New Research

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why doesn't the fossil fuel industry fund some actual climate research then? Rather than spending it's millions on spreading disinformation though the media, think tanks propaganda and attacks on climate science/scientists?

[loafer]

Because it wouldn't be in their interests. Just like green charities.

The government money going into climate research, by contrast, is our money and should be objective.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Because it wouldn't be in their interests. Just like green charities.The government money going into climate research, by contrast, is our money and should be objective.

 

Surely it would to their interest when it could give them scientific reasons to oppose stricter environmental policies? Or could it be that they learned that propaganda is much easier for persuading the masses than searching for scientific evidence that doesn't exist?

 

Why would governments want biased research? Can you demonstrate that it's not objective? These are the same governments that grant fossil fuels companies huge tax breaks, allow drilling almost anywhere they like, have gone to war, costing billions, to secure hydrocarbon resources and have done next to nothing about reducing carbon emissions.

After all that, the funded research still has to get passed peer review in order to be published.

Edited September 26, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

I don't think they are. The complaint is that the science is biased because the money goes to those who are more likely to come up with the answer the funder wants to hear...

And you think the Posh Boys (whose very existence is only maintained by the dividends they get from multinationals) would want to fund a branch of science that can only threaten that existence?

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health

 

Actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions often reduce co-emitted air pollutants, bringing co-benefits for air quality and human health. Past studies1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 typically evaluated near-term and local co-benefits, neglecting the long-range transport of air pollutants7, 8, 9, long-term demographic changes, and the influence of climate change on air quality10, 11, 12. Here we simulate the co-benefits of global GHG reductions on air quality and human health using a global atmospheric model and consistent future scenarios, via two mechanisms: reducing co-emitted air pollutants, and slowing climate change and its effect on air quality. We use new relationships between chronic mortality and exposure to fine particulate matter13 and ozone14, global modelling methods15 and new future scenarios16. Relative to a reference scenario, global GHG mitigation avoids 0.5±0.2, 1.3±0.5 and 2.2±0.8 million premature deaths in 2030, 2050 and 2100. Global average marginal co-benefits of avoided mortality are US$50–380 per tonne of CO2, which exceed previous estimates, exceed marginal abatement costs in 2030 and 2050, and are within the low range of costs in 2100. East Asian co-benefits are 10–70 times the marginal cost in 2030. Air quality and health co-benefits, especially as they are mainly local and near-term, provide strong additional motivation for transitioning to a low-carbon future

 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n10/full/nclimate2009.html

 

[loafer]

And you think the Posh Boys (whose very existence is only maintained by the dividends they get from multinationals) would want to fund a branch of science that can only threaten that existence?

 

I have no idea what you are arguing.

[Coast]

Global Warming to Spawn More Severe U.S. Thunderstorms: Study

 

Climate change could help create atmospheric conditions ripe for storms

 

Continued global warming could help create atmospheric conditions that are fertile breeding grounds for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the United States, a new study suggests.

 

The findings, detailed in this week's issue of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are based on the most comprehensive computer modeling work done to date of the two main atmospheric ingredients that scientists think contribute to thunderstorm formation. One of those ingredients is known as the convective available potential energy, or CAPE, that is created as air in the lower atmosphere warms. The warm air rises, whisking moisture to higher altitudes. The second ingredient is vertical wind shear, which is essentially the change in wind speed with height. 

 

What's New?

 

For a severe thunderstorm to arise, CAPE must interact with strong vertical wind shear. But earlier studies concluded that while global warming will increase CAPE, it will decrease wind shear. Thus, the two ingredients were thought to cancel each other out. But the new computer simulations by climate scientists Noah S. Diffenbaugh and Martin Scherer of Stanford University and Robert J. Trapp of Purdue University revealed a pattern that was missed in previous modeling work. "What we've found is that the reduction in shear actually falls on days when there's low CAPE," explained Diffenbaugh. In other words, when CAPE is high, vertical wind shear is more likely to be high as well, which means the total frequency of occurrence of severe thunderstorm environments actually increases as a result of global warming.

 

Diffenbaugh says his team would not have made their discovery had they not been able to access and run multiple climate models that were previously scattered across different scientific groups around the world. "We had ten global climate data models running exactly the same experiment ... and they show high agreement on the results," Diffenbaugh said.

 

Why Is It Important?

 

The simulations all agreed that continued global warming will lead to increases in storm days over large areas of the eastern United States in the spring, winter, and autumn. The changes mean that for springtime alone, severe thunderstorms could increase by as much as 40 percent over the eastern U.S. by the end of the century, Diffenbaugh said.

 

What Does This Mean?

 

Severe thunderstorms, which are often associated with heavy rainfall, hail, and even tornadoes, are one of the primary causes of major economic losses in the United States. In 2012, seven of the country's $11 billion weather disasters were caused by severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. "Sadly, we have many examples of cases where a single storm has had disastrous impact," Diffenbaugh said in a statement. "So a 25 or 30 percent increase in the annual occurrence represents a substantial increase in the overall risk."

 

What's Next?

 

Diffenbaugh stressed that this latest modeling work looks only at the likelihood that the atmospheric conditions that give rise to severe thunderstorms will form. The models stop short of actually predicting whether these ripe atmospheric conditions will spawn severe thunderstorms or tornadoes. As a result, they cannot tell scientists whether future global warming–fueled storms will be more powerful or destructive than they are now. The team hopes to create more sophisticated models that will be able to overcome this limitation. "What we need to do next is develop ways to better represent the processes that produce individual storms in the real atmosphere," Diffenbaugh said in statement.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130924-global-warming-climate-change-thunderstorms-tornadoes/

 

[Polar Maritime]

Arctic Ocean Acidifying at an unprecedented rate.

As ever more carbon dioxide pours into the atmosphere, much of it is absorbed into the oceans. When it dissolves in water, it forms a weak acid called carbonic acid, which on land is responsible for dissolving and eroding out the lovely caves and karst landscapes we see in limestone country. 

In the ocean its effect is less beautiful or beneficial, as many kinds of plankton, crustacean (such as shrimp) and mollusc form shells of the same calcium carbonate that limestone is made of. The acid eats away at the shell as it is secreted, making the organism work alot harder in order to keep itself shielded. Corals are another organism at threat from acidification, and many ecologists worry that (along with other threats) acidification is contributing to their global retreat.

A new study by the USGS and the University of South Florida suggests that Arctic waters are acidifying faster than expected as they are increasingly exposed to the atmosphere by the rapid retreat of sea ice in the boreal regions of the world. This has worrying implications for the rich ecosystems of the area, already struggling to adapt as the globe warms, as lab studies have quantified the effect of acid water on the shell producing capacity of organisms. 

Last year's record melt exposed new waters to the atmosphere, and caused a peak in acidification. The fresh water from the melting ice also increases acidity by diluting the alkaline salts dissolved in sea water, including the calcium and carbonate organisms need to make their protective shells.

The research investigated sea water chemistry over three years at high spatial resolution, and showed a very fast and large increase in acidification in the newly exposed areas of the Arctic ocean in the Canadian Basin due to the retreat of the multi year sea ice. They have shown how rapidly changes can occur, as well as providing a baseline set of data in a relatively poorly sampled region from which to assess future change.

 

 

Original paper, free access: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0073796

 

 

[Coast]

Extreme weather is just one factor insurers need to consider

 

It ranks among the worst catastrophes to hit postwar Germany. Thousands were forced to flee their homes in June after two of the country’s biggest rivers burst their banks, saturating low-lying areas. Just weeks later, a similar disaster struck almost 5,000 miles away. The Canadian city of Calgary declared a state of emergency as the worst flood in decades ravaged swaths of Alberta.

 

Certainly the number of global weather-related catastrophes varies significantly from year to year. Even so, the latest disasters contribute to a trend the insurance industry has observed for decades: the frequency of events that require them to make payouts is on the rise. Data from reinsurance group Munich Re that compensate for year-to-year fluctuations show a near ninefold rise since 1980 in losses to the insurance industry arising from weather-related catastrophes, after adjusting for inflation.

 

Global economic losses from weather-related events came to about $150bn in 2012, according to Munich Re, of which $55bn were insured losses. This raises the question of whether the trend can be reversed – and if not, who should foot the bill. Some leading insurance executives have warned that the rising costs threaten the continued provision of important types of coverage at affordable levels, particularly for flood-related damage in vulnerable regions. In a report this year, the Geneva Association, trade body for the global insurance industry, warned that “a shift†was taking place towards a “new normal†for a number of insurance-relevant hazards.

It claimed that parts of the developed world, including the US state of Florida, were facing “a risk environment that is uninsurableâ€. However, the role of climate change in contributing to the rise in insurance losses remains contentious.

 

Economic growth has played a much more important role, say several scientists and insurance executives. Rising insurance losses driven by development are not necessarily problematic as they should be accompanied by a corresponding increase in premium income. “The main drivers of the [rising] losses are mainly increases in population and in wealth,†says Ernst Rauch, head of the corporate climate centre at the reinsurer Munich Re. He says in some regions – the US and parts of Europe – “it is likely there is a connection between the changing weather patterns and the lossesâ€, but adds that the effect is impossible to quantify. Robert Muir-Wood, chief research officer at the catastrophe modelling agency RMS, says climate change is likely to play only a very small role, if any, in contributing to the rise in losses for insurers that provide flood cover.

 

“Clearly global temperatures have risen... [but] scientifically, we can’t actually demonstrate that climate change has altered flood risk.†The impact climate change might be having on insurance policy terms or premium levels is even more debatable. The insurance industry is awash with capital – not least as pension funds increasingly invest in the sector through securities such as catastrophe bonds. These competitive forces are keeping a lid on the premiums that large sections of the industry can charge. Paul Miller, international head of catastrophe management at Aon Benfield, the reinsurance broker, says: “People are aware of climate change. But it’s one of many factors for insurers and I don’t so far see it as leading to a withdrawal of products.â€

 

This is not least because the terms of annual policies are renewed each year, minimising the extent to which insurers need to incorporate any projected impact of long-term climate change risks into annual policies. Even so, insurers are concerned about a phenomenon that has accompanied economic growth: increased building in risky locations, as commercial and industrial developments take place on low-cost greenfield sites. John Fitzpatrick, head of the Geneva Association, has called on governments to tighten building restrictions, as well as to invest more in flood defences, to mitigate the fallout from extreme weather hazards. The question of who will bear the costs of future flood-related damage – insurers, governments or individual policyholders – has become a highly politicised subject in several countries in recent years.

 

The matter came to a head in the UK this summer after insurers warned their commitment to provide universal flood cover to all households had become unsustainable – partly because of inadequate government investment in flood defences. Just weeks before the existing agreement between insurers and the government was due to expire, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands of households without affordable cover, the two sides agreed to set up a new scheme known as Flood Re. The pooling scheme would be funded by a £10.50 levy on every policyholder to subsidise insurance for high-risk households.

 

However, taxpayers would be in line to cover the costs of extreme flooding, namely a disaster of the magnitude that would be expected to occur once every 200 years. Moreover, homes built since 2009 would not be covered by the scheme. In the US, policyholders in vulnerable locations are facing sharp increases in premium levels because of a recent overhaul to the government-funded flood insurance programme. The changes align premium levels more closely with the real – in the jargon, “actuarial†– risks presented by each policyholder. This has led some homeowners to complain they are facing tenfold rises in insurance premiums, running into tens of thousands of dollars a year, over the next decade.

 

Yet Mr Muir-Wood, a leading author on reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says for now climate change is not driving industry concerns about the provision of flood insurance. Instead, he says, developments in catastrophe modelling technology are giving insurers more detail about the risks presented by each household – prompting them to want to price risks accordingly. “It may be convenient for people to label this as a consequence of climate change but it’s really not,†he says. “People have been used to the idea that insurance is a flat-rated commodity like mortgage rates, or the price of petrol,†he adds “But once you start getting in to the reality of risk, you see extremely strong localised variations. “That is a basic reality of flood risk that society has to confront. Once you start modelling it at very high resolution, you see how variable it is.â€

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a25f25e6-0684-11e3-9bd9-00144feab7de.html#axzz2gMfHxwLi

[knocker]

Climate change: Fast out of the gate, slow to the finish the gate

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-climate-fast-gate-finish.html

Edited September 30, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

deleted

Edited October 2, 2013 by knocker

[Coast]

 

 

UK warned against watering down carbon targets

 

Poor government policy means carbon reduction targets will not be met, warns environmental audit select committee

 

An influential  group of MPs has weighed into the simmering row over the UK's carbon budgets, warning that the carbon reduction targets for 2022 and beyond will be missed, because of poor government policy on energy and the environment. Carbon budgets have become a key political battleground as George Osborne has vowed that the UK will not lead on climate action. Battlelines are being drawn ahead of the key review of the 2023 to 2027 carbon budget, which will be published next year.

 

The environmental audit select committee said the current carbon targets represented the minimum cuts the UK could make to keep within international commitments. They said it was vital that the government should not attempt to water down its "carbon budgets", or the UK would fail internationally and lose the race to compete for green technologies, a rapidly growing sector of the international economy.

 

Joan Walley, chair of the environmental audit committee, said: "Emissions are currently not falling fast enough to prevent a dangerous destabilisation of the global climate in the coming decades – it would be incredibly short-sighted to slacken our carbon budgets now." Last week, the committee on climate change wrote to Ed Davey to say that its preliminary assessment showed that the current fourth carbon budget, from 2023 to 2027, should be held to. The committee, set up under the climate change act to advise ministers on how to meet the climate targets, and the effects of policy on emissions, also said the government should make a decision on the fourth carbon budget as early as possible in the new year.

 

But many Tories want to ignore the committee and go for looser carbon targets. The row could take months to resolve, and is likely to prove unsettling for green investors and businesses, who want clarity on policy. Walley warned that watering down the budget would be contrary to the landmark report on climate change less than two weeks ago from the world's leading experts. "The UK's leading climate scientists are saying loud and clear that there is no scientific case for watering down our long-term emissions reduction targets. And the recent IPCC report echoes that message. Policy-makers must listen."

 

Nick Molho, head of climate policy at WWF-UK, said: "The review of the fourth carbon budget adds needless political risk to the enormous risks posed by climate change. All the evidence suggests that delaying action on reducing emissions is a false economy – it will cost more, and could result in the UK missing out on the significant growth opportunities of the low carbon economy."

 

He called on the prime minister, who intervened personally in 2011 to ensure the fourth carbon budget was accepted as coalition policy, to take a strong stance again. "The battle lines are being drawn in Whitehall, but this will come down to David Cameron's leadership. He championed the Climate Change Act in opposition as a legal framework that heeds the science and gives long-term certainty to businesses and investors. Just last week, he rightly highlighted the value of the green economy in his leader's speech at Conservative party conference. At the review, he should say unequivocally that the UK will stick to the course it has set." The key reasons the 2022 targets would not be met were the failure to insulate houses and decarbonise transport and heat production, the EAC report found.

 

The report also found that arrangements for managing and reporting progress against carbon budgets have not been working properly. The MPs complained that the government's carbon plan, which set milestones for five key government departments to cut carbon, was out of date. Quarterly progress reports against milestones were not published as promised and current departmental business plans are not aligned with the plan.

 

Edward Davey, energy and climate secretary, said: "Our plan to meet our carbon budgets is credible and we're on track to meet the first three. We will consider the recommendations put forward by the EAC, and respond formally to the report in due course." Walley said: "Ministers need to show much more vision now on how we can cut waste, improve our public transport and insulate more homes and businesses from rising fossil fuel costs. If we leave these changes for another 10 years it will become much more expensive to meet our climate change targets and we will be left behind by successful green countries like Germany."

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/08/uk-carbon-targets-mps-government

[knocker]

Terrestrial ecosystems at risk of major shifts as temperatures increase

 

Over 80 percent of the world's ice-free land is at risk of profound ecosystem transformation by 2100, a new study reveals. "Essentially, we would be leaving the world as we know it," says Sebastian Ostberg of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany. Ostberg and collaborators studied the critical impacts of climate change on landscapes and have now published their results in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-terrestrial-ecosystems-major-shifts-temperatures.html

Edited October 8, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Study reveals urgent new time frame for climate change

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-reveals-urgent-climate.html

Edited October 9, 2013 by knocker

[Coast]

 

Five billion people will experience extreme climates before 2050 if carbon emissions are not curbed and continue at their current rate, scientists have said.

 

Published in the journal Nature, researchers from the University of Hawaii have said their shocking results indicate that the world's climate will have changed beyond recognition within a generation. Three are going to start rolling out 4G soon, and when they do they’ll provide it at no extra cost. If that’s not worth a little jig or a high five then nothing is. So sup up some faster internet and let those legs fly. Using data from 39 Earth System Models developed by 21 independent climate centres in 12 countries, the team provided an index showing when climates across Earth will shift outside the most extreme records experienced over the last 150 years.

 

"The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon. Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past," said lead author Camilo Mora. They found that under a "business-as-usual scenario" where emissions are not reduced, the planet will experience a radically different climate by 2047. If greenhouse gas emissions are stabilised this will be pushed by back to 2069. According to the study, the tropics will be the first area to experience the effects of climate change and will be badly affected with species unaccustomed to climate variability.

 

Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said species will either have to move to find suitable climates, adapt or go extinct: "This work demonstrates that we are pushing the ecosystems of the world out of the environment in which they evolved into wholly new conditions that they may not be able to cope with. Extinctions are likely to result. "Some ecosystems may be able to adapt, but for others, such as coral reefs, complete loss of not only individual species but their entire integrity is likely."

 

Looking at the impact on humans, the researchers say in an "optimistic scenario" one billion will experience extreme climates before 2050, with this number reaching five billion if emissions are released at their current rates. They predict the climate changes will lead to shortages of food and water, spread of infectious diseases, increased conflicts and economical challenges. Our results suggest that countries first impacted by unprecedented climates are the ones with the least capacity to respond," said co-author Ryan Longman. "Ironically, these are the countries that are least responsible for climate change in the first place."

 

The authors say their study suggests any effort to slow climate change will require a bigger commitment from developed countries and more extensive funding for social and conservation programmes in developing countries. "Scientists have repeatedly warned about climate change and its likely effects on biodiversity and people," said Mora. "Our study shows that such changes are already upon us. These results should not be reason to give up. "Rather, they should encourage us to reduce emissions and slow the rate of climate change. This can buy time for species, ecosystems, and ourselves to adapt to the coming changes."

 

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/512644/20131009/climate-change-global-warming-extreme-weather-five.htm

 

[Fergus Brown]

http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/might-as-well-try-and-catch-wind.html

 

Sorry, I need the blog traffic!

 

Comment on Mora and Ostberg. Read the Ostberg.

[Coast]

 

Extreme weather can be the 'most important cause of poverty'

 

New research suggests that extreme weather events will keep people poor in many parts of the world.

 

The authors argue that where disasters like drought are prevalent, they can be the most important cause of poverty. They say that up to 325 million people will be living in countries highly exposed to natural hazards by 2030. If aid is not used to reduce these risks, the progress made in fighting poverty could disappear. The report has been compiled by the Overseas Development Institute. It examines the relationship between disasters and poverty over the next 20 years, using population projections, climate models and estimations of how governments can cope with extreme events. The report suggests that up to a third of a billion people could be living in the 49 countries most exposed to the full range of natural hazards and climate extremes in 2030. In sub-Saharan Africa 118 million people in poverty will face extreme events.

 

Drought means poverty

 

The big weather issues that will face most poor people are drought, extreme rainfall and flooding. An analysis of the data from rural Ethiopia and Andhra Pradesh in India suggests that where there is a strong risk of drought, then drought is also the single most important factor in keeping people poor, outstripping ill health or dowry payments. "We've often heard that ill health is the biggest cause for impoverishment," said Dr Tom Mitchell, the ODI's head of climate change. "But in the data, in drought prone areas, the biggest cause is the drought - in areas exposed to these hazards, they are the key causes of impoverishment." Developed countries haven't recognised the role that these extreme weather events have in keeping people poor, he says. The big problem is that, at present, money tends to flow in response to disasters, not to prevent them. Dr Mitchell says the recent Cyclone Phailin in India is a good example.

 

"The very fact that it killed so few people means that the chances of raising big finance for recovery efforts are going to be pretty slim. It has not got the big numbers attached to it," he said. "I think there's a direct link between the ability to raise finance and the number of people killed. It's a perverse incentive." Part of the problem is that donor countries are not prioritising aid at the countries that need it most, in terms of disaster risk reduction. "We've tended to provide much more financial support to a set of middle income countries, who can manage it better like the Philippines, Mexico and Indonesia who made really great strides in protecting their populations," said Dr Mitchell. "What we've not done is focus on the poorest countries, the ones most exposed to issues like drought, for example, sub Saharan Africa, we've almost missed it off."

 

The authors of the report argue that the way that vulnerable countries spend their money needs reforming too. Too often the money is spent on the capital city or on infrastructure and not on the poorest people.

 

Madagascar is one of the countries most at risk of poverty from disasters such as storms and floods

The report calls for the post-2015 development goals to include targets on disasters and climate change, to recognise the threat they pose to eradicating poverty by 2030. "If the international community are serious about ending extreme poverty they need to get serious about reducing disaster risk for the poorest people," said Dr Mitchell. "At the moment that's not happening, so the chance of ending extreme poverty is pie in the sky, it is just not going to work."

 

The ODI has compiled a list of the 11 countries most at risk of disaster-reduced poverty.

 

Bangladesh

Democratic Republic of Congo

Ethiopia

Kenya

Madagascar

Nepal

Nigeria

Pakistan

South Sudan

Sudan

Uganda

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24538078

[knocker]

Without plants, Earth would cook under billions of tons of additional carbon

 

Enhanced growth of Earth's leafy greens during the 20th century has significantly slowed the planet's transition to being red-hot, according to the first study to specify the extent to which plants have prevented climate change since pre-industrial times. Researchers based at Princeton University found that land ecosystems have kept the planet cooler by absorbing billions of tons of carbon, especially during the past 60 years.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/13/49Q88/

Edited October 16, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Carbon Cycle Models Underestimate Indirect Role of Animals

 

Animal populations can have a far more significant impact on carbon storage and exchange in regional ecosystems than is typically recognized by global carbon models, according to a new paper authored by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES).

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131016112821.htm

Edited October 16, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

Without plants, Earth would cook under billions of tons of additional carbon

 

Enhanced growth of Earth's leafy greens during the 20th century has significantly slowed the planet's transition to being red-hot, according to the first study to specify the extent to which plants have prevented climate change since pre-industrial times. Researchers based at Princeton University found that land ecosystems have kept the planet cooler by absorbing billions of tons of carbon, especially during the past 60 years.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/13/49Q88/

 

It's great to have another study that not only explains in more depth, but also confirms that forests are carbon sinks. IMO it should have included details of how much more efficient young, growing trees are at absorbing Carbon (far greater quantities than mature forests). 

 

With a bit of luck studies like this will lead to more wood being used to generate power. After all, why continue to use fossil fuels when supplies are dwindling and polluting, why go down the route of fracking to desperately find more, when wood is carbon neutral? Common sense isn't it? Grow trees which will absorb carbon, cut them down and burn them to fuel the nation. They release the carbon they stored whilst growing, which will in turn be re-absorbed by the next crop. Instead of planting Turbines across desolate moorland and hilltops, plant trees and re-forest them instead; make sure it's not the mono culture of conifer plantations, make including a percentage of native broadleaf trees mandatory and we'll have a vast new, productive eco system too.

[Fergus Brown]

It's great to have another study that not only explains in more depth, but also confirms that forests are carbon sinks. IMO it should have included details of how much more efficient young, growing trees are at absorbing Carbon (far greater quantities than mature forests). 

 

With a bit of luck studies like this will lead to more wood being used to generate power. After all, why continue to use fossil fuels when supplies are dwindling and polluting, why go down the route of fracking to desperately find more, when wood is carbon neutral? Common sense isn't it? Grow trees which will absorb carbon, cut them down and burn them to fuel the nation. They release the carbon they stored whilst growing, which will in turn be re-absorbed by the next crop. Instead of planting Turbines across desolate moorland and hilltops, plant trees and re-forest them instead; make sure it's not the mono culture of conifer plantations, make including a percentage of native broadleaf trees mandatory and we'll have a vast new, productive eco system too.

 

Planting more trees is excellent! Deforestation is a really important issue and there is no question that, as part of a mitigation strategy, it has numerous merits. The role of forestry and vegetation is often understated in all the arguments about coal etc, and it is a serious problem which deserves being championed for a whole number of good reasons, not least that lots more forest is better for reducing the ever-growing export of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

Sadly, it is unrealistic to hope that burning wood on an industrial scale would help with the energy mix; the unbelievably vast quantity of wood that would be required to satisfy our energy consumption means that we'd soon be denuding the planet in response to demand. Check out the quantity of wood required to service even a modest power plant like Drax. Biomass burning has a role and a value, but can't work on the scale we need.

[Coast]

 

Drought followed by brain: How climate change spurred evolution of human intelligence

Scientists show shifts from dry to wet and back in East Africa's Rift Valley caused the development of the human brain

 

Humans evolved their very large brains in response to the dramatic shifts in the climate of East Africa, the cradle of humanity where man's ancestors are thought to have originated about two million years ago, a study has suggested. Scientists have matched exceptionally wet periods and very dry periods in the East African Rift Valley to sudden spurts in the evolution of the hominid ancestors of Homo sapiens, which resulted in the evolution of the modern human brain. Academics have long argued about what led to the unusually large brain of humans with its capacity for language, abstract thought and consciousness.

 

The latest theory suggests it was triggered by the need to adapt to dramatic changes in the local environment of early man. “It seems modern humans were born from climate change, as they had to deal with rapid switching from famine to feast - and back again - which drove the appearance of new species with bigger brains and also pushed them out of East Africa into Eurasia and South Africa,†said Professor Mark Maslin of University College London, the co-author of the study published in the on-line journal Plos-One.

 

The Rift Valley is an extensive geological fault marked by mountains, lakes and fertile valleys. Many of the most important fossil remains of early humans have been unearthed in the region, leading to suggestions that it was the most important place for the early origins of man. The study looked at climate change over the past 5 million years, where there have been large fluctuations between wet periods where lakes were far higher than they are today and dry periods where sand dunes formed in former lake beds. The scientists found that there were relatively short periods lasting about 200,000 years when East Africa became very sensitive to the cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun - known as Milankovitch cycles - which lead to global-scale changes to the climate, such as ice ages.

 

In East Africa, these orbital changes to the Earth led to rapid shifts between very dry and very wet periods of about 20,000 years, when typically the lake valleys repeatedly filled up with freshwater and then dried out several times, forcing the human inhabitants to move north or south. “Due to these changes in orbit, the climate of East Africa seems to go through extreme oscillations from having huge deep freshwater lakes surrounded by rich, lush vegetation to extremely arid conditions, like today, with sand dunes in the floor of the Rift Valley,†Professor Maslin said.

 

“These changes resulted in the evolution of a new species with bigger brains, and also forced early humans to disperse out of East Africa,†he said. The study found that there were three time periods in particular when this kind of climate change corresponded to important stages in human evolution. The first occurred about 2.6 million years ago when the Rift Valley dwellers were pushed into southern Africa and a new species called Homo habilis emerged. The second happened about 1.9 million years ago when an important species called Homo erectus emerged from Africa to colonise much of Asia, while the third occurred about 1 million years ago when Homo heidelbergensis emerged.

 

Professor Maslin said that the technique is not accurate enough to deal with the past 150,000 years, when Homo sapiens first evolved, but that it nevertheless could explain the earlier evolutionary transition leading to Homo erectus, which is the first large-brained hominid with truly human-like skeleton showing a distinctive adolescent growth-spurt. Susanne Shultz of Manchester University, the co-author of the study, said that climate change can be linked directly to the evolution of this important human species at a time when there were several species occupying the same geographic region at about the same time.

 

“We found that around 1.9 million years ago a number of new species appeared, which we believe is directly related to new ecological conditions in the East African Rift Valley, in particular the appearance of deep freshwater lakes,†Professor Shultz said.

“Among these species was early Homo erectus with a brain 80 per cent bigger than its predecessor,†she added. The present-day lakes of the Rift Valley are much smaller than they would have been at the height of a wet period. Lake Logipi at the northern end of the Kenyan rift valley, for instance, once occupied the entire Suguta Valley, which is presently littered in sand dunes, and was about 300 metres deeper than it is today.

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/drought-followed-by-brain-how-climate-change-spurred-evolution-of-human-intelligence-8884863.html

[knocker]

Could Sandy happen again? Maybe, says Tufts geologist Due to rising sea levels, smaller storms could produce significant flooding

MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. – Almost a year after Hurricane Sandy, parts of New York and New Jersey are still recovering from billions of dollars in flood damage. Tufts University geologist Andrew Kemp sees the possibility of damage from storms smaller than Sandy in the future.

 

"Rising sea levels exacerbate flooding," says Kemp. "As sea level rises, smaller and weaker storms will cause flood damage." An assistant professor in Tufts' Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Kemp co-authored a study on sea-level change close to New York that was published recently in the Journal of Quaternary Science.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-10/tu-cs101713.php

[knocker]

Pacific ocean temperature influences tornado activity in US, study finds

 

Meteorologists often use information about warm and cold fronts to determine whether a tornado will occur in a particular area. Now, a University of Missouri researcher has found that the temperature of the Pacific Ocean could help scientists predict the type and location of tornado activity in the U.S.Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-pacific-ocean-temperature-tornado.html#jCp

Edited October 17, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

Planting more trees is excellent! Deforestation is a really important issue and there is no question that, as part of a mitigation strategy, it has numerous merits. The role of forestry and vegetation is often understated in all the arguments about coal etc, and it is a serious problem which deserves being championed for a whole number of good reasons, not least that lots more forest is better for reducing the ever-growing export of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

Sadly, it is unrealistic to hope that burning wood on an industrial scale would help with the energy mix; the unbelievably vast quantity of wood that would be required to satisfy our energy consumption means that we'd soon be denuding the planet in response to demand. Check out the quantity of wood required to service even a modest power plant like Drax. Biomass burning has a role and a value, but can't work on the scale we need.

 

But if people could be weaned off the convenience of oil/gas central heating in favour of wood burners and automatic, wood pellet boilers, they'd be much less consumer demand for fossil fuels. There's government subsidies galore for green energy production, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination for this to opened out to include local woodland schemes. In reality, it's going to take 20 years for a tree planted today to be ready for harvest, so it's a long term investment. That said, we're facing a long term problem so time scale shouldn't be an issue.

 

I don't think there's a single solution to the energy crisis we face, it's going to take investment in many different sources of energy production by various methods, but I do think trees could and should play a part. Every little helps and all that.