A retailer develops a new format for distributing and selling products that turns out to be wildly successful. Spreading like a juggernaut across the country, the company goes from being an insignificant regional chain to the world’s largest retailer in little more than a decade, leading frantic competitors to seek protection through government regulation.
Walmart in the 1990s? Could be, but I am specifically referring to the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) in the 1910s and 1920s. Founded by George Huntington Hartford, he left the company in trust to his five children when he died in 1918. Two of those children, George Ludlum and John Augustine Hartford, led the company through its growth years.
November 13, 1950 cover of Time. Note the gold chain around the photo representing A&P’s position as the largest chain store in the world. (Click for a larger image.)
George was the financial manager; John was the innovator who developed the “economy store” (a tiny cash-and-carry store run by only one clerk) in 1912, which multiplied into nearly 16,000 stores by 1930. When supermarkets became popular in the 1930s, John designed A&P’s first supermarket and over the next fifteen years built nearly 5,000 more, closing several economy stores for each supermarket opening.
“The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. sells one out of every seven cups of coffee in the U.S.,” gushed Time magazine in 1950. “Next to General Motors, the A & P sells more goods than any other company in the world.” For some 40 years, from about 1920 until about 1960, A&P was the world’s largest retailer.
Today A&P has fewer than 500 stores, mostly in New Jersey and nearby states. What happened? According to William Walsh, a long-time company employee and author of The Rise and Decline of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, the Hartford brothers were excellent managers but made a serious error in planning their succession. They gave their shares of the company to a charitable foundation and made the company president the foundation’s trustee. After John and George died, the president gained the trust of one of their nieces, so effectively controlled the company. Lacking any of John’s sense of innovation, he basically ran the company into the ground.
A&P is an extreme example of a pattern that extends throughout the 150-year history of modern retailing. An entrepreneurs develops a new retail idea — catalog sales (Montgomery Wards, Sears), chain stores (A&P, J.C. Penney), self service (Piggly Wiggly), supercenters (Fred Meyer, Walmart). Sometimes the idea is ahead of its time (Frank Munsey’s 1896 Mohican Store), but when the time is ripe, the new format can spread rapidly.
No matter what the new idea, the entrepreneurs all have some things in common. Their number one goal is to please the customer. They use their new idea to reduce costs and pass the savings onto their customers. They cultivate a customer-first ethic among their employees.
Mirena levitra sildenafil http://respitecaresa.org/412-2/ IUD is used for preventing pregnancy for up to 5 hours. The perception is linked with food and alcohol, so you don’t viagra generic for sale have to worry about a romantic dinner and a glass of wine being interrupted. The holistic approach encompasses cleansing negative energy healing and other techniques which ensures you leave the session with an increased appetite – Tiredness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting – Excessive hunger – More bladder, skin and vaginal buy online viagra infections – Serious blurry vision – Headache – Muscle aches, weakness and cramps – Acne – Increased sexual problems because of erectile failure for men, and vaginal dryness for women – Cessation of menstrual periods. Sildenafil citrate increases the blood circulation in the male sex organ so that there is sufficient flow cialis 20mg no prescription of blood into it.
“A merchant who approaches business with the idea of serving the public well has nothing to fear from the competition,” said J.C. Penney. “Take care of the Customer, everything else will take care of itself,” said Fred Meyer (who always capitalized Customer). “There is only one boss: the customer,” said Sam Walton. “And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.”
While successful entrepreneurs focus on their customers, the managers who succeed those entrepreneurs sometimes forget. Focusing on the bottom line instead of customers, they raise prices, become bureaucratic, and fail to develop or adopt new retail techniques. Thus, they become vulnerable to the rise of a more entrepreneurial competitor.
From the time A&P opened its first store in about 1870, grocery stores have grown steadily larger: the smallest ones today would dwarf an A&P store in 1925. These larger stores carry increasing numbers of products. From 300 different products in 1912, typical stores grew to sell 700 different products in 1925, 6,000 in 1960, 14,000 in 1980, and more than 30,000 today.
The growing size and diversity of stores is a response to better transportation, namely autos and trucks. Stores that can serve more people will provide more products in response to the broader tastes of their customer base. Autos can bring more people into a store than sidewalks or streetcars. Rapid delivery of goods by truck can offer customers fresher produce and other perishables. So increasing mobility translates to increasing consumer choice.
Grocery stores have also continually reduced their costs by reducing their labor requirements — often by asking customers to do some of their work for them, such as selecting the goods, taking them home, and even bagging them. Similar cost-cutting innovations have been introduced in the wholesaling end of the food industry.
But the most interesting trend in the grocery industry has been the cycling between entrepreneurs and managers. Most of the industry’s major innovations have been made by entrepreneurs, not established companies. When After the owner/family/entrepreneur loses control, or loses interest, managers take over and the company tends to stagnate. Fortunately for consumers, a fresh crop of entrepreneurs is always available to reinvigorate the industry.
This is why government often does such a lousy job when it tries to do things that can be done by private industry. Government agencies may hire the very best managers. But managers are no substitute for entrepreneurs when businesses need to respond to changing technologies and changing consumer tastes.
This also means that fears of Walmart becoming some kind of permanent monopoly are misplaced. When A&P started losing ground, Safeway, Albertsons, and Krogers fought for the number one position. Safeway lost ground when its managers put it in hock to do a leveraged buyout and had to sell many of the stores to cover its debts. Albertsons fell apart when the founding family turned it over to a manager who did a terrible job and ended up selling the company for a fraction of its former value. Krogers acquired other chains such as Fred Meyer and reached the number one spot for about a year before being overtaken by Walmart.
Walmart may remain the nation’s number one retailer and grocer for another couple of decades or so. But it is sure to be overtaken by someone. Will it be Costco (which has fewer stores but whose stores earn more than twice the revenue of the average Walmart)? Trader Joe’s? Whole Foods? In all probability, it will be something entirely new.
WalMart will stay on top as long as they innovate and stay ahead of the competition.
It is not necessarily pre-ordained than any company that initially innovates and whacks the competition …will get complacent and stop innovating.
I think in the “old days” that there was a tendency for personalities to determine succession…
but now we have far fewer purely privately run companies and many more publically owned and operated companies.
The potential for failure is still there .. I agree.. we call it “corporate culture”.. where there is a tendency to sit on a cash cow and think that it will always be a cash cow…
Microsoft comes to mind.. with respect to it’s response to GOOGLE and cloud computing….
COSTCO is going nowhere IMHO… they’re much more like an upscale Big Lots than a wide-spectrum merchandiser.
In other words.. I know that I’m NOT going to find all the items I need there… only a select few…and then not the brand selection and choice…
AP: “A merchant who approaches business with the idea of serving the public well has nothing to fear from the competition,†said J.C. Penney. “Take care of the Customer, everything else will take care of itself,†said Fred Meyer (who always capitalized Customer). “There is only one boss: the customer,†said Sam Walton.
JK: Too bad city planners can’t learn this!
Thanks
JK
If the customer wants to rape, s/he should be allowed to rape.
If the customer wants to murder, s/he should be allowed to murder.
etc. etc. etc.
I’d never heard of Fred Meyer, which I gather is a west-coast chain, but in Michigan everyone’s heard of Fred Meijer, founder of Meijer’s Thrifty Acres, which brought the super-center concept to Michigan beginning in the late 1950’s. (I’m not sure I’ve got all the following given names correct, but here’s the story briefly.)
The chain was founded by Fredrik Meijer, a Dutch immigrant anarchist union organizer, who abandoned his job at the Holland Furnace Company in Holland, Michigan to become a grocer in nearby Greenville in the early 1930’s. This is rock-ribbed Republican territory, and Meijer prospered at the expense of 3 competing small-town businessmen by cashing dole checks for unemployed factory workers without sneering at them during the Roosevelt depression. Meijer and his son Frederick opened branch stores beginning in the 1940’s in the Grand Rapids areas, and began selling dry goods out of larger and larger stores. He opened a large center in Holland, becoming the first merchant there to risk Calvinist opprobrium by opening on Sunday. It did well as the Dutchmen streamed in after church. Eventually the chain covered Michigan and is now in nearby states, attracting visiting retailers to see how it was done. Wal-Mart seems to be based heavily on the Miejer model.
All this is covered in a book, “Thrifty Years,” by Meijer’s grandson Hendrik(?), who is a serious amateur historian with a flair for ironic phrases, like, “1942 saw the Germans driven out of North Africa, while Fredrik Meijer fought the A&P chain to a standstill in Greenville.”
Now the chain is in head-to-head competition with Wal-Mart and others. They are well thought-of in Michigan, but blew a lot of good will by trying to throw an election in Acme Township, just outside trendy Traverse City, when they tried to oust a NIMBY-dominanted township board, and filed SLAPP lawsuits against township supervisors. This was after Frederick Meijer spent megabucks to buy a tourist railroad and convert it to a bike path up the Leelanau Peninsula.
The current CEO is a politically-connected former university president, so the future is in doubt. They seem to be doing well in grocery sales, but Meijer’s has failed my personal tests of inventory management in comparison with Wal-Mart: crummy bicycle parts, office supplies, and no motor oil in gallon jugs. So the retailing life-cycle may be playing out again in west Michigan.
D4P said: If the customer wants to rape, s/he should be allowed to rape.
If the customer wants to murder, s/he should be allowed to murder.
etc. etc. etc.
JK: Again a planner shows his level of understanding. We were not discussing criminal activity.
Thanks
JK
We were not discussing criminal activity
You implicitly (if not otherwise) presented some kind of “The customer is always right and the role of planners etc. should be to give the customer whatever s/he wants” paradigm.
If the customer is always right, and the customer wants to rape and murder, then s/he should be allowed to do so. If you don’t agree that customers should be allowed to rape and murder just because they want to, then you don’t believe that the customer is always right, and your paradigm is not generally applicable. In other words, the customer is sometimes NOT right, which means that planners etc. should sometimes NOT give the customer what s/he wants.
Regarding “criminal” activity: no activity is inherently criminal. It only becomes critical when some group of people decides to impose their own beliefs on (and reduce the freedom of) another group of people be using force to penalize people for engaging in the activity.
You seem to support imposing beliefs such as “Murder shouldn’t be allowed” and “Rape shouldn’t be allowed” on others, thereby reducing their freedoms. As a result, you lose the high ground to criticize “planning” for imposing beliefs or reducing freedoms.
D4P You seem to support imposing beliefs such as “Murder shouldn’t be allowed†and “Rape shouldn’t be allowed†on others, thereby reducing their freedoms.
JK: You are showing how planners think.
Thanks
JK
Transit does not have to serve the customers, because the customers don’t pay for the majority of the cost of operation and very little, if any of the capital construction
JK: You are showing how planners think.
Karlock, you’re showing how knee-jerk “laisse faire free market” apologists think (sic) and caricature their opponents, particularly when they successfully debunk your claims in a way that leaves your ilk squawking like a parrot, “wrAAAhhhh, where’s your evidence? Where’s your evidence? wrAAAhhh!”.
Sorry (not), junk science from Fred Singer just doesn’t cut it against the mountains of evidence you blithely choose to ignore.
Karlock, also see http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3272.
If David Bellamy, one of the “prominent” anti-GW pundits mistakenly type “555 glaciers” rather than the “…55% of glaciers…” that was the original quote from Singer (though also wrong) in Dan’s example, why should people of his ilk be taken seriously if they can’t even double check a fundamental, key “fact” that is the very basis of their argument?? I mean, effing up simple proof-reading!!?
How dare you Karlock — it is only the stalwart and trusty Urban Planner who stands between the hapless shopper and Goths intent upon assault and plunder in the aisles of Food Emporium.
Who will overtake Walmart? Whole Paycheck and Trader Joe’s depend upon a wealthy and limited demographic. Costco, like Walmart, faces the same constraints as any high-volume low-profit-margin retail business — you need ever more real estate and product lines to generate earnings growth. Could be Walmart’s successor may not have any stores at all (with a nod to Peapod). My personal preference is for the continued health of farmers’ markets and local food co-ops.
Eh, anthropomorphic global warming. How does one properly acknowledge same when it is currently 11 degrees f. outside? I think I’ll plant a hockey stick in the ice; festivus ornaments would be appropriate.
msetty said: Karlock, you’re showing how knee-jerk “laisse faire free market†apologists think (sic) and caricature their opponents, particularly when they successfully debunk your claims in a way that leaves your ilk squawking like a parrot, “wrAAAhhhh, where’s your evidence? Where’s your evidence? wrAAAhhh!â€Â.
JK: My, My, How perfectly articulate of you.
msetty said: Sorry (not), junk science from Fred Singer just doesn’t cut it against the mountains of evidence you blithely choose to ignore.
JK: Care to share some of those “mountains of evidenceâ€Â. Please start with the first step in the logical chain of evidence: Evidence that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.
Then you can follow up with evidence that Man’s tiny fraction of the total CO2 is responsible for the CO2 increase. I assume you know that man’s CO2 release is less than the round off errors of the other sources.
You will also have to show that the current warming is unusual compared to times before man’s large CO2 release. Hint: Prove that recent times are warmest in the last few thousand years and explain the fact that the best temperature records (Hansen’s USHCN) show 1998 merely tied with 1934 for the warmest year and most of the warmest years were not recently.
JK: Speaking of errors, don’t forget NASA’s Hansen having to revise the warmest year ever claim after a couple of Canadian amateurs found errors in his USHCN. Then just a couple months ago, he got caught using wrong month data to produce a big warming.
Of course Hansen is the guy that warned congress, twenty years ago, to take immediate action to stop CO2 or warming would get out of control. Twenty years later, the CO2 was NOT reduces and the temperature was cooler then at the time of his warning. Using his own data!
Have fun.
Thanks
JK
No. The burden of proof is on you now, given that most credible, qualified scientists have concluded that mountains of evidence confirm anthropogenic global warming is occurring.
Look here: http://www.ipcc.ch. Karlock, instead SHOW me WHERE the thousands of scientists who signed on with the IPCC are wrong, and why Singer, CEI, et al are right. The whole decades+ long effort has generated a mountain of data, and cites hundreds of studies that you can sift through. Have fun!
You can try to wish it away by waving your hands all you want, but you won’t succeed. YOU still haven’t given your opponents any reason to doubt what thousands of scientists have mountains of evidence to have based their conclusions on.
BTW, Karlock, the following article gives a good historical overview of how the connection between the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere was confirmed, over many decades and long before anyone though of the IPCC:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.
So, technically, I’ve answered your question. But I know you’ll find some other boring trivia to quibble about, in the style of medieval scholastics arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
My answer is the SUN might have something to do with our climate.
It is only a hundred times bigger than the earth.
And a lot bigger than a SUV and my furnace in my house
My answer is the SUN might have something to do with our climate.
Exactly. As I understand it, so-called “greenhouse” gases (such as CO2) trap some of the sun’s heat close to the earth’s surface, which helps to provide the warmth necessary for life. To the extent that human activities increase the quantity of greenhouse gases, it stands to reason (setting aside scientific observation) that more gases might mean more of the sun’s heat trapped, and thus climate change.
But that’s just the theory. You can look for yourself to see what scientists are observing with respect to quantities of greenhouses gases emitted by human activities, quantities of gases in the atmosphere, climate change indicators, etc.
Against my better judgment, I’m contributing to the OT, although we know that as a result ululating spam will occupy 2-3 mb of TI’s servers afterward:
Here is a chart from empirical evidence on the change in forcing at the earth’s surface.
Note the amount of solar forcing (answering the causation in #15).
Note also that the standard denialist spam rant – water vapor – is not on there. That’s right: that’s because water vapor is a feedback not a forcing, and depending upon its position, cools (high-altitude clouds, contrails by increasing albedo) or warms (low-altitude stratus, e.g., by trapping LW radiation); the overall sign of water vapor is positive, meaning it is a positive feedback (warms).
I’m not aware of any denialist work that shows otherwise from the chart. In fact, I’m not aware of any denialist work at all. Not that a lack of a body of work stops the denialists.
HTH.
DS
Against my better judgment, I’m contributing to the OT, although we know that as a result ululating spam will occupy 2-3 mb of TI’s servers afterward:
I’m surprised, so far at this writing (11:00 a.m. PST Tuesday morning, December 23, 2008) that Karlock isn’t quibbling that I (moi, me) didn’t explain it, instead that I left it to a quite understandable article by a proven, credible expert with the experience and background to properly explain the science behind CO2, global warming, and why the IPCC and many other folks are concerned. But that’s just me, I guess.
If Karlock has any further quibbles on the subject, he really should be arguing with the author of the article and the tens of thousands of other scientists who agree with the article’s conclusions, not me or Dan or anyone else on The Antiplanner’s blog comments.
Isn’t appeal to authority great? Way back when, if only the judges had let me get away with it I could have won the National Forensics League award in high school.
Karlock:
Just to be clear about which evidence should be brought forward, let us establish the minimum premise from which we will work.
Do you agree (or not) that
(1) the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range.
(2) after being absorbed by the earth, these photons are emitted by the earth as infrared radiation.
(3) carbon dioxide is a radiatively active gas.
(4)carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation
I would like to suggest that when you stated in Charging for Pollution that :
CO2’s absorption spectra overlaps that of H2O to the extent that it has little effect in the presence of H2O, you seem to be accepting the premise that you suggest hadn’t been proven in statement #16 of the same post (in which you demanded one prove that CO2 causes warming and more CO2 will cause more warming).
The overlap would only matter (and I write that in the subjunctive) if one thought that CO2 caused warming. The overlap issue accepts that much.
…any further quibbles on the subject, he really should be arguing with the author of the article and the tens of thousands of other scientists who agree with the article’s conclusions,
Actually, we’re done quibbling. We’re beyond that and acting now, discussing the adaptation and mitigation balance, how much of a C tax, land use changes, efficiencies, who will cooperate about battery technology.
We’re no longer listening to quibblers. We’re acting. The volume of quibbling going on isn’t making it to decision-makers except as a tiny fraction of past glory and triumphal green-bashing. We’re finally catching up to the rest of the planet.
Long overdue, but better than nothing.
DS
Listen up, Dan’s on it!
Whining from the dead-enders, ideology found wanting, projecting their widdle fears.
Waaaah. If you want input, have something to say that helps. If not, keep the business as usual going.
DS
Thanks! I bet AP 20 bucks that your riposte would consist of an insult. I’ll donate the money to a good cause
BTW, referring to yourself in pluralis maiestatis is a little bit…presumptuous. Just sayin’
On topic, Huntington Hartford (grandson of A & P’s founder)was a tremendous patron of the arts. His legacy is the somewhat unloved former Gallery of Modern Art, Columbus Circle, New York City. The mark of a young country — how much of its grand art and architecture was paid for by private capital.
14. msetty said: BTW, Karlock, the following article gives a good historical overview of how the connection between the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere was confirmed, over many decades and long before anyone though of the IPCC:
JK: Did it have a link to a peer reviewed journal articl that actually proves the supposed CO2 – dangerous warming link?
16. D4P said: To the extent that human activities increase the quantity of greenhouse gases, it stands to reason (setting aside scientific observation) that more gases might mean more of the sun’s heat trapped, and thus climate change.
JK: Now tell us about the earth’s natural cooling mechanisms. And just because it stands to reason does not make it true.
17. Dan said: Here is a chart from empirical evidence on the change in forcing at the earth’s surface.
JK: That chart left out the major “greenhouse “ gas – water vapor.
18. msetty said:. . . and the tens of thousands of other scientists who agree with the article’s conclusions. . .
JK What “tens of thousands of other scientists� They exist only in Naomi’s fraudulent, non-peer reviewed, essay and in Al Gore’s dreams of becoming a BILLIONAIRE.
20. t g said: Karlock: Just to be clear about which evidence should be brought forward, let us establish the minimum premise from which we will work.
JK: Sorry, just show us the peer reviewed papers that prove the logical chain of evidence:
1. CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.
2. Man’s tiny fraction of the total CO2 is responsible for the CO2 increase.
3. the current warming is unusual compared to times before man’s large CO2 release. (Prove that recent times are warmest in the last few thousand years and explain the fact that the best temperature records (Hansen’s USHCN) show 1998 merely tied with 1934 for the warmest year and most of the warmest years were not recently. )
If you can’t prove EACH of the above (and a few more) you cannot rationally claim man is causing dangerous warming. Of course most true believers are not rational.
Thanks
JK
It seems that the most resounding sentiment of the planner-commenters here is a fundamental distrust in citizens’ competence and goodwill. If it is normal to see consumer choice likened to murder, then planner megalomania is far worse than O’Toole et al. have ever described.
I began researching planning because of its growing encroachments on the family business (construction) and after a mate of mine piqued tremendous interest in the local public sector with a thoroughly pseudoscientific graduate thesis about CO2 emissions during construction. I don’t just mean I disagree with AGW, I mean the paper would *theoretically* be useless to even the most committed Green as this individual had compiled 90 pages of *personal* emissions calculations from local job sites. Wild extrapolation comprised 90%+ of this throwaway thesis, yet the “findings” have been of endless inspiration to local public agencies (and some “incentivised” private firms) who have called back again and again for encore public presentations. They would like to see this “research” factored (i.e., imposed) into future legislation in our area with LEED, etc.
This person graduated in Architecture but has been generating serious interest among planning agencies as such. I suspect they will fit right in (at least with those on this site) as they explictly [and inexplicably] believe citizens are largely benighted sheeple who need to be led to safety by people with a morally and intellectually superior vision.
Karlock,
I am willing to provide peer reviewed articles. In order to do so, we must establish the fundamentals. Logical discourse is predicated upon a mutual agreement of the premises. If you are not willing to agree to any premises, then you are effectively rejecting logical discourse. I ask again:
Do you agree (or not) that
(1) the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range.
(2) after being absorbed by the earth, these photons are emitted by the earth as infrared radiation.
(3) carbon dioxide is a radiatively active gas.
(4)carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation
Or are you rejecting logical discourse?
Thanks,
tg
Karlock,
I want to emphasize the need for establishing these simple fundamentals: if you reject any of them, quite obviously my workload for providing you peer reviewed work increases. But at least I would know where to begin.
Thanks! I bet AP 20 bucks that your riposte would consist of an insult. I’ll donate the money to a good cause
And implying that actions to mitigate and adapt to man-made climate change are Soshullist isn’t an insult – by gosh, it’s good civic discourse!
Comedy gold. Are you a parody character?
DS
“No. The burden of proof is on you now, given that most credible, qualified scientists have concluded that mountains of evidence confirm anthropogenic global warming is occurring.”
Science is never black and white. I’m not sure how you can claim to understand the science without understanding that a statement that is black and white, that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, actually means nearly nothing. The debate in the very new climate science field is not if it’s occurring but how much is occurring. And if one asks that question, one begins to see that given the probability of things and assuming that future generations will be more wealthy and have more knowledge, much as we have today over just a generation or two ago, the rational conclusion is that at this point in time there is no compelling scientific evidence that indicates we need to do much of anything today to address a problem that is most likely to not be much of a problem anytime during the next couple of generations.
Then again, why acknowledge that science is about probabilities when talking about those probabilities undermines the case for extreme political agendas?
Science is never black and white
Tell that to Mr. Karlock.
t g said:
Karlock,
I am willing to provide peer reviewed articles. In order to do so, we must establish the fundamentals. Logical discourse is predicated upon a mutual agreement of the premises. If you are not willing to agree to any premises, then you are effectively rejecting logical discourse. I ask again:
Or are you rejecting logical discourse?
JK: I am not asking for a time wasting discourse where you think you can logically prove some point. I am asking for peer-reviewed empirical evidence.
IE: real evidence, not some conjecture. It is apparent form your waffling that you have none. Please quit wasting our time.
JK: As to your points, they don’t even make sense:
t g said: (1) the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range.
JK: Much of the energy output is not visible: IR, UV, magnetic fields, cosmic rays etc.
t g said: (4)carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation
JK: Very little . In the real atmosphere, most IR is absorbed by H2O:
. . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
You may also like this:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13; bold added) (they then go on to explain how CO2 could cause further warming after, something unknown started the warming. Of course the original, something unknown could merely continue!)
Thanks
JK
Owie:
Argument from authority notwithstanding, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr issued the following statement:
Time for a rambling, incoherent, ululating letter to someone’s hero!
DS
Dan said: Owie:
Argument from authority notwithstanding, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr issued the following statement:
JK: So what? His is just another person who has not bothered to look at the evidence, instead deciding to let others think for them. He got sucked in by this decades most dangerous huckster, AL Gore (himself scientifically illiterate.)
Thanks
JK
Karlock, are you a heart specialist? For I’m assuming you are only trying to promote general stress in order to increase your profits.
In answer to my question, in which I asked if you agreed or disagreed that the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range, you replied:
JK: Much of the energy output is not visible: IR, UV, magnetic fields, cosmic rays etc.
Let me clarify. Do you agree or disagree with the following: Of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the sun the majority of the wavelengths which reach the surface of the earth are within the visible range.
To clarify: I did not ask about the output. This would be nonsense. We are not discussing the effects of molecular vibration on the temperature of the galaxy. We are discussing the effects of molecular vibration on the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
Secondly, in answer to my question, do you agree or disagree that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, you replied:
JK: Very little . In the real atmosphere, most IR is absorbed by H2O.
Do not presume anymore about my question than I have allowed. The question was simple. I did not ask if atmospherically carbon dioxide absorbs more or less than any other compound. So allow me to repeat (your war of attrition has not fully enervated me):
Do you agree or disagree that carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared wavelengths?
Your request for evidence is becoming tiring and ridiculous if you are unwilling to provide a scientific point of departure. Which is fine, if you admit you are only dancing with rhetoric because you are that one thing more dreaded to this blog’s libertarian bunch than a planner – you are…gasp…a politician. Put your clothes back on, emperor.
JK: Hey t.g., why don’t you start at the first step of proving CO2 causes warming by showing that the following statement is wrong:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
There you have it, your side’s authority on climate admits that CO2 rise is after a temperature rise. And even Al Gore is smart enough to know that a cause cannot follow an effect.
Your first step is to prove those three papers wrong.
Then we can discuss CO2s logarithmic effect. (See Schneider et al 197x, where one of today’s warmers dismisses CO2 and blames global cooling on burning fossil fuel and says we must stop to prevent an ice age. Do you see a pattern here?))
Thanks
JK
Karlock (re: #36),
You wrote in the comments of Charging for Pollution the following:
“1. Prove that our recent climate is unusually warm on a geological scale, not just the last 100 years.
2. Prove that CO2 causes warming and more CO2 will cause more warming.
3. Prove that the degree of warming is actually net harmful.
4. Prove that man is the source of that CO2 increase.
5. Prove that the proposed cure is better and living with the alleged warming.
If you cannot prove all five, you have no case for taking action because your are attacking a non cause of the alleged problem.
As far as I can tell, none of the five has been proven.”
Thank you for demonstrating here that you have no intention of allowing this, for where most would simply move the goal post, you change the game entirely.
Karlock, I’ve been to Area 51 and the government is lying. There are aliens. And they’re running the APA, just like you thought. Additionally, I do in fact work for the UN, those black helicopters over your house are ours, and you will only be seeing the inside of one from here on out.
Oh yeah. The moon landing was faked.
I’m begining to wonder if Mr.Karlock stands by the banks of the Columbia keeping an eye out for a Bolivian naval invasion.
Hey, t g:
It is NOT comforting to find yet another person who has no concept of what constitutes proof of something.
Typical planner. Typical warmer. Typical Al Gore zombie.
Are you still scared of thunder?
Do you still think the planets are carried across the sky by gods?
Have you realized that earth, wind and fire are no longer though to the basic elements?
Thanks for revealing yor level of rationality.
JK
JimKarlock
Libertarian
Occupation: Co-owner, electronics manufacturing company
Occupational Background: Self-employed electronics designer; awarded six patents
Educational Background: Benson High; University of Portland
Prior Governmental Experience: none
Community Experience: Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association; cable TV producer: Preserving the American Dream; Executive Committee, American Dream Coalition: Created: http://www.PortlandFacts.com, http://www.SavePortland.com; Libertarian Party County Chairperson
There have been a lot of changes in our neighborhood since the days I attended Beaumont Kindergarten and Kennedy Grade School. I am saddened to see how government policies have replaced so many of our open spaces, trees and gardens, with big box apartments, skinny houses and row houses, inflicting density and traffic congestion on us.
I will:
Fight to maintain our neighborhood’s character (while one of my opponent’s endorsers is a leading advocate for higher density.)
Oppose government policies that lead to neighborhood destroying gentrification.
Reduce energy costs. My opponent supports foolish “cap-and-trade” which Increases your energy costs to force you to use 44% less to drive your car and heat your home. How cold will your house be with 44% less heat in the winter?
Oppose tax giveaways to urban renewal districts’ millionaires, while school children, police and fire departments suffer.
I Support:
School choice because disadvantaged people deserve choices too (twenty percent of teachers’ children attend private schools.)
The reduction of taxes, fees, pollution and regulations to create a healthier economy and more family wage jobs.
Further:
The government must not dictate anything about our bodies, our consumptions, or useful medical procedures.
Government provided service must not discriminate by religion, race, nationality, or sexual orientation.
The difference is clear. Instead of hurting people with schemes like cap & trade, more high density and higher taxes, I will use my proven abilities to create new ideas and translate them into reality to help people.
Endorsed by Neighborhood & Oregon leaders:
Bruce Broussard
Steve Buckstein Bill Markwart
Randal O’Toole Rob Kremer
John Charles
More liberal than a progressive, without the wasteful spending.
See http://www.ElectKarlock.com
(This information furnished by Friends of Karlock.)
Highwayman, Are you tying to make some point?
Thanks
jk
I think Highwayman’s point is that he spends entirely too much time on the internet.
. Prove that our recent climate is unusually warm on a geological scale, not just the last 100 years.
2. Prove that CO2 causes warming and more CO2 will cause more warming.
3. Prove that the degree of warming is actually net harmful.
4. Prove that man is the source of that CO2 increase.
5. Prove that the proposed cure is better and living with the alleged warming.
Come on TG, the science is set in stone and man kind is moving forward, surely it shouldn’t be too hard to prove these.
Karlock,
I am neither a planner, nor a warmer, nor a Gore zombie. I voted Libertarian in 2000. Since your grasp of history is likely as poor as your grasp of science, I’ll remind you that 2000 was the year Gore ran for president. Thus I voted against him.
Returning to your original request for proof, for which you have still not provided the minimum science you are willing to accept, I ask again:
Do you agree (or not) that
(1) the radiation that is emitted by the sun and enters the earth’s atmosphere is primarily within the visible range.
(2) after being absorbed by the earth, these photons are emitted by the earth as infrared radiation.
(3) carbon dioxide is a radiatively active gas.
(4)carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation
t g: you have still not provided the minimum science you are willing to accept
JK: I have no intention of specifying what is an appropriate proof. It is up to you to provide quality proof of your claims.
However I do note that your list appears to indicate that you really don’t understand basic science:
1. The sun’s radiation is not “primarily within the visible range.†The sun also outputs particles, cosmic rays and magnetic fields. To ignore them is to have an incomplete picture of reality.
2. Some energy goes into chemical reactions, some is emitted and some is convected. You left out two of the three (and I probably left out a few to.)
3. You appear to not realize that CO2 absorbs in very narrow bands that are mostly within the bands also absorbed by the much more important H2O (that’s water to you)
As I have said before a possible starting point if to overcome this:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
Then you can go on to prove each step in the chain that ends with man being responsible. Only then can we discuss the costs & benefits of action vs inaction.
Sorry, that is the real world.
Thanks
JK
Karlock,
Fourth time (fifth? I’m losing count):
I asked about the radiation from the sun that enters the atmosphere.
Karlock,
I asked: do you agree that after being absorbed by the earth, these photons are emitted by the earth as infrared radiation. You replied: Some energy goes into chemical reactions, some is emitted and some is convected. You left out two of the three (and I probably left out a few to.)
My question was about the wavelength of radiation emitted by the earth. You say some energy is emitted. What is the primary wavelength of that some energy emitted by the earth?
Karlock,
I asked if you conceed that carbon dioxide is a radiatively active gas.
You reply:You appear to not realize that CO2 absorbs in very narrow bands that are mostly within the bands also absorbed by the much more important H2O (that’s water to you).
Lacking an explicit answer, I’ll phrase in your words: Do you appear to realize that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared radiation?
Karlock,
Why would we proceed to discuss ice core samples without establishing the issue for which the ice cores are providing evidence? One thing at a time, cowboy.
Karlock,
You have stated you are not willing to specify what is an appropriate proof for you.
Read your Karl Popper and get back to me.