Peak Oil News and Message Boards

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.

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.

I think you seriously lack experience with real crop farmers. Otherwise your statement is a very poor attempt at humor.

Another way to look at Ibon's stats is that humans and their livestock represent the largest uniform masses of meat food sources on the planet.

Some clever bug or bugs are certainly going to figure out a way of taking advantage of this carnivorous bugs' bonanza eventually!

ho hum, Arctic on fire. Nothing to see here.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2017/10/12/arctic-fire

Good catch, ol.

Here's the takeaway paragraph:

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.

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: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.

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.
From a propane stove cooking a meal in Nigeria to Al Gore's get flying his butt to yet another conference it all adds up and the daily and yearly totals are huge and make any single event small potatoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

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.

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.

Human emissions are used to support a better lifestyle which leads to a growing population which leads to even greater emissions so yes I think that is the ultimate feedback loop that dwarfs all others.

vt is actually right, right now.

At 40 some billion tons a year of human-generated CO2 plus a few more billions worth from other ghgs, humans are still the main 'feedback.'

But we are seeing the beginnings of feedbacks that have the potential to go beyond even our current output, and certainly that could go beyond the reduced output we are likely to produce after either collapse or sudden universal enlightenment

Of course, I do differ from some here in pointing out that 'collapse' may entail even more mayhem and war, which can produce great quantities of ghg's indeed, so I don't hold great hopes out for some kind of collapse saving anything in particular. And of course as readily available food disappears for more and more people, scavenging anything and everything that is remotely edible left on the planet will likely further doom even more species to extinction before we finally take that final turn into oblivion.

dohboi wrote:vt is actually right, right now.

Only right now?
I of course think I'm right most of the time and a few including my wife think I'm right about half the time but it is safe to say that I am very seldom left.

Sooo, I guess I got the "right, right..." part right, then??

dohboi wrote:Sooo, I guess I got the "right, right..." part right, then??

Affirmative!!

This is a good series keeping us updated on the latest climate mayhem around the world:

Climate & Extreme Weather News #74

https://www.youtube.com/embed/dSd6skL0B5A

70's and 80's in Minnesota in late October...not 'normal'...but what is anymore?

p, I hope you know that we all hate you for living in a paradise that is among the least likely to be the most horribly affected by gw.

Enjoy it all while you can...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPd_awQuH4o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_dBBUYln4

Article below about British Columbia's fire season (worst on record), how the emissions from these fires are greater than the emissions from any other sector in BC, adding 190 million tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Also explains how climate change is evident in these fires, just as it was in the Fort McMurray fire last year - increasing temperatures, dryness, wind, all creating explosive material with which to fuel these fires.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4259306

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.

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.

It's not just Florida.

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

Regardless of the science the Trump administration cant have Hillary supporting hold overs from the Obama administration running around stabbing him in the back at every opportunity and certainly not in the guise of official policy.