The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

Where oh where is balta when he is so desperately needed??

[Jenksismyhero]

Where oh where is balta when he is so desperately needed??

 

Yeah where did he go? Does anyone know? Did he get banned (ha!)

[iamshack]

You can't predict certain medical issues to a degree of certainty either, but you can still sue a doctor for negligently failing to assess your medical problem and reacting in an improper way. It's a factual issue and it would be difficult to prove, but I don't see why it's a problem to go after a Chief of police that is advising you of things he knows to be completely untrue. For a Chief of Police you'd have a willful wanton standard, for a scientist you'd have professional standard.

It isn't as though the scientists said there was no risk to living in the area though...they said there was no elevated risk, not that there was no risk at all.

 

 

[iamshack]

Barclays facing possible $430 million in Market Manipulation fines from the FERC.

 

Barclay's

[StrangeSox]

still not sure why they aren't facing substantial jail time

[iamshack]

still not sure why they aren't facing substantial jail time

Well, many of the economists or mathematicians who designed CAISO side with the marketers. I went to a conference where a guy named William Hogan said the market was designed for this sort of trading, and that the FERC would destroy these types of ISO's if they continued down this path.

 

Crazy thing, last month I met one of the traders mentioned in that article...we interviewed him, and almost hired him...

Edited November 1, 2012 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

Warmer still: Extreme climate predictions appear most accurate, report says

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

BP gets record criminal fine in settlement: 4.5 Billion

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20336898

[StrangeSox]

More depressing climate news:

 

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1119-hance-4-degrees.html

"Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world," the authors write. "Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century."

 

In addition, sea levels will rise by at least 0.5 to 1 meter by century's end, coral reefs and many other marine organisms could go extinct, and many farming areas may have to be abandoned due to higher sea levels and expanding drought.

 

The report also warns that adaptation efforts may not be enough in world overheated by 4 degrees, especially given the risk of going over climate tipping points.

 

"There is [...] no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible," the report says starkly.

 

"The Earth system's responses to climate change appear to be non-linear," explains, John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) which co-authored the report for the World Bank along with Climate Analytics. "If we venture far beyond the 2 degrees guardrail, towards the 4 degrees line, the risk of crossing tipping points rises sharply. The only way to avoid this is to break the business-as-usual pattern of production and consumption."

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...s-a-662887.html

Agricultural yields are expected to decrease for all major cereal crops in all major regions of production. The availability of water will be affected by melting of glaciers, particularly in areas such as the Indus basin and western China, where much of the river flow comes from melt water. Population increases, combined with changes in river run off as a result of changes in rainfall patterns and increased temperatures, could mean that by 2080 significantly less water is available to approximately 1 billion people already living under water stress. For many areas of the world sea level rise, combined with the effect of storms, will threaten low lying coastal communities. There are often very dense populations living along coasts, as well as important infrastructure and high value agricultural land, which makes the impact of coastal flooding particularly severe. The intrusion of salt water on farming land, and the risk to lives of flooding events could affect millions of people worldwide every year.

 

The impacts are frightening, and the list is not exhaustive. However, the map represents a world where climate change has gone unmitigated, where we have continued to emit greenhouse gases at the rates we are today. If we continue to do this, then the likelihood of the planet warming by 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) increases, and as it does so the risk of these impacts being realised also increases. By taking strong and effective action to curb greenhouse gases emissions, it may be possible to limit this temperature rise to 2 debrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit). Although this would still bring some adverse impacts, the risk of the very severest impacts, as shown in the Met Office Hadley Centre map, is significantly reduced.

 

I believe we'll be well and truly f***ed on a global level within my lifetime. Good thing such an important issue was discussed and contemplated in our $5 billion dollar election.

[Balta1701]

Holy bleep...apparently this happened.

A California utility said Thursday it has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of potential sabotage, possibly by an employee, of a crucial piece of safety equipment attached to one of its nuclear power reactors.

 

Southern California Edison said the incident did not pose an immediate safety threat because the plant involved, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Clemente, is currently offline. But the plant operator found engine coolant had been poured into an oil reservoir of an emergency backup generator, which would have likely caused the generator to malfunction if needed to help cool the reactor during a power failure. The tampering is being taken seriously and security at the plant has been tightened, SCE said.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah that's no good. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if one or both of those units never comes back online.

[Balta1701]

Yeah that's no good. Honestly i wouldn't be surprised if one or both of those units never comes back online.

They shouldn't...but not (entirely) because of this event.

[StrangeSox]

I was actually supposed to be there again next week

[iamshack]

I sat in on a presentation by the CAISO (California Independent Systems Operator) yesterday and heard some interesting things on some of the challenges facing them in the coming years due to the influx of wind and solar and the state's 33% RPS for 2020.

Edited November 30, 2012 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

[BigSqwert]

See....I told you there was no consensus. *rolls eyes*

[Y2HH]

Ok, I see we are still banging this drum. It seems to me that has become about proclaiming, "my side was right", at this point...but offering nothing of substance beyond that. These last few posts highlight exactly what I'm talking about. Congratulations, you've won bragging rights. It's time to move on to solutions, now, no?

 

We get it, 30 quadrillion papers have peer reviewed, only 13 of those peer reviewed disagree with some minor aspects of climate change.

 

Now, what do we actually do about it? More importantly, can it be done in a feasible way?

 

I can pose solutions that are easy to talk about, but impossible to implement, too...but they solve nothing. First and foremost, people need to accept the word 'global' in this climate change discussion, and one country will not be able to make so much as a dent on it's own...everyone the world over has to not only agree on the science, but implement the same restrictions and safeguards, otherwise we're just wasting everyone's time.

 

For the interest of conversation, let's move beyond the fact that AGW exists...and let's hear some solutions.

 

This is the point where I expect to start hearing crickets chirping, or a few of you sound off and suggestions that are pure fantasy and could/would never get implemented for a multitude of reasons, be they political or otherwise. So, let's hear some realistic solutions.

[Jake]

Nothing significant will happen until there is a big time propaganda campaign. If we can make people feel about climate change the way they once felt about nuclear holocaust, we'd suddenly have very clean industries.

[Y2HH]

Nothing significant will happen until there is a big time propaganda campaign. If we can make people feel about climate change the way they once felt about nuclear holocaust, we'd suddenly have very clean industries.

 

That is probably the most realistic suggestion I've ever heard on this matter. The biggest problem with that is doing so in a time of recession is next to impossible.

[HuskyCaucasian]

See....I told you there was no consensus. *rolls eyes*

Everyone knows that anyone who believes in science is a liberal, so this is a coordinated scientific liberal agenda.

[NorthSideSox72]

Back in April, the US House passed HR 4089. Purports to help support hunters, fishermen and shooters. In reality, if you read the bill, it completely guts the Wilderness Act. Ugh. Fortunately the Senate buried it in committee, but still, even the threat of something like that passing is enough to make me ill.

 

And why the hell is recreational shooting, in wilderness areas, being championed anyway? Not hunting mind you - just shooting. Why would you want to do that specifically in a wilderness area?

 

[Y2HH]

Back in April, the US House passed HR 4089. Purports to help support hunters, fishermen and shooters. In reality, if you read the bill, it completely guts the Wilderness Act. Ugh. Fortunately the Senate buried it in committee, but still, even the threat of something like that passing is enough to make me ill.

 

And why the hell is recreational shooting, in wilderness areas, being championed anyway? Not hunting mind you - just shooting. Why would you want to do that specifically in a wilderness area?

 

I have no idea...not only does this accomplish nothing, but it's dangerous because you have no idea what might be wandering around in the wilderness, be it animals or even people. Seems like a ignorant practice if you ask me.

 

It's one thing if you're shooting at targets in a fenced off area of wilderness in a huge field, it's another if you're shooting into a forest for no reason. At least when it's hunting season, people are made aware of the hunting areas to remain clear of.

[StrangeSox]

There's a significant change to the national monument powers in there as well. These people are opposed to the idea of public wilderness and parks. They're actively anti-environment. I don't think that's an unfair way of describing it.

 

Here's a pro-gun site's take on how terrible this bill is:

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/19/hr-4089.../#axzz2E6FxmrQ8

 

I just enjoyed a day hiking around Desolation Wilderness in October. I can't imagine why people would want to open a place like that up to roadways, logging and mining.

[StrangeSox]

I have no idea...not only does this accomplish nothing, but it's dangerous because you have no idea what might be wandering around in the wilderness, be it animals or even people. Seems like a ignorant practice if you ask me.

 

It's one thing if you're shooting at targets in a fenced off area of wilderness in a huge field, it's another if you're shooting into a forest for no reason. At least when it's hunting season, people are made aware of the hunting areas to remain clear of.

 

There are designated recreational shooting areas in some National Forest areas, but not currently in National Wilderness areas. This randomly googled site has some more info.

 

A review of the bill from the CS Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinio...istory/(page)/2

[Balta1701]

Ok, I see we are still banging this drum. It seems to me that has become about proclaiming, "my side was right", at this point...but offering nothing of substance beyond that. These last few posts highlight exactly what I'm talking about. Congratulations, you've won bragging rights. It's time to move on to solutions, now, no?

 

We get it, 30 quadrillion papers have peer reviewed, only 13 of those peer reviewed disagree with some minor aspects of climate change.

 

Now, what do we actually do about it? More importantly, can it be done in a feasible way?

 

I can pose solutions that are easy to talk about, but impossible to implement, too...but they solve nothing. First and foremost, people need to accept the word 'global' in this climate change discussion, and one country will not be able to make so much as a dent on it's own...everyone the world over has to not only agree on the science, but implement the same restrictions and safeguards, otherwise we're just wasting everyone's time.

 

For the interest of conversation, let's move beyond the fact that AGW exists...and let's hear some solutions.

 

This is the point where I expect to start hearing crickets chirping, or a few of you sound off and suggestions that are pure fantasy and could/would never get implemented for a multitude of reasons, be they political or otherwise. So, let's hear some realistic solutions.

As long as our political priorities are set by the people who have the most money.

 

Nothing.

 

The answer is going to be we're going to keep paying $100 billion to repair from the next Katrina, $60 billion to repair from the next Sandy, $100 billion to cover the next dust bowl, and we'll pretend that the people raking in piles of cash off of fossil fuels aren't making that money and leaving the taxpayer with that bill.