| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
 Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:15 am |
|
|
Interesting analysis. Which does not appear to include any accounting for increased odds of particularly violent storms - another factor in the height of surges, in addition to increase in sea levels. While it may be hard if not impossible to attribute increased strength of any single storm to warming, statistically speaking we should expect to see more such violent storms in the next fifty years than we saw in the last.
Yes, there are societal benefits to carbon based energy. And there are most assuredly societal costs as well. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:15 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | But some land that was worse will become better. |
The best farmland in the mainland US was under glaciers 12,000 years ago and has developed deep, thick topsoil since than. Natural processes do this, for free, but not on the time scale that we want. Land that is worse will become better all on it's own, over the course of thousands of years, or at least many centuries to get a good start. OR we can spend vast sums on fertilizer to replace what Global Warming is now taking from us.
So would this proposed expenditure for fertilizer count as a social cost of global warming? Ot some other kind of cost? Paying large sums to get poor quality replacements for what AGW is taking away?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:58 pm |
|
|
| Upton Sinclair wrote: | | It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | we should expect to see more such violent storms in the next fifty years than we saw in the last. |
While this is a common belief among many(including some scientists who should probably know better), there is no statistically significant evidence to suggest this is happening.
Here are plotted hurricane frequency and yearly hurricane energy estimates... if there is a trend in there its pretty minor...
http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
Additionally to the observed evidence, theory doesn't show there should much chance either: The tropics are not receiving any more sunlight than normal... and they are radiating ~0.5% less than normal due to our greenhouse impacts. Primarily a heat engine, hurricane frequency can't really change much with such minor changes to the radiation budget. Maybe some >0.5% but still small strength changes can worm there way in somewhere since its a nonlinear system, but major changes... I doubt it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | So would this proposed expenditure for fertilizer count as a social cost of global warming? |
Sure. But we'd have to lose major agriculture elsewhere first... and that point is a ways off.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:56 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | While this is a common belief among many(including some scientists who should probably know better), there is no statistically significant evidence to suggest this is happening. |
Which is only part of the evidence picture. We have been studying storms for a long time. We have a pretty good idea of what factors make them stronger. We also know at least some of the things that global warming is changing. If you know what makes storms stronger and you know those things are happening, then expecting stronger storms in the future is not such an unreasonable thing to expect, even if historical trends into the past are not showing them.
A good analogy is with the financial meltdown in 2007/2008. When it happened everybody knew we were in a recession. But there is an agency that makes the official determination of when recessions start and end, and they use historical trends (the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research said it started in Dec 2007). That agency made it's decision when the recession started a year or two later because they had to wait for the trendlines to extend far enough.
So it is true that there is not currently conclusive statistical proof that we are experiencing stronger storms. But given the dynamics of storms, it is highly likely that 10-20 years down the road, the trends will show they started strengthening some time around now. Maybe a few years ago with Sandy, maybe a little later.
Should also be pointed out that this vaunted statistical history only demonstrates correlation, not causation. The type of evidence I described above provides causation. Of course you are most certain when you have both, but by definition, statistical evidence trails the actual start of whatever event you are searching for by a long enough period to average out the noise.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:14 am |
|
|
A new study shows that Obama's Clean Power Plan could be a significant benefit to agriculture. The plan may be motivated by mitigating global warming, but this study was just looking at the impacts of non-CO2 pollution - mainly ground-level ozone - from coal plants, and comparing various scenarios. An excerpt of the abstract:
| Quote: | | To evaluate the cobenefits of the Clean Power Plan to sensitive vegetation, we estimate ozone concentrations in the continental U.S. in 2020 with a chemical transport model in accordance with reference and alternative Clean Power Plan policy scenarios, which represent a range of possible approaches to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The reductions in biomass, or the potential productivity losses, due to the exposure of 4 crops and 11 tree species to ozone are as large as 1.9% and 32%, respectively, in the reference scenario. . . however, the scenarios consistent with policies resulting in more rigorous nitrogen oxide reductions produce potential productivity losses lower than the reference scenario by as much as 16% and 13% for individual crops or tree species, respectively. |
Among crops, the largest impact - benefit from the plan - was for corn, smallest impact was for potatoes, with soybeans in between. I'm getting my numbers from a summary in Scientific American.
link to study
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:37 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | President Donald Trump is set to sign a sweeping executive order on Tuesday aimed at promoting domestic oil, coal and natural gas by reversing much of his predecessor’s efforts to address climate change -- prompting warnings the action will undermine U.S. leadership on the issue.
The document lays out a broad blueprint for the Trump administration to dismantle the architecture that former President Barack Obama built to combat the phenomenon, according to details shared with Bloomberg News. Some of the changes would happen immediately, while others would take years to complete.
"He’s trying to undo more than a decade of progress in fighting climate change and protecting public health,” David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an email. “But nobody voted to abandon America’s leadership in climate action and the clean-energy revolution. This radical retreat will meet a great wall of opposition.”
The order will compel federal agencies to quickly identify any actions that could burden the production or use of domestic energy resources, including nuclear power, and then work to suspend, revise or rescind the policies unless they are legally mandated, are necessary for the public interest or promote development. |
Hey David, people *did* vote to 'abandon America's leadership in climate action'. We don't need 'leadership' in what shouldn't be done to begin with.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:39 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | The upcoming order goes even farther than axing the CPP, according to Bloomberg’s Jennifer Dlouhy, who got a sneak peek at Tuesday’s order. Here’s what it does:
Orders EPA to review and “if appropriate” work to repeal or revise the CPP.
Rescinds the Interior Department’s moratorium on new coal mining leases on federal lands.
Repeals an Obama-era guidance on how federal agencies should take global warming into account when doing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting reviews.
Disbands a federal working group that developed the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimate used to justify onerous global warming regulations. The SCC will also be thrown out. |
A good start. Now let's hit the ground running and use that good start to scrub every piece of climate related regulation from the Federal system
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:16 pm |
|
|
First of all, we can never know why people voted the way they did. The impression I got was that Trump supporters mostly did so because of perceptions about corruption and hopes for jobs. Among some coal miners it may have been more directly related to climate policies, but I doubt that was widespread. Coal mining jobs have been in decline for a long time.
The sad thing (among many sad things) is that when sanity returns to the WH, the time lost due to these policies will require a much more aggressive bank of policies and those whose livelihoods are dependent on fossil fuels will feel the pinch much more than they would have under Obama's Clean Power Plan, which never went into effect.
It's just another way in which Trump's policies will cause decline in this country if allowed to go ahead. Some countries have already broached the subject to tariff policies against those who exacerbate climate change.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:50 pm |
|
|
I'll argue that depends on a lot of ifs. For one thing, the folks threatening tariffs are staking out a negotiating position which, like so many other promises of climate action, could well fail to materialize.
As for the even more aggressive action following Trump, that remains to be seen. We're already waaay past a lot of artificial deadlines to stop climate doom, and as to the need to get back into that game, well, I contend this is sanity's return. Kind of puts me on the spot, doesn't it.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:58 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Upton Sinclair wrote: | | It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. |
|
Okay, I'm retired.
I'm not sure if I believe any of it.
As for this:
| drm wrote: | | First of all, we can never know why people voted the way they did. |
Yes, you can know exactly why, because Mr. Michael Moore nailed it two weeks prior to the election here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: politics, I know. Unfortunately almost every issue discussed in Stewardship ultimately goes back to the politics of the issue.
For the time present, be assured that every effort will be made to "deconstruct" everything that's been done to date, leaving us (as mentioned just above) the awesome task of starting all over again at some point in the future.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Coal mining is so D. H. Lawrence 
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:25 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | What's hard to believe? |
Seriously?
Anything. There is so much misinformation being broadcast on the web, over the airwaves, and through all media outlets that it's difficult to even tell what reality is any more.
We are being bombarded with it daily - take your pick on subject matter.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
