Open thread Jan. 10, 2013 Dan Crawford | January 10, 2014 1:47 pm Tags: open thread Comments (23) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Maybe the rise of a startling new “inequality” (I prefer “Great Wage Depression”) will at last wake up the last of progressives to see income inequality as the core concern — NOW THAT IT IS HAPPENING TO THEM!
For decades the top 90 to 97-98-99 percentile incomes about kept up with per capita growth. 50 percentile remained stagnant — 50-90 grew proportionately to their place along the slope. We know about the top 1%.
Since the 2007 crisis something like 95% of overall income growth has been going to the top 1%.
Now that (it really is) the 99% who are ALL frozen out of the economic growth — that growth that everyone rushes to keep track of every quarter. Now, at last maybe our deckchair rearranging politicians will be able to see the real opportunity for themselves to build political capital by reforming the American labor market from the ground up — now that most of their upper middle class friends are caught up in the same downward spiral.
Yesterday Obama’s performance for the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty only produced his proposal for anemic “Promise Zones” with housing (anybody really going to massively build affordable housing), education (ghetto schools don’t work because students — and teachers — see nothing worth striving for in the labor market when they leave school) and of course tax incentives for small businesses. Get “Model Cities” from the sixties.
As Krugman pointed out recently the problem is lack of labor bargaining power (and I would add concomitant lack of political muscle) — most all due to virtually total de-unionization. The only solution for that in the purely mechanical sense is legally mandated, sector-wide labor agreements — wherein everyone doing the similar work in any geo locale (where applicable — airline workers would cover the whole country) negotiate one contract with all firms.
Jimmy Hoffa pioneered that kind of bargaining in this country with his national freight agreement for all truckers. Centralized bargaining was initiated by Post WWII INDUSTRIALISTS (not the radical left) to keep labor from going on a race to the top; thereby conserving money for rebuilding. Magic bullet: stops race to the bottom just as surely: the world’s only example of fair and balanced labor markets results. Spread from French Canada to Argentina to Indonesia — the the US? No other labor market setup has any potential at all to restore what we used to think of normalcy to the American economy and even politics. Supermarket workers and airline employees would kill for centralized bargaining.
Maybe now that the “Great Wage Depression” has lowered the boom on progressive leaders upper middle class circle, maybe now they will reach for the only working solution: centralized bargaining. Mabye Obama might even stop rearranging the deck chairs and realize that rearranging our labor market is all political plums (no political tradeoffs) for him.
This article explains how deceptive are the pronouncements of some of the “official” climate organizations: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/albedo-changes-what-nsidc-dont-want-you-to-know/
One of the claims for alarming Climate Change is that the Arctic Sea Ice is on a “death spiral”, and : “…said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “The rapid loss of ice in the Arctic should be ringing alarm bells for everyone.” ALARMING OR DECEPTIVE?
The Climate Change affect of the reduced ice is two fold 1) a very, very minor rise in sea levels, 2) but more importantly a decrease in solar albedo (reflection of solar energy back to space.) Ignore 1) as it is too small to even be measured. Looking at 2) however we find: “… the Arctic minimum in September, it is the Autumn equinox, and, of course, it is also the Spring equinox down under. In other words, the albedo effect is equal at both poles.” And, let me add, albedo at both poles is already fast reaching its low points, where there is no Sun shinning.
So, I would put this kind of statement well into the world of deception. Its not totally inaccurate it does, however, implicitly exaggerate the impacts. The ?science? is replete with these examples. Just refer to Stormy’s last article.
As always, YMMV.
i have been trying to ignore you, but since you have no idea how stupid what you just said sounds, let me help you out a little…
the folks measuring sea ice are very likely to measure it at the point of “yearly minimum” to see how that changes from year to year over decades.
i really don’t think anyone is trying to fool you by comparing sea ice at minimum to sea ice at maximum.
similarly, i wouldn’t expect any change in ocean levels as a result of sea ice melting. good old Archimedes principle and all. where you will get the change in ocean levels is from land ice melting.
as for albedo… well reduce the average ice cover … average… of the planet you reduce albedo and you will get more warming. and when the permafrost melts, you may get more methane, a green house gas, in the atmosphere. these things can add up.
also, someone just announced… i don’t claim to know if it’s “true”… that climate modelers have decided that the effect of warming on cloud cover is to reduce it. they hadn’t been sure before, as the warming might just have created more clouds from evaporation of surface water, but now they are “sure” that the water in the clouds just keeps on “evaporating” until it is merely water vapor (another green house gas) in the air, and not the fine water droplets that make up clouds and increase albedo.
please note, i am not claiming expertise here about any of this. but you seem to just like the sound of words and repeat them with the assurance of authority.. which sounds stupid.
Dale, listen to your grand kids — using STOOPID is bad, naughty, etc. Use ignorant — lack of knowledge, instead, and yours is showing. You really should have at least perused the article I referenced. It might have reduced this latest opportunity for you to embarrass yourself. “i really don’t think anyone is trying to fool you by comparing sea ice at minimum to sea ice at maximum.”
And yet, the data insist on showing a long-term trend towards loss of arctic sea ice:
Joel, your reference is to Arctic Sea Ice volume and is old material. This is 2014 and not 2011. This chart is Global Sea Ice and up to data: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Volume does not effect albedo. Area does.
Has the trend of over 30 years reversed in the two years since 2011 (we’re only 11 days into 2014, so don’t pretend we have the entire year of 2014)? No. So do you have an actual point? No.
You see, CoRev, the case supporting global warming isn’t based on one or two data points collected over a year or two. The case that global warming is occurring is based on data accumulated over decades. It includes ice measurements world-wide. It includes surface temp measurements. It includes ocean temp measurements. It includes plant migration.
The evidence for global warming is huge and compelling. The evidence that it is due largely to human activity is overwhelming and represents the only hypothesis that best explains all the data. You have to be willfully blind, stupid or dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Cherry-picking a few data points is for amateurs, CoRev. You’re an amateur. Leave the serious work of climate analysis to the professionals. Don’t bother posting links to propaganda. You just embarrass yourself.
BTW, your link is to “global sea ice.” If you actually understood the topic, you would know that Arctic sea ice is receding. The evidence for that trend didn’t change in 2012-13. For reasons that are not understood, Antarctic *sea* ice is accumulating, even though Antarctic ice overall is shrinking. The cherry-picked data you posted is not relevant to a real understanding of global warming trends.
i have better things to do than read trash because you link to it. i don’t know why you have chosen to waste your life writing on a subject you know nothing about. i would think you would at least recognize that you personally don’t know what you are talking about. if you have genuine fears about a plot from the left to take over the world by convincing people to stop burning so much gas, you would do better to find evidence of such a plot. there is a remote chance you could at least understand that. there doesn’t seem to be a remote chance that you would understand any “science” better than you did in high school.
by the way, look up “affect” and “effect.” your spell checker won’t explain the difference to you.
i read the linked article. couldn’t manage to make any sense out of it.
and i re-read your original comment… realized i couldn’t make any sense out of that either. so i might have misunderstood what you are trying to say.. but my bet is you are just throwing words against the wall to see what sticks.
tDale, you haven’t made sense of CC since you read the single book so long go and it seemed that it completely explained the science. Name calling and affect/effect, rudeness? That’s all you have?
Joel, you’re making strawman arguments. If you actually read my reference and my comment, you would realize the subject was about total Global sea ice, the effect it has on albedo and the time of year when ice is lowest compared to the available Sun.
You seem to think I made some claim about Arctic Sea Ice not receding, or that there hasn’t been warming, or that albedo is the only thing causing CC. Nope! Those were all your strawmen.
BTW, you might consider the impact of albedo on SW radiation reflecting back to space before it reaches the surface to warm it and then be radiated to space as LW. And, while your considering that include the impacts on the GHE which is based primarily on those ole photons being radiated to space and colliding with those ole GHGs molecules.
Now go off and Google what I just said so you can understand it, and copy Dale so he can too
“(BTW – I am an accountant)”-Paul Homewood-
Mr Paul Homewood
Clauses Noted: 1
Publication: The Daily Telegraph
Mr Paul Homewood complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and misleading, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The article was about energy policy, and stated that ‘one recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm’. The complainant said that, in fact, of the papers surveyed, only 32.6% endorsed man made climate change.
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following wording on the online article:
Clarification: When this article was first posted it said that the survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change had found that 97 per cent agreed human activities were causing the planet to warm. In fact, the survey – into the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), ie warming caused by humans – found that 97.1 per cent of the abstracts of papers stating a position on global warming agreed human activities were causing it; 1.9 per cent that stated a position rejected human activity as the cause of warming and 1.0 per cent that stated a position were uncertain. The survey found that all of the abstracts analysed, 66.4 per cent did not actually state a position on AGW; citing two previous studies, the authors of the survey said that this was to be expected because the fundamental science of AGW was no longer controversial and the remaining debate had moved on to topics about which there were still unanswered questions. We are happy to make this clear.
EMike, and your point was?
BTW, the survey has been castigated and supported all different ways. Notice the actual numbers in the resolution and the complaint. Was it 97.1% of the 12,000+ papers, the Papers’ authors, or of the “66.4 per cent did not actually state a position …”? Note the unscientific insertion of the authors unsupported views to make the leap: ” the authors of the survey said that this was to be expected because the fundamental science of AGW was no longer controversial and the remaining debate had moved on to topics about which there were still unanswered questions.”
Did the resolution actually resolve anything re: ” The complainant said that, in fact, of the papers surveyed, only 32.6% endorsed man made climate change” Clearly they admit that the 97.1% was not of the actual papers as claimed.
As to the actual question in the survey: “… human activities were causing the planet to warm.” Who disagrees with such a generalization? Why only 97.1%? They clearly do not live anywhere near civilization or any urban environment. Its not that the survey is incorrect, it is that it has so little value with its generalized question, and too little scientific vigor has lead to its own analysis being questioned.
Strangely, we are here today debating: “…debate had moved on to topics about which there were still unanswered questions.” As we just recently did with Stormy’s last article.
As an actual, you know, scientist, I understand enough about the issue to recognize that it is you who is pummeling straw men. You were the one who posted a link to data on total global sea ice, which just shows that you don’t understand the issues of polar sea ice, polar ice, polar albedo, global albedo, the reinforcing effects of albedo on warming or what any of this has to do with the evidence for global warming. Dale is right, you have a high school understanding of the science. I’m not going to call *you* stupid, but your scribblings here are certainly stupid.
Joel, when you refute something it is common practice to actually provide evidence instead of personal opinion. If you are going to argue science use scientific facts. Both you and Dale rely on rudeness to cover ignorance.
My reference was about two subjects global sea ice and the effects of time of year of their minimums on solar, polar albedo. your failure to actually discuss or refute the points of the article does not add weight to your claim: “… understand enough about the issue…” Indeed it appears you have just thrown buzz words out without actually understanding how they relate to the points of the reference.
You apparently think, claiming some authority, changes the rules of solar mechanics and atmospheric physics.
actually Co-Rev does NOT have an understanding of high school science.
actually I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to let you know how you sound to anyone who has a high school education. You really aren’t accomplishing anything here except annoying a few people. I would like to think you have something better to do with your time.
Dale, time to pull the BS flag. You say this: “actually I am not trying to insult you.” right after this: “actually Co-Rev does NOT have an understanding of high school science”
Non one has even commented upon the article, which is very simple climate science. But then you admit that this very simple climate science annoys you. It clearly annoys Joel, EMike, and others.
Rudeness, and snarkiness doesn’t get it anymore. Bad climate science has cost us billions. Being annoyed because there are many strong arguments against your weak beliefs is a sign of immaturity
Dale, time to pull the BS flag. You say this: “actually I am not trying to insult you.” right after this: “actually Co-Rev does NOT have an understanding of high school science”
Non one has even commented upon the article, which is very simple climate science. But then you admit that this very simple climate science annoys you. When you apparently don’t understand it.
Rudeness, and snarkiness doesn’t get it anymore. Bad climate science has cost us billions. Being annoyed because there are many strong arguments against your weak beliefs is a sign of undeserved arrogance. But we already knew that.
Just detailing your scientific sources of information.
when your high school science teacher gave you an F, she was not trying to insult you. she was trying to tell you and others how much you knew.
EMike, what was scientific with your reference? An accountant can not make a complaint? Or is it that they can not do analysis using known orbital conditions and ?settled? science? Do you actually refute the article?
Dale, doubling down on the rude behavior? Tsk tsk. With your extensive science background, do you actually refute the article?
Its been a long time since you read that one book that convinced you of … in climate science? Did that book explain the meaning of this chart: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png ? indeed with your extensive and scientific climate change knowledge can you explain it? Beware the most common arguments against have been thoroughly refuted, so think before another rude comment.
Nearly all of climate science is focused on the very end point of this graph. When we do even high school analysis we find that end point is just the latest WIGGLE of the LAST of multiple PEAKS during the Holocene, and this peak is below all previous.
Moreover we find that climate is made up of cycles. This chart shows several major cycles, and when we analyze the temperature measurement data supporting the last peak we can see even more shorter cycles.
Climate alarmists have bet upon the current peak being worse than others and that it will CONTINUE due to GHGx. Ole Mom Nature has a sense of humor and has thrown climate alarmists a curve with a recent “hiatus”. That “hiatus” is evident in all the datasets for different lengths.
For those about to claim “cherry picking” because the entire record shows… Be careful here, because you must support your approach to disproving there actually is a hiatus and answering this questions: Currently is there a hiatus? For how long? looking at the end point of an entire data set can be problematic.
Just for Dale, those ole averages can smooth out the differences, and accordingly the approach for analyzing the end point(s) is important. Some more of that ole HS math. Here’s another hint: this also explains why concentrating on the current ~1+% of the data for the entire Holocene gets us to these kinds of discussions.