town will remain low on Friday, with a maximum of 13°C expected. Saturday will see some sunshine in the Mother City, although it will still be cold with a minimum of 7°C and a maximum of 12°C.

Very cold conditions have been forecast for the Northern Cape, with towns like Sutherland and Fraserburg expecting minimum temperatures of 0°C and 2°C respectively.

Link

Some might argue spring started over a month ago, despite our cold blast in the second week of August, but today New Zealand officially marks the start of Spring.

While the debate will no doubt go on about whether today is truly the start of spring (many nations go by the astronomical start and end to seasons, which coincides with the equinox and longest and shortest days of the year - so June 22/23, Sept 22/23 etc) there is little doubt that spring conditions have already begun.

Just like September 2010, September 2011 is starting off with a cold snap. The coldest air will arrive tonight and tomorrow then ease on Saturday as a large high rolls in.

So how will September pan out? Well, our models are telling us it will start off settled - but will go down hill in about 8 or 9 days time.

Long range models show the large high coming in this weekend staying with us until the end of next week - hopefully giving rugby fans warm northerlies at Eden Park for the kick off of the Rugby World Cup next Friday.

However as that high departs over the Pacific Ocean it's replacement high may still be out over Perth - some 5000kms away from New Zealand.

WeatherWatch.co.nz says in between these two highs we have the perfect recipe for a big Tasman Sea low and Southern Ocean cold fronts.

If this eventuates, as a couple of the models suggest, it could bring gales and heavy rain to parts of New Zealand next weekend and into the week starting September 12.

It may also push temperatures in the east into the low 20s - but the downside could be a cold southerly before the next high rolls in later that week or the following weekend.

Either way, conditions do look unsettled from about September 10 onwards.

We'll keep you posted as we head towards the Spring Equinox on Sept 22nd, the date that marks the sun spending more time over the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern Hemisphere - and it also marks the start of our typically windiest weather.


Link


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1078
202. Neapolitan
10:00 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
Scorching Texas summer heat trumps Dust Bowl record

This year's scorching Texas summer heat, in a dubious honor, broke a national record once held by Oklahoma that had stood since the Dust Bowl changed the face of the country in the 1930s.

On Thursday, the National Weather Service confirmed what Texas climatologists and residents already suspected: The Texas months of June through August were the hottest three months ever recorded in the history of the United States.

The record was formerly held by Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl of 1934, said state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

The average 24-hour statewide temperature during that time, including overnight lows and blistering daytime highs, was 86.8 degrees, he said.

That is more than a degree hotter than the 77-year record of 85.2 degrees. Oklahoma broke its own records this year, but held its average to two-tenths of a degree cooler than Texas, Nielson-Gammon said.

Texas is not generally known as one of America's hottest states. There are several areas in the country which routinely record hotter daily temperatures than Texas, such as southern Arizona and southeastern California. But those states also have higher elevations that bring down the statewide average.

Not so with Texas.

"It has been scary hot from one end of Texas to the other," Nielson-Gammon said, adding that Texas has been so hot essentially because it has been so dry.

"The dryer it is, the hotter the ground gets during the summer, and it becomes a cycle that feeds on itself," he said. "It gets dryer, and it gets hotter."

The 12 months ending on August 31 were the driest 12 months in Texas history, with most of the state receiving just 21 percent of its annual average rainfall.


Not to worry, though; Joe Bastardi promises cooling will get underway in 1999 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2010 2011 just a few more months...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
201. Birthmark
8:09 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:


Below 700 meters? You don't suppose water at that depth could be affected by undersea volcanoes or magma ejections?

Really? You're going with that? LOL

In the unlikely event that you are serious, please provide peer-reviewed evidence that volcanic activity is having any significant effect on global ocean temperature.

Besides differences in salinity, wouldn't warmer water at the surface tend to remain at the surface if it were warmed by the atmosphere (which in itself is difficult to believe that air could warm water)?

Probably...if the ocean wasn't constantly in motion. But it is in motion.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
200. Birthmark
8:05 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Another failed warmist prediction:

Link

He missed almost as badly as Spencer, didn't he? lol Of course, it was also stated in the prediction, "It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable." Some prediction.

But Hansen's prediction has zero to do with AGW Theory, anyway.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
199. JBastardi
7:11 PM GMT on September 08, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:


Have you tried looking below 700 meters? These guys did. Guess what they found?

Link



Below 700 meters? You don't suppose water at that depth could be affected by undersea volcanoes or magma ejections? Besides differences in salinity, wouldn't warmer water at the surface tend to remain at the surface if it were warmed by the atmosphere (which in itself is difficult to believe that air could warm water)?
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

Viewing: 249 - 199

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.