68
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:52 am
@farmerman,
James and his wife have stood somewhat aside from the family for a few years, wife particularly. But James is now far less involved in media control/content than he had been previously with Rupert and Lachlin now in charge. FOX is Rupert's big money machine (not to mention his means for political manipulation) so I don't know what has to happen for this to change.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:58 am
@blatham,
Lachlan is only in charge because ,(reportedly) ,Rupert's lost a significant amount of his walnuts after his 201fall on some boat. I dont think Lachlan i as effective in cobbling rsources as was Rupert.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 09:31 am
@farmerman,
Lachlan may well not be the equal of his father. But we can't pass over the fact that he is now to some significant degree a power center whereas James is relegated to some odd periphery. And I don't know of instances where lachlan has voiced criticisms in the manner of his brother (though I think he did join in some soft criticism of Roger Ailes mode of operation).
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 06:31 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Really we need more explanation of how the heat taken up in the oceans is distributed further into atmospheric water vapor and deeper ocean thermal currents, as well as what happens to those thermal currents within the oceans.

It is easy for people to assume that the oceans are giant and thus that any extra heat absorbed by them will just disappear, but like the atmosphere, the oceans must have climatological patterns that should be understood fully in order to predict the long-term effects of continually adding heat/CO2 to them.
The Earth's climate and its variability are largely determined by the interaction between ocean and atmosphere.
Oceans are subsystems of the climate system such as the atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and soil.

It has also long been known that there is a constant exchange of energy and heat between the oceans and the atmosphere, and overall, interrelations and interactions in the climate system are well documented.

I would hope so. I was responding to what you posted as mentioning temperature without mentioning total heat.

I read a headline today about the quantity of additional heat in the oceans in terms of "Hiroshima bombs" so that gives a nice subjectively-intuitive unit for comparison, but in terms of real relevance, it would make more sense to understand the additional heat in terms of what it actually does relative to other systems, such as the atmosphere and deeper ocean processes.

When you say that these things have been researched and are thus known generally, it has a negative effect on discourse, as if you are saying, "no point discussing this because it's already known."

In order for public awareness and understanding to grow, the public needs to learn about how these planetary systems work, not just learn to accept what scientists say as a given. The fastest route to disarming the public and leaving climate policy in the hands of governmental and corporate bureaucrats who are for sale in various ways is to discourage the public from thinking actively and critically about how climate works.

You're not trying to discourage people from thinking and understanding things for themselves, are you?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 09:25 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
A bit of chat on twitter that James outburst is actually a carefully calibrated 'repositioning' as they make moves on some liberal media investments.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 01:41 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
When you say that these things have been researched and are thus known generally, it has a negative effect on discourse

You mean, truth has negative effect on discourse?
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 06:22 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
When you say that these things have been researched and are thus known generally, it has a negative effect on discourse

You mean, truth has negative effect on discourse?

No, truth benefits discourse when it is understood that discussions don't close down as a result of knowledge being identified and evaluated as true.

What you seem to do is to say that something has already been researched and known to imply that it shouldn't be discussed further.

What you should do is use existing knowledge to contribute to discussions, not cite them to imply that some question has already been asked and answered and therefore should not be discussed further.

The point of discussion isn't to reach conclusions and thus end discussions, but rather to build strong foundations for continuing discussion/discourse.

People know different things and understand them in different ways. Someone might have researched something years ago, but that doesn't mean everyone knows it, or even that the people who do know it understand it correctly; or even that the person who did the research doesn't understand it in a flawed or incomplete way because they didn't consider certain aspects and/or implications that would be relevant for better/further understanding.

Truth (seeking/pursuing) is an open/continuous process, not one that leads to closure and finalization of knowledge.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 07:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/01-Dare-be-Cold-LI-600.jpg
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 07:41 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
The point of discussion isn't to reach conclusions and thus end discussions, but rather to build strong foundations for continuing discussion/discourse.

Err no, not always. Sometimes the point is just to share some information, or to take a decision, or just to kill time. Beside, the point of a conversation may be seen differently by different people. Maybe Walter thought you just wanted some information and he provided it to you, period.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 08:08 am
Climate change to drive 'massive' investment shift
14 January 2020

Concerns about climate change will drive a "fundamental reshaping of finance", one of the world's biggest money managers has said.

Larry Fink, who runs BlackRock, said the shift will happen "sooner than most anticipate".

His company has announced "sustainable" versions of its traditional investment options to meet demand from clients.

It has also said it would push firms to disclose more about a range of issues, including climate commitments.

While markets have been slow to reflect the worries about climate change, Mr Fink said the corporate world is now catching up.

"Awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance," he wrote in an annual letter to chief executives.

"In the near future - and sooner than most anticipate - there will be a significant reallocation of capital."

In a letter to clients, BlackRock - which manages nearly $7tn in assets - said it was taking a number of steps to respond to the investment risks linked to climate change.

In addition to the sustainable funds, it said its investors would be able to screen their portfolios for certain sectors.

For actively managed funds, the company also plans to sell its holdings of companies that derive more than 25% of their revenue from thermal coal production by mid-2020.

Even if only 5% of investors opt for sustainable strategies, it will still produce "massive shifts", Mr Fink said.

"The commitments we are making today reflect our conviction that all investors - and particularly the millions of our clients who are saving for long-term goals like retirement - must seriously consider sustainability in their investments," he wrote in the letter to clients.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 08:09 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Maybe Walter thought you just wanted some information and he provided it to you, period.
Indeed.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 08:16 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Is that the reason? I'll have to remember that. Many times it has been unclear to me why you jumped in with random information from out of the blue.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 08:17 am
Central banks begin to grapple with climate change
The Fed lags behind the ECB as monetary policy faces a challenge-turned-emergency
GAVYN DAVIES, FINANCIAL TIMES, JANUARY 12 2020

The bushfires raging in Australia are a graphic illustration of the climate emergency that seems certain to dominate global political debates in the next decade. 

However, macroeconomists and central bankers have been slow to focus on the new issues that climate change will bring to their policy deliberations. This is changing rapidly.

There are essentially three areas that central bankers need to address: 

- First, the developing risks to financial stability in insurance and banking that will be triggered by natural disasters and the changing price of carbon relative to renewable energy supplies. 
- Second, the impact of climate change on gross domestic product growth and inflation, and thus on their “normal” monetary policy decisions.
- Third, their possible direct role in mitigating climate change through managing their balance sheets appropriately.

Progress has been substantial on the first issue, but much less on the other two.

There is now a consensus among central banks that the growing risks to financial stability must be addressed urgently. Mark Carney, in his twin roles of governor of the Bank of England and former chairman of the G20’s Financial Stability Board, has been the world leader in encouraging corporations to measure, publish and address climate risks, backed by stress tests. He is soon to leave the BoE but fortunately, he now moves on to become UN envoy on these issues. 

By improving the quality of information on the effects of climate change, Mr Carney hopes to avoid a “Minsky moment”, akin to the subprime mortgage collapse in 2008, when complacent markets suddenly recognised the scale of hidden risks embedded in asset prices.

About 50 central banks have now joined the NGFS, the central banks’ network focused on climate change risk management. The Federal Reserve has declined to participate, but is realising that this position will not be tenable for much longer. 

On monetary policy, however, there is less consensus, and a clear divide is emerging between the Fed and the European Central Bank.

Last November, Fed chairman Jay Powell told a congressional committee that climate change is not a “near-term threat”, and is not something the Fed is considering “right now”.

The Fed’s leadership believes the effects of climate change on GDP growth and inflation — as distinct from its effects on the natural environment — will be negligible in the near term, and of uncertain size in the very long term (see box). Climate change is therefore hardly mentioned in Federal Open Market Committee monetary policy deliberations.

Nor does the Fed accept that the management of the US central bank’s balance sheet has any direct responsibility for mitigating global warming. A paper by Glenn D Rudebusch of the Reserve Bank of San Francisco in March 2019 explicitly rejected the purchase of “green bonds”, because the Fed’s mandate allows it to purchase nothing other than government, or government agency, paper. Under President Donald Trump, no government entity will issue green bonds.

Any attempt by the Fed to extend its mandate into the sphere of climate policy would be extremely controversial in both the White House and the Senate. This is a battle the central bank is choosing not to fight. 

The ECB’s thinking is very different. This has been true for years but the gap will widen further under the new ECB president, Christine Lagarde. She says that climate change policy is “mission critical” for her term. 

On monetary policy, Ms Lagarde has said that the impact of climate change on the eurozone economy could be included in the ECB’s formal economic models and assessments. These may encompass near-term growth and inflation, and longer-term effects on productivity growth and equilibrium policy rates. Climate change will move towards the centre stage of regular policy debates on the bank’s governing council.

The ECB is also far more concerned than the Fed about the potential impact of extreme weather events on global commodity prices and migration from north Africa into the eurozone in the fairly near future. 

In a far-sighted speech in November 2018, former ECB board member Benoît Cœuré warned that extreme weather shocks were likely to become more frequent, with more pervasive effects on commodity prices and inflation. Mr Cœuré argued that the ECB could no longer remain passive in the face of these supply shocks.

Even more importantly, the ECB is ready to consider adjusting its asset holdings to include more green bonds. This could promote the growth of green financial markets and reduce the cost of capital for investments in clean energy, relative to carbon-based energy. 

This type of proactive policy to mitigate the climate problem is considered by some (including Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann) to be outside the mandate of a central bank. However, Ms Lagarde has argued that the ECB is empowered under the EU treaties to support the broad economic strategy of the Union, including the need to mitigate climate change. She is determined to make progress.

https://www.ft.com/content/eafee5dc-2e52-11ea-bc77-65e4aa615551

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:13 am
@Olivier5,
2019 was second-hottest year ever, more extreme weather coming: World Meteorological Organization
Quote:
GENEVA (Reuters) - Last year was the second-hottest year since records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday, warning that heat was likely to lead to more extreme weather events like the Australian bushfires in 2020 and beyond.

The data from the Geneva-based WMO crunches several datasets including from NASA and the UK Met Office. It showed that the average global temperature in 2019 was 1.1 degree Celsius (34°F) above pre-industrial levels.

“Australia had its hottest, driest year on record in 2019, setting the scene for the massive bushfires which were so devastating to people and property, wildlife, ecosystems and the environment,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

“Unfortunately, we expect to see much extreme weather throughout 2020 and the coming decades, fuelled by record levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

The hottest year on record was in 2016, the WMO said, due to the warming impact of a strong El Nino event.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
This beast is taking on momentum as we speak.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:51 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Maybe Walter thought you just wanted some information and he provided it to you, period.
Indeed.

I know my chicken. ;-)
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 01:32 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I know my chicken. ;-)

Sur la branche d'un arbre était en sentinelle, un vieux Coq adroit et matois ...
"Le coq gaulois et ses enfants."


Oups! Faux titre de la fable Wink
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 03:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Tu m'as fait googler Walt. Je ne connaissais pas cette fable, Le Coq et le Renard.

La morale de l'histoire -- “Car c’est double plaisir de tromper le trompeur” -- s'applique en cette contrée a2kesque je crois. Car c'est double plaisir de troller un troll.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 05:52 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Climate change to drive 'massive' investment shift
14 January 2020

Concerns about climate change will drive a "fundamental reshaping of finance", one of the world's biggest money managers has said.

Larry Fink, who runs BlackRock, said the shift will happen "sooner than most anticipate".

His company has announced "sustainable" versions of its traditional investment options to meet demand from clients.

It has also said it would push firms to disclose more about a range of issues, including climate commitments.

While markets have been slow to reflect the worries about climate change, Mr Fink said the corporate world is now catching up.

"Awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance," he wrote in an annual letter to chief executives.

"In the near future - and sooner than most anticipate - there will be a significant reallocation of capital."

In a letter to clients, BlackRock - which manages nearly $7tn in assets - said it was taking a number of steps to respond to the investment risks linked to climate change.

In addition to the sustainable funds, it said its investors would be able to screen their portfolios for certain sectors.

For actively managed funds, the company also plans to sell its holdings of companies that derive more than 25% of their revenue from thermal coal production by mid-2020.

Even if only 5% of investors opt for sustainable strategies, it will still produce "massive shifts", Mr Fink said.

"The commitments we are making today reflect our conviction that all investors - and particularly the millions of our clients who are saving for long-term goals like retirement - must seriously consider sustainability in their investments," he wrote in the letter to clients.

I don't see how promoting 'sustainable investment' will do anything except stimulate economic growth, which will allow more people to buy more cars, fly more, and generally make and spend more money.

While some investors and funds are focused on excluding things like coal, oil, auto makers, and road/highway builders/materials, etc. those other industries will just get other investors to buy in and the people who make money on windmills and solar panels and passenger rail will buy and drive cars and take more flights and stay in more hotels and go shopping, which will filter the money on through to those industries that aren't favored by sustainability investors/funds.

In short, you don't reduce the global carbon/energy/pavement footprint by investing in alternatives but by disinvesting in the causes of the problems. Consumers and investors can disinvest voluntarily, but if their money goes to others who don't, they won't stop the unsustainability with their positive choices.

MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 06:46 pm
@oralloy,
branco clearly isas ignorant about science as he is about everything else, always stupid, never in doubt.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/30/2020 at 11:38:18