The environment thread

[Balta1701]

It is potentially tied to an environmental trend, I was just pointing out that the article was stuck on the oil thing, when in the end, it appears that was not the conclusion the scientists came to.

 

I am sure though that you are right, its multiple factors. Ecosystems are just so complex, its hard to ever pin a result on one specific cause.

I'm thinking more and more about this particular picture and it's really bugging me. This particular fish kill seems to be, as far as the people I've read are saying, something fairly unique. There are fish kills down there fairly commonly because of all the fertilizer runoff, but usually they're confined to smaller areas and usually even single species (basically it kills off a couple schools of the same type). This one is not only massive, but it's killed off a large variety of species; some reports have even talked about a whale being somewhere in there.

 

In the back of my head, I really think something has gone haywire down there this year, and I think it's being missed by the "research" that is being done. The type of science that could and should be done down there isn't happening; there isn't money and resources to do it, so the only thing that we're getting is proclamations by groups like the authorities in LA that these events are not systematic and say nothing about the safety of the area...And I think there's good reason to view those official proclamations with skepticism.

[Balta1701]

Different subject; there hasn't been nearly as much focus as in 2005 due to the lack of U.S. landfalls, but this hurricane season is officially a record breaker in multiple ways.

This morning's unexpected intensification of Hurricane Julia into a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds has set a new record--Julia is now the strongest hurricane on record so far east. When one considers that earlier this year, Hurricane Earl became the fourth strongest hurricane so far north, it appears that this year's record SSTs have significantly expanded the area over which major hurricanes can exist over the Atlantic. This morning is just the second time in recorded history that two simultaneous Category 4 or stronger storms have occurred in the Atlantic. The only other occurrence was on 06 UTC September 16, 1926, when the Great Miami Hurricane and Hurricane Four were both Category 4 storms for a six-hour period. The were also two years, 1999 and 1958, when we missed having two simultaneous Category 4 hurricanes by six hours. Julia's ascension to Category 4 status makes it the 4th Category 4 storm of the year. Only two other seasons have had as many as five Category 4 or stronger storms (2005 and 1999), so 2010 ranks in 3rd place in this statistic. This year is also the earliest a fourth Category 4 or stronger storm has formed (though the fourth Category 4 of 1999, Hurricane Gert, formed just 3 hours later on today's date in 1999.) We've also had four Cat 4+ storms in just twenty days, which beats the previous record for shortest time span for four Cat 4+ storms to appear. The previous record was 1999, 24 days (thanks to Phil Klozbach of CSU for this stat.)

[Balta1701]

Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in Los Angeles.

 

It was so hot that the official weather service thermometer actually broke and couldn't record peak temperature.

 

Oh, and Lake Mead is about to hit the danger/water conservation point.

[BigSqwert]

Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in Los Angeles.

 

It was so hot that the official weather service thermometer actually broke and couldn't record peak temperature.

 

Oh, and Lake Mead is about to hit the danger/water conservation point.

Quentin Tarantino's editor died walking her dog because of the heat.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in Los Angeles.

 

It was so hot that the official weather service thermometer actually broke and couldn't record peak temperature.

 

Oh, and Lake Mead is about to hit the danger/water conservation point.

If its that hot in LA, I wonder how hot Death Valley is today. Or how hot Phoenix will be tomorrow. Or, is this a localized LA area phenomenon?

 

[Balta1701]

If its that hot in LA, I wonder how hot Death Valley is today. Or how hot Phoenix will be tomorrow. Or, is this a localized LA area phenomenon?

The L.A. basin is a unique individual from Death Valley. The Valley's supposed to be at about 115 tomorrow and declining from there. Death Valley, in particular in the summer, tends to insulate itself from the surrounding climate. It's surrounded by steep moutains on all sides that run perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. Typically what happens is that the sun heats up the mountains in the valley and you create an isolated convection cell in the valley with normal weather heading overhead, so that even if it's hot outside, the Valley doesn't care until the sun starts moving south.

 

Phoenix is supposed to spike to 108 on Thurs.

[Balta1701]

Federal Gulf Oil Spill commission encountering resistance from: 1.) oil companies about turning over potentially incriminating documents, and 2.) Congress, at giving the oil spill commission the subpoena power it would take to compel those documents forwards.

 

I'm sure you can guess where and how the subpoena power is hung up.

[iamshack]

Yesterday was the hottest day ever recorded in Los Angeles.

 

It was so hot that the official weather service thermometer actually broke and couldn't record peak temperature.

 

Oh, and Lake Mead is about to hit the danger/water conservation point.

LADWP declared an emergency Monday afternoon, and was forced to be a price taker on any power they could get their hands on. It was quite fun for us here in Vegas

Edited September 29, 2010 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

First oil spill report rips the administration for downplaying the severity of the spill repeatedly, all the way through August.

The report, one of four made public on Wednesday, is sharply critical of senior administration officials for a series of inaccurate estimates of the amount of oil spewing from BP’s Macondo well and how much of it remained in the Gulf of Mexico after the well was capped.

[southsider2k5]

First oil spill report rips the administration for downplaying the severity of the spill repeatedly, all the way through August.

 

Rolling Stone reported this months ago...

[southsider2k5]

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Chi...1179/story.html

 

It might be the most ambitious construction project in China since the Great Wall.

 

The government is planning to reroute the nation's water supply, bringing water from the flood plains of the south and the snow-capped mountains of the west to the parched capital of Beijing.

 

First envisioned by Mao Zedong in the 1950s and now coming to fruition, the South-North Water Diversion - as it is inelegantly known in English - will cost more than $62 billion, twice as much as the famous Three Gorges Dam. The project is expected to take decades to finish.

 

"This is on a par with the Great Wall, a project essential for the survival of China," said Wang Shushan, who heads the project in Henan province, where much of the construction work is being done. "It is a must-do project. We can't afford to wait."

 

In effect, the Chinese are "re-plumbing" the entire country, said Orville Schell, a scholar of China and an environmentalist. That is something "no country has ever done successfully in the past."

 

China is plagued by extreme weather. Vast river deltas in the south are inundated each year by floods, while the steppes of the north are swept by sandstorms. To remedy this, the engineers are creating a vast network of canals, tunnels and aqueducts that will extend thousands of miles across the country.

 

The middle route - there are three routes in all - would siphon water from a tributary of the Yangtze River 570 miles southwest of Beijing. The water would then be funneled through a canal traversing three provinces and passing under the Yellow River.

 

"It is a little like building the tunnel under the English Channel to connect France and England, except we're moving water, not vehicles," said Yang Sheya, an engineering supervisor working on the underground aqueduct along the banks of the Yellow River, where it passes just north of Henan's provincial capital, Zhengzhou.

 

Here, the Chinese engineers have scooped out a 1,000-foot-wide canal. It plunges 180 feet underground to pass underneath the Yellow River. (The Yellow River itself is too polluted to supply drinking water.)

 

The Chinese have designed a system that uses no pumps, relying only on gravity from the higher elevation of the south for the water to run downhill to Beijing. A spur will also feed the port city of Tianjin to the east.

 

Many Chinese activists oppose the project. They point out the affront to river ecosystems and fish and bird life, the damage to the archaeological sites in what is widely considered the cradle of Chinese civilization, the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of people and, most of all, the underlying hubris of an undertaking that in essence would rearrange the nation's great rivers.

 

"They are robbing the water of the rest of China to supply Beijing - and it probably won't work anyway," said Dai Qing, a pro-democracy activist who was imprisoned before the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and who now focuses on water issues.

 

Dai said there wasn't enough clean water in southern China to supply the north and whatever water does reach Beijing might be too polluted to be usable. In fact, the Chinese government has acknowledged that that water from an eastern spur of the diversion project, which follows the route of the 1,400-year-old Grand Canal waterway, is so toxic that it is unclear whether it can be used even for agriculture.

 

Politically speaking, the project is sacrosanct, its genesis tied to a remark that Mao reportedly made in 1952: "There's a lot of water in the south, but not much in the north. If we could borrow some, then everything would be OK."

 

The Communist Party has staked enormous prestige on the success of the project, which is supposed be a showpiece for President Hu Jintao's theories of "scientific development." Hu is a hydraulic engineer by training who began his career at Sinohydro, the state dam-builder responsible for much of the construction.

 

"The ability to control water in China has always been seen as one of the benchmarks of a leader who is able to manage the country. It goes back to the idea that the emperor is the go-between to protect the people from the heavens," said Jonathan Watts, author of a new book, "When a Billion Chinese Jump," about China's environment. "The fact that they are still doing it shows their desperation."

 

In all, there are three major components to the project. The 885-mile eastern line from Hangzhou to Beijing, which mostly follows the route of the Grand Canal is planned to be ready by 2013. The middle line is supposed to open in 2014 and run 766 miles, although it might be extended. The western section, which is still in the planning stages, would funnel water from the Tibetan plateau. But with serious costs overruns and delays on the eastern and middle routes, there are doubts about whether it will be built at all.

 

The project also has been complicated by the massive relocations of populations that stand in the way of the water. "In the old days, people were willing to sacrifice their homes for Chairman Mao. But nowadays, their attitude is: If you don't give me money, I won't go," Dai said.

 

In order to get enough water, the engineers have raised the height of the Danjiangkou dam in Hubei province, where the middle line originates, forcing 330,000 people from their homes.

 

Hoping to avoid the types of public protests that dogged the Three Gorges project, Chinese authorities have raised compensation levels and built entire new villages, complete with schools, clinics, general stores and community centers.

 

One such model village, Guanggou (the name was transplanted from the original community 240 miles away) looks like a cross between a California housing development and a prison, with rows of two-story red-roofed townhouses painted pale yellow, all surrounded by a high iron fence.

 

The 1,600 people relocated in August are being trained to farm their new land, which is drier than their old fields, and are even being taught to change their diet from noodles to rice, which is more popular in this part of Henan province.

 

"We have given up everything for the greater good of the country, but the party has been good to us too," said Yao Ziliang, 74. He said he was confident that the water diversion project would be a success. "Of course, it will bring water to Beijing. The party would not lie to us."

 

 

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Chi...l#ixzz11gOQcLni

[Balta1701]

When British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited the U.S. last week, he placed combating climate change near the very top of the world's To Do list.

 

"Climate change is perhaps the 21st century's biggest foreign-policy challenge," Hague declared in a New York City speech. "An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity." The danger was no longer just distant thunder, he suggested, warning that the recent devastating floods in Pakistan heralded the sort of extreme events that will become more common in a warmer world. "While no one weather event can ever be linked with certainty to climate change," he said, "the broad patterns of abnormality seen this year are consistent with climate-change models."

 

William Hague is not a holdover from the left-leaning Labor Government that British voters ousted last spring. He's not even from the centrist Liberal Democrats who are governing in a coalition with the Conservative Party of Prime Minister David Cameron. Hague is one of Cameron's predecessors as Conservative Party leader.

 

His strong words make it easier to recognize that Republicans in this country are coalescing around a uniquely dismissive position on climate change. The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.

Link, article by Ron Brownstein.

[BigSqwert]

Why Are The Republicans The World's Only Major Political Party Denying Climate Change?

 

"It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here." That's the pull quote from an important column in the National Journal today and it reveals an ugly, under-reported truth about American politics. Conservatives and conservative leaders the world over -- David Cameron's Tories in Britain, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union in Germany, and so on -- do not shy from the science of climate change. In fact, there's only one democracy in the world where a prominent political party has made it a point to deny climate science: The United States. But why?

 

Read on

[NorthSideSox72]

Read on

The why is easy. Two reasons...

 

1. Addressing climate change costs money, a lot of it, and the US would undoubtedly be taking on a large chunk of it if they sign onto treaties and what not.

 

2. The conservatives here are playing to an increasingly angry religious base that sees science as some sort of trick on humanity.

 

The first point is a valid one, and should always be part of the discussion. The second one is just kind of sad.

 

[StrangeSox]

The first point is only valid if you ignore the economic consequences of not addressing it.

[NorthSideSox72]

The first point is only valid if you ignore the economic consequences of not addressing it.

No, its very much valid as a discussion along WITH what you stated. Its only invalid if you take that into account but ignore the consequences of not addressing it.

 

[StrangeSox]

"It costs too much money to change" is not a valid reason to continue destroying the environment, and that applies to more than AGW.

[NorthSideSox72]

"It costs too much money to change" is not a valid reason to continue destroying the environment, and that applies to more than AGW.

And I didn't use that argument, did I? I stated that it will cost a lot, and you are damn right that is a valid point in the argument. You don't want the consequences of not acting ignored, yet you seem quick to ignore the costs of acting. You need to look at both.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Google invests 37.5% stake in wind power conveyance line on eastern seaboard, a line that will allow power balancing and delivery that is enough to power 1.3 million homes.

 

Google sees the future here, apparently.

 

[BigSqwert]

And I didn't use that argument, did I? I stated that it will cost a lot, and you are damn right that is a valid point in the argument. You don't want the consequences of not acting ignored, yet you seem quick to ignore the costs of acting. You need to look at both.

 

We know ignoring it will have dire consequences. I just don't see how it's even an option to ignore things because it might cost a lot of money to fix.

[StrangeSox]

And I didn't use that argument, did I? I stated that it will cost a lot, and you are damn right that is a valid point in the argument. You don't want the consequences of not acting ignored, yet you seem quick to ignore the costs of acting. You need to look at both.

 

My point is that, whenever environmental issues are discussed, Republicans whine on and on about the economic impacts but never address the actual science and the actual environmental impacts. And that in the case of AGW, the economic costs of not acting outweigh the costs of acting, so the costs of acting are not a relevant concern anymore.

[NorthSideSox72]

We know ignoring it will have dire consequences. I just don't see how it's even an option to ignore things because it might cost a lot of money to fix.

That is exactly my point.

 

This drives me nuts on this topic. You have a significant portion of the GOP who has decided its good policy to bury their head in the sand and not only ignore the consequences of not acting, but just plain ignoring the reality of it even existing. Then on the other side, you have the environmental lobby choosing to ignore the fact that this country is already in difficult financial position, and that spending a trillion dollars on getting everything done they want to isn't a realistic option.

 

Clearly, action is needed. Clearly, this money would be better use of capital and capitol than many other things we spend money on. And, clearly, we can't fix the whole world, nor can we even fix ourselves all at once.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

My point is that, whenever environmental issues are discussed, Republicans whine on and on about the economic impacts but never address the actual science and the actual environmental impacts. And that in the case of AGW, the economic costs of not acting outweigh the costs of acting, so the costs of acting are not a relevant concern anymore.

And I agree with you. But you quoted my post, which did NOT endorse that method, and tried to make it out as if I did.

 

[StrangeSox]

And I agree with you. But you quoted my post, which did NOT endorse that method, and tried to make it out as if I did.

 

I think that even on the economic level, "stop ruining the environment" is a winner. If we don't spend the money now to address the issue, it's going to cost us much more down the road. Not necessarily in terms of technological implementation, but in terms of lost or destroyed economic opportunities (loss of fisheries, droughts, floods, etc.).

 

But I don't think "it will cost too much" is a valid rejection of "stop ruining the environment", even if that is a net economic loser.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that even on the economic level, "stop ruining the environment" is a winner. If we don't spend the money now to address the issue, it's going to cost us much more down the road. Not necessarily in terms of technological implementation, but in terms of lost or destroyed economic opportunities (loss of fisheries, droughts, floods, etc.).

 

But I don't think "it will cost too much" is a valid rejection of "stop ruining the environment", even if that is a net economic loser.

You're still doing it.

 

Read my posts, and then tell me why you are arguing with me as if I am wearing a John Boehner mask.