Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?

[Conor Dary]

Record highs-for-date this week in Colorado. It was 84F in the Springs yesterday, tying the record. Average high-for-date 62F.

Apparently our ex-governor is enjoying the Colorado weather.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7608.story

[Daisy]

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math - Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is.

by: Bill McKibben in Rolling Stone.

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won't necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... h-20120719

[gm]

...and that make clear who the real enemy is.

MAN!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Daisy]

...and that make clear who the real enemy is.

MAN!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!

That was part of the title, not my commentary. The interesting part is that if these numbers are correct will the oil industry be willing to sit on the reserves instead of selling it to burn.

I guess we could save it for plastics.

[lonewolf]

BS

[Daisy]

BS

True, biodegradable synthetics would probably be a better way to go than using the oil for plastics.

[rsb2]

What part is BS, Lonewolf? Scientific confirmation, please.

[j-a-m]

Read only the first paragraph of the linked Rolling Stone article; and that's enough for me to skip the rest and call the article BS. The article says "the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99"; that shows zero understanding of statistics, and whoever makes such a claim has no business being making any scientific claims.

[Daisy]

that shows zero understanding of statistics

Not zero understanding, there is a method to it, just simplistic.

[j-a-m]

Not zero understanding, there is a method to it, just simplistic.

Simplistic is putting it nicely.

[Daisy]

Not zero understanding, there is a method to it, just simplistic.

Simplistic is putting it nicely.

How about too colloquial? Presumably the writer is assuming his audience is not a bunch of statisticians.

[j-a-m]

How about too colloquial? Presumably the writer is assuming his audience is not a bunch of statisticians.

In accordance with the forum rules, this is my last post on this matter: The statistical claim is bogus, and that's still putting it mildly. Presumably, the writer either assumes he can get away with it precisely because his audience is not familiar with statistics, or he actually believes his own BS claim.

[jeremyp]

Sitting in South west Florida as a Cat 1 Hurricane is due to sweep by in the next 24-48 hours. We live right on a canal so pray the water surge stays below 7 feet.

[Helen S]

Let us know how that praying thing works for you this time.

[jeremyp]

Let us know how that praying thing works for you this time.

All I had to do was channel King Canute.

[Daisy]

Except, his point was to prove he could not hold back the tide.

[26mi235]

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets.

The guy is actually a terrible economist, and in this context that is a non-trivial failing.

Specifically, How does he come up with the value figure of $27 trillion. You have to have some prices in the market. Now, if they produce somewhat less than the full amount the price might be a little bit higher, ... As such, the more you do not produce the higher the unit price and the total dollar value does not fall proportionately with the quantity (in some circumstances it will rise, as you have seen when supply is cut back 5% and the price increase by several times that 5%).

Add to this that it is not revenues that matter but revenues minus expenses. Thus, the net revenues will fall not nearly as fast as the total revenues because of the savings in cost, which are greatest on the marginal units, the ones that would go un-utilized.

When the most basic elements are not even a part of the discussion, the discussion is not worth much.

[gh]

Except, his point was to prove he could not hold back the tide.

I learned something today! Since that's not what I learned at all, I went looking, and Wiki says

<<Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King".[95] This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut's arrogance.[96]>>

I'm sure that in school we learned that he thought he could. I've certainly remembered it that way for the last 50-odd years.

Thanks for the path to enlightenment!

[Daisy]

Thanks for the path to enlightenment!

Strange, I always thought it was common knowledge. I guess it all depends on who your teacher is in history. Obviously I had a very good one.

[DrJay]

jazz, I hope you have a sturdy canoe handy.

[jazzcyclist]

jazz, I hope you have a sturdy canoe handy.

I'm not worried about flooding where I live, but thanks anyway.

[DrJay]

I hope family and friends are OK.

[jeremyp]

Except, his point was to prove he could not hold back the tide.

%^&*$()&% I knew there was something wrong.

[jeremyp]

Isaac blew on by out to sea and all we got was 5-6 inches of rain, and flooded docks. Debby on the other hand made the waters rise a foot or so more. Hope all goes well in the north gulf.

[Conor Dary]

Isaac is suppose to last over NO until tomorrow morning. That is one slooow storm. Already 10 inches of rain.

[EPelle]

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/hayfever- ... rming.html

[Pego]

From the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12781&page=1

[Daisy]

Pego, We'll be dead soon anyway, so no worries.

[Marlow]

I'm sure this is just coincidence, but

The Arctic Sea Ice extent this September was far smaller than the previous record set in 2007. At 3.4 million square kilometers of ice coverage, this year’s Arctic minimum was 600,000 square kilometers smaller than the 2007 record. That difference between the previous record and this year’s is larger than the entire state of California, and almost as large as the state of Texas. An ice-free summer in the Arctic, once projected to be more than a century away, now looks possible decades from now.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... what-next/

Surely there can be no negative consequences to a melt-off of the Polar Ice-cap . . . can there?

[bad hammy]

Surely there can be no negative consequences to a melt-off of the Polar Ice-cap . . . can there?

My current abode is about 5 feet above sea level and the sea (well, bay) is about 100 yards from the my back door. I might be just a bit more concerned if I wasn't renting . . .

[Conor Dary]

Surely there can be no negative consequences to a melt-off of the Polar Ice-cap . . . can there?

My current abode is about 5 feet above sea level and the sea (well, bay) is about 100 yards from the my back door. I might be just a bit more concerned if I wasn't renting . . .

The melting Arctic Ice Cap won't effect ocean levels.

[Marlow]

The melting Arctic Ice Cap won't effect ocean levels.

That's only the floating ice. If the Greenland ice cap melts (which it is), that's a 20' rise in tides.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg (pun!). Without the reflective nature of the ice, the polar region will absorb more of the sun's radiation and accelerate Global Warming.
Then there's the more disastrous effects of climate change: more frequent and powerful hurricanes/typhoons, devastating floods and severe droughts.
I'm sure this whole scenario is just scare tactics by all those eco-terrorist tree-huggers!

[Conor Dary]

The melting Arctic Ice Cap won't effect ocean levels.

That's only the floating ice. If the Greenland ice cap melts (which it is), that's a 20' rise in tides.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg (pun!). Without the reflective nature of the ice, the polar region will absorb more of the sun's radiation and accelerate Global Warming.
Then there's the more disastrous effects of climate change: more frequent and powerful hurricanes/typhoons, devastating floods and severe droughts.
I'm sure this whole scenario is just scare tactics by all those eco-terrorist tree-huggers!

Yea, I didn't mean to imply it is no big deal. The Arctic Ice Cap is just like an ice cube in a gin and tonic. Well sort of....you get the idea. But I agree with all that you say.

[tandfman]

Another bit of evidence of global warming. In some Arctic areas in Canada, for the first time ever, they are having to use cooling systems to make ice for hockey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sport ... stems.html

[Conor Dary]

It is getting a tad warm down under...

Australia's "dome of heat" has become so intense that the temperatures are rising off the charts – literally.

The Bureau of Meteorology's interactive weather forecasting chart has added new colours – deep purple and pink – to extend its previous temperature range that had been capped at 50 degrees (or 122F).

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weath ... 2ce33.html