Imagine a giant wood stove at the top of Burnaby Mountain (where my alma mater SFU is situated).
Imagine all the CO2. Imagine all the smoke.
It appears the idiots running SFU hate air quality in Vancouver and the lower mainland.
“The district energy system will produce energy using locally sourced biomass that would otherwise be destined for local landfills. It could include urban wood waste (from tree cuttings and trimmings), uncontaminated wood waste (such as wood chips from sawmills and shavings), and clean construction wood waste.”
If we know anything about wood waste we know:
- They will run out of wood waste and start burning whole trees
- There will be more CO2 produced than if they were burning coal (let alone natural gas)
- There will be more particulate matter than if they are burning clean natural gas.
Oh no … what a surprise …
Researchers at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering looked at the emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, which are smaller and more efficient than traditional petrol engines.
Car manufacturers have adopted GDI engines in models to satisfy demand for more miles per gallon, and increased power output. According to the team, the number of GDI engines found in new cars between 2009 and 2015 has jumped to from five per cent to 46 per cent.
But their analysis revealed while carbon dioxide emissions were lower in GDI engines, they pumped out more soot and harmful organic compounds such as benzene and toluene.
‘The whole motivation for creating these engines in the first place was fuel efficiency. But what we haven’t considered are the other climate-related emissions,’ explained Professor Greg Evans, an engineer and applied chemist at Toronto.
‘If a vehicle emits a small amount of soot, it can completely negate the lower amount of CO2 that it’s emitting.‘
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3688189/Not-green-Fuel-efficient-cars-churning-pollutants-previously-thought.html
Wait. It isn’t CO2 causing an early spring?
Human use of artificial light is causing spring to come at least a week early in the UK, researchers at the University of Exeter in Cornwall have found.
New research led by a team of biologists based at the University’s Penryn campus highlights for the first time and at a national scale the relationship between the amount of artificial night-time light and the date of budburst in woodland trees.
The study, the result of a long term collaboration with independent environmental consultants Spalding Associates, in Truro, made use of data collected by citizen scientists from across the UK, after the Woodland Trust asked them to note down when they first saw sycamore, oak, ash and beech trees in leaf as part of the charity’s Nature’s Calendar initiative. The research team analysed this, information, correlated with satellite images of artificial lighting.
The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that buds were bursting by up to 7.5 days earlier in brighter areas and that the effect was larger in later budding trees.
The arctic is greening. So says NASA. Its probably all that extra CO2.
Scientists from America’s space agency have found that nearly a third of the land cover in Canada and Alaska has greened in recent decades as a result of climate change.
As the far north warms as a result of climate changes, plants are moving north as well, “greening” the far north.
It also shows that the boreal forest is “browning” as a result of hotter and drier weather.
Greening is unmistakeable
NASA analyzed some 87,000 images captured by the Landsat satellite showing a trend towards much more plant life across the north. Their findings were reported in the science publication Journal of Remote Sensing under the title- The vegetation greenness trend in Canada and US Alaska from 1984–2012 Landsat data.
The data shows that about a third of the previously mostly barren tundra had become covered with plants. Areas that were previously grassland showed small shrubs had moved in, and in turn larger shrubs then took over even as the grasslands and other small plants moved further north.
The article also says:
a warming Arctic could release massive amounts of carbon stored in the Arctic soil and permafrost
Hey! Doesn’t more vegetation suck CO2 out of the air and store it in the ground?
A new paper is out trying to explain why Antarctica isn’t warming.
“These findings suggest the Southern Ocean responds to greenhouse gas forcing on the centennial, or longer, timescale over which the deep ocean waters that are upwelled to the surface are warmed themselves. It is against this background of gradual warming that multidecadal Southern Ocean temperature trends must be understood.
There is a little name calling aimed at deniers (who happen to be right)
Those who said there was a conundrum were just deniers. It’s right there in the press release, paragraph two:
The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers.
Which rather begs the question: If there was a conundrum then the skeptics who pointed it out were not deniers, but correct. And if there was no conundrum, and deniers were denying something, then this is not a new finding at all. Alternately perhaps some researchers “knew” the answer they were going to find, and the other researchers, who can’t see the future, are deniers?
But the thought that came to me was … if there have been episodes of global warming in the past that last a few hundred years …. the ice cores would have missed them completely. Right?
Lets parse a couple of statements from this article:
April’s carbon dioxide level of 407.42 was a record 2.59 ppm rise from March.
More plant life caused by warmer weather caused by El Nino. OK.
Carbon dioxide levels are cyclical, peaking in May and then dropping until fall.
OK. More vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere (which has more land mass) dominates the annual cycle.
That’s on top of a steady 2.5 to 3 ppm yearly increase from the burning of fossil fuels, which means each year the world sets new record for levels of heat-trapping gas in the air.
What if more vegetation = more plant life which means more CO2?
How much of that 2.5 to 3 ppm is more plant life?