Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The Cost of Insuring Expensive Waterfront Homes Is About to Skyrocket

• In the U.S. flood insurance is generally purchased through FEMA, a government agency
• All properties in a 100-year flood zone with a federally-backed mortgage are required to carry flood insurance
• In the past insurance rates have poorly reflected either property value or flood risk
• Starting October 1, rates will start being adjusted more fairly, with premiums for some properties decreasing, while increasing for others
• By law, rates can only increase by a maximum of 18% per year
• Some properties will takes as long as 20 years for premiums to reach a fair valuation -- possibly increasing by 20 times
• This new policy will help make clear to wealthy homeowners who live in high-risk areas that they can no longer be subsidized by public money
• Unsurprisingly, homeowners facing steep rate increases are howling to their Congressional representatives
• I guess socialized flood insurance for the wealthy is more palatable to them than socialized health insurance for the poor

Massive sea level changes are a myth . if it was really a possibility you couldnt get insurance period.
And yes that is a real thing . my folks had flood insurance in Arkansas pass. Texas but the people on the other side ( South side ) couldn't because of flood plane.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The Cost of Insuring Expensive Waterfront Homes Is About to Skyrocket...

• ...I guess socialized flood insurance for the wealthy is more palatable to them than socialized health insurance for the poor

In the US, you get what you pay for, as long as you make at least more than about half of what everyone else does.

If you make less than half, you get nothing at all, at least representational-wise.

And even for the 'lucky' ones that 'make' more than half, their representation is directly proportional to their position in the myopic, conspicuously-consuming hierarchy...here, we, oops, I mean they, get all the benefits of an oligarchic/plutocratic/kleptocratic, pseudo- capitalistic military-industrial-medical complex-run 'society', whilst we get to drink a beer, gawk at each other on a-social media and bitch about paying them for their, and our (to a very slightly lesser extent), role in screwing up the rest of the world for the forseeable future.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soestwp...imate-changes/

The paper, on which newhaul’s link reports:
“Biodiversity of coral reef cryptobiota shuffles but does not decline under the combined stressors of ocean warming and acidification” ~ by Molly A. Timmers et al
“Although climate change is expected to decimate coral reefs, the combined impacts of ocean-warming and acidification on coral reef biodiversity remains largely unmeasured. Here, we present a two-year mesocosm experiment to simulate future ocean acidification and ocean-warming to quantify the impacts on species richness, community composition, and community structure. We find that species richness is equivalent between the dual-stressor and present-day treatments but that the community shuffles, undoubtedly altering ecosystem function. However, our ability to predict the outcomes of such community shuffling remains limited due to the critical knowledge gap regarding ecological functions, life histories, and distributions for most members of the cryptobenthic community that account for the majority of the biodiversity within these iconic ecosystems...”
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/118/39/e2103275118


Emphasis mine.

[GordMay]

“Among the unvaccinated, the virus travels unhindered on a highway with multiple off-ramps and refueling stations. In the vaccinated, it gets lost in a maze of dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs.”

No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as likely’ to spread the coronavirus as unvaccinated people, writes emergency-medicine physician and global-health specialist Craig Spencer.

➥ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-covid/620161/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Massive sea level changes are a myth . if it was really a possibility you couldnt get insurance period...

Massive sea level changes aren't the immediate concern.

Failure to Act on Climate Change Could Make Weather Risks Uninsurable
Global warming will lead to growing intensity and frequency of severe weather events, rising losses, as well as greater uncertainty in the assessment of these events, by the insurance industry, which could make some weather risks uninsurable, according to a report [1] published by Swiss Re.

More about ➥ https://www.swissre.com/media/news-r...ma-2-2020.html

And ➥ https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../08/563703.htm


[1] “Natural catastrophes in times of economic accumulation and climate change” ~ Swiss Re
➥ https://www.swissre.com/institute/re...a-2020-02.html


Meanwhile:

Vanuatu to push international court for climate change action
Vanuatu is asking the International Court of Justice to issue an opinion on the rights of present and future generations to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change.
Vanuatu, with a population of some 280,000 people spread across roughly 80 islands, is among more than a dozen Pacific island nations facing rising sea levels and more regular storms.
More ➥ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-...e-un/100491806

[SailOar]

China's Xi pledges to end funding for overseas coal power plants

• More than 70 percent of global coal-fired power plants rely on Chinese funding
• Public Chinese finance has put more than 53 gigawatts of coal power online across the world, more than double Japan's 21 gigawatts
• On September 21 Chinese President Xi Jinping said China would end support for building new coal-fired power plants abroad
• Japan and South Korea made similar pledges earlier this year

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

China Is Planning to Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can
It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

• China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions
• Still, world’s largest polluter is pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030, and to make the country carbon neutral by 2060

[Midnight Son]

Slightly off topic.

China is playing for time. They expect, the war for resources/living space, will be over by then.
Rapidly expanding economies, are emboldened by their success, and eventually lash out, at the forces they feel are constraining them.
Best wishes from the far North.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

... China is playing for time. They expect, the war for resources/living space, will be over by then.
Rapidly expanding economies, are emboldened by their success, and eventually lash out, at the forces they feel are constraining them...

China has applied to join Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) [1], an 11-nation trade pact formed in 2018, after the U.S. withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP], a year earlier.

Beijing needs the approval from all 11 CPTPP signatories [Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam] to join CPTPP, and it may not succeed given its strained relationships with some [Australia, Canada, Japan, & Mexico] member countries.

In addition to political hurdles, China may have difficulties meeting CPTPP provisions that promote cross-border data flows, labor and environmental protection, as well as restrictions on state-owned companies, all of which would represent major departures from its current stance.

China is not the only one that's applied to join the CPTPP; the U.K. and Taiwan have done the same.

Meanwhile, China has become a major trading partner, for many countries in the region, and last year led 14 other regional economies to sign the world's largest trade agreement; the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP [2].

[1] CPTPP ➥ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/chin...&doc=106945444

[2] RCEP ➥ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/rcep...&doc=106945444


Meanwhile, Australia is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, with its obstinate approach to the climate crisis. Leaders like US climate envoy John Kerry, and COP26 President Alok Sharma, have been focused recently on the climate challenge of China; but it's Australia that's emerging as the real pariah of the COP26 talks.
And while Australia says achieving carbon neutrality, by mid-century, would be preferable, it's one of the only developed nations that hasn't actually committed to it.
Even China, widely seen as a roadblock to international climate progress, has pledged carbon neutrality by 2060.
Australia is the world's second-biggest coal exporter, after Indonesia. A report [3], published by the climate think tank InfluenceMap, showed that fossil fuel companies are exerting a strong influence over Australian climate policy, through well-funded lobbying, and that Australian businesses that are more vocally climate friendly are less engaged in lobbying the government in practice.

[3] IM Report ➥ https://australia.influencemap.org/d...imate-policy#1

[newhaul]

https://electroverse.net/record-high...rom-our-blog_1

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/o...93a03476ee20ae

We’ve got twice as much coral as we had after huge cyclones went through the reef in about 2011 and 2012, and this record-high coral cover is despite supposedly having three catastrophic unprecedented bleaching events in just the last five years.

“So you’ve just got to wonder were those bleaching events maybe as catastrophic as these experts supposedly claimed.”

[GordMay]

If “today’s scientific establishment has been utterly corrupted. Those ‘scientists’ at the higher echelons, the ones effectively in control of a given field are firmly rooted –knowingly or not– within the pockets of the unseen elites–i.e. those forces on-high with powerful agendas and a limitless bankroll to push them ...
... Almost everything they tell us on almost every topic is part of a bigger game plan–the pushing of a narrative, rather than the facts.”, as your [newhaul first link claims; then, perhaps, we should look to outsiders, and lower echelons [in the field] to provide evidence for their alternative claims.
The editorial opinion articles, you cite, certainly, don’t do that.
They just make more unsubstantiated claims.




***



***

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://electroverse.net/record-high...rom-our-blog_1

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/o...93a03476ee20ae

We’ve got twice as much coral as we had after huge cyclones went through the reef in about 2011 and 2012, and this record-high coral cover is despite supposedly having three catastrophic unprecedented bleaching events in just the last five years.

“So you’ve just got to wonder were those bleaching events maybe as catastrophic as these experts supposedly claimed.”

Doesn't look like "record-high coral cover" to me; mostly in the 10% to 50% range. But what could field scientists who actually go out in boats and survey reefs possibly know?

Long-Term Monitoring Program Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2020/2021

Key results

• This report summarises the condition of coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from the Long-Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) surveys of 127 reefs conducted between August 2020 and April 2021 (reported as ‘2021’).
• Over the 35 years of monitoring by AIMS, the reefs of the GBR have shown an ability to recover after disturbances.
• In 2021, widespread recovery was underway, largely due to increases in fast growing Acropora corals.
• Survey reefs experienced low levels of acute stressors over the past 12 months with no prolonged high temperatures or major cyclones. Numbers of outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish on survey reefs have generally decreased; however, there remain ongoing outbreaks on some reefs in the Southern GBR.
• Overall, 59 out of 127 reefs had moderate (>10% - 30%) hard coral cover and 36 reefs had high (>30% - 50%) hard coral cover.
• On the Northern GBR, region-wide hard coral cover was moderate and had continued to increase to 27% from the most recent low point in 2017.
• On the Central GBR region-wide hard coral cover was moderate and had increased to 26% in 2021.
• Region-wide hard coral cover on reefs in the Southern GBR was high and had increased to 39% in 2021.
• In 2020, most of the surveyed reefs experienced heat stress accumulation that produced widespread coral bleaching but was below thresholds where widespread mortality is expected to occur. Consistent with this, surveys in 2021 recorded low coral mortality from the 2020 bleaching event.
• In periods free from acute disturbances, most GBR coral reefs demonstrate resilience through the ability to begin recovery. However, the reefs of the GBR continue to be exposed to cumulative stressors, and the prognosis for the future disturbance regime is one of increased and longer lasting marine heatwaves and a greater proportion of severe tropical cyclones.

[SailOar]

Research reveals potential of an overlooked climate change solution

• The relative concentration of methane has grown more than twice as fast as that of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
• Removing methane from the atmosphere could reduce temperatures even faster than carbon dioxide removal alone because methane is 81 times more potent in terms of warming the climate over the first 20 years after its release, and about 27 times more potent over a century
• Methane removal also improves air quality by decreasing the concentration of tropospheric ozone
• 60% of methane emissions are human-driven, including livestock, rice fields, waste disposal and fossil fuel extraction
• Natural sources of methane include thawing permafrost, which is projected to increase as the planet warms
• Under a high emissions scenario, the analysis showed that a 40 percent reduction in global methane emissions by 2050 would lead to a temperature reduction of approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius by 2050
• Under a low emissions scenario where temperature peaks during the 21st century, methane removal of the same magnitude could reduce the peak temperature by up to 1 degree Celsius.

The two papers were published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2020.0454
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2021.0104

[GordMay]

Carbon Capture Technologies

Current carbon capture technologies focus on extracting carbon dioxide from the air, and either store it permanently underground, or filter the compound, so that it can be added to materials, such as concrete.

Researchers from the University of Michigan say capturing carbon dioxide and using it to make materials like concrete, fuels, and plastics could generate revenues in excess of $800 billion each year by 2030. However, some of these materials have greater climate benefits than others, so the researchers conducted a study [1] to explore which of these technologies has the most positive impacts.

The study [1] evaluated 20 potential uses of captured carbon dioxide, and organized them into three categories: concrete, chemical, and minerals. Of these uses, only four uses had more than a 50 per cent chance of creating a net climate benefit. The study says a net climate benefit occurs when “the emissions avoided by using carbon capture and utilization technology outweigh the emissions generated while capturing the carbon dioxide and making the final product.”

These four uses for captured carbon include two methods that mix carbon dioxide into concrete, creating formic acid (a preservative and antibacterial agent), and creating carbon monoxide, for industrial uses. The researchers say that their findings will help inform research and development strategies.

“Decisions to globally scale carbon capture and utilization operations will require guidance on identifying products that maximize the climate benefits of using captured carbon dioxide,” said lead author Dwarak Ravikumar in the university’s press release.[2]

The study also reported that currently, electricity generated from renewable energies has a greater climate benefit if it supplies the grid, instead of being used to repurpose captured carbon, but this will gradually change in the coming decades, as fossil fuels are phased out.

Technologies that store carbon dioxide deep below the Earth’s surface, through a process called carbon capture and sequestration, are another way we can remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. One example of this is Climework’s Orca plant in Iceland, which has become the largest direct air capture and storage plant in the world, able to remove 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually. [3]

Given the infancy of the carbon sequestration and utilization industries, experts remain steadfast that keeping fossil fuels in the ground still remains the best approach for addressing climate change.


[1] “Assessing the Relative Climate Impact of Carbon Utilization for Concrete, Chemical, and Mineral Production” ~ by Dwarakanath Ravikumar et al
➥ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.10...109_si_001.pdf

[2] “Climate benefits vs. burdens: Which products are best suited for emerging carbon capture technologies?” ~ Press Release

[3] “The world’s largest climate-positive direct air capture plant: Orca!”
➥ https://climeworks.com/orca

[SailOar]

Smoke From Nuclear War Would Trigger Massive Climate Change, Endangering Health

• Nuclear war would damage the ozone layer, and that would result in enhanced ultraviolet light at the Earth's surface
• How quickly the damaging ultraviolet light would reach Earth's surface would depend on how much soot was injected into the atmosphere
• Nuclear weapons used in cities and industrial areas could touch off large-scale fires, sending massive amounts of smoke into the stratosphere
• A regional nuclear war would generated 5 megatons of soot and extremely high levels of ultraviolet light would begin within a year
• The global ozone layer would be reduced by 25% and recovery would take 12 years
• If a nuclear war between the United States and Russia generated 150 megatons of soot the high levels of ultraviolet light would start after eight years
• A global nuclear war would cause a 15-year-long reduction in ozone layer with ozone loss at 75% globally and 65% in the tropics
• Thus nuclear war would trigger worldwide climate change and take a dire toll on food production and human health

The findings were published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Smoke From Nuclear War Would Trigger Massive Climate Change, Endangering Health
...

The findings were published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Do I understand correctly, that, if I survive the blast, heat, and radiation of a nuclear war, I’m likely to be at increased risk of getting a severe sunburn?


In a nuclear war, they say the only thing to survive will be cockroaches.
Which means we will still have functioning governments.

Cockroaches can survive a nuclear war. But hit them with a newspaper and they die.
See how dangerously toxic the media is?