Reply With Quote
120 plus "other" ins utional investors...
Of course they do... They all want to profit on carbon trading!
A Group Of CEOs Managing $12 Trillion Want A Strong Global Climate Deal
A group of more than 120 CEOs and other ins utional investors who manage more than $12 trillion in assets sent an open letter to seven of the world’s wealthiest countries on Tuesday, asking them to make bold commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during the U.N. climate talks later this year. The reason, the letter said, was because of the uncertainty surrounding how bad climate change would be and how it would affect their businesses.
“As ins utional investors responsible for managing the retirement savings and investments of millions of people or managing endowments, we believe climate change is one of the biggest systemic risks we face,” the letter read, urging the countries’ financial ministers to support a long-term global emissions reduction goal that limits warming to a 2° Celsius.
The letter was sent to the Group of Seven (G-7), which is made up of the finance ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Among the letter’s signatories were managers of some of the world’s biggest investment and pension funds, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and the AFL-CIO.
The group of CEOs was organized by five responsible investment groups from around the world, but it is far from the first group representing monetary interests to come out and ask for action on climate change.
Last month, a group of big insurance companies and consumer organizations asked the United States to strengthen its disaster policies in the face of increasingly extreme weather due to human-caused climate change.
And last week, one of the world’s largest insurance companies pledged to drop its remaining investment in coal assets, saying climate change was already driving an increase in weather-related risks, which threaten business.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663604/ceos-ins utional-investors-climate-change-letter/
Looks like these people have realized the high probability that their oxen will get gored, too.
"climate change"! BULL it's Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING, in the anthropocene epoch
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-30-2015 at 09:39 AM.
120 plus "other" ins utional investors...
Of course they do... They all want to profit on carbon trading!
Tillerson says it all, and all y'all, because BigOil will continue trashing the planet for $100Bs in profits, so all y'all resilient people find a way to save your asses and planet.
You Can Do It, BigOil WON'T help
ExxonMobil says mankind has 'enormous capacity to deal with adversity' caused by climate change
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...8Daily+Kos%29#
BigCarbon makes or blocks govt policy, not Human-Americans.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-03-2015 at 09:25 AM.
Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months
The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a new study says. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.
This graph shows the ratio of warming from ac ulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time
In a modeling study of coal, oil, and natural gas, Zhang and Caldeira compared the warming caused by combustion to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide released by a single instance of burning, such as one lump of coal, and by a power plant that is continuously burning fuel.
They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.
"Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more," Caldeira said.
For a power plant that is continuously burning, the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded the heat released into the atmosphere by combustion in less than half a year--just three months for coal plants. With this kind of steady continuous combustion, it takes 95 days using coal, 124 days using oil, and 161 days using natural gas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602130636.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium= feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+S cience+News+--+ScienceDaily%29
I see wild chodebrah is still a dumb got.
I though you said they were funding deniers...
Yawn.Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months
The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a new study says. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.
This graph shows the ratio of warming from ac ulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time
In a modeling study of coal, oil, and natural gas, Zhang and Caldeira compared the warming caused by combustion to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide released by a single instance of burning, such as one lump of coal, and by a power plant that is continuously burning fuel.
They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.
"Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more," Caldeira said.
For a power plant that is continuously burning, the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded the heat released into the atmosphere by combustion in less than half a year--just three months for coal plants. With this kind of steady continuous combustion, it takes 95 days using coal, 124 days using oil, and 161 days using natural gas.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602130636.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium= feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+S cience+News+--+ScienceDaily%29
Cherry pick only one side, and discount the cooling cause by the same sources.
all y'all AGW deniers BIG PROOF that global PAUSED! poof!
Upon closer look, a global warming hiatus is ruled out, U.S. scientists say
resh look at the way sea temperatures are measured has led government scientists to make a surprising claim: The puzzling apparent hiatus in global surface warming never really happened.
In a study published Thursday in the prestigious journal Science, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote that Earth's global average surface temperature had climbed 0.2 of a degree Fahrenheit each decade since 1950, without interruption, due to the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gases.
That conclusion seemingly negated an awkward piece of evidence in the debate over whether human activity is indeed warming the planet.
Mainstream scientists have struggled to explain to the public how climate change can be getting worse if the warming of the planet's surface slowed at the turn of the century.
Their various theories have chalked it up to dust and ash blasted into the sky by volcanic eruptions, a rare period of calm in the solar cycle, and heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean and other waters.
Meanwhile, climate change skeptics have embraced the hiatus as evidence that climatologists have greatly miscalculated the warming effects of fossil-fuel emissions.
The new findings — which are based on measurements from thousands of land stations, ships and buoys at sea going back to 1880 — drew criticism from people on both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.
http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...603-story.html
Australia Faces Stormy Future as Temperatures Soar
LONDON—New research into storm patterns warns that flash floods are likely to sweep across the Australian landscape with increasing intensity, particularly in urban or residential areas.
Peak rainfall is predicted to soar with rising surface temperatures as the world’s largest island—and also its smallest continent—experiences ever greater extremes of heat.
Civil engineers from the Water Research Centre at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) report in Nature Geoscience that they looked at 40,000 storms across the whole of the continent over the last 30 years and identified a pattern that warmer temperatures are linked to disruptive rainfall events.
“Our results were consistent across all the climate zones in Australia, regardless of season or storm type, without exception,” says ProfessorAshish Sharma, one of the study’s authors.
Unexpected finding
“This was an unexpected finding, and it supports our hypothesis that increasing temperatures are changing rainfall patterns. It means that most people in Australia can expect to see intensification in the magnitude of flash flooding in smaller catchments, particularly in urban or residential areas.”
The researchers worked from data from the 500 largest storms as measured by total rainfall at 79 locations. They looked not so much at the total volume of rainfall during a storm as at the pattern of intensity of rainfall at 12-minute intervals during each storm’s duration.They projected their findings into a hotter world and calculated that a 5°C rise in temperatures could be accompanied by up to 20% more flood peaks in urban catchment areas. Some cities could experience much worse: for Perth, the rise is projected at 10%, for Sydney 12%, and for Darwin a whopping 45%.
“It’s very likely these same trends will be observed around the world”
Australia is a landscape of extremes of heat and drought and occasional devastating flood. It is also a land of paradox.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...+the+Headlines
Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate
Dr. Oreskes is fast becoming one of the biggest names in climate science — not as a climatologist, but as a defender who uses the tools of historical scholarship to counter what she sees as ideologically motivated attacks on the field.
Formally, she is a historian of science. Informally, this diminutive woman has become a boxer, throwing herself into a messy public arena that many career-minded climate scientists try to avoid.
She helps raise money to defend researchers targeted for criticism by climate change denialists. She has become a heroine to activist college students, supporting their demand that universities and other ins utions divest from fossil fuels. Climatologists, though often reluctant themselves to get into fights, have showered her with praise for being willing to do it.
“Her courage and persistence in communicating climate science to the wider public have made her a living legend among her colleagues,” two climate researchers, Benjamin D. Santer and John Abraham, wrote in a prize-nomination letter in 2011.
Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, do enting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.
Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people.
The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny.
In a 2010 book, Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway called these men “Merchants of Doubt,” and this spring the book became a do entary film, by Robert Kenner. At the heart of both works is a description of methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/16...g-climate.html
“If we don’t act now, we’re all going to pay”: 5 arguments for climate action that even conservatives can’t ignore
Name: Eli Lehrer
Why conservatives might listen: The former vice president of the climate denying Heartland Ins ute, Lehrer left to co-found the R Street Ins ute, and is currently its president.
Like Heartland, R Street espouses free markets and limited government; unlike Heartland, it does not oppose the sound science of climate change.
The Message: “…The insurance companies — the market players who are affected by climate change — all incorporate climate change, in one form or another, into the models they use and into the rates they charge. This is the free market’s validation that climate change is real and a problem.”
Name: Christine Todd Whitman
Why conservatives might listen: A Republican, she served as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush.
The Message: “You can’t say that environmental regulation automatically causes the economy to stop. It doesn’t. It’s a wrong way to frame the issue, because they each need the other. You cannot have a thriving economy if people don’t have clean air to breathe or clean water to drink or good quality of life.”
Name: Bob Inglis
Why conservatives might listen: A former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, he remains a member of the Republican Party and advocates for free-market, conservative solutions to climate change.
The Message: “My fellow conservatives, we sort of break out in hives at the mention of the word ‘carbon’ and go into anaphylactic shock when we hear the word ‘tax.’ The idea is to put a tax so we charge to put emissions into the trash dump in the sky. You fix economics, and the environment will take care of itself. But if I’m ‘Inglis Industries’ and if you let me get away with dumping in the trash dump in the sky without accountability, I’ll do it all day long.”
Name: David ley
Why conservatives might listen: He’s a retired rear admiral, meteorologist and Navy oceanographer, making him an expert on both climate science and national security issues.
The message: “[Climate change is] a change to the physical environment, or in Department of Defense speak I would call it the physical battle space. And we need to understand that, adapt to it, and to the degree we can, get ahead of it. Because literally the nation’s defense is at stake…It really is in our interest — it’s in everyone’s interests — to be ready.”
Name: Henry “Hank” Paulson
Why conservatives might listen: The former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, he served as Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush.
The Message: “It’s a huge economic risk…it’s going to be much more expensive if we wait. As a matter of fact, I think the risk to our economy has the potential to add a lot more debt, slow economic growth, destroy jobs — if we don’t act now, we’re all going to pay.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/if_w...s_cant_ignore/
These people are insignificant, because they don't own Repug politicians the way BigCarbon does.
New NASA data show how the world is running out of water
The world’s largest underground aquifers – a source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people — are being depleted at alarming rates, according to new NASA satellite data that provides the most detailed picture yet of vital water reserves hidden under the Earth’s surface.
Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.
Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but the NASA data was the first detailed assessment to demonstrate that major aquifers were indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ushpmg00000003
Easy to understand why the Repugs want NASA to quit spending time and research on earth and climate science.
Is NASA finally figuring this out?
Wow... They are behind the times!
Bloomberg says FOR SURE, it's AGW from GHG
What's Really Warming The World?
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/
insurance companies know they' ll be paying $Bs in climate damage. Expect rates to go up.
Big Insurance Companies Are Warning The U.S. To Prepare For Climate Change
A coalition of big insurance companies, consumer groups, and environmental advocates are urging the United States to overhaul its disaster policies in the face of increasingly extreme weather due to human-caused climate change.
According to a report released Tuesday by the SmarterSafer coalition, the U.S. needs to increase how much it spends on pre-disaster mitigation efforts and infrastructure protection. That way, it asserts, the U.S. can stop wasting so much money on cleaning up after a disaster happens.
“Our current natural disaster policy framework focuses heavily on responding to disasters, rather than putting protective measures in place to reduce our vulnerability and limit a disaster’s impact,” the report reads. “This needlessly exposes Americans to greater risks to life and property and results in much higher costs to the federal government.”
The SmarterSafer coalition is made up of more than 30 different groups, including some of the biggest insurance companies in the world: Allianz, Liberty Mutual, SwissRe, and USAA, to name a few. Adequately dealing with the risks of climate change is inherently important to the insurance industry, as failure to prepare can lead to increased costs for insurance companies when storms wipe out basements and take out walls.
Making sure the government is prepared is important for private insurers too. Because if governments don’t fortify their infrastructure, the damage can fall onto the companies. A good example is Farmers Insurance Co., which sued local governments in the Chicago area last year for failing to prepare for climate change (the lawsuits have since been dropped). That lack of preparedness, the lawsuits said, caused sewers to burst into people’s homes and property values to decline — damage that Farmers had to pay for.
Disaster costs have been increasing as the economy has grown and infrastructure has become more expensive.
According to SmarterSafer’s report, states that are hit by disasters like extreme floods and fires rely too easily on monetary assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after said disaster occurs. Under FEMA’s Stafford Act, states can easily apply for disaster assistance. When that assistance is granted, the federal government is accountable for at least 75 percent of the costs.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...saster-relief/
With Fix for Flood Insurance Program Deficit Delayed, Now What?
There’s no easy fix for the National Flood Insurance Program, now drowning in a $24 billion sea of red ink.
But experts and advocates say Congress does have some options that could make the troubled program financially stable, more affordable and more effective at motivating change in communities built too close to the water
Lawmakers this month tweaked the troubled program for the second time in two years after acknowledging that a previous overhaul in 2012 had socked too many policyholders with rate hikes they couldn’t afford. The legislation, however, only put off the day of reckoning.
At least 1.1 million policyholders are still likely to see insurance premiums rise substantially in the next few years as the government whittles down rate subsidies for people in the riskiest flood zones. The Associated Press found hundreds of river towns, port cities and coastal communities where future rate hikes might make it tough for people to keep their homes and businesses.
Yet, if premiums stay as low as they are now, those same communities could cost taxpayers billions of dollars when they do eventually flood, thanks to decades of low premiums that have given homeowners few incentives to flood-proof their properties.
Congress acknowledged the problem, but offered no solutions, in the stopgap measure signed by the president Friday.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../26/324439.htm
Exxon Knew of Climate Change in 1981, Email Says — But It Funded Deniers for 27 More Years
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account.
Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.
By that time, it was clear that developing the Natuna site would set off a huge amount of climate change pollution – effectively a “carbon bomb”, according to Bernstein.
“When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions,” Bernstein wrote.
The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Ins ute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.
“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the ins ute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/...-27-more-years
all y'all ignorant, rightwingnut AGW deniers have been lied to, DUPED by BigCarbon/VWRC conspiracy to keep BigCarbon profits rolling in to investors while putting the planet in high probability of disaster.
There are 2,100 new coal plants being planned worldwide — enough to cook the planet
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8922901/...ssance-numbers
New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface
Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012.
But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science.
"Overall, the ocean is still absorbing extra heat," said Willis, an oceanographer at JPL. "But the top couple of layers of the ocean exchange heat easily and can keep it away from the surface for ten years or so because of natural cycles. In the long run, the planet is still warming."
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html
Enough to cook the planet. I really need to start reading vox.
the first time you start reading ANYTHING
Oceans slowed global temperature rise, until nowOceans slowed global temperature rise, until now
Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle
A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, researchers say.
A specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet below the surface has been ac ulating more heat than previously recognized, according to climate researchers from UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The results were published July 9 in the journal Science.
During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.
In the study, researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array. These measurements show temperatures below the surface have been increasing.
The Pacific Ocean is the primary source of the subsurface warm water found in the study, though some of that water now has been pushed to the Indian Ocean. Since 2003, unusually strong trade winds and other climatic features have been piling up warm water in the upper 1,000 feet of the western Pacific, pinning it against Asia and Australia.
"The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago," said Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Ins ute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The movement of the warm Pacific water westward pulled heat away from the surface waters of the central and eastern Pacific, which resulted in unusually cool surface temperatures during the last decade. Because the air temperature over the ocean is closely related to the ocean temperature, this provides a plausible explanation for the global cooling trend in surface temperature, Nieves said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
LOL...
The best cherry picker in Spurstalk strikes again...
This is wonderful news as the fishing will be even better this year than last. And last year was epic. Love me some global warming.
Some U.S. coastal cities at higher risk of flooding than thought
Occasional combinations of storm surge and heavy rainfall place some major U.S. coastal cities at a higher risk of flooding than previously thought, a new study suggests.
Scientists often estimate the risk of coastal flooding due to storm surge (waters blown on shore by strong winds) separately than that caused by heavy precipitation (runoff from nearby higher elevations that piles up in low areas before it can flow into the sea).
But high winds and heavy rain often happen together, say the authors of the first-of-its-kind study, which looked at long-term tidal and precipitation data for the 17 U.S. port cities that have populations exceeding 1 million and then removed the effects of rising sea level.
For New York City (which suffered the same flooding during Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 as the coast in nearby New Jersey, shown), floods due to either a storm surge of 1.15 meters (enough to overtop Manhattan’s seawall) or a 1-day rainfall of 12 centimeters (4.7 inches) occurred, statistically, once every 245 years, the researchers found.
But when both high storm surges and heavy rainfall are considered together, floods occur on average once every 105 years, the researchers report online today in Nature Climate Change.
Similar trends were noted for several other locations the team studied. Not only that, the researchers say, in five of the 17 port cities the link between storm surge and heavy precipitation has grown stronger in recent decades.
It’s possible that climate change has strengthened the correlation between storm surge and heavy rainfall, but further analyses will be needed to make that case, the team notes.http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...ooding-thought
BigCarbon's external costs are born by taxpayers.
Now that the financial lobby is seeing how it costs them there is pushback. It's become a losing GOP issue in FL and the Carolinas. The flooding in TX and OK hasn't helped the obfuscation campaign either. At this point it's a delaying action with them fighting all the fracking regulation as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
