Report: U.S. wind energy sector booming - jobs up 20% in 2 years in Texas

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

There is zero scientific evidence that links CO2 levels with flooding in Miami. Zero. Completely anecdotal.

People are living longer thanks to "global warming". My dog is happier thanks to global warming. etc

Do you know how long it's been known that increased CO2 increases climate temperature?

Hint: long before anyone on this board was born. Or their parents.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do you know how long it's been known that increased CO2 increases climate temperature?

Hint: long before anyone on this board was born. Or their parents.

Urinating in the ocean also increases mean sea level, but it would be wrong to attribute tides to it.

[Sundancefisher]

Apparently you can get a wind subsidy to install a wind turbine then a subsidy to remove it after it fails to be economic.

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2...o-be-returned/

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ore-wind-farms

Failed power plan.

Greenies say making consumers pay twice the cost of power is not a subsidy.

[Sundancefisher]

So on top of all the subsidies Germany paid operators paid $548 MM to stop turbines.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/29/ge...n-to-sit-idle/

Welcome to green waste.

Big business wind makes money regardless.

Wonderful.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do you know how long it's been known that increased CO2 increases climate temperature?

Hint: long before anyone on this board was born. Or their parents.

Strange his the same scientists said an ice age was coming in 1970.

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

Are you making things up again?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do you know how long it's been known that increased CO2 increases climate temperature?

Hint: long before anyone on this board was born. Or their parents.

I would love to hear how long it's been "known". Show me the evidence.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Strange his the same scientists said an ice age was coming in 1970.

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

Are you making things up again?

You have been shown this 1956 article before, but here, to remind you:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...w/warm1956.pdf

And I have shown this link before. Imagine that, concerns starting to be express way back when? 1826? That CO2 impacts global warming in 1896.
Of earlier science indicating the same back in, oh, look at that Civil War days, in 1861.

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Pa...ndall-1861.pdf

This ain't new stuff, Sundance. The science has been around for a long, long time, and keeps getting more accurate, as science usually does.

Now, don't snow the snowman, OK?

P.S. You must of known I had these links handy, as they have all been shown to you before.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

You have been shown this 1956 article before, but here, to remind you:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...w/warm1956.pdf

And I have shown this link before. Imagine that, concerns starting to be express way back when? 1826? That CO2 impacts global warming in 1896.
Of earlier science indicating the same back in, oh, look at that Civil War days, in 1861.

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Pa...ndall-1861.pdf

This ain't new stuff, Sundance. The science has been around for a long, long time, and keeps getting more accurate, as science usually does.

Now, don't snow the snowman, OK?

P.S. You must of known I had these links handy, as they have all been shown to you before.

"Concerns" "May cause"

Perfect!!

NONE of that is confirmed science. They are guesses. That's it. Although given your belief in AGW I can understand your confusion.


That's about the same as it is now. It's a best guess if man made CO2 causes any amount of warming.

The last 15 years there's been a pause in warming...all the while CO2 levels have been increasing. Not very convincing when you plug it into the old scientific model.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

"Concerns" "May cause"

Perfect!!

NONE of that is confirmed science. They are guesses. That's it. Although given your belief in AGW I can understand your confusion.

You haven't read many scientific papers, have you? That is ALWAYS the terminology used. Go read some in whatever your favorite branch of science may be.

Seriously, go read some. You won't find different terminology.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

You haven't read many scientific papers, have you? That is ALWAYS the terminology used. Go read some in whatever your favorite branch of science may be.

Seriously, go read some. You won't find different terminology.

I've been reading scientific papers for the last 30 years thanks. And 4 years in the University library with my nose buried in science papers. You don't see any scientific papers that say gravity "may" keep you on the ground. Or water "may" become less dense when it freezes.

CO2 guesses are the hallmarks of a hypothesis...not scientific conclusion.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

You have been shown this 1956 article before, but here, to remind you:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...w/warm1956.pdf

And I have shown this link before. Imagine that, concerns starting to be express way back when? 1826? That CO2 impacts global warming in 1896.
Of earlier science indicating the same back in, oh, look at that Civil War days, in 1861.

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Pa...ndall-1861.pdf

This ain't new stuff, Sundance. The science has been around for a long, long time, and keeps getting more accurate, as science usually does.

Now, don't snow the snowman, OK?

P.S. You must of known I had these links handy, as they have all been shown to you before.

So what you say is all the scientists were saying global warming causing CO2 was causing an ice age?

Lol

No comment on all the scientists in the 1970's disagreeing with you eh.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I've been reading scientific papers for the last 30 years thanks. And 4 years in the University library with my nose buried in science papers. You don't see any scientific papers that say gravity "may" keep you on the ground. Or water "may" become less dense when it freezes.

CO2 guesses are the hallmarks of a hypothesis...not scientific conclusion.

Yes. And the latest guesses/models failed on key points.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...g-rain-drough/

[Sundancefisher]

Antarctica's ice has been growing in volume since the 1970's. This is during the belief that man is warming the earth.

Now MIT says indeed the southern oceans are cooling while the north is warming.

To protect funding...funny how they have to state it is cooling before warming.

http://oceans.mit.edu/news/featured-...-warming-world

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

You haven't read many scientific papers, have you? That is ALWAYS the terminology used. Go read some in whatever your favorite branch of science may be.

Seriously, go read some. You won't find different terminology.

I figured out the terminology problem. We tend to read factual, proven articles while much of your information is based on theory and ideas.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by avb3

You seem to forget two things. First of all, the resource extract are a depleting resource that belong to the people of Alberta. No sucking of the O&G teat, Alberta has had very competitive royalty and tax rates, which every review has indicated. Some think they should be higher, but that is a philosophical and political argument. Reality is that the system has worked for all Albertans.

Who has benefited from that activity? Certainly employees and Albertans, but most of all, the O&G companies. Why in the name of whatever you think might be holy should Albertans now have to pick up the liability when the major benefit was O&G. Why should O&G get that free ride and subsidy?



You're assuming that a sea change is not occurring in energy production. Conventional reserves are rapidly declining; how much more should O&G by paying? As indicated, we just went through a royalty review, and it ain't changing. As production, especially conventional declines, and more and more wells get shut in, how many do you think are going to be abandoned? When you see companies like Murphy and Husky having problems, this is no longer just a junior issue. Reality.



You don't think that pipelines, and other metal infrastructure used in O&G production cycle are not being smelted? Really? And the chemicals used in O&G are labelled hazardous for a reason, and we are pumping it into our water tables. Not the wisest choice, I would suggest. Never mind using good water for SAGD. We know that water is a limiting resource, and when you can start watering cattle with oil, and have humans drink it, let us know. Just look at what has happened to the lakes in the Cold Lake area... it's been a disaster, and one that groups like the AFGA expressed concern about 20 some and more years ago.



I've expressed this before; I used to be a climate change denier, like many on this board. I then looked at the real science, actually had a chance day long meeting with a real climatologist about 12 years ago, did a lot of reading of not blogs, but science journals and slowly, reluctantly, I changed my mind. Maybe it helps that I am not employed by the O&G industry, and am not bound to it for my livelihood. I suspect that influences many on this board who will not look at the real science, but think that Andrew Watts and the Heritage Foundation are the best and most accurate sources of information.

Change is happening a lot quicker than I expected. The impacts of climate change are real (come to Miami where spring tides flood it every month now, and mangroves are moving north), and the change in energy production is changing much quicker than one would have thought. We need to embrace that as part of the mix, as oil will always be needed for at least some applications.

I'm not going to argue climate change. It most certainly is happening and will continue to happen with or without man made greenhouse gases. Has been since the dawn of the earth and there is no shortage of evidence to show such. Also global warming whether by man or nature is not only going to bring negative change. There will be plenty of positives. Why is that not allowed to be mentioned hmmmmm. Much will depend on where you live as to whether life improves or declines. Everyone is just fixated on extrapolating out the most negative scenario's in every situation at this point. Its human nature but it is very misleading none the less.

But yes in the end man may be accelerating the change. I've got no problem accepting that as a possibility. BUT that has absolutely no impact on the practical realities of our current "green" energy alternatives. We can't just blink and demand a viable alternative to solve all or any problem and have it just appear. You still aren't answering any of the very relevant technical questions I'm asking about the scalability of current green tech when all factors...very real factors are considered.

Just because we want and some people feel we desperately need alternatives doesn't mean they are there at our finger tips and available at the flip of a switch at the demand of a green wave of citizens. There are practical realities that transcend expectations and demands. I work in O&G but I would be more than happy to see a true breakthrough as I realize based on what I see day to day in the way of mature reservoirs that we are going to need a large scale alternative sooner rather than later. Following wishful thinking and blind trust is not going to get us to that better place however. Tonnes of research might....I sure hope!

As far as the environmental issue goes. Of course O&G has a big footprint. I didn't say anything to the contrary. I was only pointing out that the alternatives won't be much better than in anything other than reduced CO2 emissions. They are no kind of panacea. I have posted the plot of just how much global energy the O&G industry is providing. The driving force of modern society and standard of living comes at a big cost no surprise there. We have 7 billion people to satisfy. That comes at a cost. I simply aim to point out that supposed "green" energy is going to be anything but cheap... Financially or environmentally. Far far from it given current tech.

As far as the water usage/loss issue goes. Well its a bit of BS. How much free water is CREATED when that fossil fuel is burnt. I'll give you a hint. For a given well its far more than is used in drilling, fracing and consequent production of that well. Go figure one never hears that significant point in the detailed green analyses. To bring that up might get you labeled a Nazi sympathizer. Regardless, we aren't going to run out of water as my dear nephew recently claimed we would. Water is never going away. We may however out populate the worlds ability to produce fresh clean water . 7 billion people create a lot of pollution and fecal mater that foul up our renewable water sources to no end...in excess of what earths filters can handle.

To sum it all up. There are just too many people for earth to sustain at our expected standard of living regardless of energy source. I feel our fixation on global warming is detracting from even bigger issues. The source of almost every global problem is too many people. Crowding leads to pollution, wars, generally lower standard of living, strain on resources and every other life form on earth. Reality bites but it is what it is.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

You haven't read many scientific papers, have you? That is ALWAYS the terminology used. Go read some in whatever your favorite branch of science may be.

Seriously, go read some. You won't find different terminology.

In my 7 years of schooling in Earth Science I have read enough, actually, I have read some more later too (not in climatology though), but I can assure you that "might" DOESN'T mean "does". It might mean that model can explain some data within the assumptions taken, and indicates that model has understood (and significant) limitations. You will sure never see that 2x2 "might" be equal to 4.