Found 3133 related files. Current in page 13
perators... are increasingly recognizing the need for a systematic assessment and management of flexible pipe integrity, but the identification of critical criteria and the means to best achieve valid and efficient inspection and monitoring (I&M) continues to evolve. Emerging technologies in I&M and operators’ expanding implementation of riskbased management are leading the way toward achieving a comprehensive integrity management approach for flexible pipeline and riser systems worldwide. Flexible pipes are being installed and operated in more marginal and challenging offshore conditions, adding to the complexity of acquiring complete and valid data for the determination of their integrity. Especially important is the accurate assessment of the remaining life of a flexible riser so operators can avoid costly premature change outs. To further develop the definition of best practices in flexible pipe integrity assurance, the SureFlex Joint Industry Project (JIP) presented key findings from its extensive 20-month-long survey work, including flexible pipe use worldwide, statistics on design limits, damage, and failure incidences. Conducted under the auspices of the Oil and Gas UK, a trade association for the United Kingdom upstream oil and gas industry, the “State of the Art Report on Flexible Pipe Integrity and Guidance Note on Monitoring Methods and Integrity Assurance for Unbonded Flexible Pipes (2010)” revisited the state of flexible pipe since the first survey in 2001 to 2002. The scope of work was international in its content and had the support of international companies outside of the UK.
The report Offshore Drilling Market defines and segments the global offshore and Directional drilling services market with an analysis and forecast of the global revenue. Offshore drilling services market will grow from an estimated $73.1 billion in 2013 to $121.1 billion by 2018, growing at a CAGR of 10.6% from 2013 to 2018.
It’s Easy To Report Your Allegation Of Tax Fraud! 1. Complete the Official TaxSqueal Allegation Form. Be sure to provide as many of the key details requested as possible. Only the allegation information entered on the form will be submitted to the IRS or proper taxing authority, no other identifiers. 2. Following a TaxSqueal referral to the IRS or proper taxing authority on your behalf, all information and identifiers associated with the allegation are immediately purged from TaxSqueal’s records. Remember, TaxSqueal never knows your identity, nor does it possess the ability to determine your identity. 3. Please be prepared to hear nothing further. Tax agencies have strict privacy rules that limit or preclude updates or progress reports regarding tax matters. Rest assured that your TaxSqueal submission will be handled appropriately and confidentially.
This report provides the competitive landscape of the key players, which covers all key growth strategies. The report also formulates the entire value chain of the market, along with industry trends of 3D sensor with emphasis on market timelines and technology roadmaps, market and product life cycle analysis.
(1888 PressRelease) The report reveals that, although the demand for the benefits of e-invoicing is high, there is still resistance based on misunderstandings and misconceptions.
Human interference with the climate system is occurring,1 and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1). The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change. It considers how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and managed through adaptation and mitigation. The report assesses needs, options, opportunities, constraints, resilience, limits, and other aspects associated with adaptation. Climate change involves complex interactions and changing likelihoods of diverse impacts. A focus on risk, which is new in this report, supports decision-making in the context of climate change, and complements other elements of the report. People and societies may perceive or rank risks and potential benefits differently, given diverse values and goals. Compared to past WGII reports, the WGII AR5 assesses a substantially larger knowledge base of relevant scientific, technical, and socioeconomic literature. Increased literature has facilitated comprehensive assessment across a broader set of topics and sectors, with expanded coverage of human systems, adaptation, and the ocean. See Background Box SPM.1.2 Section A of this summary characterizes observed impacts, vulnerability and exposure, and adaptive responses to date. Section B examines future risks and potential benefits. Section C considers principles for effective adaptation and the broader interactions among adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Background Box SPM.2 defines central concepts, and Background Box SPM.3 introduces terms used to convey the degree of certainty in key findings. Chapter references in brackets and in footnotes indicate support for findings, figures, and tables. Figure SPM.1: Illustration of the core concepts of the WGII AR5. Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems. Changes in both the climate system (left) and socioeconomic processes including adaptation and mitigation (right) are drivers of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. [19.2, Figure 19-1]...
The future climate change results assessed in this chapter are based on a hierarchy of models, ranging from AtmosphereOcean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) and Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) to Simple Climate Models (SCMs). These models are forced with concentrations of greenhouse gases and other constituents derived from various emissions scenarios ranging from nonmitigation scenarios to idealised long-term scenarios. In general, we assess non-mitigated projections of future climate change at scales from global to hundreds of kilometres. Further assessments of regional and local climate changes are provided in Chapter 11. Due to an unprecedented, joint effort by many modelling groups worldwide, climate change projections are now based on multi-model means, differences between models can be assessed quantitatively and in some instances, estimates of the probability of change of important climate system parameters complement expert judgement. New results corroborate those given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. Mean Temperature All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades (see Chapter 3).
This report is based on findings from a bi-annual series of nationally representative survey studies – Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication) and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (http://www.climatechangecommunication.org). The research was funded by the Energy Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation, and the V.K. Rasmussen Foundation. Principal Investigators: Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University email@example.com Geoff Feinberg Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University firstname.lastname@example.org Seth Rosenthal, PhD Yale Project on Climate Change Communication School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Yale University email@example.com Nicholas Smith, PhD Division of Psychology and Language Sciences University College London firstname.lastname@example.org Ashley Anderson, PhD Department of Journalism & Technical Communication Colorado State University email@example.com Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD Center for Climate Change Communication Department of Communication George Mason University firstname.lastname@example.org
Riley E. Dunlap Oklahoma State University We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We ﬁnd that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientiﬁc consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, signiﬁcant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade. The Western experience of modernity—especially technological development, economic growth, material prosperity, urbanization, and democracy—has been built upon industrial capitalism, an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy (Clark and York 2005). A major unintended consequence of the use of fossil fuels is anthropogenic global warming or climate change.1 Recognizing and responding to climate change, arguably the most challenging social problem of the modern era (Giddens 2009), thus poses a fundamental critique of continued modernization processes around the world (Antonio 2009). For two decades, European-based reﬂexive modernization theorists (e.g., Beck, Giddens, and Lash 1994; Mol 1996) have argued that forces of reﬂexivity, particularly science and environmentalism, compel us to confront threats to societal persistence such as climate change.2 In contrast, stimulated by the United States’s long-term, laggard response to climate change, a growing number of scholars have begun calling attention to forces of “anti-reﬂexivity” (McCright and Dunlap 2010)—particularly the industrial sector and the conservative movement—that defend the industrial capitalist order from critique by denying the signiﬁcance of problems such as climate change (also see, e.g., *Direct all correspondence to Aaron M. McCright, Lyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, E-185 Holmes Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825-1107; e-mail: email@example.com The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011) 155–194 © 2011 Midwest Sociological Society
September 27, 2012 The Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute is pleased to transmit to you a major revision of the report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The original document served as the principal source of information regarding the climate of the United States for the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 7, 2009, Endangerment Finding from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This new document is titled ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. This effort grew out of the recognition that the original document was lacking in scope and relevant scientiﬁc detail. A Cato review of a draft noted that it was among the worst summary documents on climate change ever written, and that literally every paragraph was missing critical information from the refereed scientiﬁc literature. While that review was extensive, the restricted timeframe for commentary necessarily limited any effort. The following document completes that effort. It is telling that this commentary document contains more footnotes and references than the original; indeed, one could conclude that the original Global Climate Change Impacts ignored or purposefully omitted more primary-source science than it included. It is in that light that we present this document. May it serve as a primary reference and a guidepost for those who want to bring science back into environmental protection. Sincerely, Edward H. Crane President Cato Institute