Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

IPCC says no ice in Arctic by 2010 to 2015.



http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

 

[GLG]

Nasa scientist says arctic will be ice free by 2012.



http://books.google.ca/books?id=yJj...ult&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not a NASA scientist but another scientist giving a lecture to the American Geographical Society back in 1960.
Slide ruler and penciles was all he had to work with using math and physics.
No global temp data sets or computers, email or any modern equipment......
Lets see how close he was.......
NSIDC graph with perdiction of the future.... (follow the curve)
Looks like that's not going to turn out well....

NSIDC's research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts.
See Research Projects for a list of major sponsored grants and contracts.
NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Enviro
...

 

[GLG]

IPCC says no ice in Arctic by 2010 to 2015.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

Now your just making stuff up.....

Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They had forecast the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice as early as 2050. But Fortier told an international conference on defence and security in Quebec City Thursday that the worst-case scenarios are becoming reality.

You must have read the headlines and thought that was science. I doesn't work that way. If you want to use your critical thinking why don't you read the IPCC report and quote the numbers from there.

Perhaps you missed the point of this "news" item....

Fortier approved of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's move to reassert Canadian sovereignty in the North - he announced in August a $100-million deep-water seaport on Baffin Island and a new military training centre at Resolute Bay.
"We have to increase our military presence in the Arctic, and it would be totally foolish not to do it," said Fortier

Perhaps find out who ArcticNet is and see if this is just Harper spin machine to further an Arctic agenda. Maybe spend money to look for sunken treasure ships .....

 

[OldBlackDog]

"The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true," Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect - the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.

According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/falling-oil-prices-could-delay-tax-cuts-economists-say-1.2800431

Falling oil prices could delay tax cuts, economists say
Finance Minister Joe Oliver 'almost unbelievably optimistic about surplus going forward'
By Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press Posted: Oct 16, 2014 8:09 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 16, 2014 8:09 AM ET

Despite falling oil prices, Finance Minister Joe Oliver has indicated that he intends to bring in a balanced budget next year.
Despite falling oil prices, Finance Minister Joe Oliver has indicated that he intends to bring in a balanced budget next year. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Related Stories

Loonie, oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
Joe Oliver pledges more tax cuts for working families
Gas prices drop to lowest level in 22 months
Canadian dollar hits 5-year low under 88 cents US
Gas prices at 5-year low and dropping
TSX, Dow continue slide on weak economic news
The federal government will have to weigh the potential risks of sliding oil prices before it starts doling out large tax cuts in advance of next year's election, economists warn.

Loonie, oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
IEA cuts oil forecast for this year and next
Oil price at $85 costing provinces and economy billions
Gas prices at 5-year low and dropping
Finance Minister Joe Oliver has promised the government would live up to its tax-cutting pledges despite a sharp fall in oil prices — thanks to a projected surplus in next year's budget.

But some economists say Oliver will be forced to pay close attention to the drop, which could well affect the bottom line in a country as dependent on oil production as Canada.

"The federal government revenues are extremely sensitive to what oil prices are doing," said Scott Clark, a former senior Finance Department bureaucrat and professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"If you listen to Mr. Oliver, he's very optimistic — in fact, almost unbelievably optimistic — about the surplus going forward. He seems to be downplaying the impact of the oil prices, or that lower oil prices will continue."

Fiscal update expected soon

Oliver expressed his confidence once again this week after emerging from a meeting with private-sector economists, an annual consultation to discuss the country's economic outlook before the release of the fall economic update.

The fiscal update is expected in the coming weeks.

While he acknowledged the low price of oil could stunt Canada's economic growth, Oliver reiterated his vow to bring tax relief to Canadians and table a balanced budget in the 2015 election year.

Oil has hit a two-and-a-half year low, the result of a drop that has already prompted the country's policy-makers to examine the potential pitfalls of lower prices.

Oliver has credited Canada's resource sector for financing Canada's social programs, but what happens when commodity prices continue to tumble — and don't immediately recover?

Struggling global economy

Meanwhile, economies around the world, like Europe and China, continue to struggle amid other risks like the expanding Middle Eastern conflict and the Ebola crisis.

Amid all the global uncertainty, Clark instead recommends an approach that would directly benefit the economy, rather than decreasing taxes.

"It's unclear to me why this is really a great time to be doing (tax cuts) — putting aside the politics, obviously."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced last year's deficit came in at $5.2 billion, much lower than the $16.6-billion shortfall projected in the budget.

The government has predicted a $6.5-billion surplus for 2015-16.

The Conservatives made tax-cutting pledges in the last election contingent on a balanced budget, including income splitting for couples with children under 18 and a doubling of the annual limits for tax-free savings accounts.

TD Economics recently projected the government's 2011 election commitments would cost nearly $20 billion through the 2019-20 fiscal year, or about one-third of the projected total surplus over that period.

The bank's Randall Bartlett said the promised tax-relief measures should still leave room in the surplus.

But he added that an extended period of low energy prices could shrink federal tax revenue and have a negative effect on the labour market.

Falling dollar could offset losses: economist

"So, no doubt it will give them pause when they're making their decisions going forward," Bartlett said about the Conservative promises.

"But whether or not that impact is going to be so significant that it will cause them to change their views on the policies they would like to introduce, I don't know if that's the case."

In the short term, he said Canadian motorists will likely get to enjoy cheaper rates at the pumps, even though the economy performs better as a whole when energy prices are high.

Bartlett said the Canadian dollar, which has also fallen recently, could offset some of the losses by helping to encourage exports.

The Bank of Canada has announced plans to measure the impact of cheaper oil in its upcoming monetary policy report, scheduled for release next Wednesday.

Last week, Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz called the effect of oil prices difficult to assess, particularly when trying to determine whether the drop is a permanent decline or a short-term blip.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...Climate-LNG-in-B-C-vs-Alberta-tarsands/page55
ANALYSIS
Loonie, oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
Whether a shift away from fossil fuel, or a temporary price decline, falling oil will alter economy
By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Oct 16, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 16, 2014 7:48 AM ET

Even if the current oil-price plunge is just one more downward spin of the perpetual price ferris wheel, the impact on the global and Canadian economy could be momentous.
Even if the current oil-price plunge is just one more downward spin of the perpetual price ferris wheel, the impact on the global and Canadian economy could be momentous. (Gregory Bull/Associated Press)


Oil Prices and the future of pipelines 4:41

Canada and Dutch disease
Canada and Dutch disease 5:37

22 shares

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
About The Author

Photo of Don Pittis

Don Pittis
The Business Unit

Don Pittis has been a Fuller Brush man, a forest fire fighter and an Arctic ranger before discovering journalism. He was principal business reporter for Radio Television Hong Kong before the handover to China and has produced and reported for CBC and BBC News. He is currently senior producer at CBC's business unit.

Related Stories

Falling oil prices could delay tax cuts, economists say
IEA cuts oil forecast for this year and next
Oil price at $85 costing provinces and economy billions
Gas prices at 5-year low and dropping
External Links

The future of oil: Yesterday's fuel | The Economist
India Faces Mounting Calls to Move Solar to Fixed Tariffs
Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project | Reuters
Lockheed Martin Claims Fusion Breakthrough That Could Change World Forever | Forbes
Drowning in oil | The Economist, 1999
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
The oil industry should have seen it coming.

Prices are falling, and if history repeats itself, there is no reason they can't fall much further yet.

If that actually happens, the impact on your life will be much more significant than saving a few dollars filling up your gas tank.

IEA cuts oil forecast for this year and next
Oil price at $85 costing provinces and economy billions
About a year ago, I read a report forecasting this would happen. It wasn't exactly top secret, and hardly from a subversive group. Titled, The future of oil: Yesterday's fuel, it was published in the right-of-centre Economist magazine.

Not just a blip

The Economist article suggests that this is not going to be just a blip but more of a sea change, as global oil demand plunges permanently. The article quotes a study by Citibank saying that oil use is already falling in rich countries. Most oil is burned to propel vehicles, and increasing fuel efficiency, including conversion to electric and hybrids, means we are using less for that.

It rejects the argument that growth in places like China will push oil use ever higher, saying emerging economies will see the advantage of leap-frogging to new technology and won't pass through the first world's gas-guzzling phase. In the year since that report, an explosion of solar in India, and an analysis by Lazard saying renewables had become as cheap as fossil fuels, only made the case stronger.

Yesterday's report that Lockheed Martin has made a breakthrough in nuclear fusion that could be ready for use within 10 years, is just the icing on the cake.

Village power
Solar panels alongside a canal near Ahmadabad, India help power a village. There's an explosion of solar in India. (Ajit Solanki/Associated Press)

As someone who fears the scientists have climate change forecasts right, and who believes that economics really does solve our problems, I find that analysis gratifying.

However, even if this is just one more downward spin of the perpetual price ferris wheel, the impact on the global and Canadian economy could be momentous. Because between each peak in oil prices there have been some very deep troughs.

And even if you set aside the "sea change" argument, short term factors are still plenty to explain a continued sharp fall in prices.

Weeding out the high-priced producers

For a while now we've known there is no shortage of oil in the world. The question has merely been how much it costs to extract. Persistent high prices mean the industry has been finding oil in interesting places and then setting their engineering wizards to work, figuring out cost-effective ways of getting it out.

In the last decade, one of those interesting places has been under the feet of the world's biggest energy user, the United States. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have unleashed a flood of oil and gas, turning the U.S. from a net energy importer to the world's largest producer.

Just as in Canada's own oilsands, those same wizards have turned the marvels of technology into the commonplace, bring extraction costs down. But not far enough to undercut the oil fields of the OPEC suppliers like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The International Energy Association, a Paris-based NGO that keeps tabs on the industry, predicts OPEC will not stand in the way of falling prices when they meet next month. They haven't said it in so many words but a year or so of oil prices well below the cost of fracking, oilsands and deep off-shore drilling could cut out some of OPEC's competition.

You might think that high-cost oil producers like those in the oilsands would stop producing when prices fall and wait for the price to rebound. Not so. In fact they contribute to the decline. In the first place, there is always the hope that prices will rebound soon.

But even over a longer period, the well-known economic and business principle called "loss minimization" kicks in, where a company keeps on producing even when it is not making a profit.

That's because if they stopped producing (oil in this case) they would still be incurring their fixed costs. So selling oil at a loss at least reduces those fixed costs.

Pumping oil as prices fall

Oil Prices
Political turmoil and military conflict in certain global hotspots has typically sent oil prices soaring. There's plenty of that now, but oil is near a four-year low. (Hasan Jamali/Associated Press)

Capital intensive businesses like offshore production and oilsands have huge fixed costs, meaning they will keep pumping out the oil for a long time, even as oil prices fall.

A longer term drop in the price of oil will be disruptive. The recent stars of the Canadian economy, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, will be happy that they have spent at least some money on diversification. Unemployed roughnecks can take the jobs of the temporary foreign workers.

But it is not all bad for the Canadian economy as a whole. Lower oil prices will result in what we might call reverse Dutch disease.

As described by NDP leader Tom Mulcair and Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, Dutch disease means the loonie gets pushed up by oil exports, pricing Canada's manufactured goods out of world markets.

Current inflation is killing off the Canadian middle class: Don Pittis
​​Gas prices at 5-year low and dropping
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the oil industry rejected the idea when the loonie was rising. It is not clear whether they will accept the concept now that the loonie is falling, but as Poloz has often pointed out, the "true" price of the Canadian dollar, (that is, without the impact of oil), will be very good for Canadian exporters. Especially if the U.S. industrial economy continues to recover.

Traditionally, high energy costs benefit the oil producing areas of the U.S. and Canada. Low oil prices benefit the old industrial heartland.

The low dollar, while bad for Canadians wanting to travel abroad, also protects us from deflation as imports become pricier. But the deflationary effect of lower oil prices could be confusing, if not harmful, for places like the Euro area, where prices overall are on the verge of falling.

Since I started with a prediction from The Economist that seemed to get things right, I should really point out another salutary reminder from the past. In a cover edition from March 1999 titled Drowning in Oil, that same magazine predicted that a glut of crude at the time "could drive prices from today's $10 to as little as $5."

Within weeks of that article, oil prices turned around and hardly stopped climbing before hitting their new peak of $147 US a barrel in 2008. Predicting the future, even for the big heads at The Economist, is never a sure thing. So just in case, why not take the opportunity to fill up your tank.

 

[GLG]

"The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true," Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect - the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.

According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.

Spin ... spin ... spin for harper and his agenda for the north. Someone told harper there is oil up there and that's why it got his attention. OBD send a few hours reading about Arcticnet website and see what they are about. Then you will see what this "story" is really about. I like this one from your quote.....
"The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,"
What models is he talking about? Why don't you show us a link to these models.....
Best I could find is this... http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/pdf/phase1/41.pdf

Model projections, our best means of estimating future weather and sea ice conditions, suggest, should the present observed warming continue, that as early as 2050 an ice-free arctic can be expected at the summer minimum (Flato and Boer, 2001). This projection, evaluated in light of changes observed by northerners over the past three decades, has fuelled an increasing interest in polar science and research studies to be conducted during International Polar Year. In project 4.1 the goal is not to reproduce previous investigations, but rather to improve on the credibility and utility of Arctic climate model results by: 1) employing novel means of evaluating model performance over the ArcticNet focus regions, and 2) developing means to integrate the arctic modelling community with process scientists, northern residents, and decision makers (at all levels of government from hamlet to hemispheric). Project 4.1 will focus on expanding existing partnerships and integrating labs with proven excellence in modeling into the broad focus areas of ArcticNet. The project will focus on four regional scale models: Baffin Bay (Tang), Beaufort Sea (Maslowski), Canadian Archipelago (Holland), and Hudson Bay (Saucier). These models are high-resolution coupled ocean-sea ice-atmosphere models that will examine marine and coastal processes to investigate how changes in the sea ice regime may affect people. In addition, two hemispheric/regional scale modeling efforts will also be supported in project 4.1: a) statistical downscaling of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis (CCCMA) General Circulation Model (GCM) to drive a regional scale model of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (UVic) and b) the MM5 regional scale model to examine climate surface coupling of terrestrial, coastal and sea ice regions (Hanesiak and Barber). These larger scale models will be used to examine the context of regional climate change relative to hemispheric and global scale changes under various climate change scenarios. Selected outputs from the model datasets will be archived and made available to the broader ArcticNet community.

Here is a good news article to get a flavor of what is going on.
http://www.ottawalife.com/2012/11/arctic-sea-ice-coverage-reaches-new-record-low/
It seems to me that Canada sees an advantage to getting resources out of the arctic.
Less ice more money....

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141015165607.htm

Researchers in Syracuse University's College of Arts and Sciences are pairing chemical analyses with micropaleontology -- the study of tiny fossilized organisms -- to better understand how global marine life was affected by a rapid warming event more than 55 million years ago.
Their findings are the subject of an article in the journal Paleoceanography.
"Global warming impacts marine life in complex ways, of which the loss of dissolved oxygen [a condition known as hypoxia] is a growing concern" says Zunli Lu, assistant professor of Earth sciences and a member of Syracuse's Water Science and Engineering Initiative. "Moreover, it's difficult to predict future deoxygenation that is induced by carbon emissions, without a good understanding of our geologic past."
Lu says this type of deoxygenation leads to larger and thicker oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) in the world's oceans. An OMZ is the layer of water in an ocean where oxygen saturation is at its lowest.
Much of Lu's work revolves around the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a well-studied analogue for modern climate warming. Documenting the expansion of OMZs during the PETM is difficult because of the lack of a sensitive, widely applicable indicator of dissolved oxygen.
To address the problem, Lu and his colleagues have begun working with iodate, a type of iodine that exists only in oxygenated waters. By analyzing the iodine-to-calcium ratios in microfossils, they are able to estimate the oxygen levels of ambient seawater, where microorganisms once lived.
Fossil skeletons of a group of protists known as foraminiferas have long been used for paleo-environmental reconstructions. Developing an oxygenation proxy for foraminifera is important to Lu because it could enable him study the extent of OMZs "in 3-D," since these popcorn-like organisms have been abundant in ancient and modern oceans.
"By comparing our fossil data with oxygen levels simulated in climate models, we think OMZs were much more prevalent 55 million years ago than they are today," he says, adding that OMZs likely expanded during the PETM. "Deoxygenation, along with warming and acidification, had a dramatic effect on marine life during the PETM, prompting mass extinction on the seafloor."
Lu thinks analytical facilities that combine climate modeling with micropaleontology will help scientists anticipate trends in ocean deoxygenation. Already, it's been reported that modern-day OMZs, such as ones in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, are beginning to expand. "They're natural laboratories for research," he says, regarding the interactions between oceanic oxygen levels and climate changes."
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by Syracuse University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
Xiaoli Zhou, Ellen Thomas, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, Arne M.E. Winguth, Zunli Lu. I/Ca evidence for upper ocean deoxygenation during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Paleoceanography, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/2014PA002702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014PA002702

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.iflscience.com/environme...rming-rates-have-been-severely-underestimated
New Data Suggests Global Ocean Warming Rates May Have Been Severely Underestimated

October 6, 2014 | by Justine Alford

photo credit: Kim Seng, "Atlantic Ocean Wave Rushing onto Beach Rocks" via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Share on facebook
16.4K
Share on twitter
78
Share on reddit Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services
It’s been known for some time that our oceans bear the brunt of climate change. In fact, it’s estimated that Earth’s oceans store more than 90% of the warming associated with greenhouse gases. That means that building an accurate picture of how our oceans are currently changing and how that compares with the past is pivotal to understanding the pace of global warming.

While scientists have been gathering data on ocean temperatures and sea levels for some time, new research has suggested that the rate of warming in the upper ocean has been vastly underestimated. However, it is not entirely doom and gloom as another study found that the deep ocean has barely changed since 2005, although they readily admit that their estimate has a large uncertainty. The two studies appear in Nature Climate Change.

Our oceans and climate are intimately connected; the global ocean plays a huge part in mitigating climate change because it serves as both a heat and carbon sink, meaning it contributes just as much to the global climate system as the atmosphere. While an abundance of cargo ships and well-funded projects in the Northern Hemisphere have meant that this half has been well studied for decades, the south has been neglected in comparison.

To address this issue, researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California used a combination of methods to investigate warming in the top 700 meters of the ocean since 1970. Because water expands as it heats up, they used sea level changes as measured by satellite data as a proxy for warming where direct measurements were not available. They then combined this data with model simulations and recently gathered temperature measurements.

The team found that models and observed changes generally matched up quite closely in recent years, but there was a big discrepancy prior to when more direct temperature data started pouring in from a network of buoys called the Argo floats, which were installed in 1999. Although this inaccuracy was specific to the Southern Hemisphere, it was large enough to mean that global upper-ocean warming rates could have been underestimated by as much as 55%.

But it’s not just the Southern Hemisphere that has been overlooked; the deep ocean, below depths of 2,000 meters, is trickier to study than shallower depths and has thus been excluded from many studies. To gain a more comprehensive picture, Caltech scientists used the data collected from the Argo floats to calculate how much heat has been absorbed by the top half of the ocean, or approximately the top two kilometers (1,240 miles). By subtracting that from the total warming rates deduced from sea level data, they were able to estimate heat change in the deep ocean. Although they found that the bottom half has remained unchanged, lead author Dr. William Llovel admits that their estimate had a lot of uncertainty.

The take-home message from these two studies is that if we want to build a more accurate picture of global climate change, we need to shrink these uncertainties which will require more measurements. This could be achieved with the recent installation of more buoys that are capable of taking ocean measurements as deep as 6,000 meters below the surface.

[Via Nature Climate Change, Nature Climate Change, Science, New Scientist and BBC News]

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html
Abstract
Abstract• References• Author information
As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m−2 from 2005 to 2013.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/common-misconceptions-about-global-warming
Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

September 24, 2014 | by Laura Suen

photo credit: Global Warming by Mikael Miettinen via Flickr. Licensed by CC.
Share on facebook
16.4K
Share on twitter
126
Share on reddit Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around when it comes to climate change and global warming. If this past winter was particularly harsh where you live, you might have that one friend asking, "If global warming is actually real, why was our winter so cold?" Or what about when people say, "Didn't arctic sea ice increase recently? How is that evidence for global warming?"

Veritasium addresses these issues and many more in a recent video.
Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

September 24, 2014 | by Laura Suen

photo credit: Global Warming by Mikael Miettinen via Flickr. Licensed by CC.
Share on facebook
16.4K
Share on twitter
126
Share on reddit Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around when it comes to climate change and global warming. If this past winter was particularly harsh where you live, you might have that one friend asking, "If global warming is actually real, why was our winter so cold?" Or what about when people say, "Didn't arctic sea ice increase recently? How is that evidence for global warming?"

Veritasium addresses these issues and many more in a recent video.<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OWXoRSIxyIU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[OldBlackDog]

Revealed: the breakthrough 2015 Paris Climate Agreement – ‘do your own thing’
Anthony Watts / 6 hours ago October 16, 2014
The agreement (seriously! ): everyone can do their own thing -

After untold millions of dollars, years of essential travel to exotic holiday locations, and embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure, the world appears to finally be on the brink of signing a legally binding climate agreement.

The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation’s chief climate negotiator. … Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.”

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ld-mandate-emission-cuts-20141016-116q3c.html

I guess we can all feel a sense of relief, that all that effort, time and money has not been a total waste of resources – that it has finally yielded something tangible.

 

[GLG]

Here is a different view there OBD on the same news.
We will see how this goes... but at this point some deal is better then nothing.

The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation’s chief climate negotiator.
Speaking at Yale University on Tuesday, Stern gave the clearest indication so far of what the U.S. position will be regarding a road map toward an international agreement on greenhouse gas reductions. His comments suggested that the U.S. would back the plan, first put forth by New Zealand, when international negotiators meet in Lima, Peru, in December to try to establish parameters for an eventual agreement. Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.
“If we were to conclude a new climate agreement in Paris along the lines of what I just outlined, would we have accomplished much? I think the answer is unequivocally yes,” Stern said. “We would have for the first time established a stable, durable, rules-based agreement with legal force that is more ambitious than ever before, even if not yet ambitious enough -- an agreement that is applicable to all in a genuine and not just a formalistic manner.”
Despite more than 20 years of international discussions about addressing climate change, the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are higher than ever. Scientists warn that the window is closing on measures that nations could take to slow the rise in average global temperatures and avert the worst effects of global warming.
International agreements to cut emissions have historically snagged on the idea that developed countries such as the United States should do more to cut emissions than emerging nations, because developed states were the ones that pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for a century as they built their economies. But the biggest emitter is now China and India is No. 3, with the U.S. sandwiched between.
The New Zealand plan would take into account that not all countries could cut emissions by the same levels, but would mandate that all countries make some cuts. There would be a “legally binding obligation to submit a schedule and various legally binding provisions for accounting, reporting, review and periodic updates,” Stern said, so that other countries, scientists, environmentalists and the broader public could keep track of a nation’s progress.

The idea has already run into resistance, Stern acknowledged, but he argued that it would be the most viable way forward. If the international community insists that countries agree to be legally bound to cuts, many major emitters would balk, including the United States, where a gridlocked Congress has been unable to act on climate change. Further, countries would “lowball” the cuts they would make for fear of being unable to meet higher, binding goals, Stern said.
One sign of the plan’s viability might come when President Obama visits China next month. The U.S. and China have been working “very closely and very intensively” on climate issues, Stern said. Chinese support for the plan could give it considerable momentum going into the Lima talks.
Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-climate-change-proposal-20141015-story.html

 

[OldBlackDog]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Comment Now Follow Comments
The global warming icon for the ubx.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

 

[GLG]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now,

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
it should read
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Alberta Oil & Gas Professional Engineers and Oil & Gas Geoscientists Are Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf+html

OBD this is another case of your side mis-representing a science paper.
Go a head and read it yourself and see if I'm wrong....

I'm very confident that if you looked at this group you would find a denier hot bed.
What surprises me is that anyone in this group would think other wise.
I guess there is hope after all......
I like the bit at the end of your "news" piece "don't look now" LOL
Why is it that your side needs to lie when reporting a "news" story about a science paper?
Perhaps you side has nothing to back up their claims so they just need to make stuff up.
Disgraceful is about all I can say.......

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, you are saying that peer reviewed is just a bunch of crap?
If so that applies to all the peer reviewed stuff you have put up here.
If you look,at the groups that you put up they are a bunch of warmers who are paid to do,their masters bidding.

 

[GLG]

So, you are saying that peer reviewed is just a bunch of crap?
If so that applies to all the peer reviewed stuff you have put up here.
If you look,at the groups that you put up they are a bunch of warmers who are paid to do,their masters bidding.

Nice try... read the paper.... I'm saying that the reporting of the paper is crap.
The reporting is twisting the results to suit an agenda.
Something your side does very often.....

If you look,at the groups that you put up they are a bunch of warmers who are paid to do,their masters bidding.

Are you saying that NASA and such are not truthful?

 

[tincan]

For you Vancouverites...

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/offices/bc/events/naomi-klein-capitalism-vs-climate

Naomi Klein on capitalism vs. the climate

*Tickets for this FREE talk cannot be reserved online or by phone – the only way to get advance tickets (a maximum of two) is in person at the Chan Centre box office beginning October 21st. There should be enough seats, but it could fill up. Come early if you’re keen! Click here for more information.
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate

Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein will be addressing the Vancouver Institute on Sunday, October 26, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., Chan Centre for the Performing Arts, University of British Columbia.
- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/o...in-capitalism-vs-climate#sthash.JRuHg4sP.dpuf

 

[OldBlackDog]

You do not like peer reviewed papers because they do not say what you like?
You do not like who write articles because they do not fit your ideal of what is right?
Beautiful, i agree.
That is what this is all about. The difference was you thought you were on the high ground with scientists and peer reviewed papers.
Now you do not like the system as it does not work for you.
Carry on.

G

Nice try... read the paper.... I'm saying that the reporting of the paper is crap.
The reporting is twisting the results to suit an agenda.
Something your side does very often.....


Are you saying that NASA and such are not truthful?

 

[OldBlackDog]

I know you will like this article.
Very interesting.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/a-simple-truth-computer-climate-models-cannot-work/