Another misconceptions is that climate change as we project it now is something which was less dramatic, less threatening in the past. Mass extinction of species may have occured several times due to climate changes in geologic history. Furthermore, it is most likely that we do not understand all parameters their interaction, feedback mechanism etc that could interfere with potential future climate changes. We judge presently based on C02 equivalents of natural changes and our human activites, interventions. The misperception here may be that we assume that we have considered all factors and options that control climate change.

i think one of that, may be is ignoring lot of factor in drought index to predict or assessment of drought index in region.

Well, to me the greatest misconception is largely attributing climate change to human influence and ignore the huge influence of the natural factors. The natural role of oceans on climates cannot be overemphasised given their overwhelming coverage (70%). Humanity's contribution could be insignificant...we may be misdirecting our efforts and at the end lose the war against climate change.

Main ones -

1 Underestimation of the role of the sun

2 Climate change is really weather change

3 Underestimation of the role of volcanic eruptions in regional warming and cooling

A "war" is necessary...yes but it does not mean trying to reverse climatic vagaries but to adapt to the changes so that humanity does not become easily vulnerable.

The huge misconception anyone can have is we are the first to know or suffer due to climate change but the fact is climate change happend many times on earth. The challenge is to know what can be the normal rate of climate change so that we can define everything according to it.

Everyone talks about climate change, but most of them do nothing about it.

So if you think, you are contributing to this increasing entropy by any mean, then even little things of our daily routine can make a difference.

Sustaining the basic components of earth i.e land, water and quality of air will eventually lead to a fruitful climate.

& if you don't consider yourself as one of the contributing factor, then it's not even the matter worth discussing.

With Due Respect Kenneth M Towe

I am well acquainted with the concept of sustainablity.

It's Your generation that has exhausted most of the natural resources,

It's your age group President that has pulled out of the Paris Agreement.

If switching partly towards renewable sources of energy to undo the damages you have done, whats the harm?

Would you let the future generations to live their life span in a normal course, or make them vulnerable to some anthropogenic Disasters.

Or are you thinking it like the concept of GOD, which you can just believe but can't see with your eyes.

Well Climate Change is there which you can see and observe with your eyes wide open.

How many times have you experienced category 5 hurricane like MICHAEL in your life span, It was in Florida this year in October,2018

or how many times have you observed 3 Hurricanes at a time in Pacific? Well, IRMA, KATIA, and JOSE were there in September,2017.

& If there are others people and Scientists who believe it as a real threat & are supporting the things like PARIS TO PITTSBURGH, might be doing so on some scientific backgrounds.

& the others who still think that humans are not at all responsible for climate change are either short sighted or have their vision impaired.

Thank You.

https://www.paristopittsburgh.com/

https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies-documentary-paris-pittsburgh-premiering-december-12-9pm-et-pt-national-geographic-draws-support-mayors-activists-celebrities/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/10/12/historic-horrendous-hurricane-michael-by-numbers/?noredirect=on

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/10/10/hurricane-michael-category-4-could-storm-become-category-5/1587922002/

Lots of “misconceptions ” within humans thinking and doing activities my rooting within “ Westphalia systems “ of doing business leading use to so called “global warming “ today’s issue were having to dealing with.

& If it‘s not in the human’s ability, whom do you expect, will do something about it then ?

Are you gonna call some extraterrestrial aliens from another galaxy, to revert back earth’s atmosphere to the conditions, what were back in the previous century?

Or will you mutate yourself to the the conditions that you’ll experience in near future, with these green house gases increasing at stratospheric rate ?

Some Misconceptions

1. Climate change is about increase in temperature only

2. Climate change will be observed during summer only.

3. Climate Change will effect few countries

4. Climate Change is not a process, it is an occasional event and observed some time.

5. Human being cab reverse and will reverse this.

Biggest misconception about climate change is that the current change is small and insignificant and is being governed by natural sources.

The truth of the situation is that issues are not natural currently and they are artificial. They are currently being generated by fossil fuel combustions and the effect are significant and accelerating.

The climate change experts of the IPCC NASA PSA put the blame clearly on fossil fuel combustion and encourage the prudent response as emission reduction and sequestration. Vested fossil fuel interests do not like this reality as it potentially endangers their business as usual business plan.

The climate denier community proliferate a misconception that neither emission control nor sequestration is even possible while the truth show the opposite is true. At the same time the industry itself is investigated these methods and developing them.

The final misconception is that proactive addressing of core issues would cause economic meltdown.

The ability of Great Britain in less than a generation to reduce emissions by about half while maintaining a vigor economy points to erroneous nature of the economic argument.

Biggest misconception by far...

Reduction in CO2 emissions is the solution while ignoring overpopulation and the natural causes of weather/climate change..

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

The following site has compiled the existing 'myths' (?) related to global warming and climate change. Possible scientific explanations have also been incorporated against the myths - What Science says?

There may be debates on the explanations.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Dr Kenneth M Towe

The Hurricane Sandy was 80 years back, and I didn’t expected you as old as a sage, so I duly mentioned that have you experienced such havoc “in your life span“.

And it is quiet apparent from the reports of INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC), that the frequency of Climate change related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, heavy precipitation and coastal flooding, has significantly increased in the recent years, which are expected to increase in future, still you denying the facts.

& Renewable resources are “non-polluting sources of energy like Solar, Wind, Geothermal energy, Rain, Biomass, Biogas, Biofuels like methanol etc” which have potential to replace or enhance fossil energy supply in the sectors like: electricity generation, vehicular fuels, water & space heating and rural (off-grid) energy services, which help in achieving and promoting sustainable developments.

And I am studying agricultural sciences, and different sources says that agricultural sector contribute around 12.5 % only to the greenhouse gas emissions.

And the solutions to control these emissions are broad range adaptation and mitigation options that can reduce GHG emission intensity, improve energy intensity through enhancements of technology, behaviour, production and resource efficiency and enable structural changes or changes in activity.

Like

Resource Conservation Technologies

Precision Farming

Conservation Agriculture

Integrated Farming Systems

Site Specific Nutrient management

Climate smart Agricultural Practices

Integrated Nutrient Management,

Organic Farming

Crop Modelling etc.

In addition, direct options in agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) involve reducing CO2 emissions by reducing deforestation, forest degradation and forest fires; storing carbon in terrestrial systems (for example, through afforestation) etc.

And any recommendations to the farmers are made by the experts and scientists at universities, not by the students. So as for now, I apply these improved farming practices to my agricultural lands only, for better resource management, and can aware my family and other rural masses to do so, to preserve their resource base, instead of Robbing off the wealth of soil for present needs.

& Any individual’s efforts cannot make much difference, but masses can move the earth.

Mr Towe

Give it another try to read

And you’ll get to know

Who’s really making the snide remarks from the beginning

Either you’re still living in your 1950’s era

And haven’t updated your facts till now.

Or you literally have no serious concern about any of this !!

& Thinking it as a social media platform,

Instead of any healthy discussions at all !! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Kenneth M Towe

I can’t say about other industries

But in Agricultural field the tougher actions you’re asking about can be :-

1. The agrochemicals are heavily subsidized (Fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticides), & this kind of subsidy should be removed, as most of the farmers still use the blanket approach to flood the land with heavy fertilizer doses without knowing their negative impacts on the environment, as they deplete soil health, penetrate water sources polluting & causing their eutrophication, harm livestock, deplete stratospheric ozone and devastate natural ecosystems.

The most irrationally used are nitrogenous fertilizers which

either contaminate our Agricultural produce & cause diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes on their consumption

Or enter the water bodies, contaminating the natural aquifers, and consuming such water with toxic levels of nitrates cause methemoglobinemia in infants!!

Nitrous oxide lost due to volatilization in atmosphere is around 300 times more potent than carbondioxide in causing global warming.

So, site specific nutrient application approach should be adopted, based on the Soil testing.

2. The subsidies on installing Solar panels should be raised so farmers can switch from coal based electricity and diesel.

3. A lot of crop residue is burned after the harvesting of crop, & this burning of crop residue leads to the emission of a number of gases and pollutants. Heavy penalty should be imposed on such people who are polluting the environment instead of managing their residue which can add to their income.

This residue can be used to as mulch, which conserves water by reducing evaporation and transpiration. It competes with the weeds. On decomposition, it acts as a source of energy to the soil microbes & also adds nutrients to the soil. It can be used as fodder, or to prepare vermicompost, or in mushroom production, & for production of biofuels, biogas, Biochar etc.

4. Subsidies on instruments used in Conservation Agriculture like Happy seeder, Laser land Leveller, Zero till drill, Pressurized irrigation systems (Drip and Sprinkler irrigation), Combine, Mulcher etc which farmer just don’t want to adopt as they are still fond of their conventional practices which they have followed since they started farming. So the extensions system should be strengthened to timely disseminate the developed agricultural technologies to the end users and to change their mindset, live demonstrations should be conducted at farmer’s field

Although 1st major greenhouse gas emitters from agricultural sector are Livestock, which is mainly due to Enteric fermentation in ruminant animals like cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry, donkeys, camels, horses etc.

Improving livestock feeding practices like, using dietary additives to increase efficiency of the digestive process, improvements in forage quality and quantity, seeding fodder grasses or legumes with higher productivity and deeper roots, should be undertaken to reduce emissions from enteric fermentation.

As Rice is the staple food to a major population on earth, it's cultivation also adds significantly to the total GHG emissions, because of continuous flood irrigated of their fields and these deep submerged rice emit maximum methane per unit area due to the anaerobic conditions in the root zone. So alternate methods like, Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) technique in unpuddled soils, Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting, use of laser land leveling for efficient utilization of water, Leaf colour chart for Nitrogenous fertilizers requirements etc can significantly reduce these emissions.

So basically we can Reduce emissions of Greenhouse Gases by:

Adopting improved cropland management practices :

- Minimal soil disturbance (minimum and zero tillage)

- Contour farming, Strip cropping, Growing Cover crops, Crop Rotation, Mixed Cropping, Mulching, Bunding, Terracing, Windbreaks & Shelterbelts, Organic manure etc

- Drip and sprinkler irrigation & line canals with plastic films, reducing distribution losses of irrigation water etc

- Improved grazing management (e.g. Stocking rate management, rotational grazing) can reduce emissions from volatilization of organic soil carbon.

- Integrated nutrient management can reduce emissions by reducing leaching and volatile losses

- Use of cover crops

- Incorporation of crop residue

- High carbon crops (fruit or nut orchard, vines, tea, coffee)

- Improving nitrogen use efficiency through precision farming

- Improving fertilizer application timing

- Restoration of eroded and salinized soils

- Conversion of agriculturally marginal soils to pastures or forest lands

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and adopting sustainable management of existing forests can also reduce emissions.

- Agro-forestry, afforestation/reforestation, forest restoration increase Carbon storage

- Combining crops with trees for timber and fodder.

- Establishing shelter belts and riparian zones/buffer strips with woody species systems.

-Conversion from non-forest to forest land use.

- And from degraded forests to fully carbon stocked forests.

- Replanting mangroves in coastal areas will create carbon sinks

www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/climateChangeStat2015.pdf

www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/climateChangeStat2015.pdf

Presentation Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture in c...

& Please suggest, If you have some other valuable suggestions to add up.

Thank You

Hahahaaaaa

is it really so Kenneth M Towe

I think, you need to dust off your glasses & look properly

As all these tables, colorful charts and graphs i have put here are mentioned with their sources and the links in description. & if you think that the data from sources like National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA), World Resources Institute (WRI) or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not authentic, then are you really from earth?

And its you who is taking the screenshots from the media and news channels.

Do you even realize that You are contradicting yourself while accusing others ?

According to Chron in the United State solar capacity will double in the next 5 years.

Texas the 5th largest solar state will have 2,500 MW installed by the end of this year.

The idea that this is not possible and beneficial is not bore out by the facts on the ground.

Externalities of fossil fuel economies far outweigh those of renewables and the fossil fuels are non renewable and of limited supply

As there is much interest in cost of electricity and reducing emissions related to climate change. In that regard it looks like coal would definitely off the options as it is both higher in its cost and higher in its eternalities. Not the cost effectiveness of on shore wind. The cost of both wind and solar are steadily being reduced and when eternalities are calculated they both will go ahead of coal.

In North Europe wind is cheaper than in the US. We have the factories and the installation capacity already established.

On the other hand coal is under pressure for the large cost associated with the pollution - besides CO2 - and large uncertainty on the possibility that taxes or import restriction will soon increase the price of coal. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-power-is-cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds

Therefor it is just countries with social problems connected to closing coal extraction and connected subsidies that invest in new coal power plants. Poland is the most clear example of this.

The cheapest electricity supply in developed countries is likely gas combined with windmills. http://www.ewea.org/news/detail/2014/10/13/onshore-wind-cheaper-than-coal-gas-and-nuclear-according-to-european-commission-report/

This is also that is being invested in.

Since the data on wind generation is showing it is less than coal generation the cost of moving to wind hydro and solar is actually a huge net benefit because the externalities of these resources is much less than coal. Economically beside the competitive cost and lowered externalities the renewable economies show more multiplier effect in the local economy.

Perhaps the better questions how can we continue to afford economies which are massively contaminating have huge externalities and are not any more economic than locally generated renewable economies.

A review of studies over the past 30 years provides a body of evidence that people living near coal-fired power plants have higher death rates and at earlier ages, along with increased risks of respiratory disease, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and other health problems.

The elevated health risks appear to be associated with exposure to air pollutants from the coal-burning power plant emissions and to the heavy metals and radioactive material in coal ash, a waste product of the plants.

But even with strong evidence, details remain unknown about the specific components associated with poor health outcomes and the exposure levels that become toxic, according to a review article from Duke University School of Medicine researchers published today in the North Carolina Medical Journal.

"We reviewed 113 studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals over the past 30 years chronicling the health effects of coal-burning power plants," said lead author Julia Kravchenko, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor in Duke's Department of Surgery.

"Together, this body of literature outlines a clear need to conduct definitive studies that fully detail the severity of health effects from air, water, and soil contaminants and to set specific limits to exposures," Kravchenko said.

Kravchenko and co-author H. Kim Lyerly, M.D., director of the Environmental Health Scholars Program at Duke, highlighted the pollution sources of health hazards identified in their review.

• Air pollution: Burning coal produces particles called fly ash, which lodge predominantly in the lungs, causing irritation and inflammation. Exposures to additional emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and heavy metals are also harmful; these are associated with worse respiratory and cardiovascular health and higher death rates for people living near and around the coal-burning power plants.
• Water and soil pollution: Fly ash is stored in wet form and can contaminate ground and nearby surface water with leaking toxins, including mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals known to damage the neurological and gastrointestinal systems, kidneys and other organs.
• Radioactive contaminants: Burning coal also releases uranium, thorium, and ruthenium and other radioactive isotopes in concentrated form. Even at low levels, these isotopes can accumulate in the human body and form life-long deposits in bones and teeth.

Documented health risks from exposures to the pollutants include premature deaths, cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, low birth weights, higher risk of developmental and behavioral disorders in infants and children, and higher infant mortality.

"Despite a large body of research into the health risks of coal-fired power plants, there are still major gaps not only in our knowledge about the impact of these exposures, but also the appropriate regulatory response in setting limits to these pollutants," Lyerly said.

Coal-burning power plants remain the major source of electrical production in North Carolina, Kravchenko said. And while air pollution from coal-burning power plants emissions is regulated by the Clean Smokestacks Act and other laws, North Carolina has the highest number of highly hazardous coal ash impoundment sites in the Southeast.

"This contributes to contamination in nearby communities," she said. "That makes evaluation of the health in residential communities located in close proximity to coal-burning power plants and/or to coal ash impoundments in Nor

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-health-effects-coal-burning-power-unknown.html#jCp

Clean coal that oxymoron that just keeps giving.

How cheap fossil fuel ends up outrageously expense?

They are called externalities which no utilities are paying for not only do you get cheap energy but also respiratory disease heart and circulatory and toxicity put greenhouse gases up the back end.

What is there not to like?

Oh the utility gets the profits and you will pay the bill. If you live in cheap neighbor you are probably in a dump.

As coal plants are being decommissioned the areas can be converted into natural gas plants. Cost of the natural gas plant is less than the coal plant the emissions are less so the same amounts of energy can be produced more economically and rather than have enormous externalities the externalities of natural are reduced 60% for greenhouse gas and much more everything and that is just one of cost effective and positive initiatives which has already proved itself in action. The idea of reversing this proven beneficial just insane.

Since the denial community has been making a parody about the Poland Conference on climate this is an appropriate time for some observation on Polish problems and potential.

Poland uses coal to generate 82% of the electrical energy.

Again the dramatic reduction can be made by transferring the present coal thermoelectrical capacity and implementing natural gas.

Doing a little math the present day system could be reduced by 48% almost half as natural gas generates 40% of the greenhouse gas compared to coal and is cheaper to build and operate.

Digging deeper the high environmental issues from the toxic ashes and the health issues related to particulate and acid rain are all dramatically reduced including issues with heavy metals and radioactivity.

The high cost of cheap coal is shown in externalities which are major in coal but are just not accounted for or attended from the industry sources.

Their gain our pain it needs to restrained. This should be pretty plain if one has a brain.

Some of the recent studies suggests that the cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232.

But that's an industrial approach.

Still the cheap & eco-friendly approach to sequester carbon in a natural way wanders around keeping the land under plantation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302253?via%3Dihub

The beginning of dealing with fossil fuel issues is the reduction of emissions. Since 82% of Poland economy is using coal in thermoelectric production, the issue of changing to natural gas in Poland alone with reduce the greenhouse gas issues in half.

Since the cost of natural gas thermoelectric plants are less than coal plants this represents no addition cost in fact the natural gas can produce the energy at less cost.

In addition the massive externalities in terms of acid rain, toxicity from particulates, heavy metals, etc etc which lead to enormous health environment and climate issues are attenuated.

Sequestration in Poland needs no geoengineering the use of no till farming, the ability to rotate crops use cover crops and use organic recycling can provide major ability to sequester without have to high geoengineering costs.

Acid soils are major food issue in Poland the use of biochar would provide ability to ability to regenerate depleted soils by sequestration and counteract acidity.

In depleted soils of the Amazon the capacity to sequester carbon in terra preta soils is demonstrated at over 1,000,000 lbs of Carbon Dioxide in each acre.

Soils when they are enrich grow in the profile the idea that there is no space to sequester carbon dioxide is just not real.

Ability to sequester is many orders more than present day emissions and no exotic geo engineering is needed.

Biofuels are not fossil fuel at all rather a renewable resource which can be grown each and every year.

As for reducing major amounts of the greenhouse gas problem the use of different fossil based fuels are decidedly different. In this continuum the coal source is the worse of the worst.

By using natural gas which is very abundant the 60% reduction in greenhouse gas is coupled with more economical plant development and astronomically lower externalities in relation to health and environment.

Hydrogen generated from methane is even better in this continuum and can employed with fuel cells in vehicles.

Actually Terra Preta Is a reality it has been demonstrated on the geographical landscape of an area the size of France in the most depleted soils of the world in Brazil. Brazil has also used sugarcane to produce massive amounts of cost competitive ethanol without need to plant crops every year.

Terra preta is not only sustainable but regenerative and proven in numerous peer reviewed publication.

No till farming is also proven in long term studies and millions for acres.

The sequestration of cover crops also.

Crop rotation also.

The use of organic amendments also.

Mixed farming also. Forestry also.

No exotic experimentation no geoengineering solution and no high costs.

All of these have proven economic basis and beneficial externalities.

Biofuels are not fossil fuel at all. They are not nonrenewable at all. The definition of a fossil fuel resources to its sequestration and generation of millions of years. Biofuels do not that characteristic at all. While a biofuel can be generated each and every year fossil fuels are put into atmosphere and are not regenerated like biofuels. So Doctor your argument show a misunderstanding of carbon cycle and the nature of fossil fuels and the differences with renewable biofuels. Too bad.

This explains the difference between biofuels and fossil fuel in more details. See the attached word.doc

Big misconception that the 1 degree increase is not significant and not having dramatic effects already.

Big misconception that it will stay at only a degree or so.

Big misconception that it is natural and big misconception that we cannot do anything about.

Big misconception that a warmer world is a better world.

Obviously it is a falsification that biofuel is 90 % fossil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

The fossil fuel base is not growing but shrinking it will be just a matter of time. Renewables are virtually inexhaustible. Costs are falling and if people ever catch on to high costs of cheap fossil fuel and its limited life timespan. Pressure will continue to lead to sustainable and cleaner and safer and more economical alternatives.

Kenneth M Towe

Had he read the text he copied from to the end he would have been confronted with many contradicting facts.

.

In USA one of the fuels available on many gas stations is E10. Kenneth M Towe

Because Kenneth M Towe

According to Yale University study which aligns closely to IPCC analysis the Carbon dioxide equivalence in g Carbon dioxide per KW energy produced is as follows:

Coal 1001

N.Gas 490

Solar 46

Geo 45

Nuclear 16

Wind 12

Hydro 4

What is also clear that negative health and environmental impacts of Coal Oil and Gas are related to the greenhouse gas signature.

This is why I favor Natural Gas as bridge fossil fuel source.

This should be helpful for understanding why the solar geo wind and hydro solutions are so earmarked by environmentalists. Biomass is also very promising.

Nuclear has wonderful potential but concerns about terrorism weapon proliferation and waste disposal are continuing concern.

The development of thorium might address some of the nuclear concerns.

The Fujishima and Chernobyl debacles are sobering in relation to fail safe nuclear solutions. These are on going disasters which people are covering up.

Issues with nuclear might be able to be resolved in a near generation of improved reactors.

Regardless how we look at things at the present usage of fossil fuels they will not be around indefinitely but the sun seems much more sustainable than putting our eggs in the coal basket and for a transition natural gas should be favored while renewables are developed.

This graphic is based on lifecycle assessment of emissions related to different energy reources with degrees of uncertainty related to the measurements.

For you information.