Finding Fault With Anti-Fracking Science Claims 505
A widely carried Associated Press article (here, as run by the Wall Street Journal) reports that some of the convincingly scientific-sounding claims of opponents of fracking don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. That's not to say that all is peaches: the article notes, for instance, that much of the naturally radioactive deep water called flowback forced up along with fracking-extracted gas "was once being discharged into municipal sewage treatment plants and then rivers in Pennsylvania," leading to concern about pollution of public water supplies. Public scrutiny and regulation mean that's no longer true. But specific claims about cancer rates, and broader ones about air pollution or other ills, are not as objective as they might appear to be, according to Duke professor Avner Vengosh and others. An excerpt: "One expert said there's an actual psychological process at work that sometimes blinds people to science, on the fracking debate and many others. 'You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them,' said Mark Lubell, the director of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior at the University of California, Davis. Lubell said the situation, which happens on both sides of a debate, is called 'motivated reasoning.' Rational people insist on believing things that aren't true, in part because of feedback from other people who share their views, he said."
Ladies and gentlemen (Score:2, Informative)
we're screwed [youtube.com]
Sad saga. (Score:4, Informative)
The sad thing in this whole saga is that we can actually source a large amount of our demand for natural gas from our own waste using technology which has been known for centuries. Instead, we simply choose to landfill our waste. What a waste.
We actually have the technology today to source almost all our needs for natural gas in environmentally sound ways. That there are crazy subsidies on continuing the status quo means that the environment loses.
The best thing that any government can do for the environment is to eliminate all subsidies.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, this is true in the most recent victory for fracking: drilling where I live in North Carolina, specifically Durham, and Chatham counties. The oil industry wrote this bill, and the Republicans, with one unwitting Democrat, passed it over our governor's veto.
Now, I'm not against fracking, done responsibly, and if we get something for it. A law I would support would have a public commission with over 50% of it's members voted into the position from counties where fracking occurs. It would have public meetings, and make public exactly what is being pumped into our ground. It would have tough penalties for frackers who pollute our ground water, and the city, county, and state would be free to levy taxes on natural gas profits.
That's not what we got. Thanks to NC redneck Republicans, we're simply a slutty high school girl begging for any boy with a penis to have a good time. They are keeping all records secret for two years in an ongoing way that insures no public information will ever be timely enough to do anything about any crap that happens. The board will meet in secret as often as they like, and are appointed by the Charmain of the House and Governor, who will most likely be Republican when the time comes. The law explicitly forbids the government from informing the public about what chemicals are being pumped into the ground. If you don't want fracking on your land, your neighbor is allowed to force you to, with nothing more that a board rubber stamp. All local laws are automatically revoked if they interfere with fracking. Only a stupid $30K one-time tax can be levied per well by a county, and the law has no state taxes at all for the oil guys.
If that's not enough to give every fracker out there a boner, we also sweetened the deal with a big fat pay-back to T-Bone Pickens, who will get millions for installing natural gas infrastructure in NC. I wouldn't have a problem with this, except T-Bone is a big Republican backer, who just bought himself another fat state contract.
LOL, yeah (Score:3, Informative)
Its easy to pass off all the examples of polluted water and air is all. "Oh, well, you Mr Treehugger guy, your well was skanky all along, you're just blaming us for it, PROVE that you actually had drinkable water last year."
I mean, yes, there's annecdote, but there's also a lot of plain old evidence that fraking in contaminating acquifers. Just because some geologists say "gosh that's unlikely" means jack. They can't prove much about what the actual state of these different strata buried 1000's of feet deep actually is either. It is all guesswork and counter-claims on all sides at very best.
Still, when my family gets sick and my water burns and it starts right after you frak your gas wells, ummmmmmm, gosh, yeah, I'm just biased if I blame it on the fraking! ROFLMAO!
Re:One Sided science (Score:3, Informative)
The problem here is that reality doesn't give a fuck about middle ground or accommodation. If AGW is happening, and the vast majority of experts say it is, then you're rather disingenuous attempt at being "reasonable" is utterly worthless in the long run.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
The rational for the creation of the Department of Energy was to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy supplies. The thing is, since the establishment of the Department of Energy, the U.S. has become significantly more dependent on foreign energy supplies. That means that the Department of Energy has been a complete failure at the mission for which it was created (or at least the mission which was claimed to be the reason it was created).
Re:Flaming tap water (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what your point is here.
I remember hearing on tv / radio (NPR) reports of flammable tap water 30 years ago.
Normal? No, I don't think anybody is making this claim.
Naturally-occuring in some places? Yes.
Re:One Sided science (Score:5, Informative)
J. M. Murphy, et al., "Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations", Nature 430: 768-772, 2004
J. M. Murphy, et al., "A methodology for probabilistic predictions of regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 1993-2028, 2007
D. A. Stainforth, et al., "Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2145-2161, 2007
P. A. Stott and C. E. Forest, "Ensemble climate predictions using climate models and observational constraints", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2029-2052, 2007
C. Tebaldi and R. Knutti, "The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2053-2075, 2007
J. D. Annan and J. C. Hargreaves, "Efficient estimation and ensemble generation in climate modelling", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2077-2088, 2007
M. New, et al., "Challenges in using probabilistic climate change information for impact assessments: An example from the water sector", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2117-2131, 2007
H. Huebener, et al. "Ensemble climate simulations using a fully coupled ocean–troposphere–stratosphere general circulation model", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365: 2089-2101, 2007
S. H. Schneider and M. D. Mastrandrea, "Probabilistic assessment of 'dangerous' climate change and emissions pathways", Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 102: 15728-15735, 2005
F. Giorgi and R. Francisco, "Evaluating uncertainties in the prediction of regional climate change", Geophys. Res. Lett 27: 1295-1298, 2000
M. R. Allen and W. J. Ingram, "Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle", Nature 419, 224-232, 2002
M. R. Allen, et al., Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change", Nature 417: 617-620, 2000
F. Giorgi and L. O. Mearns, "Probability of regional climate change based on the Reliability Ensemble Averaging (REA) method", Geophys. Res. Lett. 30: 1629, 2003
N. G. Andronova and M. E. Schlesinger, "Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity", J. Geophys. Res. 106: 22605-22612, 2001
C. E. Forest, et al., "Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations", Science 295: 113-117, 2002
R. Knutti, et al., "Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles", Nature 416: 719-723, 2002
J. Gregory, et al., "An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity", J. Clim. 15: 3117-3121, 2002
R. J. Stouffer and S. Manabe, "Response of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: sensitivity to the rate of increase", J. Clim. 12: 2224-2237, 1999
D. A. Stainforth, et al., "Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases", Nature 433: 403-406, 2005
J. Reilly, et al., "Uncertainty in climate change assessments", Science 293: 430-433, 2001
V. D. Pope, et al., "The impact of new physical parameterisations in the Hadley Centre climate model - HadAM3", Clim. Dyn. 16: 123–146, 2000
K. D. Williams, et al., "Transient climate change in the Hadley centre models: The role of physical processes" J. Clim. 14: 2659–2674 2001
G. C. Hegerl, et al., "Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature reconstructions over the past seven centuries", Nature 440: 1029-1032, 2006
C. Piani, et al., "Constraints on climate change from a multi-thousand member ensemble of simulations", Geophys. Res. Lett. 32: L32825, 2005
D. N. Barnett, et al., "Quantifying uncertainty in changes in extreme event frequency in response to doubled CO2 using a large ensemble of GCM simulations", Clim. Dyn. 26: 489-511, 2006
C. Tebaldi and B. Sanso, "Joint project
Re:Flaming tap water (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Answering your own question (Score:5, Informative)
Where was the fault with the anti-fracking science that led to these regulations?
RTFA. Despite extensive testing there was never any detectable radioactivity in public water sources. The regulations were put in place because of emotion, not science.
Re:One Sided science (Score:5, Informative)
Also, as someone who has written comment papers for Science, Nature, and PNAS, I can say that the reviewers are accepting, considering that science is an ongoing pursuit, provided you can present reasonable claims. For example, aside from the recent bout of arsenic-based life papers, i.e., M. L. Reaves, et al., "Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells", Science, 2012 (accepted, in press) and T. J. Erb, et al., "GFAJ-1 is an arsenate-resistant, phosphate-dependent organism", Science 2012 (accepted, in press), a semi-controversial topic, at least in geoscience, is the existence of the Younger Dryas impact event:
R. B. Firestone, et al., "Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling", PNAS 104: 16016-16021, 2007
D. J. Kennett, et al., "Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer", Science 323: 94, 2009
T. E. Bunch, et al., "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago", PNAS 109: E1903-E1912, 2012
i.e., a large impact or airburst some 12.9 Ka wiped out the Clovis people, a large number of species, etc.
Although, initially, the hypothesis had merit, several researchers have since shown that many of the original conclusions are unsupported:
F. S. Paquay, et al., "Absence of geochemical evidence for an impact event at the Bølling-Allerød/Younger Dryas transition", PNAS 106: 21505-21510, 2009
T. L. Daulton, et al., "No evidence of nanodiamonds in Younger-Dryas sediments to support an impact event", PNAS 107: 16043-16047, 2010
T. Surovell, et al., "An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis", PNAS 106: 18155-18158, 2010
H. Tian, et al., "Nanodiamonds do not provide unique evidence for a Younger Dryas impact", PNAS 108: 40-44, 2011
J. S. Pigati, et al., "Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis", PNAS 109: 7208-7212, 2012
A. van Hoesel, et al., "Nanodiamonds and wildfire evidence in the Usselo horizon postdate the Allerød-Younger Dryas boundary", PNAS 109: 7648-7653, 2012
(see also: J. R. Marlon, et al., "Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America", PNAS 106: 2519-2524, 2009
A. L. Westerling, et al., "Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity", Science 313: 940-943, 2006
T. W. Swetnam, "Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves", Science 262: 885-889, 1993
A. Hubbe, et al., "Early Holocene survival of megafauna in South America". J. Biogeography 34: 1642-1646, 2007
A. J. Stuart, et al., "Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth". Nature 431: 684-689, 2004
J. L. Gill, et al., "Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America". Science 326: 1100-1103, 2009)
In all of these cases, the authors were able to provide counter-proposals to some of the evidence that satisfied the journal reviewers, e.g., H. Tian, et al. showed that the existence of nanodiamonds alone does not provide sufficient evidence for a Younger Dryas impact, as nanodiamonds can be deposited by stellar dust (Z. R. Dai, et al., "Possible in situ formation of meteoritic nanodiamonds in the early solar system", Nature 418: 157-159, 2002; N. A. Marks, et al., "Nonequilibrium route to nanodiamond with astrophysical implications", Phys. Rev. Lett. 108: 075503, 2012), formed in charred wood (F. Banhart and P. M. Ajayan, "Carbon onions as nanoscopic pressure cells for diamond formation", Nature 382: 433-435, 1996), etc., while, van Hoesel showed that nanodiamonds in sediment layers from multiple areas postdate the Younger Dryas boundary.
Re:Flaming tap water (Score:3, Informative)
In the farming community I grew up on 40 years ago, it was relatively common for some natural gas to come up with the tap water in some wells. South Western Ontario, Canada. No fracking back in those days.
Re:One Sided science (Score:3, Informative)
The editors of the literature are just as politicized and refuse to publish studies that say the earth is not warming, or that the earth is warming, but still a lot cooler than 2000 years ago.
I laughed really hard at this comment, considering this paper was posted a while back: J. Esper, et al., "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data", Nature Clim. Change, 2012 (accepted, in press). (I'm sure that the editors at Nature are quickly moving to reject the article in light of your comment, lest they be accused of favoring concrete evidence over their own opinions.)
Re:Reasoning, motivated or not (Score:5, Informative)
And they were far from the only school to predict the burst of the dot.com bubble. They were also exactly wrong on the effects of monetary policy under Greenspan. There are plenty of etc. The best use for Austrian economics is to predict how gold bugs will invest, because a large percentage of gold bugs believe in it. Same for "Technical analysis" predicting chartists.
Duke - University built from Tobacco fortunes (Score:5, Informative)
Duke - Historical center of the attack against medical evidence proving smoking and second-hand smoke was hazardous to one's health
Re:It's called "Confirmation Bias" (Score:4, Informative)
The talking point is true, your statement is point blank false.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Probably not, actually. 'Tho my personal view is that both "parties" may as well be one and are roughly equally evil ("how would you like to be screwed over today, sir?") ... I listened to the vote as it happened, and it was pretty clearly a "oh no... I hit the wrong button" moment. Then the majority used some parlimentary trickery to prevent a reconsideration vote (which I believe they could have done, since a supposedly anti-fracking person voted for it and everyone can vote to reconsider...), and then, despite a clearly ambiguous voice vote, they closed the session and re-opened a new one at 12:05 a.m. instead of waiting until morning... just to affirm the previous day's actions into law and half-heartedly debate one bill before giving up 20 minutes later.
Also, there was another Democrat who definitely traded her vote... something about tax breaks for the film industry in eastern Carolina made her change her tune from anti-fracking to pro-fracking that night. A terrible combination of unfortunate circumstances I say.
The worst part is that NC has so little natural gas that it seems really pointless. That, and they're going to be doing it under a freaking Nuclear power plant (slated to be expanded to 3 units soon, but with Duke at the helm now ... save us all). I look forward to the day when a mild seismic event occurs and triggers a week long "oops we just lost 3GW of baseload to an automatic SCRAM" event.
Re:One Sided science (Score:4, Informative)
Which one? The models keep getting changed every time the predictions fail to match what the climate is actually doing.
Are you saying we should just adapt one final climate model and refrain from improving it when new evidence comes along?
It appears you fundamentally misunderstand climate models, thinking they're statistical models doing curve fitting rather than the physical models that they are. Here's a couple of FAQ's to help enlighten you:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/ [realclimate.org]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/ [realclimate.org]
Re:Motiviated reasoning? (Score:5, Informative)
The greatest fracking risk is a substantive earthquake in a major fracking field creative a deep vertical fault through large numbers of artificial gas and toxic water filled horizontal faults all under pressure and releasing it all to the environment in a huge explosive and poisonous rush. So basically all fracking fields in earthquake zones are ticking poisonous fuel air time bombs, buried under the feet of millions of Americans now at risk, not a matter of if just when they will go off.
That's true if the energy put into the ground were to accumulate. I suppose in the very short term, that may be true, but in the medium term (like a couple of months to a couple of years max), these producing wells are not only returning essentially all of the pressurized frac water, plus pressurized salt water from the production zone, plus pressurized natural gas, plus maybe pressurized hydrocarbon liquids. Dead-simple economics would make it clear that if you are spending more energy to insert the pressurized frac water than the energy you can recover, the well will not make the investors any money. The reason why this sector of the energy market has really taken off over the last 30 years isn't because it is a net loss, I can assure you. Therefore, the net energy "buried under the feet of millions of Americans", as you so vividly put it, isn't really increasing as you seem to think it is, at least not directly from the frac-ing that goes on in order to produce oil and (natural) gas. The net energy underground is diminishing as we depressurize reservoirs, not building up as you imagine. Also, to highlight a very important point, frac-ing a well is done for the purpose of liberating oil and natural gas from rock that would not naturally release them in commercial quantities. Oil and natural gas are being produced from less-and-less readily available reservoirs. The low-hanging fruit has been picked, as it were, so we have to work harder and harder to produce from less-and-less easy reservoirs. Frac-ing is one of the technologies which makes this possible.
People are just flat-out hysterical and wrongheaded about so much of this. What people *should* be scrutinizing is the injection wells. These are wells which are either drilled for the purpose of water (produced formation saltwater and recovered frac water) disposal, or which are repurposed (old) production wells which are no longer commercially viable. These wells *are* potentially subject to the buildup you describe, and therefore are at least theoretically/potentially long-term dangerous. Now, in old oil-producing country, these disposal wells and the geology underlying them tend to have been pretty well-understood for a long time now. The reasonably-safe disposal of produced salt water has been going on for a loooong time now. Particularly with repurposed old production wells, you are injecting water back where you have already greatly reduced the reservoir pressure, so in a way, you are restoring things closer to the way they used to be prior to human intervention.
Standing between a doomsday I-can-imagine-it-so-it's-a-real-danger scenario and life as we know it are some things people may not know. First, hydraulic fracturing is designed to break down (create cracks in) rock that contains hydrocarbons, so those hydrocarbons can be released. This is done at a few thousand pounds of pressure with a few thousand horsepower of pump. Since the fracturing pressure falls away pretty quickly in the 3-d rock formation (stands to reason it's a distance-cubed pressure decline), increasing the size/pressure of a frac job one order of magnitude is going to take three orders of magnitude increase in pressure pumping capacity. So where we are now, technically, is probably essentially where we will be for the forseeable future, in terms of energy we're pumping downhole. Capability-wise, just so we're all clear, current technology can fracture out up to several hundred feet from the drilled (and cased and cemented) hole.
Second,
Re:One Sided science (Score:5, Informative)
To elaborate, uncertainties or errors in numerical models limit the utility of projections from any individual model. As a result, ensemble approaches have been proposed in an attempt to estimate the uncertainty in short-term predictions (F. Molteni, et al., "The ECMWF ensemble predictions system: Methodology and validation", Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122: 73-119, 2006), which work by first measuring the prediction uncertainties and then tracing them back to model biases and errors.
Of course, a component of any projection system should be a suite of models that sample natural variability, forcing uncertainty and uncertainties in the underlying physical processes which drive regional and global climate change. Two approaches that have been adopted in recent years are the ensemble-of-opportunity (G. A. Meehl, et al., "The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: A new era in climate change research", Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 88: 1383-1394, 2007) and the perturbed-physics ensemble (J. M. Murphy, et al., "Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations", Nature 430: 768-772, 2004), with the latter being preferred.
One of the key strengths of the perturbed physics approach is the ability to produce a large number of ensemble members in a relatively easy way, as it is possible to control the experimentation and systematically explore uncertainties in processes and feedbacks. For example, it is possible to produce a set of experiments where the input forcing data is the same in each experiment, but the parameters which control, say, the climate sensitivity of the model are varied, which allows for different sources of uncertainty to be isolated. As well, it is possible to explore a wide range of feedback processes in the model by de-tuning it, potentially revealing the impact of previous compensating errors; such de-tuning can ameliorate the potential for double-counting when constraining the models with observations, i.e., the assigning of a relative likelihood to different model versions based on observed data that has been used in their development.
To give some specifics, the model employed by Murphy, et al. uses a total of 31 parameters, e.g., mid-top thin cloud percent, low-top thin cloud percent, zonal mean relative humidity cloud percent, sea-ice extent, outgoing SW radiation at TOA, diurnal temperature range, latent heat flux, mean sea level pressure, and climate prediction index, with perturbations done to a single parameter at a time, either to the minimum or maximum of the range specified in consultation with modeling experts/the literature or on/off. This resulted in 53 different model versions, including the standard parameter setting as defined by Gordon et al. ("The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transport in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments", Clim. Dyn. 16: 147-168, 2000) and Pope et al. ("The impact of new physical parameterizations in the Hadley Centre climate model-HadAM3", Clim. Dyn. 16: 123-146, 2000). Further, in this design, if a perturbation in one physical scheme has an impact on a process or model variable that is also related to another there can be no compensation achieved by perturbing a related parameter, as might be done in the model development process. As a result, this single-perturbation approach can be thought of as the simplest form of model de-tuning (T. F. Stocker, "Climate change: Models change their tune", Nature 430: 737-738, 2004), in that there is no attempt to a priori maximize the model performance when compared to observations (it should be stressed that no systematic tuning of model performance was done to produce the standard parameter settings).
Later on, however, others moved to simultaneous perturbation (M. J. Webb, et al., "On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to
Re:One Sided science (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he is right to a degree. The raw data to a lot of the base studies which is primarily used for all global warming research was deleted which created a firestorm because it was the subject of numerous FOI requests. The raw data is manipulated on purpose to normalize the output into something useful. This manipulation process is missing too.
What the op is referring to is this and how it is impossible to recreate the raw numbers and check the normalization processes. No other data set can prove or disprove the original or even the studies created from it and studies that were built on it because they simply won't match. The concealment of this and denial to release it lasted so long that the majority of the IPCC work done is based around studies that reference the results of that data and process.
I disagree with the op's position though as eventually, even with faulty starting or reference data, the theory can be supported or proven wrong. It will take a large amount of time to collect enough contrasting data to get something useful though.
Re:No need, it's already been done (Score:2, Informative)
Or the 1970 (?) climate models which predicted global cooling.
What was the nature and sophistication of climate models back in 1970? [Citations gratefully received].
It is true that of the papers published in the 1970s where a prediction was made as to future change, a minority predicted cooling (Petersen et al. 2008 [google.com]). Oddly enough the majority who were predicting warming, even back then, were proved to be right. This is weird, because the story of the lone scientist, standing up to the corrupt orthodoxy in the field, who is proved right over time, makes for a far more compelling narrative.
Re:If that's pulling a "Dick Cheney" .... (Score:3, Informative)
Worst case scenarios I've read discuss what amounts to some re-arranging of where our coastlines start and where the climate will be more or less comfortable. And considering it's going to happen relatively gradually, it sounds like humanity can largely adapt.
There are plenty of things that can happen due to adverse climate change. For example, agricultural outputs are expected to be lower (anywhere from 8-30% in some areas), which can lead to food crises in developing countries or much higher food prices in developed ones:
D. S. Battisti and R. L. Naylor, "Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat", Science 323: 240-244, 2009
M. E. Brown and C. C. Funk, "Food security under climate change", Science 319: 580-581, 2008
D. B. Lobell, et al., "Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030", Science 319: 607-610, 2008
W. Schlenker and D. B. Lobell, "Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture", Environ. Res. Lett. 5: 014010, 2010
M. B. Burke, et al., "Shifts in African crop climates by 2050, and the implications for crop improvement and genetic resources conservation", Glob. Environ. Change 19: 317-325, 2009
T. W. Hertel, et al., "The poverty implications of climate-induced crop yield changes by 2030", Glob. Environ. Change 20: 577-585, 2010
X. Wei, et al., "Future cereal production in China: The interaction of climate change, water availability and socio-economic scenarios", Glob. Environ. Change 19: 34-44, 2009
F. Tao, et al., "Climate–crop yield relationships at provincial scales in China and the impacts of recent climate trends", Clim. Res. 38: 83-94, 2008
D. B. Lobell, et al., "Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials", Nature Clim. Change 1: 42-45, 2011
D. B. Lobell and G. P. Asner, "Climate and management contributions to recent trends in U.S. agricultural yields" Science 299: 1032, 2003
D. B. Lobell and C. B. Field, "Global scale climate-crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming" Environ. Res. Lett. 2: 014002, 2007
S. P. Long, et al., "Food for thought: Lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations", Science 312: 1918-1921, 2006
J. Memmott, et al., "Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions", Ecol. Lett. 10: 710-717
V. Mishra and K. A. Cherkauer, "Retrospective droughts in the crop growing season: Implications to corn and soybean yield in the midwestern United States", Agric. Meteorol. 150: 1030-1045, 2010
S. Peng, et al., "Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming", PNAS 101: 9971-9975, 2004
W. Schlenker and M. J. Roberts, "Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change", PNAS 106: 15594-15598
S. M. Schrader, et al., "Thylakoid membrane responses to moderately high leaf temperature in Pima cotton", Plant Cell Environ. 27: 725-735
R. Wassmann, et al., "Regional vulnerability of climate change impacts on Asian rice production and scope for adaptation", Adv. Agron. 102: 93-103, 2009
Ph. Ciais, et al., "Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003", Nature 437: 529-533, 2005
E. A. Ainsworth, "Rice production in a changing climate: A meta-analysis of responses to elevated carbon dioxide and elevated ozone concentration", Change Biol. 14: 1642-1650, 2008
E. A. Ainsworth, et al., "FACE-ing the facts: Inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated CO2 impacts on crop yield and food supply", New Phytol. 179: 5-9, 2008
S. Ceccarelli, et al., "Plant breeding and climate changes", J. Agri. Sci. 148: 627-637, 2010
R. M. Doherty, et al., "Implications of future climate and atmospheric CO2 content for regional biogeochemistry, biogeography and ecosystem services across East Africa", Glob. Change Biol. 16: 617-640, 2010
H. F. Zheng, et al., "T
Re:One Sided science (Score:3, Informative)
[...] which clearly shows that the increased water vapour required by the AGW hypothesis doesn't exist.
T. Vonder Haar has previously stated that the preliminary NVAP data cannot disprove a trend in global water vapor either positive or negative, according the null hypothesis; this is also mentioned in the paper you referenced: "The results of Figs. 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a forthcoming paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the supplement. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." As such, your claims are currently unjustified.
Re:And then you circle back around (Score:5, Informative)
oh here we go again... another slashdot discussion ends up in yank partisan bickering.
Please, for the love of all things shiny, stop. Just stop. Both your political parties are exactly the same, and no-one in the rest of the world gives a toss.
Re:It's like a drug to 'em (us) (Score:4, Informative)
Missing the key word "sequestered".
Are you trying to be serious here? Of course, CO2 bound in limestone is sequestered.
Most CO2 bound with limestone has been that way for millions if not billions of years. Most CO2 which has been sequestered from the atmosphere since then however, is not bound to limestone, it's oil.
Nonsense, diatoms and corals still sequester CO2 today into calcium carbonate.