View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
173. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    87 50.29%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    21 12.14%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    48 27.75%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 9.83%
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,100 of 1840

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1001

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdriveaSubaru View Post
    http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2040.html

    "Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change."
    Cool! So we're lucky we've been spewing all kinds of sun blocking crap into the atmosphere along with the greenhouse gasses.

    Also, it would seem that all historical temperature studies need to incorporate measures of volcanic activity. Then, once the particles settle on the poles, has it had a reverse effect of raising global temperatures by reducing the poles' reflectivity?

    Until the first snowstorm that is.
    Last edited by KC; 24-12-2013 at 08:41 AM.

  2. #1002
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,527

    Default

    Can Al Gore explain that there is first snow in Egypt in 112 yrs



    I bet he can't
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  3. #1003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Can Al Gore explain that there is first snow in Egypt in 112 yrs



    I bet he can't
    Global warming leads to increases in erratic weather patterns (so yeah he could, as could every ACTUAL climate scientist). It's very simple actually, but thanks for playing

    *climate = long term wind/moisture/temp averages over broad regions, weather is short term localize phenomena

  4. #1004

    Default

    ^if you believe in a faith, any facts will point to its existence. Snow in Cario for the first time in over 100 years, record levels of arctic ice (when Al Gore said it was meant to be all gone by now). If we are lucky the faithful will be right, but I fear much worse could be happening, we could be facing a cool down.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...ear-from-hell/

  5. #1005
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,068

    Default

    I believe there is a climate cycle, and because of the cycle I believe there will be another ice age.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  6. #1006
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    We're exiting a sunspot grand maximum period that has lasted since the 19th century and entering a period of low to no activity. While the amount of solar energy reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere will diminish slightly, it also affects the planet in other ways.

    It seems that the decreased solar radiation allows more cosmic rays to hit the planet, giving aerosols an electric charge that allows water vapour to be attracted to them. This brings about more cloud cover to the planet, which in turn brings more rain and snow. The lack of direct sunshine and the loss of latent heat from the air to melt and evaporate more precipitation will makes things cooler.

    As well, the period of low sunspots has been linked to increases in volcanic activity. With the increase in eruptions, ash is thrown into the atmosphere, which adds to the blockage of solar energy and adding to the cooling of the earth.

    It looks like the good times are over.

  7. #1007

    Default

    ^if this does turn out to be the case, it will make sense to massivlley increase our carbon emissions to moderate the impact. It would suck for most of Canada to be under a block of ice like the last ice age.

  8. #1008

    Default

    I don't believe in global warming.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  9. #1009

    Default

    Solution to cloud riddle reveals hotter future: Global temperatures to rise at least 4 degrees C by 2100
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1231094442.htm

  10. #1010

    Default

    Seems Europe has given up on any meaningful actions to curb CO2. The reductions they have achieved to date are actually just a redistribution of manufacturing away from Europe to other countries, which is what happens if you implement alarmist policies:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/bu...energy.html?hp

  11. #1011
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    Europe (Germany in particular) would have a much easier time meeting emissions reduction targets if they didn't have such a pathological fear of nuclear power. France is the big exception, having had 80% nuclear electricity for 20 years.

  12. #1012
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seems Europe has given up on any meaningful actions to curb CO2.
    From your own link:

    Europe pressed ahead on other fronts, aiming for a cut of 40 percent in Europe’s carbon emissions by 2030, double the current target of 20 percent by 2020. Officials said the new proposals were not evidence of diminished commitment to environmental discipline but reflected the complicated reality of bringing the 28 countries of the European Union together behind a policy.
    Tell me, do you intentionally lie about the content of information you post here, or do you just not bother actually reading past the first couple paragraphs?

    While there's no question that the EU has taken a step back from what Greenpeace and other groups want them to do, that's a long ways away from your claim that "Europe has given up on any meaningful actions to curb CO2." Instead of reducing emissions by 55 percent by 2030 as Greenpeace would like it to do, the EU is targeting a 40% reduction. How exactly does that square with your quoted claim? Because from where I stand, it looks to me like you're just pulling things out of thin air.

    From the EU's perspective, their position makes sense. Why cripple your economy trying to rapidly bring down emissions if that slack is just going to be taken up by increased emissions elsewhere? Until other major economies start taking serious action as well, it's a difficult sell to the European electorate.

  13. #1013
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    I just took a look at the intro article that KC linked above, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1231094442.htm and, to me, it epitomizes everything that is wrong with the current state of climate science. I see this intro as an alarmist piece of drivel that defies logic and physics and draws far-from-reality conclusions from what is probably not bad scientific measurement.

    Let's see:

    "Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they we are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more," said Prof. Sherwood.

    My take - Since when are scientists in this field the "first to admit" with himself and the fact that this science has taken so long to "come to light" being a perfect example of "last to admit"?

    What else it says to me:

    We were wrong and therefore it is even worse despite being way oversensitive in virtually all models according to all those pesky temperature readings from those NOAA and NASA organizations that show no warming (except through extreme manipulation) for the last 17 years, and there is no doubt whatsoever that you will observe a 3 degree centigrade increase in the next 50 years.


    Their science and my paraphrase:

    Old models (we say they were wrong) show that evaporated water(humid) causes thermal updrafts and we used to think that they rose to 15 km and then formed clouds causing albedo and other cooling effects. We now know this isn't true because we measured the fact that not all of this humid water rises to the height of 15 km and that this will cause less cooling effects in the upper atmosphere than we thought and we know this effect is due to CO2 because we measured it.

    Conclusion: Now that there are less clouds/less albedo, temperature will rise faster than ever. Oh yah - and were all going to die becase of it.

    Why it pisses me and many other scientific, inquiring minds off:

    How about we ask the question "Why didn't this warm humid evaporated water rise far enough to cool and form clouds at 15km?" and perhaps look at physics ie: Warm air rises and cool air descends - no other meaningful way with updrafts. According to their science but my take, their discovery means that this energy must be stripped much earlier in the atmosphere causing this warmed greenhouse gas laden concentrate, to cool much earlier and at lower elevations than previously thought and therefore this is why climate sensitivity is much less than the models had previously calculated.

    Conclusion: none - Other than maybe the authors sure don't follow my interpretation of "the what these measurements mean" in their application of the underlying physics for this "discovery" and I can't be bothered reading any further because of their obviously, almost radically wrong "its worse than we thought" intro to their science (basically dissing all other models and scientific measurement to this point). I think the next enquiry should be - What are these processes that strip this energy so quickly?

  14. #1014

    Default

    Science is always about testing, seeing the results and how well they fir your hypothesis and then refining your hypothesis and testing again. It's an ongoing process. And warming is continuing. We have the data that confirms that. The question that remains is what happens next?

    This result was just announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It uses global annual land and sea surface temperatures to make the call, and in 2013 these two measures combined for a temperature 0.62 C (1.12 F) above the 20th century average of 13.9 C (57.0 F).

    Were you born after 1976? Then you’ve never experienced an average year: 2013 is the 37th year in a row with temperatures above the 20th century average.

    The report also states that nine of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the 21st century (2010 is the record holder for hottest year ever). Only one year from the 20th century is on that list, 1998, and that’s about as late in the century as you can get. Not so incidentally, 1998 was an El Niño year; those years tend to have higher surface temperatures overall. 2013 was not an El Niño year; 1998 being warmer than 2013 is no cause for celebration.


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...on_record.html

  15. #1015
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,436

    Default

    This is a pretty informative GIF:



    Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

  16. #1016
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Kkozoriz - I'm not sure if your commenting as to my ignorance of the scientific method or for the benefit of fellow alarmists but a blog? Really? What I read is that there has been a slight rise in average temperature of less than 1 C as an average of a century that happened between 113 and 13 years ago.

    By the way I believe in greenhouse theory but I can't wrap my head around the numbers pulled out of ether that give this 1 out of 2500 atmospheric particle such incredible powers. Although energy always finds it way to ground, (and in this case the ground is the 24 hour a day temperature of the night sky that is equivalent to -271 degrees centigrade with the added caveat that all gases radiate energy and only some absorb distinctive overlapping radiation bands) somehow this particle is going to interfere with the process of cooling the atmosphere in a massively significant way. The truth of the matter is that when we consider the accuracy of our measurements and devices, the variations in past temperatures (despite the effort of some less than honestly motivated climate scientists to erase two higly documented warm periods and a little ice age in the last couple thousand years) there is little evidence (in fact none and a great deal including ice cores and pollen records that refute) that .62 degrees centigrade falls anywhere outside normal variation.

    Oh and Marcil, your graphic displays both your ignorance of the skeptical position (at least mine) and what a sine wave looks like.

  17. #1017

    Default

    Marcel's graphic, while vaguely looking like a sine wave, is showing that the overall trend is upwards. It's showoing the difference between weather (the individual points) and climate (the red line). This year may be cooler and/or wetter than last year. The amount of ice in the Arctic may be less or more than last year, but overall the indications are that the overall temperature of the planet, land, sea & air, is going up. By the same token, evidence shows that the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has been climbing substantially since the start of the industrial revolution. These are all items that we have hard evidence for. The only question that remains about climate change is what happens next? That's where the models come in. As more dat is collected and additional interactions are refined (i.e. the warming of the deep sea as opposed to just the surface) the models are refined and the predictions change. It's like setting the scope on a rifle. Your first shots may fall outside the rings but as you make adjustments you get closer and closer to the centre.

  18. #1018
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Kkozoriz,

    I know what Marcel wanted to convey but best fit - ie the best math available says the associated slope is wrong and a curve fit is much better (just look at the length and slope of the final plateau in the non-realist version) and because of the substantial rise in CO2 and lack of corresponding temperature fit it mathematically inviolates a substantial part of CAGW theory if viewed only within the slopes of this graph and a CO2 rise graph with the CAGW meme as a background. In my mind scientists should say "What does this mean?" rather than "Look at how this conforms to my beliefs" because it doesn't and never will within these attempts at pointing failure at skeptics.

  19. #1019
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^^ 0.6 (or the more commonly quoted value of 0.8 ) degrees may not sound like much, but it is about 10% of the difference between now and the last glacial maximum. It took 10,000 years for most of the ice to melt, but we are on track for a similar temperature change in just 1000 years, even in the unlikely event that the warming does not accelerate.

    1 out of 2500 particles may not sound like much, but it is a far higher concentration of absorbing molecules than you get by adding a drop of food coloring to a liter of water.

  20. #1020
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    I wish science publications (especially thosed directed at a general audience) would avoid the use of exaggerated headlines and claims such as the one posted by KC in #1009 above. They do the public credibility of climate science no good.

    The best a single study (no matter how well done) can do is add to the body of knowledge about a particular line of scientific inquiry. A single study is certainly not going to definitely answer (or solve) the question of the whether rising temperatures will lead to additional cloud formation and thereby offset some of the predicted warming.

  21. #1021
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    I get what you are saying Titanium48 but reflective science (energy reflected, not absorbed) is at the opposite end of the spectrum of IR energy absorbed.

    Energy absorbed in a gas when retained makes the molecule/atom rise faster against it's surrounding gasses in direct proportion to the energy absorbed and it's molecular weight. This extra energy can also be transferred to a surrounding atom/molecule through conduction again makeing the receiving molecule relatively lighter and more likely to rise. The last and most likely possibility is that this atom/molecule radiates it's extra energy to it's surroundings which is more likely to be reabsorbed at a clearer/higher position with a larger horizon and with respect to CO2, unlikely to be in the relatively small, relatively less energetic absorption bands of the CO2 molecule.

    My point is that under all combinations and permutations of energy transfer whether or not the CO2 molecule is in the way or not, energy in the atmosphere is inexorably and mathematically headed for that 2K temp of outer space that is able to ground out even the energy of trillions of million degree stars to the background energy of -271 degrees centigrade.

    When I envision a CO2 molecule and the science that surrounds it (absorbs, conducts and radiates energy more readily than most other gasses), I cant get rid of the image of a moth eaten blanket made out of an energy absorbative/conductive/radiative material like copper! Do you really think a moth-eaten threadbare blanket made of copper will keep you warmer?

  22. #1022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    I get what you are saying Titanium48 but reflective science (energy reflected, not absorbed) is at the opposite end of the spectrum of IR energy absorbed.

    Energy absorbed in a gas when retained makes the molecule/atom rise faster against it's surrounding gasses in direct proportion to the energy absorbed and it's molecular weight. This extra energy can also be transferred to a surrounding atom/molecule through conduction again makeing the receiving molecule relatively lighter and more likely to rise. The last and most likely possibility is that this atom/molecule radiates it's extra energy to it's surroundings which is more likely to be reabsorbed at a clearer/higher position with a larger horizon and with respect to CO2, unlikely to be in the relatively small, relatively less energetic absorption bands of the CO2 molecule.

    My point is that under all combinations and permutations of energy transfer whether or not the CO2 molecule is in the way or not, energy in the atmosphere is inexorably and mathematically headed for that 2K temp of outer space that is able to ground out even the energy of trillions of million degree stars to the background energy of -271 degrees centigrade.

    When I envision a CO2 molecule and the science that surrounds it (absorbs, conducts and radiates energy more readily than most other gasses), I cant get rid of the image of a moth eaten blanket made out of an energy absorbative/conductive/radiative material like copper! Do you really think a moth-eaten threadbare blanket made of copper will keep you warmer?
    But it does now, and we're talking very minor deviations within the deferential between the extremes of maximum earth temperature and the larger surrounding "-271 degrees centigrade" area in space.

  23. #1023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I wish science publications (especially thosed directed at a general audience) would avoid the use of exaggerated headlines and claims such as the one posted by KC in #1009 above. They do the public credibility of climate science no good.

    The best a single study (no matter how well done) can do is add to the body of knowledge about a particular line of scientific inquiry. A single study is certainly not going to definitely answer (or solve) the question of the whether rising temperatures will lead to additional cloud formation and thereby offset some of the predicted warming.
    The thing is we, nor scientists to a great extent, don't have the ability to judge what is an extreme headline and what isn't. The science and observations are still emerging so even extreme predictions could underestimate the final impact. Extremes may not pass any conventional "sniff test" but that doesn't exclude them from the realm of possibilities. Future studies may point to zero increase (due to some pending offset) and those studies should not be excluded due to their seemingly 'extreme' position either. It's all part of the body of knowledge's slow but volatile assembly.

    By comparison, if you look at investment return studies, up until the last decade most ignored the 1929 crash and great depression as an outlier. For most purposes it was, but the fact is that the right combination of conditions created it and so it is well within the realm of plausibility, because we know it happened. We don't know if such an event could re-occur but it seems unreasonable to exclude it from public presentations on the extremes within the body of investment knowledge.
    Last edited by KC; 24-01-2014 at 08:28 AM.

  24. #1024

  25. #1025
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,486

    Default

    Alas if you take a larger slice of time you get different results, the historical numbers are primary based on pollen counts.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024008/article

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024008/article

  26. #1026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    By comparison, if you look at investment return studies, up until the last decade most ignored the 1929 crash and great depression as an outlier. For most purposes it was, but the fact is that the right combination of conditions created it and so it is well within the realm of plausibility, because we know it happened. We don't know if such an event could re-occur but it seems unreasonable to exclude it from public presentations on the extremes within the body of investment knowledge.
    I think investment studies, or technical analysis, is quite a good analogy. I read some claim recently that if you buy certain types of stocks at certain times, analysis shows that historically you will have received terrific returns. But you can always do that with a dataset with a multitude of variables, you can go back and 'find' a pattern to fit a view of a theory. Problem is, it won't be predictive at all, because what you have done is just make a pattern out of a lot of noise, there are lots of patterns you could find at any given time, but the pattern itself is more often than not just noise.

  27. #1027
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Interesting report - What is the cost benefit ratio price of carbon? http://www.americaspower.org/sites/d...-of-Carbon.pdf

  28. #1028
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^Basically, the paper says that bad things would happen if we cut fossil fuel consumption without replacing it with anything, causing energy costs to spike as the supply drops. It doesn't make much of a case as to why coal should be favored over nuclear or renewables. Of course, this nonsense was not surprising after reading on the cover page: "Prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity".

  29. #1029
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Titanium48

    What I read in this report is that, no matter what you think is going to happen, there is no replacement of carbon based energy in the foreseeable future and, no matter whether NA continues to mothball coal, its use is going to continue to grow massively. Good old green Germany is firing up the coal generators as fast as it can and the rest of Europe is ready to hang it's green machine because it's policies have left it massively in debt and the wind farms and solar installs (and manufacturing of such) just aren't cutting it. People don't hold pie in the sky as that valuable when they see bankruptcy and destitution as it's reality. You should also notice that no matter who wrote the report, all statistics are referenced and are produced by the who's who of the players in industry, government and the green policy machine. I don't see any references that would or could be falsified. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't make it false.

    Basically it seems many alarmists would prefer the third world use dung and wood burning for heat and that people should die much younger, live much poorer, more destitute lives because, without affordable energy and to meet the alarmist view, this is exactly what they are condemned to. Talk about burying their heads in the sand - la la, la la, la la la la - no consequences to my green shaded world.

    By the way, my world is pretty green - its just that I met some of the major players at a young age (Dr. Suzuki, greenpeace originals and followers etc.) and could only think that these guys are nuts but have somehow parlayed their craziness into outright idiocy with their flocks following along and lapping it up somewhat like Manson did with his flock. Many of the guys running the green machine are/were radicals that have philosophies that put the worst terrorists to shame. On the other hand I do think that some of what they have done is good but if you knew how they think and how they got there it would make you cringe. They are not real smart, are mostly arrogant and most fail as real people and, whether you believe it or not, couldn't care less about humans. Gaia is their only love.

    At the end of the day I don't really care what anybody thinks of the report but I will wager that what it says of the future in China, India and Africa as regards to coal and other forms of carbon energy turns out to be undeniably true cause they really don't care about green reparation when it comes to their own life or death.

  30. #1030

    Default

    the earth was much hotter and tropical over 60 million years ago...please explain this phenomenon.

  31. #1031
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rime ice View Post
    the earth was much hotter and tropical over 60 million years ago...please explain this phenomenon.
    I'm not sure who you're addressing rime but my understanding is that the land bridge in South America didn't exist and consequently allowed the warm currents to flow more easily throughout the world.

  32. #1032
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^ And somehow a massive amount of carbon was released into the atmosphere. The resulting paleocene-eocene thermal maximum is the closest thing to a precedent for anthropogenic carbon emissions we know of. 15 million years later, the azolla event removed a massive amount of carbon from the atmosphere and the poles have been at least seasonally frozen ever since.

  33. #1033
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    What I read in this report is that, no matter what you think is going to happen, there is no replacement of carbon based energy in the foreseeable future and, no matter whether NA continues to mothball coal, its use is going to continue to grow massively. Good old green Germany is firing up the coal generators as fast as it can and the rest of Europe is ready to hang it's green machine because it's policies have left it massively in debt and the wind farms and solar installs (and manufacturing of such) just aren't cutting it. People don't hold pie in the sky as that valuable when they see bankruptcy and destitution as it's reality. You should also notice that no matter who wrote the report, all statistics are referenced and are produced by the who's who of the players in industry, government and the green policy machine. I don't see any references that would or could be falsified. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't make it false.

    Basically it seems many alarmists would prefer the third world use dung and wood burning for heat and that people should die much younger, live much poorer, more destitute lives because, without affordable energy and to meet the alarmist view, this is exactly what they are condemned to. Talk about burying their heads in the sand - la la, la la, la la la la - no consequences to my green shaded world.
    I never said the paper was false. It isn't wrong when it discusses the probable effects of massive increases in energy prices. It is, however, rather incomplete.

    For example, you are correct that Germany has largely maxed out their renewable share, at least until there is a practical means of large scale energy storage, and in many cases they have chosen coal as a backup for times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. However, next door in France they have shown that it is possible to provide cheap, reliable energy with low carbon emissions because unlike the Germans, the French are not scared of nuclear energy. The only thing the coal coalition paper says about nuclear energy is that it has been losing market share because few new plants are being built.

  34. #1034
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Titanium48
    "I never said the paper was false."

    You're right and I apologize. It was a generic comment that I pinned on you.

  35. #1035

    Default

    Sorry Krok, no one in particular..I was trying to show that Human intervention is not needed or the cause of climate change. We are merely spectators on this planet...it is mans arrogance that we believe we are the cause of everything because we are so integral to the universe and earths biosphere. Earth will rid mankind in due course, when she is tired of the surface nuisance we have become. Mother earth will then mend herself to her original eden like splendor with no trace of "us".

    Thank God.

  36. #1036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    Interesting report - What is the cost benefit ratio price of carbon? http://www.americaspower.org/sites/d...-of-Carbon.pdf
    I think that overplays growth in coal. IMO with new fracking techniques, the big growth is going to be in natural gas. You can put a plant right on the border of a city (no need to be by a coal mine), which reduces transmission loss, and the pollution is less. A lot of talk at the moment that Obama might actual do something smart, which is approve Keystone but go after the US coal industry which is the biggest polluter in NA, way more so than the oil sands.

    Love fracking or hate it, the shale-gas revolution has fundamentally changed the American energy business. Between 2006 and ’12, U.S. natural-gas production increased by 30% while the price fell in half. Cheap gas — which seems here to stay, at least for the short term — enabled utilities to close their oldest, dirtiest coal plants in favor of gas turbines. Tighter air-pollution regulations from the Obama Administration only hastened that shift. As a utility owner, it makes little economic sense to build anything but gas, along with renewables like wind and solar when they’re supported by government subsidies. Add in the fact that electricity-consumption demand has actually been slowing in recent years — since 2000, electricity consumption has grown twice as slowly as population — and there’s little need for utilities to take the risk of building a new coal plant. The EPA’s rules only confirm that fact, as the Washington Post’s Brad Plumer noted:


    Roughly speaking, natural gas prices needs to rise above $7 per million BTU for new coal plants to be competitive. But the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that natural gas prices will stay under $6 per million BTU between now and 2030.

    That’s one reason why an earlier draft of the EPA power-plant rule predicted that the regulations for new power plants would have virtually no costs in the near term. After all, no new coal plants were likely to get built in the United States anyway. So the EPA rule won’t make much difference one way or the other. Unless, of course, natural gas prices rise unexpectedly — something that’s happened in the past.

    Read more: Obama's Carbon Rules and Cheap Gas Are Killing Coal Power Plants | TIME.com http://science.time.com/2013/09/20/i...#ixzz2sCPzYzQT
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-02-2014 at 01:40 PM.

  37. #1037
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    ^We'll have to see how cheap gas will be now. Latest price is $4.94/BTU and, depending on what the rest of this winter and subsequent winters do, it could be on the rise. Perhaps it'll get back to $7, which'll be good for the province and for more work.

  38. #1038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rime ice View Post
    the earth was much hotter and tropical over 60 million years ago...please explain this phenomenon.
    Maybe massive carbon sequestration into the bottoms of oceans and seas?

    We're now taking millions of years of accumulation of it in the form of coals, oils and gasses and returning it to the surface, all in a span of a few decades. Our actions - might - just have unintended consequences.


    This is interesting...

    America's natural gas system is leaking methane and in need of a fix -- ScienceDaily

    "Several other studies have used airplanes and towers to measure actual methane in the air, so as to test total estimated emissions. The new analysis, which is authored by researchers from seven universities, several national laboratories and federal government bodies, and other organizations, found these atmospheric studies covering very large areas consistently indicate total U.S. methane emissions of about 25 to 75 percent higher than the EPA estimate. ..."
    ..,
    "Perhaps surprisingly though, the analysis finds that powering trucks and buses with natural gas instead of diesel fuel probably makes the globe warmer, because diesel engines are relatively clean. For natural gas to beat diesel, the gas industry would have to be less leaky than the EPA's current estimate, which the new analysis also finds quite improbable."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0213142225.htm
    Last edited by KC; 13-02-2014 at 03:38 PM.

  39. #1039

    Default

    BBC News - Smell of forest pine can limit climate change - researchers
    26 Feb 2014

    Excerpts:

    "These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.

    The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say.

    One of the biggest holes in scientific knowledge about climate change relates to the scale of the impact of atmospheric aerosols on temperatures."...


    "Cooling effect
    The authors believe that this is playing a significant role in reducing the impact of rising temperatures. They argue that this effect is likely to strengthen in the future.

    "In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours," said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki."...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038

  40. #1040
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming...

    ...climate

    "A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

    Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

    “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said."

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/...=googextension

  41. #1041
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Solution to cloud riddle reveals hotter future: Global temperatures to rise at least 4 degrees C by 2100
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1231094442.htm
    I could've been nasty and said something about the U of NSW. I'm sure some may know what I'm talking about that took place in December and January.

  42. #1042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    ...climate

    "A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

    Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

    “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said."

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/...=googextension
    Hence the ongoing nature of the studies and need for more - to nail down the science as best as science can do.

    Basically, do you want a quick answer, or do you want the correct answer?
    Last edited by KC; 26-02-2014 at 10:10 PM.

  43. #1043
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    ^We need the correct answer, which is why "the science is settled" is a very incorrect answer.

  44. #1044

    Default

    ^ the point is, believers figure the science is settled, critics don't believe we have the correct answer. I myself don't know so that is why I believe we should treat the risk like we (or maybe not "we" but rather most countries) do military threats with commensurate spending and preparation - as insurance for a possible and maybe probable longer-term risk but with unknown timing and so equally probable nearer-term risk. This article below pretty much says succinctly what I've been trying to say. It applies to how we prepare for so many things: like plagues, once in 100 year floods, vast droughts, and all those other low probability but high consequence/risk/calamity events where the 1-in-500 year event may happen tomorrow.




    Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

    Excerpt:

    "These new findings challenge the frequent public misinterpretation of uncertainty as a reason to delay action. Arguing against mitigation by appealing to uncertainty is therefore misplaced: any appeal to uncertainty should provoke a greater, rather than weaker, concern about climate change than in the absence of uncertainty."


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0404140301.htm

  45. #1045
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    ^We need the correct answer, which is why "the science is settled" is a very incorrect answer.
    the science may well not be settled but the risk factors and probable consequences likely are. waiting for the correct answer and for the science to be settled while not addressing those risk factors while there is still the potential to do so is foolhardy. that's the global equivalent of the floods in calgary and high level and canmore, all of which could have been mitigated before the certainty of their occurrance could be demonstrated but not after.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #1046
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    ^ the point is, believers figure the science is settled
    That's straight up false. "Believers" and researchers don't think it's "settled", because many aspects of climate are still poorly understood, and the actual sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is still not pinned down to an acceptable degree (which your link mentions). But we do know enough at this point to say quite clearly that climate change is happening, it's caused by increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere primarily from human activity, and that if we don't significantly reduce our emissions over the next half century or so, there is no telling how damaging that change will be to the Earth's natural ecosystems upon which we depend for our survival. Ergo, we need to start taking action now, before mitigating the problem becomes far more difficult to accomplish.

  47. #1047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    "Believers" and researchers don't think it's "settled", because many aspects of climate are still poorly understood, and the actual sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is still not pinned down to an acceptable degree (which your link mentions). .
    So, like Danniel Smith, you agree now that its not settled? I would have thought that was obvious, we can't predicit the climate in two months time, we can't predict it in one year, or in 10 years. IMO there are way too many variables for that to happen no matter how fast computers get. What we can do, is what all species have done that have survived, which is adapt to the climate. Not to say we shouldn't continue to work on better technology, but that will come when its ready and it will be ready sooner if we don't artificially strangle economic growth. Ultimatley though, no matter what we do, it can all change in one swell foop. For example, if Yellowstone supervolcano erupted, we'd have much bigger climate issues then, and like now if our climate is changing more than it has, what we could do is adapt.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-04-2014 at 12:46 PM.

  48. #1048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I would have thought that was obvious, we can't predicit the climate in two months time, we can't predict it in one year, or in 10 years. IMO there are way too many variables for that to happen no matter how fast computers get.
    This is not correct, strictly speaking. Many a times, forecasting "trends" is more accurate that forecasting "spot" values. And IPCC reports and other scientific work on global warming focus on such long term trends. Working in financial markets, I can say, no one can predict tomorrow's market levels, but one can say with a higher conviction that for example North America will outperform EU over the next 5 years, given factors like growth, employment, productivity etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    What we can do, is what all species have done that have survived, which is adapt to the climate. Not to say we shouldn't continue to work on better technology, but that will come when its ready and it will be ready sooner if we don't artificially strangle economic growth.
    Wow! So are you suggesting humans should cling to natural selection pattern, like a mouse or a fly, by simply adapting to changes? But can't we already proactively intervene in the course of natural selection, say through planning or use of technology, say in our genetics?

    Further, if you have "doubt" about a system, is it rational to be more prudent and avoid the "chances" of a catastorophic event, or should we ignor the risk and just take our chances? I work in financial markets, so I see first hand every day how "smart" people choose the latter solution than the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Ultimatley though, no matter what we do, it can all change in one swell foop. For example, if Yellowstone supervolcano erupted, we'd have much bigger climate issues then, and like now if our climate is changing more than it has, what we could do is adapt.
    Have you had a chance to read the latest IPCC report? They actualy devised a more realistic approach of classifying climate change effect into three classes. A very interesting summary here from the Economist:

    The report describes three different sorts of problem. The first are those in which climate is the dominant influence, so that no human action other than stopping it changing will have an effect. The second are those in which the climate’s influence is modest and where the news is not entirely bad. The third are the ways a changing climate alters which species (both natural and agricultural) thrive where—which from a human perspective can be both good and bad.
    So for each class of outcomes, we need a different set of policies. Unless,, you prefer to do nothing and taking our chances?

  49. #1049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    So for each class of outcomes, we need a different set of policies. Unless,, you prefer to do nothing and taking our chances?
    We have always been taking our chances since humans evolved. One day we may be extinct like the dinosaurs, hopefully not anytime soon, but I don't believe we are yet significant enough in our technology that we could prevent that if something catastrophic happened. At the moment, carbon based fuels are the most cost effective to allow the developing world to move towards our lifestyles, and to provide us the energy to advance. Eventually, something cleaner will take over, it might be hydrogen, electric, fusion or some combination of technologies. If we were cap CO2 tomorrow though, we would be basically saying 'you in china and indiia don't deserve our lifestyles'. I'd rather the change over happens naturally when the cost of new technology is less than old, so more people can live better lives, not fewer, doing otherwise based on an unsettled science simply won't happen no matter how much alarm is shouted.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-04-2014 at 03:17 PM.

  50. #1050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    ^ the point is, believers figure the science is settled
    That's straight up false. "Believers" and researchers don't think it's "settled", because many aspects of climate are still poorly understood, and the actual sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is still not pinned down to an acceptable degree (which your link mentions). But we do know enough at this point to say quite clearly that climate change is happening, it's caused by increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere primarily from human activity, and that if we don't significantly reduce our emissions over the next half century or so, there is no telling how damaging that change will be to the Earth's natural ecosystems upon which we depend for our survival. Ergo, we need to start taking action now, before mitigating the problem becomes far more difficult to accomplish.
    Good rebuttal. My error. Point taken. I guess similarly non-believers might benefit from such a correction to their typecasting. I imagine many of those cast as non-believers may see the risks and agree with the science but don't agree with the predictions that humanity will face calamity if/when global warming occurs.

  51. #1051

    Default

    Well, things look to get interesting.

    Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple to Save Climate, UN Says - Bloomberg
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...e-un-says.html

  52. #1052

    Default

    Global warming and climate change are directly tied to human activity. It was fully accepted for many years by the most powerful politicians in the most powerful country that makes the greatest amount of CO2 in human history and has the biggest stake in whats happening.


    Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change


    President Bush Discusses Climate Change (200


    His father stated the same thing 18 years before him.
    President George H. W. Bush on Climate Change in 1990


    NYTimes.com - Clinton on Climate Change 2007


    September 7, 2007 - Stephen Harper says Canada will be a world leader in the fight against global warming and in the development of clean energy technology.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #1053
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    ^No surprise. Anyone that's really looking into this can tell you that CAGW is far more political than scientific.

    Interesting that the Antarctic ice extant is the most since measurements began. Plus the Great Lakes ice cover has never been this high also since measurements started and was at about 91% at its height.

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVC...0007628832.pdf

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVC...0007628831.pdf

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVC...0007628830.pdf

    "A quick update for sea ice extent for day 111 of 2014:

    Global Sea Ice Extent is 1,047,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean.
    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,627,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is the 44th daily record for 2014.
    Arctic Sea Ice Extent is -581,000 sq km below the 1981-2010 mean."

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2...-above-normal/

    As well, I wonder if those in Winnipeg are hoping for some warming this year:

    "WINNIPEG ─ The side effects of a cold winter aren't coming to a quick end for some Winnipeg residents.
    Frozen pipes have been an issue for weeks, and many won't be repaired until July.

    Randy Hull, with the City of Winnipeg, said frost could remain deep enough into the ground to keep pipes frozen into June. According to the city, there are 479 homes without water because of frozen pipes with 7,320 considered at risk.

    Hull said Mother Nature will play a significant role, determining how quickly the frost beneath the ground thaws."

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...11-191750.html
    Last edited by TerryH; 22-04-2014 at 11:33 PM.

  54. #1054

    Default

    So TerryH, you do agree that climate swings are happening more often with far greater effects that in the recent past due to the ever increasing mean temperature and the more energy in the atmosphere that point to our links to the causation?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #1055
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    We should be seeing more climate changes but not for the better, compared to the past 20 or so years. But I doubt we'll be seeing any pleasant changes coming along. As for causation of whatever energy is added or subtracted from the atmosphere, that will depend entirely on the sun. We're already seeing more problems, such as the incessant march of the Arctic Vortex this winter, massive livestock deaths due to major snowfalls, potential shorter growing seasons, higher energy bills, and so on, due to decreased solar activity.

    As for the "increasing" mean temperature, that's due to NASA/NOAA deciding to, for some unknown reason, lower the actual data for the 1951-1980 baseline and then raising the actual data for more recent temperatures. That's like saying if it was actually 19 yesterday and 20 today then deciding to change it to 18 and 21 to make things look a lot different.
    Last edited by TerryH; 23-04-2014 at 05:54 PM.

  56. #1056
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,486

    Default

    Study: It Is "Very Likely" That Scientists Are Confusing Us About Global Warming
    http://www.motherjones.com/environme...ubt-psychology

  57. #1057

    Default

    lol, global warming might be convincing once the correlation between Co2 and climate is as high as that between the divorce rate in Maine, and the consumption of margarine:

    http://www.tylervigen.com/

  58. #1058

    Default Believers commuting by Jet

    Oh well, good to see Greenpeace, who seem to get quoted quite often by believers as gosipil, take global warming really really seriously (except for when they need to commute by jet):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06...ake-the-train/

  59. #1059

    Default

    Don't worry about climate change......humans will do themselves in, long before the heat and rising sea levels get to us!

    To Quote George Carlin " we are an evolutionary cul-de-sac" The only thing left over to prove we were here to explorers hundreds of thousand years from now is a little plastic.

  60. #1060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Oh well, good to see Greenpeace, who seem to get quoted quite often by believers as gosipil, take global warming really really seriously (except for when they need to commute by jet):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06...ake-the-train/
    My grandparents (born in the 1800s) pretty much never flew anywhere. Emulate them if you want a greener world. Look any any so called environmentalist today and I bet they are heavy polluters in comparison to those earlier generations.

  61. #1061

    Default

    BBC News - Full extent of global coal 'binge' is hidden, say researchers

    excerpts:

    "...Apart from this area, almost the entire developing world is looking to coal as the power plant fuel of choice on the road to industrialization."...
    ...
    "They argue that with properly functioning carbon markets and the development of carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), the scale of the impacts on climate could be reduced.

    "The extra piece of this is CCS," said Prof Socolow.

    "There is a tool, it does costs money - but it is one of the ways of having your cake and eating it too."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28942403

  62. #1062
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Interesting feature on CBC Manitoba this past weekend . It calls into the question the thought that polar bear populations have been dwindling due to low sea ice. I probably would've missed this except for a person posting a link to a Daily Caller story in which one of the comments (posted about 3 months ago) had a link to here: http://polarbearscience.com/ in which just so happened to have on its its home page a story, posted today, about the CBC story on polar bears.

    The link to the video posted on the 31st: http://polarbearscience.com/2014/08/...elebrity-bear/

    The follow up post I first saw: http://polarbearscience.com/2014/09/...lobal-warming/

    The direct link to the CBC video: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows...92515/?cmp=rss

    It's a shame that the antagonist of the story is a prof at the U. of A.

  63. #1063
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    In connection to the polar bear story is one where satellite measurements have shown a 1.7 million square km increase in ice extent and thickness from August 30, 2012 to August 30, 2014.

    http://iceagenow.info/2014/08/arctic...miles-2-years/



    August 30, 2012



    August 30, 2014

    These images were copied from the above story and are originally from the University of Illinois' "The Crysosphere Today" web project. One of the features they have is comparing two images from different dates.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

  64. #1064

    Default

    Wasn't 2012 an exceptionally low year for the ice pack? One summer in 2014 does not make it a trend. It is statistically insignificant.


    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....region.1.html
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 02-09-2014 at 07:35 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #1065
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    It would be statistically insignificant, if the growth wasn't steady and if it was looking like an anomaly. Right now, there are plenty of those who advocate that the polar ice cap is shrinking and are fixed on 2012. Considering that 2013 and 2014 have been rebound years, perhaps we should look at 2012 as being an anomaly. And the criticism that the ice growth is just "fast ice" can't be shown according to the 2014 image.

    A very good site for tracking the world's ice growth is: http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

    The blogger keeps a daily look at the Arctic and Antarctic ice extents using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Here's today's Arctic ice graph compared to all data lines from 1978:



    http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress..._1981-2010.png

  66. #1066

    Default

    Your graph you supplied shows that 2014 is the 8th lowest ice pack since 1978 and well below the mean and the standard deviation. It is clear that since 2007, the last 7 years have the greatest loss of the artic ice pack. Thanks for confirming that indeed the trend is startling that climate change is making significant changes in the high artic.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #1067
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,090

    Default

    From Al Gore's 2007 Nobel Prize Lecture
    "Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

    Seven years from now."
    That "seven years from now" would be 2014

  68. #1068
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^ So the "trend" of the mid-2000s that would have resulted in an ice-free summer this year was interrupted. The same will very likely happen to the "trend" of 2012-2014 before the residual ice returns to the 1980-2000 average. The overall trend over the last 35 years is a slow decline with lots of ups and downs from year to year variability. I don't believe the "alarmists" who think the disappearance of summer arctic ice is imminent, but I also don't believe the "deniers" who say it won't happen at all.

  69. #1069
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
    As well, I wonder if those in Winnipeg are hoping for some warming this year:

    "WINNIPEG ─ The side effects of a cold winter aren't coming to a quick end for some Winnipeg residents.
    Frozen pipes have been an issue for weeks, and many won't be repaired until July.

    Randy Hull, with the City of Winnipeg, said frost could remain deep enough into the ground to keep pipes frozen into June. According to the city, there are 479 homes without water because of frozen pipes with 7,320 considered at risk.

    Hull said Mother Nature will play a significant role, determining how quickly the frost beneath the ground thaws."

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...11-191750.html
    That is what happens when an ordinary February prairie cold snap follows 3 weeks of unusually warm, snow-melting weather in January. Severe late winter cold + no snowcover = deep ground frost.

  70. #1070

    Default

    Well, I guess if you wanted to be a contrarian, you could say there's still a 0.001% chance it's NOT all our fault.

    http://theconversation.com/99-999-ce...ew-study-29911

    You'd have to be an ignorant pinhead though.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  71. #1071

    Default

    ^some interesting comments in that article. If you believe humans are causing global warming, it seems, that you must also accept that if humans were not emitting CO2, the earth would be coolling (which would also have damaging impacts for human kind). I've always found it strange that todays climate is supposedly "perfect" and accoridngly, we should try to manipulate our outputs to maintain that. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect climate, there are just different climates to be adapted to, it doesn't really matter whether humans are causing them or not.

  72. #1072
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^ While you are essentially correct, for both natural and engineered systems the difficulty in adapting to a changing climate increases rapidly as the rate of change increases. While a return to glacial conditions would likely occur in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, the process would occur over many millenia, not a few centuries.

  73. #1073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ While you are essentially correct, for both natural and engineered systems the difficulty in adapting to a changing climate increases rapidly as the rate of change increases. While a return to glacial conditions would likely occur in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, the process would occur over many millenia, not a few centuries.
    Are you sure about that? Per this article, Greenland ice data shows the climate changed much more rapidly at numerous times, than during the 20th century:

    http://www.troymedia.com/2014/09/02/...ed-on-warming/

    Like it or not, global "warming" has paused:

    The first round of debate was about the existence of the pause. Has there been a statistically significant change to the short-term warming trend? See the statements of scientists and some of their research here. That round has ended.

    The second round was debate about the causes of the pause. It’s still running strong, with 11 broad causes identified. As yet there is no consensus on their interrelationships and relative importance. See some of the research here.

    The third round has barely begun, giving estimates of the pause’s duration. This might prove to be the key question. See some of the research here.

    Behind all of these is a larger debate about the reliability of the current generation of climate models (e.g. see this and this). That’s a question only time can answer.
    http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/09/04/...-change-71458/
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2014 at 08:01 PM.

  74. #1074

    Default

    Interesting discussion/debate...

    Whatever happened to global warming? - Matt Ridley
    Excerpts:

    "Let's hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity."...

    "Where's the contradiction with what I wrote? There is none. If Mr "Sachs" had bothered to read my article properly, he would find that his description of what is happening is pretty well exactly the same as mine. Except that he gives no numbers. What I did was to show that if Chen and Tung is right, and half the warming in the last part of the last century was natural, then ..."

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...l-warming.aspx
    Last edited by KC; 07-09-2014 at 11:36 AM.

  75. #1075

    Default

    Climate Science Is Not Settled - WSJ
    Excerpt:

    "The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

    ...
    "Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences."

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/clima...ightTopStories
    Last edited by KC; 20-09-2014 at 11:44 PM.

  76. #1076

    Default

    David Suzuki to burn up more fuel, on what he says is (hopefully) his last tour on environmental rights. Wonder who is paying for this tour de farce.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/enter...678/story.html
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  77. #1077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    David Suzuki to burn up more fuel, on what he says is (hopefully) his last tour on environmental rights. Wonder who is paying for this tour de farce.
    Clean water and air in the charter or rights - sure, so after legalizing pot, its then going to be illegal? Is he planning to kick Quebec out of Canada - since every second person there seems to smoke constantly, fouling up the air? And those jets he loves flying...

  78. #1078

    Default

    environment march in New York....oh, look, I have seen the bearded guy recently up north....what's that sign behind him...oh, I see, #NOKXL....



    Source:http://online.wsj.com/articles/thous...ity-1411324590

  79. #1079

    Default

    Why so much hate pointed at Canada? Since when are we the biggest offenders?

    If everyone in Canada disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would not even be perceptible on a global scale. We produce squat in terms of emissions.

  80. #1080
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ the oil sands are visually displeasing so they make good photo ops.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  81. #1081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Why so much hate pointed at Canada? Since when are we the biggest offenders?

    If everyone in Canada disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would not even be perceptible on a global scale. We produce squat in terms of emissions.
    On the news today - The US, China and India are the "biggest polluters" (of some kind(s) of pollution).



    More on Koonin's position:


    Climate Science Is Not Settled
    "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin"
    excerpt:

    "Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

    A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of..."

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/clima...ightTopStories


    And a few rebuttals:

    On eve of climate march, Wall Street Journal publishes call to wait and do nothing | Climate Science Watch
    excerpt:
    "But Koonin mis-states a number of scientific details, and ultimately lures readers toward the conclusion that climate change isn’t an urgent problem."...
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...nd-do-nothing/

  82. #1082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ the oil sands are visually displeasing so they make good photo ops.
    plus it is a "safe" cause to be involved with... from a celebrity career perspective, that is. Big oil's heft is geared towards politicians and policymakers not the entertainment/media industry.

    Contrast that with issues like the recent Israel-Palestine war...a few celebs who got carried away with notions of free speech etc, sent tweets supporting one side for instance,... they swiftly got a pat on the shoulder...accordingly they bent over and deleted their messages. tough world to be a celebrity!

  83. #1083

    Default

    China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's
    Matt McGrath

    "This development will shine an interesting light on global climate negotiations where China has often used its relatively low per capita emissions to argue that it is on the same page as other developing countries, and that restrictions on its use of carbon were not justified."
    ...
    "Prof Corinne Le Quere from the University of East Anglia, who is also involved with Carbon Project, said that a significant proportion of China's emissions were in fact, driven by demand from consumers in Europe and the US."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
    Last edited by KC; 23-09-2014 at 01:11 PM.

  84. #1084

    Default China says sure, but only if we pay for it

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09...-rebuts-obama/

    Yeah, lets give billions of dollars to an industrial competitior - or hamstring our industry by imposing restrictions that they won't, that makes sense doesn't it?

    There is perhaps one major exception: “Commitments by developed country Parties [to the new treaty] on providing finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties shall be of the same legal bindingness as their mitigation commitments.”

    In other words: pay-as-you-go on “climate change” means that so far as China is concerned, the U.S. and other advanced countries should do all the paying, and most of the going.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09...-rebuts-obama/

  85. #1085
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,436

    Default

    They might have somewhat of a point. While current annual emissions going forward are what are going to get us in to more trouble down the road, cumulative emissions should be looked at as well, as those are what have caused the current warming and even in the absence of any further emissions would continue to warm the planet for centuries. But even by that metric, China doesn't look so hot:

    http://timeforchange.org/cumulative-...ons-by-country

    Then again, if you adjust it on a current population per capita basis, they'd be way, way down the list. China's produced about 4 times as much emissions in the past century and a bit as Canada has, but close to 40 times as many people currently.

  86. #1086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    They might have somewhat of a point. While current annual emissions going forward are what are going to get us in to more trouble down the road, cumulative emissions should be looked at as well, as those are what have caused the current warming and even in the absence of any further emissions would continue to warm the planet for centuries. But even by that metric, China doesn't look so hot:

    http://timeforchange.org/cumulative-...ons-by-country

    Then again, if you adjust it on a current population per capita basis, they'd be way, way down the list. China's produced about 4 times as much emissions in the past century and a bit as Canada has, but close to 40 times as many people currently.
    That last per capita point is a democratic convention. Test it based on the number of individual decision makers actually writing the laws and regulation and you might be able to blame the few leaders of the Chinese communist party for creating a lot of pollution.

  87. #1087
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    But we produce a heck of a lot per capita, even with all the hydroelectricity use in other parts of the country. Saying we don't matter is just the same as each of us saying that we're so small that our part doesn't matter. It's kinda true, but every. single. person's. use is so small is to be negligible. It's the aggregate that matters and if we won't do our part then we shouldn't expect anyone else to either. Not even jet-setting Leo. Sure, he may produce more emissions than you do, but like him we're in that global 1% worst.

    It's time for a substantial carbon tax.

  88. #1088

    Default

    ^the last thing Alberta needs is a carbon tax. Keep in mind, we aren't just producing for us, we are producing for other countries. If weren't producing, other countries would be producing in even more poluting ways (our environmental standards are way higher for example, than the middle east or south america).

  89. #1089
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,501

    Default

    ^ Depends what kind of pollution you are talking about. I'm sure there has been plenty of oil and toxic drilling fluids spilled on middle eastern deserts, but extracting bitumen and turning it into gasoline and diesel is much more energy intensive than pumping and refining middle eastern oil. I don't think a reasonable carbon tax would kill the industry, and even if it threatened to we could temporarily cut royalties until less carbon intensive extraction methods could be implemented.

  90. #1090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ Depends what kind of pollution you are talking about. I'm sure there has been plenty of oil and toxic drilling fluids spilled on middle eastern deserts, but extracting bitumen and turning it into gasoline and diesel is much more energy intensive than pumping and refining middle eastern oil. I don't think a reasonable carbon tax would kill the industry, and even if it threatened to we could temporarily cut royalties until less carbon intensive extraction methods could be implemented.
    Cut royalties?! Cut production. I own a piece of that resource and would rather we lock it into the ground for the next generation rather than give it away.

  91. #1091
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the last thing Alberta needs is a carbon tax. Keep in mind, we aren't just producing for us, we are producing for other countries. If weren't producing, other countries would be producing in even more poluting ways (our environmental standards are way higher for example, than the middle east or south america).
    If structured the same as BC and other jurisdictions, a carbon tax would be on Alberta domestic consumption, not production. Could even be structured to be revenue neutral.

  92. #1092

    Default

    Alberta is handing the environment portfolio over to the Americans. Alberta's environmental regulations and enforcement is a joke.

    “These are not small decisions; these are people deciding to put a petrochemical plant on the U.S. side of the border with the consequence we don’t just lose a handful of jobs, we lose entire industrial facilities for generations,” Prentice told the Journal on Wednesday.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin..._lsa=6335-820e

  93. #1093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Cut royalties?! Cut production. I own a piece of that resource and would rather we lock it into the ground for the next generation rather than give it away.
    It's a valuable resource now, what makes you know for sure it will always be so valuable in the future? With Tesla building giga battery factories, and fuel cells finally about to hit comercialization, technology is already moving rapidly. Anyway, what's going to pay for Albertas universities, highly paid teachers, and stupidly expensive health care, if you leave it in the ground?

  94. #1094

    Default

    Gee, maybe we should have been diversifying the economy for all these years rather than tying ourselves ever tighter to oil. Nah, never happen. Alberta's proud to be an exporter of the lowest value form of out resources. Dig it up, ship it out. Forget about "value added." That's Commie talk!
    .

  95. #1095

    Default

    ^ there are massive oil reserves all over the world now. Albertas advantage, the reason why we are so wealthy (eg very high salaries) is because of the oil and gas technology and infrastructure we have. Take that away and our economy won't divversify, rather, it will collapse and salaries will resemble Montana's, just look at Detroit or Steel belt towns, you have to make hay while the sun shines, and it's shining now. Without the cash Alberta earns (and it won't if the prices go higher to extract here than elsewhere due to greed, it's already a fine margin given the transport difficulties), there won't be cash to attract and pay for expensive research professors, heart surgeons, etc.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-09-2014 at 11:01 PM.

  96. #1096

    Default

    But we've had decades to diversify and what haste we accomplished? We're "Little Ptero-State on the Prairie". The oil market sneezes and we catch cold. But we continue putting all our eggs into one large basket and hope that they don't break.

    The Heritage fund was supposed to help wean us off being so dependent on oil. But we haven't even kept up with inflation with it. Cut back on the royalties, a few election bribes such as Ralph Bucks, and the heritage fund is worth less than half what it was 20 years ago once inflation is factored in. So we don't even have the cushion any longer. Each time oil dips, we fall even further behind. And what do we do? Cut royalties again in hopes that someone will build another extraction plant so we can ship out the raw material for the lowest possible price.

    Detroit did make hay while the sun shone and then, when it got cloudy they didn't have anything to fall back on. Sound familiar? They didn't think it could happen to them either.

  97. #1097

    Default

    ^Regardless, putting in place a carbon tax now is just going to make it more attractive for capital to invest even more in the Baken in the US where there is no carbon tax, rather than here in Alberta. Why would you build a petrochemical plant in Alberta if there's a carbon tax that will hit it, when you can build one in the US without that? Without that investment, there goes all those jobs in Leduc building equipment for the oil sands, or expansions in the Heartland, there goes all the tax that gets paid from that to fund the highly inflated salaries our government funded workers earn (compared to other places). Its a fine line, it won't take much for it tip in favour of production elsewhere, and no, those jobs aren't going to replaced my magical fairy dust diversified jobs. Yes, we have had some sucess with pharmaceuticals, software and similar (using oil and gas money to fund projects in our univiserties), but it's a very tough sell for a software or other company to come set up here, given how high our salaries are (a good thing for those of us here), and, I hate to say it, a lot of people would rather be in a warmer climate. If it weren't for Oil and gas, we would have a farming population like Montana, and that would be it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-09-2014 at 07:20 AM.

  98. #1098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Cut royalties?! Cut production. I own a piece of that resource and would rather we lock it into the ground for the next generation rather than give it away.
    It's a valuable resource now, what makes you know for sure it will always be so valuable in the future? With Tesla building giga battery factories, and fuel cells finally about to hit comercialization, technology is already moving rapidly. Anyway, what's going to pay for Albertas universities, highly paid teachers, and stupidly expensive health care, if you leave it in the ground?
    You may be right, it could go the way of coal. The natural gas though could be valuable for fertilizer and other products for centuries.

    However, if anyone buys the idea that we should drill while the drilling is good, should then be suggesting that royalties be maximized and a significant chunk of the proceeds banked in the heritage trust fund since we've basically won the lottery - and who, besides society's many leeches, advises lottery winners to blow their winnings on current consumption? It's pretty obvious that our spending for decades has not resulted in a diversified economy.

  99. #1099

    Default

    ^nobody will drill here if there is a carbon tax or if the royalties result in costs that are higher than doing the same drilling in South Dakota which is also closer to market so shorter train distance for the Oil (since we can't get pipelines through). Why would you? We have to compete, if we want the revenue - and we need the revenue desperatley given our massive government spending.

  100. #1100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Regardless, putting in place a carbon tax now is just going to make it more attractive for capital to invest even more in the Baken in the US where there is no carbon tax, rather than here in Alberta. Why would you build a petrochemical plant in Alberta if there's a carbon tax that will hit it, when you can build one in the US without that? Without that investment, there goes all those jobs in Leduc building equipment for the oil sands, or expansions in the Heartland, there goes all the tax that gets paid from that to fund the highly inflated salaries our government funded workers earn (compared to other places). Its a fine line, it won't take much for it tip in favour of production elsewhere, and no, those jobs aren't going to replaced my magical fairy dust diversified jobs. Yes, we have had some sucess with pharmaceuticals, software and similar (using oil and gas money to fund projects in our univiserties), but it's a very tough sell for a software or other company to come set up here, given how high our salaries are (a good thing for those of us here), and, I hate to say it, a lot of people would rather be in a warmer climate. If it weren't for Oil and gas, we would have a farming population like Montana, and that would be it.

    I tend to agree. However, why encourage a situation where in-migration sucks us dry potentially stranding us with a Detroit style situation where we have abandoned infrastructure and the wealth earned here just flees when things turn down. We risk being a net looser in the end. As a province we should only encourage profitable resource development with profitability being defined as lasting wealth creation in the long run. We should not encourage a continual dilution of the existing resource base across an ever larger population that in the end will only strand us with unsustainable infrastructure problems and ever higher costs.

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •