Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (935106)	5/15/2016 2:20:25 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo POKERSAM Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574060

CO2 Reaches Tipping Point! *OMG it’s worse than we thought…. we are all going to have too much food* May 14, 2016 By Paul Homewood http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3586669/The-end-world-know-CO2-levels-reach-tipping-point-6-June-marking-milestone-global-warming.html We’re all going to die! From the Mail: 6 June may sound like an insignificant date to many, but it could mark a ‘tipping point’ in the world’s history, an expert has warned. An atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania is expected to record a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm) on or around this day – a significant number marking a climate change milestone. While 400ppm has been recorded before, the Tasmanian location is regarded as one of the cleanest air sources in the world, so such levels of pollution are said to be a real blow. The measure is an indicator of the amount of planet-warming gases being pumped into the atmosphere at record rates and the concentrations are the highest in millions of years. The measurements of 400ppm come almost three decades after what is considered the ‘safe’ level of 350ppm was passed. ‘Once it reaches 400ppm at Cape Grim it’s very unlikely to drop below 400 again,’ Dr Paul Fraser, a Fellow at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Csiro) told Ninemsn. While the difference of 0.1ppm may seem trivial, the expert said it marks a ‘psychological tipping point’ in our battle against global warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3586669/The-end-world-know-CO2-levels-reach-tipping-point-6-June-marking-milestone-global-warming.html There is more drivel along these lines, but I was struck by this comment: Experts worry that when 400ppm becomes the norm, polluted and densely populated cities such as Beijing could record carbon figures as high as 700ppm, bring a lot of health concerns. Currently, the air surrounding a congested road is probably around 500ppm. Accompanied by this highly misleading photo, which attempts to conflate CO2 with smog: CO2 is invisible. Green propagandists think you're stupid. Experts worry that when 400ppm becomes the norm, polluted and densely populated cities such as Beijing (stock image) could record carbon figures as high as 700ppm, bring a lot of health concerns I am certainly not aware of any evidence that CO2 is any way harmful in to humans at these sort of levels. Obviously as CO2 is heavier than air, it can sink to the ground in confined spaces and lead to asphyxiation. But according to the Health & Safety Executive, CO2 is naturally present in the air we breathe at a concentration of about 0.037% and is not harmful to health at low concentrations. They go on to say: In GB, CO2 is classed as a ‘substance hazardous to health’ under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). The HSE publication ‘ EH40/2005 Workplace exposure limits’ provides workplace exposure limits (WELs) for CO2. WELs are limits to airborne concentrations of hazardous substances in the workplace and are set in order to help protect the health of workers. Workplace exposure is calculated by taking an average over a specified period of time. The WELs for CO2 are: Long-term exposure limit (8-hr reference period) of 5000 ppm Short-term exposure limit (15 minute reference period) of 15000 ppm http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.htm As with all HSE recommendations, they are doubtlessly well below realistic safe limits. There is also plenty of evidence that CO2 has many beneficial effects for the human body. According to the Normalbreathing website, having a normal level of CO2 in the lungs and arterial blood (40 mm Hg or about 5.3% at sea level) is imperative for normal health. Obviously most of this CO2 is that produced during respiration. Their view, however, is that many people actually hyperventilate, which leads to there being too little CO2 in the lungs. Either way, it is not clear why 700ppm should be in any way harmful. This all seems just a cheap attempt to reinforce the message that CO2 is dangerous pollution. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/14/co2-reaches-tipping-point/ saveenergy permalink May 14, 2016 6:25 pm The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions: 40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people. [ If you're a pothead exhaling marijuana smoke, it's even higher. ;>) ] 8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines 2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city [ In a house where a pothead is smoking weed, it's much higher. ;>) ] 1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years 1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses 1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students 600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my spouse in it 490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone 400 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air (2016) 280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of “CO2 famine” for plants 150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation & just look at what CO2 has done to our Crops The Cereal Supply and Demand Brief provides an up-to-date perspective of the world cereal market http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ OMG it’s worse than we thought…. we are all going to have too much food The CO2Science web site has a huge catalog of studies of the effects of CO2 on plant growth, here: http://www.cO2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php The studies show that nearly all plants benefit dramatically Moreover, there’s good evidence that many of those studies underestimate the benefit of elevated CO2: http://www.cO2science.org/subject/f/summaries/faceartifacts.php The first such study that I’m aware of was done nearly a century ago, in Germany. Scientific American wrote about it in 1920: http://tinyurl.com/1920sciamCO2

To: Brumar89 who wrote (935106)	5/16/2016 1:03:01 PM
From: PKRBKR	3 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB jlallen Respond to of 1574060

That’s higher than the average projected sea level rise for the rest of the world, This must be another of Weiner's water bulges like the one off of Miami.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (935106)	6/8/2016 11:31:43 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574060

"Bay Area Voters Will Decide Next Month If They Want To Pay To Adapt To Sea Level Rise" Bay Area Voters Approve Tax to Fix Marshes As Seas Rise Published: June 8th, 2016 By John Upton Voters in the San Francisco Bay Area approved an unprecedented tax Tuesday to help fund an ambitious vision for restoring lost marshlands, handing electoral victory to shorebirds, crabs and advocates of a muddy strategy for adapting to rising seas. Measure AA is projected to raise an estimated $25 million a year for 20 years. As of Wednesday morning, 69 percent of voters in the nine Bay Area counties supported it, with only a small number of votes left to be counted. The $12 annual tax proposed for each parcel of property owned in the Bay Area needed two thirds of votes to pass. San Francisco Bay has lost most of the marshes that could help it adapt to rising seas. Credit: Don McCullough/Flickr “I’m just so thrilled,” said Laura Tam, a sustainable development policy director at the San Francisco-based urban planning think tank SPUR. “I don’t quite believe it. I’m waiting for some missing ballots to be found.” While other political operatives and onlookers were celebrating primary victories by Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senate candidate Kamala Harris on Tuesday evening, SPUR was hosting a Measure AA party in Oakland. The think tank formally supported the ballot measure. “This is an historic measure that shows that the region is unified about caring about the bay, and about the environment for the future,” Tam said. “What it allows us to do is take a lot of the public lands that have been set aside for restoration and actually do the restoration work.” The sweeping estuary that includes San Francisco Bay has lost most of its tidal marshes during the past 200 years, and those that remain are some of the sickliest in the country, harming wildlife populations and leaving homes, roads and other infrastructure vulnerable to flooding. Bay Area leaders have published a vision for restoring 100,000 acres of marshland, which could grow vertically as seas rise and buffer waves that cause erosion. A recent state-led analysis recommended accelerating the work because of the looming threat of an acceleration in rates of sea level rise. Seas have risen 8 inches since the 1800s, largely because of the warming effects of greenhouse gas pollution, which is melting ice sheets and glaciers and causing ocean waters to expand. The rate of rise is steadily increasing, and seas could rise 2 to 6 feet this century, flooding low-lying and heavily populated neighborhoods in the Bay Area and around the world. The new parcel tax is projected to raise $25 million a year for 20 years, beginning in 2017. Spending will be guided by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, which is overseen by state officials. Dave Pine, a county lawmaker who serves as chair of the restoration authority, said the $500 million in parcel taxes over 20 years would provide about one third of the $1.5 billion in anticipated marsh restoration costs for 35,000 acres of publicly-owned land. The restoration authority plans to invite proposals for restoration grants that will be funded by the ballot measure. “The ballot measure itself doesn’t specify which projects will be funded, but it does provide for some principles that we’ll use to vet these proposals,” Pine said. It’s common for beach municipalities whose economies rely on tourism to levy hotel taxes to raise money for beach maintenance, but Derek Brockbank, executive director of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, said it made sense for the Bay Area to pursue a different approach. “The Bay Area is certainly a leading area for environmental awareness, so it doesn’t really surprise me that they would be one of the first areas to take this kind of approach,” Brockbank said. Volunteers help clean up a marsh in San Francisco. Credit: Port of San Francisco The D.C.-based group advocates for dedicated coastal funding at local, regional and national levels, although Brockbank said they didn’t take a position on Measure AA. “It was interesting to see how they’re looking at it as a property tax, as opposed to a tourism tax,” Brockbank said. “Protecting the bay is a critical economic interest for a myriad of reasons — not just a benefit for the tourism industry.” The nonprofit Save The Bay campaigned heavily on behalf of the ballot measure, and it expects additional money will be raised from state and federal grants to help meet funding shortfalls. “As far as I know, it’s unprecedented for a major metropolitan area to vote by a huge majority to make this investment in a natural resource that’s also going to benefit the built environment,” David Lewis, executive director of Save The Bay, said Wednesday morning. The measure was broadly supported by business and conservation groups, raising several million dollars for campaigning, some of which was spent on television advertising. “I think it’s the largest and best example of a region coming together in support of natural adaptation to climate change and sea level rise,” Lewis said. “Wetland restoration is one of the best ways we can protect the shoreline from rising seas and heavy storms.” climatecentral.org