Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

reply to post by the2ofusr1


West coast. The effects are actually fairly mild where I'm at but I've been noting local anomalies. The winters have grown so mild where I'm at that plants that normally die back in the winter have instead continued to bloom. We did have a bit of an unusual snow storm this last year that finally killed a lot of them off. I've been able to grow everything from herbs to flowers even throughout winter. That's kind of creepy in my book because it is abnormal. Mosquitoes actually reappeared here in January, which is typically the coldest month. We've also had resident broad tailed hummingbirds (very distinct from their whirring sound and coloration) that never even bothered to migrate. We jokingly call our broad tailed hummingbird "Darpa", lol. These changes have been disturbing and noticeable enough where many of my friends and neighbors are actually pretty freaked out by it. Like said though, we've got it mild. Friends in other portions of the country and in the UK have been talking about very idiosyncratic weather patterns. I've been noting these changes for the last several years but that is logical because the area that I'm in was actually part of my field training for my degree. I actually find it a little distressing that people who don't have local field work in their background are actually noticing abnormalities. Go figure.

As far as the polar bears go, measurements of wildlife populations were very problematic as they relied on eye witness counts until the advent of tagging technology. What the polar bear population was just 50 years ago is really pretty known and largely an estimate. There's a story about how a type of woodpecker was determined to be extinct 60 years ago and one was just spotted just a couple years ago. Wildlife just doesn't run up and allow humans to take tally of them willingly. Another factor could be that polar bears are actually engaging in behaviors that indicate that they are stressed in terms of reproductive population. There has been a number of polar-grizzly hybrids spotted in the wild over the last few years and those things are monsters. It's very bizarre for grizzly and polar bears to be around each other, let alone for them to mate.

en.wikipedia.org...

There's a few other species that are hybridizing in N. America but I, for the life of me, cannot remember their names right now. I'm sorry about that. I think one was a fox. It's actually been raised as an environmental ethics issue because the natural of hybridization basically asks the question of whether such animals should be eliminated because it is not of pure genetic stock or if it should be allowed (Yellowstone Ethic) because that's how new species are born. Hybridization in the wild seems to be how some species are opting towards in order to survive (probably due to reproductive pressures).

the2ofusr1
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Well I am assuming you got your education and are using it at your vocation now .Life can throw some twists turns and obstacles on our way but I don't think they actually hut us but can make us stronger .Family has a way of dividing at times and it's probably more about selfish reasons . I had my differences and still made my choices ....Some I would make differently but I can only try my best to do my part ...peace

I ended up getting my biology degree by default as the combined dual major ended up working out to make one degree in the end, lol. I had only one term left for both majors. I didn't find that out until nearly 20 years later. At the time, I was simply panicked. Within three months of the forced drop out though, I was diagnosed with a progressive, incurable and chronic illness after losing the ability to walk. My dreams of tromping through forests trying to save trees from bark beetle infestation were destroyed on that day. No happy ending for me on that one.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

The west coast is both nice and quite different to the east coast . Where I am from we have 40 foot high tides and less then 30 miles away they are 3 foot .go figure eh .Coyotes and wolves and dogs are mixing here and are producing some strange effects but I don't know that there will be a new species come from it .Some winters there are ducks but that has more to do with other things like sewerage lagoons and people feeding them .Our weather seems to me , falls within the variables I and others have experienced,while other people seem to be oblivious to ,so when they finally recognize it for the first time they make the wrong assumptions ....When something that has happened in the past happens a new we look for reasons as to the why's .When it becomes common we expect it to continue and when it doesn't we ask why ...I don't think freaking out about things that have changed and more then likely change in the future is where we need to have our eyes on .We would do much better holding people in the place of trust to be accountable and open .The climate debate is only one of many man made constructs that should be looked at and fixed . If we don't stop the fraud it will continue and it wont matter . If scientist want to go out on a limb and make predictions that don't come true then they need to find something else to do besides feeding at the public trough .

Does the IPCC "report" make mention of the Fukushima disaster or the Gulf oil leak as being an impact on "climate change" ?

I would wonder how those two incidents are affecting the "reclamation" rates of oceans and CO2 (if at all).

And I wonder if anything associated with those two incidents can somehow be converted in a "trade-able" exchange money pyramid scheme (like carbon credits) ?

xuenchen
Does the IPCC "report" make mention of the Fukushima disaster or the Gulf oil leak as being an impact on "climate change" ?

I would wonder how those two incidents are affecting the "reclamation" rates of oceans and CO2 (if at all).

And I wonder if anything associated with those two incidents can somehow be converted in a "trade-able" exchange money pyramid scheme (like carbon credits) ?

I'd be really curious to see what comes out soon in regards to the Macondo Well spill in the Gulf of Mexico. From what I recall, both BP and government agencies basically had many scientists sign non-disclosure agreements in regards to their research on the spill in exchange for funding. At the time, spending on research grants had actually been impacted by the recession and the universities had already initiated furlough days in order to try to keep employees--let alone spending for research. A lot of scientists most likely signed NDA's on the subject in exchange for both access and funding. That doesn't help public knowledge though. I think the NDA's were for 3 years but am not 100% on that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I am not sure what it is that you want, but I'll take a stab.

You totally schooled me on that thread. Your intense knowledge and wit was overwhelming. I am not worthy to be in the same thread as you. Congratulations. You have my vote sir.

reply to post by xuenchen

Does the IPCC "report" make mention of the Fukushima disaster or the Gulf oil leak as being an impact on "climate change" ?

No.

I would wonder how those two incidents are affecting the "reclamation" rates of oceans and CO2 (if at all).

No reason for the Fukushima disaster to have any effect on climate except that the use of nuclear generated electricity stopped in Japan. They've increased their use of coal to make up the difference.

While oil on the surface of the ocean might have some effect on the transfer of CO2 both to and from the water, the area affected was insignificant compared to the entire water surface of the planet and the effect was short lived.

reply to post by Phage


Out of the two events, I'd say the Deepwater Horizon Macondo spill is the one that could have some possibility of affecting climate with a heavy emphasis on possibly (though slim). Oceans are a good carbon sink because they do have a carbon fixing population living within them. Mess up the ecosystem and that could have some consequences. The Gulf is that nursery ground for the Atlantic and the spill was massive. How much the fallout from that will effect the carbon fixation in the Atlantic--I have no idea. Not a marine biologist, lol. I do tend to agree that it's probably not that huge of an effect on climate overall (if any) but horrific in other regards.

UME's have been occurring around the region for the last several years, especially in regards to bottlenose dolphins that are possibly succumbing to Brucella at higher than normal numbers. There is still oil in the water, mostly in the sediment at the floor and the biodiversity has been severely impacted in a pretty large area. Just not huge compared to the rest of the oceans. It's just that "nursery" factor that gets me.

www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov...
www.plosone.org...

What's up with these things ?

Maybe instead of peeing away billions on studies and sensationalism, the UN should pay for devices to contain the CO2.

The "scientists" could have real jobs for life.

CO2 is marketable to industries.


Can Captured Carbon Save Coal-Fired Power?


A milestone for new carbon-dioxide capture/clean coal technology


These things could help the plants and oceans recover the minor residual CO2 ?

But maybe that would interfere with the financial pyramid schemes.

This guy thinks that so many self reinforcing feedbacks have been triggered that we only have 16 years left. Seems a bit extreme to me.

xuenchen
What's up with these things ?

Maybe instead of peeing away billions on studies and sensationalism, the UN should pay for devices to contain the CO2.

The "scientists" could have real jobs for life.

CO2 is marketable to industries.


Can Captured Carbon Save Coal-Fired Power?


A milestone for new carbon-dioxide capture/clean coal technology


These things could help the plants and oceans recover the minor residual CO2 ?

But maybe that would interfere with the financial pyramid schemes.

You complain about the studies while at the same time there are those that complain a 97% consensus isn't enough and say we need more studies. Personaly I think climate is one of the more important things worth studying.

Clean coal carbon capture has been known of and there was even a plant built from the Carter administration. Problem is the setup costs more than coal plant companies are willing to pay. Solar would be much cheaper even wind and either would be far better as far as emissions.

I wouldn't call 14 billion tons of co2 a year as minor. That is the number we need to get to zero for the earth to be carbon neutral. The oceans and vegetation are the only ones scrubbing it right now.



I do agree there are those trying to cash in on the situation, but that doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist. I think you will find the scientists are not the ones cashing in though.

There have been some breakthroughs in alternative energy though. They are even talks about designing trees with bioluminescence in the foliage. Imagine Pandora.

There are ways to recycle our trash and turn it into fuel for cars at about 2$ a gallon. The oil industry is apposed to it.
or
New process converts algae to crude oil in less than an hour

I was on a site earlier today that had about 20 different energy solutions such as these. One was a plant already in operation that is removing methane from a body of water and using it as fuel. Methane is an worse gas for warming.

ATM though solar seems to be the best choice and they are improving on the efficiency of it in some cases 35% better. Even now though. and

reply to post by Grimpachi


Boy did you deflect from the point !!!

Wheeew !!!!

reply to post by xuenchen


Really??

You were touting clean coal yet as I told you it is actually cheaper to go with solar. Clean coal still creates C02 and would cost more than solar that doesn't create C02.

Maybe you didn't understand that.

BTW scientists do have real jobs.

Actually I addressed all your points that is hardly deflecting.

Why do you like coal so much??

Grimpachi
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Really??

You were touting clean coal yet as I told you it is actually cheaper to go with solar. Clean coal still creates C02 and would cost more than solar that doesn't create C02.

Maybe you didn't understand that.

BTW scientists do have real jobs.

Actually I addressed all your points that is hardly deflecting.

Why do you like coal so much??

edit on 2-4-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Who said I like coal so much ? Oh wait. You did, I didn't.

Can the UN millionaires figure out a way to convert everything to solar?

Is that more economical than saving the coal plants ?

You missed the point about CO2 capture and provided zero facts and figures.

reply to post by xuenchen


Restructuring the power grids for solar would create jobs and the plants themselves would create jobs "sustainable ones". Coal is a short term fix with long term damage.

As for clean coal plants they have one or two tiny prototypes, that's all. There will still be the other pollution emitted by coal fired power stations, like selenium and arsenic, both harmful to human health and the environment. Other pollutants include nitrogen, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, fly ash and mercury as well as the waste ash.* Governments will be reluctant to spend money on research into renewable technologies like solar, wind and water power.Many scientists and environmentalists are not confident that carbon sequestration will work successfully. They fear the stored carbon will escape into the atmosphere.

Seeing as how we only have two prototypes it is not a proven technology though they are moving forward with three factories. It's a dream thought up by people desperate to keep using coal.

DE KALB, Miss.—For decades, the federal government has touted a bright future for nonpolluting power plants fueled by coal. But in this rural corner of eastern Mississippi, the reality of so-called clean coal isn't pretty.

Mississippi Power Co.'s Kemper County plant here, meant to showcase technology for generating clean electricity from low-quality coal, ranks as one of the most-expensive U.S. fossil-fuel projects ever—at $4.7 billion and rising. Mississippi Power's 186,000 customers, who live in one of the poorest regions of the country, are reeling at double-digit rate increases. And even Mississippi Power's parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co. SO -0.48% , has said Kemper shouldn't be used as a nationwide model.

Meanwhile, the plant hasn't generated a single kilowatt for customers, and it's anyone's guess how well the complex operation will work. The company this month said it would forfeit $133 million in federal tax credits because it won't finish the project by its May deadline.WSJ

On the bright side there would still be work for coal ash clean ups. Two Months After Coal Ash Spill, Duke Cleaning Up The Dan River

reply to post by Grimpachi


While I agree that we need more solar power production, I have a few panels myself, I am just curious as to how much heat fields of panels would create and therefore raise the temperature of the area. Enough generated heat could in theory then relate to a warmer climate.

Lets face it, the anount of solar panels needed to replace as much energy that we consume would be astrononical...

I havn't looked into it much but I know my solar panels get pretty warm in the sun.

Solar cells are specifically designed to be efficient absorbers of solar radiation. The cells will generate significant amounts of heat, usually higher than the module encapsulation and rear backing layer. Therefore, a higher packing factor of solar cells increases the generated heat per unit area.

pveducation.org...

I have not looked into if any studies have been done to calculate the heat generated by massive panel fields.

Just a thought that I had.

BTW, I am looking to get a few more panels in the future.

reply to post by Grimpachi


That's a little better.

I will read up and comment later.

Thanks.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Well I am not sure about conventional solar panels (the dark black ones) but the solar plants using mirror arrays would have a net cooling effect (so should the conventional ones) because they are converting that solar radiation into usable electricity. The reason I am not sure about conventional black ones is the colour difference just like black pavement absorbs more solar than concrete. Either way it would be minimal especially in your case because your roof would have been a dark colour (in most cases) anyway. I imagine your cooling bill benefits two-fold from having panels because of the double barrier. I had panels on my old home and I am looking to do the same here.

Anyway solar fields would absorb less radiant heat than your typical parking lot. Good news is they have developed even better more efficient solar technology and generally the payoff is about 4-5 years probably less here in Florida. In my state any electric you feed back into the grid the power companies pay you the same price as you pay them.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Good points.

Especially about the rooftops and blacktop.

The mono and poly crystaline cells do operate cooler than the amorphous silicone cells.

Although I am not in a very good spot for solar efficiency at the moment, I do plan on moving sometime. Right now I mainly have mine for power outages and camping, just small usages.

One day it is my goal to not have a power bill though.

Skymon612
Even more scientists agree that climate change is a real problem. Scientists around the world are reaching consensus.

The next big report from an ongoing international effort to nail down the science of climate change will be released on Monday. According to the Guardian, the report’s language concludes that climate change has already “caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.” An early draft was actually leaked in November. The biggest danger it sees is apparently coastal flooding driven by sea level rise — which could shave 10 percent off global economic production by the end of this century, according to previous research. Climate change also threatens widespread damage to marine life and fish populations worldwide, as both warming seas and ocean acidification throw off ecosystems’ natural balances.

www.theguardian.com...