KaiserJeep wrote:The point is that they pretty much wiped out all the weeds in the area, and today few chemicals are required. Much press has been made about the corn bred to tolerate the herbicide "RoundUp", but that was preffered over a decade ago, today they use varieties designed to maximize the corn sweetener yield that produces ethanol followed by cattle feed. Weeds that used to be common can't be found for miles around. The usual rotation would be corn-corn-soybean-wheat-soybean.
Although we cannot assume that climate change is a significant factor in every wildfire scenario, these Arctic fire seasons showed clear indications of such influence. Along with 12 other scientists, Scott Rupp, a wildfire ecologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and university director of the Interior Department’s Alaska Climate Science Center, spent months poring over data that may theoretically link the wildfires of 2015 to anthropogenic climate change.
Remove regional warming from the picture, they concluded, and the forests of Alaska would very likely not have burned as severely as they did.
You might have to look at what it takes to be a major feedback loop. As large as these fires and the ones in California are they are short term events but the emissions from them pale in comparison to the yearly human emissions from the use of 13,700 megatons oil equivalent of energy 80 percent of which is coal oil and natural gas.onlooker wrote:Dohboi, so is this now a major feedback going on, with the fires and the fauna and forests being sources of CO2 rather than sinks? Thanks for the kudos.
onlooker wrote:V, your point in general is true, but I was referring to the term feedback as in self-reinforcing. A terms primarily used I think in the natural world. Human emissions per say are not self reinforcing. Unless you ascribe to humans the inability to change our behavior and if you do as in relates to CO2 emissions you may be right.
dohboi wrote:vt is actually right, right now.
dohboi wrote:Sooo, I guess I got the "right, right..." part right, then??![]()
Newfie wrote:My observation is that because the effects of cc are stronger the further North you go people in Northern regions are less likely to be deniers.
Florida,OTOH, Has forbidden public employees from discussing cc.
EPA pulls scientists out of climate change conference talk
Washington (CNN)The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled speaking appearances by three of its scientists set to speak at a Rhode Island conference Monday.
The New York Times first reported that the agency scientists, who were expected to address climate change during their talks to present a 500-page report, were removed from the program at the request of the EPA on Friday. An EPA official told Tom Borden, the program director for the conference, that the scientists would not be allowed to speak, according to the Times.
The EPA clarified in a statement that scientists would be present but not speak......
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/23/politics/ ... index.html
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 298 guests