Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I ask again, show us the irrefutable proof of catastrophic climate change as a result of modest increases in the trace gas CO2. Simply put, none of you can without alteration of past climate records and gross manipulation of observational data to fit model output. This .8C increase of the last 150 years is nothing unusual in its rapidity or magnitude. Their is a large body of published science confirming that prior periods like the LIA, or MWP, or RWP, or Holocene climate optimum, were all deviations from global mean exceeding todays modest anomaly of .8C- remember the interactive globe with published studies from all regions of the earth I posted last year? Conspiracy by 10,000 scientists Ed? I think not, instead it is a relative few corrupt incompetents holding the reigns of funding power, assisted by likewise corrupt politicians and the rabid environmentalists, all with an ideology and level of power lust and greed incompatible to civilization as we know it. Their hubris knows no bounds.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Their hubris knows no bounds. more irony
rick, the data is there, the thermodynamic models of why and how it's happening are there. The worldwide consensus of competent scientists is there.
You may cherry pick the data and pretend it makes your argument. You may choose to disbelieve and if so, obviously no argument of science or logic will change your mind. (Kirkegaard explained that conundrum in the 19th century)
Climate change is not up for a vote. I hope you live long enough to learn how wrong you are now.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 08:49am PT
|
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/abs/387253a0.html
Nature 387, 253 - 260 (15 May 1997)
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
ROBERT COSTANZA, RALPH D'ARGE, RUDOLF DE GROOT, STEPHEN FARBER, MONICA GRASSO, BRUCE HANNON, KARIN LIMBURG, SHAHID NAEEM, ROBERT V. O'NEILL, JOSE PARUELO, ROBERT G. RASKIN, PAUL SUTTON & MARJAN VAN DEN BELT
The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014000685
Global Environmental Change 26, 152 (2014)
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
Robert Costanza, Rudolf de Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander van der Ploeg, Sharolyn J. Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski, Stephen Farber, R. Kerry Turner,
Highlights
 Global loss of ecosystem services due to land use change is $US 4.3–20.2 trillion/yr.
Ecoservices contribute more than twice as much to human well-being as global GDP.
Estimates in monetary units are useful to show the relative magnitude of ecoservices.
Valuation of ecosystem services is not the same as commodification or privatization.
Ecosystem services are best considered public goods requiring new institutions.
Abstract
In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 10:19am PT
|
Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context.
one way to think of it is that these common resources are exploited without full renumeration. The larger question is how to manage these common resources. This paper estimates the total value of the services (the cost of replacing them).
The model of management is, as yet, unspecified. "Taxation" is one way of looking at it, but another way is a user fee ("pay to play") where the value of the taken resource/service is paid by those taking it.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 12:04pm PT
|
Create a tax system for ecological impacts?
Yes, it's called a Carbon Tax.
There are a lot of issues about how a carbon tax should be allocated, how the funds raised should be used and a lot of different schemes being tried. Except of course in the good ole USA.
I'm not certain the best way to do it. Probably each nation should have a different model since every nation has a different economy. They may even be better ways than the Free Market oriented Carbon Tax such as Central Planning strict governmental regulation.
In 1961 Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon and bring him back again by the end of the 60's. Which we did, by 1969.
That was a huge political, economic and technical challenge. It changed the way human beings perceived space.
There were false starts, ideas that didn't work out and some astronauts died. We achieved that without any related existential threat. We did it because we believed. (and because we didn't want the USSR to steal our thunder again).
The US populace has known about Global Warming for at least 10 years.
But we're too chicken sh**T now to piss in a pot. While the Europeans, Japanese and yes, even the Chinese are moving ahead to reduce carbon fuel consumption.
China signed the Kyoto Protocol. Not us. They have major national policy initiatives to reduce their global warming footprint. Not us.
It's going to take China a long time to meet their goals. At least they have goals. Not us.
We've got the Koch Bros (Carbon Capitalists), the Tea Party (idiots) and Faux News (amoral morons). They're all we need.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 12:43pm PT
|
So you're saying the United States has done nothing to reduce CO2 contributions, High Traverse? Not nearly enough. And every bit of progress a hard fought battle against morons and entrenched big money interests. Yes, Obama finally bypassed Congress and created the new power plant emissions regulations.
as the Guardian observed:
Obama had initially sought to deal with climate change through Congress. But after that effort collapsed, and with Republicans in Congress uniformly opposed to cutting carbon emissions – or even acknowledging climate change was occurring – Obama decided last year to use his executive authority to cut carbon pollution.
All the nations I mentioned except China reached consensus among the major political parties a long time ago. Not necessarily on the details but certainly on the objective of significant reductions in global warming emissions.
In China of course, the only consensus needed is in The Party. It's likely no coincidence that they announced new carbon reduction goals right after Obama's announcement.
The Republitards have been saying for years that one of the reasons we shouldn't reduce our emissions is that China is the biggest polluter and won't lower theirs.
It's not entirely clear what their goals are. I'm sure they're also having a big debate.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 12:45pm PT
|
While the Europeans, Japanese and yes, even the Chinese are moving ahead to reduce carbon fuel consumption.
if you mean reducing by means of ramping up use of other resources, then yea.
but most of those countries are in fact building more new coal burning machines. Especially in the downtrodden economies.
never will this world reduce fossil fuel burning! Everyday we'll continue to burn more then we did yesterday. As the world grows, so will the appetite.
a plane flying for a day has about the same carbon footprint as 200 families in the US, and about 400 in some civilizations. Sure its neat to fly around the world, but those planes are taking a BIG dump right over our heads. If you want to slow global warming shot down a plane!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 01:08pm PT
|
From what I've read, their CO2 emissions are going through the roof. I think it increased 200% in the last decade. China passed the US at the top polluter in '05 or '06. Now, it's CO2 emissions level is more than twice that of the US I know my facts. Including these.
So what should they do? Stop building ships? Stop feeding their people?
They have started a plan.
You will also note they only need consensus in The Party. I don't approve of their system of government at all. They're the neighborhood bully. They repress their minorities. That doesn't mean they can't make smart choices in their self interest.
When the Republitards come to the table on Global Warming, we'll start making real progress. Meantime we look like pretty weak sauce.
Why do I say "Republitards"? Because not all Republicans are retarded. The intelligent ones have been hamstrung by the Tea Baggers and Big Money Interests. If they don't toe the line they'll be out. Talk about a Politically Correct political party. They've all become toadies. I look forward to the day the Republican Party regains sanity.
Sketch
I know nothing about you but I've lived long enough to see this country lose it's pre-eminent position in the world. I don't like it much. So I'm not shy about calling it like I see it. I criticized this country plenty during the Vietnam war and thought we'd learned some lessons. I've seen Democrats and Republicans disagree, negotiate, compromise and pass some really good legislation. The Civil Rights Act, the Wilderness Act, the EPA were all bi-partisan. Hard fought and fairly debated by intelligent and dedicated representatives. This country has done some magnificent things. It's a shame we're obstructing the most important social, health and economic issue of the 21st century.
So don't preach at me.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 01:12pm PT
|
The US populace has known about Global Warming for at least 10 years.
But we're too chicken sh**T now to piss in a pot.
Hey, we knew the first time we fired up a coal burnin locomotive that the exhaust couldnt be good!
i think its chickenshit to look to the government and big business for change. They have proven the only way they know how to regulate is by raising taxes,prices!
Politics and Business only exists IF they make money. PERIOD. Do you think by knocking on the door and yelling at them is going to get them to give up their rivers of gold?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
|
BLUEBLOCR
there is a thing called Law. and Laws can be enforced. It takes the will of the people. People can be bought off.
This is nothing new in history.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
|
Sketch
They've agreed upon more than we have.
We've done auto emissions and fuel mileage, driven by California. Diesel engine emissions in California over industry's dead bodies.
Obama's unilaterally done coal fired power plants (which are becoming less and less economically viable anyway).
Our negotiators agreed to Kyoto. Congress wouldn't ratify it.
China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but as a non-Annex I country which is not required to limit greenhouse gas emissions under terms of the agreement. That's more than we did.
What else have we done? Where's our long term national goal?
Where do we have a political consensus to even accept Global Warming as fact?
Instead of Kyoto we have individual states making progress.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Only ten states signed up and then Chris Christie bailed.
Nine states currently participate in the initiative: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Several states and Canadian provinces act as observers: Pennsylvania, Québec, New Brunswick, and Ontario.[1] New Jersey formerly participated, but Gov. Chris Christie removed the state from RGGI in 2011.
In California we have the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Thank you Arnold!
AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year of 2020, representing a 25% reduction statewide, with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources Notice the only major industrial states are California, New York and Massachusetts.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 03:15pm PT
|
properly balanced ecosystem equals an economic value of every thing that exists of monetary value
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
|
Sketch
Can you hear yourself?
Can you read what I said?
We wouldn't ratify Kyoto even as an Annex I (country under development) member.
We have NO national global warming strategy or commitment. We'll see if China is just talking or if they do something meaningful.
Only three major industrial states are doing anything significant. California is such a big car market the carmakers have to meet our standards.
China is ahead of us for now. And for the foreseeable future. We'll see what happens in 2016. Nothing else will happen in the US till then.
Or are you being bitchey because you're a Global Warming denier?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2014 - 04:47pm PT
|
Coldest year to date on record!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
|
Politics schmolitics ....
Arctic Sea Ice Loss Prompts Biggest Change to Maps 'Since Breakup of USSR'
National Geographic cartographer: 'Until you have a hard-copy map in your hand, the message doesn't really hit home.'
Hey, what happened to all that sea ice???
You folks can argue the politics all you want, it won't change the physics.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2014 - 05:56pm PT
|
What has China done/doing that makes you think they're ahead of us? I'm asking for specifics.
Ever notice how Sketch demands you do his research for him?
"Ed, show me your post where you said that!"
"You, I demand to know the specifics for blah-blah-blah."
Yeah, that might be fine and dandy, but when you ask him for specifics, you get --- crickets.
@Sketch, don't you have a secretary that can help you research these things?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!