Discussion Topic

Infrastructure fuels warming, CROWN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Jakarta management fraud watch solutions

Posted on 06/25/13, 11:38 pm
Infrastructure fuels warming, Jakarta management fraud watch solutions, CROWN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP | Createspace

Scientist’s state CO2 causes climate change, but the government approach is a political/financial green-energy scam destroying the ecosystem, increasing costs for consumers, cutting jobs and destroying the earth's ability to cleanse the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases as the government continues to issue building permits which destroy the ecosystem. Photosynthesis converts CO2 to O2 plus carbon, sugars and also cooling condensation.

The current policy of unlimited building permits destroys the environment, including green plants. Environmentalists warned in the ‘80s the destruction of the rain forests/environment would create major environmental damage as countries destroy trees, fill in wetlands for construction and asphalt the countryside. As we increase CO2 by destroying the earth's ability to break down "greenhouse gases," our government brags about new building permits?

Warming increases as asphalt and cement absorbs heat faster and holds heat longer than soil, creating a warming atmosphere as population increases, civilization modernizes, green plants are destroyed, building permits increase -- which explains the warming climate. Technically, increasing CO2 should have a corresponding increase in green plants/photosynthesis as in previous warming periods, but the destruction of the environment prevents this.

Obama's environmental plan may temporarily decrease CO2, but increasing construction negates the earth's ability to fix climate issues.
Showing 5 Replies
  • Reply #1 12/17/13  11:45pm
    Study: Climate Change Could Put Millions More at Risk of Water Scarcity

    Changes in rainfall and evaporation will put pressure on water resources


    Although water scarcity is already a problem in many countries today due to factors like population growth, the effects of global warming could put millions more people at risk of absolute water scarcity, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

    The study, published Monday in a special issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that water resources will be affected by changes in rainfall and evaporation due to climate change, putting 40 percent more people at risk of absolute water scarcity.

    [READ: Consequences of Global Warming Could Occur Soon, Report Says]

    "We conclude that the combination of unmitigated climate change and further population growth will expose a significant fraction of the world population to chronic or absolute water scarcity," the study says.
    Now, between one and two people out of 100 live in countries with absolute water scarcity, which is defined as less than 500 cubic meters of water available per year and per person, according to the study. On average, each person consumes about 1,200 cubic meters of water each year. But population growth combined with the effects of global warming could bring the ratio of people living in countries with absolute water scarcity up to about 10 in 100 people.

    "The quantities that most humans need for drinking and sanitation are relatively small, and the fact that these basic needs are not satisfied for many people today is primarily a matter of access to, and quality of, available water resources," the study says.

    [MORE: Severe Heat Waves Are Expected to Double by 2020]

    Unless greenhouse gas emissions get cut soon, this situation could become reality "within the next few decades," Jacob Schewe, the study's lead author, said in a statement.
    But because climate change does not have the same effect across or even within certain countries, some areas will be hit harder than others. The Mediterranean, the Middle East, the southern United States and southern China, for example, could see a "pronounced decrease of available water," while southern India, western China, and parts of eastern Africa could see an increase.

    To account for the uncertainty of climate change – the magnitude of its effects and water scarcity changes at a regional level – the researchers used 11 hydrological models, produced by five different global climate models. The results in the study represent the multiple-model average.
    "The purpose is to explore the associated uncertainties and to synthesize the current state of knowledge about the impact of climate change on renewable water resources at the global scale," the study says.

    [ALSO: Warming Waters Will Harm Freshwater Fish and Thousands of Jobs, Report Says]

    While the average level of water scarcity resulting from population change alone is amplified by 40 percent with climate change, some models suggested the amplification could be as high as 100 percent.
    "This dwindling per-capita water availability is likely to pose major challenges for societies to adapt their water use and management," the study says.
  • Reply #2 12/19/13  12:42am
    Why Did Reddit Ban Climate Change Deniers From Commenting In Their Science Forums?


    Reddit, the social news site that lets users submit all kinds of content as links or posts, has a history of controversial censorship. In 2012, Reddit’s moderators banned Gawker articles from being posted in their forums. Other news sources to appear before the Reddit guillotine have included Mother Jones, the Huffington Post, National Review, ThinkProgress and Vice, to name a few.

    The latest to be banished from the Reddit realm are not an organization, but a certain type of commenter. The online magazine Grist reports that Reddit will no longer accept comments to science forums, including the most notable, reddit.com/r/science, from people who deny climate change.
    The Grist piece, written Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist and volunteer moderator of content on Reddit's science forum, explains the decision to ban climate change naysayers.

    “Given that our users are mainly academics (and all are nerds), the discussion generally resembles any scientific debate,” Allen wrote. “That is, there are always numerous links to peer-reviewed science to support positions. People don’t deliberately mislead or misrepresent content, and there is a basic level of respect shared regardless of position. When a user strays from such decorum, they are kindly warned and, if necessary, the comment is removed.”

    Inflammatory remarks are now, regrettably, part and parcel of online journalism, where every comments section becomes a platform for bitter debate. Allen said particular topics, including evolution and vaccines, had their fair share of hecklers, but climate change consistently drew the most ire. He described the comments section on articles about climate change as a “battleground.”

    “Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors,” he wrote. “On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by ‘Big Green.’ On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by ‘Big Oil.’”

    As the science of climate change becomes increasingly clear – today, virtually all climate scientists agree that man is responsible for shifts in global temperatures – there is increasingly less room for ill-informed polemics.

    Organizations across the globe, including governments and independent research groups, have all endorsed the position that climate change is real – and is happening right now. Climate change science has been rigorously tested, retested and reviewed, and the answers always come out the same. Of course, there will always be the occasional misstep. In 2007, Al Gore stated that Arctic summer ice could be long gone by 2013. Well, that’s hardly the case.

    Is climate change skepticism wearing out its tolerance at last? The problem is, as Allen notes, that climate deniers’ rejection of climate science is based on both “political preferences” and “personality.” In other words, their reasoning is not grounded in scientific discipline.

    “As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their ‘skepticism’ on climate change,” Allen wrote. “The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad.”
  • Reply #3 12/25/13  11:50pm
    Growing evidence of great climate change scams

    HERE'S some news to put a great big smile on your face: apparently, Arctic sea ice volume is up by 50 per cent. Have you cracked open the champagne yet? Did you ring all your mates? Me neither. In fact, to be honest, I couldn't care less whether it's up 50 per cent or down 50 per cent. It's just weather doing what weather does - changing all the time. But you wouldn't guess this from the way it is reported in the media. Sceptical websites are presenting it as a vindication of their longstanding claim that all the fuss about catastrophic, man-made global warming has been greatly overdone. Warmist news outlets ("a rare piece of good news", declared the BBC) are greeting it as a sign of hope that maybe there is time left for us to save the planet from the Greatest Threat It Has Ever Known.

  • Reply #4 01/01/14  8:13pm
    Lost Freshwater May Double Climate Change Effects On Agriculture
    Dec. 16, 2013 — A warmer world is expected to have severe consequences for global agriculture and food supply, reducing yields of major crops even as population and demand increases. Now, a new analysis combining climate, agricultural, and hydrological models finds that shortages of freshwater used for irrigation could double the detrimental effects of climate change on agriculture.
    "It's a huge effect, and an effect that's basically on the same order of magnitude as the direct effect of climate change," said Joshua Elliott, a research scientist with the Computation Institute's Center for Robust Decision Making on Climate and Energy Policy (RDCEP), Argonne National Laboratory, and lead author of the paper. "So the effect of limited irrigation availability in some regions could end up doubling the effect of climate change."
    The research was led by Elliott and colleagues from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), as part of the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP). The paper is among 12 featured in a special feature dedicated to ISI-MIP research inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online December 16.
  • Reply #5 01/05/14  11:51pm
    Climate-Change Response Demands Urgency

    JUST HOW much will the Earth heat up over the next 100 or 200 years? Climate scientists are not able to predict with high certainty. They have estimated that average global temperatures will increase by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius — 2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — given a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That range of estimates for “climate sensitivity” would mean the difference between relatively small effects and significant consequences for human welfare.

    There are skeptics — not out-and-out climate-change deniers — who accept the physics that human-produced greenhouse gases will have some influence on climate but point to the lower estimates to argue that the issue is not urgent. A new paper in the journal Nature suggests they are wrong — that the consequences of climate change are likely to be toward the middle or higher end of the predicted temperature range. “This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates,” said University of New South Wales’s Steven Sherwood, author of the report. “Meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius to 5 degrees Celsius with a doubling of carbon dioxide.” That translates into a rise of 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 and perhaps 8 degrees Celsius by 2200, barring a reduction in carbon dioxide output.

    The research relies on insights into the effects of clouds on climate. In finely tuned climate models, much depends on figuring out how evaporated water behaves. As high-level clouds, some will exert a net warming effect by absorbing heat. As low-level clouds, some will exert a net cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space. And even lower to the ground, some may prevent low-level clouds from developing by dehydrating the cloud-forming layer. One way or another, cloud activity will feed back into the climate-change process.

    The study’s authors compared various models to real-world observations and found that the models that matched the observations predict more upward pressure on temperature. Their results offer one more argument against assuming a relatively benign climate future. That doesn’t mean the future can be forecast, even now, with certainty. It does mean that to take no action, on the hope that nothing too bad is in store, is to place a foolish bet with humanity’s future. It would be much more prudent to spend something now to head off the risks, even if they aren’t known exactly.

    Next year, international negotiators will gather in Paris in another attempt to create a working international anti-carbon system. It’s important to invest diplomatic capital in that effort. But leaders cannot rely on that forum to produce the action the world needs. The United States needs to lead the way with a smarter climate policy and then encourage a global response.

    Read more: https://www.facebook.com/CrownCapit...


Join This Group

Our group is an independent organization supporting programs involving climate change, biodiversity, organic pollutants and greenhouse gases, to name a few.