Climate Change Dump #1

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I love all you guys but this forum has become rather stagnant, I'm going to book for a while but I'll be back some time about -40 when I have nothing better to do. Have a great summer gents I'm going to live life rather than write about stuff. It's rather selfish to the cause I plan to achieve for another, but what the hay. Don't drink and drive y'all. avb I like your train of thought, that's good fruit for thought there.



LIVE LIFE LARGE


^v^Tinda^v^

[Newview01]

Avb, I have another question, why are our electricity rates skyrocketing?

Is it due to natural gas being so cheap? Or coal being so cheap? Or..... Maybe because we are paying for inefficient energy sources and the hundreds of miles needed to transmit the electricity from who knows where they are setting up windmills now.

http://dailysignal.com/2009/09/14/wi...to-reduce-co2/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20.../#61366d3f7a9d

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Avb, I have another question, why are our electricity rates skyrocketing?

Is it due to natural gas being so cheap? Or coal being so cheap? Or..... Maybe because we are paying for inefficient energy sources and the hundreds of miles needed to transmit the electricity from who knows where they are setting up windmills now.

http://dailysignal.com/2009/09/14/wi...to-reduce-co2/

The link is from 7 years ago. Things change and have changed.Also, the link to the actual study is dead.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20.../#61366d3f7a9d

Again, a 3 year old link, and there have been some large strides made with solar since then on inefficiencies. But they do make some valid points, points that are being addressed.

To address why our price of electricity is one of the highest in North America, you can blame deregulation here in Alberta. Deregulation was suppose to get competition into the market place, and lower costs. We got snowed on that deal, badly.

I get pretty peeved that I pay more for my bill in Alberta when I am not there then I do running power in my condo in Florida. Most of that here in Alberta is not usage, but paying for transmission lines, whether I actually use them or not. I currently am looking to see if going off grid makes economic sense, as it may. As comparison, I just got back from Florida, and received my bill for May, which included running A/C as the temperatures were in the 90's. It was $66.92. Compare that to just your transmission charges here and you see what I mean.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

The link is from 7 years ago. Things change and have changed.Also, the link to the actual study is dead.



Again, a 3 year old link, and there have been some large strides made with solar since then on inefficiencies. But they do make some valid points, points that are being addressed.

To address why our price of electricity is one of the highest in North America, you can blame deregulation here in Alberta. Deregulation was suppose to get competition into the market place, and lower costs. We got snowed on that deal, badly.

I get pretty peeved that I pay more for my bill in Alberta when I am not there then I do running power in my condo in Florida. Most of that here in Alberta is not usage, but paying for transmission lines, whether I actually use them or not. I currently am looking to see if going off grid makes economic sense, as it may. As comparison, I just got back from Florida, and received my bill for May, which included running A/C as the temperatures were in the 90's. It was $66.92. Compare that to just your transmission charges here and you see what I mean.

You mean you're still using carbon based energy just because it's cheaper? Especially for frivolous things like air conditioning. Next thing you're going to tell me you have a gasoline powered car.


Your belief that CO2 is damaging the planet seems kind of hollow.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

You mean you're still using carbon based energy just because it's cheaper? Especially for frivolous things like air conditioning. Next thing you're going to tell me you have a gasoline powered car.

Yup, when it is 95 F, with 90% humidity and a dew point at 70, you turn on the AC.

Your belief that CO2 is damaging the planet seems kind of hollow.

It's not my belief. It's science. I'll match my total energy (and water) use to yours any day. Want to start this month? Is your water on a meter? Mine is in Alberta, and unfortunately included in my condo fees down south. Let's match fuel for vehicle, plus natural gas or propane for home, plus water usage. Be happy to do that.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yup, when it is 95 F, with 90% humidity and a dew point at 70, you turn on the AC.




It's not my belief. It's science. I'll match my total energy (and water) use to yours any day. Want to start this month? Is your water on a meter? Mine is in Alberta, and unfortunately included in my condo fees down south. Let's match fuel for vehicle, plus natural gas or propane for home, plus water usage. Be happy to do that.

It's not science-science. It's political "science".

I don't have any ethical obligation to reduce my CO2 emissions. I know it's not harming anything. You do. Be that as it may...the only thing running in my energy efficient house is a fridge and one or two LED lightbulbs at night. (and my mac mini (also the new energy efficient model). I don't even have AC.

I burn a ton of gas though. I use my truck for work and put on about 80,000km a year. But I don't partake in frivolous travel to faraway places for entertainment purposes. Only for work in the patch that actually saves the environment. So I get a pass for that. (heck, I probably do more for the environment in a day than you do all year)

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

It's not science-science. It's political "science".

I don't have any ethical obligation to reduce my CO2 emissions. I know it's not harming anything. You do. Be that as it may...the only thing running in my energy efficient house is a fridge and one or two LED lightbulbs at night. (and my mac mini (also the new energy efficient model). I don't even have AC.

I burn a ton of gas though. I use my truck for work and put on about 80,000km a year. But I don't partake in frivolous travel to faraway places for entertainment purposes. Only for work in the patch that actually saves the environment. So I get a pass for that. (heck, I probably do more for the environment in a day than you do all year)

We really need to meet for coffee some day and discuss this stuff eye to eye! Heck, I bet we could sell tickets to that, and raise money for our favorite hunting or conservation group (DU, AFGA, ACA, CWF, TU, RMEF or something similar like that). Might have to get Sundance in on the deal; he has opinions that match yours most of the time. That would make it fair, two on one.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

We really need to meet for coffee some day and discuss this stuff eye to eye! Heck, I bet we could sell tickets to that, and raise money for our favorite hunting or conservation group (DU, AFGA, ACA, CWF, TU, RMEF or something similar like that). Might have to get Sundance in on the deal; he has opinions that match yours most of the time. That would make it fair, two on one.

I appreciate you not taking any of this personally, as I do not. All good spirited debate with an appropriate amount of barbs thrown in for entertainment.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.


Climate Change Has Officially Engulfed 5 Pacific Islands

[/INDENT][/I]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...vel-effect-man

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming


By Barbara Hollingsworth | September 14, 2016 | 11:39 AM EDT

Still of former Vice President Al Gore in his 2006 film, "An Inconvenient Truth."


(CNSNews.com) – Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

“the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal”However, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

In another study also published in April, a research team led by Sonke Dangendorf of the Research Institute for Water and Environment at the University of Siegen, Germany said that “superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system… In the Arctic, for instance, the casual uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought.

“This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” – a period of low temperatures which occurred between 1300 and 1850.

In a fourth paper published online in January in the Journal of Coastal Research, lead author Jens Morten Hansen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and his co-authors studied sea level patterns from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea over a 160-year period (1849-2009).

“Identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes,” the researchers note.

“However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.”

In addition, the Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rising was taking.”

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yup, when it is 95 F, with 90% humidity and a dew point at 70, you turn on the AC.

That could be avoided by not traveling to a far away destination and having a second home in an area that requires AC. Sounds David Suzuki'ish to me




It's not my belief. It's science. I'll match my total energy (and water) use to yours any day. Want to start this month? Is your water on a meter? Mine is in Alberta, and unfortunately included in my condo fees down south. Let's match fuel for vehicle, plus natural gas or propane for home, plus water usage. Be happy to do that.



Kinda surprised your other residence is in a town with no local grocery shopping, requiring an hour long commute for supplies, burning up a lot of petroleum in doing so.

.

[jrowan]

From XKCD. Sure, we don't have temperatures recorded, but we can extrapolate the date from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores.

[Jigger]

Originally Posted by jrowan

From XKCD. Sure, we don't have temperatures recorded, but we can extrapolate the date from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores.

Does anyone actually take this chart seriously?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jrowan

From XKCD. Sure, we don't have temperatures recorded, but we can extrapolate the date from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores.

Nice cartoon.

Here are your factual ice core graphs. Note how it does not support your cartoon.





Remember the bias in your cartoon estimates climate over a macro period...blends what the presenter wants...when in fact temperatures rise and fall dramatically in similar short windows like actual recorded data gives us today.

Cheers

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Nice cartoon.

Here are your factual ice core graphs. Note how it does not support your cartoon.

Remember the bias in your cartoon estimates climate over a macro period...blends what the presenter wants...when in fact temperatures rise and fall dramatically in similar short windows like actual recorded data gives us today.

Cheers

but the cartoon is so cool looking

[Sooner]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

but the cartoon is so cool looking

and double quoted already a scrollin scrollin scrollin we go

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

but the cartoon is so cool looking

Yea. Wows those that take cartoons over factual conversations when making their mind up on important topics.

It is meant to mesmerize rather that provide credible debate. Great ploy when facts stear people away from an ideology.

[Sundancefisher]

a very smart guy looking at the data objectively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg

If you are a strong believer. You shouldn't watch this.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Yea. Wows those that take cartoons over factual conversations when making their mind up on important topics.

It is meant to mesmerize rather that provide credible debate. Great ploy when facts stear people away from an ideology.

Whatever it takes...

Environmentalism has become a religion.

[rugatika]

One of the first captions in the cartoon for the modern University student was that spikes in temperature had been smoothed. Like a 30 year spike in temperature wouldn't show up in the cartoon. Also note the scary extrapolation based on climate change models that have repeatedly failed to predict anything.

This is awesome watching people get sucked in to this hoax and then going to all sorts of lengths to defend their fanatic belief in it. I'll be 80 years old...still waiting for the apocalypse that was promised me. (likely fending off roaming packs of polar bears)

C'est la vie. That's what happens when you're more worried about safe spaces, 5 different genders, and women's classes on suffering () than science classes.

[Sundancefisher]

Gulf Stream slowdown tied to changes in Southern Hemisphere

Date:October 5, 2016 Source:University of Washington Summary:The ocean circulation that is responsible for England's mild climate appears to be slowing down. The shift is not sudden or dramatic, as in the 2004 sci-fi movie "The Day After Tomorrow," but it is a real effect that has consequences for the climates of eastern North America and Western Europe.

The ocean circulation that is responsible for England's mild climate appears to be slowing down. The shift is not sudden or dramatic, as in the 2004 sci-fi movie "The Day After Tomorrow," but it is a real effect that has consequences for the climates of eastern North America and Western Europe.


This is a depiction of the global ocean circulation. In the Atlantic Ocean, warm water travels north at the surface, while cooler water travels south at depth. Researchers are studying what controls the strength of this circulation.

Also unlike in that movie, and in theories of long-term climate change, these recent trends are not connected with the melting of the Arctic sea ice and buildup of freshwater near the North Pole. Instead, they seem to be connected to shifts at the southern end of the planet, according to a recent University of Washington study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"It doesn't work like in the movie, of course," said Kathryn Kelly, an oceanographer at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "The slowdown is actually happening very gradually, but it seems to be happening like predicted: It does seem to be spinning down."

The study looked at data from satellites and ocean sensors off Miami that have tracked what's known as the Atlantic overturning circulation for more than a decade. Together they show a definite slowdown since 2004, confirming a trend suspected before then from spottier data.

Looking at other observations to determine the cause, the researchers ruled out what had been the prime suspect until now: that massive melting and freshening in the North Atlantic could stop water from sinking and put the brakes on the overturning circulation, which moves warmer water north along the ocean's surface and sends cold water southward at depths.

"It appears that this 10-year slowdown is not related to salinity," Kelly said. In fact, despite more ice melt, surface water in the Arctic is getting saltier and therefore denser, she said, because of less precipitation. "That means the slowdown could not possibly be due to salinity -- it's just backwards. The North Atlantic has actually been getting saltier."

Instead, the authors saw a surprising connection with a current around the southern tip of South Africa. In what's known as the Agulhas Current, warm Indian Ocean water flows south along the African coast and around the continent's tip toward the Atlantic, but then makes a sharp turn back to join the stormy southern circumpolar current. Warm water that escapes into the Atlantic around the cape of South Africa is known as the Agulhas Leakage. The new research shows the amount of leakage changes with the quantity of heat transported northward by the overturning circulation.

"We've found that the two are connected, but I don't think we've found that one causes the other," Kelly said. "It's more likely that whatever changed the Agulhas changed the whole system."

She believes atmospheric changes may be affecting both currents simultaneously.

"Most people have thought this current should be driven by a salinity change, but maybe it's the [Southern Ocean] winds," Kelly said.

The finding could have implications for northern European and eastern U.S. climates, and for understanding how the world's oceans carry heat from the tropics toward the poles.

"I think it changes how we think about the whole Atlantic overturning circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a part," said co-author LuAnne Thompson, a UW professor of oceanography. "It brings back the role of the atmosphere into what's controlling the climate in the high latitudes, that it's not all driven by what's happening in the oceans."

And while a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and broader overturning circulation, for whatever reason, would bring less warm water to eastern North America and Western Europe, any effects are overwhelmed by the overall warming due to global climate change.

"So that whole concept in the movie of New York harbor freezing doesn't make any sense," Kelly said. "If the Gulf Stream doesn't carry as much heat from the tropics, it just means that the North Atlantic is not going to warm up as fast as the rest of the ocean -- it's not going to cool down."



Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Washington. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.



Journal Reference:
1.Kathryn A. Kelly, Kyla Drushka, LuAnne Thompson, Dewi Le Bars, Elaine L. McDonagh. Impact of slowdown of Atlantic overturning circulation on heat and freshwater transports. Geophysical Research Letters, 2016; 43 (14): 7625 DOI: 10.1002/2016GL069789

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1005084916.htm




It is incredible to think that the Earth's ocean currents are tied so closely together. South to North...even east to west. Very cool.

[Freddy]

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

I looked into other research studies and they have seen this back as far as 120,000 years ago.

This is not new. Just being better understood. The Atlantic Ossilation current has a huge impact on temperatures just like our El Niño and La Niña does in the Pacific side.

[JustMe]

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...global-warming

[Freddy]

Wonder why.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-false-claims/
Article lists top four areas where studies are dubious at best. Enviromental science,s is right in there.

[79ford]

The oceans would rise about 70 meters if antarctic melted..... seems like a bit of an issue to me, lol, people probably need to figure out the solution and the correct way to solve the problem. Most of the worlds major economic hubs and gobs of populations live pretty close to water level

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm going to quickly respond to your issue with hurricane predictions. I'm scrambling to get ready to come back up north so will not be spending much time online for the next week.

Here is a very technical but detailed analysis of what happened in 2013. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I follow this guy's postings daily. He is an expert on hurricanes.

http://stormw.wordpress.com/2013/12/...-p-m-est-phfc/

The long and short of it seems to relate to the same issue your link describes, and that is what happened with Sahara dust, as well as the lack of activity in the Madden Julian Oscillation.

It appears cooler water causes more hurricanes.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/...nd-hurricanes/

Good to see this is another thing to stop worrying about or that man is causing.

[RalphH]

avb3,

News articles written by ignorant and often very biased journalists should not be used as "proof" of anything. Any discussion about climate change should be based on long term trends and scientific evidence. It's sheer folly to look at individual weather events and claim that they're proof of climate change.

Regarding warming of the Pacific ocean, I wonder if Fukushima is involved....

[bigbaddad]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Interpitation of the modeling results are only as good as the data being fed into the modeling program.
Do you really believe this stuff as fact?

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I looked into other research studies and they have seen this back as far as 120,000 years ago.

This is not new. Just being better understood. The Atlantic Ossilation current has a huge impact on temperatures just like our El Niño and La Niña does in the Pacific side.

Who exactly saw this 120, 000 years ago?? And they recorded the data how? You have to be cautious of any "scientific claim" that begins, essentially, with" once upon a time" The device of incomprehensible amount of time is used quite freely by the "scientific community" to explain theories otherwise unprovable...

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bigbaddad

Who exactly saw this 120, 000 years ago?? And they recorded the data how? You have to be cautious of any "scientific claim" that begins, essentially, with" once upon a time" The device of incomprehensible amount of time is used quite freely by the "scientific community" to explain theories otherwise unprovable...

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

This 1000x

[Sundancefisher]

As for the above post...one has to look at studies with open eyes. I give more credence to studies that are backed with data versus guesses and computer models.