myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Climate Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 165, 166, 167  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20354

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Various brilliant debaters wrote:

What a f'n loser!

Isobars is just an angry stooge.

Rumor has it that a windsurfer from Virginia has also been subpoenaed.


Q. E. D.

And to think that two bored holdouts here still try to debate these sub-juvenile clowns!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big oil = big tobacco



Isobars nods his head. He is, in fact, a stooge. But mrgybe is a co-conspirator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 1458

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Big oil = big tobacco



Isobars nods his head. He is, in fact, a stooge. But mrgybe is a co-conspirator.


Well then they have both sides of the pond covered!

I So Angry

I So Divisive

I So Trumpian

I So Wrong

A f'n loser with loser 45!!!

How's that for being judgmental?

As long as you try to propagate your bullshit I'll be there to respond!

QED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Change is coming, on a broader platform than many think. Flood insurance rules are about to change in a manner that will raise the rates for many who have gotten a free ride. Here from Grist is a broader business reaction.

Quote:
An unexpected constituency is sounding the alarm on climate change: U.S. mortgage bankers.

Their predictions are dire: As climate change worsens and natural disasters wreak havoc on America’s housing stock, homeowners increasingly default on their mortgages. The ballooning financial losses force lenders to ratchet up interest rates. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the massive government-backed companies charged with supporting affordable housing, continue issuing loans in risky areas, subsidizing homes in harm’s way. Private sector investors in the housing market back away from communities facing severe climate risks, like rising sea levels, repeated flooding, and more severe wildfires. The economic losses, which could easily number in the billions of dollars, are shouldered by the federal government — and ultimately taxpayers.

That’s all according to a new report by the Research Institute for Housing America, a think tank founded by the Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade group representing the real estate finance industry.

“Climate change will impact all governments, industries, and individuals,” the report notes. “Housing and housing finance will not be spared.”

The U.S. housing market consists of a vast panoply of stakeholders, including homeowners, renters, lenders, insurers, government-backed entities, loan servicers, and the federal government itself. As climate-fueled disasters continue to wreak havoc, each group faces different risks and consequences, according to the report. Homeowners in the path of hurricanes and other climate disasters may see their home values plummet. If homeowners weathering ever more severe flooding and wildfires increasingly default on their mortgages, it will ricochet through the entire financial ecosystem. Both lenders and investors could see major losses as a result. The federal government stands in the middle of it all: It runs the National Flood Insurance Program, which is responsible for 5.1 million residential flood insurance policies nationwide, and backstops Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The specter of massive bailouts looms large.

It is not a far-off scenario. The National Flood Insurance Program is already deep in debt. The program is currently more than $20 billion underwater, and research from The Pew Charitable Trusts, a public policy nonprofit, found that about 1 percent of the properties enrolled in the program are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the claims. The cost of paying out claims from properties that repeatedly flood is more than $12 billion.

The report is the first from the Research Institute for Housing America since the think tank was founded in 1998 to take an in-depth look at the many ways that climate change is likely to reshape the mortgage industry and broader housing market. It is definitive in its assertion that climate change is real, that it will profoundly affect housing and housing finance, and that no player in the industry will be able to escape the consequences. With federal regulators beginning to examine the risks that climate change poses to the housing market and the broader economy, Adam DeSanctis, a spokesperson for the Mortgage Bankers Association, said that the group’s members are preparing for the impact of climate change and potential regulatory requirements. “Everyone knows that this is coming down the road,” he said.

The report says that climate change will test the limits of insurance and that the ever-growing risks from a warming planet will stress lenders, investors, and the government. Firms that are trying to quantify those risks and put a dollar value on it face practical challenges to doing so. Climate models are uncertain and depend on actions that governments may take now to reduce emissions. Standardized climate risk indicators don’t yet exist. And historical measurements of climate risk are unavailable.


© 1999-2021 Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the Seattle Times:

Quote:
A 'silent' climate change crisis is unfolding along the Northwest coast. The deaths of marine creatures are alarming scientists and coastal tribes whose livelihoods rely on the ocean. The culprit: hypoxic conditions, detected every summer in recent memory as dissolved oxygen in the water falls to dangerously low levels. This year's hypoxia season got off to its earliest start in 20 years, and it's still suffocating marine life well into September.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And there is more:

Quote:
CLIMATEWIRE |

High temperatures and below-average precipitation that have spread drought across the western United States are likely to continue for another year, according to new estimates from the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center.

Forecasts reaching to December 2022 show above-average temperatures across the southern United States and below-normal precipitation in California and Nevada, which have been parched by drought all year. "We're in the midst of a historical drought," climate researcher John Abatzoglou said yesterday at a virtual NOAA conference on drought conditions in California and Nevada. "This is quite a situation we're in."

All of California has been in drought conditions since late April, and 88 percent of the state has been experiencing extreme drought or exceptional drought since late July, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. In Nevada, only two-thirds of the state is experiencing extreme or exceptional drought, which are the most severe of four drought levels. But the entire state has been in drought since early February, the Drought Monitor shows.

Record-low water levels at Lake Oroville in Northern California forced officials in August to stop running a hydroelectric dam for the first time and have prompted other water conservation measures. "Things are quite, quite bad on the reservoir situation," Abatzoglou said. "We had record heat this summer across most of California and Nevada."

Low reservoir levels have forced both California and Nevada to rely on groundwater to supply water for agriculture and human consumption, state officials said yesterday. "With the extra reliance on groundwater and pumping, we're seeing a corresponding decrease in groundwater levels," Steven Springhorn of the California Department of Water Resources told the NOAA conference.

Levi Kryder of the Nevada Division of Water Resources said that groundwater levels in the state "are generally on a downward trend." Drought in the two states has been exacerbated by record-high temperatures in June through August and minimal precipitation in the winter and spring. "We had a terribly dry winter last year," Abatzoglou said.

In California, the average temperature from June through August was a record 77.3 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 5.1 F above the normal temperature for the three-month span, according to government records dating to 1895.

Nevada's average temperature of 74.2 F from June through August also was a record and was 5.5 F above the historical average. Drought conditions have helped fuel another destructive wildfire season in California, Abatzoglou said. Nearly 2.5 million acres has burned in California so far this year, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. That's more than double the number of acres that burned on average in the previous five years as of Sept. 27.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But wait, I want to sell buggy whips forever!

Quote:
Past projections of energy costs have consistently underestimated just how cheap renewable energy would be in the future, as well as the benefits of rolling them out quickly, according to a new report out of the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford.

The report makes predictions about more than 50 technologies such as solar power, offshore wind, and more, and it compares them to a future that still runs on carbon. “It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” Matthew Ives, one of the report’s authors and a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Programme, told Ars.

The paper used probabilistic cost forecasting methods—taking into account both past data and current and ongoing technological developments in renewables—for its findings. It also used large caches of data from sources such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and Bloomberg. Beyond looking at the cost (represented as dollar per unit of energy production over time), the report also represents its findings in three scenarios: a fast transition to renewables, a slow transition, and no transition at all.

Compared to sticking with fossil fuels, a quick shift to renewables could mean trillions of dollars in savings, even without accounting for things like damages caused by climate change or any co-benefits from the reduced pollution. Even beyond the savings, rolling out renewable energy sources could help the world limit global warming to 1.5° C. According to the report, if solar, wind, and the myriad other green energy tools followed the deployment trends they are projected to see in the next decade, in 25 years the world could potentially see a net-zero energy system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Food for thought for the few people here willing to read anything longer than a tweet....

From WSJ, Sept 15, by the WSJ Editorial Board:

EUROPE'S CLIMATE LESSON FOR AMERICA
...

Russia has exploited the chaos by slowing gas deliveries, ostensibly to increase pressure on Germany to finish the Nord Stream 2 pipeline certification. Vladimir Putin last week took a swipe at the “smart alecs” in the European Commission for “market-based” pricing that increased competition in gas, including from U.S. liquefied natural gas imports.

Mr. Putin can throw his weight around in Europe because the rest of the world also needs his gas. Drought has reduced hydropower in Asia, and manufacturers are using more energy to supply the West with more goods.
...
Europe is showing the folly of trying to purge CO2 from the economy. No matter how heavily subsidized, renewables can’t replace fossil fuels in a modern economy. Households and businesses get stuck with higher energy bills even as CO2 emissions increase. Europe’s problems are a warning to the U.S., if only Democrats would heed it.


Interesting logic in that WSJ editorial. Which is it now: Are we or aren't we too dependent on carbon based energy and its suppliers?

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those who lied about the impacts of carbon fuels, and those who resisted change, will be remembered as the dinosaurs of our time.

Quote:
A new report from the medical journal The Lancet found that climate change is negatively impacting human health in many ways, from heat's links to increased violence to the proliferation of disease-carrying insects. Furthermore, the report found that world leaders are missing a chance to address the phenomenon, as most countries invest in an economic recovery from the pandemic without considering how to reduce emissions, with lead author Marina Romanello saying "we are recovering from a health crisis in a way that's putting our health at risk." (NPR News)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16734
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Key Insight That Defined 50 Years of Climate Science
A climate scientist has won the Nobel Prize in Physics for the first time. It’s a reminder that the field, which emerged from the mid-20th century’s biggest questions, hasn’t always been fraught.

By Robinson Meyer
A long exposure of a passing storm over the horizon of the Pacific Ocean off the Oregon coast. The long exposure renders the clouds as an abstract blur of motion and color and the setting sun highlights the higher clouds with a warm glow while the lower clouds are dark and brooding.
Zeb Andrews / Getty
OCTOBER 20, 2021
SHARE
Look out the nearest window and imagine, if you can, an invisible column of air. It sits directly on the tufts of grass, penetrates clear through any clouds or birds above, and ends only at the black pitch of space. Now envision a puff of heat rising through this column, passing through all the layers of the atmosphere on its journey. What happens as it rises? Where does it go? The answer to that simple question is surprisingly, even ominously important for the climate. But for nearly a century, the world’s best scientists struggled to resolve it.

A new guide to living through climate change

The Weekly Planet brings you big ideas and vital information to help you flourish on a changing planet.

Email Address (required)
Enter your email
Sign Up
Thanks for signing up!

The problem starts with temperature: As the intrepid puff of heat rises, it will encounter cooler air at first, then warmer air, then cooler again, until eventually it reaches the stratosphere, which is frigid. These temperature changes are paired with changes in humidity: Because hotter air can hold more water—as anyone who has endured a July day in Atlanta can tell you—the atmosphere’s warmer layers will generally have more water vapor than the cooler ones. But—and here’s the rub—water vapor is the most powerful heat-trapping gas on Earth, so it also affects air temperature. If more water is in the atmosphere, it will warm up the cooler layers.

This is complicated further by the fact that water vapor is very fickle. It falls out of the atmosphere as rain or snow after a few days and only reenters because greenhouse gases—chiefly, carbon dioxide—keep the planet’s temperature high enough for it to evaporate and rise again.


So to describe that puff of heat moving through the atmosphere, “you have to kind of include all of the temperature effects, as well as all the greenhouse-gas effects,” says Paul N. Edwards, a lead author of this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Society at Stanford. The first scientist to unknit those effects and solve the riddle was Syukuro Manabe. That work won Manabe, now a 90-year-old Princeton professor, the Nobel Prize in Physics earlier this month.

Manabe is one of the first climate scientists to win the physics Nobel. (When he received the call that he had won, he reportedly exclaimed, “But I’m just a climatologist!”) He shared this year’s prize with Klaus Hasselmann, a climate scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany, and Giorgio Parisi, a theoretical physicist at Sapienza University of Rome.

Manabe’s win is a reminder that climate science was not always the politically fraught undertaking it is today—and that it is, in itself, a major scientific achievement of the past half century. Climate science emerged from the invention of the digital computer, the military and economic need to understand weather and climate, and a series of pesky questions—such as the question of heat in the air column—that pen and paper alone could not resolve.

In the 1950s, a team of American scientists started trying to describe the climate not as a set of elegant Einsteinian equations, as had been tried by the researchers before them, but as a matrix of thousands of numbers that could affect one another. This brute-force approach was borrowed from work by John von Neumann, a physicist who had used it to investigate atomic explosions. Applied to climate, it was immediately successful, producing the first short-term weather forecasts and later the first general circulation models of the atmosphere.


Manabe, who is usually called Suki, was one of several Japanese scientists invited to America in 1958 to produce these models. “The original motivation of studying [the] greenhouse effect has very little to do with my concern over environmental problem[s],” Manabe said in a 1998 interview with Edwards. Instead, he researched out of curiosity: Carbon dioxide and water vapor were the most important factors in Earth’s climate other than the sun.

It was then that he began to study the movement of heat vertically through the atmosphere. “In a lot of ways, Manabe just kind of worried at that problem, again and again,” Edwards told me. In a series of crucial papers in the late 1960s, Manabe made several observations that set the stage for the next half century of climate science. He said, for instance, that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise Earth’s average temperature by 2.3 degrees Celsius—a reasonable lower bound for that number, scientists now believe.

Manabe also found that increasing the CO₂ in the atmosphere would increase the temperature of the troposphere, the layer of air closest to Earth’s surface, while lowering the temperature of the stratosphere, the next layer above it. That “fingerprint” of climate change was later found in the real world by the climate scientist Benjamin Santer.

Although Manabe was a talented mathematician, he did not know how to program the supercomputers that powered his work. Several of his seminal papers were co-authored with Richard Wetherald, a computer scientist who converted Manabe’s equations into code.

Manabe remained a major figure in the field for decades. In 1988, when James Hansen, then director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned a Senate committee that global warming “had begun,” Manabe was seated down the dais, according to Joseph Majkut, a climate scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Although Manabe’s language was not as dire as Hansen’s, he warned the Senate about the then-unusual drying-out of California. He retired from Princeton a decade later at age 68—then worked another 20 years in Japan, Edwards said. He now lives in Princeton.


Manabe is universally described as kind and almost ceaselessly curious. “When I was a graduate student, Suki was still around the building, and one of the things that was most engaging—apart from being around this very senior, important scientist—was the extent to which he still wanted to apply his curiosity and rigorous thought to the research we were doing as students,” Majkut, who holds a doctorate in atmospheric science, told me.

Manabe is also a champion of simplicity.

“One of the key insights is that he would remind us as students not to get too enamored of our computer models and focus on the scientific insights that they allowed us to probe,” Majkut said. “From him, I learned that you can often learn more from a simple model well interpreted than from something big and fancy.”

Robinson Meyer is a staff writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of the newsletter The Weekly Planet, and a co-founder of the COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic.


Exxon was not alone in systematically lying about the impacts of their industry.


Quote:
EWS WIRES

French oil and gas major Total deliberately downplayed the threat of global warming from the 1970s onwards, according to research based on interviews with former company executives and internal company documents.


The findings, published by a trio of historians Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Global Environment Change, follow similar revelations about US oil giant ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

The pattern that emerges is one of oil and gas giants well aware -- often informed by their own scientists -- of the dire risks posed by rising temperatures, on the one hand, while undermining confidence in climate science in their public pronouncements, on the other.

Total -- today TotalEnergies -- "began promoting doubt regarding the scientific basis for global warming by the late 1980s", moving from "denial to delay," the researchers reported.

The company "ultimately settled on a position in the late 1990s of publically accepting climate science while promoting policy delay or policies peripheral to fossil fuel control."

In 1971, Total published an article in the company's internal magazine on "atmospheric pollution and the climate" that drew a straight line between burning fossil fuels and potentially "catastrophic consequences".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 165, 166, 167  Next
Page 166 of 167

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group