Climate Change Dump #1 - Page 6

RisingRainbows · #**151** 10-17-2016, 05:09 AM

It's too bad we can't get beyond arguing about whether climate change is caused by humans or not. I would love to see threads conversing about what we are going to do about climate change instead. It is a real issue that will have real impacts.

Sundancefisher · #**152** 10-17-2016, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

It's too bad we can't get beyond arguing about whether climate change is caused by humans or not. I would love to see threads conversing about what we are going to do about climate change instead. It is a real issue that will have real impacts.

We may be cooling now. I agree. Whether we are still warming since the last ice age or fluctuating up or down in 500 year cycles we should have crops that work in either scenario.

What do you propose?

Newview01 · #**153** 10-17-2016, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

It's too bad we can't get beyond arguing about whether climate change is caused by humans or not. I would love to see threads conversing about what we are going to do about climate change instead. It is a real issue that will have real impacts.

Lol. What is your proposal to change nature's course?

catnthehat · #**154** 10-17-2016, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

It's too bad we can't get beyond arguing about whether climate change is caused by humans or not. I would love to see threads conversing about what we are going to do about climate change instead. It is a real issue that will have real impacts.

You can debate anything you want but when the thread degrades into throwing insults that have nothing to do with the thread That is a different matter.
Cat

HighlandHeart · #**155** 10-17-2016, 08:03 AM

Maybe we should tax the sun?

6.5x47 lapua · #**156** 10-17-2016, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekred

ok arctic icecap melts what would be the net effect on ocean levels?

Same as a melting ice cube in a glass of water,

Remember back to water cycle, water on earth exists in 3 phases, solid liquid and gas.....

Ice melts into water, more water in atmosphere as temperature goes up, thus more water vapour (gas) in air (which is clear) meaning less clouds but air with water in it takes more energy to heat,

WE LIVE IN A SELF REGULATING SYSTEM....

The amount of hydrogen dioxide on the planet is fixed and finite.....

We will have extremes but the extremes self regulate, In dinosaur times North America had a warm inland sea.... then an ice age and now a melting era over past 10,000 years. It is like a pendulum and greatest velocity with a pendulum is when it is in the middle.

the planet will self regulate, Everything works on a cycle, Carbon, Oxygen, Water. It is cyclic and the cycle will continue long after our species has went through its cycle....

The world needs a bogeyman,

It was Communism, The A-bomb, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear Winter, petroleum, Depletion, the hole in the ozone, deforestation, terrorism, now it global climate change and like very bogeyman people could find "facts" to support their theory. Science is no longer about discovery but about having a theory and trying to keep it from being disproven so that they maintain funding and it requires media fueling which needs fear as a driver,

The fear industry is the worlds biggest industry....

Bravo!! You forgot to mention who besides the scientists are gonna make trillions.

dmcbride · #**157** 10-17-2016, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RisingRainbows

It's too bad we can't get beyond arguing about whether climate change is caused by humans or not. I would love to see threads conversing about what we are going to do about climate change instead. It is a real issue that will have real impacts.

I would like to see that also. Right now all I see is fear mongering that the world is going to end and if we are not taxed we are all going to die.

How about embracing climate change? It's not like the climate hasn't changed before and we can't adapt.

avb3 · #**158** 10-17-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I would like to see that also. Right now all I see is fear mongering that the world is going to end and if we are not taxed we are all going to die.

How about embracing climate change? It's not like the climate hasn't changed before and we can't adapt.

Tell that to the islanders who will be losing fresh water, including the Bahamas.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...m-from-within/

ak-71 · #**159** 10-17-2016, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Tell that to the islanders who will be losing fresh water, including the Bahamas.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...m-from-within/

AVB, don't you think that tens of billions wasted on Ontario "green" energy in recent years would have been way better spent on helping these islanders?

I mean, right now you have loads of money wasted, absolutely nothing positive achieved in any meaningful way, and no effect on ocean levels or anything related to climate at all.
The whole movement is in the mode of throwing more good money after bad, to suck some more money while it lasts.
Islanders don't benefit from it - lobbiest and politicians do, that is the only explanation of why the "green" activism is still strong - propaganda.

dmcbride · #**160** 10-17-2016, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Tell that to the islanders who will be losing fresh water, including the Bahamas.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...m-from-within/

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. Adapt.

avb3 · #**161** 10-17-2016, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak-71

AVB, don't you think that tens of billions wasted on Ontario "green" energy in recent years would have been way better spent on helping these islanders?

I mean, right now you have loads of money wasted, absolutely nothing positive achieved in any meaningful way, and no effect on ocean levels or anything related to climate at all.
The whole movement is in the mode of throwing more good money after bad, to suck some more money while it lasts.
Islanders don't benefit from it - lobbiest and politicians do, that is the only explanation of why the "green" activism is still strong - propaganda.

It's taken years for deniers to even admit that the earth is warming. The vast majority now agree it is, but even on this board, we see those that link to denier sites that say the obverse is happening.

Until we agree on the problem, how is it to be solved? If there are people (like Trump) who promote the concept that global warming is not happening, you will always get outliers (and those that deny warming are primarily in the USA and western Canada) who won't accept the settled science.

The rest of the world, including India and China, get it.

dmcbride · #**162** 10-17-2016, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

It's taken years for deniers to even admit that the earth is warming. The vast majority now agree it is, but even on this board, we see those that link to denier sites that say the obverse is happening.

Until we agree on the problem, how is it to be solved? If there are people (like Trump) who promote the concept that global warming is not happening, you will always get outliers (and those that deny warming are primarily in the USA and western Canada) who won't accept the settled science.

The rest of the world, including India and China, get it.

Lol. they really don't have a choice if they wish to continue trading with other countries who think science is settled.

Just some information, Science is never settled.

ak-71 · #**163** 10-17-2016, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

It's taken years for deniers to even admit that the earth is warming. The vast majority now agree it is, but even on this board, we see those that link to denier sites that say the obverse is happening.

Until we agree on the problem, how is it to be solved? If there are people (like Trump) who promote the concept that global warming is not happening, you will always get outliers (and those that deny warming are primarily in the USA and western Canada) who won't accept the settled science.

The rest of the world, including India and China, get it.

First, let's keep it civil. And for the record, once again, as I said dozens of times before - I am not a "denier".
Just not a blind believer or a priest of the movement.

Second, look at the video (15 sec to load) where, how "green" solar panels are made and what, actually, powers the process. And, please, comment.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015...rivers-dnt.cnn

You can keep deny the failure of current approach all you want, but it is undeniable for any person who doesn't have stakes in professional activism.
Somebody should get all this energy back to the drawing board.

BTW, as anybody else who took some geology in school I know that climate is changing.

avb3 · #**164** 10-17-2016, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak-71

First, let's keep it civil. And for the record, once again, as I said dozens of times before - I am not a "denier".
Just not a blind believer or a priest of the movement.

Cool, many here still are though.

Quote:

Second, look at the video (15 sec to load) where, how "green" solar panels are made and what, actually, powers the process. And, please, comment.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015...rivers-dnt.cnn

Pretty ugly stuff. I remember what the Ruhr area in Germany looked like in the early '70's and surprised how much it was cleaned up when I last visited there 10 years ago. The Ruhr pretty much looked like your video; today, one sees a ton of wind and solar as opposed to the belching of coal.

And no one is suggesting change will be easy.

Quote:

You can keep deny the failure of current approach all you want, but it is undeniable for any person who doesn't have stakes in professional activism.
Somebody should get all this energy back to the drawing board.

BTW, as anybody else who took some geology in school I know that climate is changing.

See my comments on the Ruhr.

avb3 · #**165** 10-17-2016, 12:50 PM

Aaaannnnnddd.....

We have another record warm month in September, globally.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/s...e-change-20791

ak-71 · #**166** 10-17-2016, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Pretty ugly stuff. I remember what the Ruhr area in Germany looked like in the early '70's and surprised how much it was cleaned up when I last visited there 10 years ago. The Ruhr pretty much looked like your video; today, one sees a ton of wind and solar as opposed to the belching of coal.

So now China looks way worse than Germany would if they would not switch, or, at least not outsourced the pollution somewhere else to go solar

. Waste of money and environment, feel good laws at reduced efficiency of the process.

BTW, to clarify, as anybody who took any geology in school I know that climate change. It has changed both ways and for many times was much warmer than now, as well as cooler than now. CO2 varied a lot too with typical values much higher than now. It does somehow always returns to equilibrium, even after the most catastrophic, sudden, cosmic events.
I am not a denier, just like yourself I don't posses technical knowledge and time to form my own informed opinion on man made climate change.

Sundancefisher · #**167** 10-17-2016, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Cool, many here still are though.

Pretty ugly stuff. I remember what the Ruhr area in Germany looked like in the early '70's and surprised how much it was cleaned up when I last visited there 10 years ago. The Ruhr pretty much looked like your video; today, one sees a ton of wind and solar as opposed to the belching of coal.

And no one is suggesting change will be easy.

See my comments on the Ruhr.

I don't believe in the term denier nor do I consider myself a denier. I have a science degree and I use critical thinking as a result.

Anyone talking long term climate changes new that since the last ice age we have been warming. No one has ever denied that in any scope unless mixed up with the following.

Anthropogenic global warming is what still sees the unsettle science in. From no impact on sea levels to no impact on Hurricanes to growing Antarctic ice since 1970 etc. Not to keep pointing it out... however some don't follow...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3
However, I have never bought into any kind of groupthink. Of any kind, whether it is religion, politics, nationalism or any other kind of philosophy.

Some do see this topic as a total groupthink from the media sensationalism to the constant drive to disallow any contrary thinking in any forum.

avb3 · #**168** 10-17-2016, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak-71

So now China looks way worse than Germany would if they would not switch, or, at least not outsourced the pollution somewhere else to go solar

. Waste of money and environment, feel good laws at reduced efficiency of the process.

BTW, to clarify, as anybody who took any geology in school I know that climate change. It has changed both ways and for many times was much warmer than now, as well as cooler than now. CO2 varied a lot too with typical values much higher than now. It does somehow always returns to equilibrium, even after the most catastrophic, sudden, cosmic events.
I am not a denier, just like yourself I don't posses technical knowledge and time to form my own informed opinion on man made climate change.

Just wondering, are you aware that this is the first time that CO2 is rising before temperatures rise, rather than when it occurred previously CO2 always, always trailed the temperature rise.

ak-71 · #**169** 10-17-2016, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Just wondering, are you aware that this is the first time that CO2 is rising before temperatures rise, rather than when it occurred previously CO2 always, always trailed the temperature rise.

Let us not plunge this thread into yet another amature pseudo-scientific climate change discussion, it is getting old.

The Elkster · #**170** 10-17-2016, 02:17 PM

Global warming argument aside. We certainly will run short of fossil fuels and do need alternate energy sources. What I find disconcerting is the wishful thinking has pervaided the wind and solar discussion. So little has been made of the practical realities of scaling up these low energy density sources. Anyone who dares questions the very real problems that face those industries are screamed at and accused of being deniers. I really do hope they pan out but all the numbers say they are a long long way from making a dent in global energy demand. Given the practical constraints on those sources its truly scary to think those are the main sources we are leaning on to move us into the future. Maybe we should take a long hard look at the science before we hang our hats on those sources. At the extremely low relative energy returns on those relative to oil the new infrastructure will have to be massive in order to maintain the same net consumable energy output that fossil fuels currently contribute. The environmental impacts will prove very real as attempts continue to scale this up in any meaningful way.

ABV you don't do anyone any favors by pumping wind and solar growth without considering where they sit in the energy mix (almost don't register as a percentage of global energy consumption). And that's after massive effort as you continually pump. Most supporters have no clue or choose not to consider the logistics of what it will take to move them into a realm of taking over for fossil fuels. Wishful thinking will not get us there. I don't want to see tiny examples of a place with perfect conditions where a tiny percentage of overall energy demand of a very low population density country has been satisfied intermittently. I want to see how its going to be scaled up in a meaningful way, reliably and on a stand alone basis, given all limitations in geographic locations and considering population densities around the world. I want to see how its going to steadily and reliably replace large portions of our energy demand beyond token amounts as it is today.

As far as economics. Currently most of the supposed "subsidies" to oil and gas is in the form of tax breaks. Companies are not being given money/grants and they still pay a sizable portion of the tax burden even after the so called subsidies. So if we are talking apples to apples economics of energy replacement then I want see the proportion of taxes that would have been applied to oil companies be charged against the replacement wind/solar to get a true idea of the overall cost equivalent. Because we all know the tax bill isn't going down and the tax money will have to come from somewhere if not charged to wind and solar. Where the money ultimately comes from is the tax payer either way resulting in a smaller pocket book for the consumer.

Just some food for thought. Enough with the pumping. Lets keep this thing real with real facts and perspectives. Wishful thinking might make us feel better but it won't get us very far down the energy road.

Sundancefisher · #**171** 10-17-2016, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Just wondering, are you aware that this is the first time that CO2 is rising before temperatures rise, rather than when it occurred previously CO2 always, always trailed the temperature rise.

Incorrect.

In the Jurassic the CO2 levels rose far more massively than it is now.

Currently we sit at 401.70 ppm.

During the Jurassic the CO2 levels went from 1500 to 2500 ppm at the same time temperatures fell from 25 to 15 degrees C.

During the Ordovician the temperature plummeted from 25 to 10 degrees C while the CO2 levels went up slightly.

So does temperature drive CO2 or does CO2 drive temperature or does correlation not imply causation?

Remember that during these times likely there were wide swings over short 500 year cycles that are blended out due to data sources.

Freddy · #**172** 10-17-2016, 03:27 PM

The running out of oil. Well the new peak oil theory came out in 1956 and was supposed to peak about 1970. Theory was first introduced in 1919.
Well the theory had been redated a few times already. New technology are continually being refined. 20 years ago nobody could have predicted the sustainability of shale gas oil projects in north america.
Opec has the ability to flood the market with oil. We are not going to be running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

avb3 · #**173** 10-17-2016, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak-71

Let us not plunge this thread into yet another amature pseudo-scientific climate change discussion, it is getting old.

Except what I said no one denies.

ak-71 · #**174** 10-17-2016, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Except what I said no one denies.

Didn't Gore stated the opposite in some movie, sorry,you asked for it. Common, let's stop this amature discussion, it is laughable, really.

avb3 · #**175** 10-17-2016, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak-71

Didn't Gore stated the opposite in some movie, sorry,you asked for it. Common, let's stop this amature discussion, it is laughable, really.

Gore is a promoter, not a scientist

ak-71 · #**176** 10-17-2016, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Gore is a promoter, not a scientist

Neither are both of us.

PS. I mean scientists, not sure about promoters

. Sorry you asked for it again.

The Elkster · #**177** 10-17-2016, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy

The running out of oil. Well the new peak oil theory came out in 1956 and was supposed to peak about 1970. Theory was first introduced in 1919.
Well the theory had been redated a few times already. New technology are continually being refined. 20 years ago nobody could have predicted the sustainability of shale gas oil projects in north america.
Opec has the ability to flood the market with oil. We are not going to be running out of fossil fuels anytime soon.

OPEC does not have the ability to flood the market and have not done so contrary to headlines. At this point OPEC basically has no excess production in reserve which is historically unprecedented and has very limited means of moving things up from here. The only real run up over the last 10 years came as a result of one OPEC country meaningfully increasing production by the drill bit...Iraq (+2.5 million). That combined with the US/Canadian production growth (+4-5 million) and removal of sanctions in Iran (+2.5 million) created the perfect storm for the short term glut we have today. Iran's production increase however was a result of removal of artificial suppression via sanctions rather than a result of a great production increase due to unlimited production potential.

Saudi production capacity has hardly moved despite the myriad of headlines to the contrary. Maybe 100k bbl here and there but meaningless moves in the face of global demand. What SA have done is choose to not choke back any production and promise to be the moderating force to balance supply and demand and hold a reserve in case of upsets. This has lead in part to the short term glut and a very negative market reaction but also means nobody is holding any supply potential in reserve for future upsets. What you see is what you get like it or not. We have not seen that at any time since I don't know when. In the 80's SA had 10million BPD of excess production capacity behind pipe and ready to use if need be and up until recently they always had at least 2-3 million. If we take a big player off line today nobody has the production to make up for it. As a result look for wild price swings in the future.

US shale is also on the decline and has been overhyped for what it is. Its for lack of a better work craping the bottom of the barrel for the US onshore. Its more a story of huge money spent on tonnes of meters drilled rather than technology. Its so marginal many companies were losing money even when oil was +$100/bbl. Much of the best stuff has already been carpet bombed and the rest will be drilled up in short order if prices rebound. Recovery factors are very low in this crap rock and as a result recoverable reserves have been greatly exaggerated. Fantastical headlines "Original oil in place" numbers are very misleading to those that don't understand reservoir engineering.

Ultimately its not about running out of oil that matters. Its about not being able to supply all +90 million barrels per day. Just look at what a 1-2 million bbl oversupply or shortfall does to price. Consider a 5 million BPD shortfall. It would have profound impacts. We aren't going to run out of oil any time soon. We are going to run short of oil far sooner than many believe.

dances with gophers · #**178** 10-17-2016, 06:19 PM

the planet is sick but dont worry potato head will fix it with a tax .
and that my friends is what the whole global warming scam is about , its a feelgood tax . to make people pay more taxes and telling them its good for the planet

avb3 · #**179** 10-17-2016, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dances with gophers

the planet is sick but dont worry potato head will fix it with a tax .
and that my friends is what the whole global warming scam is about , its a feelgood tax . to make people pay more taxes and telling them its good for the planet

Governments don't need an excuse to raise taxes. Just look at our federal and provincial ones.

ak-71 · #**180** 10-17-2016, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avb3

Governments don't need an excuse to raise taxes. Just look at our federal and provincial ones.

Of coarse they do, just look at the "carbon tax" - much easier to make them youtube ads for poor kids in polluted Alberta (like, really???) than ads saying "we want more of your money".
Politicians like to look good, right, AVB?