I can't see anything JT posts - and you're about to join him. You fags going to admit defeat soon and lock me out of this thread too? That was such a bitch move.
Take it easy, I was trying to defend you. I just don't think it was right for Jax Teller to bring up the fact that your super hot GF who you will marry in a year is going to cheat on you just like your ex-wife, that was completely uncalled for. I don't know anything about you getting locked out of a thread, but if locking someone out of a thread is admitting defeat wouldn't putting someone on ignore also mean that you're admitting defeat as well? So if you have Jax on ignore does that mean that he made your ass quit? Seems kind of hypocritical to bitch about being locked of a thread while putting people on ignore.
Didn't he talk about it being bitch made to put someone on ignore? Man he's as fragile as Trump. Are we sure he's not Trump? Neither one can keep a woman in their life. They are both uneducated fucktards as well.
the increase in ocean temp is about 0.8 for a few years now, so even when compensating for a .2 en nino effect you still get a pretty big .6 increase, way beyond the .1 margin of error
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...o-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news "A rapidly advancing crack in Antarctica’s fourth-largest ice shelf has scientists concerned that it is getting close to a full break. The rift has accelerated this year in an area already vulnerable to warming temperatures. Since December, the crack has grown by the length of about five football fields each day."
That scientist doesn't deny that ocean levels are the highest ever - he just doesn't like the sensationalism that the papers are giving to the data. I hope you aren't using this article as proof that global warming is fake.
The Great Barrier Reef May Be Dying Faster Than We Thought March 16, 2017 - The latest surveys spell more bad news for the Great Barrier Reef. Following a record high water surface temperature and mass bleaching event in 2016, the Australian icon may be on track for a similar event this year. Aerial and underwater footage from 2016 and 2017, shown in this video, shows the extent of the bleaching and die-off, which has already impacted large portions of the reef. nationalgeographic.com/video/news/170316-great-barrier-reef-bleaching
We shouldn't do anything to curtail emissions because China pollutes and doesn't do anything to stop it at all. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/18/c_136139334.htm
Sweet ‘Doomsday’ seed vault meant to survive global disasters breached by climate change https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/19/...t=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Exxon Shareholders Vote To Disclose Climate Risks Meanwhile, President Donald Trump reportedly plans to pull the U.S. out of the historic Paris climate pact. WASHINGTON — As news spread that President Donald Trump reportedly plans to remove the U.S. from the historic Paris Agreement on climate change, ExxonMobil shareholders voted in favor of a proposal calling on the company to disclose the risks that climate change policies pose to its business. The measure, which Exxon urged investors to vote against, passed with 62.3 percent of the vote. New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, trustee of the New York Common Retirement Fund, said in a statement that the vote was “an unprecedented victory for investors in the fight to ensure a smooth transition to a low carbon economy.” The fund holds nearly $1 billion in Exxon shares. “Climate change is one of the greatest long-term risks we face in our portfolio and has direct impact on the core business of ExxonMobil,” DiNapoli said. “The burden is now on ExxonMobil to respond swiftly and demonstrate that it takes shareholder concerns about climate risk seriously.”
Can Seaweed Make Beef Healthier—and Way Greener? Your burger and bacon may have a surprising new ingredient By: AC Shilton Jun 12, 2017 Share Tweet Email Eat up kids—dinner came straight from the ocean today. Photo: Jacqui Miller / Stocksy David Newman, an animal sciences professor at Arkansas State University, upholds the scientific method. When he wants to test a hypothesis, he organizes a double-blind trial. At home on his hog farm in Missouri, though, Newman’s willing to make an anecdotal observation: His 200 Berkshire sows are doing better than ever. “They’re really healthy. And if they’re healthy, they’re growing,” he says. The secret to this year’s bumper crop of bacony goodness? Seaweed. More and more cattle and pig producers think seaweed may help us reduce antibiotic use on farms while producing more sustainable and nutritious meat. Even better, there’s compelling evidence that feeding certain types of seaweed could help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of cattle, which, with their methane burps and farts, are an environmental catastrophe. Currently, you can find seaweed-fed meat in more than 150 restaurants across the country and in high-end grocery stores under the brand Heritage Foods USA. Feeling weird about this surf-and-turf special? No need. Here’s what else you need to know. Is It Good for the Environment? A 2015 study done at James Cook University in Australia found that adding a seaweed called Asparagopsis taxiformis into a “simulated cow stomach” reduced production of methane by 99 percent. This is a big deal because, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), cows around the world emit 7.1 gigitons of CO2 in the form of methane each year. A whopping 14.5 percent of all human-related greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock flatulence. The EPA (which lumps livestock in with other agricultural activities, like land clearing) rates livestock as the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, after electricity and power production and before industry activities. (Alas, this seaweed effect only works for cows. Chris Hostetler, the director of animal science for the National Pork Board, says that because pigs aren’t ruminants and don’t digest forage in a hind gut, they don’t burp and fart out nearly as much methane.) Furthermore, seaweed plays a starring role in capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One climate scientist thinks giant seaweed farms may be our climate change savior. And when farmed in existing waterways, seaweed requires zero inputs—no fertilizer, feed, or pesticides. Is It Good for the Animals? Seaweed is considered a superfood because of its high levels of vitamins, minerals, and Omega-3 fatty acids. It also contains fucoidans and laminarins, two bioactive compounds believed to have positive health benefits. Research has found that these compounds increase the good bacteria and reduce the number of nasty bugs found in a pig’s digestive tract. Like in humans, good gut health in pigs translates to better overall health and stronger immune systems. A healthy herd is a lucrative herd—especially for a farmer who markets his hogs as antiobiotic-free, as Newman does. He’s noticed a significant downtick in colds and flu since introducing seaweed to his herd’s daily rations. Plus, Martin says that coastal cultures have fed seaweed to livestock for centuries, maybe longer. For farmers who are newer to the practice, there’s been a decade-long research process to figure out exactly which varieties are best for different animal species and how to grow and produce those types in a sustainable way. Do the animals like eating the seaweed? “While we haven’t gotten a verbal confirmation, the pigs seem to enjoy it just fine,” says Martin. Is It Good for Me? There’s good evidence that feeding livestock diets rich in Omega-3s results in meat and milk that’s also higher in Omega-3s. Seaweed seems to be a particularly good source of Omega-3s for animals, and Patrick Martin, CEO of Ocean Harvest Technology, says that in the company’s lab tests, animals fed seaweed contained larger amounts of total Omega-3s and possibly less LDL cholesterol than conventionally raised meat. What do independent experts say? Hostetler isn’t convinced about some of the other purported benefits of seaweed-fed pork, like an enhanced immune system. However, “pigs are what they eat, so what a pig eats can end up depositing in its fat.” Make no mistake, though: You will not see a cardiologist-approved bacon anytime soon. “You’d have to eat so much pork to really get a benefit. You’re probably better off just taking your fish oil pill,” Hostetler says. Does It Taste Weird? Feeding a diet rich in healthy fats can result in healthier meat, and Martin claims that feeding livestock seaweed could result in better, more-even marbling within the chops and brisket. “Our products carry very large amounts of nutrients, such as retinol and vitamin A, which are essential for fat metabolism,” he says. When fat is more efficiently metabolized, it results in “less fat deposition in subdermal areas and more intrinsic fat in muscles,” he says—that is, juicier, more-luscious barbecue sandwiches. Again, Hostetler is a touch skeptical, saying that he hasn’t seen any science connecting retinol or vitamin A to fat metabolism in swine, and if you personally want to get more vitamin A in your diet, he says, “eat a carrot.” The more important question: Does it at least taste normal? There’s always the concern of ending up with a final product that, while healthy, tastes a little fishy. Pigs, like many other creatures, take on the flavor of whatever they’re fed. That’s why acorn-fed pork is such a delicacy. “It ends up tasting almost nutty,” explains Newman. When he was testing seaweed as a potential feed ingredient in his lab, Newman worried that the pork chops he produced might taste a bit like licking a tuna. But he says the briny notes don’t transfer. “It doesn’t taste like seaweed at all,” Newman swears, and chefs seem to be in agreement. James Beard Award–winning chef Marc Ladner described the pork at a tasting event: “More moist, more tender. If you’re going for no negative effects on flavor from the seaweed, I think you have it.” And Paul Wetzel, a sous chef at Gramercy Tavern, describes Heritage Pork, a brand that uses a seaweed-inclusive feed, as “some of the most flavorful pork we get a chance to use.” https://www.outsideonline.com/2179141/can-seaweed-make-our-meat-healthier-and-greener
TheChatch, you lurking ass fuck. Come answer for your sins. If I weren't so fond of Seattle I'd wish your bitch ass drowned first. TheChatch
TheChatch https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ion/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_NEWS&sf91085786=1 Energy CEOs Tell EPA Chief They Want Carbon Regulation Companies told Scott Pruitt that having a regulation on the books would help them plan for the future By Emily Holden, E&E News on June 22, 2017 U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt asked utility CEOs about replacing the Clean Power Plan. Credit: Gage Skidmore Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Dozens of power industry executives who flew to Washington for a Monday meeting with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had three minutes apiece to tell him whether they want to replace the Clean Power Plan. Many said that if EPA follows through with rescinding the rule, the agency should write a less stringent carbon regulation that sets efficiency standards for coal plants. That would give the industry certainty to make planning decisions, they said. But Pruitt didn't seem convinced, according to one source with knowledge of the discussion. The EPA chief could instead forgo replacing the carbon rule and decide to challenge the agency's underlying endangerment finding, which requires it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has already drafted a rulemaking to revoke the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which requires power plants to cut emissions 32 percent by 2030 (Climatewire, June 12). Pruitt at some point must decide whether to write a new regulation to potentially satisfy the endangerment finding. EPA officials under Obama argued that the rule would speed an industry shift away from coal and toward cheaper natural gas and renewables, while letting states chart their own paths. Legal challengers, including Pruitt, said EPA shouldn't have looked for carbon reductions “outside the fence line” of coal-fired power plants. Any replacement that focused just on coal plants probably wouldn't cut carbon emissions much. But companies told Pruitt on Monday that having a regulation on the books would help them plan for the future and send a signal to state regulators and policymakers that utilities are not going to build new coal plants. Replacing the Clean Power Plan with a weaker rule could also hinder a future administration from writing stricter rules for electricity generators. The investor-owned utility trade group Edison Electric Institute supports the idea of developing a replacement carbon regulation if EPA follows through with rescinding the Clean Power Plan as expected. There wasn't complete consensus on the idea at the meeting, however. Conservative interests could also push back on the strategy. “President Trump said on the campaign trail that he would stand up for the people and industries that have been left behind by his predecessor's environmental agenda,” said Chrissy Harbin, vice president of external affairs for Americans for Prosperity. “And he has begun to deliver on these promises once in office, by pulling out of the Paris Agreement and directing the EPA to dismantle the Clean Power Plan.” A different source who attended the meeting with Pruitt described it as a “high-level listening session,” where Pruitt solicited feedback but didn't dig into policy possibilities. “There wasn't a lot of in-depth discussion,” he said. The power sector has nearly outpaced the regulation that EPA finalized in 2015, as natural gas has stayed inexpensive and renewable power has gotten cheaper. One industry source said Pruitt wasn't hearing that message. “What I got back from it was the only time the administrator really perked up was when he heard the word 'coal,'” he said. “None of our people are ever going to be building a coal plant again. It's devoid of reality.” That source expects that Pruitt still intends to fight EPA's endangerment finding, which requires the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. A decision to replace the Clean Power Plan would be a tacit acknowledgement that EPA will eventually have to set rules for power plants. During the more than two-hour meeting, over 30 industry representatives took turns presenting their views, but some felt it was just a formality. “Unfortunately, we're kind of in an awkward position,” the source said. “They view us as we were the industry at the table for eight years with the Obama administration working out the Clean Power Plan.” EPA did not respond to requests for comment.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1676/ Assessment: World Heritage coral reefs likely to disappear by 2100 unless CO2 emissions drastically reduce Friday, 23 June 2017 Great Barrier Reef, Wilson Reef © The Ocean Agency, XL Catlin Seaview Survey, Christophe Bailhache Today, UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre released the first global scientific assessment of climate change impacts on World Heritage coral reefs. Soaring ocean temperatures in the past three years have subjected 21 of 29 World Heritage reefs to severe and/or repeated heat stress, and caused some of the worst bleaching ever observed at iconic sites like the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Papahānaumokuākea (USA), the Lagoons of New Caledonia (France) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The analysis predicts that all 29 coral-containing World Heritage sites would cease to exist as functioning coral reef ecosystems by the end of this century under a business-as-usual emissions scenario. Bleaching is a stress response that causes coral animals to expel the microscopic algae (zooxanthellae) whose photosynthesis provides the energy needed to build three-dimensional reef structures. Mass bleaching is caused by rising water temperatures associated with climate change. It only takes a spike of 1-2°C to cause bleaching, and carbon emissions have caused a 1°C increase in global surface temperature since pre-industrial times. This effect has been magnified by strong El Niño and La Niña events. Ocean acidification caused by dissolved atmospheric CO2 weakens corals further. “ The 29 globally significant coral reefs on UNESCO’s World Heritage List are facing existential threats, and their loss would be devastating ecologically and economically,” said Dr. Mechtild Rossler, Director of the World Heritage Centre. “These rainforests of the sea protect coastal communities from flooding and erosion, sustain fishing and tourism businesses, and host a stunning array of marine life.” The social, cultural and economic value of coral reefs is estimated at US$1 trillion. Recent projections indicate that climate-related loss of reef ecosystem services will total US$500 billion per year or more by 2100, with the greatest impacts felt by people who rely on reefs for day-to-day subsistence. Widespread coral bleaching was first documented in 1983, but the frequency and severity is increasing. The last three years were the hottest on record, and they caused a global bleaching event that reached 72% of World Heritage-listed reefs. “We know the frequency and intensity of coral bleaching events will continue to increase as temperatures rise,” said Dr. Scott Heron, NOAA Coral Reef Watch and lead author of the assessment. “Our goal was to document climate impacts on World Heritage-listed coral reefs to date, and examine what the future may hold. The fate of these treasures matters to all humankind, and nations around the world are bound by the 1972 World Heritage Convention to support their survival.” Coral communities typically take 15 to 25 years to recover from mass bleaching. The assessment looked at the frequency with which World Heritage reefs have been subjected to stress that exceeds best-case rates of recovery. It also examined future impacts to World Heritage reefs under two emissions scenarios. The results were sobering and concluded that delivering on the Paris Agreement target of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” offers the only opportunity to prevent coral reef decline globally, and across all 29 reef-containing natural World Heritage sites. The assessment was developed with satellite data from the United States National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coral Reef Watch and received the support from the French Agency for Biodiversity (Agency Française pour la Biodiversité).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-hausfather-a7816676.html?cmpid=facebook-post Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent @montaukian 2 days ago 100 comments Climate change deniers and sceptics have long pointed to satellite datashowing lower temperatures than those recorded on the ground. Spoiler However, new research has found an explanation for this apparent discrepancy. The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature. Using information from the satellites, the scientists, Dr Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research company, developed a new method of correcting for the changes. And what they found was startling. The rate of warming was about a third higher at 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade between 1976 and 2016, compared to 0.134C per decade. Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset. “This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde [weather balloon] data.” In an article on the Carbon Brief website about the new research, data scientist Dr Zeke Hausfather said it showed an even faster rate of warming since 1998 – at nearly 140 per cent – than previous satellite-based studies. “Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced that observational data collected on the Earth’s surface,” he said. READ MORE Delaware-sized iceberg set to send Trump message about global warming “This new correction to the … data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than predicted in most climate models.” Dr Hausfather explained the problem with interpreting climate data from satellites due to their subtly changing orbit. “As these satellites circle the Earth, their orbits slowly decay over time due to drag from the upper atmosphere,” “While the satellites are designed to fly over the same spot on the Earth at the same time every day – a precondition to accurately estimating changes in temperatures over time – this orbital decay causes their flyover time to change. “Some satellites have fairly large orbital drifts, going from measuring temperatures at 2pm to 6pm or 8pm. “Since the temperature changes since 1979 are on the order of 0.6C or so, it is relatively easy for bias, due to changing observation times, to swamp the underlying climate signal.” Surface temperature records, Dr Hausfather added, “all tend to agree quite closely with each other, despite different groups using different datasets”. “Unlike the satellite temperature record, where only a few satellites are measuring temperatures at any given point of time, there is a large amount of redundancy in surface temperature observations, with multiple independent sets of data producing consistent results,” he said. “Therefore, it is not too surprising that corrections to problems with satellite data would move them closer to surface records.”
EPA chief pushing governmentwide effort to question climate change science Pablo Martinez Monsivais, The Associated Press EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt points as he answers questions from members of the media during the daily briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, June 2, 2017. The Trump administration is debating whether to launch a governmentwide effort to question the science of climate change, an effort that critics say is an attempt to undermine the long-established consensus human activity is fueling the Earth’s rising temperatures. The move, driven by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, has sparked a debate among top Trump administration officials over whether to pursue such a strategy. A senior White House official, who asked for anonymity because no final decision has been made, said that while Pruitt has expressed interest in the idea, “there are no formal plans within the administration to do anything about it at this time.” Pruitt first publicly raised the idea of setting up a “red team-blue team” effort to conduct exercises to test the idea that human activity is the main driver of recent climate change in an interview with Breitbart in early June. “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2,” Pruitt said in an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollack. But officials are discussing whether the initiative would stretch across numerous federal agencies that rely on such science, according to multiple Trump administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement has been made. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who once described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess,” also is involved in the effort, two officials said. The idea, according to one senior administration official, is “to get other federal agencies involved in this exercise on the state of climate science” to examine “what we know, where there are holes, and what we actually don’t know.” Other agencies could include the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA, according to the official, all of which conduct climate research in some capacity. EPA officials on Friday declined to comment, and DOE could not immediately be reached for comment. A plethora of scientific assessments over the years have concluded that human activity – such as the burning of fossil fuels – is driving climate change, and it poses grave risks both to the environment and to human health. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is “extremely likely” that, since the 1950s, humans and their greenhouse gas emissions have been the “dominant cause” of the planet’s warming trend. The Kinderdijk windmills are the real deal, and they’re a must-see on any trip to Holland JUNE 29, 2017Climate change in the U.S. could help the rich and hurt the poor JUNE 28, 2017Utah officials blame lack of logging for major wildfire JUNE 28, 2017Trump administration moves to withdraw clean-water rule JUNE 26, 2017Coal on the rise in China, U.S., India after major 2016 drop But that conclusion, shared by the vast majority of experts in the United States and around the world, has done little to stop Pruitt, Perry and other administration officials from raising doubts. The idea of a “red-team blue-team” exercise stems in part from a Wall Street Journal commentary by New York University professor Steven Koonin. E&E News on Friday reported that Pruitt intended to formalize the “red team, blue team” effort to challenge mainstream climate science. But should Perry and other agency leaders join the effort, the move would embed the Trump administration’s approach to climate science across the government in a very public way. Kelly Levin, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute’s major emerging economies objective, wrote in a blog post last month that the kind of adversarial process Pruitt is advocating is better suited for policy debates than for scientific findings. Scientific arguments, she wrote, are mediated through a peer-review process in which experts in the same field evaluate one another’s work. “Scientific understanding, unlike proposals for what to do about a given problem, is well established through the scientific method,” wrote Levin, noting that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers on climate change support the idea that humans play a contributing factor. “If skeptics want their voices heard in scientific discourse, they should try to get their findings published in the peer-reviewed literature. They would then be assessed on their merits through peer review.” Some members of EPA’s scientific rank-and-file, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, questioned Pruitt’s plan. “It’s an obvious attempt to cast doubt on climate science under the guise of a common sense-sounding process,” said one EPA employee who focuses on climate issues. “But of course, we already have a process for scrutiny of the science – the peer review process is a much more robust assessment of scientific integrity than a childish color war.” The employee called the effort “incredibly insulting” and said it red team-blue team idea “is a weaker process than we already have in place for peer review and scientific assessment.” The efforts to question the existing science on climate change has raised questions both within the government and among industry officials about whether Pruitt intends to try to roll back the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which determined that greenhouse gases posed a risk to public health and created the basis for Obama-era regulations on emissions from power plants, automobiles and other sources. Two people with knowledge of the red team-blue team undertaking – one inside the Trump administration and one lobbyist – said its purpose was not explicitly to help target the agency’s 2009 finding that emissions of greenhouse gases linked to climate change constitute as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, though that idea is still under discussion among administration officials President Donald Trump questioned the link between human activity multiple times during the 2016 campaign, though he has not addressed the issue directly since his inauguration. In his most recent remarks, in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace in December, Trump said that “nobody really knows” if climate change is real. After the president announced a month ago that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, multiple reporters have asked White House officials to clarify the president’s views on climate science. But they have declined to do so. Pruitt’s EPA also took down an agency website in late April that was focused on climate change, and highlighted the scientific consensus that it is caused by humans.