WunderBlog Archive » Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Setting Up the Discussion: What Can I Do? (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood, 5:38 AM GMT on March 25, 2013

Setting Up the Discussion: What Can I Do? (1)

This is the start of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” This is a question that always comes from the audience when I am out giving talks. There are some canned answers. There are many websites that have lists. I will summarize this basic information, and I intend to synthesize this information and look beyond the canned answers.

In class, I always start this discussion with the most basic decision – whether or not to do anything. This is not meant to be flippant. There are those who for reasons of belief, priority, cost or uncertainty think that the right decision is to do nothing. Readers of my blog know that I think that the decision to do nothing is irresponsible because the do-nothing decision increases risk and places us at an economic and technological disadvantage.

Assuming, therefore, the decision is to do something, then how can that response be framed? Traditionally, the response has been broken into two parts. We can “mitigate” or we can “adapt” (2007 Rood Blog on Mitigation and Adaptation). Mitigation is the reduction or elimination of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to limit the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This response would limit the amount of warming. Adaptation is responding to the consequences of the warming planet, perhaps fixing the problems the best we can as they arise. The first item of the answer to what to do is that we, collectively, need to both mitigate and adapt. We will be forced to adapt and to control the extent and cost of adaptation we need to mitigate (What Can’t We Just Adapt?).

There is another response that needs to be mentioned early on in the conversation, “geoengineering.” Geoengineering is a deliberate intervention to control the energy flow in the Earth’s climate; for example, reflecting energy from the Sun back to space (Blog with Good Geoengineering Figure). Geoengineering is a big prickly subject, and for the time being I will consider it a form of mitigation or adaptation.

A couple of blogs earlier I wrote about barriers that we make with language. During much of the 1990s the conversation was driven by mitigation. We passed resolutions and treaties that said we would limit carbon dioxide emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. Discussion of adaptation was off limits, with the idea that if we allowed discussion of adaptation, then we would decide we could adapt and we would be less inclined to mitigate. The language became more convoluted even as the emissions of carbon dioxide increased. We could not address adaptation, because that would affirm that global warming was real, and that was politically taboo. The result of this word play is that we delay, increasing risk, losing opportunity. In 2007, I participated in an adaptation conference, which was considered edgy. I see no evidence that avoiding subjects improves our response to climate change; therefore, the second item is to overcome the political and emotional barriers associated with language.

Going back to the original question from the audience, what can I do about climate change, I think it safe to say that when most people ask this question they mean what can an individual do to mitigate climate change – to reduce emissions? The easy answer is to talk about individual behaviors and specifically doing things that make more efficient use of energy. Figure 1 is from McKinsey and Company, which has performed many cost-based analyses about the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Reduction of carbon dioxide in their analyses is called “abatement.”



Figure 1: In this figure the cost of reducing emission of carbon dioxide is on the vertical axis. The width of the bars are an indication of how much carbon dioxide reduction, called abatement in the figure, can be achieved by a particular action. The sum of all of the widths along the horizontal axis is a measure of the total that can be achieved. For the discussion in this blog, focusing on the left side of the figure, we can achieve about 20 % of the needed reduction by taking actions that save money. Individuals can start here to take action to mitigate climate change (Towards Climate Neutrality).

The vertical axis on the left is cost per ton of emitted carbon dioxide. Focusing on the left side of the figure, the green bars are all negative, and these are things that can be done to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that will reduce cost. This figure gives a foundation for talking about efficiency. Building insulation emerges as the place where there is both a large savings of money with a large impact on emission reductions. The different bars are commercial and residential buildings. Looking at the combination of cost and impact, fuel efficiency, lighting systems, air conditioning and water heating all save money with significant reduction of emissions (U.N. Foundation: Realizing Energy Efficiency).

At the top of the list for what to do, individuals have a lot of opportunity to make a difference with choices about efficient use of energy. Examining the options, there is also the opportunity for collective behavior to accelerate the impact of individuals. There is the potential of impact both at home and in decisions about commercial spaces and transportation. There is opportunity to organize neighborhoods, communities, and cities. Hence, following the decision for personal action, the next place a person can make a difference is in organizing collective behavior.

r

Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Quoting Ricky Rood:
I see no evidence that avoiding subjects improves our response to climate change...
Now, if that isn't the understatement of the year... ;-)

As uncomfortable as some get when others speak of climate change--mitigation, adaptation, or just the basic facts of the matter--they're simply going to have to deal with it, because we, those who know that science trumps all else, aren't going away. Ever. As I and others learned long ago, being politely silent lest we step on any sensitive ideological or financial toes makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and only serves to nudge civilization closer to the precipice. Such silence is cowardly. Such silence is suicidal. And the time for such silence is long past.

Looking at that graph, it's amazing just how large a reduction in emissions could be realized with things as simple as improved insulation or more efficient air conditioning. Those aren't anywhere near as sexy or exotic as, say, filling the stratosphere with billions of reflective balls, or littering the Gulf of Mexico with thousands of massive floating "tunnel" doohickeys, but they do have the major advantage of being relatively inexpensive and, you know, proven.

Now, I'm far from a Luddite; I embrace new technologies openly and willingly. But to be honest, some of the geoengineering schemes of which I've read scare the bejeezus out of me, and I think any such endeavors need to be entered into with an overabundance of caution, for the risks may very well far outstrip any rewards. Our history is littered with one well-intentioned geoengineering project after another that's gone awry. For instance, we've been geoengineering for many decades now, knowingly pumping millions of tonnes per hour of CO2 into the atmosphere--and look how well that's turned out.
Wow, that's quite a bit of blather to never really answer the question. The answer is really, really easy: all those who believe in anthropogenic global warming should immediately make their own lives "carbon neutral". Give up their big modern lifestyles, do away with fossil fueled travel, take 2 minute showers, plant trees, only buy local, etc. Instead, Warmists always want Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs.

I challenge Warmists to live according to their belief set. I know they won't, though, and will give every reason under the sun for refusing, if they even try. Usually they will just deflect.

Why should anyone believe in man caused "climate change" (in itself a completely unscientific term) when Warmists won't even pay lip service to practicing what they preach?
Thanks for the interesting and helpful figure, Dr. Rood.

Prof Sir John Beddington warns of floods, droughts and storms
25 March 2013 Last updated at 08:25 GMT
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News
The UK government's chief scientist has said that there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere for there to be more floods and droughts over the next 25 years.
Prof Sir John Beddington said there was a "need for urgency" in tackling climate change.
He said that the later governments left it, the harder it would be to combat.
Prof Beddington made his comments in the final week of his tenure as the government's chief scientific adviser.


Read the whole article
Quoting WilliamTeach:
Wow, that's quite a bit of blather to never really answer the question. The answer is really, really easy: all those who believe in anthropogenic global warming should immediately make their own lives "carbon neutral". Give up their big modern lifestyles, do away with fossil fueled travel, take 2 minute showers, plant trees, only buy local, etc. Instead, Warmists always want Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs.

I challenge Warmists to live according to their belief set. I know they won't, though, and will give every reason under the sun for refusing, if they even try. Usually they will just deflect.

Why should anyone believe in man caused "climate change" (in itself a completely unscientific term) when Warmists won't even pay lip service to practicing what they preach?
My, but you have certainly made a large number of false assumptions and faulty connections for such a very short space. Chief among those, perhaps, is referring to acceptance of the overwhelming evidence in support of climate change as a "belief".

That's wrong, of course.

So if you care to repost your comment in a more honest and accurate way, I'm sure it will be held in higher regard here. As it is, though, I'm afraid it's just another run-of-the-mill thimble-size Gish Gallop of baseless, easily dismissed denialist nonsense, and those don't normally work well here.

Just saying...
Quoting WilliamTeach:
Wow, that's quite a bit of blather to never really answer the question. The answer is really, really easy: all those who believe in anthropogenic global warming should immediately make their own lives "carbon neutral". Give up their big modern lifestyles, do away with fossil fueled travel, take 2 minute showers, plant trees, only buy local, etc. Instead, Warmists always want Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs.

I challenge Warmists to live according to their belief set. I know they won't, though, and will give every reason under the sun for refusing, if they even try. Usually they will just deflect.

Why should anyone believe in man caused "climate change" (in itself a completely unscientific term) when Warmists won't even pay lip service to practicing what they preach?


So, what is that you are really saying? Are you saying that those that understand the science and realize the consequences of what the science tells us should become fossil fuel free immediately? Do you suggest that individual efforts are not being made towards mitigation and adaptation by those that do understand the science? Well, you would be wrong in this line of thought. There are those that do everything within their powers that help assure that we never get off of fossil fuels until they have become completely depleted. These are probably the very same people that chastise anyone that has not completely quit their use of fossil fuels and then complain about our use of fossil fuels. Or, perhaps, what you are saying is that those that do not understand the science are also not subject the consequences of what the science tells us. The latter sounds more like what it is that you are actually saying. So, let us look at another aspect of what science tells. Science tells us that UV rays from the sun will lead to skin cancer. Those of us that understand this science will make attempts to mitigate their exposure to the sun when the UV rays are at their highest. Those of us that understand the science will adapt the types of clothing that we wear during the more extreme UV times of day. I guess it is the ones that do not understand the science of UV ray exposure and skin cancer risks that think they will suffer no ill effects from running around naked all day while at the beach or in higher altitude locales. .. "I do not believe it, therefore it will not have an impact on me" attitude. Dermatologist get rich off of those that are science illiterate or somehow believe that they are immune to what the science tells us. I suspect that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming you would be the one running around this blog without any tan lines?
## I suspect that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming you would be the one running around this blog without any tan lines?##

Thanks for that image Rookie!

As I have pointed out before, WilliamTeach is committing the logical fallacy of tu quoque- Link in which one assumes that since someone else has done something, it must be OK for them to do it too. Thus, since someone who is concerned about climate change has little choice but to try and use as little fossil fuels as possible, it must be OK for someone else to use as much as they can "since the warmists are doing it!"

In fact, no group, be they denier, warmist, fence sitter or otherwise have the right to mortgage the future.

Re-word the argument minus the fallacy and you may get a more productive response.

Most of the proponents of so-called AGW are forever using the cliche' "Big Oil" and the supposed funding it provides for those who disagree with a flawed premise. Turns out the WWF and other "green" groups dwarf the funding provided by "Big Oil" when it comes to pushing their propaganda (not even counting world governments). The truth is powerful.

Link

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Most of the proponents of so-called AGW are forever using the cliche' "Big Oil" and the supposed funding it provides for those who disagree with a flawed premise. Turns out the WWF and other "green" groups dwarf the funding provided by "Big Oil" when it comes to pushing their propaganda (not even counting world governments). The truth is powerful.

Link


The truth is even more powerful when it is put into context. WWF and Greenpeace both are multifaceted with money going to many, many different endeavors, AGW awareness being just one small subject for them.

In addition, Big Oil needs only spend just enough to keep the issue confused in the public mind. They didn't get rich by spending more than was necessary to do the job.
Quoting WilliamTeach:
Wow, that's quite a bit of blather to never really answer the question. The answer is really, really easy: all those who believe in anthropogenic global warming should immediately make their own lives "carbon neutral". Give up their big modern lifestyles, do away with fossil fueled travel, take 2 minute showers, plant trees, only buy local, etc. Instead, Warmists always want Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs.

I challenge Warmists to live according to their belief set. I know they won't, though, and will give every reason under the sun for refusing, if they even try. Usually they will just deflect.

Why should anyone believe in man caused "climate change" (in itself a completely unscientific term) when Warmists won't even pay lip service to practicing what they preach?



Here's a good article to give you some ideas on how to reduce your own carbon footprint: Link

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Most of the proponents of so-called AGW are forever using the cliche' "Big Oil" and the supposed funding it provides for those who disagree with a flawed premise. Turns out the WWF and other "green" groups dwarf the funding provided by "Big Oil" when it comes to pushing their propaganda (not even counting world governments). The truth is powerful.
Oh, wait; so Nisbet is out with another "study"? I wonder whether this one will be discredited and debunked as quickly as a similar study he authored back in 2011, one that was so error-riddled that one of the paid reviewers--Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University--had his name withdrawn after he saw the finished product, mainly because the paper's conclusions did not match what Nisbet's own research showed. Despite the wrapper of BS in which Nesbit wrapped it, that study actually showed that environmentalists have been outspent at least 4-to-1 on advertising, and at least 10-to-1 on election spending.

Ouch.

False balance from denialists such as Nisbet gets so very boring and repetitious, doesn't it?
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.
Quoting WilliamTeach:
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.
Oh, I see the problem. What you call "throwing down the gauntlet" is what folks around these parts call "employing logical fallacies while making baseless attacks and ad hominem-laden accusations against supporters of science". And likewise, what you term "avoidance" is what we consider "people asking you to clarify your tired, wearisome remarks before we'll waste time responding".

I think you'll find folks here an overwhelmingly welcoming bunch, but you should know before sailing from your comfy cove that we've heard every bit of right wing denialist claptrap there is, so you're likely to have a difficult time planting it here. In the meantime, please let me know whether you need help honing your message. Thanks!
Quoting WilliamTeach:
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.


This and your previous comments are very amusing because they go against basic economic decision making that governs most 1st world citizens. Much like everyone on this blog here, I make wholly economic decisions as to how much I as an individual can impact my carbon footprint. For example, I make the economic decision to drive to work along I-4 in the morning, this small damage from my 15 minute commute is economically sound in terms of cost of time, money, carbon impact, amount of danger, etc. versus my other options of biking, walking, or mass transportation. In that context I have chosen to drive the most fuel efficient car I can afford. The same holds true in my day to day living. I buy local and sustainable meat and produce, I try to support local business or when forced, choose the most environmentally and employee practice friendly corporations. The list can go on to what I do in my personal life, but that's hardly the point. The real point is your argument is entirely off base and completely illogical in its assumptions and realistic expectations given what we know about human decision making. Sad.
Quoting WilliamTeach:
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.
So you are never disappointed! That must be soooo rewarding! And you can feel so satisfied as you go on to "thrpw the gauntlet down" on the next blog on your list! What a great life!

And meanwhile the ice keeps melting and the world keeps getting warmer and the deniers keep denying..........
Quoting goosegirl1:
## I suspect that when it comes to anthropogenic global warming you would be the one running around this blog without any tan lines?##

Thanks for that image Rookie!

As I have pointed out before, WilliamTeach is committing the logical fallacy of tu quoque- Link in which one assumes that since someone else has done something, it must be OK for them to do it too. Thus, since someone who is concerned about climate change has little choice but to try and use as little fossil fuels as possible, it must be OK for someone else to use as much as they can "since the warmists are doing it!"

In fact, no group, be they denier, warmist, fence sitter or otherwise have the right to mortgage the future.

Re-word the argument minus the fallacy and you may get a more productive response.



I imagined Bo Derek, in the movie "10". :) You will probably want to imagine someone else that is equally as appealing to your eyes. ... Hey! It worked for me. :)
Quoting Xandra:
It really wasn't a hoax back then! LOL
Quoting WilliamTeach:
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.

Sooo...in your humble opinion, people who realize that science actually is conducted on the whole by competent people and accept those scientific findings should live in caves while *you* continue to spew ungodly amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus causing further climate change?

I must say that's a strange way to take responsibility for your own actions.

Of course, it's probably no stranger than pretending that there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.

Either way, it's nothing that *you* are doing --and that's the important thing, right?

Denialism really *has* to be satire. There's no other rational explanation. lol
Quoting goosegirl1:



Here's a good article to give you some ideas on how to reduce your own carbon footprint: Link



That's a really good link, goosegirl1...thanks!

I particularly like the WWII analogy. It's very fitting...and if anyone talks to older people they will tell you, while it wasn't easy, people took pride in sacrificing for their country and for their own and their children's futures. Imagine the world today if they had said, "oh, we can't do anything about this"..or "we can't afford it". They didn't whine and they weren't wimps about taking on a tough problem. They got the job done. They had character and honor.

What's interesting to me is with the right solutions, there's no need for extreme sacrifice - no horses and buggies are necessary unless that's your interest. So what is the problem? Did you like your 5lb cellphone? Disappointed when folks came up with new technology to make them smaller and lighter? Don't ya just hate it when you don't have to turn the electric lights on outside because that solar path lighting does the job? Ya think maybe things have changed over the past ten years? Can we get smart here and make technology work to the earth's benefit as well as our own?

My computer doesn't care if it's powered by coal or wind power, my hot water can be the comfy same temp whether it's heated by gas or solar. And the dirty little secret of conservation is that it saves you cold hard cash. And frankly, I'd love to see more mass transit...I'm tired of crazy drivers and trying to find parking.

I'm also tired of listening to "can't". There are plenty of ideas and we're making progress on "how". Maybe we need to show a little character, put our heads down and get the job done, ya know? I'm getting so when I hear people say "we can't do it"...I just think "wimp".
/rant
Quoting WilliamTeach:
And what did I say, Warmists would find all sorts of ways in order to deflect so they they themselves can avoid practicing what they preach. This happens every time I thrpw the gauntlet down.

Member Since: March 25, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1

Every time?

ooops....
Scientists link frozen spring to dramatic Arctic sea ice loss

Guardian.co.uk

Climate scientists have linked the massive snowstorms and bitter spring weather now being experienced across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice.

"The sea ice is going rapidly. It's 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic," said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.

According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.

"This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes," she said. "It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It's now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around," she said.
So,If we had more ice at the North Pole,it would be warmer outside? I understand.
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Hey Folks I am now on LINKEDIN. I am thinking of making a group to solve the problem of climate change with my idea. I am looking for ideas that I can use to capture the interest of the professionals in the field. Basically how to present my idea....Any advise? Members group only or should it be open to the world?


what name are you using in Linkedin?
Quoting overwash12:
So,If we had more ice at the North Pole,it would be warmer outside? I understand.


Read post 25.
Quoting overwash12:
So,If we had more ice at the North Pole,it would be warmer outside? I understand.

In the event you're being funny, perhaps this will help.

I posted this on Dr. M's blog...reposting here. Amazing what can be accomplished when people give it a try. It's like progress or something. (Sorry...the cold weather is making me crotchety.)

New transmission lines funnel wind-generated electricity out of Kansas
Quoting overwash12:
So,If we had more ice at the North Pole,it would be warmer outside? I understand.
Obviously, you don't understand. Is ignorance bliss - even when it's purposeful?
Quoting Birthmark:

In the event you're being funny, perhaps this will help.

Not trying to be funny,I just flat out don't buy into this bunk! sorry!
Quoting overwash12:
Not trying to be funny,I just flat out don't buy into this bunk! sorry!
Translation: I don't believe in science!
Quoting Xulonn:
Translation: I don't believe in science!
What science? The Arctic is completely covered in ice as we speak.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Now, if that isn't the understatement of the year... ;-)

As uncomfortable as some get when others speak of climate change--mitigation, adaptation, or just the basic facts of the matter--they're simply going to have to deal with it, because we, those who know that science trumps all else, aren't going away. Ever. As I and others learned long ago, being politely silent lest we step on any sensitive ideological or financial toes makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and only serves to nudge civilization closer to the precipice. Such silence is cowardly. Such silence is suicidal. And the time for such silence is long past.

Looking at that graph, it's amazing just how large a reduction in emissions could be realized with things as simple as improved insulation or more efficient air conditioning. Those aren't anywhere near as sexy or exotic as, say, filling the stratosphere with billions of reflective balls, or littering the Gulf of Mexico with thousands of massive floating "tunnel" doohickeys, but they do have the major advantage of being relatively inexpensive and, you know, proven.

Now, I'm far from a Luddite; I embrace new technologies openly and willingly. But to be honest, some of the geoengineering schemes of which I've read scare the bejeezus out of me, and I think any such endeavors need to be entered into with an overabundance of caution, for the risks may very well far outstrip any rewards. Our history is littered with one well-intentioned geoengineering project after another that's gone awry. For instance, we've been geoengineering for many decades now, knowingly pumping millions of tonnes per hour of CO2 into the atmosphere--and look how well that's turned out.



Why not help CB build a website? He is trying to make a change for the good.
Quoting overwash12:
Not trying to be funny,I just flat out don't buy into this bunk! sorry!

I feel the same way about gravity.

I think we're both going to be disappointed.


Quoting overwash12:
What science? The Arctic is completely covered in ice as we speak.

No, it isn't. And what there is is unusually thin.



You are, of course, free to disbelieve reality. Just be aware that reality has no obligation to act on your disbelief.
Quoting overwash12:
What science? The Arctic is completely covered in ice as we speak.
A) it's not. The word "completely" implies totality, so if it the Arctic were "completely covered in ice" now, one would have to question how there managed to be a million square kilometers more of it covered a few decades ago.

(Think about that a moment before moving on; I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.)

2) Even if the Arctic were "completely covered in ice" (which it's not; see item #1), what's far more important is that last September, the Arctic was almost completely covered by open water. Open water = more absorption of sunlight = more stored energy = more energy released during the winter refreeze = more atmospheric energy available = more extreme weather.

Let me know if you need me to draw a diagram; some rudimentary artwork might make it easier for you to understand this fairly simple concept.
Quoting Birthmark:

I feel the same way about gravity.

I think we're both going to be disappointed.


I gottcha,I just want it to warm up a little,so I can go fishing! Cheers!
Quoting Neapolitan:
A) it's not. The word "completely" implies totality, so if it the Arctic were "completely covered in ice" now, one would have to question how there managed to be a million square kilometers more of it covered a few decades ago.

(Think about that a moment before moving on; I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.)

2) Even if the Arctic were "completely covered in ice" (which it's not; see item #1), what's far more important is that last September, the Arctic was almost completely covered by open water. Open water = more absorption of sunlight = more stored energy = more energy released during the winter refreeze = more atmospheric energy available = more extreme weather.

Let me know if you need me to draw a diagram; some rudimentary artwork might make it easier for you to understand this fairly simple concept.
There is open water right now in the Arctic Ocean? I stand corrected,my deepest apologies! That would explain all the warmth in U.K. , Europe,Russia!
Quoting overwash12:
There is open water right now in the Arctic Ocean? I stand corrected,my deepest apologies! That would explain all the warmth in U.K. , Europe,Russia!

Seen the temps in northern Greenland, lately? A bit warm, to wildly understate it.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Can we do this on Linkedin? Send me a friend request and lets get started.....


If I knew how to build a website I would help you.
Quoting overwash12:
There is open water right now in the Arctic Ocean? I stand corrected,my deepest apologies! That would explain all the warmth in U.K. , Europe,Russia!
I figured you might struggle with my last comment, so let me try again: yes, there is open water in the Arctic. Subtract today's sea ice area from that measured on the same day in 1979, and you'll arrive at a number. This number--the remainder--tells you how much less ice (or, conversely, more open water) there is now than then.

(If you need help with the concept of subtraction, I can help you with that, too.)

On another note, I haven't been to any of the theme parks in Orlando for a while; how are things in Fantasyland these days?
Quoting Birthmark:

Seen the temps in northern Greenland, lately? A bit warm, to wildly understate it.
Range from -47F to 42F So,that 42 is prob. in the southern part,I will take a wild guess on the low temp being interior north.
Quoting Neapolitan:
I figured you might struggle with my last comment, so let me try again: yes, there is open water in the Arctic. Subtract today's sea ice area from that measured on the same day in 1979, and you'll arrive at a number. This number--the remainder--tells you how much less ice (or, conversely, more open water) there is now than then.

(If you need help with the concept of subtraction, I can help you with that, too.)

On another note, I haven't been to any of the theme parks in Orlando for a while; how are things in Fantasyland these days?
And the ice is expanding,according to cryosphere today! Since 1979,I would be more impressed with say since 1879.
Quoting overwash12:
And the ice is expanding,according to cryosphere today! Since 1979,I would be more impressed with say since 1879.
As I said, I haven't been to any of the theme parks there in a while, Disney's Fantasyland among them. Attractions all working? Food still top notch? Is that Disney service still what it used to be?
Quoting Neapolitan:
As I said, I haven't been to any of the theme parks there in a while, Disney's Fantasyland among them. Attractions all working? Food still top notch? Is that Disney service still what it used to be?
You live closer than me,so go check it. Goodnight,Nea!


spring interlude

Quoting Neapolitan:
Now, if that isn't the understatement of the year... ;-)

As uncomfortable as some get when others speak of climate change--mitigation, adaptation, or just the basic facts of the matter--they're simply going to have to deal with it, because we, those who know that science trumps all else, aren't going away. Ever. As I and others learned long ago, being politely silent lest we step on any sensitive ideological or financial toes makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and only serves to nudge civilization closer to the precipice. Such silence is cowardly. Such silence is suicidal. And the time for such silence is long past.

Looking at that graph, it's amazing just how large a reduction in emissions could be realized with things as simple as improved insulation or more efficient air conditioning. Those aren't anywhere near as sexy or exotic as, say, filling the stratosphere with billions of reflective balls, or littering the Gulf of Mexico with thousands of massive floating "tunnel" doohickeys, but they do have the major advantage of being relatively inexpensive and, you know, proven.

Now, I'm far from a Luddite; I embrace new technologies openly and willingly. But to be honest, some of the geoengineering schemes of which I've read scare the bejeezus out of me, and I think any such endeavors need to be entered into with an overabundance of caution, for the risks may very well far outstrip any rewards. Our history is littered with one well-intentioned geoengineering project after another that's gone awry. For instance, we've been geoengineering for many decades now, knowingly pumping millions of tonnes per hour of CO2 into the atmosphere--and look how well that's turned out.


How about instead of paying lip service and mostly symbolic actions to demonstrate a belief in the science of climate change, how 'bout we make a commitment to provide incentives for power companies to re-tool/rebuild coal-fired power generating plants to make use of newer, less-emissive technologies? And build new ones that run on relatively cleaner natural gas.

Who wants to invest in building/refitting these necessary evils in our uncertain business climate that has already recognized "the business side of the science" of a warming planet? China has no problems financing coal plants-and they leverage that cheaper fuel (compared to oil) to drive their productivity.

What is it, 40% of US CO2 comes from power generation? And about Edit typo: 80% 50% of that is fired by coal? Sure, coal use is dropping...because NatGas is cheap. There is some good "compromising" work to be done here over the next 20 years.

Or, we can continue to blather...(myself included).
Not sure if that's true, Buster. Hell, about 40% of US Coal is mined off Federal land. There may be some linkage to oil if you look hard enough.

Scrubbers do sulfur, not CO2.

Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced
from Federal and Indian Lands,
FY 2003 through FY 2011



eia.gov/forecasts
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Big change is coming in the industry.....They are getting smarter buying land with coal/lignite on it then mining it onsite.......My bad I should have used the term Co2 sequester.


We're years away from the hare-brained schemes of Carbon capture and storage

You wanna invest in the technology?

what the frac, over?

Night, Buster. Later.
Quoting beell:


We're years away from the hair-brained schemes of Carbon capture and storage

You wanna invest in the technology?

what the frac, over?

Night, Buster. Later.


You might want to look into the concept of "artificial trees" that scrub CO2 from the atmosphere using sulfur-based compounds. New innovations tested in the lab are also potentially capable of converting atmospheric CO2 to synthetic biodiesels using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Lithium hydroxide is another compound that's been in use since the 1960's capable of intaking CO2 from air and turning it into oxygen on a small scale.

Soon, one day we might have solar-powered photosynthesis. Maybe we'll even be able to eat the sugar that comes out of it, or feed it into our cars, or turn it into beer.

Also, reducing light pollution using cobra-lens luminaires is another great way of lowering emissions, as it can save up to 30% of the energy used by streetlights while keeping cities lit the same (just less light scattering into space). This will actually reduce negative biological effects on humans and other animals while reducing photochemical smog. Not to mention the benefits for recreational astronomy.
Buster,

I think I know of a way to improve your idea and very likely save cost
Quoting beell:


How about instead of paying lip service and mostly symbolic actions to demonstrate a belief in the science of climate change, how 'bout we make a commitment to provide incentives for power companies to re-tool/rebuild coal-fired power generating plants to make use of newer, less-emissive technologies? And build new ones that run on relatively cleaner natural gas.

Who wants to invest in building/refitting these necessary evils in our uncertain business climate that has already recognized "the business side of the science" of a warming planet? China has no problems financing coal plants-and they leverage that cheaper fuel (compared to oil) to drive their productivity.

What is it, 40% of US CO2 comes from power generation? And about Edit typo: 80% 50% of that is fired by coal? Sure, coal use is dropping...because NatGas is cheap. There is some good "compromising" work to be done here over the next 20 years.

Or, we can continue to blather...(myself included).


1.) The natural gas industry is already pricing the coal industry out of power generation in the U.S..

2.) Natural gas adds an additional incentive to power generation facilities over coal in the fact that there is less hazardous materials associated with natural gas that the power generation facilities do not have to contend with. Such as mercury contamination, particulates that are associated with coal use and lower CO2 emissions.

3.) Coal that is not used here because it has been replaced by natural gas only ends up being shipped elsewhere to be burned. This does not lower global CO2 emissions.

4.) The coal industry would seek to have your body placed into one of their open pits and to never be found again.

5.) The free market conservatives would be willing to hand over your body to the coal industry.

6.) Should we be using tax payers dollars as incentive to any industry then it should be to the industries that have the best promise of making the U.S. truly energy independent and the world technology leader into the future then this would be with renewable energy sources and not with a stop gap measure such as natural gas.

I like the plan of using natural gas to replace coal for energy, but only as a short bridge to the renewable energy sources that keep us from having to cross this bridge again later. Fossil fuels, probably to your great disdain, are a finite energy source that will only become too expensive to fuel our economic and energy needs for much further into the future. Do you need proof of this? Pay attention to what you are paying at the pump now. Pay attention to what you are paying for heating oil now. Have the long term price trends for fossil fuels been on a downward slope or an upward slope? How much more can we afford to pay for fossil fuels before their costs kill the global economies, again?

Now, do we make the moves that truly make this an energy independent nation, a world leader in technology and the most assured way of supporting a growing economy, or do we just continue to blather for next 40 - 50 years and other nations have left us in, shall we say, the dark ages?
Climate change "infographic" that is pretty interesting
Quoting beell:


How about instead of paying lip service and mostly symbolic actions to demonstrate a belief in the science of climate change, how 'bout we make a commitment to provide incentives for power companies to re-tool/rebuild coal-fired power generating plants to make use of newer, less-emissive technologies? And build new ones that run on relatively cleaner natural gas.

Who wants to invest in building/refitting these necessary evils in our uncertain business climate that has already recognized "the business side of the science" of a warming planet? China has no problems financing coal plants-and they leverage that cheaper fuel (compared to oil) to drive their productivity.

What is it, 40% of US CO2 comes from power generation? And about Edit typo: 80% 50% of that is fired by coal? Sure, coal use is dropping...because NatGas is cheap. There is some good "compromising" work to be done here over the next 20 years.

Or, we can continue to blather...(myself included).
1) As has been stated ad infinitum, until everyone convincable is convinced of the threat posed by climate change, there's great value in continuing to discuss the issue.
(And, again, it's not about "belief"; it's about agreeing with the overwhelming evidence of climate chnage. Belief is for church.)

2) I don't think energy companies need any further "incentive" to rebuild or retool; if the massive profits they already enjoy aren't incentive enough, tough. Incentives need to go instead to those developing alternate energy sources that don't rely on dirty, obsolete, and deadly fossil fuels--natural gas included.

3) I keep hearing of our "uncertain business climate", yet I see that corporate profits are at an all-time high, and executive pay is now many hundreds of times higher than worker salaries. So corporations crying that they're unwilling to invest because of this alleged "uncertain business climate" are full of you-know-what.

4) No, China has no problem financing coal plants. Then again, the Chinese and American economies are built very differently. For instance, lax as US environmental regulations are thanks to years of industry lobbying, they're still light years ahead of China's, which are basically non-existent, and unenforced where they do exist. So I tend to bristle when I hear the question asked "China does it so why don't we?" Parts of China are an overcrowded, noxious, toxic toilet. I realize profit-over-all types here in the states might look upon that with a jealous eye, but I don't think we Americans should be too envious.

5) You speak of good compromises to be made over the next 20 years. But the thing is, if such comnpromises consist only of throwing cash at energy companies so they'll switch from filthy coal to not-quite-as-filthy-but-still-environmentally-dama ging-on-a-huge-scale natural gas, we don't have 20 years.
Rookie, and Neap, thanks-will return to this subject soon. Just not this morning.

If we need to nationalize the power sector to take real steps towards reducing emissions...then lets get started. Coal is good for nothing-but it's not going away here in the US over the next 20 years or so. And it's certainly not going away globally. The US leads the world in per capita CO2 emissions. 3 to 1 over China. Power generation is a big chunk of the total-seems there is some work to be done until renewables gain a larger share of our energy supply

Kinda funny, increasing use of much cleaner, efficient,natural gas, like it or not is validation of gas from shale oil.
Quoting beell:


How about instead of paying lip service and mostly symbolic actions to demonstrate a belief in the science of climate change, how 'bout we make a commitment to provide incentives for power companies to re-tool/rebuild coal-fired power generating plants to make use of newer, less-emissive technologies? And build new ones that run on relatively cleaner natural gas.

Who wants to invest in building/refitting these necessary evils in our uncertain business climate that has already recognized "the business side of the science" of a warming planet? China has no problems financing coal plants-and they leverage that cheaper fuel (compared to oil) to drive their productivity.

What is it, 40% of US CO2 comes from power generation? And about Edit typo: 80% 50% of that is fired by coal? Sure, coal use is dropping...because NatGas is cheap. There is some good "compromising" work to be done here over the next 20 years.

Or, we can continue to blather...(myself included).


Just in case anyone thought Rookie was joking about the coal industry... Preach it, Bother Joe! Link


The economy in my home state was built on the back of coal miners, and is not apt to change anytime soon (or even in 20 years). There motto is "as long as there is coal in the ground..." There is a bit of perverse hope in the new fracking industry in the north-central section, if you want to call it hope.
So you say Global Warming has stopped in 1998, eh?...

Allow me to laugh hysterically for a brief moment...


In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.

Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.


Read more at thinkprogress.org
Quoting indianrivguy:
Climate change "infographic" that is pretty interesting


Nice infograph, think I may need to share this on facebook. :)
Quoting SteveDa1:
So you say Global Warming has stopped in 1998, eh?...

Allow me to laugh hysterically for a brief moment...


In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.

Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.


Read more at thinkprogress.org


One of the highly respected contributors here - several months ago already - quipped that we should (paraphrasing), "just wait til the next El Nino if we want to see atmospheric warming".

It seems that I (in the mountains of the continental US) should watch ENSO and when things turn El Nino-ie get ready for:
1. mucho snow in winter, exceptional rain in summer

2. flooding - I need to do some stuff to protect my pond ... the bank is only 3 feet above the 100 year flood level

3. cold in winter (or will it be warmer?) (both?? over time)

4. More beetle killed forests?

On the coasts - it'll be storm surge time baby!!!!

What else?

By getting ready, i mean toughening infrastructure as well as the other prepper stuff.
Quoting pintada:


One of the highly respected contributors here - several months ago already - quipped that we should (paraphrasing), "just wait til the next El Nino if we want to see atmospheric warming".

It's almost always the case that we are just one El Nino away from the record global temperature.

https://sites.google.com/site/wmscottlincoln/home /other/global-temperature-contributors/forecast
№ 81

Quoting SteveDa1:
So you say Global Warming has stopped in 1998, eh?...

Allow me to laugh hysterically for a brief moment...


In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms

By Climate Guest Blogger on Mar 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.

Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.


Read more at thinkprogress.org


The idea that we have good observations of the ocean below 700m that date back to the late 1950's gave me a good laugh too...

Seriously, my first thought is, 'Where is this data coming from?'. Considering that the first Argo buoys only date back to the 1990's, none of this can be new data and would have surely been noted before.
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 81



The idea that we have good observations of the ocean below 700m that date back to the late 1950's gave me a good laugh too...

Seriously, my first thought is, 'Where is this data coming from?'. Considering that the first Argo buoys only date back to the 1990's, none of this can be new data and would have surely been noted before.


I believe the word you are looking for is bathythermograph invented in 1938. Link
Continued from № 87:

I asked "Where is this data coming from?"

I see it does elaborate a bit in the Thinkprogress post. From the article:

"[...]
The ORAS4 data span from 1958 to the present, and have a high 1°x1° horizontal resolution, as well as 42 vertical layers.
[...]"


My first thought was: Seriously, I don't recall any observation of ocean temperature that dense that exists prior to Argo and certainly not as far back to 1958. Then I read on and saw...

"ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations."


So basically, they're not using any new data at all, they've simply created new data by running a computer model backwards. Just as I am skeptical that current computer models can predict conditions 50 years in the future, I'm also skeptical that they can show what conditions were 50 years in the past at a time when there were few/no observations.

New paper out totaling the ocean heat at all depths, concluding global warming has accelerated. Blames the more La Nina events lately (which recent papers blame on solar cycle max) & the neg PDO for mixing the oceans more..

some main points.. whole article is here..

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.

The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.




Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a 12-month running mean, with respect to the 1958–1965 base period. Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead (owing to the 12-month running mean), and the 1997–98 El Niño event again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for a set of global heating rates (W/m2) is given.
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Continued from № 87:

I asked "Where is this data coming from?"

I see it does elaborate a bit in the Thinkprogress post. From the article:

"[...]
The ORAS4 data span from 1958 to the present, and have a high 1°x1° horizontal resolution, as well as 42 vertical layers.
[...]"


My first thought was: Seriously, I don't recall any observation of ocean temperature that dense that exists prior to Argo and certainly not as far back to 1958. Then I read on and saw...

"ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations."


So basically, they're not using any new data at all, they've simply created new data by running a computer model backwards. Just as I am skeptical that current computer models can predict conditions 50 years in the future, I'm also skeptical that they can show what conditions were 50 years in the past at a time when there were few/no observations.



You missed the part before the first quote you used from the article. " A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. In the case of ORAS4, this includes ocean temperature measurements from bathythermographs and the Argo buoys, and other types of data like sea level and surface temperatures." As for your comment on the climate models, they have been spot on in global predictions, and a study posted on Dr. Rood's other blog shows that our climate models could recreate the Holocene period with significant accuracy on the global scale. The argument regarding reliability of the models just isn't true.
№ 90
Quoting Naga5000:


I believe the word you are looking for is bathythermograph invented in 1938. Link


I am aware that there are some measurements that date back to the 1950's, but I don't think anyone would argue they weren't extremely sparse and insufficient. This is why the Argo network was deployed.

The following is a good example of how sparse measurements prior to Argo were:

"Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?"

The above quote comes from the Argo website.
№ 93

Quoting Naga5000:


You missed the part before the first quote you used from the article. " A %u2018reanalysis%u2019 is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. In the case of ORAS4, this includes ocean temperature measurements from bathythermographs and the Argo buoys, and other types of data like sea level and surface temperatures.
[...]"


I didn't miss it, ORAS4 is a computer model that incorporates very limited actual observational data of which none of it is new. If the data prior to Argo were not as sparse as it is, they could have written this paper in the 90's and come up with the same results. They didn't because the data is way too limited to make such claims. The ORAS4 "data" is primarily the results of a computer model.

I also found the following interesting from the ORAS4 Website, under the section "Key Weaknesses":

"First 2 decades should be used with caution (large uncertainties)"


I wonder the margin of error is. I do see that the graph that Skyepony posted in № 94 appears to show uncertainty margins for the 1958-78 period, with the caveat that it "does not cover all sources of uncertainty".

Lastly, another thing to keep in mind when thinking about the pre-Argo measurements is the precision required. The heat differences over the last 40 years or so can look like a lot--the graph above shows about 20x10²² J--but this a tiny amount when you calculate the amount of water being considered. At most it will amount to a few tenths of a degree Celsius (I'm a bit limited on time and will let someone else calculate the specifics here). Were deep ocean measurements that precise 40 years ago?

Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 93



I didn't miss it, ORAS4 is a computer model that incorporates very limited actual observational data of which none of it is new. If the data prior to Argo were not as sparse as it is, they could have written this paper in the 90's and come up with the same results. They didn't because the data is way too limited to make such claims. The ORAS4 "data" is primarily the results of a computer model.

I also found the following interesting from the ORAS4 Website, under the section "Key Weaknesses":

"First 2 decades should be used with caution (large uncertainties)"


I wonder the margin of error is. I do see that the graph that Skyepony posted in № 94 appears to show uncertainty margins for the 1958-78 period, with the caveat that it "does not cover all sources of uncertainty".

Lastly, another thing to keep in mind when thinking about the pre-Argo measurements is the precision required. The heat differences over the last 40 years or so can look like a lot--the graph above shows about 20x10²² J--but this a tiny amount when you calculate the amount of water being considered. At most it will amount to a few tenths of a degree Celsius (I'm a bit limited on time and will let someone else calculate the specifics here). Were deep ocean measurements that precise 40 years ago?



In actuality, those first two decades are not needed to get the requisite 30+ year statistical trend. So I concede that the first two decades are unreliable, but that doesn't discount the more recent 1980-present trend of warming.
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Continued from № 87:

I asked "Where is this data coming from?"

I see it does elaborate a bit in the Thinkprogress post. From the article:

"[...]
The ORAS4 data span from 1958 to the present, and have a high 1°x1° horizontal resolution, as well as 42 vertical layers.
[...]"


My first thought was: Seriously, I don't recall any observation of ocean temperature that dense that exists prior to Argo and certainly not as far back to 1958. Then I read on and saw...

"ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations."


So basically, they're not using any new data at all, they've simply created new data by running a computer model backwards. Just as I am skeptical that current computer models can predict conditions 50 years in the future, I'm also skeptical that they can show what conditions were 50 years in the past at a time when there were few/no observations.


Just gotta ask - have you read the paper?

In a similar vein:

135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme

For those that dismiss the accuracy of physical measurements taken before the satellite age, you may want to consider The Great Trigonometrical Survey of India. We can certainly do these kind of things faster these days, but these kind of measurements made in the 19th century were astonishingly accurate.

Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Lastly, another thing to keep in mind when thinking about the pre-Argo measurements is the precision required. The heat differences over the last 40 years or so can look like a lot--the graph above shows about 20x10²² J--but this a tiny amount when you calculate the amount of water being considered. At most it will amount to a few tenths of a degree Celsius (I'm a bit limited on time and will let someone else calculate the specifics here). Were deep ocean measurements that precise 40 years ago?


But that's just it, that amount of heat energy is immense. It is far more heat energy accumulated in the climate system than with regards to the lower troposphere. It kinda doesn't matter if it is just a few tenths of a degree... it's the deep ocean, and it's orders of magnitude more heat than what we see on the typical global temperature graphs.

The earth is still accumulating heat, just as predicted.
Quoting misanthrope:
In a similar vein:

135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme

For those that dismiss the accuracy of physical measurements taken before the satellite age, you may want to consider The Great Trigonometrical Survey of India. We can certainly do these kind of things faster these days, but these kind of measurements made in the 19th century were astonishingly accurate.



More accurate than today?
Quoting ScottLincoln:

But that's just it, that amount of heat energy is immense. It is far more heat energy accumulated in the climate system than with regards to the lower troposphere. It kinda doesn't matter if it is just a few tenths of a degree... it's the deep ocean, and it's orders of magnitude more heat than what we see on the typical global temperature graphs.

The earth is still accumulating heat, just as predicted.
An immense amount indeed. As James Hansen said, the current warming is adding the energy equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs to the earth each day. That's 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute, or more than four per second. -- non-stop. And that's just the excess energy being gained each day on top of the energy that's heated our planet by 0.8C. That is, it's the rate at which we are increasing global warming.

Perhaps more startling: even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow--about as likely as hitting the Powerball jackpot in ten consecutive drawings--the CO2 we've already pumped into the environment will continue to add hundreds of thousands of Hiroshima-sized nukes worth of energy every day for a lot of years.
EPA: More than half of U.S. rivers unsuitable for aquatic life

nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — Fifty-five percent of U.S. river and stream lengths were in poor condition for aquatic life, largely under threat from runoff contaminated by fertilizers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday.

High levels of phosphorus and nitrogen, runoff from urban areas, shrinking ground cover and pollution from mercury and bacteria were putting the 1.2 million miles of streams and rivers surveyed under stress, the EPA said.

"This new science shows that America's streams and rivers are under significant pressure," Nancy Stone, acting administrator of the EPA's Office of Water, said in a statement.

Twenty-one percent of the United States' river and stream length was in good biological condition, down from 27 percent in 2004, according to the survey, carried out in 2008 and 2009 at almost 2,000 sites.
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 90


I am aware that there are some measurements that date back to the 1950's, but I don't think anyone would argue they weren't extremely sparse and insufficient. This is why the Argo network was deployed.

The following is a good example of how sparse measurements prior to Argo were:

"Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?"

The above quote comes from the Argo website.


This new "hidden heat" paper is nothing but a bunch of make-believe, based on fraudulent data and false measurements along the lines of the bogus Marcott paper. Two years ago Trenberth, himself, questioned the ARGO data because of discrepancies, miscalibrations, erroneous data, missing data, etc. Nothing has changed with the buoys in the past two years, so how can he now author a paper based on the same bogus information? These people are still grasping at straws and have completely thrown any "science" out the window. They see their fraud going down the tube and will stop at nothing to keep their funding rolling in.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


This new "hidden heat" paper is nothing but a bunch of make-believe, based on fraudulent data and false measurements along the lines of the bogus Marcott paper. Two years ago Trenberth, himself, questioned the ARGO data because of discrepancies, miscalibrations, erroneous data, missing data, etc. Nothing has changed with the buoys in the past two years, so how can he now author a paper based on the same bogus information? These people are still grasping at straws and have completely thrown any "science" out the window. They see their fraud going down the tube and will stop at nothing to keep their funding rolling in.


Source please. A legitimate one at that, thanks.
Quoting cyclonebuster:




Gulfstream Kinetic Energy has more than that correct?


How much energy does the gulf stream have?
There is a freakshow going on in the Arctic right now, and at a time when the only entertainment should be the sea ice silently reaching maximum volume after an utterly boring and steady thickening of the persistent ice-cap in the dead of polar winter.

Atmospheric CH4 is reaching record high values, especially over the newly ice-free Barents and Norwegian Seas. And it's being emitted from deepwater as well as shallow sources. The heating of the deep ocean as discussed earlier, is consistent with similar effects known from the PETM when the oceans heated to depth. Trouble is, most of the gas hydrates at any depth would likely have formed very close to the boundary of their pressure-temperature stability field, and will not take kindly to even slight warming.

The Polar Vortex is no longer stable above the Pole, and is being supplanted by a persistent blocking high over Greenland (and at near-record surface pressure). Ask the UK about its weather this month...

I live at elevation in western New England and have been noting how much nicer and warmer the weather has been in western Greenland for much of this cool, unpleasant March. The weather maps shown to US audiences typically extend only to southern Canada and show very well the blob of moderately cold air over the East but nothing at all of the gigantic positive temperature anomalies further North.

The last outpost of the multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has been invaded in shocking fashion by extensional fracture arrays and seems headed for the drains this year. The September minimum ice area this year could be stunningly low.

I expect that this September will mark the end of the too-brief Anthropocene and the commencement of the Endocene (with credit to the misremembered author of that term).

At this time the magnitude of the crisis will become apparent to much of the world's population. A blue (or swirly green) North Pole and the more southerly consquences of that will be impossible to ignore.

Most curiously at just that time an ancient portent - a great comet (ISON) - will have a dangerously close encounter with the Sun and may be the brightest one in centuries. It will be interesting to see what people make of that. Very primitive thinking may be prevalent at a time when we will most need its opposite.
Quoting allahgore:


How much energy does the gulf stream have?

Over 9000!
Quoting no1der:
There is a freakshow going on in the Arctic right now, and at a time when the only entertainment should be the sea ice silently reaching maximum volume after an utterly boring and steady thickening of the persistent ice-cap in the dead of polar winter.

Atmospheric CH4 is reaching record high values, especially over the newly ice-free Barents and Norwegian Seas. And it's being emitted from deepwater as well as shallow sources. The heating of the deep ocean as discussed earlier, is consistent with similar effects known from the PETM when the oceans heated to depth. Trouble is, most of the gas hydrates at any depth would likely have formed very close to the boundary of their pressure-temperature stability field, and will not take kindly to even slight warming.

The Polar Vortex is no longer stable above the Pole, and is being supplanted by a persistent blocking high over Greenland (and at near-record surface pressure). Ask the UK about its weather this month...

I live at elevation in western New England and have been noting how much nicer and warmer the weather has been in western Greenland for much of this cool, unpleasant March. The weather maps shown to US audiences typically extend only to southern Canada and show very well the blob of moderately cold air over the East but nothing at all of the gigantic positive temperature anomalies further North.

The last outpost of the multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has been invaded in shocking fashion by extensional fracture arrays and seems headed for the drains this year. The September minimum ice area this year could be stunningly low.

I expect that this September will mark the end of the too-brief Anthropocene and the commencement of the Endocene (with credit to the misremembered author of that term).

At this time the magnitude of the crisis will become apparent to much of the world's population. A blue (or swirly green) North Pole and the more southerly consquences of that will be impossible to ignore.

Most curiously at just that time an ancient portent - a great comet (ISON) - will have a dangerously close encounter with the Sun and may be the brightest one in centuries. It will be interesting to see what people make of that. Very primitive thinking may be prevalent at a time when we will most need its opposite.

It's terrifying and mesmerizing simultaneously. You can't just look away if you have even a particle of understanding of what is going on up there.

Things could get *real* interesting, *real* fast. OTOH, we may catch a lot of fortuitous weather and it'll be just another melt season...this year.
Quoting Birthmark:

It's terrifying and mesmerizing simultaneously. You can't just look away if you have even a particle of understanding of what is going on up there.

Things could get *real* interesting, *real* fast. OTOH, we may catch a lot of fortuitous weather and it'll be just another melt season...this year.


Most of my data come with errorbars of a few million years. The difference between this year, and the next is a bit difficult to see from that perspective!

But for a geologist used to slow majestic changes there is, to paraphrase you, both horror and wonder in the witnessing of such huge changes on a timescale of less than a lifetime.

The wonder helps contain the horror. Lagavulin can be useful too.
...
Michael Mann's opinion piece "Life as a Target" in The Scientist.

Link
№ 96

Quoting Naga5000:


In actuality, those first two decades are not needed to get the requisite 30+ year statistical trend. So I concede that the first two decades are unreliable, but that doesn't discount the more recent 1980-present trend of warming.


Take a look here at where the data comes from back to 1979; especially look at the '500-1000m' and 'below 1000m' depths. You can check month by month or the full year by selecting 'Ann' at the bottom of the drop-down month list. Does it look like the ocean was sampled sufficiently in the 80's and early 90's to determine the trend? Note that even the locations that are sampled change from year to year. As an aside, this is a problem with Argo too, that fixed locations are not used, but at least the sampling is far more dense than you'll find prior to Argo.

* * *

№ 97

Quoting misanthrope:

Just gotta ask - have you read the paper?



I couldn't find an open-access version or a draft version anywhere, so no. I did find enough detail concerning it from the links provided as well as a few others I found that I think I give a pretty good idea what is contained though. If you know of a link to the full paper that you want to share let me know.

* * *

№ 99



Quoting ScottLincoln:

But that's just it, that amount of heat energy is immense. It is far more heat energy accumulated in the climate system than with regards to the lower troposphere. It kinda doesn't matter if it is just a few tenths of a degree... it's the deep ocean, and it's orders of magnitude more heat than what we see on the typical global temperature graphs.

The earth is still accumulating heat, just as predicted.


My main point is that it is still measured with thermometres where a 0.1°C error is an equally "immense" amount of energy. I'd bet that in the 700m-2000m range a 0.1°C difference would be comparable to the entire amount of heating over the past 40 years. Did the sensors used in the 60's and 70's have that kind of precision? Even if they did, were enough samples taken to get a global estimate (see my prior response to Naga5000)?


№ 104
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


This new "hidden heat" paper is nothing but a bunch of make-believe, based on fraudulent data and false measurements along the lines of the bogus Marcott paper. Two years ago Trenberth, himself, questioned the ARGO data because of discrepancies, miscalibrations, erroneous data, missing data, etc. Nothing has changed with the buoys in the past two years, so how can he now author a paper based on the same bogus information? These people are still grasping at straws and have completely thrown any "science" out the window. They see their fraud going down the tube and will stop at nothing to keep their funding rolling in.


Argo is far from perfect, to be sure. As I said in my previous post, the measurements are taken at varying locations. Also, I think you can make a pretty good case that the 3000 or so Argo floats aren't nearly enough to track the tiny variations in temperature present over the world's oceans. Still though, the difference between the sampling before and after Argo is like night and day.

I seem to recall that there have been some issues with Argo calibrations/adjustments, but haven't delved into that much recently, and really don't remember any specifics at this time.

Concerning the Trenberth comments, I think you're referring to one the Climategate emails; at any rate though, if you're going to attribute the comments to him, it would be best to source them.
Climate change models predict remarkably accurate results

Guardian.co.uk

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true.

He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
My main point is that it is still measured with thermometres where a 0.1°C error is an equally "immense" amount of energy. I'd bet that in the 700m-2000m range a 0.1°C difference would be comparable to the entire amount of heating over the past 40 years.

Were you aware that error bars typically work both ways? Were you also aware that when you work with large data sets, as you average more and more data, the error begins to wash out? 0.1C of error bars for one station does not equate to +/-0.1C for the average of the entire data set.
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Were you aware that error bars typically work both ways? Were you also aware that when you work with large data sets, as you average more and more data, the error begins to wash out? 0.1C of error bars for one station does not equate to +/-0.1C for the average of the entire data set.


Even if we assume that there are only random errors in precision and no systematic errors...Still, do you think there are enough data points in the earlier part of the period to do that globally?
№ 118
Quoting RevElvis:
Climate change models predict remarkably accurate results

Guardian.co.uk

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true.

He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations."


I'm going to guess that the dotted line is SAR (IPCC Second Assessment Report). What is the solid line? AR4? Also interesting that they used a 10-year smoothing for such a small data window of only 15 years.
Surprising Depth to Global Warming's Effects


LiveScience.com


The oceans are the flywheel of the climate system. As atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the Earth system is warming, and over 90 percent of that increase in heat goes into the ocean. Knowing how much heat the ocean absorbs is vital to understanding sea level rise (the oceans expand as they warm), and predicting how much, and how fast, the atmosphere will warm.

Most estimates of ocean warming have been limited to the upper 700 meters of water, owing to the limited availability of ocean-temperature data below that depth. Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters.

However, the ocean is also warming near the bottom, in the coldest waters of the abyssal zones. Oceanographers measure the abyssal ocean to depths of 6,000 meters by lowering accurate recording thermometers and other instruments to the ocean floor on long cables from research vessels. During the 1980s and 1990s, an international program called the World Ocean Circulation Experiment collected thousands of such profiles around the globe.

During the 2000s, we and our fellow oceanographers returned and re-measured ocean properties at many of those sites. We detected a consistent warming signal in the abyssal ocean around the globe. The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.
US Taxpayers Under Water

LiveScience.com

There are many, many compelling and urgent reasons to take decisive action to combat climate change. Here's one that's measurable by dollars added to our budget deficit. Actually by tens of billions of dollars.

The soaring cost of private flood insurance is pricing so many coastal homeowners out of the market that the rest of the American taxpayers are having to bail them out – to the tune of $30 billion under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

With over $139 billion in storm, wildfire, drought, tornado and flood damages taking nearly 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012, the insurance industry is referring to last year as the second costliest year on record for U.S. climate-related disasters. And while insurers do include $12 billion worth of flood-related damages in their estimates, they aren't the ones getting stuck with most of the bill. It's us, the taxpayer.
Antarctic Thawing Season Keeps Getting Longer

LiveScience.com

More ice is melting for a longer period of time each year on the Antarctic Peninsula, new research shows.

The area is warming more quickly than almost any other spot on Earth. Temperatures on this mountainous strip of land have risen by 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) since the 1950s, according to a news release from the British Antarctic Survey, whose scientists were involved in the research.

The study, published today (March 27) in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, analyzed data from 30 weather stations on the Antarctic Peninsula and found that not only is the temperature rising, but it's staying warmer longer, and all that warming is having an impact on the ice.

"We found a significant increase in the length of the melting season at most of the stations with the longest temperature records," said study author Nick Barrand, in a statement. "At one station, the average length of the melt season almost doubled between 1948 and 2011."
Quoting sirmaelstrom:


Even if we assume that there are only random errors in precision and no systematic errors...Still, do you think there are enough data points in the earlier part of the period to do that globally?

I understand your point, but I think we're working against the clock. We need answers fast. So we should work to the best of our abilities with the data we do have, while recognizing that it's less than ideal.

That data says the oceans are warming. Perhaps further data will say that that's not the case, but I doubt it. The physics involved say the oceans must be warming. So that even with less than ideal data, we're probably not too far from the truth wrt to deep ocean temperature.
126. beell
Why are fossil fuel assets Triple-A rated?
James Murray for BusinessGreen
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 July 2011 09.38 EDT


...The report, produced by the Carbon Tracker Initiative NGO, draws on research from the Potsdam Institute, which calculates that to limit the chance of exceeding the two degree target agreed by the UN, then the world can emit just 565 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) between now and 2050.

However, according to the report, known fossil fuel reserves declared by mining and energy firms top 2,795 GtCO2, meaning just 20 per cent of known reserves can be used if the world is to stand a good chance of avoiding temperature increases of two degrees.

"Investors are thus left exposed to the risk of unburnable carbon," the report states. "If the 2°C target is rigorously applied, then up to 80 per cent of declared reserves owned by the world's largest listed coal, oil and gas companies and their investors would be subject to impairment as these assets become stranded."...



Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England governor warned
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 07.22 EST


...The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas held by companies listed in the City of London are "sub-prime" assets posing a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England's governor, Sir Mervyn King.

In an open letter on Thursday, they tell King that the global drive to reduce carbon emissions could mean billions of pounds of fossil fuel reserves will rapidly lose value and cause a "major problem" for institutional investors and pension funds...

Quoting beell:
Why are fossil fuel assets Triple-A rated?
James Murray for BusinessGreen
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 July 2011 09.38 EDT


...The report, produced by the Carbon Tracker Initiative NGO, draws on research from the Potsdam Institute, which calculates that to limit the chance of exceeding the two degree target agreed by the UN, then the world can emit just 565 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) between now and 2050.

However, according to the report, known fossil fuel reserves declared by mining and energy firms top 2,795 GtCO2, meaning just 20 per cent of known reserves can be used if the world is to stand a good chance of avoiding temperature increases of two degrees.

"Investors are thus left exposed to the risk of unburnable carbon," the report states. "If the 2°C target is rigorously applied, then up to 80 per cent of declared reserves owned by the world's largest listed coal, oil and gas companies and their investors would be subject to impairment as these assets become stranded."...



Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England governor warned
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 January 2012 07.22 EST


...The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas held by companies listed in the City of London are "sub-prime" assets posing a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England's governor, Sir Mervyn King.

In an open letter on Thursday, they tell King that the global drive to reduce carbon emissions could mean billions of pounds of fossil fuel reserves will rapidly lose value and cause a "major problem" for institutional investors and pension funds...



I recently read an article that stated the world banks have around $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) invested with the fossil fuel industries to bring their reserves to market. Is it any wonder that climatologist are depicted as evil communist that want to socialize the world and retain their government paychecks by the ones that are so heavily invested in bringing fossil fuel reserves to market? Anyone that still believes that the fossil fuel industries will not spend millions of dollars/year to discredit the science and the scientist has already been bought and sold by these vested interests and you do not seem to be aware of it. ... And with this, I will leave you to yourself to figure this all out for yourself. I bid you adieu.
128. beell
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I recently read an article that stated the world banks have around $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars) invested with the fossil fuel industries to bring their reserves to market. Is it any wonder that climatologist are depicted as evil communist that want to socialize the world and retain their government paychecks by the ones that are so heavily invested in bringing fossil fuel reserves to market? Anyone that still believes that the fossil fuel industries will not spend millions of dollars/year to discredit the science and the scientist has already been bought and sold by these vested interests and you do not seem to be aware of it. ... And with this, I will leave you to yourself to figure this all out for yourself. I bid you adieu.


First, I have to figure out what your post has to do with my post and my awareness levels of the propaganda issues used by the fossil fuel industry.

But I'm glad you got the opportunity to get this off your chest.
Quoting beell:


First, I have to figure out what your post has to do with my post and my awareness levels of the propaganda issues used by the fossil fuel industry.

But I'm glad you got the opportunity to get this off your chest.


I am fault here. I was not clear in what I was saying. I am not bidding you adieu. I am bidding adieu to the discussions concerning AGW. I have lost all hope that anything will ever be done that would prove beneficial concerning AGW. ... I surrender.
130. beell
Gotcha. Glad you took the time to explain. Thanks Rook.

The reality of what can be done seems to fall far short of the need. And over a time scale that I will probably not live to see.

Not honoring your surrender at this time, fwiw.
Quoting beell:
Gotcha. Glad you took the time to explain. Thanks Rook.

The reality of what can be done seems to fall far short of the need. And over a time scale that I will probably not live to see.

Not honoring your surrender at this time, fwiw.


Thank you, for that, beell.

My surrender is unconditional

132. etxwx
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Thank you, for that, beell.

My surrender is unconditional



Nope. Unacceptable. Consider yourself conscripted, soldier.
;-)


Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Thank you, for that, beell.

My surrender is unconditional

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can't surrender decades after a battle.
It may be poor consolation, but the CO2 thing was settled long ago. 350ppm got us full deglaciation 120Kyr ago, and the idea that any specific concentration of CO2 much over pre-industrial levels could be 'safe', will come to be seen as part of the 'bargaining' stage of grief.
There is so much for passionate, informed people to do in the coming years. There are huge tasks ahead in agronomy, power systems, and civil engineering. Even more important, we need to start fashioning the needed sociological and psychological survival tools. 



Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Thank you, for that, beell.

My surrender is unconditional

Rookie, Stop that!

We all care, those of a certain generation anyway, even though we may have differing points of view on what can be done and how to do it given the global nature of what seems to be happening and the increasing demands put on this planet by a burgeoning human population. There is no easy answer.

Argo talk made me think of this. ARGO. Haven't seen it yet, but probably a good afternoon or evening's entertainment at the least. Music and movies (edit) make great refuge.
;)
Hey, a bit relevant. Coursera is offering a course on irrational behavior. It looks like a fun course so far, and certainly relevant to some if not all of us here.
Quoting greentortuloni:
Hey, a bit relevant. Coursera is offering a course on irrational behavior. It looks like a fun course so far, and certainly relevant to some if not all of us here.



Great post!
Quoting greentortuloni:
Hey, a bit relevant. Coursera is offering a course on irrational behavior. It looks like a fun course so far, and certainly relevant to some if not all of us here.
Coursera is also offering a course on Climate Change, starting in August, with five professors from the University of Melbourne. From the introduction, it looks pretty good. Sorry I don't know how to paste the video from my iPad. Link

Any comments on these instructors?
FEMA head: Federal flood insurance to cost more

Houston Chronicle (AP)

NEW ORLEANS - People who buy federal flood insurance need to plan for big rate hikes because Congress has decided the program must at least pay for itself, a top federal official said Tuesday.

Some people now paying hundreds of dollars a year could wind up paying thousands with the biggest increases for people who live in high-risk areas and who have not raised their houses, Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Craig Fugate told about 1,500 people at the National Hurricane Conference.

After speaking at the conference's general session, Fugate appeared at a news conference with Rick Knabb, director of the National Hurricane Center. Fugate said the increases will be phased in over three to four years.

Newly elevated homes and those in areas that are part of FEMA's Community Rating System, in which local governments work to reduce vulnerability, can get rate reductions, Fugate said.

Of the 22,000 communities in the National Flood Insurance Program, about 1,000 participate in the rating system, FEMA structural engineer John Ingargiola said Monday.

Rates will go up this year for secondary homes, and later for peoples' main residences, Fugate said.
Quoting no1der:


Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can't surrender decades after a battle.
It may be poor consolation, but the CO2 thing was settled long ago. 350ppm got us full deglaciation 120Kyr ago, and the idea that any specific concentration of CO2 much over pre-industrial levels could be 'safe', will come to be seen as part of the 'bargaining' stage of grief.
There is so much for passionate, informed people to do in the coming years. There are huge tasks ahead in agronomy, power systems, and civil engineering. Even more important, we need to start fashioning the needed sociological and psychological survival tools. 




Extremely good post, no1. I hadn't thought of the 350 goal as being 'bargaining', but now that you've posted it it seems blindingly obvious, to me at least.

I'm afraid that my actions are rather limited due to circumstances entirely beyond my control. I'm pretty much confined to talking, posting, and preparing my little neck of the woods as best I can.
Quoting greentortuloni:
Hey, a bit relevant. Coursera is offering a course on irrational behavior. It looks like a fun course so far, and certainly relevant to some if not all of us here.


Very cool. Rational economic behavior is something I enjoy on the aggregate sociological scale, especially when looking into deviant behavior and decision making that leads down paths of deviancy , but I'm not much into the individualism of psychological study on it. Either way, it sounds like a very fun course to look into. Thanks for the post.
Real Pragmatism for Real Climate Change: Interview with Dr. John Abraham

Excerpts from the interview:

James Stafford: Earlier this month, we conducted an interview with former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose thoughts on climate change have been very controversial. Watts describes himself as a "pragmatic skeptic" on climate change. In your opinion, why is this "pragmatic skepticism" so controversial and how do you think it contributes to the dynamics of the climate change debate?

John Abraham: The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism--that is plain denial.

Let me expand on this by going back to his interview. Mr. Watts’s claimed that:

“’Global warming’ suggests a steady linear increase in temperature, but since that isn’t happening, proponents have shifted to the more universal term “climate change,” which can be liberally applied to just about anything observable in the atmosphere.”

First, scientists have never predicted a linear increase in temperature--we are not that naive. Things are much more complex than that.

Mr. Watts also argues that “proponents” have shifted from using the phrase global warming to “climate change”. He didn’t bother telling you that this was actually suggested by a conservative consultant, Frank Luntz, as a way to reduce public concern. Ironically, “climate change” is a better description of what is happening, and climate scientists use it to be more accurate.

[...]

Mr. Watts and others who deny that humans are a major cause of climate change have helped to create an environment where scientists are attacked mercilessly for their science. I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues. How can we encourage young scientists to go into this field when they are promised personal attacks and vilification? Fortunately, young bright scientists go into this field anyway and I am excited about the new crop of young minds that are rising through the ranks.

James Stafford: Watts spends a great deal of time discussing the "heat sink" effect in urban areas. Can you offer us an alternative view on what this means in terms of climate change?

John Abraham: This issue has been the calling card of Mr. Watts. Unfortunately, he did not disclose much in his comments.

• He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
• He didn’t tell you that other groups have looked at this issue and made similar conclusions.
• He didn’t tell you that recently a Koch-funded study looked at this issue and concluded that the real climate scientists were right: locations of temperature sensors didn’t matter.
• He didn’t tell you that he initially supported the Koch-funded study until the results were made known.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the atmosphere made by weather balloons and satellites agree the Earth is warming.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the ocean show a significant and long-term increase in temperature.
• He didn’t tell you that the vast majority of glaciers are losing ice, as are Greenland and Antarctica.
• Finally, he didn’t tell you that in the last 30 years, approximately 75% of the Arctic ice which remains at the end of the melting season has disappeared.

It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.

Complete interview here.
Quoting Xandra:
Real Pragmatism for Real Climate Change: Interview with Dr. John Abraham

Excerpts from the interview:

James Stafford: Earlier this month, we conducted an interview with former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose thoughts on climate change have been very controversial. Watts describes himself as a "pragmatic skeptic" on climate change. In your opinion, why is this "pragmatic skepticism" so controversial and how do you think it contributes to the dynamics of the climate change debate?

John Abraham: The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism--that is plain denial.

Let me expand on this by going back to his interview. Mr. Watts’s claimed that:

“’Global warming’ suggests a steady linear increase in temperature, but since that isn’t happening, proponents have shifted to the more universal term “climate change,” which can be liberally applied to just about anything observable in the atmosphere.”

First, scientists have never predicted a linear increase in temperature--we are not that naive. Things are much more complex than that.

Mr. Watts also argues that “proponents” have shifted from using the phrase global warming to “climate change”. He didn’t bother telling you that this was actually suggested by a conservative consultant, Frank Luntz, as a way to reduce public concern. Ironically, “climate change” is a better description of what is happening, and climate scientists use it to be more accurate.

[...]

Mr. Watts and others who deny that humans are a major cause of climate change have helped to create an environment where scientists are attacked mercilessly for their science. I have been attacked numerous times on Mr. Watts’s website, as have my colleagues. How can we encourage young scientists to go into this field when they are promised personal attacks and vilification? Fortunately, young bright scientists go into this field anyway and I am excited about the new crop of young minds that are rising through the ranks.

James Stafford: Watts spends a great deal of time discussing the "heat sink" effect in urban areas. Can you offer us an alternative view on what this means in terms of climate change?

John Abraham: This issue has been the calling card of Mr. Watts. Unfortunately, he did not disclose much in his comments.

• He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
• He didn’t tell you that other groups have looked at this issue and made similar conclusions.
• He didn’t tell you that recently a Koch-funded study looked at this issue and concluded that the real climate scientists were right: locations of temperature sensors didn’t matter.
• He didn’t tell you that he initially supported the Koch-funded study until the results were made known.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the atmosphere made by weather balloons and satellites agree the Earth is warming.
• He didn’t tell you that measurements of the ocean show a significant and long-term increase in temperature.
• He didn’t tell you that the vast majority of glaciers are losing ice, as are Greenland and Antarctica.
• Finally, he didn’t tell you that in the last 30 years, approximately 75% of the Arctic ice which remains at the end of the melting season has disappeared.

It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.

Complete interview here.


FWIW if you go to exxon mobil website they agree man is causing warming and they are investing millions to reduce carbon. I often see many people here bashing them, yeah they make alot of money but they are trying to clean up there act and they also invest in new technolgy.
Managing climate change risks

Our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is focused on increasing energy efficiency in the short term, implementing proven emission-reducing technologies in the near and medium term, and developing breakthrough, game-changing technologies for the long term. Technological innovation will play a central role in our ability to increase supply, improve efficiency, and reduce emissions. Approximately 90 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by petroleum products are released when customers use our products, and the remaining 10 percent are generated by industry operations.1 Therefore, technology is also needed to reduce energy-related emissions by end users.

Quoting allahgore:


FWIW if you go to exxon mobil website they agree man is causing warming and they are investing millions to reduce carbon. I often see many people here bashing them, yeah they make alot of money but they are trying to clean up there act and they also invest in new technolgy.
I have personal experience of this. There are some very good people there, and a lot of awareness of the situation.
Excellent thread on climate change denialism at the Arctic Sea Ice blog. Be sure to also read the linked entry at Ugo Bardi's "Cassandra's Legacy" blog site.
Quoting Professor Ugo Bardi:
That doesn't mean that there are no powerful lobbies spreading disinformation in the web and in the media - they do exist. And we also have evidence of individual scientists and professionals paid to spread lies around. However, there is no evidence that individual climate deniers of the kind who spend time "trolling" on the web are paid for what they do. We can't exclude that some of them could be, but it matters little. Think about that: how much would you want to be paid to help destroying the world (including yourself)? No payment would be enough, unless you really believed that climate change is an evil conspiracy to enslave everyone. Then, the PR companies that manage denial campaigns for the fossil fuels lobby simply exploit this attitude, without the need of actually paying them.
(Good stuff by Bardi - I haven't read any of Professor Bardi's writings since I stopped participating at the peak oil blogs.)
Quoting Xandra:



Link






Coldest March for the UK since 1962

28 March 2013 - This March is set to be the coldest since 1962 in the UK in the national record dating back to 1910, according to provisional Met Office statistics up to the 26th March.



This March is set to be the coldest since 1962 in the UK in the national record dating back to 1910, according to provisional Met Office statistic.

From 1 to 26 March the UK mean temperature was 2.5 °C, which is three degrees below the long term average. This also makes it joint 4th coldest on record in the UK.

Looking at individual countries, March 2013 is likely to be the 4th coldest on record for England, joint third coldest for Wales, joint 8th coldest for Scotland and 6th coldest for Northern Ireland.

Link




Peer-Reviewed Russian Study
Flagship Daily DIE WELT Stuns Germany: “Scientists Warn Of Ice Age”, Cites New Peer-Reviewed Russian Study

By P Gosselin on 25. März 2013

Mentioning the lethal “100-year, record-smashing” spring cold and snow spreading across Europe over the past month has for the most part been avoided like the plague by Germany’s mainstream media. The silence over the record cold and frost, which has killed thousands and cost billions, has been ear-ringing.

Yet some leading dailies are breaking ranks, and have begun to examine the phenomenon critically and openly.

For example veteran journalist Ulli Kulke at German flagship daily Die Welt today has stunned the rest of the German mainstream media with a piece titled Scientists warn of ice age.

German flagship daily reports that “scientists warning of ice age.”
Quoting no1der:

I have personal experience of this. There are some very good people there, and a lot of awareness of the situation.


Maybe the big oil spill opened there eyes? Idk but glad they are atleast re-investing some of there profits, can't say the same for all big Industry.
Quoting iceagecoming:



Link






Coldest March for the UK since 1962

28 March 2013 - This March is set to be the coldest since 1962 in the UK in the national record dating back to 1910, according to provisional Met Office statistics up to the 26th March

Again, thanks for bringing this AGW-induced weird weather in the UK and Russia to our attention. Thanks to the photo included you can even see the direct cause.

Quoting allahgore:


Maybe the big oil spill opened there eyes? Idk but glad they are atleast re-investing some of there profits, can't say the same for all big Industry.
A public company is under obligation to maximize shareholder value. You cannot *ever* expect anything else. Oil and gas will be produced and sold as long as there is a market for those products.
But no company can last long if they aren't looking into the future. The bigger the company, the further they have to see, if they are going to remain successful. You can very much expect them to be doing that.
The major oil companies see their future as energy companies, beyond oil and gas. The problem is how to get there while still maximizing shareholder value. BP for example went heavily into solar, but recently backed off because the numbers weren't working for them. 
Exxon/Mobil has one of the great R&D operations in the world, and they can and do deploy their very considerable resources at will and according to the company's perceived core interests. They can fairly quickly mount research efforts equal to those of entire industries, if there is a technology they want to master or improve. 

Quoting iceagecoming:
Coldest March for the UK since 1962...

For example veteran journalist Ulli Kulke at German flagship daily Die Welt today has stunned the rest of the German mainstream media with a piece titled Scientists warn of ice age.
German flagship daily reports that "scientists warning of ice age."
Stunned them with what? The level of ignorance in the article?

There's a translation [here], and although it's from a climate change denialist website, seems to be a good translation (much better than the gibberish that Google Translate produces) - and it makes the denialist b.s. quite clear!
Quoting Die Welt:
The activity of the sun has weakened significantly, according to some experts to a degree as during the "Little Ice Age", several hundred years ago.

However, it is not a variation of the warming sunshine, which would not be sufficient to explain climate changes during past centuries. However, the changes in solar ionizing radiation emissions, the so-called solar wind, could be very influential with regards the long-term development of Earth's temperatures. These fluctuations are associated with the ups and downs of the number of sunspots. The sunspots can be observed from Earth, they are recorded since at least since their discovery by the German-British astronomer William Herschel in the 18th century. Herschel found a relationship between the number of sunspots and climate impacts, namely the good and bad years in agriculture. His theory of the "Chog cycle" was long derided because an explanation was missing - until it was found a few years ago.

Meanwhile, there are other methods to track the variations of the solar wind than by sunspots; by isotopes in drilling cores, sediments, or millennia old ice. And lo and behold: there are clear parallel curves between the changes in solar activity and, a few years or decades later, global temperature - at least insofar as it is possible to retrospectively ascertain temperatures. Taking account of these delays, the ups and downs of temperatures during the 20th century and until the beginning of the 21st century can be explained from sun, whose activity in the second half of the last century was at its highest rate since the medieval climate optimum, which was about one degree warmer than today...

...However, the one-dimensional explanation of CO2 has lately been questioned by other studies, too. For example by a scientifically approved work by two climate researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle (USA), published in the February issue of the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" - one of the world's most prestigious scientific magazines. The two researchers came to the following conclusion: "The anthropogenic contribution to global warming in the second half of the 20th century has been probably been overestimated by a factor of two", i.e. only half as large as expected. According to their study, the currents and pressure conditions in the oceans have been fundamentally underestimated.

A study by researchers at the University of Oslo comes to a similar conclusion and will be published in the next few weeks. According to the study, even a doubling of CO2 by 2050, which hardly anyone expects, will not have the dramatic effects which the IPCC predicts. According to the study, the influence of natural factors, such as clouds and volcanic eruptions, is much stronger than previously thought.

So far studies with similar conclusions, though published in peer reviewed scientific journals, are mostly ignored by the media. But they are published more frequently in science journals lately.
Unfortunately, the article claims that the sun is the current driver of climate change, an ice age is coming, and that GW is no longer taking place - shear and utter denialist b.s. The Die Welt article contains generalized claims of scientific support via vague references to unknown ("scientifically approved work by two climate researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle") and an upcoming peer-reviewed study (by researchers at the University of Oslo) claiming that the effect of CO2 on climate is only 1/2 of what is now accepted - with no specific citations.

So, where's that mysterious, hard-core, peer-reviewed scientific paper from Russia that supports the Die Welt contention?

(Rather than wasting my time refuting each point in the article, something that has already been done many times here, please go to skepticalscience.com and realclimate.org for the rebuttals to the common myths promoted in the article.)
How cold will March end up?

Thursday 28 March 2013, 17:24


Despite the relentless cold of February and March, there are grounds for a little optimism this Easter weekend which at least is some comfort for the beleaguered tourist industry.

With the jet stream still running through the Mediterranean, a return to milder south-westerly winds remains a long way off, but subtle changes through the weekend offers at least some crumbs of comfort.

Firstly, other than a few wintry showers mainly in eastern areas on Good Friday and Saturday, mostly dry conditions will dominate.

Secondly, by Easter Sunday, the area of high pressure currently to the north of the UK will move much closer, so winds will be much lighter - and there should be less cloud too.

Over the snow covered Pennines this means severe frosts are likely.

But by day, the strength of the sun may surprise and make it feel a bit warmer than a shade temperature of around 5C (41F) suggests.


So, in general, it should be a good weekend for wrapping up warm and getting out and about – with no disruptive weather expected, which is at least something.

So far this month, the Central England mean Temperature (CET) is around 3C, leaving behind 1969 (CET 3.3C).


March is now well on course to be the coldest since 1962 (CET 2.8C).


And there remains just a chance that it could equal the mean temperature set back in 1962.

If so, March 2013 would turn out to be the equal coldest since way back in 1892.

With December 2010 ending up the coldest since 1890, it’s yet more anecdotal evidence that something significant seems to be happening to our climate, driven by a jet stream that continues to be forced regularly further south than normal, across all seasons.

As ever the reasons for this are not clear.

But those who study how solar activity affects the positioning of the jet stream will, perhaps, feel increasingly vindicated.






Link
Quoting iceagecoming:
How cold will March end up?
Gosh darn it, I thought we were discussing long-term anthropogenic "global" warming and climate change, not cold "Central England" weather for the month of March only.

Now I get it! Central England is the entire globe. Short-term weather conditions is the same as climate! And that heat is created and destroyed randomly with no accounting for heat transfer in and about the biosphere. And that conservation of energy is not a law of physics.

How silly of me to not know those things!

(Professor Ugo Bardi, in a link I previously posted, says that snark and sarcasm are not useful in combating climate denialists, but I just couldn't help myself,)
Another Dalton Minimum, or Worse?
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions
is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle
#24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun
heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity
minimum - an extensive period of reduced levels of
solar activity.”
K.H.Schatten and W.K.Tobiska, 34th Solar Physics Division Meeting,
June 2003, American Astronomical Society
It can get worse than a repeat of the Dalton
Minimum. Ken Schatten
is the solar physicist
with the best track record in
predicting solar cycles. His
work suggests a return to the
advancing glaciers and delayed spri
ng snow melt of the Little Ice Age, for an indeterminate period.
Quoting iceagecoming:
Another Dalton Minimum, or Worse?
%u201CThe surprising result of these long-range predictions
is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle
#24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun
heading towards a %u201CMaunder%u201D type of solar activity
minimum - an extensive period of reduced levels of
solar activity.%u201D
K.H.Schatten and W.K.Tobiska, 34th Solar Physics Division Meeting,
June 2003, American Astronomical Society
It can get worse than a repeat of the Dalton
Minimum. Ken Schatten
is the solar physicist
with the best track record in
predicting solar cycles. His
work suggests a return to the
advancing glaciers and delayed spri
ng snow melt of the Little Ice Age, for an indeterminate period.
Let me call attention to the '2003' date on the paper. That was before the current fizzle yield of solar cycle 24, which was apparently predicted to be weak according to the brief above (haven't read the paper). We've been warming steadily since then, so I gather from your recent posts that the idea is that there's some hoodoo between long-term low solar activity and jet stream positioning bringing winter conditions similar to those of the Maunder Minimum to *Northern Europe*. Perhaps too extreme, but there was some work last year that did identify some subtle effects on tropical rainfall positioning (?) from solar variability. 
I presume your toes are getting a bit nippy - looks like you've been sitting there for awhile - so I'll be brief. The choices are:
1. The planet is steadily warming esp. the Arctic, where we've lost almost 3/4 of the minimum sea ice volume, the Polar Vortex is busted and blobs of warm air are entering the Arctic, displacing blobs of cold air southwards (such as the one responsible for the current condition of your toes).

2. All that, except for that one particular blob over N. Europe just now. That one's caused by lack of sunspots.

Or am I missing something? Could it even be that all this warming and the current carnage in the Arctic should be attributed the long-term decline in solar activity? That just makes my head hurt... I think you might have achieved fractal wrongness.
Quoting no1der:

Exxon/Mobil has one of the great R&D operations in the world, and they can and do deploy their very considerable resources at will and according to the company's perceived core interests.

True.
They can fairly quickly mount research efforts equal to those of entire industries, if there is a technology they want to master or improve. 


Not true. The talent of the upstream and downstream research companies is not fungible as it were. They can't be sent back to college to get PhD's in new subjects. Managers cannot start new careers in new industries. The elephant is an elephant.
Quoting Xulonn:
snip

How silly of me to now know those things!

(Professor Ugo Bardi, in a link I previously posted, says that snark and sarcasm are not useful in combating climate denialists, but I just couldn't help myself,)


But they can be fun.
Quoting Xulonn:
Excellent thread on climate change denialism at the Arctic Sea Ice blog. Be sure to also read the linked entry at Ugo Bardi's "Cassandra's Legacy" blog site.
(Good stuff by Bardi - I haven't read any of Professor Bardi's writings since I stopped participating at the peak oil blogs.)


Quoted from Professor Bardi's quote:

... Then, the PR companies that manage denial campaigns for the fossil fuels lobby simply exploit this attitude, without the need of actually paying them...

Hanlon's Razor at work:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his job depends on his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
From Media Matters for America:

Another Misleading Fox News Graphic: Temperature Edition

by JILL FITZSIMMONS

Fox News is suggesting that scientists were "wrong" about global warming by using misleading graphics to obscure the long-term global temperature rise.

On his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto suggested that the recent cold weather invalidates concerns about global warming, asking weather forecaster and climate misinformer Joe Bastardi , "How did we get this so wrong?" Cavuto aired a graphic which at first glance appears to show that temperatures are dramatically cooler now than they were last March. But the graphic compares apples to oranges: the map on the left shows whether temperatures were above or below average for the month of March, while the map on the right shows absolute minimum temperatures for last Wednesday, March 20.



If the temperature scale for the map on the right were applied to the map on the left, it would mean that temperatures were over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the upper Midwest in March 2012.

Continue Reading >>

Quoting no1der:

A public company is under obligation to maximize shareholder value. You cannot *ever* expect anything else. Oil and gas will be produced and sold as long as there is a market for those products.
But no company can last long if they aren't looking into the future. The bigger the company, the further they have to see, if they are going to remain successful. You can very much expect them to be doing that.
The major oil companies see their future as energy companies, beyond oil and gas. The problem is how to get there while still maximizing shareholder value. BP for example went heavily into solar, but recently backed off because the numbers weren't working for them. 
Exxon/Mobil has one of the great R&D operations in the world, and they can and do deploy their very considerable resources at will and according to the company's perceived core interests. They can fairly quickly mount research efforts equal to those of entire industries, if there is a technology they want to master or improve. 




I agree most people go to work to make money not lose money.
Quoting Xandra:
From Media Matters for America:

Another Misleading Fox News Graphic: Temperature Edition

by JILL FITZSIMMONS

Fox News is suggesting that scientists were "wrong" about global warming by using misleading graphics to obscure the long-term global temperature rise.

On his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto suggested that the recent cold weather invalidates concerns about global warming, asking weather forecaster and climate misinformer Joe Bastardi , "How did we get this so wrong?" Cavuto aired a graphic which at first glance appears to show that temperatures are dramatically cooler now than they were last March. But the graphic compares apples to oranges: the map on the left shows whether temperatures were above or below average for the month of March, while the map on the right shows absolute minimum temperatures for last Wednesday, March 20.



If the temperature scale for the map on the right were applied to the map on the left, it would mean that temperatures were over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the upper Midwest in March 2012.

Continue Reading >>




ALL networks cherry pick and spin data to improve ratings. Ratings = Money!
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Hanlon's Razor at work:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Them's coffee spittin' words - LOL. However, the version attributed to Robert Heinlein might be more appropriate:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
However, John, we're supposed to be nicer here. I think that ignorance - especially as in the phrase "willful ignorance" is a more WU-friendly term - and probably more appropriate than used of the word "stupidity" in the quote. WU-pers can be a very sensitive bunch, especially when you call them out on ignorant statements.

Quoting Xulonn:
Them's coffee spittin' words - LOL. However, the version attributed to Robert Heinlein might be more appropriate: However, John, we're supposed to be nicer here. I think that ignorance - especially as in the phrase "willful ignorance" is a more WU-friendly term - and probably more appropriate than used of the word "stupidity" in the quote. WU-pers can be a very sensitive bunch, especially when you call them out on ignorant statements.




+100
Quoting bappit:

True.
They can fairly quickly mount research efforts equal to those of entire industries, if there is a technology they want to master or improve. 


Not true. The talent of the upstream and downstream research companies is not fungible as it were. They can't be sent back to college to get PhD's in new subjects. Managers cannot start new careers in new industries. The elephant is an elephant.
Instead of the overstatement I made, I should have provided the example I had in mind.

In the early 1990's the majors were looking at development of some very large but remote gas fields, esp. in central Asia and the Arctic. It was apparent that the main limiting factor for these projects was the cost of the required pipelines, which comes down to the metallurgy. With a stronger steel, wall thickness can be reduced and/or operating pressures increased. Suitable materials were not available on the market. Improvements in pipeline steel metallurgy were determined to be a core interest, and resources were deployed.

Exxon/Mobil (and also BP) launched in-house R&D activities in basic steel metallurgy, fabrication and welding technologies. Exxon/Mobil partnered with Mitsui and Nippon Steel for the production side, but the fundamental R&D was done in-house and the technologies remain Exxon/Mobil's IP.  Team members did not necessarily have the specific background that you might expect.

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropre view?id=ISOPE-04-14-1-075

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmob il-grants-nippon-steel-first-license-patented-fiel d-welding-technology-x120-ul
Quoting Xulonn:
Them's coffee spittin' words - LOL. However, the version attributed to Robert Heinlein might be more appropriate: However, John, we're supposed to be nicer here. I think that ignorance - especially as in the phrase "willful ignorance" is a more WU-friendly term - and probably more appropriate than used of the word "stupidity" in the quote. WU-pers can be a very sensitive bunch, especially when you call them out on ignorant statements.



Well, I've officially reach old curmudgeon status and I don't have much patience with ignorance (wilful or otherwise) these days. As my father used to say, I don't suffer fools gladly.
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Well, I've officially reach old curmudgeon status and I don't have much patience with ignorance (wilful or otherwise) these days. As my father used to say, I don't suffer fools gladly.


I resemble this remark....
Serious question. Why is it that all denialist and conspiracy websites look like they have been designed to resemble geocities and anglefire website from the 1990's?
Quoting allahgore:



ALL networks cherry pick and spin data to improve ratings. Ratings = Money!
I am shocked at this news!haha
Quoting overwash12:
I am shocked at this news!haha


What is so shocking about it?
Quoting Naga5000:
Serious question. Why is it that all denialist and conspiracy websites look like they have been designed to resemble geocities and anglefire website from the 1990's?


It's a photo op, Kinda like having kids on stage when talking about gun control. When trying to sell oranges would you show a picture holding apples?
From Eli at Rabett Run, a paper by Stefan Rahmstorf discussing this winter's weather and sea ice conditions.

Melting Ice and Cold Weather

Translated from an article by Stefan Rahmstorf [] are translation notes

The media are debating if the decrease in Arctic ice is related to this winter's cold weather in Germany. This post discusses the most recent current research about this including the most important figures from relevant studies.


Quoting no1der:

After I posted it occurred to me that they also have the option of buying expertise. The buyout of XTO could have done that, not just buying reserves.
This global warming is freezing people to death in Europe. And Britain is helping them do it with taxes and regulations. Pretty soon Britain is going to be back in the Stone Age.

Link
AGW is just a curve ball. Learn to adjust and you can hit a homerun, even Dr Rood talks about adapting. Take a negative and turn it into a positive! Life is full of curve balls.
No wonder climate forecasts are so abysmal. Most long-range weather forecasts provided by government entities are similar. The Met Office is probably the worst:

Link
The climate is getting so cold that future generations might not know what daffodils, swallows, wheat, or crawfish look like. Good thing Trenberth found the missing heat that he couldn't trust two years ago:

Link
From ABC News:

Canada Defends Leaving UN Convention on Droughts

OTTAWA, Ontario March 29, 2013 (AP)

Canada defended its decision to pull out of a United Nations convention that fights the spread of droughts just a month before a major gathering would have forced the country to confront scientific analysis on the effects of climate change.

Canada is the only country in the world outside the agreement. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has been vilified an as outlier on climate change policy in past international meetings.

Harper said Thursday that the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification is too bureaucratic. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird called it a "talkfest" that does a disservice to taxpayers. The federal cabinet last week ordered the withdrawal on Baird's recommendation.

Former Canadian ambassador to the U.N. Robert Fowler said the move is a "departure from global citizenship."

The U.N. body has a research committee dedicated to finding ways to stop the spread of droughts that lay waste to farmland across the planet.

Canada's pullout has stoked more criticism of the Harper government's record on the environment. Canada, along with Japan, Russia and New Zealand, joined the United States in opting out of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians and the author of a forthcoming book on global droughts, said the Harper government is "anti-environment" and is more interested in exploiting Canada's mineral and energy wealth as an "energy superpower." The province of Alberta has the world's third largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, with more than 170 billion barrels.

"Anything that they're involved in that can lead to more evidence that we're a planet in crisis environmentally, they don't want to be part of," Barlow said.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
No wonder climate forecasts are so abysmal. Most long-range weather forecasts provided by government entities are similar. The Met Office is probably the worst...
Thanks. The article to which you linked illustrates in very vivid fashion just how extreme the climate is becoming, and just how wild the swings between hot and cold, dry and wet, calm and unstable. And those crazy fluctuations--influenced and induced by anthropogenic warming--are becoming more and more difficult to predict. And they are bound to become even more crazy and unpredictable as the planet heats up as it never has before. Perhaps the best long-term forecast that can be made is this: expect the unexpected, and expect it to be far worse than anyone has ever seen.
I see Dr. Masters just put up another Climate change Blog. 3 in a row. I am behind on his blog for lack of time, but the bits I have waded through I get the impression that more people are commenting on climate change on his blog.

In particle and more importantly, useful participation.

I think this is a good time to thank the Moderators, as they are keeping the carnage down, and I think that is why more people are participating.

Quoting Neapolitan:
Thanks. The article to which you linked illustrates in very vivid fashion just how extreme the climate is becoming, and just how wild the swings between hot and cold, dry and wet, calm and unstable. And those crazy fluctuations--influenced and induced by anthropogenic warming--are becoming more and more difficult to predict. And they are bound to become even more crazy and unpredictable as the planet heats up as it never has before. Perhaps the best long-term forecast that can be made is this: expect the unexpected, and expect it to be far worse than anyone has ever seen.


If that's true then why have anyone provide weather forecast? Are you suggesting shutting down TWC?
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The climate is getting so cold that future generations might not know what daffodils, swallows, wheat, or crawfish look like. Good thing Trenberth found the missing heat that he couldn't trust two years ago:

Link


Oh, so that's why the USDA plant zones were moved north...

We used to live solidly in zone 7a but planted for zone 6 due to elevation. Now we can grow magnolias in the mountains of eastern WV and are officially zone 7b.

And by the way, there are 3 species of crayfish that already range up into New England- cold or not, they are not in any trouble. Link
Quoting goosegirl1:


Oh, so that's why the USDA plant zones were moved north...

We used to live solidly in zone 7a but planted for zone 6 due to elevation. Now we can grow magnolias in the mountains of eastern WV and are officially zone 7b.

And by the way, there are 3 species of crayfish that already range up into New England- cold or not, they are not in any trouble. Link


That is a positive thing with AGW. Adapt and proceed.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


We are like the cold blooded frog...

Link






.....


Search gulf stream energy someone I think stold your idea.
Quoting allahgore:


Search gulf stream energy someone I think stold your idea.


Just listened to the NPR article. Hilarious!

Build a prototype? Nah, just post spam on one site.
Get some funding? Nah, just post that spam.
Create a business plan? Nah, someone with no money will give me money to do the project.
Attend symposia? Nah, maybe someone will do it for me.

Maybe now we will get some peace from the spam.
Quoting pintada:


Just listened to the NPR article. Hilarious!

Build a prototype? Nah, just post spam on one site.
Get some funding? Nah, just post that spam.
Create a business plan? Nah, someone with no money will give me money to do the project.
Attend symposia? Nah, maybe someone will do it for me.

Maybe now we will get some peace from the spam.


Someone was proactive and took the idea and moved forward with it.
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Plus that idea can not control our climate...


It has one major advantage ... the ultimate advantage. Someone is working to make it a reality.
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Plus that idea can not control our climate...


I am trying to link it, they say it will hold up to a hurricane and it will do more than what you were saying it would do. I think your idea just went to tunnel heaven.
What gets me about the "global warming has slowed down" line of stupid...um, argument: it's not significant. It's also not the first time we have had this rate of warming.

Case in point:


The current sixteen years are indistinguishable statistically from the years 1980-1995. It's also impossible to rule out the hypothesis that the sixteen year "trend" is any different from the thirty year trend, which in this data set (GIStemp) is 0.175±0.059ºC/decade. At least, that is how I understand these graphs.

So let me humbly request those more qualified than me to either point out any errors I'm making (which I will greatly appreciate) or confirm that I'm looking at this correctly.

Thanks.
Hello and good night. New study is up on "Psychological Science", but maybe the news were already posted (then sorry). I leave it here in order not to disturb the momentarily serene atmosphere on the main blog, lol. It will be discussed there anyway at some time.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

By Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles E. Gignac

Abstract: Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.


Quoting barbamz:
Hello and good night. New study is up on "Psychological Science", but maybe the news were already posted (then sorry). I leave it here in order not to disturb the momentarily serene atmosphere on the main blog, lol. It will be discussed there anyway at some time.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

By Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles E. Gignac

Abstract: Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.




Throw in the Y2K scare and we have a good Gumbo!
Quoting allahgore:


I am trying to link it, they say it will hold up to a hurricane and it will do more than what you were saying it would do. I think your idea just went to tunnel heaven.


Harnessing the Power of the Gulf Stream

THE GULF STREAM TURBINE
From The Chevron Pit:

Chevron's Legacy

The Pollution Chevron Left Behind...Shushufindi pit 38. Chevron's
scientists found no contamination at this pit.


Third Chevron Spill In Utah Bigger Than Thought -- Why Are We Not Surprised

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Chevron's third spill in Utah in as many years is much bigger than the oil giant indicated initially. Why are we not surprised?

Chevron always downplays the impact of its drilling and exploration practices on the environment and human health.

One expert, John Connor, has even testified that he has never found any evidence that Chevron's drilling has harmed anyone or anything EVER.

He's been paid at least $8 million for his testimony and expert opinion. Wonder if that had anything to do with it?

See this press release about his testimony.

And, see this recent article about the Utah spill.

----------

Read more about Chevron here & here.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Harnessing the Power of the Gulf Stream

THE GULF STREAM TURBINE


Trans-Ocean is building something also; it's on a floating platform. They have turbines that create power.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Do they regulate SST's? Do they screen influent prior turbine to prevent harm to sea life? Can they weaken a hurricane? Can they regulate/control climate? Do they restore Arctic Ice? Do they lower sea level?


IDK you would have to call them I will provide you with a phone number in a min, they do produce energy!
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Do they regulate SST's? Do they screen influent prior turbine to prevent harm to sea life? Can they weaken a hurricane? Can they regulate/control climate? Do they restore Arctic Ice? Do they lower sea level?




Main Phone: +44 1224 427942

give them a call.
Bombshell IMF Study: United States Is World’s Number One Fossil Fuel Subsidizer

Between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidized fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 — or eight percent of global government revenues — according to a study released this week by the International Monetary Fund.

The biggest offender was by far the United States, clocking in at $502 billion. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. In fact, the problem is so significant in the U.S. that the IMF figures correcting it will require new fees, levies, or taxes totaling over $500 billion a year, or more than 3 percent of the economy.

The most significant finding is that most of the problem — a little over $1 trillion worth — is the failure to properly price carbon pollution. Global warming is the ultimate example of a “negative externality” — a market failure in which one market actor enjoys the benefits of an exchange while another actor pays the costs.


From the Executive Summary of the IMF Report:
ENERGY SUBSIDY REFORM: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Energy subsidies are pervasive and impose substantial fiscal and economic costs in most regions. On a ―pre-tax‖ basis, subsidies for petroleum products, electricity, natural gas, and coal reached $480 billion in 2011 (0.7 percent of global GDP or 2 percent of total government revenues). The cost of subsidies is especially acute in oil exporters, which account for about two-thirds of the total. On a ―post-tax‖ basis—which also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumption—subsidies are much higher at $1.9 trillion (2½ percent of global GDP or 8 percent of total government revenues). The advanced economies account for about 40 percent of the global post-tax total, while oil exporters account for about one-third. Removing these subsidies could lead to a 13 percent decline in CO2 emissions and generate positive spillover effects by reducing global energy demand.
Just checking in.............. I see a few relevant posts in amongst the:

Worst Allergy Season Ever?

LiveScience.com

The planet is getting warmer, and human behavior is responsible. The changing climate has brought early spring, late-ending fall, and large amounts of rain and snow. All of that, combined with historically high levels of carbon dioxide in the air, nourishes the trees and plants that make pollen, and encourages more fungal growth, such as mold, and the release of spores.

We will be paying a wretched price in the coming months for the behavior fueling the explosion of pollen, which are the tiny reproductive cells found in trees, weeds, plants and grasses. By all accounts, there will be more pollen this year than ever before.

"The trees are going to burst in the next week or two, and we will get a burst of pollen higher than in past years,'' said Bielory, who predicts that pollen counts will increase by 30 percent by 2020 and, "in a perfect test-tube world, will double by 2040 because of climate change.'' [Study: Pollen Counts To More Than Double By 2040]

Most trees release their pollen in the early spring, while grasses do so in late spring and early summer. Ragweed makes its pollen in the late summer and early fall.

And pollen production is only part of the impact that global warming is going to have on allergies and asthma — and our health overall.

In areas of the country experiencing prolonged heat and drought, dust will worsen air pollution, exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. In other regions, climate change will affect the insect population — their stings and bites can provoke fatal allergic reactions in sensitive individuals — as well as the proliferation of such vines as poison ivy. Poison ivy thrives with increased carbon dioxide, and as a result, now makes a far more potent urushiol — the oil that causes poison-ivy-triggered rashes — than in the past.
Happy Easter, to all!




Yes, yes. I know! The rabbit was all booked up and Tom volunteered to fill in. He has some time off right now.
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Happy Easter, to all!




Yes, yes. I know! The rabbit was all booked up and Tom volunteered to fill in. He has some time off right now.


He fits right in over here.
Quoting FLwolverine:
Coursera is also offering a course on Climate Change, starting in August, with five professors from the University of Melbourne. From the introduction, it looks pretty good. Sorry I don't know how to paste the video from my iPad. Link

Any comments on these instructors?


Also this course coming up: Climate Literacy

I have no idea about the professors. UNfortunatly it has been so long since I studied global warming that I don't even remember what my sources were.... actually now that I think about it, I got my first SMS while studying it so that must put it around, what 1999?
Quoting PedleyCA:


He fits right in over here.
" For the truth the Turkey is in comparison [to the eagle] a much more respectable bird, and withal a true original native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a bird of courage, and would not hesitate to attack a grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his farm yard with a red coat on." Benjamin Franklin
New Catalyst Allows Cheaper Hydrogen Production

SlashDot.org

Unfortunately, at a molecular level, breaking water down into oxygen and hydrogen is a "very complicated reaction" where many different things can happen over many steps, said Berlinguette. As a result, the reaction is normally too slow to be of practical use unless you compensate for the slow speed by adding extra electricity.

University of Calgary chemistry researchers Simon Trudel, left, and Curtis Berlinguette have started a company called Firewater Fuel Corp. to commercialize their discovery. University of Calgary chemistry researchers Simon Trudel, left, and Curtis Berlinguette have started a company called Firewater Fuel Corp. to commercialize their discovery. (Riley Brandt/University of Calgary)"If you don't have a catalyst, you'll probably need two or three times as much electricity as you should," Berlinguette said.

Obviously, that's not very efficient, green or practical. A special type of compound called a catalyst can speed the reaction up and greatly reduce the amount of extra energy needed. But up until now, water electrolysis catalysts have been made of crystals containing rare, expensive toxic metals such as ruthenium and iridium.

Berlinguette and Trudel have invented a way to make catalysts that perform just as well as those expensive catalysts but cost 1,000 times less. The new process also allows catalysts to be made from relatively non-toxic metal compounds such as iron oxide, better known as rust.
Quoting 1911maker:
Just checking in.............. I see a few relevant posts in amongst the:



CBC News Posted: Mar 28, 2013 1:30 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 28, 2013 3:53 PM ET

The Harper government says it is pulling out of a United Nations convention that fights drought in Africa and elsewhere because it is not interested in supporting a bureaucratic "talkfest."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said less than one-fifth of the $350,000 Canada contributes to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification goes to programming.

"This particular organization spends less than 20 per cent — 18 per cent — of the funds that we send it are actually spent on programming, the rest goes to various bureaucratic measures.That's not an effective way to spend taxpayers' money," Harper told MPs during question period Thursday.

Cabinet quietly ordered Canada's withdrawal from the convention last week, ahead of a major scientific meeting on the agreement next month in Germany. The government said Thursday it would not attend the meeting.

The Canadian Press reported Wednesday the UN secretariat that administers the program was unaware of Canada's decision until contacted by its reporter.

A spokesperson for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) told CBC News the head of the secretariat was informed of the decision on Monday, and written confirmation was delivered to the UN Secretary General's office in New York the same day.

'Bureaucracy and talkfests'
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird called the convention — whose full title is the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, in those Countries Experiencing Severe Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa — a "talkfest."

ATLANTA —

Northeast Georgia counties are no longer in drought thanks to the recent rains. Central Georgia still faces the worst drought conditions. State Climatologist Bill Murphey says the latest drought monitor took northeast Georgia out of drought completely. (image courtesy of the U.S. Drought Monitor)Northeast Georgia counties are no longer in drought thanks to the recent rains. Central Georgia still faces the worst drought conditions.

State Climatologist Bill Murphey says the latest drought monitor took northeast Georgia out of drought completely.

“Hall County has received about 6 to 8 inches of rain in the last three days. So that put them pretty much in the clear for the time being, as well as the surrounding counties adjacent and to the north.” he says.

Pat Robbins with the US Army Corps of Engineers says they have had to release less water from the lakes along the Chattahoochee, Flint, Apalachicola river basin.

He says “Rains have helped the whole system. But we’re still operating in drought conditions because the cumulative storage throughout the basin has not gotten up into zone 1, which is where we would come out of drought operations.”

Robbins says they have had to release less water from the reservoirs along the Chattahoochee, Flint and Apalachicola River basin. That’s allowed lake levels to rise.

“Lake Lanier, which has gone up about 7 feet in the last 30 to 45 days. West Point is actually above normal for this time of year. Walter F. George, or Lake Eufaula is also above where it would normally be this time of year.”

Link
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Do they regulate SST's? Do they screen influent prior turbine to prevent harm to sea life? Can they weaken a hurricane? Can they regulate/control climate? Do they restore Arctic Ice? Do they lower sea level?
I finally put my finger on what this reminded me of:

Tom Waits, 'Step Right Up'

Link
Asia cuts its carbon faster than Europe
Climate News Network March 25, 2013
Producing more goods and services while emitting less carbon is the dream of many economists. In the race to see which countries can best manage to do this, East Asia is stealing a march on the US and Europe. And contrary to popular conceptions, China is now making faster progress than Germany and the United Kingdom towards competitiveness in tomorrow’s low-carbon world.

"LONDON, 25 March – When it comes to prowess in moving towards a low-carbon economy, some countries in Asia are increasingly outpacing Europe and the United States, a new report shows.

Three of the top G20 countries best placed to compete in the global low-carbon economy are now from East Asia, having overtaken their European and American competitors, according to an index which measures how carbon-competitive countries are.

The report, the Climate Institute/GE Low-Carbon Competitiveness Index, published by the Climate Institute, was first released in 2009. This year’s edition relies on data from 2010"


"The report makes it clear that countries which fail to limit carbon emissions and simply pursue economic progress regardless of the pollution they cause risk being left behind, economically and diplomatically as well."
Quoting greentortuloni:


Also this course coming up: Climate Literacy

I have no idea about the professors. UNfortunatly it has been so long since I studied global warming that I don't even remember what my sources were.... actually now that I think about it, I got my first SMS while studying it so that must put it around, what 1999?


Do you have experience with any courses from Coursera? Any thoughts on this education model?
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Gulfstream Energy Via Underwater Suspension Tunnels

I set up a group discussion on Linkedin and sent out some invitations for a group discussion to some very knowledgeable people... If you would like to join in the discussion let me know....You have to be on Linkedin to participate..Any takers?


Did nea help build the website?
Quoting no1der:
I finally put my finger on what this reminded me of:

Tom Waits, 'Step Right Up'

Link



funny video!
Quoting cyclonebuster:


No I am doing this on my own to stir interest... So far I have sent invitations to a broad VERY intelligent spectrum of individuals. Hopefully,we can all participate.. One of my short term goals is to get it computer modeled..


There are some people on Dr Masters site that can do that.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Send them my way...


way more traffic over on DR M site.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


To much traffic is correct...


levi, lincoln, stomz, dakster, txjc ,blue herion, walker, captain mark, dredge, wilco, blair, senson, webejebee, tungustun, guys like that on DR M should help you need to try.
Quoting cyclonebuster:


To much traffic is correct...


There is not traffic on this sight because there is almost 40-50% of the recent posts related to silly commercials for CB's "Tunnels" which have been banned on Dr. Master's Site, the NSIDC Site, as well as others, including a comment by Dr. Rood, somewhat paraphrased several months ago; "I'm tired of hearing about the tunnels".

At least Spam is an edible product, whereas the "Tunnels" are nothing more than a navigational hazard and a waste of many millions of dollars to further investigate.

Quoting OldLeatherneck:


There is not traffic on this sight because there is almost 40-50% of the recent posts related to silly commercials for CB's "Tunnels" which have been banned on Dr. Master's Site, the NSIDC Site, as well as others, including a comment by Dr. Rood, somewhat paraphrased several months ago; "I'm tired of hearing about the tunnels".

At least Spam is an edible product, whereas the "Tunnels" are nothing more than a navigational hazard and a waste of many millions of dollars to further investigate.



I did not know he was banned.
Aquarius Satellite: Measuring Ocean Salinity


ARStechnica.com


While most people equate space agencies like NASA or the ESA with the exploration of extraterrestrial destinations, a critical part of their mission is to study our own planet from the unique orbital point of view.

One of the newest members of the Earth-observing club is Aquarius (along with its friends aboard the SAC-D satellite). Launched on June 20, 2011, the satellite is a collaborative effort between the US and Argentina. Its job? To map surface ocean salinity around the globe and improve our understanding of ocean circulation and the hydrologic cycle.
This was in some persons signature line. This was on a sight not related to climate change or environmental stuff, and I thought it fit right in here.

Teach every child you meet the importance of forgiveness. It's our only hope of surviving their wrath once they realize just how badly we've screwed things up for them.

for pintada: This from one of my relatives while we were discussing the goings on in Cyprus and the EU. I thought of you, and thought you might like it.

o @GuillotinesRus - This is what the Slog is saying:
In the last 24 hours I have spoken with twenty or more opinion leaders in investment, banking and currency controls. There was a unanimity among those people that the entire eurozone will have blanket currency controls within two months at the latest…


Apparently some of the folks in the EU like your chopper idea. :)

Arkansas residents evacuate as Exxon-Mobil tar sands pipeline ruptures

RawStory.com

An Exxon-Mobil oil pipeline ruptured Friday afternoon in the town of Mayflower, Arkansas, forcing the evacuation of 20 homes and shutting down sections of interstate highway. According to Little Rock’s KATV, a hazardous materials team from the Office of Emergency Management has contained the spill and is currently attempting a cleanup.

The burst pipe is part of the Pegasus pipeline network, which connects tar sands along the Gulf coast to refineries in Houston. Thousands of gallons of crude oil erupted from the breach around 3:00 p.m. on Friday, spilling through a housing subdivision and into the town’s storm drainage system, fouling drainage ditches and shutting down Highway 365 and Interstate 40.

Residents were evacuated to avoid health hazards from crude oil fumes and to keep stray sparks from igniting the standing oil. Emergency workers contained the spill by hastily constructing earthen dams.
# 243 - Cyclonebuster - Thanks for pointing out the video - I hadn't noticed before.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Do you have experience with any courses from Coursera? Any thoughts on this education model?


My experience has been very positive. Coursera courses are done with video lessons. I've taken three courses seriously and followed about 4 others. They range from serious courses to ones that were serious but that I took just for enjoyment (e.g. Astronomy) to ones that were light hearted. (Note: the description serious and light hearted describe my motivational relationship to the course, not content of the course.)

What i really like about the courses is, aside from generally high quality, is that being on video, I can stop and rewind as much as I choose. For me this is of enormous value. I have found in live classes that unless I read the book before I go, the lectures are almost useless; I get tripped up on some point and by the time I figure it out, the professor has moved on. Else I skip the point but the remaining material doesn't sink in because I am missing the point.

With Coursera, I put the videos on a Google Nexus and watch for about 10 - 20 minutes before I go to sleep. Or on busses, at the bus stop, even at the dentist. In short I can take about one course at a time by filling in the corners of my schedule.

If I take the courses seriously, i.e. try to do all the homework, it takes more time obviously. The hardness of the homework depends on the course, ranging from easy to fairly advanced.

As to that educational model, I love it. I find that schools are mostly social institutions, about meeting people, making contacts, etc., I think paying for Harvard is paying for a title and paying for contacts made at school. I think if a person just wants education, anywhere works fine as long as the student is motivated and knows what they want to learn. I also think that the world is changing and that courses like COursera will open up serious education for third world countries. (This is another topic but I have found (in my limited experience) that education in third world countries is largely a matter of prestige rather than education, and a challenging education isn't expected, rather it is about parroting the professors lessons without actually learning how to think. This is a broad generalization that isn't true always of course, certainly not of the better schools. I work with a lot of Chinese, Russians and Indians who are intelligent, well educated and measure prestige by talent.)

So I think that if you want to educate students in the third world past high school, here is an opportunity for almost anyone to join, take classes (for what i assume is soon to be a small fee) and study without social pressure and in a free environment via the forums, etc.

In other words, Coursera is like the first Ipod. Not a new idea but one that is well enough crafted that it will set a standard and shape an industry and in some ways change the world.

Of course, global warming will probably kill most of those third world people first since they have no way to adapt to it.

--- sorry for the long post, seems to be a Sunday thing.
Quoting 1911maker:




Teach every child you meet the importance of forgiveness. It's our only hope of surviving their wrath once they realize just how badly we've screwed things up for them.



Final Sunday comment before I go stuff myself; Easter seems to be like Thanksgiving in Italy re the food. At least in my little social circle.

Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings.

I think there is a new movement in denialist circles to be Wormtongues.
Thanks for the note about Coursera. Obviously the one major issue for someone like me is that completing the courses just gets you a certificate, and not any kind of credit. I'm not sure to what extent the certificate will be counted for anything (even if the material is good, and even if one does learn much). We are required to complete a professional development course and a personal development course each 6mo. Maybe they will count one of these courses.
duplicate comment deleted for ridiculously messed up html coding
Quoting ScottLincoln:
Thanks for the note about Coursera. Obviously the one major issue for someone like me is that completing the courses just gets you a certificate, and not any kind of credit. I'm not sure to what extent the certificate will be counted for anything (even if the material is good, and even if one does learn much). We are required to complete a professional development course and a personal development course each 6mo. Maybe they will count one of these courses.


I would guess it depends as much on the quality and relevance of the content as well as the base school that provides it. I know a few institutions in Italy that will allow a coursera course provided there is reason to take it, i.e. the subject isn't offered, etc. But that is in research programs where classes are only looked at as tangentially important to the education.
This is a photo uploaded to facebook this afternoon showing some of the damage caused by the major oil spill that occurred in Arkansas on Friday:

Click for full size:

oil


Facebook caption:

"Folks, this is a backyard picture of the Mayflower, AR oil spill on that Exxon pipeline. The local authorities have denied the press access to these areas so few have actually seen the extent of the spill. This picture was taken by a friend's daughter who lives next door to this house."

I just want to say, however, that despite the fact there have been two spills of Canadian oil sands product in the United States in just the past four days alone, we should nevertheless absolutely, positively trust the Keystone people when they tell us the proposed XL II pipeline is completely safe and so technologically advanced that such spills will never happen...
Link in 254 to story is broken. Use this: Spill story
Arctic ‘greening’ seen through global warming

RawStory.com (AFP)

Land within the Arctic circle is likely to experience explosive “greening” in the next few decades as grass, shrubs and trees thrive in soil stripped of ice and permafrost by global warming, a study said on Sunday.

Wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 52 percent by the 2050s as the so-called tree line — the maximum latitude at which trees can grow — shifts hundreds of kilometres (miles) north, according to computer simulations published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

In a separate study also published on Sunday, Dutch scientists said that iceshelves in Antarctica — another source of worry in the climate equation — have in fact been growing thanks to global warming.

Meltwater that runs off the Antarctic mainland provides a cold, protective “cap” for iceshelves because it comes from freshwater, which is denser than seawater, the team from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said.

Iceshelves are the floating blankets of ice that extend from the coast. They are fed by glaciers that move ice down from the icesheet and towards the sea.

The freshwater acts as a cold coating for the underside of the iceshelf, cocooning it from warmer seas, according to their study, appearing in the journal Nature Geoscience.

This would explain an apparent anomaly: why sea ice around Antarctica has been growing, reaching the greatest-ever recorded extent in 2010, it suggested.
Quoting cyclonebuster:
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/31/the-new-arcti c/

The New Arctic

Marine scientist Ken Dunton talks about what the disappearing ice means for humans and animals in the "new" Arctic.


I haven't bothered looking, but I'm sure Watts probably already has an ad hominem laden rant about all the reasons this new study is wrong. But I'll link to it here anyway. ;-)

Nature Geoscience published a new study online today that sheds some more light on the reasons behind the paradoxical growth of Antarctic sea ice (Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion) From the abstract:

"Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded, with record extent in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica's ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.
Quoting barbamz:
Hello and good night. New study is up on "Psychological Science", but maybe the news were already posted (then sorry). I leave it here in order not to disturb the momentarily serene atmosphere on the main blog, lol. It will be discussed there anyway at some time.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing. Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

By Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles E. Gignac

Abstract: Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.




Quoting myself (forgive me), lol, because I found a telling follow up to this study, lol.
How not to prove you're not wearing a tin foil hat.
It's including a link to this:
Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Posted on 21 March 2013 by John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky
264. beell
Not much has changed since this report saw daylight.

Keystone allows Canada access to world oil markets. Plain and simple.

Wonder if the spill in Arkansas was the work of some Monkey Wrenchers?

Exporting Energy Security
Keystone XL Exposed-September 2011/OilChange International


In 2009, TransCanada identified the six shippers, or customers, who have signed confidential long-term
binding agreements that according to TransCanada’s statements to Canada’s regulators, account for
76 percent of Keystone XL’s initial capacity. Port Arthur, Texas is the southern terminus of the Keystone XL pipeline and three of the shippers have refineries located there—Shell, Total, and Valero. Two of the shippers are tar sands producers in need of access to markets (Canadian Natural Resources and Cenovus/Encana), and the final one is an oil trading firm specializing in export (Trafigura).

The six shippers are:
• Valero: Valero—the largest exporter of refined products in the United States—has a long-term contract with TransCanada to ship oil on the Keystone XL pipeline. It also has a contract with Canadian Natural Resources to take 100,000 barrels per day via the Keystone XL pipeline. Valero has also stated that it has additional contracts with other producers. The company’s business model relies on capturing profits from low-grade heavy sour oil (such as dilbit from Keystone XL), with sales growth now focused on export markets. It is upgrading the Port Arthur refining facility to process heavy sour oil into distillate,11 or diesel,for export.

• Shell: Shell has major stakes in the Alberta tar sands and is also a partner with Saudi Aramco in refining company Motiva. Motiva is currently expanding its Port Arthur refinery to become the largest in the U.S. with substantial heavy sour crude capacity.

• Total: Total has stakes in the tar sands and has a newly-upgraded refinery in Port Arthur.

• Canadian Natural Resources: This major Canadian oil producer has new diluted bitumen (dilbit) fields coming online but lacks upgrader or refining capacity to handle anticipated volumes.

• Cenovus/Encana: Like Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus/Encana also has new dilbit fields coming online but lacks upgrader or refining capacity to handle anticipated volumes.

• Trafigura: This scandal-ridden company is a major player in the Latin America petroleum trade. It was at the center of the Iraqi Oil for Food scandal and was fined one million euro for waste dumping in the Ivory Coast. Its prime business is import/export.

Finally, the Motiva, Total and Valero refineries in Port Arthur are within a Foreign Trade Zone, meaning they are exempt from customs duties on imports and exports as well as various state and local
taxes. This amounts to a sizeable subsidy to the oil industry to export refined oil products.
While Valero has been the most explicit, as documented below, all refiners face the same market dynamics. Declining U.S. demand means the best growth opportunities lie in the export market.
Quoting beell:
Wonder if the spill in Arkansas was the work of some Monkey Wrenchers?
That seems to be a growing meme in certain circles, though I've seen absolutely nothing official that would indicate that. But if it was, I think that proves one of the points many of the pipeline's detractors have made: it's insanity to run something so vulnerable through hundreds of miles of open country...
266. beell
You're probably right, Neap. No monkey business. Pipeline companies move tons of dangerous products around the country everyday. So, believe it or not, the "insanity" is commonplace. The insanity is in this particular product.

Just the oil, oil-based products, and natural gas:

The nation's more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year.
USDOT Pipeline Safety
This is interesting.

Link
Quoting Xandra:

The New Arctic

Marine scientist Ken Dunton talks about what the disappearing ice means for humans and animals in the "new" Arctic.




The New England?




Chinook to airlift aid to farms cut off by snow


Jenny Booth
Last updated at 10:45AM, March 26 2013

An RAF Chinook helicopter has been called in to ferry provisions to remote farms in Northern Ireland as the freezing weather maintains its grip on Britain.

The helicopter is scheduled to begin airlifting supplies this afternoon to the Glens of Antrim, where families remain cut off by huge snowdrifts and thousands of livestock are feared to have died.

Farmers said that the conditions, especially in the Glens, were the worst in living memory. The bad weather hit as the lambing season was starting, isolating ewes on hillsides where they are difficult to reach.



Unprecedented snowfall during the short lambing season is thought to have killed thousands of lambs on farms across...
Published at March 27 2013

Post a comment

Food costs to rise as lambs and crops hit

Sharp frosts and heavy snow have disrupted the lambing season and hit many crops, in the fields, raising fears...
Published at March 26 2013

Weather Eye: the cold March of 1962

Published at March 26 2013


Avalanched skier’s body found
Published at 12:01AM, April 1 2013

Daniel Maddox, described as an extremely experienced skier, was swept away by a major avalanche near the Glencoe Ski Centre
Weather Eye: April Fool?
Published at 12:01AM, April 1 2013

The Met Office has predicted the cold could last well into April
Easter Day is coldest on record
Published at 12:01AM, April 1 2013





Link
Quoting beell:
You're probably right, Neap. No monkey business. Pipeline companies move tons of dangerous products around the country everyday. So, believe it or not, the "insanity" is commonplace. The insanity is in this particular product.

Just the oil, oil-based products, and natural gas:

The nation's more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year.
USDOT Pipeline Safety
Gee, I'm sure everyone will be comforted knowing how many tons of liquid petroleum products get "safely" delivered every year. I mean, everyone, that is, but those homeowners in Arkansas facing months of disruptive mitigation work. And pretty much everyone touched by the pipeline leaks shown on this map:

oil

On a larger note, don't be taken in by faulty logic and fallacious propaganda of the type the DOT employs in that phrase. Just because most product gets delivered safely doesn't mean pipeline transport is inherently safe and not prone to accidents.
@ iceagecoming (#270)


273. beell
Quoting Neapolitan:
Gee, I'm sure everyone will be comforted knowing how many tons of liquid petroleum products get "safely" delivered every year. I mean, everyone, that is, but those homeowners in Arkansas facing months of disruptive mitigation work. And pretty much everyone touched by the pipeline leaks shown on this map:

oil

On a larger note, don't be taken in by faulty logic and fallacious propaganda of the type the DOT employs in that phrase. Just because most product gets delivered safely doesn't mean pipeline transport is inherently safe and not prone to accidents.


The focus of my post was to reiterate the idiocy of shipping dilbit through the p/l system. Not a discourse on the inherent dangers of the pipeline transportation system. One with risks that most of us accept as necessary for years to come. At least those of us who expect gasoline to flow from the pump or warm air to heat our homes on demand.
Quoting beell:


The focus of my post was to reiterate the idiocy of shipping dilbit through the p/l system. Not a discourse on the inherent dangers of the pipeline transportation system. One with risks that most of us accept as necessary for years to come. At least thos of us who expect gasoline to flow from the pump or warm air to heat our homes on demand.
And the focus of my post was to reiterate the idiocy of our singular obsession with fossil fuels, period. And that means whether those fuels are mined or drilled for, and whether they get to the consumer via barge, train, truck, or pipeline. Our usage of them is, simply put, suicidal and unsustainable.

Yes, people want the "convenience" of on-demand heat, and most fantasize about unlimited cheap gasoline. But the reality is that vast swaths of land have been rendered unusable for any other purpose--if not unusable, period--by extraction activities. Uncountable areas of our oceans, lakes, and rivers have been polluted. And the sky has been pumped full of carcinogenic pathogens--not to mention hundreds of billions of metric tons of CO2 that are all but sealing our civilization's fate.

I know that's difficult to hear. After all, junkies never want to be faced with acknowledging the self-destructive consequences of their addictions--but that alone isn't reason enough to shield them from the truth.
275. beell
Welcome to reality. Blather on.
Quoting beell:
Welcome to reality.
You, too:

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

oil

Hey! But at least we have gasoline flowing from the pumps and on-demand heat!
Quoting Neapolitan:
I haven't bothered looking, but I'm sure Watts probably already has an ad hominem laden rant about all the reasons this new study is wrong. But I'll link to it here anyway. ;-)

Nature Geoscience published a new study online today that sheds some more light on the reasons behind the paradoxical growth of Antarctic sea ice (Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion) From the abstract:

"Changes in sea ice significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature. In contrast to Arctic sea ice, sea ice surrounding Antarctica has expanded, with record extent in 2010. This ice expansion has previously been attributed to dynamical atmospheric changes that induce atmospheric cooling. Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica's ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter. This powerful negative feedback counteracts Southern Hemispheric atmospheric warming. Although changes in atmospheric dynamics most likely govern regional sea-ice trends, our analyses indicate that the overall sea-ice trend is dominated by increased ice-shelf melt. We suggest that cool sea surface temperatures around Antarctica could offset projected snowfall increases in Antarctica, with implications for estimates of future sea-level rise.


NO, Watts and his minions are busy with other things mostly this as reported at RealClimate.
RC's intro:

"Response by Marcott et al.

Filed under: Climate Science
Paleoclimate
— group @ 31 March 2013


Readers will be aware of the paper by Shaun Marcott and colleagues, that they published a couple weeks ago in the journal Science. That paper sought to extend the global temperature record back over the entire Holocene period, i.e. just over 11 kyr back time, something that had not really been attempted before. The paper got a fair amount of media coverage (see e.g. this article by Justin Gillis in the New York Times). Since then, a number of accusations from the usual suspects have been leveled against the authors and their study, and most of it is characteristically misleading. We are pleased to provide the authors’ response, below. Our view is that the results of the paper will stand the test of time, particularly regarding the small global temperature variations in the Holocene. If anything, early Holocene warmth might be overestimated in this study.

Update: Tamino has three excellent posts in which he shows why the Holocene reconstruction is very unlikely to be affected by possible discrepancies in the most recent (20th century) part of the record. The figure showing Holocene changes by latitude is particularly informative."
279. beell
For today, I'd rather focus efforts on a battle that can be won. Saying "No!" to Keystone.
281. beell
Seems everyone practices some form of "denial ism".
Quoting beell:
Seems everyone practices some form of "denial ism".
C'mon beell, you've got lots of good things to say - do the debate and focus on the things that are important to you. Don't react to other people's agendas, but focus on your own.

Many of us share the goal of stopping the Keystone XL pipeline with you, but not your view that continuing massive and increasing fossil fuel for an unsustainable lifestyle is o.k and necessary.

Even here in Panama, I often have 1-4 other people riding in my diesel Montero - many of my friends don't have cars, and we rideshare or take taxis or buses - or even walk a lot.

I'm waiting for a new clipper ship to take me 4,000 miles up the coast under sail power to visit friends and family in the SF Bay Area. The voyage should take about 30 days. (Not really - but one can wish!)
284. beell
Quoting Xulonn:
C'mon beell, you've got lots of good things to say - do the debate and focus on the things that are important to you. Don't react to other people's agendas, but focus on your own.

Many of us share the goal of stopping the Keystone XL pipeline with you, but not your view that continuing massive and increasing fossil fuel for an unsustainable lifestyle is o.k and necessary.

Even here in Panama, I often have 1-4 other people riding in my diesel Montero - many of my friends don't have cars, and we rideshare or take taxis or buses - or even walk a lot.

I'm waiting for a new clipper ship to take me 4,000 miles up the coast under sail power to visit friends and family in the SF Bay Area. The voyage should take about 30 days. (Not really - but one can wish!)


Ya know, Xulonn, that is probably the best advice I have heard. And I will take it! Thank you.

I do tend to bristle at the idea that talking about "the bridge" to zero carbon earns me the reputation as one giving the green light to "continuing massive and increasing fossil fuel for an unsustainable lifestyle".

Pragmatic by nature here. Not an idealist or a whiny, hand-wringing, wailing, teeth-gnasher. There is a difference.

A lovely dream (of sailing) you have. And one I support!

Have a good 'un.
I was doing a quick search on Keystone to see if I could find any more info on the number of leaks in their system.

Given it is April 1 and all that implies, I thought I would put up a good "joke".

I do not normally "hit" the main stream media (bad entertainment) outlets. It struck me that for fox to be claiming the XL Pipe line was bad "Just had to be a April fools joke". But, look at the publication date.

IF FOX thinks the Pipeline is bad, can there really be any thing good about it?


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-rea sons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/Link

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along

By Sally Kohn
Published January 18, 2012
FoxNews.com

In announcing his decision to not grant permission for the Keystone pipeline extension, opponents of President Obama argue the president gave in to pressure from environmental activists.

In reality, the president was resisting an artificial deadline from Republicans trying to force his hand.

But the fact is, for the good of our country and our economy, rejecting the Keystone XL deal was the best decision possible.


Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:...........................


...............6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming

Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.
.............

I know, the joke here is that the bad entertainment media outlets some time do it get right, just like a stopped clock is correct 2X per day.

Or is the joke that FOX made a comment about Global Warming, that kind of said it is happening........
Quoting beell:
I do tend to bristle at the idea that talking about "the bridge" to zero carbon earns me the reputation as one giving the green light to "continuing massive and increasing fossil fuel for an unsustainable lifestyle".

Pragmatic by nature here. Not an idealist or a whiny, hand-wringing, wailing, teeth-gnasher. There is a difference.
You mean as some of us do tend to bristle at the idea that talking about the scientifically proven unsustainability of fossil fuels earns us the reputation of being "whiny, hand-wringing, wailing, teeth-gnashers"?

Great. Got it. Have a good day...
276. Neapolitan put up some good pictures of how Human Kind wrecks a good environment. I thought I would add a few more. In the grand scheme of things, how much does the first picture really differ from the second picture below, and the ones Nea put up?

The first picture is used to promote "prosperity", the second one.......not so much.

No problem ever gets solved until the root cause is addressed. If you do not fix the root cause, you are just treating "symptoms".

One last thought, (and then I am out while I probably get vilified) I recently saw the following bumper sticker on a Van:
"Live simply, so others may simply live"
It is a nice idea, but ultimately, it is a "zero sum game" idea.






The phrase "Too much of a good thing" comes to mind.

Quoting 1911maker:
I was doing a quick search on Keystone to see if I could find any more info on the number of leaks in their system.

Given it is April 1 and all that implies, I thought I would put up a good "joke".

I do not normally "hit" the main stream media (bad entertainment) outlets. It struck me that for fox to be claiming the XL Pipe line was bad "Just had to be a April fools joke". But, look at the publication date.

IF FOX thinks the Pipeline is bad, can there really be any thing good about it?


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-rea sons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/Link

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along

By Sally Kohn
Published January 18, 2012
FoxNews.com

In announcing his decision to not grant permission for the Keystone pipeline extension, opponents of President Obama argue the president gave in to pressure from environmental activists.

In reality, the president was resisting an artificial deadline from Republicans trying to force his hand.

But the fact is, for the good of our country and our economy, rejecting the Keystone XL deal was the best decision possible.


Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:...........................


...............6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming

Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.
.............

I know, the joke here is that the bad entertainment media outlets some time do it get right, just like a stopped clock is correct 2X per day.

Or is the joke that FOX made a comment about Global Warming, that kind of said it is happening........


Sally Kohn is one of the few voices of reason at FoxNews. Take note that this is in the "opinion" section as well.
Quoting Naga5000:


Sally Kohn is one of the few voices of reason at FoxNews. Take note that this is in the "opinion" section as well.


However, that quote from Sally Kohn is from January of 2012!!

Is that the current opinion of FOX NEWS??
There's currently a great editorial (The Tar Sands Disaster) in the New York Times:

"Canadians don’t universally support construction of the (Keystone XL) pipeline. A poll by Nanos Research in February 2012 found that nearly 42 percent of Canadians were opposed. Many of us, in fact, want to see the tar sands industry wound down and eventually stopped, even though it pumps tens of billions of dollars annually into our economy.

The most obvious reason is that tar sands production is one of the world’s most environmentally damaging activities. It wrecks vast areas of boreal forest through surface mining and subsurface production. It sucks up huge quantities of water from local rivers, turns it into toxic waste and dumps the contaminated water into tailing ponds that now cover nearly 70 square miles.

Also, bitumen is junk energy. A joule, or unit of energy, invested in extracting and processing bitumen returns only four to six joules in the form of crude oil. In contrast, conventional oil production in North America returns about 15 joules. Because almost all of the input energy in tar sands production comes from fossil fuels, the process generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.
- - - - - - - - - -
...[M]ore alarming is the way the tar sands industry is undermining Canadian democracy. By suggesting that anyone who questions the industry is unpatriotic, tar sands interest groups have made the industry the third rail of Canadian politics.
- - - - - - - - - -
Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign."


Source

I guess the Canadians really are a lot like us, their neighbors to the south. How very sad and depressing...
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


However, that quote from Sally Kohn is from January of 2012!!

Is that the current opinion of FOX NEWS??


No just Sally Kohn's opinion. She writes very good, evidence based editorial pieces. My favorites were her take downs of the Ryan/Romney tax plan during the debates. Sometimes you'll see her on air as their token liberal, but mostly she just writes well thought out editorials that do not represent FoxNews.
California's Coming Green-Outs
The wind and solar mandate means future power shortages. .





Regulate first, think later. That seems to be the guiding principle of California policy makers. Take the state's renewable energy standard, which will soon cause a surge in electricity prices and could even lead to rolling blackouts when the weather heats up.

I say the below is a non starter for the Brownster>
Assistant OpinionJournal.com editor Allysia Finley on a new study that finds that tapping the Monterey Shale Formation could create 2.8 million new jobs in California.

Utilities have been in such a rush to bring new wind and solar projects online that they've been locking in long-term rates with developers that are often two to four times higher than what they pay for nonrenewables. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates reported in 2011 that the California Public Utilities Commission has "approved nearly every renewable contract filed by the utilities, even when they rate poorly on least-cost, best-fit criteria."

Note: California residents and businesses already pay rates that are 25% to 60% higher than the national average. Excessive energy costs have helped to obliterate the state's manufacturing base. Hence, the obsession to chase green jobs.

The Little Hoover Commission, the state's oversight agency, pointed out in December that an unexpected outage at the San Onofre nuclear plant, which almost left 1.4 million households without power last summer, illustrated how "supply risks can escalate quickly because of constraints imposed by a combination of uncertainty, aging infrastructure and regulations." And "should energy costs unexpectedly escalate or energy become unreliable," California could jeopardize support for renewables across the country. At least there's a bright side.

When these green-power outages occur, the politicians will blame the utilities. But this is an avoidable crisis caused entirely by politicians and green-energy lobbies who pretend they can defy the laws of energy supply and demand. Californians are going to pay for their wind and solar power indulgences.

Link
Quoting Naga5000:
...well thought out editorials that do not represent FoxNews.
See: tautology
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Wouldn't shipping by box cars be much cheaper than pipelines?


I don't know about cheaper - but definitely with the same problems.

alternet.org

I saw an article within the last two weeks about using rail to move Canadian tar sands (I'll post if I can remember where I saw it)
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Wouldn't shipping by box cars be much cheaper than pipelines?


The biggest reason Big Oil wants to build pipelines it that they can ship much higher volumes in a shorter amount of time. If rail were cheaper, they would never consider building pipelines. Remember back during WWII, FDR was frantic to get oil from Texas to the Atlantic seaports on the East Coast. The railroads at that time were incapable of handling the volume of tanker traffic necessary to meet the military's requirements. FDR tapped a Texas rancher who had significant holdings in both railroads and oil to get the first pipelines built.

And now you know why the Texas Railroad Commission is the State's regulatory agency for all gas & oil production in the State of Texas.

Secondly, all oil spills from railroad cars are above ground which attracts media attention. Pipeline failures might well go unnoticed by and unreported to the public.
298. beell
Quoting RevElvis:




I saw an article within the last two weeks about using rail to move Canadian tar sands (I'll post if I can remember where I saw it)


Valero sees expansion of U.S. crude and exports/January 29, 2013|Reuters
Arkansas spill stokes new fears about Keystone XL


(link from Houston Chronicle)


Videos and pictures of diluted bitumen spilled from a pipeline in Mayflower, Ark., are providing fresh fodder for critics of the Keystone XL pipeline, who have seized on the images as evidence that the controversial $7 billion project imperils America’s heartland.

TransCanada Corp. has countered that dilbit is no more corrosive than conventional crude oil.


Last Sentence about dilbit (Diluted Bitument) not being anymore corrosive,...

The issue is about sand being abrasive - and eroding the inside wall of the pipe.
How To Make Gasoline From Tar Sands, In Six Simple Steps

ThinkProgress.org

Ever wonder about the future of energy? Will it be wind? Solar? Geothermal? No wait, I got it, tar sands! (Let’s try that again — tar sands!) They’ve got everything oil does, but they’re harder to get, crappier when you get them, and leave a much bigger mark on the climate. Sounds like a winner. Let’s look a little closer, shall we?

First off, what are tar sands? Tar sands are deposits of about 90 percent sand or sandstone, water, and clay mixed with only about 10 percent high-sulfur bitumen, a viscous black petroleum sludge rich in hydrocarbons, also known as “natural asphalt.”

The Athabasca reserves, in Alberta, Canada, estimated to hold about 170 billion barrels, are the site of the only commercial tar-sands operation in the world. (Though, spoiler alert, that’s about to change.) It’s one of the largest industrial programs on the planet and could eventually cover an area larger than the state of Florida — and it’s sprouting an enormous oily ganglion known as the Keystone XL pipeline, which, if completed, would pump 1.1 million barrels ofbitumen sludge a day, crisscrossing much of the continent’s freshwater supply, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

1. Change the name from tar sands to oil sands,...

2. Clear-cut all that unsightly boreal forest,...

3. Get yourself some massive excavators, the biggest moveable objects on the planet, each capable of gouging out 16,000 cubic meters of earth an hour,...

4. To extract the bitumen from the sands, you’ll need to crush the sands with enormous machines creatively known as crushers,...

5. Now you’re ready to get started! Of course you’ve got a problem. Somebody added solvents to our tar, so here comes the hydro-treating that removes the solvents, along with as much nitrogen, sulfur, and other metals as we can get out,...

6. The bitumen still needs to be refined, so it’s off again into another pipeline to an oil refinery, though most of the old refineries aren’t up to the task of handling the filthy bitumen, so you’ll need to build new refineries or upgrade old ones. Presto! You’re cooking with gas!,...

After all of this, it takes as much as four tons of sand and four barrels of fresh water to make a barrel of synthetic oil, which is good for about 42 gallons of gas, or one fill up in a ’97 Suburban. The good news is about 10 percent of that water is recycled! (On the downside, the other 90 percent is dumped into toxic tailing ponds, which currently cover about 50 square kilometers [19 square miles] along the Athabasca River, and is leaking into the ecosystem at a rate of perhaps 11 million liters a day.)

Sounds great, huh? That’s probably why the state of Utah has given final approval to open the world’s second commercial tar-sands project. The Alberta operation uses more water than a city of a million people each year. Seems like a perfect fit for Utah. I’m sure the 2 million-plus people in the greater Salt Lake City area will switch to (caffeine-free) Pepsi!


I had to shorten the 6 steps - just click on the link (simple - huh?)
Quoting beell:


Valero sees expansion of U.S. crude and exports/January 29, 2013|Reuters

My first reaction to shipping by rail was, "Huh?" but I think my mind is adulterated by exposure to so much pipeline talk. I can watch coal cars going to a local power plant any day that I'm hard up for entertainment. Why not watch tar sands go by? The infrastructure exists and there is lots worse stuff already on some of those rail cars--of course, not in as great a volume so the risk is less even if you substitute tar sand for coal (for purposes of risk analysis). I'm sure the tar sands have a greater risk than coal, but compared to a pipeline failure the risk should be less.
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


However, that quote from Sally Kohn is from January of 2012!!

Is that the current opinion of FOX NEWS??

Fox News does not broadcast opinions. Its talking heads will speak out of both sides of their mouths with not a hint of shame. (John Stewart documents the shenanigans regularly.) What Fox News broadcasts is propaganda. Like the saying goes: the first casualty of war is truth. Problem is that we really are not at war on these topics. Most of us are in the same boat. Sad state of affairs.
EREOI (EROI) - Energy Returned On Energy Invested

Oil Sands Mining Uses Up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces

insideclimatenews.org

The average "energy returned on investment," or EROI, for conventional oil is roughly 25:1. In other words, 25 units of oil-based energy are obtained for every one unit of other energy that is invested to extract it.

But tar sands oil is in a category all its own.

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1, according to research released Tuesday. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, fares even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy.

"They have to use a lot of natural gas to upgrade this heavy, sticky, gooky almost tar-like stuff to make it fluid enough to use," said Charles Hall, a professor at the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Hydrogen from gas heats the tar sands so the viscous form of petroleum it contains, known as bitumen, can be liquefied and pumped out of the ground. In this way, Hall said, gas helps turn tar sands "into something a bit closer to what we call oil."

With most of the world's highest quality resources already exhausted, companies are turning to formerly undesirable alternatives such as tar sands oil, which come with higher energetic price tags yet lower returns.

"We built our nation, economy and civilization on cheap energy - that's where this incredible growth of the U.S. economy has come from," said Hall, who coined the term EROI in 1979. "But that characteristic high energy return on investment fuel from much of the last century is no longer here."

Wiki on EROEI (with Charts & Graphs)

BTW - The EROEI on easy-to-get-to oil back in the 1930's was about 100:1 - 2013 Tar Sand is around 3:1
Quoting beell:


I do tend to bristle at the idea that talking about "the bridge" to zero carbon earns me the reputation as one giving the green light to "continuing massive and increasing fossil fuel for an unsustainable lifestyle".

Pragmatic by nature here. Not an idealist or a whiny, hand-wringing, wailing, teeth-gnasher. There is a difference.

A lovely dream (of sailing) you have. And one I support!

Have a good 'un.


A bridge to zero carbon?
Stop using it!!


Why is imagining wrongly that we have any time left "pragmatic"? Why is knowledge of exactly what is happening and the courage to face the truth "whiny".

There are ways to deny the truth that doesn't involve posting the July weather in Antarctica. The denial/delusion also includes those that think changing a lightbulb, or creating excuses to continue this unsustainable and destructive lifestyle is NOT denial.

Catch a clue dude. We are out of time!

The denial that makes it easy for the bastards to sell death by the gallon is as bad or worse than not having the intellect know the difference between the north and south poles.
I heard part of a story today on the radio about studies done on soldiers who are able to perform under pressure. Didn't catch much of it, and I wish I had. It probably would be applicable to some of the current discussion.
Legendary climate scientist James E. Hansen retiring from NASA to fight and lobby governments


DailyKos.com


Legendary climate scientist James E. Hansen is retiring from NASA, where he headed the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

At the same time, retirement will allow Dr. Hansen to press his cause in court. He plans to take a more active role in lawsuits challenging the federal and state governments over their failure to limit emissions, for instance, as well as in fighting the development in Canada of a particularly dirty form of oil extracted from tar sands.

“As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,” he said in an interview.

Hansen has been outspoken in his criticism of President Obama's seeming willingness to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
307. beell
Quoting pintada:


A bridge to zero carbon?
Stop using it!!





Thanks for your input.
Quoting Xandra:
From The Chevron Pit:

Chevron's Legacy

The Pollution Chevron Left Behind...Shushufindi pit 38. Chevron's
scientists found no contamination at this pit.


Third Chevron Spill In Utah Bigger Than Thought -- Why Are We Not Surprised

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Chevron's third spill in Utah in as many years is much bigger than the oil giant indicated initially. Why are we not surprised?

Chevron always downplays the impact of its drilling and exploration practices on the environment and human health.

One expert, John Connor, has even testified that he has never found any evidence that Chevron's drilling has harmed anyone or anything EVER.

He's been paid at least $8 million for his testimony and expert opinion. Wonder if that had anything to do with it?

See this press release about his testimony.

And, see this recent article about the Utah spill.

----------

Read more about Chevron here & here.




I have to ask you if you ever wonder where all your tax money is going,when things like this surface.

Arent there environmental agencies that are funded at least well enough to be on top of this kind of situation?

I think the answer is yes.
Can you at least consider that there are things the EPA is doing that are wasteful?
Just to be flippant,cow farts come to mind.

What causes these type of scenarios is inept agencies awash in cash and crony Capitalism.
These type of scenarios must be stopped.
And yes both political parties are to blame.

What I am trying to point out here is that more regulation could be needed but it would be nice if existing regulation was being enforced.
I am fairly sure there are regulations on the books that deal with this type of situation.In fact I am reasonably sure there are redundant regulations that if enforced would completely cover multiple aspects of the scenario you have pointed out.

Quite often I hear the misused phrase of separation of Church and State.
How about a separation of Federal Gov and its elected officials from business?

To reiterate,the Government; Mostly Federal but not limited to,is involved in way too many endeavors that are outside its limited boundaries,and as a result the Gov cant do the required duties its bound to, let alone keep up with the innumerable regulations its passed.

I am not talking about a slash and burn reduction in Gov,but a very long process of making Gov work better within its boundarys and at least being able to do the things it has mandated to some modicum of competence.

Ask yourself these questions:
How much more money does the Fed Gov need to do its job?
And is that money available?

At what point is Gov consumption of taxable income too much?

And when does the realization of a diminishing return become overwhelming to the economy that the Gov relies on for all its doings?

Is it the point of Monetizing our $$$$$?, or complete collapse?
We as a nation are in between the two scenarios.
Quoting beell:


Thanks for your input.


Sorry! The meat of my comment was apparently not visible to you.

Why is imagining wrongly that we have any time left "pragmatic"? Why is knowledge of exactly what is happening and the courage to face the truth "whiny".

There are ways to deny the truth that doesn't involve posting the July weather in Antarctica. The denial/delusion also includes those that think changing a lightbulb, or creating excuses to continue this unsustainable and destructive lifestyle is NOT denial.

Catch a clue dude. We are out of time!

The denial that makes it easy for the bastards to sell death by the gallon is as bad or worse than not having the intellect know the difference between the north and south poles
Quoting RevElvis:
How To Make Gasoline From Tar Sands, In Six Simple Steps

ThinkProgress.org

Ever wonder about the future of energy? Will it be wind? Solar? Geothermal? No wait, I got it, tar sands! (Let’s try that again — tar sands!) They’ve got everything oil does, but they’re harder to get, crappier when you get them, and leave a much bigger mark on the climate. Sounds like a winner. Let’s look a little closer, shall we?

First off, what are tar sands? Tar sands are deposits of about 90 percent sand or sandstone, water, and clay mixed with only about 10 percent high-sulfur bitumen, a viscous black petroleum sludge rich in hydrocarbons, also known as “natural asphalt.”

The Athabasca reserves, in Alberta, Canada, estimated to hold about 170 billion barrels, are the site of the only commercial tar-sands operation in the world. (Though, spoiler alert, that’s about to change.) It’s one of the largest industrial programs on the planet and could eventually cover an area larger than the state of Florida — and it’s sprouting an enormous oily ganglion known as the Keystone XL pipeline, which, if completed, would pump 1.1 million barrels ofbitumen sludge a day, crisscrossing much of the continent’s freshwater supply, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

1. Change the name from tar sands to oil sands,...

2. Clear-cut all that unsightly boreal forest,...

3. Get yourself some massive excavators, the biggest moveable objects on the planet, each capable of gouging out 16,000 cubic meters of earth an hour,...

4. To extract the bitumen from the sands, you’ll need to crush the sands with enormous machines creatively known as crushers,...

5. Now you’re ready to get started! Of course you’ve got a problem. Somebody added solvents to our tar, so here comes the hydro-treating that removes the solvents, along with as much nitrogen, sulfur, and other metals as we can get out,...

6. The bitumen still needs to be refined, so it’s off again into another pipeline to an oil refinery, though most of the old refineries aren’t up to the task of handling the filthy bitumen, so you’ll need to build new refineries or upgrade old ones. Presto! You’re cooking with gas!,...

After all of this, it takes as much as four tons of sand and four barrels of fresh water to make a barrel of synthetic oil, which is good for about 42 gallons of gas, or one fill up in a ’97 Suburban. The good news is about 10 percent of that water is recycled! (On the downside, the other 90 percent is dumped into toxic tailing ponds, which currently cover about 50 square kilometers [19 square miles] along the Athabasca River, and is leaking into the ecosystem at a rate of perhaps 11 million liters a day.)

Sounds great, huh? That’s probably why the state of Utah has given final approval to open the world’s second commercial tar-sands project. The Alberta operation uses more water than a city of a million people each year. Seems like a perfect fit for Utah. I’m sure the 2 million-plus people in the greater Salt Lake City area will switch to (caffeine-free) Pepsi!


I had to shorten the 6 steps - just click on the link (simple - huh?)


Do you see a better/cleaner way?
309. pintada

"Catch a clue dude. We are out of time!"

If that is true then it makes your solutions even more enviable,because we are also out of funds.
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


The biggest reason Big Oil wants to build pipelines it that they can ship much higher volumes in a shorter amount of time. If rail were cheaper, they would never consider building pipelines. Remember back during WWII, FDR was frantic to get oil from Texas to the Atlantic seaports on the East Coast. The railroads at that time were incapable of handling the volume of tanker traffic necessary to meet the military's requirements. FDR tapped a Texas rancher who had significant holdings in both railroads and oil to get the first pipelines built.

And now you know why the Texas Railroad Commission is the State's regulatory agency for all gas & oil production in the State of Texas.

Secondly, all oil spills from railroad cars are above ground which attracts media attention. Pipeline failures might well go unnoticed by and unreported to the public.


An owner of a pipeline has to report all spills no matter what size, it's the law.
Pintada you have your head buried in a tarsands belief that the US and the World is awash in the funds needed to get us to an alternative energy source/sources.
That is simply not the case.
I wish it was but its not.
Great news! NASA's James Hansen is retiring this week to spend more time both raising awareness of and fighting climate change:

"His departure, after a 46-year career at the space agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, will deprive federally sponsored climate research of its best-known public figure.

At the same time, retirement will allow Dr. Hansen to press his cause in court. He plans to take a more active role in lawsuits challenging the federal and state governments over their failure to limit emissions, for instance, as well as in fighting the development in Canada of a particularly dirty form of oil extracted from tar sands.

"As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government," he said in an interview."


(Source)
Quoting allahgore:


An owner of a pipeline has to report all spills no matter what size, it's the law.
Well, that's reassuring, because I know Big Energy would never break the law...
Hmm, I've a hard time to believe that this development will be favourable for environment, but our current need of energy seems to encourage every last effort ...

Scientists set sail in search of 'fire ice'
Published: 1 Apr 13 16:44 CET

A research vessel carrying German and Taiwanese scientists set sail for waters off the island's southwestern coast over the weekend in search of methane hydrate, a potentially vast new energy source.

The substance, a fossil fuel that consists of very densely-packed methane trapped in ice, is found beneath the seafloor on continental shelves and in the Arctic's permafrost.

Earlier this month, Japan announced it had successfully extracted the hydrate, known as "fire ice", from its seabed, a move it called a world first and a major breakthrough for the energy-starved nation.

The 4700-tonne German ship, called the "Sonne" will undertake a 50-day expedition at a cost of around $3.98 million, three-quarters of which will be funded by Germany and the remainder by Taiwan.

"This will be the first time we may be able to physically explore for the substance," said Wayne Wang of Taiwan's National Science Council. Past studies have indicated reserves in the area could supply the island for up to 50 years.

Nuclear energy currently accounts for around 20 percent of the island's energy mix but has become increasingly controversial in recent years following Japan's atomic crisis.

Taiwan is heavily dependent on costly oil imports mainly from the Middle East and Africa.


Credit: AFP/The Local/kkf
303. RevElvis 11:08 PM GMT on April 01, 2013

Well you can give thanks to policies from politicians like Obama that promised energy prices will necessarily have to go up.
Thus making the new expensive (oil/gas/tarsands/shale/fracking) technology more economically viable.
Law of unintended consequences.
Sucks, doesnt it?
318. beell
U.S.Department of State-KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE PROJECT

...On March 1, 2013, the Department of State released a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the new Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The Draft SEIS is available at: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/draftseis/in dex.htm.

Once the Draft SEIS has been published by the EPA, the public will have 45 days to comment on the document. Those comments can be addressed to the following mailbox: keystonecomments@state.gov.


Keystone public comments won't be made public, State Department says-By JOHN H. CUSHMAN JR. | InsideClimate News|March 25, 2013

Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, that's reassuring, because I know Big Energy would never break the law...




the check is in the mail

clean coal.... cough cough....

fracking poses no threat to water supplies...

dilution is the solution...

deep well injection fluids stay where you put them.. out of sight, out of mind... and this leads to;

dispersants won't hurt the environment, and you don't need to know whats in them...

piping hot, abrasive, solvent laden dirty low quality oil across the Ogallala aquifer and hundreds of creeks and rivers will not come back to haunt us...

big energy would never break the law...
Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, that's reassuring, because I know Big Energy would never break the law...


I would not say that but it's to hard for them to break the law today. There is an EPA person looking over there shoulder every step of the way.
Exxon Arkansas Spill Raises Scrutiny of Keystone Pipeline
By Jim Snyder & Bradley Olson - Apr 1, 2013 9:12 PM GMT+0200
Quoting indianrivguy:




the check is in the mail

clean coal.... cough cough....

fracking poses no threat to water supplies...

dilution is the solution...

deep well injection fluids stay where you put them.. out of sight, out of mind... and this leads to;

dispersants won't hurt the environment, and you don't need to know whats in them...

piping hot, abrasive, solvent laden dirty low quality oil across the Ogallala aquifer and hundreds of creeks and rivers will not come back to haunt us...

big energy would never break the law...


The EPA said fracking is safe. Do you think the EPA would not tell the truth?
Hi Beel.
Sorry for the skim/cut@paste,leftist thing.
And yes,sarcasm on the blog is not an easy task.
Quoting allahgore:


The EPA said fracking is safe. Do you think the EPA would not tell the truth?


ummmm yes
325. beell
No harm done, spathy. Sarcasm and strong opinions are expected!
Quoting allahgore:


I would not say that but it's to hard for them to break the law today. There is an EPA person looking over there shoulder every step of the way.


Unfortunately the EPA is paid enough to be looking over their shoulders,but they are incapable of doing their job well,because they are too occupied with filing frivolous lawsuits to do what they are actually paid and mandated to do(enforce the laws) not become environmental activists.
That is not only a conflict of interest but it sidetracks them from their basic duties. Add in corrupt politicians and the correlating over-site committees and voila.
Quoting indianrivguy:


ummmm yes


Its nice to know we can agree on some things... LOL :O)
"Ideal conditions" for toxic algae in Lake Erie

CBSNews.com


It was the largest algae bloom in Lake Erie's recorded history — a scummy, toxic blob that oozed across nearly one-fifth of the lake's surface during the summer and fall of 2011. It sucked oxygen from the water, clogged boat motors and washed ashore in rotting masses that turned beachgoers' stomachs.

It was also likely an omen of things to come, experts said in a study released Monday. The warming climate and modern farming practices are creating ideal conditions for gigantic algae formations on Lake Erie, which could be potentially disastrous to the surrounding area's multi-billion-dollar tourist economy. The shallowest and southernmost of the Great Lakes, Erie contains just 2 percent of their combined waters but about half their fish.

According to the report, which was compiled by more than two dozen scientists, the 2011 runaway bloom was fueled by phosphorus-laden fertilizers that were swept from corn and soybean fields during heavy rainstorms. Weak currents and calm winds prevented churning and flushing that could have short-circuited its rampant growth.
Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?

JunkScience.com recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the results of tests conducted on 41 people who were exposed by EPA researchers to high levels of airborne fine particulate matter - soot and dust known as PM2.5.

If we are to believe the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 41 people, at least one of whom was already suffering from heart problems.

link:
Link
Quoting spathy:
Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?

JunkScience.com recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the results of tests conducted on 41 people who were exposed by EPA researchers to high levels of airborne fine particulate matter - soot and dust known as PM2.5.

If we are to believe the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 41 people, at least one of whom was already suffering from heart problems.

link:
Link



What agency can you trust? It looks like everyone has some sort of agenda.
Quoting spathy:
Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?

JunkScience.com recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the results of tests conducted on 41 people who were exposed by EPA researchers to high levels of airborne fine particulate matter - soot and dust known as PM2.5.

If we are to believe the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 41 people, at least one of whom was already suffering from heart problems.

link:
Link
Do you have a better source for the information on human testing? I followed your link, which said the info was revealed by junkscience.com, but their website has lots of allegations and ( as far as I could find) no discussion or copies of the info they supposedly got from their FOIA request to the EPA. Thanks.

Given all the blatant misinformation I saw on that site, I won't believe their allegations until I see their "evidence."

Milloy's lawsuit against the EPA was apparently thrown out of Fed court for lack of jurisdiction (which a judge CANNOT waive). Milloy admits his site is "corporate funded". I would think his sponsors could afford lawyers that could choose the right court the first time!
Quoting allahgore:


I would not say that but it's to hard for them to break the law today. There is an EPA person looking over there shoulder every step of the way.
Damn good thing they're so law abiding - they're doing enough harm as it is. You might start with the oil spill map in post 271, continue with the oil rig disaster in the Gulf, and then google - sorry, I mean Bing for other harm caused just in the last few years.
Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas






The smell he's talking about are either naptha or natural gas condensate fumes

MSDS for DilBit
Quoting spathy:
303. RevElvis 11:08 PM GMT on April 01, 2013

Well you can give thanks to policies from politicians like Obama that promised energy prices will necessarily have to go up.
Thus making the new expensive (oil/gas/tarsands/shale/fracking) technology more economically viable.
Law of unintended consequences.
Sucks, doesnt it?


Seriously, your one sided political statements are boring and more importantly misinformed. Every post of yours makes me want to read out the all time Dow Jones high and shake my fist while screaming Obama at the top of my lungs....
"First and foremost, Gríma Wormtongue is weak. He likes to hide behind bullies who are bigger and stronger than he is so that he can increase his own power. Basically, Wormtongue is the Lord of the Rings version of Harry Potter's Wormtail (and we can't help but wonder if Rowling got that name from Tolkien). They are both low-down, cowardly, slimy guys who attach themselves to Bigger Bads for power. And it doesn't really work out for either of them in the long run."
Quoting spathy:
303. RevElvis 11:08 PM GMT on April 01, 2013

Well you can give thanks to policies from politicians like Obama that promised energy prices will necessarily have to go up.
Thus making the new expensive (oil/gas/tarsands/shale/fracking) technology more economically viable.
Law of unintended consequences.
Sucks, doesnt it?
Yes, it sucks that we have a center-right President who only allies with the left on certain social and economic issues.

Yes, it sucks that we don't have a true environmentalist and Progressive in the White House.

Yes, it sucks that we have a huge cadre of politicians--mostly on the Right, but to be found on both sides of the aisle--who are helpless to stop themselves from gorging at the vast trough of oily, sooty cash Big Energy has set before them.

Yes, it sucks that we have a popular national cable "news" network that spews anti-science, profit-only nonsense 24/7.

Yes, it sucks that so many Americans are too busy surviving day by day in an economy destroyed by eight years' of Bush's idiotic policies that they have neither the time nor the energy to acknowledge the deeper realities of climate change.

Yes, it sucks...
Article on modeling divisiveness (SP?) in America society.
Quoting FLwolverine:
Damn good thing they're so law abiding - they're doing enough harm as it is. You might start with the oil spill map in post 271, continue with the oil rig disaster in the Gulf, and then google - sorry, I mean Bing for other harm caused just in the last few years.



Causing harm and breaking the law is not the same thing. Most laws are created by them.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Yes, it sucks that we have a center-right President who only allies with the left on certain social and economic issues.

Yes, it sucks that we don't have a true environmentalist and Progressive in the White House.

Yes, it sucks that we have a huge cadre of politicians--mostly on the Right, but to be found on both sides of the aisle--who are helpless to stop themselves from gorging at the vast trough of oily, sooty cash Big Energy has set before them.

Yes, it sucks that we have a popular national cable "news" network that spews anti-science, profit-only nonsense 24/7.

Yes, it sucks that so many Americans are too busy surviving day by day in an economy destroyed by eight years' of Bush's idiotic policies that they have neither the time nor the energy to acknowledge the deeper realities of climate change.

Yes, it sucks...


Center right? Far from it.
USDA FAS

March 18, 2013
Argentine Weather for Summer Crops Continues to SurpriseWith frost threats coming early during this 2012-2013 season, summer crops that were planted late in Argentina are at risk as they are only beginning to be harvested. For the third time during the week of March 10-16, 2013, the temperatures dipped near the freezing mark. No freezes were officially reported, but there were lows to 1oC (34oF) at Tandil and Azul within the province of Buenos Aires. Normally, the freeze date in southern Buenos Aires province is into May. Usually, freezing temperatures are not seen until mid-May in the northwestern and central regions where much of the core soybean and corn crops are grown.



http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2013/03/ argentinasummercrops/



Prolonged Winter Puts Retail Sales in Deep Freeze
Text Size Published: Sunday, 31 Mar 2013 | 4:39 PM ETBy: Anna Andrianova
Special to CNBC



Getty Images Abnormally cold weather curbs consumer demand for spring goods and apparel, but some companies, including drug chains and dollar stores, are benefiting from the spring's delay.

Link






And watching the Jim ThunderSnow Cantore dance around the fact that we are discussing winter storm warnings on APRIL 2ND.
Telling and priceless
I have to take back what I've previously stated. Despite what I once thought, I'm now convinced that the new Keystone pipeline will, if approved, create numerous jobs--many just like the ones pictured here. I can hardly contain my anticipation...

keystone

keystone

keystone

keystone

keystone

keystone

keystone
Quoting iceagecoming:
USDA FAS

March 18, 2013
Argentine Weather for Summer Crops Continues to SurpriseWith frost threats coming early during this 2012-2013 season, summer crops that were planted late in Argentina are at risk as they are only beginning to be harvested.

[snip]
Hey, can I play?

Hot start to 2013 reaches deep into autumn

"Australia's hot start to 2013 continues, with the country's first three months the second warmest on record, the Bureau of Meteorology said.

Average maximums across the country for March alone came in at 32.67 degrees, or 1.25 degrees higher than the long-term average set for the 1961-90 period, and just behind the record set in 1998.

Tasmania had its warmest March on record, with Hobart's average maximum of 22.9 degrees "on the warm side for January or February," Blair Trewin, senior climatologist at the bureau, said.

Melbourne also had heat more customary for the height of summer, with the month coming in as the city's third-hottest. The average maximum of 27.6 degrees was 3.7 degrees hotter than normal.

Sydney was not far behind. Its average of 26.4 degrees made it the Harbour City's seventh hottest. No day had less than 20 degrees and in 22 of them the mercury climbed to 25 degrees or warmer.
- - - - - - - - - -
The warm start to autumn meant Australia continued its spell of record temperatures, with the September-March period the hottest in more than a century of standard data collection, beating the previous high set for those months in 1997-98.
- - - - - - - - - -
"All states and territories had warmer than the mean average daytime temperatures for the month,” Lynette Bettio, a climatologist at the bureau, said."
some of us are missing the big picture framed by tar sands- they are not very profitable, they are labor-intensive and they produce more GHG's than conventional oil to produce Link

Think about it- if oil sands were the easy way, we would have used them first :) But more importantly, they are not the most profitable way to produce fossil fuel energy. They reek of desperation to hold out just a little longer, stretch fossil fuels just a little further, until they, too are gone. Does anyone else see the end of profitable oil on the horizon?
Quoting goosegirl1:
some of us are missing the big picture framed by tar sands- they are not very profitable, they are labor-intensive and they produce more GHG's than conventional oil to produce Link

Think about it- if oil sands were the easy way, we would have used them first :) But more importantly, they are not the most profitable way to produce fossil fuel energy. They reek of desperation to hold out just a little longer, stretch fossil fuels just a little further, until they, too are gone. Does anyone else see the end of profitable oil on the horizon?


something I noticed yesterday, was how energy inefficient making these sands usable is. It takes nearly as much energy to produce it, as you get out of it, and that doesn't address the MASSIVE amounts of water and ecosystem they pollute for all time. My Waterkeeper Alliance leader, Robert Kennedy Jr. was arrested for peaceful civil disobedience over this issue last month.
Quoting Naga5000:


No just Sally Kohn's opinion. She writes very good, evidence based editorial pieces. [...]

Sally Kohn is also a columnist for Salon. She wrote a very good article about Keystone XL pipeline in yesterday’s Salon.

Excerpt from her article 'New spill reveals how horrible Keystone could be'

[...] The proposed Keystone XL is longer — over 300 miles longer than the pipeline that leaked in Arkansas on Friday. That means the Keystone XL pipeline is even more likely to leak. Not exactly a comforting prospect.

This just adds to the mounting evidence against the Keystone XL. Specifically:

Keystone XL would not reduce foreign oil dependency. In fact, according to its own presentation to investors, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline is quite clear most if not all of the extracted tar sands oil would be sent to oversees markets (where oil fetches a higher price).

Keystone XL would increase domestic oil prices. Again, this comes not from environmental activists but the Keystone XL pipeline company itself. According to documents produced by TransCanada, the company notes that because new pipeline capacity would allow Midwestern oil reserves to be drained and shipped, the Keystone XL pipeline would have the effect of increasing domestic oil prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.

Keystone XL would not create nearly as many jobs as promised. In its early applications for permits, TransCanada said the Keystone XL pipeline would create about 3,500 to 4,200 temporary construction jobs. After all, once the pipeline is built there’s not much work to be done except for cleaning up spills. But when the pipeline hit political roadblocks, TransCanada increased the number of jobs the project would supposedly create to over 20,000 — a number frequently repeated by supporters of the pipeline project. But PolitiFact found these assertions were false. TransCanada is simply inflating the numbers to try and sway public opinion and political support.

All this and the Keystone XL pipeline would likely leak, too. After all, the existing Keystone pipeline that would be expanded already leaked 12 times in just its first year of operation alone. Sounds worth expanding, huh?

Maybe you’re like Sean Hannity and think climate change is “the biggest scientific fraud in our lifetimes.” And maybe you also think kittens can really fly. Yet even if you disagree with 97 percent of the world’s scientists that climate change is real, even if you’re not worried about the unprecedented carbon dump that would result from expanding tar sands extraction, even if you’re not worried about the prospect of an oil spill near a major aquifer that supplies water to 2 million people in the Midwest — you should still be opposed to the pipeline of lies that would exploit American land for the sole benefit of oil company profits.

The fraudulent arguments for the Keystone XL pipeline continue to leak out. And leaks are toxic. Just ask those families in Arkansas.

Complete article here.

Quoting goosegirl1:
some of us are missing the big picture framed by tar sands- they are not very profitable, they are labor-intensive and they produce more GHG's than conventional oil to produce Link

Think about it- if oil sands were the easy way, we would have used them first :) But more importantly, they are not the most profitable way to produce fossil fuel energy. They reek of desperation to hold out just a little longer, stretch fossil fuels just a little further, until they, too are gone. Does anyone else see the end of profitable oil on the horizon?



They are forced to take this route because deep water drilling permits are at an all time low, fracking permits are also at an all time low. Just face it the world needs fossil fuels until something can replace it or we can go back to the dark ages.
Quoting allahgore:


The EPA said fracking is safe. Do you think the EPA would not tell the truth?
Yes, absolutely! And I don't think, I know it. The evidence is often in plain sight - in the form of EIS reports and other public documents. Sometimes, U.S. Congressional committees won't even allow those with solid scientific backgrounds to even testify or debate the issues, if their corporate handler don't want it to happen.

Multinational corporations have a huge amount of control over the U.S., and finance huge propaganda efforts - including Fox (so-called) News. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided to make corporations citizens, the effort to hold Congress responsible to the good of the country and it's people has become extraordinarily difficult.

So in direct response to your question, yes, through manipulation of the regulations and bureaucratic processes by big money, the EPA is often hamstrung, and although perhaps legally correct, is effectively not telling the truth.

I'm just curious, allahgore, [Edit: content deleted to please the mods & avoid approaching the bounderier of propriety and the rules], are you playing games with us?

And why do you so often quote huge long posts without snipping them or simply referring to a post number and then put a short, often irrelevant or insignificant question or comment at the bottom. It literally is a form of spamming, and clutters up this discussion forum. I'm about to put you on ignore along with CycloneBuster, our other notorious resident spammer so I don't have to scroll through your spam to read interesting and relevant comments.
Quoting allahgore:



They are forced to take this route because deep water drilling permits are at an all time low, fracking permits are also at an all time low. Just face it the world needs fossil fuels until something can replace it or we can go back to the dark ages.


The argument on deep water drilling is absurd. There are over 27,000 capped gas and oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico alone that have been abandoned.
Quoting Xulonn:


I'm just curious, allahgore, you claim to be a Stanford University grad, but your posts would make a freshman English class teacher shake his or her head in disbelief, and are more on a grade-school level. Are you playing games with us?

Maybe you should ask the same question to your doctor, after all they are well known for their penmanship and writing skills.
Quoting Xulonn:
Yes, absolutely! And I don't think, I know it. The evidence is often in plain sight - in the form of EIS reports and other public documents. Sometimes, U.S. Congressional committees won't even allow those with solid scientific backgrounds to even testify or debate the issues, if their corporate handler don't want it to happen.

Multinational corporations have a huge amount of control over the U.S., and finance huge propaganda efforts - including Fox (so-called) News. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided to make corporations citizens, the effort to hold Congress responsible to the good of the country and it's people has become extraordinarily difficult.

So in direct response to your question, yes, through manipulation of the regulations and bureaucratic processes by big money, the EPA is often hamstrung, and although perhaps legally correct, is effectively not telling the truth.

I'm just curious, allahgore, you claim to be a Stanford University grad, but your posts would make a freshman English class teacher shake his or her head in disbelief, and are more on a grade-school level. Are you playing games with us?

And why do you so often quote huge long posts without snipping them or simply referring to a post number and then put a short, often irrelevant or insignificant question or comment at the bottom. It literally is a form of spamming, and clutters up this discussion forum. I'm about to put you on ignore along with CycloneBuster, our other notorious resident spammer so I don't have to scroll through your spam to read interesting and relevant comments.



Not playing any games. I try not to post long winded jibber/jabber. I am great at math and average in english better in latin. Would you like for me to respond in latin?
Quoting goosegirl1:
some of us are missing the big picture framed by tar sands- they are not very profitable, they are labor-intensive and they produce more GHG's than conventional oil to produce Link

Think about it- if oil sands were the easy way, we would have used them first :) But more importantly, they are not the most profitable way to produce fossil fuel energy. They reek of desperation to hold out just a little longer, stretch fossil fuels just a little further, until they, too are gone. Does anyone else see the end of profitable oil on the horizon?
As I've mentioned before, I have a degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from UC Berkeley, and somehow, years later, ended up with a one year contract as the dedicated IT (LAN/desktop) support guy for the executives and upper management trainees at Chevron's HQ in San Francisco in 1998.

I've seen the planning process at the highest level of a major oil company, and it is simply and classically standard corporate strategy. Maximize profit, minimize expenses. Try to keep quarterly profits up, and put a fair amount of effort into a five-year plan.

Shortly after leaving Chevron to work at the Pacific (Stock) Exchange on the Y2K LAN/desktop computing team, I discovered Jay Hansen's dieoff.org website and shortly thereafter, the peakoil.com website. My current favorite website for global energy issues is www.theoildrum.com. Many of the posters and participants are engineers, petroleum insiders and independent consultants or writers with a vast and detailed base of knowledge. Nothing like here where we spend far too much of our time combating deniers and dealing with naivete, and people who are too lazy to do a bit of their own research, even when answers are available through the Climate Change tab right here at the top of the WU pages.

For my fellow dedicated regulars here, I highly encourage at least reading at theoildrum.com, and you will see many of the energy issues we touch on here discussed in detail. There are many efforts at detailed analysis, and occasional references to AGW/CC. Those who appreciate a rigorous approach to energy issues with a solid scientific foundation, hard-core economics, and intelligent discussion will appreciate theoildrum.com.
Quoting nymore:
Maybe you should ask the same question to your doctor, after all they are well known for their penmanship and writing skills.
OMG - did you really make such an irrelevant statement! You think that they should teach penmanship in Medical school? Perhaps they could cut out Human Anatomy 101!

Sorry, I apologize for foolishly believing that Stanford University has high academic standards, and that most of their graduates could be expected to write a relevant and coherent comment or question.
Wormtongue.

I forget, he said Sauron was bad right? But the cost of war was too much and better to do nothing... proclaiming loyalty, wisdom and friendship but always with the little sly comments..


Too obvious?
Quoting allahgore:
Not playing any games. I try not to post long winded jibber/jabber.
B.S.!!

You just reprinted my entire post instead of taking a hint and snipping or quoting the pertinent paragraphs to which your replying.

I gave you a long time to prove yourself worth reading, but the time has come to hit the ignore button for both you and nymore. (And I really could care less if you put me on ignore.)

This discussion forum will be much more usable for me for at least a while. If I see quoted comments from you by other commenters that seem to be worth reading, I will take you off my ignore list.

Adios!
Howdy all! Glad to see the EROEI being discussed here today. Peter Sinclair over at Climate Crocks seems to be on a similar vein today. Don't count on cheap fracked gas is chock a block with facts to depress you and make you marvel at how easy it is to convince people that fracking will make cold homes and collicy babies things of the past with the wonder of modern technology. A few highlights:

-No fracked gas is not cheap
-No it will not be around for 100 years
-Yes they will export it raising prices.
-Yes carbon energy will continue to get more expensive in the future and by not even lifting a finger to work toward getting off fossil fuel you are dooming your children.

Happy Tuesday all!
Quoting Xulonn:
B.S.!!

You just reprinted my entire post instead of taking a hint and snipping or quoting the pertinent paragraphs to which your replying.

I gave you a long time to prove yourself worth reading, but the time has come to hit the ignore button for both you and nymore. (And I really could care less if you put me on ignore.)

This discussion forum will be much more usable for me for at least a while. If I see quoted comments from you by other commenters that seem to be worth reading, I will take you off my ignore list.

Adios!



Gratias ago vos!
Wormtongue.

Oblitus fuero, dixit Sauron malam fuisse iure? Sed impendio bellum erat nimis et melius nihil facere ... prædicaretis fidem, sapientiam, et amicitiae, sed semper cum parvo vafer comments ..


Quoque non dubia?

Ma tante anni che non ho practicato latina.
Toxic and Tax Exempt: American Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Tar Sands Oil Spill Cleanup

By Erin O’Sullivan

As the Obama Administration continues to ponder a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada has been assuring everyone of it’s safety. “Safety of the public and the environment is a top priority for TransCanada” their slick website reads. Any spill is deemed “unlikely.”

Hardly. Last year, there were 364 spills from pipelines that released about 54,000 barrels of oil and refined products. In 2010 in Marshall, Michigan an Enbridge pipeline sent 819,000 gallons of toxic tar sands crude into the town’s creek just 80 river miles from Lake Michigan. Now in Mayflower, Ark., 22 homes have been evacuated this week as Exxon prepares to attempt to clean 10,000 barrels of this same dirty tar sands crude from neighborhoods. READ MORE
Keystone XL

a full page of Keystone
Furta editio!
For me right now, only 110 of 159 comments are showing on my view of the second page of this blog discussion (I view 200 comments per page.)

That means that 49 posts by Cyclonebuster, Allahgore, and nymore are hidden via the ignore function, which makes it a lot easier to participate without low-value clutter.

I finally gave up on allahgore, because after at least a month, he has not shown that he made any attempt to study AGW/CC. His handle selection raises flags, and he is still not familiar with the science-based information right here at the WU/CC page, or at the skeptical science or real climate sites. He keeps asking naive or baseless and uninformed questions in spite of professing to want to learn the subject. This demonstrates to me that he is truly not interested in advancing his knowledge of AGW/CC.

As many of the regulars have said before, we are patient with newbies and rookies, but if they persist in not trying to educate themselves, they will eventually become irritations rather than knowledgeable participants. So to you newbies and lurkers - if you come here to learn and participate in the discussion of any aspect of AGW/CC, you will be welcomed - but most of us expect you to make an effort to learn about the science of AGW/CC and be able to move up to asking informed questions rather than naive and frivolous ones. It's not that difficult, but you should at least make an effort to get up to speed on a basic level and then join the conversation and debate about the issues and details.

I keep iceage and AGW and others of their ilk visible, because they are true denialists, and I think that it is important to help "out" - for readers and lurkers - the falsehoods, myths and misconceptions they post here.

Quoting indianrivguy:
Keystone XL

a full page of Keystone


For dummies like me, lol, in foreign countries, where we don't hear much about these pipelines. I always have to look up the stuff.


From wiki
Quoting Xulonn:
OMG - did you really make such an irrelevant statement! You think that they should teach penmanship in Medical school? Perhaps they could cut out Human Anatomy 101!

Sorry, I apologize for foolishly believing that Stanford University has high academic standards, and that most of their graduates could be expected to write a relevant and coherent comment or question.
My point was not everyone has a great writing style worthy of your standards. Perhaps that eluded your brilliant mind.

I know you will not see this because you added me to ignore because of all the posts I have made here lately. Oh by the way that would be 2 in the last about 10 days including this one. Face it you would like everyone banned for any reason when they disagree with your drivel.

FWIW I have no one on ignore, I am quite capable of scrolling past posts which seem to be nonsense and have a thicker skin when challenged.
Quoting allahgore:



They are forced to take this route because deep water drilling permits are at an all time low, fracking permits are also at an all time low. Just face it the world needs fossil fuels until something can replace it or we can go back to the dark ages.


Just face it, we need to leave what's left of the carbon in the ground.

The dark ages were a walk in the park compared to extinction.

AND ...

BTW fracking permits are at an all time low because fracing has been unprofitable, not because the permits were withheld.
Elderly Obama And Boehner Daughters Arrive In Time Machine To Demand Climate Action

Alternet.org

April 1, 2013 - In one of the epochal moments in human history, the grown-up children of our leading politicians have returned from the future in a time machine to warn humanity that the worst fears of climate scientists have come true and that we must act now to save billions of people from starvation and endless wars over land and water.

DNA testing has confirmed that the group is led by a now-elderly Sasha and Malia Obama together with Lindsay and Tricia Boehner. They emerged with dozens of others from a remarkably small blue ship that bore a striking resemblance to a 1960s-style London police box, which materialized on the National Mall.

Just then Tricia Boehner stepped forward and said, “For the love of God, we’ve left our family and friends on this risky voyage to our past, to give humanity one chance at redemption, one chance to avoid horrors that you can’t possibly imagine, unless, of course, you are a climate scientist … or someone who listens to climate scientists.” She played a horrific hologram of a world ruined by heat, drought, superstorms, acidification, and rising seas.

A sobbing John Boehner hugged his aged daughters and embraced the President saying, “If we can’t act now, when will we ever act?”

But within hours, such signs of bipartisanship had disappeared, as Rep.,,,


(late by a day -
A new report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that overall global fossil fuel subsidies amount to about $1.9 trillion annually… and that’s probably an underestimate.

Read more at Skeptical Science

"Pumping trillions of dollars of subsidies into the fossil fuel industry keeps the market price of their products low, but we can't avoid paying the price elsewhere. These subsidies keep us addicted to fossil fuels at the cost of public health and increasing climate change damage. Alternatively, we could spend this money in much more productive ways, including to transition away from fossil fuels toward low-carbon energy sources, solving the climate crisis in the process.

The transition won't be easy; we've become accustomed to low energy prices, artificially depressed by these massive fossil fuel subsidies. It's akin to going through rehabilitation for an addiction – it may be a somewhat painful process, but it's a necessary one, because the alternative is much worse. The alternative involves continuing to pump trillions of dollars towards our addiction until the inevitable climate crash finally comes."



Click for larger image
I just started looking at the tar sands from the point of view that it is not about providing energy, just the "other stuff". IF the following is correct and I am understanding there EROI and the qualifiers correctly my supposition is supported.

Is the "world" really seeing usable fuel (gas, diesel, propane) out of the tar sand if you do a bottom line calculation?

My poorly informed view is that it is more about the stuff at the top of the diagram below.

Any one else have thoughts on this? Better info?

348. indianrivguy and GooseGirl comments are about this indirectly.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sa nds-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return- on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitu menLink
............

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle%u2014including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs%u2014was taken into account.
...............

Quoting RevElvis:
Elderly Obama And Boehner Daughters Arrive In Time Machine To Demand Climate Action

Alternet.org

April 1, 2013 - In one of the epochal moments in human history, the grown-up children of our leading politicians have returned from the future in a time machine to warn humanity that the worst fears of climate scientists have come true and that we must act now to save billions of people from starvation and endless wars over land and water.
..........
(late by a day -
Excellent! The end of the entire story is clever too, altho surprisingly disturbing. Fortunately, the Doctor "don't need no stinkin' subsidies".
Quoting greentortuloni:
Wormtongue.

Oblitus fuero, dixit Sauron malam fuisse iure? Sed impendio bellum erat nimis et melius nihil facere ... prædicaretis fidem, sapientiam, et amicitiae, sed semper cum parvo vafer comments ..


Quoque non dubia?

Ma tante anni che non ho practicato latina.
Probe quidem sentires.
Exxon Pipeline Exempt from Paying Taxes To Oil Spill Cleanup Fund

ThinkProgress.org

Exxon has confirmed that the pipeline was carrying “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” This oil comes from the region of Alberta where the controversial tar sands are located. Heavy crude is strip mined or boiled loose from dense underground formations that often contain a large amount of bitumen. This oil is very thick and needs to be diluted with lighter fluids in order to flow through pipelines. Reports have stated that at least 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled into the town.

A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.

As Oil Change International said in a statement today:

“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”
Quoting RevElvis:
Exxon Pipeline Exempt from Paying Taxes To Oil Spill Cleanup Fund

ThinkProgress.org

Exxon has confirmed that the pipeline was carrying “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” This oil comes from the region of Alberta where the controversial tar sands are located. Heavy crude is strip mined or boiled loose from dense underground formations that often contain a large amount of bitumen. This oil is very thick and needs to be diluted with lighter fluids in order to flow through pipelines. Reports have stated that at least 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled into the town.

A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.

As Oil Change International said in a statement today:

“The great irony of this tragic spill in Arkansas is that the transport of tar sands oil through pipelines in the US is exempt from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Exxon, like all companies shipping toxic tar sands, doesn’t have to pay into the fund that will cover most of the clean up costs for the pipeline’s inevitable spills.”
Just like Congress passed a law saying that policies insuring against defaults on derivatives were not really insurance, so AIG didn't need to provide reserves to cover those policies. Anyone remember AIG?
News about CC, anyone? "Science daily" won't rarely disappoint you:

Climate Change Likely to Worsen Threat of Diarrheal Disease in Botswana

Mar. 26, 2013 %u2014 In a National Science Foundation funded study, Kathleen Alexander, an associate professor of wildlife at Virginia Tech, found that climate drives a large part of diarrheal disease and increases the threat of climate change for vulnerable communities.

Read the whole (long) article

And something quite different - but you see, where and in which way oil (gas) is wasted, endangering environment:

New efforts to protect Jordan's Wadi Rum desert


Credit Getty images

Quoting 1911maker:
I just started looking at the tar sands from the point of view that it is not about providing energy, just the "other stuff". IF the following is correct and I am understanding there EROI and the qualifiers correctly my supposition is supported.

Is the "world" really seeing usable fuel (gas, diesel, propane) out of the tar sand if you do a bottom line calculation?

My poorly informed view is that it is more about the stuff at the top of the diagram below.

Any one else have thoughts on this? Better info?

348. indianrivguy and GooseGirl comments are about this indirectly.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sa nds-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return- on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitu menLink
............

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle%u2014including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs%u2014was taken into account.
...............



Precisely my point- if we are reduced to mining tar sands at a net loss to scrape up the last few bits of fossil fuel, then things are dire indeed for the oil industry.
Xulonn,

What exactly are you expecting here, everyone to goosestep to your view of climate change? And what of it if we don't, then we aren't welcomed? This is what you seem to imply (between threatening people with ignore lists and calling them Denialists).

I hate to let you in on this but this is a community and all are welcome here. If you wish to clam yourself into an echo chamber, please suffer in silence. No need to announce to everyone else how much of a ... you truly are.
Economist: World headed towards climate change catastrophe

RawStory.com (AFP)

Nicholas Stern, the British former chief economist for the World Bank, said that both emissions of greenhouse gas and the effects of climate change were taking place faster than he forecast seven years ago.

Without changes to emission trends, the planet has roughly a 50 percent chance that temperatures will soar to five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial averages in a century, he said.

“We haven’t been above five degrees Centigrade on this planet for about 30 million years. So you can see that this is radical change way outside human experience,” Stern said in an address at the International Monetary Fund.

“When we were at three degrees Centigrade three million years ago, the sea levels were about 20 some meters (65 feet) above now. On sea level rise of just two meters, probably a couple of hundred million people would have to move,” he said.

Stern said that other effects would come more quickly including the expansion of deserts and the melting of Himalayan snows that supply rivers on which up to two billion people depend.

Even if nations fulfill pledges made in 2010 at a UN-led conference in Cancun, Mexico, the world would be on track to warming of four degrees (7.2 Fahrenheit), he said.
Quoting sullivanweather:
Xulonn,

What exactly are you expecting here, everyone to goosestep to your view of climate change? And what of it if we don't, then we aren't welcomed? This is what you seem to imply (between threatening people with ignore lists and calling them Denialists).

I hate to let you in on this but this is a community and all are welcome here. If you wish to clam yourself into an echo chamber, please suffer in silence. No need to announce to everyone else how much of a ... you truly are.


Hmm... maybe he's not in control of the blog, but is the master of his own ignore list? I have a few on my own, because I don't want to see useless patter and arguments just for the sake of attention.
331. FLwolverine 2:45 AM
http://epahumantesting.com
Link
Quoting goosegirl1:


Hmm... maybe he's not in control of the blog, but is the master of his own ignore list? I have a few on my own, because I don't want to see useless patter and arguments just for the sake of attention.
Really would that include telling Ricky he should ban certain people for whatever reason. If he wants to add anyone to his ignore list that is his business but asking Ricky or a Mod to ban someone goes beyond his business. I have asked him previously what he would think if he was banned because someone decided his posts were not in lock step, I don't believe I ever got an answer. Hypocrites rarely see their own hypocrisy.
Quoting 1911maker:

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle - including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs - was taken into account.
And then, as everyone familiar with the concept of peak oil and resource limitations knows, you reach a point where an energy "resource" becomes a net energy "sink" and the downward spiral really begins.
Goosegirl,

I have someone on my ignore list too. In fact, the person on my ignore list is basically the person who prompted WU to give us that option as that person was flooding/freezing Dr.Master's blog with multiple 14 page long comments of hyphens and slashes at times when moderators weren't available.

But publicly announcing who you're putting on your ignore list with no other intention but to be a provocateur is bad form.
Quoting spathy:
331. FLwolverine 2:45 AM
http://epahumantesting.com
Link
That story seems to have all the credibility of HAARP and abiotic oil. A glance through the first ten or so pages of Google hits brings up nothing but sites run by nutters on the Right: Alex Jones, PrisonPlanet, RedDirtReport, the Washington Times, The Tucson Citizen, and so on, along with a contingent of sites like epakillspeople.com, epahumantesting.com, and wearepathologicallyinsaneandresistanttoscience.com . Bottom line: as with climate change, folks ideologically opposed to acknowledging science know they can't possibly compete on evidence or facts, so instead they manufacture silly scandals intended to cast doubt on science and scientists. Here, of course, they've singled out--yet again--the EPA, as that's the organization that helps keep corporate America from turning our rivers, lakes, and seas into pools of toxic sludge, and they are absolutely foaming at the mouth to do away with it.

I really do wish people would refrain from posting silly, ideological pseudo-science here...
Quoting sullivanweather:
Xulonn,
What exactly are you expecting here, everyone to goosestep to your view of climate change? And what of it if we don't, then we aren't welcomed? This is what you seem to imply (between threatening people with ignore lists and calling them Denialists).
I hate to let you in on this but this is a community and all are welcome here. If you wish to clam yourself into an echo chamber, please suffer in silence. No need to announce to everyone else how much of a ... you truly are.
Sullivanweather, it seems that you are being a bit overly sensitive, and perhaps a bit confused, to say the least!

Accusing me with a Nazi-reference smear of expecting people to goosestep to "my" view is unfounded and absolutely inaccurate. I simply come to this blog and participate in the comment and discussion section because I agree with the founder of this blog on the scientific truth of AGW/CC. Why would you come to a blog set up for the discussion of global warming and climate change, and imply that the founders and leaders here are frauds? Are you implying that Drs. Masters and Rood are promulgating lies and misleading the participants here?

This site is called Weather Underground. It was founded by Dr. Jeff Masters, a Ph.D. Meteorologist, and is now owned by The Weather Channel. The position of this site, of Climate Change experts Dr. Jeff Masters, Professor Ricky Rood and Atmospheric Specialist Angela Fritz is as follows:
Wunderground's Climate Change Position
Earth's climate is warming. This time, humans are mostly responsible, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years. We can choose to take economically sensible steps to lessen the damage of climate change, and the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action.
Yes, this (The WU Climate Change Blog) is a community - a community dedicated to the study of man-caused global warming and climate change. It was founded by Dr. Masters and is currently headed by Dr. Ricky Rood. Anyone is welcome to come here and discuss AGW/CC, the details of the science, the continuing evolution of the understanding of what mankind is facing, and the implications of AGW/CC for people, cities, states and nations. That is what this "community" is all about

However, to come here and spam, or repeatedly spout lies, myths, bad science and dis-proven science; to post the same bad, false or misleading information over and over and over - is not welcomed by most of those who are trying to understand and cope with the existential threat that mankind faces with this crisis. I think it is entirely appropriate for individuals to "ignore" disruptors who come here to insult Drs. Masters and Rood and diminish and dilute the quality of the discussions here.

There is no real "debate" about global warming and climate change in the world of science, and those who come here thinking there is a debate are misinformed or practicing denialism. There is an absolutely overwhelming 97% scientific consensus that we are in a period of unprecedented global warming, and that man is the primary cause of it. The scientific and observational evidence is rock solid, and there is nothing other than myth, pseudoscience, outright denialism - often financed by the fossil fuel industry - and lies to dispute it. There is a very tiny group of real scientists in climate related fields who think they may have some evidence against the consensus, but are unable to convince the other 97%. The understanding and acceptance by the scientific community of AGW/CC is based on many measurements and what Dr. Masters and Dr. Rood call nature's thermometers and other symptoms.

If you deny the truth of AGW/CC, then you are, by definition, a denialist. Climate denialism in itself is a subject of psychological and sociological studies of human nature and it's flaws. People deny the scientific consensus, and then whine when they are correctly labeled as a "denialist." "Warmism" is based on science, "denialism" is not. Call me a "warmist" or an "alarmist," and I will admit that those terms describe me, and I will not be insulted, because my understanding is based on scientific truth. If one is going to take take a stand with the denialists, then one should also be proud to wear the "label."
Quoting sullivanweather:
But publicly announcing who you're putting on your ignore list with no other intention but to be a provocateur is bad form.
Give me a break! You have absolutely no clue as to my intentions. The extremely serious nature of the threat of AGW/CC certainly trumps a concern for "form." If you actually read Dr. Rood's blogs (do you?), you understand the problem of "barriers" to dealing with AGW/CC. We often discuss the psychology of climate change denialism here, because it a a big barrier to actually doing anything about, or preparing to adapt to the civilization-threatening changes that are coming. My intention is to discuss the value of reducing clutter that impedes the ability of this blog to function as its creators intended. It is not a frivolous playground where there is a community of child-like adults playing with ideas that have no implication for our very future as a civilization.

And believe me, this place would not be an echo chamber without the denialists and disruptors. Science has many lively and contentious arenas - and even without the b.s. of the denialists and disruptors, it could be quite lively and absolutely not an "echo chamber. "

Grasshopper, you have much to learn yet!
Quoting pintada:


Just face it, we need to leave what's left of the carbon in the ground.

The dark ages were a walk in the park compared to extinction.

AND ...

BTW fracking permits are at an all time low because fracing has been unprofitable, not because the permits were withheld.


Does this movement start with turning your computer off? Stop driving, buy horses and a buggy? What is the plan if we leave all the carbon in the ground?
Quoting allahgore:


Does this movement start with turning your computer off? Stop driving, buy horses and a buggy? What is the plan if we leave all the carbon in the ground?


You think in such black and white terms. No, the movement begins with a progressive shift into smarter technologies. It's not that we just stop and go back to 1895, it's a cultural shift to start changing the way we live, step by step.
Quoting Naga5000:


You think in such black and white terms. No, the movement begins with a progressive shift into smarter technologies. It's not that we just stop and go back to 1895, it's a cultural shift to start changing the way we live, step by step.


Then show me the way! Are we going to blog 10 yrs about this?
Front Page |Nation
ShareShareAmericans back Keystone pipeline in new poll
by Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

April 02, 2013 | 07:06 PM EDTCourtney Spradlin, AP
Poll finds U.S. public support for Keystone XL pipeline despite new oil spill in Arkansas.


As President Obama nears a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a poll Tuesday finds 66% of Americans support the Canada-to-U.S. project. The numbers come amid continuing efforts to clean up a major new oil spill in Arkansas and lingering problems from the 2010 BP blowout on the Gulf Coast.

In the Pew Research Center survey, 66% of U.S. adults say they favor the pipeline, which would carry heavy crude or tar sands from Canada through the Midwest to Texas refineries, and 22% oppose it. Support is highest among Republicans (82%) and independents (70%) and lowest among Democrats (54%), according to the poll of 1,501 adults taken March 13-17.

"There's been pretty consistent support for traditional energy sources," says Pew's Carroll Doherty, noting similar Keystone XL support in other recent polls by Fox News and Yale University. He says he doubts the Arkansas spill, which occurred after the Pew poll was taken, would do much to alter attitudes on Keystone. He says support for offshore oil drilling bounced back quickly after the 2010 BP oil spill, the largest in U.S. history.

The heck with what the public wants.

Maybe the answer is State control of resources?





Dang. I just lost a really long comment I'd been typing about KeystoneXL and dilute bitumen and the Kalamazoo River spill and the AR spill and the 70-year-old pipeline from IL to Nederland TX. Anyway, back when the KeystoneXL construction through Nebraska halted, I read about what this tar sands oil is and that it would be refind (lol Xulonn, Freudian typo) and exported. That's about all I needed to know to (add:*get*) my back up.

Now, I doubt I'd chain myself to a giant backhoe or anything, but I hope the U.S. government has asked Canadian oil interests why they don't build a pipeline to Prince Rupert and refine dilbit/tars sand there. Of course, that's naive thinking. I suppose the real reason KeystoneXL is happening is that near-idle refineries on the GOM coast need work to do.

I'm not confident the President will deny the pipeline right of way into the U.S. because he did approve the arctic offshore drilling that occurred, or rather was attempted by Shell Oil, last year. Seems to me dilbit rail shipment could be a worse alternative. Maybe we can just outlaw the stuff?

Plenty out there on the spills, dilbit/the tar sands, Keystone, KeystoneXL... at the click of a search engine. The Sierra Club has been involved, it seems. Anyway...

Viva Wormtongue.
Quoting Neapolitan:
That story seems to have all the credibility of HAARP and abiotic oil. A glance through the first ten or so pages of Google hits brings up nothing but sites run by nutters on the Right: Alex Jones, PrisonPlanet, RedDirtReport, the Washington Times, The Tucson Citizen, and so on, along with a contingent of sites like epakillspeople.com, epahumantesting.com, and wearepathologicallyinsaneandresistanttoscience.com . Bottom line: as with climate change, folks ideologically opposed to acknowledging science know they can't possibly compete on evidence or facts, so instead they manufacture silly scandals intended to cast doubt on science and scientists. Here, of course, they've singled out--yet again--the EPA, as that's the organization that helps keep corporate America from turning our rivers, lakes, and seas into pools of toxic sludge, and they are absolutely foaming at the mouth to do away with it.

I really do wish people would refrain from posting silly, ideological pseudo-science here...


Scroll down Nea, the people that follow you bashed the EPA when I started asking questions about the EPA. Do we swing a double edged sword? Let's talk in a 340 degree circle because when we talk in a 360 degree circle they might just catch on!
Quoting allahgore:


Scroll down Nea, the people that follow you bashed the EPA when I started asking questions about the EPA. Do we swing a double edged sword? Let's talk in a 340 degree circle because when we talk in a 360 degree circle they might just catch on!


The people that follow? Stop trolling, you're not very good at it.
Why Won't Exxon Come Clean on the Arkansas Oil Spill Details?

MotherJones.com

UPDATE: Apparently Exxon is using Craigslist to hire cleanup workers. "Need 40 HR Hazmat trained laborers. Emergency cleanup of oil," requests this ad posted on the Little Rock site on Monday morning.

At least 22 homes had to be evacuated after the spill, and local residents have posted some alarming photos and video of the mess in their streets and backyards. The group HAWK Center (Helping Arkansas Wild Kritters) is also posting photos of oiled birds that have been rescued and brought in.

Exxon was cagey, at first, about giving an estimate of how much spilled, initially telling reporters it was "a few thousand" barrels or declining to give an estimate. In an interview with Inside Climate, a local official gave an estimate of 2,000 barrels (or 84,000 gallons). When I asked for a specific figure on the number of barrels spilled, this is what I got from Charlie Engelmann, a media relations adviser for Exxon Mobil Corporation:

A few thousand barrels of oil were observed in the area; a response for 10,000 barrels has been undertaken to ensure adequate resources are in place. Approximately 12,000 barrels of oil and water have been recovered. Crews are steam cleaning oil from property.

That's still not a very specific answer. This actual figure is something that people will want to know, given that the spill is igniting even more debate about pipeline safety in general and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in particular.
Quoting Naga5000:


The people that follow? Stop trolling, you're not very good at it.


I see you avoided when I asked what the plan is! Not trolling; show me a plan! Or do we just blog 10 yrs about the same thing?
386. Xulonn 1:22 AM GMT on April 03, 2013
Flagged that and two of your previous comments. Personal attacks are against wu rules.

"No soup for you."
Quoting allahgore:


I see you avoided when I asked what the plan is! Not trolling; show me a plan! Or do we just blog 10 yrs about the same thing?


I haven't avoided anything. Use your brain and stop being passive aggressive, insulting, and trolling. Your schtick is getting old.
Quoting Neapolitan:
That story seems to have all the credibility of HAARP and abiotic oil. A glance through the first ten or so pages of Google hits brings up nothing but sites run by nutters on the Right: Alex Jones, PrisonPlanet, RedDirtReport, the Washington Times, The Tucson Citizen, and so on, along with a contingent of sites like epakillspeople.com, epahumantesting.com, and wearepathologicallyinsaneandresistanttoscience.com . Bottom line: as with climate change, folks ideologically opposed to acknowledging science know they can't possibly compete on evidence or facts, so instead they manufacture silly scandals intended to cast doubt on science and scientists. Here, of course, they've singled out--yet again--the EPA, as that's the organization that helps keep corporate America from turning our rivers, lakes, and seas into pools of toxic sludge, and they are absolutely foaming at the mouth to do away with it.

I really do wish people would refrain from posting silly, ideological pseudo-science here...
Nea, I hate to contradict you but there was one non-nutso site in the google search - on p3 , I think: Irony Alert: Tobacco Apologist Steve Milloy's EPA Human Testing Scare Campaign

"Oh, the irony. A guy who built his career -- and fortune -- by muddying the science on the health effects of smoking is now accusing the E.P.A. of harming lungs and causing heart problems.

Steve Milloy, the former Big Tobacco flack who now runs the trashy haven for climate denial JunkScience.com, is waging a veritable war on the E.P.A. for their research on the effects of smog (or soot, or fine particulates, or PM 2.5 if you want to get really technical) on the cardiovascular and respiratory systems.

To hear Milloy describe it -- on JunkScience or his newly launched website, EPAHumanTesting.com -- the E.P.A. is running “illegal” and “unethical” experiments on human subjects. He’s got allies in this fight, most notably the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a think tank that purports itself as “restoring science, accountability, and liberty to the environmental policy debate.” Milloy is also a fellow at the ATI. On September 24, ATI sued the E.P.A. for “inhumane and illegal treatment of test subjects.”

If you recognize ATI and its lead attorney David Schnare, it might well be from some recent coverage of their role in the pestering of climate scientist Michael Mann. Last month, ATI and Schnare lost a legal battle to expose the Mann’s private emails, a feckless attempt at rehashing the Climategate nonstory, which Kate Sheppard reported on, and which Greg Laden expanded upon."

It might also be noted that Milloy is the attorney (on a contingency fee, no doubt) for the plaintiff in a $2 million suit recently brought against the EPA by a participant in one of these tests. Not conclusive evidence of anything, but it doesn't quite pass the smell test.
Quoting Naga5000:


I haven't avoided anything. Use your brain and stop being passive aggressive, insulting, and trolling. Your schtick is getting old.


How is asking what the plan is trolling? I was told to leave ALL the carbon in the ground, ok let's leave it in the ground, what is the PLAN if we do that?
Quoting nymore:
Really would that include telling Ricky he should ban certain people for whatever reason. If he wants to add anyone to his ignore list that is his business but asking Ricky or a Mod to ban someone goes beyond his business. I have asked him previously what he would think if he was banned because someone decided his posts were not in lock step, I don't believe I ever got an answer. Hypocrites rarely see their own hypocrisy.
And where did he ask Dr Rood or the mods to ban someone? You are a stickler for accuracy; please support this statement. Thank you.
So, I was thinking of asking you guys (Nea, Xulonn, and the rest) for some information regarding glaciers. I am on a team that participates in Science Olympiad. see here
This year's Dynamic Planet (a test event) is on the topic of glaciers and their relation to climate change. There are guidelines and general rules to the event, see here:
PDF file of rules
What I would like is what are some good links or general things to know so my teammate and I can do well and place high on this event.

Thanks in advance.
Quoting FLwolverine:
And where did he ask Dr Rood or the mods to ban someone? You are a stickler for accuracy; please support this statement. Thank you.


Read a few blogs back.
Quoting allahgore:


Read a few blogs back.
Post number?

To everyone else: Sorry, guys, for this silliness, but ag's idea of "winning" seems to be to have the last post, so I thought I would give him another chance.
The wu community goes beyond Ricky Rood's blog, and any member of this community, as long as s/he abides by the rules, is welcome to comment here. There are no reserved tables for those who are versed in climate science and want to discuss only that.

And really, allahgore, things have changed since a year ago at RickyRood's. Last Spring, I posted graphics showing human population increases since 1970, tried to bring up the economic realities of feeding people and moving commerce. I got branded everything from a denialist to idiot thinker to heck, I don't remember what. Oh, even malicious. lol Someone posted population figures the other day and slid past the commandos without retort. That's an improvement.

Anyone notice the black-and-white comments that seemed to advocate dumping fossil fuels now when someone mentioned natural gas as a bridge to zero carbon?

The topic of this blog is "What can I do?" We don't all think alike, and that's a good thing. Grey, gray, I say. Gray.

No soup for Naga.
Quoting Astrometeor:
So, I was thinking of asking you guys (Nea, Xulonn, and the rest) for some information regarding glaciers. I am on a team that participates in Science Olympiad. see here
This year's Dynamic Planet (a test event) is on the topic of glaciers and their relation to climate change. There are guidelines and general rules to the event, see here:
PDF file of rules
What I would like is what are some good links or general things to know so my teammate and I can do well and place high on this event.

Thanks in advance.
Google "glaciers climate change" and you will find a wealth of information, including a link to some Wikiedia articles which would be a good basic pace to start. Good luck.
the significant problems we face cannot be solved
at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.

-Albert Einstien
Quoting FLwolverine:
Google "glaciers climate change" and you will find a wealth of information, including a link to some Wikiedia articles which would be a good basic pace to start. Good luck.


I was going to do that anyways wolverine, but I wanted this blog's feedback or specific input on the topic before weeding through Google's wealth. :)

I just don't want to do what I did last year, do the studying the night before in the hotel room of the host city.
Astro,
I'm not real clear on how general or specific is the knowledge you need. Probably plenty general info out there. I'd suggest you take a look going back about 12,000-15,000 years in Puget Sound to look at how they disappear and carve the land. Couple areas in the midwest U.S. also around that time. Should be easy to find specific info on Alaska glaciers. I know Mendenhall and Portage both have shrunk a bunch since 1970. The "related to climate change" part may be the kicker. Good luck.
Quoting Astrometeor:
So, I was thinking of asking you guys (Nea, Xulonn, and the rest) for some information regarding glaciers. I am on a team that participates in Science Olympiad. see here
This year's Dynamic Planet (a test event) is on the topic of glaciers and their relation to climate change. There are guidelines and general rules to the event, see here:
PDF file of rules
What I would like is what are some good links or general things to know so my teammate and I can do well and place high on this event.

Thanks in advance.
Astrometeor, I see from your bio that you are a HS student. I took 2nd in Physics at the 1960 Chicago city-wide science fair held at the Museum of Science and Industry, and it was the biggest thrill of my high school days. I'd love to see a fellow WU member do well in science competition.

If you've got a couple of days, and since I'm at an age where I enjoy mentoring young people, I'll check out your link and see if I can point you in some appropriate directions.

I just spent my allotment of time for blogging fighting climate denialism and cluttering of communication channels here, and will be busy for the couple of days.

Contact me via WU mail, and I will try to help you out. I could use the opportunity to do a post - or help you do one on the subject here. Or perhaps one of us could do a personal WU blog on he subject.

Edit: I looked at your recent blog entry, and your writing skill is well above many college grads who hang out here at the WU blog discussions. Good job.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
snip...Last Spring, I posted graphics showing human population increases since 1970, tried to bring up the economic realities of feeding people and moving commerce. I got branded everything from a denialist to idiot thinker
The topic of this blog is "What can I do?" We don't all think alike, and that's a good thing. Grey, gray, I say. Gray.
BFoR, I've been posting here for less than a year, and don't know about your issues, but it sounds like you got stepped on.

Those of us who are realists about the population problem realize that the Earth is in what is known "biological overshoot," with respect to human population and that the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth is estimated to be between 1 and 2 billion people. We recognize that millions, if not billions, are going to die due to the combination of energy problems and agriculture/weather/climate problems caused by AGW/CC. The next generation of humans will not be able to feed the masses, or move the necessary cargo.

I don't know what the aspect of your view was that triggered the abusive responses, but I would debate the with you from a brutally pragmatic perspective. Unlike AGW/CC, population dynamics is not settled science, so there are lots of unknowns. Therefore, reason and logic-based opinions and arguments carry more weight.

If you look more carefully, my postings are generally criticism rather than personal attacks.

I focus on barriers to dealing with climate change, and agree with Dr Rood that denialism is one of the biggest barriers. Barriers and solutions/adaptations have been the theme of his recent blog posts.

Quoting Dr. Rood's current blog entry:
A couple of blogs earlier I wrote about barriers that we make with language. During much of the 1990s the conversation was driven by mitigation. We passed resolutions and treaties that said we would limit carbon dioxide emissions to avoid dangerous climate change. Discussion of adaptation was off limits, with the idea that if we allowed discussion of adaptation, then we would decide we could adapt and we would be less inclined to mitigate. The language became more convoluted even as the emissions of carbon dioxide increased. We could not address adaptation, because that would affirm that global warming was real, and that was politically taboo. The result of this word play is that we delay, increasing risk, losing opportunity. In 2007, I participated in an adaptation conference, which was considered edgy. I see no evidence that avoiding subjects improves our response to climate change; therefore, the second item is to overcome the political and emotional barriers associated with language.

Quoting Xulonn:
Astrometeor, I see from your bio that you are a HS student. I took 2nd in Physics at the 1960 Chicago city-wide science fair held at the Museum of Science and Industry, and it was the biggest thrill of my high school days. I'd love to see a fellow WU member do well in science competition.

If you've got a couple of days, and since I'm at an age where I enjoy mentoring young people, I'll check out your link and see if I can point you in some appropriate directions.

I just spent my allotment of time for blogging fighting climate denialism and cluttering of communication channels here, and will be busy for the couple of days.

Contact me via WU mail, and I will try to help you out. I could use the opportunity to do a post - or help you do one on the subject here. Or perhaps one of us could do a personal WU blog on he subject.

Edit: I looked at your recent blocg entry, and your writing skill is well above many college grads who hang out here at the WU blog discussions. Good job.


1. Thanks, I attend an academic magnet and I had my writing skills built from scratch this year by my teacher.

2. If you could wu-mail me, that would be great.
Xulonn,

In all honesty I would say your response is the one which reads as overly-sensitive.
And just where did I accuse you of a Nazi-reference smear? Goosestepping is a military march dating back over 250 years. MANY armies, including the Nazis, adopted the practice, but they didn't invent it nor do they now own it forever more. However, the term Denier/Denialist (whichever way you use it) carries a certain weight to it and throw it around as slang. Are you implying people who simply don't agree with your science are on par with those who slaughtered millions upon millions of people in an attempt of genocide? You should really consider the origins of the terms you use. That's one.

Secondly, participating in discussion and laying down the law of ultimatums or two completely different things. Your comment, #365, is nothing more than a passive aggressive swipe at "the newbies and the lurkers" as you put it. I highly doubt the newbies and the lurkers who are skeptical are going to be willing to engage with someone who is outright demeaning them. I mean, are you calling their would-be comments and questions naive and frivolous or aren't you?

Now, to answer some of your questions.
I come to this site because, well, I enjoy it (there's your simple answer). I come to this blog in particular because I'm well-versed in both studies of climate and weather. In fact, I've been using this web service for almost twenty years now, even before it was popularly known as weather underground. And where is it I imply Dr.Rood and Dr.Masters are frauds? I don't think they're frauds (talk about putting words in the mouths of others). I respect them both, and highly, I may add. Is one not allowed to disagree with someone on a fundamental level and still respect them? I've corresponded with both Jeff and Ricky and they are great people. I really have no idea where you came up with that. Also, I know where their scientific conclusions are, I don't need them recited to me =)

The rest of you comment just looks like talking points and nonsense. "There is no debate..." "97% of climate scientists..." and so on and so forth. If you feel it is your need to disregard civility because it is trumped by whatever is it you're trying to accomplish I will challenge that position every time.
good grief...
Quoting Astrometeor:
So, I was thinking of asking you guys (Nea, Xulonn, and the rest) for some information regarding glaciers. I am on a team that participates in Science Olympiad. see here
This year's Dynamic Planet (a test event) is on the topic of glaciers and their relation to climate change. There are guidelines and general rules to the event, see here:
PDF file of rules
What I would like is what are some good links or general things to know so my teammate and I can do well and place high on this event.

Thanks in advance.

Astrometeor,

The Arctic Sea Ice Forum has several topics posted regarding glaciers. The link below is to the Forum. Under the Arctic Sea Ice category you will sea Boards for Greenland and Glaciers. Within both of these boards you will find topics and discussions regarding glacial melting.

FYI, the Forum is a secure HTTPS site and you can ignore any security warning you receive.

Good Luck with your project.

Arctic Sea Ice Forum
Interesting (and sad) new article on Spiegel English:

CO2 Emissions: Can Europe Save Its Cap-and-Trade System?
By Nils Klawitter
Europe's cap-and-trade system for reducing the release of greenhouse gases is broken, but not everybody wants to fix it. Industry has profited immensely from the plummeting prices of CO2 emissions certificates, and from lax checks on questionable environmental projects undertaken overseas. ...

Just so we all know, I am a terrific (militant would be the wrong word :)) pacifist and back down from most fights, even on an anonymous forum like this. However, I would like to point out that in popular awareness in Western countries, the goose step is associated with both fascism and nazism and as such is viewed in a negative light. It can be perceived as an insult. Just for argument's sake, Link

As for the term denier, I wish someone how chooses not to accept the science of climate change would come up with a new label for which they have no objection.
Good morning gang!

The Munchkins in Munchkin-land goosestepped, they weren't all bad... Just watched The Wizard of Oz..again...first time I ever noticed the wind was blowing the wrong way with the approaching tornado. :)

Zulon, well done, I applaud any effort to mentor our future.

Astro, grab it by the horns young man, all the knowledge of mankind is yours for the learning, I too wish you well.

Old Devil Dog.. I clicked on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and got a message about an "untrusted" site.. you had no problems?
Okay, now I understand...

Goosestepping is on the naughty words list because the Nazis once did it.
Denier is okay, though, because there's only a third-party association to the Nazis. The Nazis weren't doing the denying but committed the atrocities which were later denied by the Deniers. Got it.

Rising Temperature Difference Between Hemispheres Could Dramatically Shift Rainfall Patterns in Tropics
Interesting, esp. the diagram. I didn't know about the difference in warming between the northern and southern hemisphere.
To sullivanweather:

I post this not as a "personal attack," but as a rebuttal and challenge for you to back up your "beliefs" with science. You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I accept your challenge.

I will begin by mentioning that I agree with Masters, Rood and Fritz that AGW/CC is "settled science" but my observation is that you seem to dispute that. Am I correct? If yes, what is the evidence that AGW/CC is not "settled science"?

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. I observe strong signs of denialism, but not true skeptcism, in your attitude towards AGW/CC,and that denialism is a valid topic for this blog discussion. The leader of this blog, Dr. Rood, like many of the regulars here, believes that denialism is a serious problem, and we seek answers to help us counter it. I try to do what Dr. Rood encourages us to do - try to figure out how to help remove the psychological blocks that prevent people from accepting the consensus of climate scientists and the dangers we face. So I repeat my challenge to you to provide evidence (notice that I did not say "proof") that you are a true skeptic based on science, and not a climate denialist. Google "climate change denial psychology" (without the quotation marks) if you do not understand what I am talking about - I am referring to a particular syndrome, and not any alternate definitions that you might try to come up with to try to weasel out of responding to my arguments.
Quoting sullivanweather:
In all honesty I would say your response is the one which reads as overly-sensitive.
And just where did I accuse you of a Nazi-reference smear? Goosestepping is a military march dating back over 250 years. MANY armies, including the Nazis, adopted the practice, but they didn't invent it nor do they now own it forever more. However, the term Denier/Denialist (whichever way you use it) carries a certain weight to it and throw it around as slang. Are you implying people who simply don't agree with your science are on par with those who slaughtered millions upon millions of people in an attempt of genocide? You should really consider the origins of the terms you use. That's one.
Goose-stepping may be a style of military marching, but GooseGirl (now there's an interesting conicidence - does she goose-step?) was correct in it's modern implications - you very clearly used it in reference to some kind of implied petty blog "dictatorship." Nice try with the weasel-words, however!
Quoting sullivanweather:
Secondly, participating in discussion and laying down the law of ultimatums or two completely different things. Your comment, #365, is nothing more than a passive aggressive swipe at "the newbies and the lurkers" as you put it. I highly doubt the newbies and the lurkers who are skeptical are going to be willing to engage with someone who is outright demeaning them. I mean, are you calling their would-be comments and questions naive and frivolous or aren't you?
Say what?? I have neither the rights, ability, or intent to lay down any laws or impose ultimatums - those were just my opinions. I said that newbies and lurkers would be welcomed by me and the other regulars if they come here to discuss AGW/CC and related issues - the purpose of this forum - and not to disrupt the discussion forum with myths, lies, untruths, disproven science, denialist propaganda, etc. This I learned from participating and reading both Dr. Rood's blog posts and comments by the many intelligent and informed regulars here. You keep confusing skeptics and denialists - they are quite different! Skepticism can be countered with science, denialism is much more of a problem that logic, science and reason cannot easily penetrate - because for denialists, agenda is more important than science and truth.
Quoting sullivanweather:
I come to this site because, well, I enjoy it (there's your simple answer). I come to this blog in particular because I'm well-versed in both studies of climate and weather. In fact, I've been using this web service for almost twenty years now, even before it was popularly known as weather underground. And where is it I imply Dr.Rood and Dr.Masters are frauds? I don't think they're frauds (talk about putting words in the mouths of others). I respect them both, and highly, I may add. Is one not allowed to disagree with someone on a fundamental level and still respect them? I've corresponded with both Jeff and Ricky and they are great people. I really have no idea where you came up with that. Also, I know where their scientific conclusions are, I don't need them recited to me =)
I don't come to this forum for fun - I come here because I recognize the seriousness of AGW/CC as an existential threat to human civilization. I come here to learn from the leaders of this site, from the many informed and intelligent posters, to share my knowledge, and to fight climate change denialism, something that Dr. Rood has written about as a serious problem. You may know their "scientific conclusions," but you tell us that you don't believe them! Based on what? Opinion? Do you believe that "opinions" trump science?
Quoting sullivanweather:
The rest of you comment just looks like talking points and nonsense. "There is no debate..." "97% of climate scientists..." and so on and so forth. If you feel it is your need to disregard civility because it is trumped by whatever is it you're trying to accomplish I will challenge that position every time.
Telling the truth implies a lack of civility? You now say that Dr. Rood's and Dr. Masters science, WU positions and our WU scientists blog posts - from which I extracted my comments - are nothing but talking points and nonsense? When you challenge me, you are challenging them, because they are my mentors, and I believe that their science and references are good and solid.

Do I detect some contradictions? I thought you liked and respected Masters, Rood and Fritz?
Quoting indianrivguy:
Good morning gang!

The Munchkins in Munchkin-land goosestepped, they weren't all bad... Just watched The Wizard of Oz..again...first time I ever noticed the wind was blowing the wrong way with the approaching tornado. :)

Zulon, well done, I applaud any effort to mentor our future.

Astro, grab it by the horns young man, all the knowledge of mankind is yours for the learning, I too wish you well.

Old Devil Dog.. I clicked on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and got a message about an "untrusted" site.. you had no problems?


I get a Security certificate message and I just click proceed and have had no problems. The https is more secure than a normal http site. Hope this helps.
Quoting sullivanweather:
Okay, now I understand...
Goosestepping is on the naughty words list because the Nazis once did it.
Denier is okay, though, because there's only a third-party association to the Nazis. The Nazis weren't doing the denying but committed the atrocities which were later denied by the Deniers. Got it.
You used goose-stepping in a context implying a dictator. Then you tried to weasel out of it.

Dr. Rood, myself, and others use denialism in the context of climate change, e.g. climate change denialism or simple climate denialism.

Climate denialism is an area of scholarly study and has nothing to do with the Nazis. Me thinks you may be attempting to stretch things a bit ridiculously.
mornin mornin
411. Xulonn 3:47 AM GMT on April 03, 2013

I am realist enough, idealist some, especially in matters of the heart, intuitive, creative and logical. At times, I prioritize how I spend my moments and sometimes let them flow. I value a polite society. I see a gang here whose members behave rudely in the name of saving humanity. They lose their audience when they insult the intelligence of other readers, the result being they get no soup except what they share amongst themselves. And, truth is, I don't have issues. I react and let go. I hold on some to sorrow because a human needs that to feel joy, and I live without grudge and regret. I have said all I am going to say about the no soup situation at Dr. Rood's climate blog.

Some here seem to be special-interest-paid bloggers, but I am not one of them.

Thanks for your comment. I would say, "Now tell me something I don't know," but that sounds a little rude, so I'll rephrase as "Please don't underestimate the intelligence or knowledge of wu community members."
Quoting Barbamz:
Rising Temperature Difference Between Hemispheres Could Dramatically Shift Rainfall Patterns in Tropics
Interesting, esp. the diagram. I didn't know about the difference in warming between the northern and southern hemisphere.
Great link - thanks!

The owner of the WU weather station at Palmira here in the district of Boquete in the mountains of Western Panama asked me to send him any info on weather/climate changes that we might expect here in the tropical highlands as AGW/CC proceeds. This will be a start.

Quoting Science Daily:
Using more than 100 years of data and model simulations, they compared the yearly average temperature difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres with rainfall throughout the 20th century and noticed that abrupt changes coincided with rainfall disruptions in the equatorial tropics.

The largest was a drop of about one-quarter degree Celsius (about one-half degree Fahrenheit) in the temperature difference in the late 1960s, which coincided with a 30-year drought in the African Sahel that caused famines and increased desertification across North Africa, as well as decreases in the monsoons in East Asia and India.


Also, I like the Science Daily website and will visit it regularly.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
I see a gang here whose members behave rudely in the name of saving humanity. They lose their audience when they insult the intelligence of other readers...
No, they don't. Because their "audience" isn't those they insult--the denialists, contrarians, fake skeptics, disrupters, Big Energy shills, and the attention-starved, immature kiddies looking to get a rise out of others for the sheer entertainment value of it. No, their audience is people with both the ability and intellectual honesty to look beyond their ideological leanings and study science without their blinders on. The former group is a lost cause who wouldn't acknowledge climate change or man's role in it even if there were palm trees sprouting at the South Pole and warm Atlantic waters lapping at the new seashore in Memphis; there's little reason to be polite with them, or to even pay them any attention at all, for they are wrong--undeniably, provably, dangerously, catastrophically wrong. The latter group, however, holds promise, and are worthy of our respect and patience. And that's just how they--the only audience that really matters--are treated.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
411. Xulonn 3:47 AM GMT on April 03, 2013

I am realist enough, idealist some, especially in matters of the heart, intuitive, creative and logical. At times, I prioritize how I spend my moments and sometimes let them flow. I value a polite society. I see a gang here whose members behave rudely in the name of saving humanity. They lose their audience when they insult the intelligence of other readers, the result being they get no soup except what they share amongst themselves. And, truth is, I don't have issues. I react and let go. I hold on some to sorrow because a human needs that to feel joy, and I live without grudge and regret. I have said all I am going to say about the no soup situation at Dr. Rood's climate blog.

Some here seem to be special-interest paid bloggers, but I am not one of them.

Thanks for your comment. I would say, "Now tell me something I don't know," but that sounds a little rude, so I'll rephrase as "Please don't underestimate the intelligence or knowledge of wu community members."
Sometimes the road to productive dialog is a bit rough as perceived slights provoke impolite responses.

My interest in climate change denialism is a subject that is difficult to discuss, because most of our personal psychologies can produce difficult to perceive, much less remove, "barriers" regarding truths we don't really want to hear or know about.
From the Guardian:

Climate change making extreme events worse in Australia – report

Country faces more frequent and more severe weather events if it fails to make deep and swift cuts to carbon emissions

by Damian Carrington


Bushfires at Grampians national park, Victoria, Australia. Extreme weather can lead
to more severe and frequent disasters. Photograph: Jason Edwards/Newspix / Rex Feat


The extreme heatwaves, flooding and bush fires striking Australia have already been intensified by climate change and are set to get even worse in future, according to a new report. Only fast and deep cuts to carbon emissions can start to reverse the trend, say scientists from the Climate Commission, an independent advisory group set up by the Australian government.

"Climate change is making many extreme events worse in terms of their impacts on people, property, communities and the environment," said climate commissioner professor Will Steffen. "We are very concerned that the risk of more frequent and more severe extreme weather events is increasing as we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases."

Chief commissioner, Tim Flannery, said: "Records are broken from time to time, but record-breaking weather is becoming more common as the climate shifts. Only strong preventative action, with deep and swift cuts in emissions this decade, can stabilise the climate and halt the trend towards more intense extreme weather."

Read More >>

Quoting Neapolitan:
No, they don't. Because their "audience" isn't those they insult--the denialists, contrarians, fake skeptics, disrupters, Big Energy shills, and the attention-starved, immature kiddies looking to get a rise out of others for the sheer entertainment value of it. No, their audience is people with both the ability and intellectual honesty to look beyond their ideological leanings and study science without their blinders on. The former group is a lost cause who wouldn't acknowledge climate change or man's role in it even if there were palm trees sprouting at the South Pole and warm Atlantic waters lapping at the new seashore in Memphis; there's little reason to be polite with them, or to even pay them any attention at all, for they are wrong--undeniably, provably, dangerously, catastrophically wrong. The latter group, however, holds promise, and are worthy of our respect and patience. And that's just how they--the only audience that really matters--are treated.
Hi Neo,
Thanks for the reply. Couple things.
~Here I see another example of black-and-white judgmental thinking. Surely, more than the two types you mention are possible. For instance, some might be beyond needing science to make them want to problem-solve potential solutions - levelheaded persons who have no need for the heavy rhetoric of scare tactics.
And
~Please don't miss the most salient sentence in my comment:
"They lose their audience when they insult the intelligence of other readers, the result being they get no soup except what they share amongst themselves."
Quoting Xulonn:
Sometimes the road to productive dialog is a bit rough as perceived slights provoke impolite responses.

My interest in climate change denialism is is a subject that is difficult to discuss, because most of our personal psychologies can produce difficult to perceive, much less remove, "barriers" regarding truths we don't really want to hear or know about.
A confident person does not perceive slights. S/he seeks clarification. Of course "De Nile" is a topnotch coping mechanism, universal and often used. I must turn the dial to "Fight or Flight" right now as I am currently living some of those "need to prioritize" moments.

Thanks. Nice chatting with you.
Quoting FLwolverine:
Post number?

To everyone else: Sorry, guys, for this silliness, but ag's idea of "winning" seems to be to have the last post, so I thought I would give him another chance.


I am not trying to win anything. I was told that we should leave ALL the carbon in the ground. I said ok let's leave it in the ground and show me the Plan to be 100% carbon free!
Quoting FLwolverine:
And where did he ask Dr Rood or the mods to ban someone? You are a stickler for accuracy; please support this statement. Thank you.
Please look at the blog posted on Feb 24. I think you will find it is not only the person in question but many others also, I think your handle may be included.

Have a nice day.
RickyRood has created a new entry.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Here I see another example of black-and-white judgmental thinking. Surely, more than the two types you mention are possible. For instance, some might be beyond needing science to make them want to problem-solve potential solutions - levelheaded persons who have no need for the heavy rhetoric of scare tactics.
And here, I see another example of changing the subject. For we weren't discussing problem solving vs. talking about climate change; we were discussing people who side with the evidence, and those who for various reasons don't. And there's nothing wrong with making "black and white" judgments when there are but two choices. Now, while you may dismiss talk of climate change as "the heavy rhetoric of scare tactics", you should know that most scientists are, indeed, scared, and that's because climate change is the single greatest threat our civilization has ever faced. So if talking about that threat in a very real and understandable way can possibly help us avoid it, those "levelheaded" fellows who get their sensitivities bruised by such talk will just have to suffer, I'm afraid. We have absolutely no intention of shutting up until everyone hears the message.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
Please don't miss the most salient sentence in my comment:
"They lose their audience when they insult the intelligence of other readers, the result being they get no soup except what they share amongst themselves."
I neither missed that sentence, nor, to be honest, did I find it particularly salient. In fact, I'm not even sure what it meant; perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me about your repeated "no soup for you" reference?
Quoting Neapolitan:
And here, I see another example of changing the subject. For we weren't discussing problem solving vs. talking about climate change; we were discussing people who side with the evidence, and those who for various reasons don't. And there's nothing wrong with making "black and white" judgments when there are but two choices. Now, while you may dismiss talk of climate change as "the heavy rhetoric of scare tactics", you should know that most scientists are, indeed, scared, and that's because climate change is the single greatest threat our civilization has ever faced. So if talking about that threat in a very real and understandable way can possibly help us avoid it, those "levelheaded" fellows who get their sensitivities bruised by such talk will just have to suffer, I'm afraid. We have absolutely no intention of shutting up until everyone hears the message.I neither missed that sentence, nor, to be honest, did I find it particularly salient. In fact, I'm not even sure what it meant; perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me about your repeated "no soup for you" reference?


Who's "we"? You and the frog in your pocket? (Rhetorical.) That's not what I was discussing with Xulonn when you commented to me. Once again your comment proves my point once again. You seem to have a knack for that.

As far as the rest of it, the "no soup for you" means certain bloggers who comment regularly here are without the circle of understanding how to deal with human nature in (edit) their attempts to further the cause which you seem to think I want you to shut up about.

'Bye-bye now. I truly need to end this in favor of more fruitful activities.
Quoting Barefootontherocks:


Who's "we"? You and the frog in your pocket? (Rhetorical.) That's not what I was discussing with Xulonn when you commented to me. Once again your comment proves my point once again. You seem to have a knack for that.

As far as the rest of it, the "no soup for you" means certain bloggers who comment regularly here are without the circle of understanding how to deal with human nature in (edit) their attempts to further the cause which you seem to think I want you to shut up about.

'Bye-bye now. I truly need to end this in favor of more fruitful activities.
Who's 'we', you ask? Why, me and you, of course. Us. The two members of the dialog in which you and I were engaged when you took the exit into Soupland... ;-)

At any rate, ad hominems are really unbecoming. If you don't have anything substantial to say, you might be better off just saying nothing at all. Know what I mean? And in the meantime, please go and enjoy your fruitful activities whatever they may be...
Interesting, the intro paragraph of Ricky Rood's new blog:
"This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug%u2019s piece continues the series in response to the question, 'What can I do about climate change?' It is a call for social organization."

In context of your comment at 435, there is no climate change vs problem solving. The only reason I ever stepped foot into RickyRood's blog was to problem solve the "what can I do?" What can the nation do? What can the world do?" I spent most of my first professional life as a problem-solver. The kind of problem solving I did saved lives, directly, hands-on.

Never had any desire to debate AGW with you or anyone else. What I found here was, unless I towed the party line, gnashed my teeth and asked no questions, I was subject to learning the colloquial meaning of ad hominem and other quaint catch phrases you often use.

Quoting Neapolitan:
Who's 'we', you ask? Why, me and you, of course. Us. The two members of the dialog in which you and I were engaged when you took the exit into Soupland... ;-)

At any rate, ad hominems are really unbecoming. If you don't have anything substantial to say, you might be better off just saying nothing at all. Know what I mean? And in the meantime, please go and enjoy your fruitful activities whatever they may be...
Neo, I think you missed the "no soup" references in my comments last eve.

I gave up on having a meaningful discussion with you a long time ago. You addressed me today, remember? By now you should know my personna well enough to realize I am not one to worry about what you or anyone else think/s of the ideas I express. The part I bolded in your comment is a great example of how to lose even the most patient member of an audience. Know what I mean?

Thanks.

(commenting here so as not to drag old thread into the new blog)