Urban Growth and Decline: The Role of Population Density at the City Core.

We look at four decades of census data and show that growing cities have maintained dense urban centers, while shrinking cities have not. There are reasons to think that loss of population density at the core of the city could be particularly damaging to productivity. If this is the case, there could be productivity gains from policies aimed at reversing that trend.

Concentrated Poverty

Although the U.S. poverty rate was the same in 2000 as it was in 1970, the geographic distribution of the poor has become more concentrated. A higher concentration of poor in poor neighborhoods is a concern because it may mean the poor are exposed to fewer opportunities that affect their outcomes in life, like employment and income. We show where and how poverty has become more concentrated in the United States, and who is most likely to be affected.

Historical Marriage Patterns, US Census Data.

US Federal Tax Receipts.

The Villain. The left hates him. The right hates him even more. But Ben Bernanke saved the economy—and has navigated masterfully through the most trying of times.

US National Debt & Interest Expense by Presidential Term, Percentage of GDP.

The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank.

The Limits of Means Testing:

But means-testing also has some serious drawbacks, especially when it comes to how the policy might shape Americans’ financial decisions. Means-testing entitlement benefits could punish the very people who work the hardest and save the most, depressing economic activity and discouraging good behavior. The cure for our fiscal problems could thus end up being worse than the disease.

If reformers are to reduce the costs of Medicare and Social Security without inviting counterproductive side effects, they must pay careful attention to the design of their policy reforms, and remain open to solutions that go beyond simple means tests. Embracing the idea that the rich should receive less generous entitlement benefits than the poor could help avert America’s entitlement crisis — but the devil, as always, will be in the details.

The Economics of Fiber to the Home.

$1,000 per home passed to build, $5/month to operate. Assuming they get a decent take rate and meet their construction budget, Google will be profitable charging $70/month in Kansas City. But the payoff requires thinking more than three to five years, unlike most corporations. Here’s the data behind that conclusion.

The Scotch Pronunciation Guide.

Aircraft Carriers

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the scope of American military power relative to that of the rest of the world. This graphic illustrates America’s aircraft carriers, and those of the rest of the world. Each icon is an accurate depiction of the flight deck of the ship as seen from above, all to a common scale. Each of the middle column of ships is roughly the size of the Empire State Building.

This is not to say that the private sector should not deleverage. It has to. It is a part of the economy’s healing process and a necessary first step toward a self-sustaining economic recovery.

However, deleveraging is a beast of a burden that capitalism cannot bear alone. At the macro level, deleveraging must be a managed process: for the private sector to deleverage without causing a depression, the public sector has to move in the opposite direction and re-lever by effectively viewing the balance sheets of the monetary and fiscal authorities as a consolidated whole.

Unfortunately, they’re not really searchable yet.

Genetic changes that apparently allow humans to live longer than any other primate may be rooted in a more carnivorous diet.

These changes may also promote brain development and make us less vulnerable to diseases of aging, such as cancer, heart disease and dementia.

Chimpanzees and great apes are genetically similar to humans, yet they rarely live for more than 50 years. Although the average human lifespan has doubled in the last 200 years — due largely to decreased infant mortality related to advances in diet, environment and medicine — even without these improvements, people living in high mortality hunter-forager lifestyles still have twice the life expectancy at birth as wild chimpanzees do. (More…)

Mike Beacom

Reading that article, I’m inclined to say, “well……duh”.I swear I wrote something along those lines in one of our Brian/Gus/Mike debates. It’s a no brainer that we need meat protein in our diets. According to our pediatrician it’s literally one of the most important parts of my daughters diet. I was, however, a bit surprised by that “2.6 million years ago” line. I knew that the quest for meat was a driving force in our evolution, but I didn’t realize it went almost as far back as “lucy”.

Gus

Modern humans are made up up every synthetic molecule that man has made. Mercury, BCP’s, and other industrial concoctions have mad the modern human a virtual petri dish of more and more variables. Any advantage ABC feels the modern meat-eating human possess is definitely offset by the fact that modern meat is fed with corn. As the leading agronomist Michael Pollan points out, every 1st world ailment from cancers to diabetes can be attributed to the corruption in agribusiness (among other factors). It is impossible to make a blanket statement about the formative qualities of meat-eating with regards to human evolution. At different transitional moments in evolution, meat may have been crucial in competition with another group of early humans, but not as super fuel for the body.

However, it is safe to say that the only thing meat-eating has done for evolution of modern man is in terms of creating pathogens, that in turn, wiped out vast civilizations. Europeans, with the fortuitous luck of just evolving beside six out of the seven domesticated/socially accepted farm animals, developed the immunity to pathogens that could only be passed on through living in close quarters. After a few plagues, the strongest and most viral Europeans survive to spread their germs all over the world, thereby decimating any trace of most subsistence-based communities.

Through new archaeological discoveries, it is now evident that the americas were more populous than the European continent. The americas only had the llama as a domestic farm animal. The llama was not regularly eaten, but rather used for labor reasons as well as deification. The anthropology guru Jared Diamond proposes this cause and effect in his infamous book “Guns Germs & Steel.” His books are used for debates in anthropology as well as many other disciplines. A botanist has written human prehistory as well as true dynamics that have formed modern man.

ABC, I bet is funded by Monsanto, ADM, or Cargill and is worried about those vegetarian parents not ordering a healthy dose of meat fed by corn. Nature did not intend our diet to determined by corporations. Whatever is in this field was “what’s for dinner”. Meat is a luxury that needed a refrigerator. Early humans probably ate meat once a month or one season of the year. Is that irregular diet pattern enough to attribute man’s evolution to meat? I don’t think so. Sorry, off the soap box. Have a good day.

Mike Beacom

Do you find it at all contradictory that you would say that …

It is impossible to make a blanket statement about the formative qualities of meat-eating with regards to human evolution.

Yet, you’re totally comfortable with a blanket statement like…

every 1st world ailment from cancers to diabetes can be attributed to the corruption in agribusiness

Personally, I mean no offense, but I think that statement is patently absurd. EVERY first world ailment caused by corruption in agribusiness? So therefore, if one were to use a bit of logical inversion, without corruption in Agribusiness, there would be ZERO first world ailments? Whoever is the originator of such a thought should be wholly ignored.

However, I do agree, it’s impossible to really nail down the importance of meat in our evolution. I certainly think it was important, likely even vital. I’m a firm believer in what I call “natures truth”. It’s those things that you can see and feel and know without a scientific study to back it up. I think out bodies tend to do what they are designed to do. Sometimes to our detriment, but nonetheless it can reveal evolutionary truths. When you see virtually every kid eating the meat and ditching the bun, it’s not because some ADM executive is corrupt and putting in chemicals that control the child, its because their little bodies are making decisions on a biological level. To simplify, I firmly believe if we as humans weren’t evolved and essentially designed to eat meat, getting a kid to eat vegetables wouldn’t be so frakking difficult.

Gus

“Among other factors” was omitted in your restatement of my blanket statement. Omitting my qualifier gives you a point of contention, but nothing else? Hmmm.

I disagree with your assertion in childs’ diet statement. I personally was raised on not having meat for EVERY meal. For dinner, meat would be an entree. Giving children meat laced with high fructose corn syrup might as well be giving them a sweet muffin. You are just talking about kids in the last 20 years. Before that, every kid in the first world ate whatever was on his/her plate. Gen X & Y are used to walking over their parents and telling them what they want. 20 years ago, the baby boomers made it through real disasters and fed their children what they thought would be good for them, not what they like. That dynamic has changed, thanks to agribusiness. I don’t mean to say your child will start eating vegetables tomorrow because I say so. Rather, if they are brought up with no other options than vegetables, then you won’t hear any complaining.

I was a picky eater growing up. Now ,I am pretty handy in the kitchen. My vegetarian dishes taste good and fill you up. My father just came to Omaha to visit my wife and I. I cooked the entire time, and he is not a vegetarian. He went for seconds and thirds. When I was young, I hated brussel sprouts. I tried them after college thinking my taste buds have changed. Nope. I still hated them. However, I found a recipe that adds a little butter after steaming and then coated with almond bits. Wow, amazing, I can’t stop eating them. Don’t knock the vegetables until you prepare them in a way you like.

Check out the not so new studies on high fructose corn syrup with mice. They tried to recreate a Super Size Me with just high fructose corn syrup. The damage to every organ was intense and irreversible.

Mike Beacom

First,

I omitted the qualifier because it makes the original statement useless. If you put a qualifier like “among other factors” after any statement, you can pretty much say whatever you want. Making a statement that uses absolutes like “every time” or “always” and then qualifying it with something completely generic is a very lazy way to make an argument sound legitimate. Example, “I always eat steak for dinner. (except when I eat other things).

every 1st world ailment from cancers to diabetes can be attributed to the corruption in agribusiness (among other factors)

So, answer me this, can “every first world ailment” be attributed to corruption in agribusiness or not? If removing the “other factors” causes the statement to no longer be true (which you imply by your response), then blaming corruption in agribusiness is a fallacy. If removing “other factors” doesn’t weaken the truth of the statement then why add it to begin with?

With regard to the kids and food thing, you’re totally missing the point. I’m not talking about kids who are socialized to eat certain things. You’re absolutely right about what we can teach our kids to eat and even enjoy. Naturally if you raise your child only eating vegetables, you’ll have an easier time. Its for this very reason that we dont give our daughter sugary cereal. We want her to develop a taste for healthier foods. But if you take a kid and give them the choice, they’ll pick the meat (or fruit) every time. My point is that there is a biological reason for this. I’m not saying vegetables are bad. Obviously, they are a vital part of a healthy diet.

Our daughter is now 21 months old. My wifes father has cattle and sends us beef constantly. We rarely buy beef or pork at the store (almost never) because we get it free from the farm. It’s never been touched by Archer Daniels Midland or any evil corporation bent on causing the destruction of the known universe. It’s MEAT. From a cow. Butchered by a friend of my wifes father. We feed our daughter everything. Meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, grains. Her diet is (what I would consider) very well balanced and healthy. Given the choice, she will clear her plate of meat every time. She will avoid the vegetables every time. This is not some product of socialization. We make sure she sees us eat our vegetables every meal. Yet she doesn’t want hers when given a choice of almost anything else.

Now, if I was soaking the vegetables in animal fat (butter) and almonds, like you’re doing, maybe she would eat those better too.

As for being a source of fuel. Wow. Go try to get a construction worker to eat vegan and see how much work he can get done. I can speak from experience on this one. I had a VERY hard manual labor job for about 5 years. We ate eggs and meat constantly. Anything less was horribly inefficient. It took up too much space in your stomach relative to the caloric and protein content and necessitated constant eating. I read a book on the Alaskan crab boats. They serve steak at every meal. These guys work 20 hours a day and steak is the most efficient fuel there is for such labor, bar none. No way those guys are gonna work 20 hours a day on brussel sprouts and tempeh.

Gus

Vegan is another story. I am just talking about not eating meat with every meal. You know, the Nebraska way. I have no beef with farm-raised anything, pun intended.

Mike Beacom

I certainly agree, one doesn’t need meat with every meal. I almost never have meat at breakfast anymore. If I have some at lunch, it’s usually a very small amount, maybe a couple of ounces. Dinner however is usually centered around a meat or pasta (with meat) dish.

Hey Gus, did you see the lead story in the World Herald this morning? There are some researchers from Omaha publishing a paper on several large glaciers in the Himalayas and how they are steadily growing. Don’t worry, these guys are part of the consensus. They theorize that the only reason they are expanding is because of global warming. They just haven’t figured out how to explain it yet. I have a tip for them and I’m sure you could imagine what it is.

The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018 annual report is prepared jointly by the OECD and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. You can read the whole thing if you want. I have highlighted the two items that I feel are the most relevant: Is there enough arable land? Is the productivity of land under cultivation increasing?

Fortunately, it would seem that the answer to both questions is yes.

Huge Tracts of Land?

Currently cultivated world arable land is estimated at about 1.4 billion hectares.

The total availability of land with moderate to very high suitability for rain fed crop production, is about 4.3 billion hectares (43 million square kms). Over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and in Latin America. Furthermore, with estimates of 2.435 and 2.084 million km2, respectively, these regions account for most of the land that has the highest suitability class for rain-fed crop production.

Gross land balances (GLB) are defined as the total land that is potentially suitable for growing crops but which is not currently being cultivated. GLB estimates take into account existing soil, climate and terrain conditions in relation to major crop requirements, under various assumptions of land management.

These figures of suitable land are gross “optimistic” estimates, since they do not take into account the fact that some land has already been allocated to other competing and socially-acceptable land uses (e.g. forests, urban areas, protected areas). Suitable land resources in these latter areas are thus effectively unavailable for conversion to cropland.

The net land balance value (NLB) is derived from the GLB by excluding areas which are currently allocated to either forests, urban areas or protected areas. Some 1.56 billion hectares are effectively available for crop expansion. Most of the land available resides particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South America.

While there are significant quantities of land available for expansion, it does not reside in the currently high output zones of temperate world agriculture. Indeed, further expansion in both North America and Europe appears limited in relative terms.

• Between 1990 and 2007 total area sown to crops declined from 117.7 million to 76.4 million hectares in Russia and from 32.4 million to 26.1 million hectares in Ukraine.

• The developed world has also experienced the contraction in arable land: in Europe, arable land declined by 0.9% annually between 1961/63 and 2006/07. In Northern America the decline was 2% annually.

The estimates of NLB do not include another possible source of competition, which is that for growing livestock numbers. Livestock populations are growing and with higher incomes, and particularly in populous countries such as India and China, meat consumption will increase in the future. Therefore, pasture land will remain in high demand and may further limit crop expansion. Furthermore, the boom in bio-fuel demand risks to further limit the amount of cropland available for food production, as feedstocks are provided to biofuel production.

The Green Revolution Continues

The private seed industry has set as a goal doubling corn, soybean and cotton yields in the US by 2030. Average corn yield increases would need to be three times the trend growth over the 1970 to 2007 period.

For developing countries as a whole, there is some evidence that crop yield growth has actually accelerated. One recent study on developing countries found crop yield increases for the 1980-2000 period were higher than for 1961-80 for cereals (total), lentils, millet, potatoes, paddy rice, and wheat, while lower for barley, cassava, sorghum and, to a lesser extent, maize. The study concluded that the Green Revolution effects on crop yields in developing countries were not confined to the period 1960-80. In fact, yields of many key crops in developing countries actually increased faster over the 1980-2000 period.

This morning I sat down with the A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Knowledge Report was recently put out by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (now the U.S. Global Change Research Program), which is sponsored by 13 federal agencies including the U.S. EPA.

The Knowledge Report is the so-far definitive climate change report/study put out by the United States government.

Most of us have probably never read the couple-year-old report put out by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I know I haven’t. It seems kinda stupid to be talking about climate change without actually having read the definitive studies.

So this morning I dove in to the Knowledge Report. I got to page 62 (of 190) and had to stop. I just couldn’t take it seriously.

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities. Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than over the last century. The global average temperature since 1900 has risen by about 1.5ºF. By 2100, it is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5ºF. The U.S. average temperature has risen by a comparable amount and is very likely to rise more than the global average over this century, with some variation from place to place. Several factors will determine future temperature increases. Increases at the lower end of this range are more likely if global heat-trapping gas emissions are cut substantially. If emissions continue to rise at or near current rates, temperature increases are more likely to be near the upper end of the range.

Human produced greenhouse gases have raised the average temperature by 1.5ºF over the last century and are poised raise it an additional 2 to 11.5ºF if emissions are not cut.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7ºF.

So, climate change will result in warmer air temperatures, heavier rain events and higher sea levels? The average winter temperature has risen 7ºF in the last thirty years.

But what are the side effects of that increase in temperature? What exactly will climate change do? How will our lives be affected? Longer growing seasons. Less ice on rivers and lakes.

So far, they’re just not scaring me. There must be something more.

Stabilization

The stabilization scenario is aimed at stabilizing the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at roughly 450 parts per million (ppm); this is 70 ppm above the 2008 concentration of 385 ppm. Resulting temperature changes depend on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and particles and the climate’s sensitivity to those concentrations. Of those shown on the previous page, only the 450 ppm stabilization target has the potential to keep the global temperature rise at or below about 3.5°F from pre-industrial levels and 2°F above the current average temperature, a level beyond which many concerns have been raised about dangerous human interference with the climate system.

Re-read that last paragraph.

The goal of all climate change legislation should be to stabilize carbon dioxide concentration at “roughly 450 parts per million (ppm); this is 70 ppm above the 2008 concentration of 385 ppm.” A carbon dioxide concentration under 450 ppm should have very livable consequences for us.

Uncertainty

In projecting future conditions, there is always some level of uncertainty. For example, there is a high degree of confidence in projections that future temperature increases will be greatest in the Arctic and in the middle of continents. For precipitation, there is high confidence in projections of continued increases in the Arctic and sub-Arctic (including Alaska) and decreases in the regions just outside the tropics, but the precise location of the transition between these is less certain.

The report speaks in generalities because obviously its too difficult to make specific predictions about climate that far into the future. What they can fairly predicts goes something along the lines of:

• Temperatures will rise all over, but it will rise more in colder climes than in warmer latitudes. Winters will warm further than summers will.
• Heavy, as in 100-year-flood-heavy, precipitation events will increase. Think: One hundred is the new twenty. Twenty is the new five.
• Even with more rain overall, there will be more periods of drought, especially in those areas that are already susceptible to it.
• The parts of the globe that are currently thought of as “poor” are likely to see more significant changes which impact food and water than are North America and northern Europe.

Adaptation

Adaptation can include a wide range of activities. Examples include a farmer switching to growing a different crop variety better suited to warmer or drier conditions; a company relocating key business centers away from coastal areas vulnerable to sea-level rise and hurricanes; and a community altering its zoning and building codes to place fewer structures in harm’s way and making buildings less vulnerable to damage from floods, fires, and other extreme events. Some adaptation options that are currently being pursued in various regions and sectors to deal with climate change and/or other environmental issues are identified in this report. However, it is clear that there are limits to how much adaptation can achieve.

Humans will have to continue to adapt to their environment. Farmers will plant different crops or plant the same crops at slightly different times of year.

Building codes and local zoning ordinances will need to be updated to reflect the more likely occurrence of severe weather.

Humans have adapted to changing climatic conditions in the past, but in the future, adaptations will be particularly challenging because society won’t be adapting to a new steady state but rather to a rapidly moving target. Climate will be continually changing, moving at a relatively rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. The precise amounts and timing of these changes will not be known with certainty.

This is a ridiculous statement. Absolutely ridiculous fearmongering that is completely blind to the facts. Adapting to changing climate conditions in the modern age, with all of our technology, will be much easier than it has been for humans for the last 10,000 years.

Ridiculous. Fear. Mongering.

More Heat Waves

Scientists are sometimes asked whether extreme weather events can be linked to human activities. Scientific research has concluded that human influences on climate are indeed changing the likelihood of certain types of extreme events. For example, an analysis of the European summer heat wave of 2003 found that the risk of such a heat wave is now roughly four times greater than it would have been in the absence of human-induced climate change.

In a warmer future climate, models project there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves. The European heat wave of 2003 is an example of the type of extreme heat event that is likely to become much more common. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, by the 2040s more than half of European summers will be hotter than the summer of 2003, and by the end of this century, a summer as hot as that of 2003 will be considered unusually cool.

Okay, so global warming will bring more heat waves….

Rain, Rain Go Away

One of the clearest precipitation trends in the United States is the increasing frequency and intensity of heavy downpours. This increase was responsible for most of the observed increase in overall precipitation during the last 50 years. In fact, there has been little change or a decrease in the frequency of light and moderate precipitation during the past 30 years, while heavy precipitation has increased. In addition, while total average precipitation over the nation as a whole increased by about 7 percent over the past century, the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1 percent of rain events increased nearly 20 percent. During the past 50 years, the greatest increases in heavy precipitation occurred in the Northeast and the Midwest.

More rain overall. More rain in shorter periods of time. More periods of no rain. Seems to me like something that can be planned for. If only we had more than a fifty to hundred year time frame to do it…

If only…

Drought

Like precipitation, trends in drought have strong regional variations. In much of the Southeast and large parts of the West, the frequency of drought has increased coincident with rising temperatures over the past 50 years. In other regions, such as the Midwest and Great Plains, there has been a reduction in drought frequency.

Its unfortunate that so little of the nation’s food stock is grown in the Midwest and Great Plains….

Although there has been an overall increase in precipitation and no clear trend in drought for the nation as a whole, increasing temperatures have made droughts more severe and widespread than they would have otherwise been. Without the observed increase in precipitation, higher temperatures would have led to an increase in the area of the contiguous United States in severe to extreme drought, with some estimates of a 30 percent increase.

Read that paragraph again. As predicted by climate change theory, increasing temperatures have resulted in more rain. If this additional rain had not occurred, there would have been more drought!!

But there hasn’t been more drought. There’s been more rain.

In the future, droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions. The Southwest, in particular, is expected to experience increasing drought as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns cause the dry zone just outside the tropics to expand farther northward into the United States.

So, more drought in the desert Southwest? More rain and longer growing seasons in the breadbasket…

Water Resources

Key Messages: Climate change has already altered, and will continue to alter, the water cycle, affecting where, when, and how much water is available for all uses.

• Floods and droughts are likely to become more common and more intense as regional and seasonal precipitation patterns change, and rainfall becomes more concentrated into heavy events (with longer, hotter dry periods in between).

• Precipitation and runoff are likely to increase in the Northeast and Midwest in winter and spring, and decrease in the West, especially the Southwest, in spring and summer.

• In areas where snowpack dominates, the timing of runoff will continue to shift to earlier in the spring and flows will be lower in late summer.

• Surface water quality and groundwater quantity will be affected by a changing climate.

• Climate change will place additional burdens on already stressed water systems.

• The past century is no longer a reasonable guide to the future for water management.

I think the last bullet point is the kicker. Not just for water management but for all of the aspects of life that we are addressing here: The past century is no longer a reasonable guide to the future for….

Proper planning prevents poor performance.

Energy Supply and Use

Key Messages:
Warming will be accompanied by decreases in demand for heating energy and increases in demand for cooling energy. The latter will result in significant increases in electricity use and higher peak demand in most regions.

• Energy production is likely to be constrained by rising temperatures and limited water supplies in many regions.

• Energy production and delivery systems are exposed to sea-level rise and extreme weather events in vulnerable regions.

• Climate change is likely to affect some renewable energy sources across the nation, such as hydropower production in regions subject to changing patterns of precipitation or snowmelt.

The upshot here I think is that it is easier to generate renewable electricity than it is to generate carbon free heat. To that extent, global warming is in some sense self-correcting.

Moreover, it is consistent with the line of thought that I subscribe to which is that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to put everything on the electrical grid.

Agriculture

Key Messages:

• Many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and low levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields.
• Extreme events such as heavy downpours and droughts are likely to reduce crop yields because excesses or deficits of water have negative impacts on plant growth.
• Weeds, diseases, and insect pests benefit from warming, and weeds also benefit from a higher carbon dioxide concentration, increasing stress on crop plants and requiring more attention to pest and weed control.
• Forage quality in pastures and rangelands generally declines with increasing carbon dioxide concentration because of the effects on plant nitrogen and protein content, reducing the land’s ability to supply adequate livestock feed.
• Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes are likely to reduce livestock productivity.

The impact of climate change on food production systems throughout the world is still being investigated. It is mostly unquestioned that the initial, near-term effect of increased carbon dioxide concentrations would result in an increase in agricultural production. Plants consume CO2, so more CO2 should be good for plants.

Researchers are now studying to determine at what temperatures the confounding effects of climate change (e.g., heat stress, changing precipitation patterns, increasing weather variability) would counter-act those initial gains and result in reduced agricultural production.

It can now be stated with higher confidence than before that climate change is likely to challenge food security among the world’s poorest people located in the low latitudes. It will be less troublesome to agricultural systems in the mid- to high latitude nations (like the USA), at least in the early stages of warming. Adaptation effectively maintains cereal yields in the mid- to high latitudes at or above current levels through moderate amounts of warming (~+4-5 C), but it only protects low latitude cereal yields for a few degrees of warming (~+3 C). The direct effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on crop growth will offset some of the deleterious effects and enhance the beneficial effects of climate change. (Morehere and here.)

Transportation

Key Messages: Sea-level rise and storm surge will increase the risk of major coastal impacts, including both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, roads, rail lines, and tunnels.

• Flooding from increasingly intense downpours will increase the risk of disruptions and delays in air, rail, and road transportation, and damage from mudslides in some areas.
• The increase in extreme heat will limit some transportation operations and cause pavement and track damage. Decreased extreme cold will provide some benefits such as reduced snow and ice removal costs.
• Increased intensity of strong hurricanes would lead to more evacuations, infrastructure damage and failure, and transportation interruptions.
• Arctic warming will continue to reduce sea ice, lengthening the ocean transport season, but also resulting in greater coastal erosion due to waves. Permafrost thaw in Alaska will damage infrastructure. The ice road season will become shorter.

So, less Ice Road Truckers.

Human Health

Key Messages:

• Increases in the risk of illness and death related to extreme heat and heat waves are very likely. Some reduction in the risk of death related to extreme cold is expected.
• Warming is likely to make it more challenging to meet air quality standards necessary to protect public health.
• Extreme weather events cause physical and mental health problems. Some of these events are projected to increase.
• Some diseases transmitted by food, water, and insects are likely to increase.
• Rising temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase pollen production and prolong the pollen season in a number of plants with highly allergenic pollen, presenting a health risk.
• Certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to a range of climate-related health effects.

The “Key Messages” of the last two sections of the report have
discussed ice road trucking and hayfever and I have lost interest. I’d rather take a few extra Clariton every fall allergy season than spend a few trillion dollars over-hauling our entire energy and transportation infrastructure.

But hey, that’s just me.

2007 Athletic Revenue by School

All data comes from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education (Equity in Athletics).

Let’s see if we can figure out what Creighton spends its athletic budget on.

Creighton Athletic Department Revenue

(Source)

As we would expect, the men’s basketball program is the largest revenue generating sport at Creighton, covering 33.5% of total revenue or expediture.

For the most part I am using revenue and expenditure interchangeably in this article. “Gameday” revenues account for only $7.7 million (59.7%) of Creighton’s $12.9 million in athletic expenditures for the 2007-08 school year. The remainder must be covered by donations and the school’s general fund.

What does the Creighton Athletic Department spend its money on?

Creighton Athletic Scholarships

(Source)

$3 million is spent on athletic scholarships. This is equivalent of approximately 81 full ride scholarships per year.

NCAA Maximum Scholarships per Sport

I am reasonably certain that Creighton fully funds thirteen for men’s basketball and 9.9 for men’s soccer. If the school also fully funds 12 for baseball, there would be 48 scholarship equivalents available for all other sports.

That leaves $9,896,360 in expenditures unaccounted for.

Recruiting Expenses

(Source)

Recruiting isn’t a huge part of the budget. $9,713,285 remaining.

Operating Expenses

(Source)

“Gameday” expenses account for $1,520,263 (11.8%) of the budget. $8,193,022 remaining

Coaches

(Source)

These salary expenditures wouldn’t seem to include the rumored off the book monies that Altman receives from individual donors.

$5,641,884 remaining. Expenses attributable to scholarships, coaches, recruiting and operating expenses total $7,268,385. That’s $445,469 less than gameday revenues.

Expenses by Team

(Source)

Expenses attributable to scholarships, coaches, recruiting and operating expenses total $7,268,385. That’s $445,469 less than gameday revenues.

OBAMA three minutes earlier: “I’ve heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it’s better politics to ‘go for the kill.’ Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about ‘breaking’ me.”

I think it’s fair to say that reforming healthcare is a Democratic issue. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If the Democrats fail to pass comprehensive health care reform, can you blame the GOP for that failure? If not, shouldn’t you shut up about it?

Pointing frustrated fingers at the minority party only enhances the growing opinion that the majority party is dropping the ball. If it succeeds, it does so without GOP support and the Democrats take all of the credit. If it fails, it does so not because of the GOP but because the Democrat representation in Congress has significant numbers of fiscally conservative Democrats.