IGX

A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures -- on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis -- are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

After three consecutive years of below-normal rainfall, California faces its most severe drought emergency in decades. Governor Jerry Brown has called for Californians to reduce water use by 20 percent voluntarily, and mandatory rationing could be ordered soon so that homes, businesses and farms don’t run dry over the summer. Wildfire danger is unusually high.

It's a government mandated drought.

Turdacious wrote:

I blame it on global cooling.

Stillwater wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

I blame it on global cooling.

Exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade.

Freakanomics FTW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_ ... ime_effect

The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

Table 1 of the report presents the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race – Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black – and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City. That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City. There were 6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

In total, there were 73,815 abortions, which means the 31,328 black babies aborted comprised 42.4% of the total abortions.

dead man walking wrote:more crime!

more cost!

A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures -- on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis -- are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... z2tsZXXTxV

Stillwater wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

I blame it on global cooling.

Exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade.

Freakanomics FTW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_ ... ime_effect

Besides, for someone of Mr Levitt's iconoclasm and ingenuity, technical ineptitude is a much graver charge than moral turpitude. To be politically incorrect is one thing; to be simply incorrect quite another.

If there was ever a reason to rise up in support of a benevolent climate-obsessed world dictator, this could be it.

An epic drought—Brazil’s worst in decades—is threatening exports from the world’s largest coffee exporter and driving up wholesale prices worldwide.

dead man walking wrote:

If there was ever a reason to rise up in support of a benevolent climate-obsessed world dictator, this could be it.

An epic drought—Brazil’s worst in decades—is threatening exports from the world’s largest coffee exporter and driving up wholesale prices worldwide.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... burger_bar

In Brazil, climate models have mixed results when projecting future rainfall patterns (wetter for the southeast, but drier over the Amazon and the northeast), but are unambiguous about the fact that temperatures will continue to climb. This is a problem that is not going to go away.

Arctic sea ice reached its maximum annual extent on March 21, and the amount measured was the fifth-lowest level ever recorded.

Levels of sea ice in the Arctic have been collected since 1978. Ice levels since that time have shown a decrease in maximums of around 2.6 percent per decade. These numbers are measured in comparison with averages collected from 1981 to 2010.

"Arctic sea ice extent for March 2014 averaged... 5.70 million square miles. This is... 282,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and... 127,000 square miles above the record March monthly low, which happened in 2006," The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported.

dead man walking wrote:emphasis added

Arctic sea ice reached its maximum annual extent on March 21, and the amount measured was the fifth-lowest level ever recorded.

Levels of sea ice in the Arctic have been collected since 1978. Ice levels since that time have shown a decrease in maximums of around 2.6 percent per decade. These numbers are measured in comparison with averages collected from 1981 to 2010.

"Arctic sea ice extent for March 2014 averaged... 5.70 million square miles. This is... 282,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and... 127,000 square miles above the record March monthly low, which happened in 2006," The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

If there was ever a reason to rise up in support of a benevolent climate-obsessed world dictator, this could be it.

An epic drought—Brazil’s worst in decades—is threatening exports from the world’s largest coffee exporter and driving up wholesale prices worldwide.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... burger_bar

In Brazil, climate models have mixed results when projecting future rainfall patterns (wetter for the southeast, but drier over the Amazon and the northeast), but are unambiguous about the fact that temperatures will continue to climb. This is a problem that is not going to go away.

LOL at this-- our models are crap, but our conclusions must be right because SCIENCE!!!!!!

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

If there was ever a reason to rise up in support of a benevolent climate-obsessed world dictator, this could be it.

An epic drought—Brazil’s worst in decades—is threatening exports from the world’s largest coffee exporter and driving up wholesale prices worldwide.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... burger_bar

In Brazil, climate models have mixed results when projecting future rainfall patterns (wetter for the southeast, but drier over the Amazon and the northeast), but are unambiguous about the fact that temperatures will continue to climb. This is a problem that is not going to go away.

LOL at this-- our models are crap, but our conclusions must be right because SCIENCE!!!!!!

The difference between predicting overall trends and near term results. Vegas can't predict the results of each individual gambler, but they know the house wins.

Permafrost may have far reaching effects on climate change, a new study suggests.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals new evidence that permafrost thawing releases large amounts of greenhouse gases that can raise global temperatures. . . .

Permafrost, which is a thick layer of soil that remains frozen year-round, is usually found in the world’s polar regions. The latest study points out that as the permafrost melts, it will produce increased amounts of methane. Compared carbon dioxide, methane is 33 times more effective at global warming . . . .

The latest study involved taking samples from soil in Sweden. Researchers found that if the permafrost melts entirely, there will be five times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than there is today. . . .

Permafrost covers about 24 percent of land in the northern hemisphere and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon – twice the amount currently found in the atmosphere.

dead man walking wrote:warming amplifies the causes of warming, leading to more rapid warming.

feel free to deny or ignore.

Permafrost may have far reaching effects on climate change, a new study suggests.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals new evidence that permafrost thawing releases large amounts of greenhouse gases that can raise global temperatures. . . .

Permafrost, which is a thick layer of soil that remains frozen year-round, is usually found in the world’s polar regions. The latest study points out that as the permafrost melts, it will produce increased amounts of methane. Compared carbon dioxide, methane is 33 times more effective at global warming . . . .

The latest study involved taking samples from soil in Sweden. Researchers found that if the permafrost melts entirely, there will be five times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than there is today. . . .

Permafrost covers about 24 percent of land in the northern hemisphere and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon – twice the amount currently found in the atmosphere.

Lewis Medlock wrote:

dead man walking wrote:warming amplifies the causes of warming, leading to more rapid warming.

feel free to deny or ignore.

Permafrost may have far reaching effects on climate change, a new study suggests.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals new evidence that permafrost thawing releases large amounts of greenhouse gases that can raise global temperatures. . . .

Permafrost, which is a thick layer of soil that remains frozen year-round, is usually found in the world’s polar regions. The latest study points out that as the permafrost melts, it will produce increased amounts of methane. Compared carbon dioxide, methane is 33 times more effective at global warming . . . .

The latest study involved taking samples from soil in Sweden. Researchers found that if the permafrost melts entirely, there will be five times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than there is today. . . .

Permafrost covers about 24 percent of land in the northern hemisphere and stores approximately 1.5 trillion tons of carbon – twice the amount currently found in the atmosphere.

What do you think the permafrost was like before the little ice age, when we were much warmer for a 4 to 7 houndred year stretch. What do you think the earth was like durning that time? Knowing that recording temperature started about the time the little ice age ended would you not expect it to get hotter every year till we get to about the same temp we were before it started, and for us to heat up at about the same rate we cooled down?

Lewis Medlock wrote:
What do you think the permafrost was like before the little ice age, when we were much warmer for a 4 to 7 houndred year stretch. What do you think the earth was like durning that time? Knowing that recording temperature started about the time the little ice age ended would you not expect it to get hotter every year till we get to about the same temp we were before it started, and for us to heat up at about the same rate we cooled down?

Thud wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:
What do you think the permafrost was like before the little ice age, when we were much warmer for a 4 to 7 houndred year stretch. What do you think the earth was like durning that time? Knowing that recording temperature started about the time the little ice age ended would you not expect it to get hotter every year till we get to about the same temp we were before it started, and for us to heat up at about the same rate we cooled down?

Is it practical to believe that 90% of the world experts would not have taken this simple theory into account? And are they not able to assess thru deeply mined ice samples, growth rings, etc?

I don't fancy myself an expert (or even knowledgeable), and who knows, maybe 90% of the climatologists are wrong -- but the whole "denier" thing just strikes me as fool-hearty, like a 500lb diabetic refusing to give up his quart of Haagen Daz each night until someone can prove to him that that singular food will outright kill him. Isn't there sufficient probability of concern to justify prudence, just in case?

4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous. For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet, with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.

A four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century could also trigger declining global food stocks and sea-level rises affecting hundreds of millions of people.

dead man walking wrote:and what would be the consequences of an 4 degree increase in average annual temperatures?

one projection:

4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous. For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet, with sea levels rising by many metres as a result.

another:

A four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century could also trigger declining global food stocks and sea-level rises affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Sea level rise will allow current water levels to be exceeded and low-lying lands to be flooded with increased frequency. Based on the data in Figure 4, following a 0.61 m rise in sea level, the current 30-year storm will produce a flood water level of 2.96 m, which exceeds the current 100-year level. After a 1.22 m rise in sea level, the current 5-year storm will produce water levels well above the current 100-year flood water level. The result suggests that the current 100-year flood water level of 2.90 m to be exceeded 3 to 4 times more frequently after a 0.61 m rise in sea level and approximately 20 times more frequently after a 1.22 m rise. Other factors being equal, New Jersey’s current 100-year flood water level could become the 30-year flood level after a 0.61 m sea level rise and the 5-year flood level after a 1.22 m rise.

dead man walking wrote:cities like atlantic city can kiss their asses good-bye, i think, even in a conservative projection. from one study, discussing atlantic city and new jersey.

Sea level rise will allow current water levels to be exceeded and low-lying lands to be flooded with increased frequency. Based on the data in Figure 4, following a 0.61 m rise in sea level, the current 30-year storm will produce a flood water level of 2.96 m, which exceeds the current 100-year level. After a 1.22 m rise in sea level, the current 5-year storm will produce water levels well above the current 100-year flood water level. The result suggests that the current 100-year flood water level of 2.90 m to be exceeded 3 to 4 times more frequently after a 0.61 m rise in sea level and approximately 20 times more frequently after a 1.22 m rise. Other factors being equal, New Jersey’s current 100-year flood water level could become the 30-year flood level after a 0.61 m sea level rise and the 5-year flood level after a 1.22 m rise.

substantial portions of miami will be inundated. some might see that as a good thing.

new orleans is below sea level now. are we going to be able to continue to pump it dry?

take the coastline from houston east to florida and north to portland, maine. what towns won't be profoundly affected?

sure you can find less worrisome projections, but you don't manage risk by seeking out the most optimistic projections, especially if they run counter to what the experts tell you.