Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 12:50 AM GMT on October 03, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

Barriers in the Atmosphere: Arctic Oscillation (3)

I want to continue with the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. First, however, here is the link to my August presentation. Also here is a link to the GLISAclimate.org project workspace where I collected together the materials I used in the presentation - Arctic Oscillation: Climate variability in the Great Lakes.

Here are the previous entries in the series:
Behavior
Definitions and Some Background

This blog is mostly a setup for the next one. (And yes I did notice that the IPCC AR-5 report was released, but I don’t have anything different to say about it than many of my more able colleagues. I’ll get to it.)


In the talk that I linked to above, I used a couple of diagrams that the audience told me worked very well. I am going to try them out in this blog. In the previous blogs I used the CPC Climate Glossary to give the definition of the Arctic Oscillation. “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.” This definition does not really do much for me. It’s one of those definitions that I imagine if I ask 10 atmospheric scientists to tell me what it means, I will get 12 answers. Therefore, I will draw a picture.



Figure 1: Adapted from Jim Hurrell – This picture is a schematic representation of the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation. In the positive phase the pressure is low at the pole and high at middle latitudes. This is the positive phase because if you calculate the difference between middle and high latitudes it is large. In the negative phase the pressure is not as low at the pole and not as high at middle latitudes. This is the negative phase because if you calculate the difference between middle and high latitudes it is small. The refrigerator suggests that this is like opening and closing the refrigerator door (see Behavior).

This figure helps me with the definition. I want to focus on the low pressure at high latitudes, which in this figure is drawn idealistically at the pole. In reality, it is likely to wander off the pole, a fact that will be important in the next blog. When the pressure is low at the pole, then there is a stronger vortex of air circulating around the pole. When the pressure at the pole is not as low, then there is a weaker vortex. In both cases, strong or weak vortex, the air generally moves from west to east.

For clarity, vorticity is a parameter that describes rotation in a fluid. A vortex is a feature in a fluid dominated by vorticity – that is it is rotationally dominated. Tornadoes and hurricanes are weather features that we often call vortices; there is an obvious circulation of air in these features. In the Earth’s atmosphere at middle and high latitudes rotation is an important characteristic of the flow, due to the rotation of the Earth. The reason air moves in the west to east direction for both the weak and strong vortex cases of Figure 1 is that the rotation of the Earth is important to the flow.

In Figure 2 I have set up an even more idealized figure. I also provide this link to a Powerpoint animation, that I am not smart enough to incorporate into the blog. In the animation I have five slides that clarify the point that I make in Figure 2.



Figure 2: A vortex and a ball. In the center of the figure is low pressure, meant to be an analogue to the vortex over the pole in Figure 1. Parcels of air move around the low pressure system. If it takes the same amount of time for a parcel farther away from the low pressure center to go around the vortex as a parcel nearer the center, then the parcel farther away has to go faster because the distance it has to go is longer. That is why I drew that arrow, saying that air moves “faster” at the outside edge of the vortex.

To set my point a little more, imagine you are on a bridge overlooking a running stream. If you drop a stick in the water near the edge where the water is moving slowly, then if the stick drifts towards the more rapidly flowing water, it is carried downstream at the edge of the fast moving water. It does not cross the core of fast moving water – this jet of water. In fact the jet is something of a barrier that keeps material from crossing the stream. Material is transported downstream.

Back to Figure 2: Imagine that you want to roll a ball into the center of a vortex. As the ball gets to the edge it gets caught up in the flow and pulled around the edge. It does not roll into the center. Look at the this link to a Powerpoint animation to get a better idea of what’s going on.

Now go back to Figure 1. The vortex in Figure 1 is also a barrier. The southern edge of vortex is a jet stream. Air on the two sides of the vortex often has different characteristics. Intuitively, there is colder air on the poleward side. If you look at trace gases, like ozone, they are different across the edge of the vortex. The takeaway idea is that the edge of the vortex is a barrier. It’s not a perfect barrier, but air on one side is largely separated from the air on the other side. In the next blog, I will describe the difference between the strong and the weak case and its relevance to weather, climate and, perhaps, climate change.


r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 320 - 270

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index


.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 315. iceagecoming:
[snip]
TL;DR
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13552
Quoting 310. iceagecoming:
[snip]
Here, I condensed the text for sake of brevity:

Small: Self-destructive Tea Party shutdown irks small business owner, just one of millions of victims of the Crybaby Faction.

Medium: Paranoid right-wing kook criticizes Obama for doing something Obama didn't say he would do, failing to mention in dozens of online articles he's written about the SBA demolition that the only source he gives for any of those articles is the dozens of online articles he's written about the SBA demolition.

Large: Right-wing hack and NYT columnist pens fiftieth consecutive opinion piece article about the horrors that await the country due to the implementation of the ACA. Also, Obama is a Kenyan socialist terrorist liar, and the Ryan budget would have saved us all.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13552

Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November
BRITAIN is braced for the "worst winter in decades" with the first major snowfall expected in weeks.
By: Nathan Rao
Published: Sat, October 12, 2013

Link


US Winter Forecast: Snow to Bury Rockies; Slow Onset in East
Jillian MacMath

October 13, 2013; 5:17 AM


Record cold could also blast Eastern Europe.

In Krasnoyarsk , the temperature dropped to the lowest level in history, -6.5 ° C, according to the Russian Institute for Hydrological and Meteorological. Previous minimum of -6.4 ° C. was established September 27, 1988.

The Institute adds that it is a mean daily , not the minimum temperature , so you can guess that mercury bars at night dropped to below -15 degrees.

Already 60 per cent of the Asian part of Russia is covered with snow several centimeters deep. The snow is heaviest in the mountains of Magadan (40 cm) and the Yamal Peninsula (20 cm).

Coldest September in Moscow this century. And wettest?

All indications are this September in Moscow will be the coldest since the beginning of this century.

Link


Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

By Jason Samenow, Published: September 23 at 3:23 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weath er-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-yea r-record-high-saturday/





Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

Ohh Nooo, say it aint soooo! IT IS NOT WARMING, Cool




Wednesday, 21 August 2013 17:27
Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling
Written by Alex Newman

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
E-mail

Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more. According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.

Proponents of what is known as “anthropogenic global warming” theories, which claim that human activity is to blame for alleged warming, have long warned that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “catastrophic” warming. The problem is that even based on data gathered by the planet’s premier climate alarmists — the U.K. Met Office, for example, or various U.S. agencies — shows that global warming stopped more than a decade and a half ago, as The New American reported last year. Link

Will Cooling Temperature And Economic Climates Finally Take The Wind Out Of Failed Energy Policies?

Larry Bell Forbes

8:05 a.m. CDT, October 8, 2013

There can be no disputing the fact that despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, global climate temperatures have been flat for at least the past 16 years, and perhaps a good deal longer. And upon issuing its latest Summary for Policymakers Report (AR5), the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has finally been forced to admit that its climate models that predicted an impending global warming crisis have grossly overestimated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, a trace "greenhouse gas".

Such unwarranted alarmism has influenced colossally costly and economically destructive anti-fossil energy policies in the United States, Western Europe, Australia and other regions of world. The question now remains how long it will take before broad segments of these populations realize that they have been duped by unaffordable and unreliable climate benefit-premised "green energy" promotions.

High Costs of Political Science

Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a socialist and one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, is now one of many adamant IPCC report critics. Vahrenholt, who had headed the renewable energy division of RWE, that country's second largest utility company, has co-authored a blockbuster book titled "The Neglected Sun Precludes Catastrophe" which challenges IPCC's competence in general, and their gross (more than double) exaggeration of CO2 warming influence in particular. Now available in an English translation version, the book is currently the number one best seller in the Amazon climate category.

Dr. Vahrenholt's lack of trust in the IPCC's objectivity and veracity first took root when he became an expert reviewer for their 2011 report on renewable energy and discovered numerous errors. When he pointed out the inaccuracies to IPCC, their officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he asked himself "Is this the way they approached climate assessment reports?" Then, after digging into the IPCC's climate report, he was horrified to discover that his suspicions were true.

When I queried Vahrenholt regarding what he thinks about the IPCC's latest report finding their scientists to be 95% certain that humans caused most of the recent non-warming, he offered some advice: "If Mother Nature's conclusions differ from IPCC's tweaked calculations, then always believe your mother." I'm 100% in agreement with him.

Fritz Vahrenholt recognizes great danger Germany faces if it continues down its present climate alarmism-premised renewable energy path. This is already costing consumers twenty billion euros every year (250 euros per household), which will increase to 300 euros next year. He points out: "On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we 'sell' surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive. "

Dr. Vahrenholt concludes, "The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It's been a run-away train and it's too expensive. We are putting Germany's industry in jeopardy."

German energy conditions will likely worsen following the re-election of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union which plans to continuously wean the country off of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Her popular victory is seen as a rebuff of those who have argued that she has pushed too hard for expensive "clean energy".

As Fritz Vahrenholt told me, this shift from fossils to renewables produces a double subsidy whammy. He explains, "As the renewables replace the fossils, more and more gas and coal-fired stations are running out of profitability because their production times have to be cut. So the utilities are planning to close ten thousand Megawatts of fossil fuel plant capacity which are needed in the night and winter, when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing. Accordingly, the plan is to provide a capacity subsidy for the gas and coal plants. They would be paid for not producing when they are standing by." The lesson in all of this, he said, is "if you destroy the market by a subsidy, you then need another subsidy to keep the systems from breaking apart."

German households now pay the second highest power costs in Europe, as much as 30% more than other Europeans. Only the Danes pay more, and both countries pay roughly 300% more for residential electricity than we Americans do. Slightly more than 12% of Germany's electricity now comes from wind (7.8%) and solar (4.5%). Biomass provides 7%, and hydro 4%. Since the government plans to increase that renewables proportion to 35% by 2020, and to 80% by 2050, most of that must come from wind and solar because biomass and hydro won't grow.

Yet despite huge investments, German wind has produced only about one-fifth of its installed capacity. Ironically, since shutting down some of their older nuclear plants in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, they now have to import nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic.

To help compensate for this shortfall, they placed their hopes on offshore wind which is less intermittent than onshore installations, but even more expensive due to much higher construction, maintenance and power transmission costs. While half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, there are no follow-up contracts. As Ronney Meyer, managing director of Windenergie Agentur (EWE) based in the northern port city of Bremerhaven said, "The market has collapsed." EWE developer Riffgat reportedly doesn't plan to invest in any more offshore turbines.

Denmark, which allegedly produces between 20- 30 percent of its electricity from wind and solar (estimates vary), hopes to produce half from those sources by 2020. Why "allegedly? Because there's a big difference between the amount of electricity produced, and the amount that makes a difference in meeting consumer demands when needed. To illustrate this, a 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of the country's electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006.

Since Denmark can't use all the electricity it produces at night, it exports about half of its extra supply to Norway and Sweden where hydroelectric power can be switched on and off to balance their grids. Still, even with those export sales, government wind subsidies cause Danish customers to pay the highest electricity rates in Europe.

In 2011, U.K. wind turbines produced energy at about 21% of installed capacity (not demand capacity) during good conditions. Under freezing winter conditions the output can be miniscule because very cold weather and high winds require turbines to be shut down to avoid damage. As in Germany, unreliability in meeting power demands has necessitated importation of nuclear power from France. Also similar to Germany, the government is closing some of its older coal-fired plants-any one of which can produce nearly twice more electricity than all of Britain's 3,000 wind turbines combined.

If the European romance with increasing reliance upon renewables isn't being strained enough by painful electricity costs, power blackouts are adding to buyer's remorse. As millions of consumers turn lights and appliances on and off, power generators and grid operators must match supply to demand to ensure that current is moving across wires at proper frequency to avoid power failures, brownouts and other glitches.

This is much less of a problem when there are reliable backup sources such as hydropower, coal and nuclear plants to meet base load demands. Unfortunately, Most of Europe lacks the former, and is intentionally cutting back both of the latter. As the balance of supply shifts increasingly to intermittent wind and solar, so does the demand-response inequity problem.

The German energy industry group BDEW warns that the surge of renewables is increasingly clogging the power grid and eating into profits of large power stations.





Link




Global Cooling Is Coming -- and Beware the Big Chill, Scientist Warns

By Gene J. Koprowski
Published May 19, 2010
FoxNews.com

Ice Age Coming?

The Statue of Liberty, depicted frozen solid in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Many weather forecasters and scientists wonder whether a coming period of "global cooling" may be on the way. (Twentieth Century Fox)

The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.

Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.

“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.

Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man's role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations' latest report on climate change.

"Global warming is over -- at least for a few decades," Easterbrook told conference attendees. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for even greater concern."

Easterbrook made several stunning claims about the effects of the coming cold. There will be twice as many people killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat, he predicted, and global food production will suffer because of the shorter, cooler growing seasons and bad weather during harvest seasons.

But not everyone is breaking out the overcoat and mittens.

“It's absurd to talk of global cooling when global heating is with us now and accelerating," said Dan Miller, managing director of the Roda Group, and an expert on climate change. "According to NASA, this past April was the hottest since temperature measurements began. And 2010 is on track to be the hottest year since temperature records began.

“North America was relatively cool last year, but the Earth as a whole was much warmer than average,” he said.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) also points to a warming trend. The agency recently reported that global land and ocean surface temperatures for the first four months of 2010 were the warmest it had on record.

Easterbrook, one of 75 climate and policy experts presenting at the conference, uncovered sudden climate fluctuations of warming and cooling -- all of which occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise sharply -- through geologic evidence.

Ten big climate changes occurred over the past 15,000 years, and another 60 smaller changes occurred in the past 5,000 years.

Based on new analysis of ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica, Easterbrook said global temperatures rose and fell from 9 to 15 degrees in a century or less -- swings that he said were "astonishing."

In addition, he explained that energy consumption will rise -- and consumer prices will rise along with it -- and political and social instability could result as the world population grows 50 percent in the next 40 years while f
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Financial Big Guns Aim at Fossil Fuels

Heavyweights of world finance have fired warning shots at the fossil fuel industry by calling for cutbacks in its subsidies, and by stressing that sustainable energy and tackling the causes of climate change are their key priorities

The multi-billion-dollar global fossil fuel industry might be getting just a little bit worried.

In recent days, some of the biggest guns in the world of finance have all had the industry in their sights, calling for a cut back on fossil fuel subsidies and the fast-tracking of carbon trading schemes, or for the wider application of taxes on carbon.

Jim Yong Kim, head of the World Bank, and Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), held a joint news conference in which they stressed that climate change must be the main priority of both institutions.

“It is important that our two institutions always have climate change, environmental issues and price setting at the forefront of our agenda,” Lagarde said. “We have got to think about it every day.”

Establishing a proper price for carbon and removing energy subsidies were the IMF’s priorities, Lagarde said. “If you do it the right way, you can put subsidies where they are needed.”

ClimateNewsNetwork.net


TruthDig.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 308 & 309. FLwolverine:



Thank you, interesting analysis.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Denier trolls quoting the racist 'steve goddard'? Imagine them in the picture here. Drag cursor back and forth across picture. Keep moving cursor back and forth until you feel better.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8630
Quoting 284. Patrap:
Death of the Dream

Barry LevinsonAcademy Award-winning director, screenwriter and producer

Posted: 10/11/2013 5:54 pm

With the recent calamity of the Government Shutdown and the looming debt ceiling fight, one thing has become crystal clear: we are witnessing the Death of the American Dream.

In the past we believed all things were possible, there was absolutely nothing that Americans couldn't accomplish. In the '60s, President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and few doubted the possibilities. After all, America was always capable of great and glorious accomplishments.

We were the Dreamers. It was instilled in the American psyche, American ingenuity. We led the world in research, medical or scientific, our engineering feats astounding the world. We had a government that participated, encouraged, and supported this mighty economic engine. We had a middle class that was the envy of the world. Things were good, but they would even be better in the future. Our education system supported all economic classes, and we had fluid upward mobility. We made the impossible possible.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Naval Marshal General Yamamoto is rumored to have said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant." And he was right. Within three years we built the strongest, most advanced military on the face of the earth.

We believed in Democracy, in fairness. We believed in our Government. We disagreed, argued, but we never doubted our form of Government, or the Government itself. Now a harsh reality sweeps the land. Our precious form of government is dying. Democracy is dying. A minority can now control the majority. Fanaticism that we thought applied to less progressive countries is now homegrown. In the past we didn't always agree, but we accepted laws that were passed as the law of the land. We might fight to overturn some legislation within the halls of Congress, but a minority never took it upon themselves to deprive millions of Americans their jobs, stopping their ability to earn a wage. Never were we this destructive because a minority was opposed to a piece of legislation. And so our Democracy grinds to a halt.

We might get past the debt ceiling crisis, the government shutdown, but the future of America is clear. We are no longer the wonder of the world. We exposed our ignorance, our ugly insensitivity. We are a petty people with a government that has ceased to function. The great achievements are part of yesterday. The future is a dark place.

We have proven a Democracy is a fragile form of government. And we have shown the world how easy it is to kill it.


Small scale.


Feds' stated reason for closing WMNF campgrounds irks operator

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News


It was upsetting enough when Kent Tower learned the federal government was closing the campgrounds in the White Mountain National Forest that he's run for more than two decades.

But when they put up notices saying they were closed due to "health and safety" concerns, that was the final blow.

"We have cleaner bathrooms than anyone," Tower said Saturday. "We hire local police to come in and patrol at night. It's the biggest bunch of bull there could ever be."

Tower, president of Pro Sport Inc., estimates he'll lose $50,000 from the early shutdown of the 21 campgrounds and one recreation area he operates in the White Mountain National Forest under contract with the federal government. He's also spending an additional $13,000 in payroll to keep his employees on this past week.
"I wanted to make sure the campgrounds are safe," he said. "Plus these people are depending on their pay."

The financial loss is bad enough, Tower said. "Then on top of it, the government has the nerve to tell us the reason they're doing it is safety and health?

"I'm trying to be civil, but it's not easy when you see that."

Those notices felt like a personal insult to Tower.

"The campgrounds have never been quieter and safer. We've taken really rowdy campgrounds and made them safe for families to come, knowing they're going to be safe and they're going to be quiet."

All but three of his campgrounds were scheduled to close on Tuesday. Blackberry Crossing usually closes in November, and Hancock and Barnes Field stay open for winter camping.

Instead, his staff has been turning away angry campers from all the areas since last Wednesday. Friday night, he said, "two group of cars came in. They were at the gate and they were mad as hell they couldn't come in."

The early closure will also cost the federal government money, since Tower typically pays about 22 percent of his revenues to the government under his contract.

Tower said local WMNF federal employees are also upset about what's going on.

Tower is a member of the National Forest Recreation Association; he said lawyers for the group are fighting the campground closure in Washington. But with the loss of the peak Columbus Day Weekend, he said, "it's too late for us."


Link

Medium:


press release

Sept. 27, 2013, 12:09 p.m. EDT
Obama Counting on Media to Help Destroy Small Business Programs, According to the American Small Business League

PETALUMA, CA, Sep 27, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- If President Obama is going to get away with closing the Small Business Administration (SBA) and destroying all federal small business programs under the guise of "streamlining government" it will be essential for the mainstream media to lend their support. Any factual, accurate or honest coverage of the president's plan could be extremely detrimental.

If the mainstream media really wants to back the president on this one, there are a number of areas where their assistance will be essential.

1. Do not use the word "close." Any reference to the president's plan to shut down the SBA must be referred to as "streamlining government" or "combining agencies."

2. Journalists must refrain from any mention of the fact the president's plan to "streamline government" will involve combining the SBA with the Department of Commerce. Journalists should absolutely avoid any and all accurate information about the fact the SBA represents the nation's 28 million smallest businesses and the Department of Commerce represents the interests of the nation's largest, mega huge, gigantic, colossal corporate giants. All journalists must not mention that combining the SBA and the Department of Commerce would be like combining NASA and the Department of the Interior or combing Al Qaeda and the Department of Homeland Security or combining the largest Mexican drug cartel with the DEA or combining the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) with Child Protective Services or combining, well you get the idea.

3. Next, journalists that really want to show their support for the president in his efforts to cheat American small businesses out of billions of dollars in loans and federal contracts must not mention any of the U.S. Census Bureau statistics that show small businesses are responsible for over 90 percent of net new jobs, over 50 percent of the GDP, over 50 percent of the private sector work force and over 90 percent of all U.S. exporters. If the general public ever found out that small businesses were the actual engine of economic growth and job creation in America, it could be disastrous to President Obama's plan to close the SBA, no wait, I mean, "Streamline government."

4. The next, very important point is journalists must not mention the absolute insanity, lunacy and horrifying judgment of President Obama's plan to "streamline government" to save a measly, paltry, miniscule, insignificant, infinitesimal $300 million a year. Journalists should surely avoid any mention of facts like how the SBA budget is .001 percent of the Pentagon budget and Pentagon auditors have found the Pentagon loses around 25 percent of their $700 billion dollar budget each year. Helpful journalists should certainly avoid breaking down the $175 billion a year the Pentagon loses to show they lose more money in a single morning, about $344 million, than President Obama claims he can save in a year by "streamlining government." Journalists must avoid the fact that the Pentagon loses enough money in a day ($700 million) to run the SBA for a year.

5. One of the single most important facts that must be avoided at all costs is President Obama's plan to spend $7 billion of America's hard-earned tax dollars to build power plants in Africa under his "Power Africa" program. You can just imagine the public relations nightmare if the general public found out the truth that the president was going to close the only agency in government to assist the 28 million small businesses, in order to allegedly save $300 million and then turn around and spend $7 billion to build power plants in Africa. People would be outraged, so clearly any facts about the president's "Power Africa" program should be strictly avoided.


Link


And Large: destroyed by Barack Hussein Obama

Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: September 22, 2013 1041 Comments



WASHINGTON — Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.

Andrea Morales for The New York Times


From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.

When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.

Some consumer advocates and health care providers are increasingly concerned. Decades of experience with Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an insurance card does not guarantee access to specialists or other providers.

Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.


Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One of the papers referenced in the above article, concerning the least unconstitutional option:

How to Choose the Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons for the President (and Others) from the 2011 Debt Ceiling Standoff

Buchanan, Neil H. and Dorf, Michael C., (March 16, 2012). Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-25. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2025178 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2025178

(Part f Abstract:). This Article analyzes the choice the President nearly faced in summer 2011, and which he or a successor may face again, as a “trilemma” in which he had three unconstitutional options: Ignore the debt ceiling and unilaterally issue new bonds, thus usurping congressional power to borrow money; unilaterally raise taxes, thus usurping congressional power to tax; or unilaterally cut spending, thus usurping congressional power to make spending decisions and arguably violating Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. We argue that faced with this choice among unconstitutional options, the President should choose the “least unconstitutional” course - here, ignoring the debt ceiling. We argue further, though more tentatively, that if the bond markets would render such debt inadequate to close the gap, the President should unilaterally raise taxes rather than unilaterally cut spending. We then use the debt ceiling impasse to develop general criteria for political actors to choose among unconstitutional options. Although we offer no algorithm, we emphasize three guiding principles: 1) Minimize the unconstitutional assumption of power; 2) minimize sub-constitutional harm; and 3) preserve, to the extent possible, the ability of other actors to undo or remedy constitutional violations.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
Some analysis of the imminent constitutional crisis:

Only Congress has the power to avert the coming constitutional crises - FierceGovernment Link

As a result, President Obama now faces the real question of what to do should House Republicans fail to act.

He could cave into their demands, but in doing so, he would tip the balance of power between the branches irreversibly to Congress. And worse than that, he would ensure that a minority within Congress, whether the House or the Senate, could permanently use the debt ceiling as a hostage for policy demands that don't have majority support. It would empower a sliver of lawmakers at the expense of consensus. It would lead to a period of semi-permanent crisis, and inevitably to a debt ceiling breach. Doing so now prolongs the constitutional crisis, it doesn't end it. Even apart from the advisability of the demands issued by Republicans for a debt ceiling increase, Obama cannot agree to any of them; no president could agree to such a gutting of the power of the executive. Republicans cheering on the House should consider how they would react were the parties reversed--as one day, they will be.

Obama could unilaterally raise the debt ceiling by citing powers available under the Fourteenth Amendment. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz argues this situation is exactly what amendment authors wanted to prevent when they wrote it. But the Obama administration has concluded otherwise, as it's repeatedly said.

Even should Obama were to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally – taking what two other law academics call the "least unconstitutional option" – it's likely that financial markets would react badly to debt issued under a cloud, meaning the financial crisis would only be partially averted. And, of course, a majority of the House would likely vote to initiative impeachment proceedings, compounding the constitutional crisis.

Given no good options and hazy legal options, it's likely that the Obama administration has concluded that no action is the best option, at least from a long term perspective. And it's right. The debt ceiling is a pressure point of American democracy. It's possible to press so far down on it so hard that American democracy breaks. Congress has within it the power to destroy, if it wants. Only by making that power starkly clear, now, at a time when too many in Congress incline toward destruction rather than governance, can hopefully Congress chose not to do so. For our nation's sake, let's hope they do.

Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
Quoting 288. Cochise111:
A climate model that actually works:

Link
You know you're dealing with inveterate liars when they feel the need to edit the wording of the abstract of an article they're citing in hopes that it'll "bolster" their claims. In case you missed it in #291, here it is again:

From the actual abstract:

warming

From Hockeyshtick:

warming

How badly does it suck to be constantly made out to be a fool, eh, Cochise?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13552
Quoting 289. Birthmark:

I don't think that the picture is quite so bleak, pintada.

First, it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of elected officials are elected by somewhat below 30% of those eligible to vote. So even "very safe seats" seats can be put in play very if the official does something outrageously stupid --like cutting off mom's SS check.

Second, he or she who gets the most money in donations is very likely to win, though that's not guaranteed. Business makes a LOT of BIG donations to candidates. (Thanks, Supreme Court!) Business likes stability. Economic crashes are detrimental to business. Therefore those that cause a crash are going to find themselves with the corporate donations that are the life's blood of contemporary elections. Add to that, that if the economy *really* crashes business may not have money to waste on pet politicians.

Third, there is little doubt in my mind that Obama will avert a crash. It is unlikely that he will avert it through negotiations. There are several large principles involved here that cannot be compromised by giving into extortion. (Remember, Boehner has already ignored a previous compromise.) Plus, there are many other avenues open to the President, many of which haven't been discussed in the media. (For instance, it's highly likely that a team of attorneys, by request of the White House, are preparing an emergency case to be brought before the US Supreme Court should a collapse look imminent. This USSC is virtually owned by big business and will probably issue a ruling that allows the President to unilaterally raise or ignore the debt ceiling, or rule that Congressional authorization of spending makes the debt ceiling moot, or some other legal artifice that avoids collapse.

There are several other issues I could raise, but my fingers are tired. :)

The chances of a collapse due to a failure to raise the debt ceiling are very near zero. The chances of a compromise only slightly greater. In my opinion, anyway.


OK, I'll give you most of what you have said, especially the debt ceiling part since i gave you the debt ceiling in #281. But ...

1. Your first and second points relate to future elections. While i grant your logic, the argument and recent poling make me think that Cruz et al know that it is now or never. They must win because they might not get another chance for a decade or more.

2. To your third point: I'm not a constitutional scholar like Yoboi, (i crack myself up ICMU) but it is my understanding that If the president unilaterally begins to spend money (eg for head start) that would be a HUGE legal problem (i.e. Constitutional Crisis huge).

3. What does big business want? Stability, and the status quo, as you say. They also want no regulation, and do not want hear about AGW. No EPA. No NOAA. A NASA budget that does not allow study of Earth.

I'm thinking that they might crash the economy by accident, that would be the only "good" (see #282) outcome that i see, but the Tea Party is not stupid. Sick, psychopathic and twisted yes, stupid no.

There are a multitude of federal programs/agencies that they can go after. The 1% would love to see most of those programs gutted (so long as they don't need to take "credit"). Before this thing is finished, the (slim) hope of averting at a 4 degree world may be completely gone.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 292. Cochise111:
Can it really be called "global warming" when the entire globe hasn't warmed (combined with the fact that the world hasn't warmed in almost two decades)? Talk about denial:

Link
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and the above post is b.s. The hockeyschtick is a denialist funded disinformation site useful only to the climate change denial and disinformation community - and ignorant fools.

OTOH, SkepticalScience.com, RealClimate.org and the WeatherUnderground.com Climate Change pages (except for the misleading information and lies in the comments sections of the blogs) are based on accurate and proper analysis and reporting on peer-reviewed science.

I find it amusing yet sad that people who read denialist claptrap and post it here think that they are smarter and understand science better than Dr. Masters, Dr. Rood, Angela Fritz, and the rest of the WU staff. In reality, it makes people look quite foolish when they come here and post such bogus information, but they don't care, because they are either on a mission of denialism or a fools journey.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting 302. Xulonn:


Fighting Climate Denialism ((McFadden, NYT, 2012 - Original, full-size image HERE)
Quoting 303. Birthmark:

Love the Ed Begley Jr "weapon."

Not too sure Ed would enjoy it...not too sure he wouldn't, either. :)


I will only respond to denialist nonsense with this from now on:
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3458
Quoting 300. Xulonn:


Fighting Climate Denialism ((McFadden, NYT, 2012 - Original, full-size image HERE)

Love the Ed Begley Jr "weapon."

Not too sure Ed would enjoy it...not too sure he wouldn't, either. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 291. Naga5000:


Wow...a new paper that your buddies at Hockeyschtick once again misrepresent. Besides only going off the abstract which isn't good analysis, let's look at what was posted on the website versus the actual abstract, shall we?


Fighting Climate Denialism ((McFadden, NYT, 2012 - Original, full-size image HERE)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting 297. indianrivguy:


Its for sale... and the bad guys have all the dough.

It's not over yet, my friend.

I've actually got a good feeling about how all of this will turn out. We may see irrationality fall into the disrepute it deserves...perhaps as early as next week.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
Quoting 297. indianrivguy:


Its for sale... and the bad guys have all the dough.


I hate you say it, but you just won the internet.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
Quoting 293. Birthmark:

They aren't interpreting, though it's nice of you to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's shows you have a good heart and are a kind person and reflects well on you.

I don't suffer from those virtues. :)

Denialist are attempting to misinform. They are, in essence, shaking their tiny, massless fists in impotent rage at the body of science. The only difference among them is their individual motivations. Their words have nothing to do with science and everything to do with their personal feelings. Denialists should be embarrassed and ridiculed at every possible opportunity.


Neither do I, the whole piece, as is everything else cited by our resident DT's, is nothing but ultracrepidarian nonsense.





Adjective: noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
Quoting 284. Patrap:
Death of the Dream

Barry LevinsonAcademy Award-winning director, screenwriter and producer

Posted: 10/11/2013 5:54 pm

With the recent calamity of the Government Shutdown and the looming debt ceiling fight, one thing has become crystal clear: we are witnessing the Death of the American Dream.

In the past we believed all things were possible, there was absolutely nothing that Americans couldn't accomplish. In the '60s, President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and few doubted the possibilities. After all, America was always capable of great and glorious accomplishments.

We were the Dreamers. It was instilled in the American psyche, American ingenuity. We led the world in research, medical or scientific, our engineering feats astounding the world. We had a government that participated, encouraged, and supported this mighty economic engine. We had a middle class that was the envy of the world. Things were good, but they would even be better in the future. Our education system supported all economic classes, and we had fluid upward mobility. We made the impossible possible.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Naval Marshal General Yamamoto is rumored to have said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant." And he was right. Within three years we built the strongest, most advanced military on the face of the earth.

We believed in Democracy, in fairness. We believed in our Government. We disagreed, argued, but we never doubted our form of Government, or the Government itself. Now a harsh reality sweeps the land. Our precious form of government is dying. Democracy is dying. A minority can now control the majority. Fanaticism that we thought applied to less progressive countries is now homegrown. In the past we didn't always agree, but we accepted laws that were passed as the law of the land. We might fight to overturn some legislation within the halls of Congress, but a minority never took it upon themselves to deprive millions of Americans their jobs, stopping their ability to earn a wage. Never were we this destructive because a minority was opposed to a piece of legislation. And so our Democracy grinds to a halt.

We might get past the debt ceiling crisis, the government shutdown, but the future of America is clear. We are no longer the wonder of the world. We exposed our ignorance, our ugly insensitivity. We are a petty people with a government that has ceased to function. The great achievements are part of yesterday. The future is a dark place.

We have proven a Democracy is a fragile form of government. And we have shown the world how easy it is to kill it.


Its for sale... and the bad guys have all the dough.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2561
Big round of applause for the LA Times, ladies and gentlemen!

On letters from climate-change deniers

As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they "deny" it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.

Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

Full article here
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Science Fair Nightmare

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting 292. Cochise111:
Can it really be called "global warming" when the entire globe hasn't warmed (combined with the fact that the world hasn't warmed in almost two decades)? Talk about denial:

Link

The globe hasn't warmed? LOL

Or maybe you mean some other planet? LOL

Here's what happened on Earth for the last 20 years:


Just so you're clear on this, the upward slant to the right means the temperature has increased. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 291. Naga5000:


Wow...a new paper that your buddies at Hockeyschtick once again misrepresent. Besides only going off the abstract which isn't good analysis, let's look at what was posted on the website versus the actual abstract, shall we?

Hockeyschtick: "NHT in 2012%u20132027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the [theoretical] anthropogenically induced warming."

Actual Abstract: "NHT in 2012%u20132027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming."

Wow, so the Hockeyschtick actually put a word into the researchers mouth to change the meaning.

The paper is simply explaining natural regional variation in the context of climate change. People with no scientific literacy should not interpret papers!

They aren't interpreting, though it's nice of you to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's shows you have a good heart and are a kind person and reflects well on you.

I don't suffer from those virtues. :)

Denialist are attempting to misinform. They are, in essence, shaking their tiny, massless fists in impotent rage at the body of science. The only difference among them is their individual motivations. Their words have nothing to do with science and everything to do with their personal feelings. Denialists should be embarrassed and ridiculed at every possible opportunity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Can it really be called "global warming" when the entire globe hasn't warmed (combined with the fact that the world hasn't warmed in almost two decades)? Talk about denial:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 288. Cochise111:
A climate model that actually works:



Wow...a new paper that your buddies at Hockeyschtick once again misrepresent. Besides only going off the abstract which isn't good analysis, let's look at what was posted on the website versus the actual abstract, shall we?

Hockeyschtick: "NHT in 2012%u20132027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the [theoretical] anthropogenically induced warming."

Actual Abstract: "NHT in 2012%u20132027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming."

Wow, so the Hockeyschtick actually put a word into the researchers mouth to change the meaning.

The paper is simply explaining natural regional variation in the context of climate change. People with no scientific literacy should not interpret papers!
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3458
Quoting 288. Cochise111:

Most of them work, your delusions notwithstanding.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 281. pintada:

I don't think that the picture is quite so bleak, pintada.

First, it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of elected officials are elected by somewhat below 30% of those eligible to vote. So even "very safe seats" seats can be put in play very if the official does something outrageously stupid --like cutting off mom's SS check.

Second, he or she who gets the most money in donations is very likely to win, though that's not guaranteed. Business makes a LOT of BIG donations to candidates. (Thanks, Supreme Court!) Business likes stability. Economic crashes are detrimental to business. Therefore those that cause a crash are going to find themselves with the corporate donations that are the life's blood of contemporary elections. Add to that, that if the economy *really* crashes business may not have money to waste on pet politicians.

Third, there is little doubt in my mind that Obama will avert a crash. It is unlikely that he will avert it through negotiations. There are several large principles involved here that cannot be compromised by giving into extortion. (Remember, Boehner has already ignored a previous compromise.) Plus, there are many other avenues open to the President, many of which haven't been discussed in the media. (For instance, it's highly likely that a team of attorneys, by request of the White House, are preparing an emergency case to be brought before the US Supreme Court should a collapse look imminent. This USSC is virtually owned by big business and will probably issue a ruling that allows the President to unilaterally raise or ignore the debt ceiling, or rule that Congressional authorization of spending makes the debt ceiling moot, or some other legal artifice that avoids collapse.

There are several other issues I could raise, but my fingers are tired. :)

The chances of a collapse due to a failure to raise the debt ceiling are very near zero. The chances of a compromise only slightly greater. In my opinion, anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A climate model that actually works:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
287. yoboi
Quoting 285. schwankmoe:
at this rate the whole earth will be covered in ice in 20 years! run for your lives!




It will not....stop using that crazy agw math.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Steve Goddard, yeah, a Ghost Post dosen't really enforce my World view on da subject.


But feel free to enjoy his comedy I say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
at this rate the whole earth will be covered in ice in 20 years! run for your lives!

Quoting 270. Cochise111:
52% increase in Arctic ice in a year. Ouch!

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Death of the Dream

Barry LevinsonAcademy Award-winning director, screenwriter and producer

Posted: 10/11/2013 5:54 pm

With the recent calamity of the Government Shutdown and the looming debt ceiling fight, one thing has become crystal clear: we are witnessing the Death of the American Dream.

In the past we believed all things were possible, there was absolutely nothing that Americans couldn't accomplish. In the '60s, President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and few doubted the possibilities. After all, America was always capable of great and glorious accomplishments.

We were the Dreamers. It was instilled in the American psyche, American ingenuity. We led the world in research, medical or scientific, our engineering feats astounding the world. We had a government that participated, encouraged, and supported this mighty economic engine. We had a middle class that was the envy of the world. Things were good, but they would even be better in the future. Our education system supported all economic classes, and we had fluid upward mobility. We made the impossible possible.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Naval Marshal General Yamamoto is rumored to have said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant." And he was right. Within three years we built the strongest, most advanced military on the face of the earth.

We believed in Democracy, in fairness. We believed in our Government. We disagreed, argued, but we never doubted our form of Government, or the Government itself. Now a harsh reality sweeps the land. Our precious form of government is dying. Democracy is dying. A minority can now control the majority. Fanaticism that we thought applied to less progressive countries is now homegrown. In the past we didn't always agree, but we accepted laws that were passed as the law of the land. We might fight to overturn some legislation within the halls of Congress, but a minority never took it upon themselves to deprive millions of Americans their jobs, stopping their ability to earn a wage. Never were we this destructive because a minority was opposed to a piece of legislation. And so our Democracy grinds to a halt.

We might get past the debt ceiling crisis, the government shutdown, but the future of America is clear. We are no longer the wonder of the world. We exposed our ignorance, our ugly insensitivity. We are a petty people with a government that has ceased to function. The great achievements are part of yesterday. The future is a dark place.

We have proven a Democracy is a fragile form of government. And we have shown the world how easy it is to kill it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good luck wit dat bunch.


Insanity usually runs in circles till they find a cliff and go, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

"Splat"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So, now the good part:

If they crash the economy as they appear hell bent on doing, isn't that a good thing?

Anything that slows the production of greenhouse gasses will increase the odds that humanity and a few other extant animals will survive AGW.

Crash the economy. Leave the rest of the carbon in the ground where it belongs. Buy and get to know a nice horse.

If we do those things, the warming might not exceed 4 degrees, and some part of the ecosystem we know might survive, so hey ... the Tea Partiers are my friends!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 278. RevElvis:
5 Reasons Why Prioritizing Growth Is Bad Policy

One of the few things on which left, right, and center agree is that growth is good and more of it is needed. Here's why that is so problematic.


Not much in our society is more faithfully followed than economic growth. Its movements are constantly monitored, measured to the decimal place, deplored or praised, diagnosed as weak or judged healthy and vigorous. Newspapers, magazines, and cable channels report regularly on it. It is examined at all levels -- global, national, and corporate. Indeed, one of the few things on which left, right, and center agree is that growth is good and more of it is needed.

There are only five problems with America's growth imperative:

1. Growth doesn't work. It doesn't deliver the claimed social and economic benefits.
2. Our measure of growth -- gross domestic product or GDP -- is fundamentally flawed.
3. The focus on growing GDP deflects us away from growing the many things that do need to grow.
4. The over-riding imperative to grow gives over-riding power to those, mainly the corporations, which have the capital and technology to deliver that growth, and, much the same thing, it undermines the case for a long list of public policies that would improve national well-being but are said to "slow growth" and to "hurt the economy."
5. Economic activity and its growth are the principal drivers of massive environmental decline.

Alternet.org



I've been sitting on this for a while, and i just need to tell someone, plus, we all know anthropogenic climate change is a political issue, and has been since the 1980s when the science became obvious. Why am i the only one who sees that the Tea Party has already won this budget fight?

How?

Frank Herbert summed it up best in "Dune" when Maud%u2019Dib realized: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."

We have groups of old white people in old white person enclaves that vote for old white men. The old white men do as they are told both by the old white voters (and the corporations that have bribed them). And they are committed to making the gommnt small enough to drown in a bathtub.

SO:

What will they agree to fund?
Anything military.
Social Security.
DEA!
They will raise the debt ceiling in good time. - Perhaps in exchange for the dismantling of ObamaCare? Perhaps in exchange for dismantling the EPA?

What might they fund?
The NSA - there are a lot of libertarians with the teaparty so i dunno
FBI

What will they never agree to fund?
AFDC
Food Stamps
Obama Care
EPA
NOAA

All the corporate news clowns have the same headline, "Who will get blamed ...". Please. That is not the point. It doesn't matter who gets blamed, because the constituents of the people doing it want it to happen! Regardless how it finally shakes out, they have reduced the size of the Federal Government already. And may have created a successful coup. AND regardless what happens (short of the end of our democratic experiment), they will get reelected.

We have seen it time after time on this forum, spouted by people with 100 different virtual names. Those people do not care about the people that are suffering, the species going extinct, or the horrific future they will cause. They DO care about their guns, their superstitions, and their local shopping center. They will retain two out of three ... not bad.

I met a woman Friday who is trying to set up a place to survive (through at least the easy stuff). Problem is, she started this year. The poor dear is renting an apartment and working on her permanent house part time which would have been great had she started at (or before) the turn of the century. Now, its pretty clear that it is too late for her and her family. You?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Musings on Various Interesting Things by David Appell at Quark Soup


...The coastal exodus begins (as it should):

Sharp increases in federal flood insurance rates are distressing coastal homeowners from Hawaii to New England and are starting to hurt property values and housing sales in areas just beginning to recover from the recession, according to residents and legislators.

Oh sure, the affluent love their government subsidies (read the whole article).... Look, this will be going on for the next thousand years or so. You can't fight physics, and you can't tell it where to put its coastlines.... There is not going to be a trustworthy coastline for the next several centuries. Just imagine how society's psychology is going to be affected for the next N-hundred years as the seas keep rising and inundating coastal cities across the planet. You think Venice has troubles? You ain't seen a thing yet.... There will, in the not so far future, be drowned cities everywhere, half-submerged, sad pathetic places ruined by ignorance and greed, and trying to figure out what to do -- import gondolas, or move to the mountains?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
Quoting 260. Doxienan:


Fascinating issue in Boston right now. David Koch is a board member of the PBS station (WGBH) and also contributes HUGE amounts to produce NOVA science programs. 'Forecast the Facts' started a campaign to kick Koch off the WGBH board. They claim you cannot produce factual scientific programming when it's funded by one of the biggest climate change deniers in the country.

Emily Rooney (daughter of Andy Rooney and Boston TV personality) did a show last night about the Forecast the Facts campaign and concluded that it's OK to accept Koch money since WGBH claims he does not have any editorial authority in their programming.

What do you think? The Kochs give lots of money to various groups. They give hundreds of millions to MIT (including a cancer research center and a new day-care center). Would you accept their donations if you ran a large non-profit? Or would you tell them to shove it?


I watch a lot of PBS shows, such as NOVA, and much of the funding is by the Koch brothers. I have yet to see this funding have an influence on the science presented. Even any shows on CC have shown what is known to science and with very little to none of the "equal time" for the psuedo-science. Fox, on the other hand, does just the opposite. Their "science" based shows, on the radio, are always heavily swayed towards the psuedo-science with a dash of real science thrown in to "keep it legit". I say take the Koch brother's money for as long as they have no say in the programming. I would rather see their money spent this way instead of trying to buy state and local elections.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
5 Reasons Why Prioritizing Growth Is Bad Policy

One of the few things on which left, right, and center agree is that growth is good and more of it is needed. Here's why that is so problematic.


Not much in our society is more faithfully followed than economic growth. Its movements are constantly monitored, measured to the decimal place, deplored or praised, diagnosed as weak or judged healthy and vigorous. Newspapers, magazines, and cable channels report regularly on it. It is examined at all levels -- global, national, and corporate. Indeed, one of the few things on which left, right, and center agree is that growth is good and more of it is needed.

There are only five problems with America's growth imperative:

1. Growth doesn't work. It doesn't deliver the claimed social and economic benefits.
2. Our measure of growth -- gross domestic product or GDP -- is fundamentally flawed.
3. The focus on growing GDP deflects us away from growing the many things that do need to grow.
4. The over-riding imperative to grow gives over-riding power to those, mainly the corporations, which have the capital and technology to deliver that growth, and, much the same thing, it undermines the case for a long list of public policies that would improve national well-being but are said to "slow growth" and to "hurt the economy."
5. Economic activity and its growth are the principal drivers of massive environmental decline.

Alternet.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
The Growing Environmental Costs of America's Transformation into an Energy Superpower

There are growing concerns over radiation risks and a new report finds widespread environmental damage on an unimaginable scale in the US.

Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found.

The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment.

"Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said.

The full extent of the damage posed by fracking to air and water quality had yet to emerge, the report said.

But it concluded: "Even the limited data that are currently available, however, paint an increasingly clear picture of the damage that fracking has done to our environment and health."

A number of recent studies have highlighted the negative consequences of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which have unlocked vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas from rock formations.

There have been instances of contaminated wells and streams, as well as evidence of methane releases along the production chain.

The Environment America report highlights another growing area of concern – the safe disposal of the billions of gallons of waste water that are returned to the surface along with oil and gas when walls are fracked.

The authors said they relied on data from industry and state environmental regulators to compile their report.

More than 80,000 wells have been drilled or permitted in 17 states since 2005.

It can take 2m to 9m gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to frack a single well. The report said the drilling industry had used 250bn gallons of fresh water since 2005. Much of that returns to the surface, however, along with naturally occurring radium and bromides, and concerns are growing about those effects on the environment.



Alternet.org


Report: Fracking By The Numbers / Environment America (pdf)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Cashing In on Catastrophe: How to Stop the Climate Crisis Profiteers

The fossil fuel industry is looking to half-baked and unproven technologies that will allow it to keep meddling with our atmosphere, regardless of the risks.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the most authoritative scientific study on our climate to date, confirmed what we all knew: that global warming is happening, yet we continue to pump carbon into the air regardless. For a short spell, the report prompted some hand-wringing over society's failure to heed scientists' warnings. Very few commentators, however, pointed to the dangerous possibility that the failure of political and business leaders may be due to calculation rather than cowardice.

Could it be that rather than burying their heads in the sands, some of our leaders are maintaining the pretense of tackling climate change while actually focused on how to manage its impact in their own interests?

The evidence that, behind the political platitudes, the policy focus is shifting from tackling the causes to controlling the impacts of climate change is becoming more visible. In fact, the final conclusions of the IPCC report ended up at the last minute including a paragraph that suggested geoengineering could offset temperature increases. While the report pointed to some potential “side effects,” it nevertheless opened a door to countries that want to avoid any action that constrain their extractive industries and that are seeking to further meddle with our atmosphere regardless of the risks and human and environmental costs.

As Neth Daño of the watchdog group ETC noted, “The report doesn't discuss solar power or electric cars; it doesn't discuss public transport, carbon markets or any other actual or potential policy response to the climate crisis, so why have the authors chosen to devote the concluding paragraph to this highly speculative and dangerous technofix?”

Corporations, particularly those with ties to the fossil fuel industry, have long looked to half-baked or unproven technologies, like carbon capture, in order to justify continued exploitation of gas and oil reserves. Increasingly, they are also seeking salvation in technological solutions for the climate crisis that will result from their criminal intransigence. Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil famously dismissed the need to act to stop climate change saying in 2012 that, “Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around—we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”

Alternet.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 271. Naga5000:


Wait, it was 60% just a little bit ago? Guilty of bad math? Check. Not understanding what a trend is? Check. Still trying even though you are discredited every time? Check. Ouch!





The biggest mistake is citing Steve(It snows dry ice at the South Pole)Goddard.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
Arctic Sea Ice Volume is way down still after this year's hiccup, note that in the linked graph the 1979-2001 average is the top gray line.



It looks like a lot of thin ice here.


More on Ice thickness and age



Figure 4. These images show June to August sea level pressures compared to the 1981 to 2010 average, for 2012 (left) and 2013 (right). In 2013, low pressures prevailed over the central Arctic Ocean and Greenland. Blues and purples indicate low pressures, while greens, yellows, and reds indicate high pressures.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Division
High-resolution image
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3347
Quoting 270. Cochise111:
52% increase in Arctic ice in a year. Ouch!

Link


Wait, it was 60% just a little bit ago? Guilty of bad math? Check. Not understanding what a trend is? Check. Still trying even though you are discredited every time? Check. Ouch!



Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3458
52% increase in Arctic ice in a year. Ouch!

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 320 - 270

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
54 °F
Mostly Cloudy