hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 24, 2014 1:20:05 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
Member is Online
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 5, 2014 22:16:46 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 15, 2015 18:27:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Jun 19, 2015 12:22:22 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 5, 2015 14:42:02 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 5, 2015 15:13:25 GMT -5
This lady is in charge of the EPA? Sheesh.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 5, 2015 20:26:19 GMT -5
She's basically stating the resource curse. What's the issue?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 6, 2015 15:19:46 GMT -5
She's basically stating the resource curse. What's the issue? No. I don't think that's what she saying at all. She's going much broader than that, or at least taking a 90 degree turn. The paradox of the plenty really doesn't depend on environmental degradation. To the extent it's a real phenomenon, it due to corrupt businesses, ineffective government and swings in the commoodities markets, not the environment.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 7, 2015 16:00:33 GMT -5
The proof of global warming is Carly Fiorina's statement: On April 4, 2015, Fiorina spoke out about Climate change in California and the 2012–15 North American drought which is affecting California, where she ran for a Senate seat in 2010. Controversy began when sources quoted her as saying “This is all about politics and policy, and it is liberal environmentalists who have brought us this tragedy,” and continued, “California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology. It’s a tragedy.”
This from a woman who ruined Lucent and HP.
I trust Gina McCarthy over Carly. Many of the world's poor are in dire circumstances because of the poor environment - lack of water, sanitation, use of cook stoves and their pollution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 13:47:20 GMT -5
Carly didn't ruin Lucent and HP. That is nonsense!!! She oversaw one of the largest mergers in history (Compac and HP) and HP got hammered in the dot.com collapse like everyone else. Bloomberg, Steve Jobs are examples of CEOs that were let go by their board. Incidently, she was CEO for 6 years which is pretty good longevity these days. Particularly for someone who started out as a secretary. How many CEOs of big companies in the 1990s were women?
I used to be on the fence about global warming. Having taken the time to understand the science, there is no doubt that we have a global warming rate that is unprecedented. We can look at the rates of global warming in between ice ages back for millions of years and we have never seen an exploding increase in temperature like we see today. The increase in the arctic and Antarctic ice is further proof of global warming (yes it does sound counterintuitive). Just a couple more degrees of warming and we will be in trouble. Consider this. During the last ice age when ice covered the upper half of what is the US the global temperature was 6 degrees cooler than it is now.
Incidentally, it is frustrating to me why so many people want to politicize global warming. It is not a liberal v conservative issue.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
Member is Online
|
Post by tashoya on Aug 13, 2015 14:29:27 GMT -5
Carly didn't ruin Lucent and HP. That is nonsense!!! She oversaw one of the largest mergers in history (Compac and HP) and HP got hammered in the dot.com collapse like everyone else. Bloomberg, Steve Jobs are examples of CEOs that were let go by their board. Incidently, she was CEO for 6 years which is pretty good longevity these days. Particularly for someone who started out as a secretary. How many CEOs of big companies in the 1990s were women? I used to be on the fence about global warming. Having taken the time to understand the science, there is no doubt that we have a global warming rate that is unprecedented. We can look at the rates of global warming in between ice ages back for millions of years and we have never seen an exploding increase in temperature like we see today. The increase in the arctic and Antarctic ice is further proof of global warming (yes it does sound counterintuitive). Just a couple more degrees of warming and we will be in trouble. Consider this. During the last ice age when ice covered the upper half of what is the US the global temperature was 6 degrees cooler than it is now. Incidentally, it is frustrating to me why so many people want to politicize global warming. It is not a liberal v conservative issue. Well, to be fair, she oversaw one of the largest mergers in history that also happened to be a terrible merger. There's a reason HP stock jumped on news of her firing.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 13, 2015 17:15:23 GMT -5
Carly didn't ruin Lucent and HP. That is nonsense!!! She oversaw one of the largest mergers in history (Compac and HP) and HP got hammered in the dot.com collapse like everyone else. Bloomberg, Steve Jobs are examples of CEOs that were let go by their board. Incidently, she was CEO for 6 years which is pretty good longevity these days. Particularly for someone who started out as a secretary. How many CEOs of big companies in the 1990s were women? I used to be on the fence about global warming. Having taken the time to understand the science, there is no doubt that we have a global warming rate that is unprecedented. We can look at the rates of global warming in between ice ages back for millions of years and we have never seen an exploding increase in temperature like we see today. The increase in the arctic and Antarctic ice is further proof of global warming (yes it does sound counterintuitive). Just a couple more degrees of warming and we will be in trouble. Consider this. During the last ice age when ice covered the upper half of what is the US the global temperature was 6 degrees cooler than it is now. Incidentally, it is frustrating to me why so many people want to politicize global warming. It is not a liberal v conservative issue. It is frustrating to me why so many people insist on incorrectly characterizing the opposition to climate change legislation/policies/dogma (not saying you're doing this). Only a small percentage of those opposed truly believe there are no changes taking place. The opposition, for many, is grounded in how great of a price should we pay to make a tiny dent in the human-caused factors that impact the climate. This is especially true when there appear to be legitimate questions about the data (I'm not talking about the "it's a cool day in July, where's global warming now" stuff).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 13, 2015 17:23:12 GMT -5
Many of the world's poor are in dire circumstances because of the poor environment - lack of water, sanitation, use of cook stoves and their pollution. I mostly agree with that. However, two questions arise. First, how do rising global temperatures impact, for example, the number of people using cook stoves in Africa and Asia? Or the poor sanitation in rivers in India or the slums in Rio? Second, say the U.S. adopts legislation limiting its fossil fuel emissions. How will that improve the sanitation, and decrease the use of cook stoves, in other countries? Side note- interesting designs coming out of this company: Aprovecho Research Center
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 13, 2015 19:14:32 GMT -5
Well, maybe Carly didn't ruin Lucent, but we lost a bunch of money in Lucent. Now it is ALU. Our only hope is someday selling our stock and claiming big time capital loses. It is curious that she oversaw the bad merger at HP along with the demise of Lucent (not sure of the time frame vis a vis when she was there). And Lucent used to be Bell Labs, which was one of the great research labs. That is why Carly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 6:34:13 GMT -5
Lots of interesting posts. Bottom line is that Carly started as a secretary (not at HP) and navigated the male dominated shark infested waters of the business world to become CEO of HP. Quite an accomplishment. She graduated from Stanford and received her MBA from the nation's premier business school MIT. Now you may not agree with her politics but she is highly intelligent and talented. As for climate change and cook stoves, you might be interested in knowing that while the most common cause of COPD/emphysema in western cultures is cigarette smoking, the most common cause in non-western countries are pollutants emanating from devices such as cook stoves.
At any rate, the science involving climate change is absolutely fascinating. So if you get a chance pick up a book and read about it. I remember reading how the increase in polar ice was an argument against climate change when in fact it is an argument for climate change. The reason is this. As the climate warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans increasing the total water vapor in the air. Now the poles stay frozen even with global warming, but the snow fall at the poles (even though minimal) increases, leading to an increase to the thickness of polar ice. Did you ever wonder how we know what the temperatures were millions even hundreds of millions of years ago?? Really interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Aug 14, 2015 7:39:02 GMT -5
Carly didn't ruin Lucent and HP. That is nonsense!!! She oversaw one of the largest mergers in history (Compac and HP) and HP got hammered in the dot.com collapse like everyone else. Bloomberg, Steve Jobs are examples of CEOs that were let go by their board. Incidently, she was CEO for 6 years which is pretty good longevity these days. Particularly for someone who started out as a secretary. How many CEOs of big companies in the 1990s were women? I used to be on the fence about global warming. Having taken the time to understand the science, there is no doubt that we have a global warming rate that is unprecedented. We can look at the rates of global warming in between ice ages back for millions of years and we have never seen an exploding increase in temperature like we see today. The increase in the arctic and Antarctic ice is further proof of global warming (yes it does sound counterintuitive). Just a couple more degrees of warming and we will be in trouble. Consider this. During the last ice age when ice covered the upper half of what is the US the global temperature was 6 degrees cooler than it is now. Incidentally, it is frustrating to me why so many people want to politicize global warming. It is not a liberal v conservative issue. It is frustrating to me why so many people insist on incorrectly characterizing the opposition to climate change legislation/policies/dogma (not saying you're doing this). Only a small percentage of those opposed truly believe there are no changes taking place. The opposition, for many, is grounded in how great of a price should we pay to make a tiny dent in the human-caused factors that impact the climate. This is especially true when there appear to be legitimate questions about the data (I'm not talking about the "it's a cool day in July, where's global warming now" stuff). I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but I believe the premise is wrong. It seems to me that any, many people (or, at least, a disproportionate number of those operating in the public sphere) believe global warming simply either isn't occurring or isn't a man-made phenomenon. Either viewpoint leads them to conclude that any discussion of potential remedies is a waste of time and wrong headed. And, at least in my view, that opinion is simply not supportable and, for me, is a disqualifying view for anyone courting my vote, because it shows an inability to challenge one's own assumptions when faced with overwhelming facts (something any decision-maker needs to be able to do). That said, I have absolutely no problem with those who admit to global warming but then disagree as to what should be done about it. I may disagree, but "doing nothing" is a perfectly rationale answer, if the person giving it has considered the options out there, the costs of doing other things, etc. I guess the key is that the only way to have an honest debate about the costs of various options available to us (including doing essentially nothing at the one extreme to virtually banning carbon fuel at the other extreme) is to completely marginalize those who deny the existence of the problem because they complicate the debate to such an extent that the average American can't see through the smoke. The reality is that the federal government is in a position to fund research that may lead to a host of creative solutions that no one has even thought of yet, but "deniers" wouldn't allow that to get off the ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 8:25:45 GMT -5
You make several valid points. Unfortunately, the average citizen has to see the results of climate warming for themselves before he or she become energized. For example, I have lived in south Florida for almost 20 years, and I see no signs that the ocean levels are rising and threatening our shores. On the other hand, I just spoke to a friend who came back from his Alaskan cruise who was stunned at the difference in the size of the glaciers compared to his last cruise 10 years ago. He is now concerned about global warming
Here is the problem. The vast majority of the greenhouse gases is water vapor. Water vapor self adjusts in that when there is too much, we get more rain. On the other hand carbon based green house gases (CO2), does not adjust and is going to stay around for hundreds of years, so that while it amounts to only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases up there, it is having a major impact. Furthermore, we need to do some research to find some way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Until the average American can see the impact of global warming, nothing will be done.
So, in spite of my belief in global warming, I can't bring myself to go out and buy an electric car. It is just too inconvenient.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 14, 2015 11:29:08 GMT -5
It is frustrating to me why so many people insist on incorrectly characterizing the opposition to climate change legislation/policies/dogma (not saying you're doing this). Only a small percentage of those opposed truly believe there are no changes taking place. The opposition, for many, is grounded in how great of a price should we pay to make a tiny dent in the human-caused factors that impact the climate. This is especially true when there appear to be legitimate questions about the data (I'm not talking about the "it's a cool day in July, where's global warming now" stuff). I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but I believe the premise is wrong. It seems to me that any, many people (or, at least, a disproportionate number of those operating in the public sphere) believe global warming simply either isn't occurring or isn't a man-made phenomenon. I think that the percentage is much, much smaller than you would believe. However, as with many issues, those on the fringe of an issue get most/all of the attention. You won't see Gawker or MSNBC or most any other media outlet doing a piece on the mainstream opposition.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 14, 2015 12:39:40 GMT -5
Actually, CO2 does not have a high global warming potential (GWP). In fact, by definition is 1. Some of my work deals with predicting GWPs of 1300 compounds. There are many of those 1300 compounds that have GWPs in the 100's or even 1000's. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), for example, has a GWP of at least 6500. But, of course, none of the compounds that we are studying is released into the atmosphere in amounts approaching CO2. Most of the compounds we are investigating are many of the compounds used in the electronics industry. Our goal is to present to industry those compounds that would warm up the atmosphere less than others to use the lesser of two evils.
To predict GWPs you have to have the molecular weight of the compound (a no brainer), the radiative forcing, and the atmospheric lifetime. The radiative forcing is a measure of how efficiently the compound absorbs infrared radiation and in turn emits heat to the atmosphere because of the vibrations of the molecule. We predict the atmospheric lifetime for compounds that contain hydrogen by measuring the rate constant of the molecule with the hydroxyl radical (OH), which is a primary sink for these molecules. Then we get the half life of these molecules to approximate the atmospheric lifetime. The reason why SF6 has a high GWP is mainly because it does not have a very efficient sink and it remains in the atmosphere for a long, long time.
The compounds that I am studying probably make up 20% of the carbon load in the atmosphere, with CO2 and CH4 probably the other 80%.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,382
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 14, 2015 12:45:28 GMT -5
Lots of interesting posts. Bottom line is that Carly started as a secretary (not at HP) and navigated the male dominated shark infested waters of the business world to become CEO of HP. Quite an accomplishment. She graduated from Stanford and received her MBA from the nation's premier business school MIT. Now you may not agree with her politics but she is highly intelligent and talented. As for climate change and cook stoves, you might be interested in knowing that while the most common cause of COPD/emphysema in western cultures is cigarette smoking, the most common cause in non-western countries are pollutants emanating from devices such as cook stoves. At any rate, the science involving climate change is absolutely fascinating. So if you get a chance pick up a book and read about it. I remember reading how the increase in polar ice was an argument against climate change when in fact it is an argument for climate change. The reason is this. As the climate warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans increasing the total water vapor in the air. Now the poles stay frozen even with global warming, but the snow fall at the poles (even though minimal) increases, leading to an increase to the thickness of polar ice. Did you ever wonder how we know what the temperatures were millions even hundreds of millions of years ago?? Really interesting stuff. I agree with you on Carly being intelligent, etc. And she probably did the best job in the debates, but her statements on the environment and what happened at HP (who did not offer my son a job, but Intel did) and Lucent cause me some grief personally.
|
|