Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick wrote:
Me, extremely well read-not. Unlike academics, or in your case academic wannabe, for the vast majority the doings of life trumps fantasizing about some idealized state.
Long ago ,on this thread I suggested most of you idiots are not extremely well read. This has much more to do with the myopic filtering that allows only synaptic connection with understanding consistent with the narrow range of learned ideology than volume of literature read.
but not much understanding... and not capable given his well cultivated aversion to quantitative analysis... which is necessary to arrive at understanding, at least independent of the authors of the literature.
It is how scientists are trained, and rick is no scientist. But for him to assert:
Dave is right in that many CAGW supporters here are capable of determining that the forecasted consequences of the psuedo science is a hoax.
is irony as rick cannot judge for himself whether or not that science is correct, he depends on his own bias, and finds confirmation for that bias in the various blogs he attends.
When he's suggested some paper in support, he is incapable of actually doing the work to understand the paper. He no longer provides references because the critical reviews of those he has haven't supported his heartfelt beliefs.
Too bad on that. At least rick is known, why he would stand up for anonymous internet scum is a sad, desperate act, but given rick's mood swings, understandable even if disappointing.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Global warming to disrupt US economy by mid-century, report finds (+video)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0624/Global-warming-to-disrupt-US-economy-by-mid-century-report-finds-video
A new bipartisan risk assessment finds that if global warming continues unchecked, it is likely to cost the US economy hundreds of billions of dollars by 2050 in lost productivity, inundated housing and infrastructure along coasts, and plunging crop yields in key farming regions by mid-century.
Those are among the conclusions of a report, notable for its bipartisan representation, released Tuesday on the economic risks the US faces from climate change. Participants include business leaders, current and former investment executives, and former US Cabinet secretaries.
The report purports to be the first to assign dollar figures to the risk that global warming poses to four key sectors of America's economy. It comes on the heels of a federal assessment of the climatological effects of global warming on the US through 2100, released in May.
The report "identifies a large number of risks. Many of these already are baked into the economy," said former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., who served under President George W. Bush. He co-chaired the group overseeing the report, along with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Steyer, retired founder of Farallon Capital Management LLC.
It breaks down the risks by region, and in some cases even by county. And it looks not only at the average risk, but also at the extremes, because today's 1-in-100-year drought or flood could become tomorrow's 1-in-10-year event – the new normal.
"The good news is that if we take action immediately, we can avoid the very worst outcomes," Mr. Paulson said during a press briefing Tuesday.
He characterized a cautious, wait-until-we-know-more approach as "radical risk-taking." It so delays action that it leaves no opportunity to reduce risks. Instead, it leaves adaptation as the only option.
Overall, the report estimates that by 2050 the value of property that lies below sea level will range from $66 billion to $106 billion – figures that rise to between $238 billion and $507 billion by 2100. The effect of sea-level rise on surges from winter storms or hurricanes along the US East and Gulf coasts could lead to $108 billion in losses by century's end.
Meanwhile, on average Americans are likely to see an increase in the number of days each year when temperatures top 95 degrees Fahrenheit. By mid-century, the number of 95-degree days is likely to range between 27 and 50, more than three times the average annual number during the past three decades. By 2100, those days could number 45 to 96, with some regions seeing as many as three months' worth of 95-degree-plus high temperatures.
The rising temperatures combined with higher humidity could cut productivity in key sectors, such as construction, landscaping, farming, and similar occupations by as much as 3 percent nationwide, the report finds. This is twice the loss the US experienced during a slowdown in productivity in the 1970s.
Rising temperatures will probably require the services of about 200 new power plants, each with a capacity comparable to today's typical coal- or gas-fired plants. These plants would need to be built within the next five to 25 years to meet the increased energy demand that comes with rising temperatures – temperatures that also reduce the efficiency of steam-generating plants and could undercut the supply of cooling water for them. As a point of comparison, during the 15 years ending in 2012 the US added about 21 new gas- or coal-fired plants, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
As for farm productivity, the report notes that warmth and plants' ability to take up some of the carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the atmosphere could boost yields in the upper Great Plains and in other northern states. But without adequate adaptation measures, yields of corn, soy beans, cotton, and wheat in some states in the lower Great Plains, Midwest, and Southeast could plummet by 50 to 70 percent by century's end.
The risk assessment, which assumes a business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions trajectory, was conducted by The Rhodium Group, a firm specializing in studying disruptive economic trends, and Risk Management Solutions, a firm that models catastrophes for insurance and investment companies.
The project's 10-member steering committee – which includes former Cabinet heads from Republican and Democratic administrations, the executive chairman of Cargill Inc., and a dean emeritus of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore – doesn't set out specific policy ideas for meeting the climate challenge.
But individual members have not been shy about setting out some ideas.
For his part, Paulson said he would like to see a tax on carbon emissions. This would prompt companies to shift to carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy sources, he argues.
Any formal proposal for such a tax, however, would be sent bouncing down the steps of Capitol Hill. One indication of the reception such a proposal would receive in the House came in late May, when lawmakers approved and sent to the US Senate a defense authorization bill for fiscal 2015. The bill includes an amendment that in essence prohibits the Pentagon from spending money "to implement" several recent UN and US scientific assessments on the projected effects on global warming. The Senate has yet to take up the measure.
Robert Rubin, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, suggests that pressure on companies to undertake more efforts to mitigate climate change and to urge Washington to move more swiftly may best come from the bottom up.
He noted during Tuesday's briefing that "investors should insist that companies disclose their exposure to climate risks." Those risks could include future costs of reducing emissions, or future losses from plants or infrastructure that either the company or the climate takes out of service before the company gets the full return on its investment.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 introduced a voluntary approach that companies could adopt for reporting climate-related risks. As of last year, some 60 percent of the companies listed in the Standard & Poors 500 had adopted the guidelines. But that means many companies continue to withhold information about their climate risks.
Given the effect climate change is likely to have on the frequency of extreme-weather events, climate change needs to be factored into the federal budget process, Mr. Rubin suggested, because damage from severe weather typically requires federal aid to help communities recover.
Referring to the need to mitigate climate change, not just adapt to it, Paulson said, "We need to take out an insurance policy. It's just that simple."
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
West Antarctic melt rate has tripled
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2197/
A comprehensive, 21-year analysis of the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has found that the melt rate of glaciers there has tripled during the last decade.
The glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice faster than any other part of Antarctica and are the most significant Antarctic contributors to sea level rise. This study by scientists at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and NASA is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations from four different measurement techniques to produce an authoritative estimate of the amount and the rate of loss over the last two decades.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
California poll of climate opinions
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1122
Three in four Californians (76%) say that global warming is a very serious (53%) or somewhat (23%) serious threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. More than seven in 10 Californians have expressed this view since we started asking the question in July 2005. There are partisan differences: Democrats (70%, up 11 points since July) are far more likely than independents (46%) and Republicans (20%) to consider global warming a very serious threat. More than six in 10 blacks (68%) and Latinos (63%) say global warming is a very serious threat, compared to half of Asians (53%) and four in 10 whites (42%). Californians age 18 to 34 (57%) and between age 35 to 54 (55%) are somewhat more likely than those age 55 and above (46%) to consider global warming a very serious threat. Californians with household incomes less than $40,000 (65%) are far more likely than those with higher incomes to hold this view (42% $40,000--$79,000, 43% $80,000 or more).
“How serious of a threat is global warming to the economy and quality of life for California’s future?”
All adults
Very serious 53%
Somewhat serious 23%
Not too serious 11%
Not at all serious 12%
Don’t know 2%
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
oh but it is getting cold now in Wasilla, Alaska where Rick Sumner lives
therefore, Global Warming is a hoax and everyone is paid off to make up all the lies
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Nice of you to keep us apprised of the "weather" Frosty. You do realize, however, that the long term 5000 year trend in climate is cooling towards the next Milankovitch influenced glacial epoch. A .8C rise in 150 years is neither significant nor particularly rapid.
As we finally start the slide to the unprecedented minumum of solar cycle 24/25, keep in mind one of the truest statements of the greatest of our resident scientists, Dr. Hartouni- " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural variability" . With this true statement in mind look for the entire modest .8C rise to be erased by 2020.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
That's quite an orginization there Frosty.
Your canadian compatriot Maurice Strong must have trained in its ranks before founding the IPCC. By the way, has he been brought to justice yet for misappropriation of the funds of the U.N. oil for food program?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
keep in mind one of the truest statements of the greatest of our resident scientists, Dr. Hartouni- " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural variability" . With this true statement in mind look for the entire modest .8C rise to be erased by 2020.
ah rick, you are so tedious...
the annual climate change is small compared to the annual variability, the problem with your misquoting me is that the climate change isn't random, it adds up, while the weather variability averages out... that's actually a definition, one that you failed many times to understand.
the annual weather variability is not more than 0.2ºC, so it won't "erase" the 0.8ºC shift due to climate change...
it illustrates your lack of quantitative understanding as well as your propensity to argue dishonestly, but perhaps you don't know any better. You could rightfully claim ignorance and a slavish adherence to your dogma.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Such vitriol Eddy.
Isn't Dave less of an anonymous avatar than say a character identifying as Chiloe/SciFi?
The Holocene Climate Optimum lasted thousands of years, finally ending some 5000 years ago. The long term trend since, though interrupted by often rapid onset warmings and coolings, has been downward for global average temps, by some estimates up to 2C cooler today.
Show us how I have misquoted your statement.
EDIT: hey Ed, have you got wind of the Gravito-Thermal atmospheric model being discussed over at Judith Curry's Climate etc? Whatcha think about it?
Did I save a hardcopy of that particular quote? Yes, I believe I did, somewhere in my tall stack of stuff.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Show us how I have misquoted your statement.
show us that you didn't make it up....
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Me a scientist, Frosty? Bullcrap, that's Chiloes invention and your continual claim.
Your just upset that I read the material, a lot of which is contrary to the 97% consensus and 95% certainty claims. There is nothing particularly improbable for a layman to understand the basics of the claimed science enough to realize it is not anywhere near to the propagandists representations.
Why post the verifying references when you guys always unfairly, and oftentimes disengenuously, slander the sources. Im tired of the blame all opposition game on big oil, capitalism, and people unfairly painted as right wing extremists. No, ill continue to post what I can understand without attribution. The onus of disproving is on you guys who make all the sky is falling claims.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
No, ill continue to post what I can understand without attribution. The onus of disproving is on you guys...
interesting logic... rick wants unattributed work to be refuted, interesting and difficult if you don't have the source.
But not for rick, he knows what he knows, he doesn't need no stinkin' papers.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I just offered you a topic and source for discussion Ed, perhaps you missed my edit two posts ago. The finer points of the discussion are beyond me. Maybe you could expose yourself to fellow scientists and the merits of this Gravito-thermal atmospheric model. Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick
you have offered up stuff in the past that I spent real time looking at... I recall that all of it was pretty bad science. It takes time to dig through the papers and find out what the particular fallacy is in the arguments. What I got for my efforts was a dismissal from you (and others) that my analysis wasn't worth anything, it was viewed as just a biased review.
Time is precious, if you had recommended any interesting papers in the past I might be more willing to give it a look, but you're batting average is low, so without looking at the paper I'd judge it as likely to be not worth the effort, coming from you.
Sorry, but that's how scientific reputation works. I've got other things to do with my time than track down some paper you thought was interesting (but couldn't judge the scientific merits of, and right now, your judgment in that area isn't at all trustworthy).
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
That sounds like sore loser talk Ed. Unbefitting of a mind of your caliber and tenacious spirit. Anyway I thought thr opposition scientists camp latest ideas might be of interest to you.
You give me far too much credit Frosty. The great Lord Monckton; what a magnificient bug eyed specimen.
Signing off guys. Up early, long drive to the NV hinterlands, new routing some 5.3d gems others would be unwilling to stoop so low to repeat. Always find things of interest out there.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2014 - 08:14am PT
|
From This Changes Everything:
When historians look back on the past quarter century of international negotiations, two defining processes will stand out. There will be the climate process: struggling, sputtering, failing utterly to achieve its goals. And there will be the corporate globalization process, zooming from victory to victory: from the first fee trade deal to the creation of the World Trade Organization to mass-privatization of the former Soviet economies to the transformation of large parts of Asia into sprawling free-trade zones to the "natural adjusting" of Africa. There were setbacks to that process, to be sure--for example, popular pushback that stalled trade rounds and free trade deals. But what remained successful were the ideological under-pinnings of the entire project, which were never really about trade deals across boarders--selling French wine in Brazil, for instance, or U.S. software in China. It was always about using these sweeping deals, as well as a range of other tools, to lock in a global policy framework that provided maximum freedom to multinational corporations to produce their goods as cheaply as possible and sell them with as few regulations as possible--while paying as little in taxes as possible. Granting this corporate wishlist, we were told would fuel economic growth, which would trickle down to the rest of us, eventually. The trade deals mattered only in so far as they stood in for, and plainly articulated, this far broader agenda.
The three policy pillars of this new era are familiar to us all: privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and lower corporate taxation, paid for with cuts to pubic spending. Much has been written about the real-world costs of these policies--the instability of financial markets, the excesses of the super-rich, and the desperation of the increasingly disposable poor, as well as the failing state of public infrastructure and services. Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change, a threat that came knocking just as this ideology was reaching its zenith.
 Naomi Klein |
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Naomi Klein, my favorite White Tower Marxist. She bemoans "deregulation of the corporate sector"?
I would love to see an honest study that shows any deregulation of anything, on average.
I'm sure she can cherry pick plenty of isolated instances to 'prove' her point but on average
gubmint regulations will always go up, it's what gubmint does. To deregulate is to commit
bureaucratic hari-kiri.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2014 - 10:08am PT
|
I would love to see an honest study that shows any deregulation of anything, on average.
Um, what? You don't think that multinational corporations have done a pretty good job of removing regulations, and you need a study to see this?
Does "Free Trade" mean anything to you in terms of deregulation? Have you looked at the deregulation of the FDA? How about the EPA? How about the oil industry. Have you listed to the GOP's stance on the regulation of business?
I did some searches, there are plenty articles on the subject. Here is just one:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/stealthy-deregulation-energy
Or how about a World Bank article on the efforts to "develop and implement a privatization strategy for the Jamaica Public Service Company and Petrojam":
http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P007476/energy-sector-deregulation-privatization-project?lang=en
As for a "study," who do you think would fund such a study?
Come to think if it Reilly, can you name a sector that has had more regulations installed than dismantled in the past few years?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Wow. So many questions
My thoughts exactly.
Kman, I think we're all talking out of our bums here because coming by
honest figures in this maelstrom is exceedingly hard. Everybody who
does a 'study' has an axe to grind for whoever is paying for their 'study'.
I had a business for years and I can assure you that there was NO diminution
of regulation whatsoever. Au contraire, the paperwork was crushing. Want
to know how many letters I exchanged with the CA Workers' Comp retards over
a $1.21 underpayment?
You should read The Economist which, if you are not aware, is far more
'liberal' than you probably think. Anyway, one of their favorite targets
of things that hold back commerce*, particularly in Europe, is the heinous
amounts of regulations those bureautards in Brussels have come up with to
ensure their long term employment. I remember a few years back when Hungary
joined the EU the little ma and pa farmers there couldn't believe they had
suddenly become slaves to thousands of pages of bureaucracy. The best was
the 56 pages of regulations governing the artificial insemination of their
5 cows. I think there is parable there. If you don't think we are headed
down that road then I am truly sorry for you.
*and more importantly their recovery from the late and great recession under
which they still struggle. Starting a business, and running it, is a
nightmare in Europe. It is virtually impossible to fire or lay off help
even if you're losing money.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!