Here is an interesting item.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Nature Climate Change
(2016)
doi:10.1038/nclimate3004

Received
08 June 2015
Accepted
29 March 2016
Published online
25 April 2016

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

Hmm...

It appears that GHG/AGC is having an overall beneficial effect on the planet's ecosystems as a whole.

70% of the observed greening due to the excess CO2 we are spewing...

even 8% of the observed greening due to climate change itself...

Something to think about.

no, something to think about is y1992 when this was on stage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Can't argue with this good comment from someone who has seen far far more than most:


Sir David Attenborough warns against playing 'fast and loose' ...

... Attenborough is a prominent supporter of an Apollo-style research programme to harness energy from the sun and make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels.

“If we could put a man on the moon in 10 years you mean to say we can’t solve the problem of getting one 500th part of the energy from the sun? It’s really a tiny technological problem,” he said.

“We’re proposing a route map in which you look at where the congestions are, as it were, and getting international organisations to look and say, ‘I’ll tackle this, you tackle that’, and within 10 years we’ll be able to produce the whole thing and bingo.”...



All a 'game' of politics and finance and all people and life and the world be damned?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

+1

but solar panels (which would be a GREAT ROOF cover) is still to expensive...& it's mass produced! so probably:
1. there's a deal between manufacturers
2. too expensive materials, too expensive technology

I still believe in a n.1, 'cause n.2 can be ruled out by "long time development"...solar panels are a technology posted 100y ago, developed for a Space industry & now commonly used...but it's still too expensive to get!

proof?
OK, 1x solar panel of 200W cost the same as 500W wind-power generator...how come?! wind-power generator is a far newer technology...so it doesn't make sense!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

wind-power generator is a far newer technology...

First wind powered generator was built by James Blyth in 1887. And windmills for producing energy have been in use since the 10th century.

Solar panels required the development of semiconductors, in the late 1940's and the first solar cell, as we know it today, in 1953.

Although photoconductivity had been known about since 1873.

Antarctic Weather Station has to be moved, or end up on iceberg.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36201053

Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back

Within the next couple of weeks, a remote part of north-western Tasmania is likely to grab headlines around the world as a major climate change marker is passed.

The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.

The Cape Grim greenhouse gas station in Tasmania, run in partnership by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, tracks some of the cleanest air in the world

Within the next couple of weeks, a remote part of north-western Tasmania is likely to grab headlines around the world as a major climate change marker is passed.

The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict

Wile that is bad at least we in the south have a few extra years to breathe and any effects will be delayed , we are in deep dodo if it's hitting 400 that far south

The north hit that 3 years ago at least currently the max for the north is 408+ and currently as of yesterday 407.58 at Hawaii Mauna Loa station

The graph in that link about global temps is very striking and sort of shows the run away green house starting to kick in and speeding up .

---

Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back

Within the next couple of weeks, a remote part of north-western Tasmania is likely to grab headlines around the world as a major climate change marker is passed.

The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.

The Cape Grim greenhouse gas station in Tasmania, run in partnership by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, tracks some of the cleanest air in the world

maybe for Australia...but we passed 400ppm:
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

maybe for Australia...but we passed 400ppm:

KLIK you don't get why it's so important do you......

How many people live in the southern Hemisphere ???

Since the 1800's how much pollution and Co2 has the southern Hemisphere produced compared to the Northern Hemisphere ?

Where is it coming from ??? that's a hell of a lot of Co2

And I think there talking about a maximum of just over 400

In the North your minimum is 400 now . The alarming trend is the spread of minimum to maximum witch is starting to go up .

30 years ago it was 5-6 now it closer to 8-10 you may think this is nothing to worry about but it's extremely worrying .

It means we will see clouds of high concentration of Co2 and it will effect people just as we have seen inversions with temperature and with other gasses in the past before pollution controls

---

maybe for Australia...but we passed 400ppm:

Also it's 1100 klms south of Sydney 250 klm south of Melbourne across Base straight so you get a idea how far south it is

Try Buenos Aires would be the south American equivalent no equivalent in Africa

---

maybe for Australia...but we passed 400ppm:

KLIK you don't get why it's so important do you......

How many people live in the southern Hemisphere ???

Since the 1800's how much pollution and Co2 has the southern Hemisphere produced compared to the Northern Hemisphere ?

Where is it coming from ??? that's a hell of a lot of Co2

And I think there talking about a maximum of just over 400

In the North your minimum is 400 now . The alarming trend is the spread of minimum to maximum witch is starting to go up .

30 years ago it was 5-6 now it closer to 8-10 you may think this is nothing to worry about but it's extremely worrying .

It means we will see clouds of high concentration of Co2 and it will effect people just as we have seen inversions with temperature and with other gasses in the past before pollution controls

you don't get it, do you?

it's not Northern vs. Southern hemisphere...it's one Earth! Only one! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Klik & Darth.
I think you are talking at cross purposes.

That report was important because it shows that probably the whole World is now over 400ppm. As Cape Grim has some of the cleanest air on earth because of its location it receives winds from virtually uninhabited regions. The Southern Hemisphere having a low land mass, that is also cooler. It only stands to reason that that figure was reached some time ago in the heavily populated, high land mass, warmer, Northern Hemisphere.

Klik & Darth.
I think you are talking at cross purposes.

That report was important because it shows that probably the whole World is now over 400ppm. As Cape Grim has some of the cleanest air on earth because of its location it receives winds from virtually uninhabited regions. The Southern Hemisphere having a low land mass, that is also cooler. It only stands to reason that that figure was reached some time ago in the heavily populated, high land mass, warmer, Northern Hemisphere.

Thanks you understand pity others don't and are part of the back stabbers club so have engaged in deliberately trying to cause trouble pity most times it's making out those in the backstabbers club look foolish and stupid as point scoring is childish and that's all they can do .

Not mentioning any names of cause

---

Way to go, Portuguese: Portugal runs entirely on renewable energy for four consecutive days.

+1.
If there is a will and the oil companies let you there is a light in the tunnel.

Share of renewables in gross final energy consumption in the EU.

Sidenote.
Norway is not in the EU.
Nor Iceland with energy consumption on 100% renewables!

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36315952

A new report says that global agricultural emissions must be slashed to prevent the planet warming by more than 2C over the next century.

The current focus is on reducing emissions from transport and energy.

But an international team of scientists argues that if farm-related emissions aren't tackled then the Paris climate targets will be breached.

An estimated one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.

The report by researchers from the universities of Vermont and Sheffield and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change examines non-CO2 emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide.

Cattle produce methane as part of their digestion and emit it mostly through belching. The addition of natural or synthetic fertilisers to soils releases large amounts of nitrous oxide.

...

"Reducing emissions in agriculture without compromising food security is something we know how to do. A lot can already be done with existing best management practices in agriculture."

"The tough part is how to reduce emissions by a further two to five times and support large numbers of farmers to change their practices in the next 10 to 20 years."

I've been saying this for quite some time.

Martin (ML1) and others have a veritable joygasm over various 'renewable energy' items. Sure, those help... BUT...

Use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy is only PART of the GHG mess we find ourselves in.

There are three main sources of anthropogenic GHG emissions.

1. Of course, the one that gets all the attention... Fossil fuel use for transportation and generation of electricity.
2. Various industrial processes, most notably (but NOT limited to) production of cement/concrete.
3. AND (the subject of this article) Agriculture (and other land use).

On agriculture, the changes we know how to make to reduce GHG emissions fall far short of the necessary cuts. They only account for somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/6th of the necessary cuts. The remaining 2/3rds to 5/6ths of the needed cuts in agricultural GHG cuts are a HARD problem if we are to continue feeding the ever-growing human population of planet Earth.

Elimination of the big 3 (but not the only) GHG producing agricultural items (ruminant livestock, rice farming, and use of fertilizer) might not be enough, and even with just this, its EXTREMELY good odds that a good chunk of the >7 billion of us will start going hungry.

About the only real solution to the problem is a sudden, massive population reduction of the human species... Something Mother Nature keeps trying to do... And something we 'too clever for our own good' humans keep thinking of ways around.

In case you want to read the publication behind the BBC article, it can be found here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13340/abstract;jsessionid=1EDC293C5E03760BC2BE3BEAFDF2DC14.f03t02

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13340/epdf

+ many MK

I have serious doubts about those who scream a problem but refuse to confront the actual issue and only want to make ineffectual steps towards a solution.

---

Way to go, Portuguese: Portugal runs entirely on renewable energy for four consecutive days.

+1.
If there is a will and the oil companies let you there is a light in the tunnel.

Share of renewables in gross final energy consumption in the EU.

Sidenote.
Norway is not in the EU.
Nor Iceland with energy consumption on 100% renewables!

+1
Just a confirmation that Europe is on a good track! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Elimination of the big 3 (but not the only) GHG producing agricultural items (ruminant livestock, rice farming, and use of fertilizer) might not be enough, and even with just this, its EXTREMELY good odds that a good chunk of the >7 billion of us will start going hungry.

Hmmm.
As of 2013, half of all food is wasted worldwide, according to the British Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME).[2] Loss and wastage occurs at all stages of the food supply chain or value chain. In low-income countries, most loss occurs during production, while in developed countries much food – about 100 kilograms (220 lb) per person per year – is wasted at the consumption stage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste

Dumping food waste in a landfill causes odour as it decomposes, attracts flies and vermin, and has the potential to add biological oxygen demand (BOD) to the leachate. The European Union Landfill Directive and Waste Regulations, like regulations in other countries,[which?] enjoin diverting organic wastes away from landfill disposal for these reasons. Starting in 2015, organic waste from New York City restaurants will be banned from landfills.[64]

In countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, food scraps constitute around 19% of the waste dumped in landfills, where it ends up rotting and producing methane, a greenhouse gas.[56]

In a study done on Italy in 2014, it was estimated that food waste from 'farm to fork' emits nearly 4 million tons of CO2. The country produces 186,000 tons of oil equivalent annually.[65]

Methane, or CH4, is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas that is released into the air, also produced by landfills in the U.S. Although methane spends less time in the atmosphere (12 years) than CO2, it's more efficient at trapping radiation. It is 25 times greater to impact climate change than CO2 in a 100-year period. Humans accounts over 60% of methane emissions globally.

Here we have started food waste "recycling" turning it to biogas.
But the best thing is obviously to not throw away so much food in the first place.

Here we have started food waste "recycling" turning it to biogas.
But the best thing is obviously to not throw away so much food in the first place.

MK and others are correct.

Population reduction. Either by Genocide. Or Mass Starvation, and resulting Worldwide Pestilence.

Since I am a 'betting man': Place your bets on Nature's Historical Remedy.

Population reduction. Where?
Perhaps in regions where food waste are most common!
1. North America and Oceania 295 kg (650 lb)
2. Europe 280 kg (620 lb)
3. Industrialized Asia 240 kg (530 lb)
4. Latin America 225 kg (496 lb)
5. North Africa, West and Central Asia 215 kg (474 lb)
6. sub-Saharan Africa 160 kg (350 lb)
7. South and Southeast Asia 125 kg (276 lb)

"Vaska" in absurdum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlikpikTalo