Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
First, did you actually look at the article or just google who wrote it?

The article was directed at the article about the ocean rise in florida.
To avoid confusion, it's important to know that king tides aren't part of climate change; they are a natural part of tidal cycles but they do give us a sneak preview of what higher sea levels could look like. The actual height reached by a king tide will depend on the local weather and ocean conditions on the day.

But i am sure you knew about tides just do not confuse with global warming.

Swq
Yes I did read it and I do read the stuff you post as I said in my reply to you. Perhaps re read my reply. I found the link to the author on the website that the op-ed was posted on. This is serious stuff.
And yes I do know what a king tide is... we should be getting them here in December if memory serves me correctly. Yup king tide and a storm here means flooding on the puntledge.

Did you do you due diligence or did you just assume that the op-ed was true. Did you check the facts? I didn't think so. That's the problem with your team, Quick to draw conclusions without checking the facts. A few pages back I posted a link to sea level from NOAA. Seems to me you could check your facts to backup your team, but you don't, why is that?

Here is some links to NOAA sites

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8724580
That looks like a problem to me.

more you ask....
Issue

Miami-Dade County, Florida, contains some of the most populated cities in the state. The population, combined with the location and topography, makes this county particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. In order to adapt to the changes that sea level rise will bring to this heavily populated, ecologically important area, Miami-Dade County recognizes the need for a cohesive approach to planning for climate change.
http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/slr-miamidade

not enough you say....

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of<abbr title="1 to 2.5 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.04 to 0.1 inches</abbr> per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of <abbr title="3 millimeters" style="cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">0.12 inches </abbr>per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

So ask your self ... who would you check with if you went fishing in Florida and wanted to know what the tide was. Would you check NOAA or some comedian (clown) op-ed. Like I said .. serious stuff.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
The time, effort and money spent doing things the best way possible is staggering, we're the best in the world at what we do we're certainly not a bunch of heathens hell bent on environmental destruction.

What is missing is the carbon capture when exploring, producing, processing, and burning.


For all the protester/consumer/hypocrites get your yard in order before you worry about your neighbors. The alternative energy sources to run your household are available today.
GLG and AA what's stopping you from adopting them in your personal life? You could be off the grid next week.
Yea it's not that simple.... We all have only so much money to spend each year and we have to make a choice where to spend it. Me I heat my house on electricity that comes from hydro. Very little CO2 there so my first steps was energy efficiency in the house then the transportation. You know I replace our car with something that gets 4 times better fuel economy. Truck is next but it may have to wait till I get other things done. Solar panels on the next house in two years time. $1.50 per kilowatt hour for panels and the price is dropping. not including install and inverters. Last I check 10 to 12K would get you 3/4 off the grid. Pay back in 12 years. Heard China should be shipping them at .75 cents next spring. At that rate it won't be long till they get to .25 cents.

With the social license alternative energies have, and their claim to be competitive with traditional sources I can't help but wonder why there aren't more large scale projects? If it's the same cost to the consumer (which is the end question to the average Joe) where are these projects? Why don't some of the multi billion dollar energy companies move forward? The CEO's and shareholders aren't in it for Co2 and dead dinosaurs, they're in it for $$.
Good point I wish companies would step up and take ownership. Some are doing it but many are not. I'm not fond of Enbridge but they do have one of Canadas best solar and wind projects for any company in this country.

The best thing the world could do is stop with all the animal protein production and stop shitting out crotch fruit, enact a 1 child law and slow this runaway train down. With the current population predictions a bit of methane production now won't matter in 50 years anyways. The western world isn't at the heart of the emissions issue globally.
.

Agree with your beef tips and have cut my consumption way down. laws on one child... yea that's a tough nut to crack.... We chose that (1 child) for our family for that exact reason. I disagree with that "little bit of methane" point as we need to cut back as soon as possible, We are heading in the wrong direction and anything we can do to reverse it is needed now. The western world may not be the heart of the problem but we can be leaders and the rest will follow. If not the other countries may not like what we, their customers, could impose on them in tariffs. We have options when dealing with China and India.
 
The climate is changing, but is it humankind’s fault? Daniel B. Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California Santa Barbara, doesn’t believe so. In the following column, he dissects the conclusions reached by the Union of Concerned Scientists in its report, National Landmarks at Risk, How Rising Seas, Floods, and Wildfires Are Threatening the United States’ Most Cherished Historic Sites.

Well here are his credentials. Go ahead and tell us what is wrong with his facts.

I'll tear that op-ed apart but first you answer my questions from post #647 where i replyed to your post. Here was my reply so you don't have to scroll back.

Huh... I don't get what your trying to tell us..
Regardless... Is this where you are getting your science from now?
An Op-ed from a website called the national parks traveler?
Perhaps you could point us to his peer reviewed paper with his theory that global warming is not man made and it does not exist? Until you dig up that paper or for that matter any paper he has written consider this.....
97% of the climate scientists say man made global warming is true and it is very serious. I take that as a serious risk to the future generations that will come after us old men. How much risk are you willing to accept that it is true. Do you think it's 50 / 50 chance that it's true and serious? Perhaps 10 / 90 with the greater chance that it's not true? Even though your team has no science to back up your risk assessment. Let's, just for the sake of argument, take the 10% chance that AGW is true. Would you still take that risk on your families well being? Are they not too precious to be gambling with their future with that level of risk? Consider that you have a great deal of investment in your home and you like me would not consider going cheap on fire insurance. You and I both know that if we had a fire and we were not insured the loss would be devastating. Do you also know that the chance of either of us having our hose burn down is .01%. Why is it that you are so quick to dismiss the risk of AGM and yet you buy fire insurance? Perhaps it's time you canceled that fire insurance and gamble on your family. Let me know when you have done that and I will "change my mind".


Like I said ... I'll tear it apart if you start answering the question. Your approach seems to be the shotgun Op-ed latest from the denial blog. You don't seem to like answering questions. Why is that? Communication is a two way street.
 
GLC thinks this is crap. It is all due to man.

Now your "just making stuff up" again there OBD.
Why does your team do that?
This is what I said on post 622

I suspect that watts has no idea what this paper means nor does any of his followers.
It's interesting and it would be nice to read it but it's behind a pay wall.

If you really what to know what's going on down there have a look at this website.
http://www.netnebraska.org/basic-pag...ts-beneath-ice

Lot's of good videos that explain what science is looking for down there.
 
...perhaps you should clean up your language this is a public site. Do you not have any manners?
I gotta agree with GLG here. The tone and language was immature, impolite and unnecessary.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-lng-jobs-by-christy-clark-says-ndp-1.2817279
India workers offered B.C. 's LNG jobs by Christy Clark, says NDP
Times of India reports comments were made during Clark's recent trade visit to New Delhi
CBC News Posted: Oct 29, 2014 2:09 PM PT Last Updated: Oct 29, 2014 2:09 PM PT

B.C. Premier Christy Clark was on a 10-day trade mission to the Indian cities of New Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh, when she reportedly made the comments.
B.C. Premier Christy Clark was on a 10-day trade mission to the Indian cities of New Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh, when she reportedly made the comments. (Darryl Dick/The Canadian Press)

143 shares

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
Related Stories

CBC coverage of the LNG industry
B.C. Premier Christy Clark is coming under fire for reportedly offering jobs building B.C.'s LNG industry to workers in India.

According to a story in the Times of India’s economic pages, Clark made the suggestion at a speech she gave during her recent trade tour to India.

Read the original Times of India story
CBC coverage of the B.C. LNG industry
The premier reportedly told the gathering of potential domestic investors in New Delhi two weeks ago that B.C. can help India with its skilled worker shortage.

"If we can help train 3,000 and 300 of them help us build an LNG industry, it's good for you and good for us," Clark is quoted as saying.

The NDP's Harry Bains does not see that offer as helpful to the 124,000 British Columbians who are currently unemployed.

"She will say anything that she thinks is what people want to hear," said Bains.

"But she has already made up her mind about what she wants to do and that is, bring in cheap labour, and if they complain, ship them back to their own countries."

B.C. will likely have to use temporary foreign workers if several LNG plants are built at once, but sources in the premier's office insist Clark's number one priority is to ensure British Columbians are first in line for those jobs, followed by other Canadians.

Bains says he's not convinced, given the premier's overseas comments.

News of Clark's reported comments comes as British oil and gas producer BG Group PLC says it will be the next decade before it goes ahead with a liquefied natural-gas export terminal in Prince Rupert, B.C..

BG Group to delay planned B.C. LNG terminal
Last year BG Group told regulators that it could begin construction on the first phase of an LNG plant next year, but BG Canada president Madeline Whitaker says that time line is now uncertain.
 
Smyth: Liberal MLA and global warming skeptic becomes target for opposition at B.C. legislature

“I’m just aghast by this guy,” Green MLA Andrew Weaver said of Laurie Throness, a rookie MLA from Chilliwack

BY MICHAEL SMYTH, THE PROVINCE OCTOBER 29, 2014




Smyth: Liberal MLA and global warming skeptic becomes target for opposition at B.C. legislature

Liberal MLA Laurie Throness has told the legislature: ‘I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming.’
Photograph by: Les Bazso , PNG
Ever since Liberal MLA Laurie Throness announced he’s a global-warming “skeptic” he’s been catching non-stop heat from his NDP and Green opponents.

Throness’s remarks have been called “disturbing” and “shocking” and “outrageous.”

The rookie MLA from Chilliwack-Hope doesn’t seem to mind a bit.

“I take it as an interesting sociological example of group-think — where you cannot vary from the global-warming line by one iota,” Throness told me Wednesday.

“It’s fairly intolerant of them. But that’s OK. I’m free to say what I want to say.”

He proved that during debate on the government’s proposed environmental rules for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants.

“I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming,” he told the legislature.

“Although I’m not convinced of human-caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier, either. I’m more of an agnostic on the question.”

I asked Throness to explain why he’s not convinced human activity — the burning of fossil fuels that create heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — is to blame for climate change.

“Because the science isn’t settled,” he said.

He pointed to the online “Global Warming Petition Project,” which claims to have gathered signatures from over 31,000 American scientists — including more than 9,000 with PhDs — all expressing skepticism about global-warming science.

And he cited a poll of more than 1,000 scientists in the peer-reviewed journal Organization Studies that said 56 per cent of respondents expressed skepticism about the purported human causes of climate change.

“The debate is not over,” Throness said.

Of course, it’s easy to find critics to punch holes in his polls and petitions. The Petition Project has been signed by fakers using pseudonyms like “Charles Darwin” and members of the Spice Girls before the prank signatories were detected and removed.

And the Organization Studies poll questioned “geoscientists and engineers,” not experts in climatology.

“I’m just aghast by this guy,” Green MLA Andrew Weaver said of the skeptic from Chilliwack.

“It’s basic physics and the science of climate change has been accepted around the world. It’s like saying you don’t believe in the theory of gravity.”

But Throness said the “doubt” around climate change means governments should not go overboard in their efforts to stop it — for example, by imposing heavy carbon taxes that would damage the economy.

“If global warming turned out not to be true, and we pursued a number of policies that assumed it was, then we might regret that later. It could be a waste of public funds.”

He’s speaking for himself, not the government. But the government showed no sign of reining him in, ensuring his new career as an opposition punching bag is assured.

twitter.com/MikeSmythNews

msmyth@theprovince.com

© Copyright (c) The Province
 
OBD - that seems like an appropriate reaction. His best quote is “If global warming turned out not to be true, and we pursued a number of policies that assumed it was, then we might regret that later. It could be a waste of public funds.” Of course the alternate way of thinking eg - "if we pursued no policies because we thought it might not be true, we might regret that later. I could cost us much more in the future" - was not considered. Given the overwhelming consensus on global warming by those who actually study climate, which way of thinking is more rational?

I equate his thinking to saying "and if AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus, and we invest public funding in pursuing drugs against the virus, we might regret that later". Of course HIV does cause AIDs (regardless of what a few crackpot scientists have to say about that) and research to find drugs against the virus was publicly funded and we don't regret that. It's not that complicated when one actually pays attention to the real experts.
 
OMG, you are funny.
The only information you will allow is from a supposed peer reviewed scientist. That is only if it agrees with your ideals.



I'll tear that op-ed apart but first you answer my questions from post #647 where i replyed to your post. Here was my reply so you don't have to scroll back.

Huh... I don't get what your trying to tell us..
Regardless... Is this where you are getting your science from now?
An Op-ed from a website called the national parks traveler?
Perhaps you could point us to his peer reviewed paper with his theory that global warming is not man made and it does not exist? Until you dig up that paper or for that matter any paper he has written consider this.....
97% of the climate scientists say man made global warming is true and it is very serious. I take that as a serious risk to the future generations that will come after us old men. How much risk are you willing to accept that it is true. Do you think it's 50 / 50 chance that it's true and serious? Perhaps 10 / 90 with the greater chance that it's not true? Even though your team has no science to back up your risk assessment. Let's, just for the sake of argument, take the 10% chance that AGW is true. Would you still take that risk on your families well being? Are they not too precious to be gambling with their future with that level of risk? Consider that you have a great deal of investment in your home and you like me would not consider going cheap on fire insurance. You and I both know that if we had a fire and we were not insured the loss would be devastating. Do you also know that the chance of either of us having our hose burn down is .01%. Why is it that you are so quick to dismiss the risk of AGM and yet you buy fire insurance? Perhaps it's time you canceled that fire insurance and gamble on your family. Let me know when you have done that and I will "change my mind".


Like I said ... I'll tear it apart if you start answering the question. Your approach seems to be the shotgun Op-ed latest from the denial blog. You don't seem to like answering questions. Why is that? Communication is a two way street.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OMG, you are funny. The only information you will allow is from a supposed peer reviewed scientist. That is only if it agrees with your ideals.
OBD: you do understand the difference between "ideals" and "scientific rigour" - yes?
 
I understand he has ideals that he took from a computer.

OBD: you do understand the difference between "ideals" and "scientific rigour" - yes?
 
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling pitched his company's 4,600 kilometre Energy East pipeline on Thursday.
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling pitched his company's 4,600 kilometre Energy East pipeline on Thursday. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh)

TransCanada has officially filed for government approval for the $12 billion Energy East pipeline project with the National Energy Board.

The company has submitted a formal application for the project, which would carry 1.1 million barrels per day of crude oil from Alberta eastward to refineries on Canada's East Coast.

At a press conference at 10:30 a.m. eastern time, numerous company officials and other backers of the project were on hand to lay out why the proposal makes sense.
■Maude Barlow rallies opposition to Energy East plan
■Energy East benefits overblown, report says

"Our application outlines how Energy East will be built and operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, while generating significant benefits for all Canadians," TransCanada president and CEO Russ Girling said.

The company says it has filed 30,000 pages worth of documents outlining the project which, if completed, will take oil for more than 4,600 kilometres across six Canadian provinces.

Currently, most Canadian oil heads south via various routes for refining and export through U.S. ports. The idea for Energy East is to take Alberta oil to terminals planned for Quebec and New Brunswick, enabling shipments to Europe, India and other destinations while not relying on American infrastructure.

Already in place

About two-thirds of the pipeline is already essentially in place — the project would involve expanding and extending a series of existing pipelines.

Backers of the project say it will create jobs and economic growth while cementing Canada's status as an energy independent oil superpower. TransCanada claims the project will directly or indirectly create 14,000 jobs, and help create $36 billion worth of economic activity.

But like other superpipelines, including Kinder Morgan, Northern Gateway and TransCanada's own Keystone XL, the project faces opposition from local environmental and native groups who say any such project is an environmental accident waiting to happen.
■Energy East to face regulatory scrutiny
■Project could create 10,000 jobs, Deloitte & Touche says

Others have criticized the project on an economic level, noting that the plan makes less sense with oil hovering at around $80 a barrel — and critics note that repurposing natural gas pipelines into oil pipelines could lead to shortages of gas in Atlantic Canada.

But the company says it's planning to build an additional 250 kilometres of natural-gas pipeline in the region anyway, to more than offset any lost pipeline capacity.

"Converting one of the pipelines in the Canadian Mainline natural gas transmission system to crude oil service will make better use of capacity on the Canadian Mainline that is no longer needed to export natural gas to the United States," the company said.

There were a half-dozen local mayors on hand behind the company on Monday, as well as statements of support from numerous industry leaders. That was no accident, and a sign that the company has learned from past mistakes in terms of how to sell its complex pipeline proposals to the Canadian public, Warren Mabee, director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University said in an interview.

"It's not so much about getting a stamp of approval," he said. "It's about engaging people in the actual decision making process, not bringing them in at the end of the day and saying 'This is what we're doing, what do you think'?"

"They're on the right track in terms of building up consensus," Mabee said. "As a whole you've got probably enough political will to push this through."
 
“Modern seas unprecedented”: An insult to geology and sea level research


Is the latest sea-level rise unusual? Kurt Lambeck said it was, based on his version of the Holocene seas, calculated with modeled crustal movements (to try to guess the rises and falls of the beaches where the sea levels were changing). Obedient science reporters broadcast his message to the world without asking a single hard question. But when the error bars are 2 meters wide and the dating estimates range over hundreds of years, I thought it beyond silly to think we could estimate 100-year average sea level rises in the time of Moses. Nils-Axel Mörner agrees, and shows data below from 50 years of research which demonstrates that sea levels are always oscillating, and that in Europe, the US, the Indian Ocean past changes are larger than the current ones. Nils has published nearly 600 papers on observations of sea-levels around the world. He calls the Lambeck paper an “insult” to geologists and sea-level researchers. — Jo

————————————————————————————————————–

An insult to geology and sea level research


by Nils-Axel Mörner

Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden, (morner AT pog.nu)

In the 60s, there was a vigorous debate whether the postglacial sea level rise occurred as a smooth rise (Shepard, 1963) or an oscillatory rise (Fairbridge, 1961). My own low-amplitude oscillations sea level curve (Mörner, 1969) came as some sort of intermediate solution (Fig. 1). It was derived by the isolations of the isostatic and eustatic component in the spectrum of 40 individual shorelines recorded over 300 km in the direction of tilting in the periphery of the Fennoscandian uplift and dated by numerous C14-dates (Mörner, 1969, 1971). Numerous subsequent records from places scattered all over the world indicate that, indeed, the postglacial rise in sea level occurred in a mode of low-amplitude oscillations (e.g. Pirrazoli, 1991). This is even true for the Late Holocene and the last millennium (e.g. Mörner, 1980; van de Plassche, 2000; Hansen et al., 2012).


Fig. 1. Regional eustatic curve for northwest Europe according to Mörner (1980).

In a recent paper, Lambeck et al. (2014) claim – with respect to the Holocene to present sea level changes –

“a progressive decrease in the rate of rise from 8.2 ka to ~2.5 ka BP, after which ocean volumes remained nearly constant until the renewed sea-level rise at 100–150 y ago, with no evidence of oscillations exceeding 15– 20 cm in time intervals ≥200 y from 6 to 0.15 ka BP”.

This is a grave insult to painstaking sea level research and observational facts presented by numerous sea level specialists from sites all over the world. Let me just refer to a few records (which I know well):
• in the Maldives, there were 7 sea level oscillations in the last 5000 years, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (Mörner, 2007).
•in Connecticut, there were 3 sea level oscillations in the last 1500 years (van de Plassche, 2000) as illustrated in Fig. 3a.
•in the SW Sweden – Kattegatt Sea region there were 16 oscillations in the last 10,000 years (Mörner, 1971, 1980) with 4 oscillations in the last 3000 year (Fig. 3b).
• in the Kattegatt and the Baltic, sea level oscillations are recorded in response to the Medieval Warm Optimum and the subsequent Little Ice Ages (Åse, 1970; Mörner, 1980, 1999; Ambrosiani, 1984; Hansen et al., 2012).
• the world is full of other records indicating the presence of Late Holocene sea level oscillations (e.g. Pirazzoli, 1991).

...

Fig. 2. The Late Holocene sea level changes in the Maldives (Mörner, 2007) including 7 transgression peaks in the last 4000 years with 3 peaks in the last millennium.


Fig. 3. Late Holocene sea level fluctuation:(a) from Connecticut (b) from Stockholm (see below)

Fig. 3. Late Holocene sea level fluctuation:
•(a) from Connecticut by van de Plassche (2000) with removal of 1.0 mm/yr subsidence. Note that the AD 1000 peak was larger and faster than today’s rise.
•(b) from Stockholm, Sweden, by Mörner (1980, 1999) with removal of 4.9 mm/yr uplift.

Note the rates and peaks of previous eustatic peaks. Both curves show ups and downs (as usual) and nothing unique at present. It is a grave insult to claim that there is an absence of oscillations prior to 1800. What detailed field observations indicate cannot be cancelled by model outputs.



References

Ambrosianli, B., 1984. Settlement expansion – settlement contraction: a question of war, plague, ecology and climate?. In: Climatic Change on a Yearly to Millennial Basis, N.-A. Mörner & W. Karlén, Eds, p. 241-247, Reidel Publ. Co.

Åse, L.-E., 1970. Kvartärgeologiska vittnesbörd om strandförskjutningen vid Stockholmunder de senaste ca. 4000 åren. Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förh., 92, 49-78.

Fairbridge, R.W., 1961. Eustatic changes in sea level, Physics Chemistry of the Earth, 4, 
99-185.

Hansen, J.M., Aagaard, T. and Binderup, M., 2012. Absolute sea levels and isostatic changes of the eastern North Sea to central Baltic region during the last 900 years, Boreas, 41, 180–208.

Lambeck, K., Rouby, H., Purcell, A., Sun, Y. and Sambridge, M., 2014. Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. PNAS Early Edition, p. 1-8. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411762111

Mörner, N.-A., 1969. The Late Quaternary history of the Kattegatt Sea and the Swedish West
Coast: deglaciation, shorelevel displacement, chronology, isostasy and eustasy. Sveriges Geol. Undersökning, C-640, 1-487.

Mörner, N.-A., 1971. Eustatic changes during the last 20,000 years and a method of separating the isostatic and eustatic factors in an uplifted area. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclim. Palaeoecol., 9, 153-181.

Mörner, N.-A., 1980. The northwest European “sea-level laboratory” and regional Holocene 
eustasy, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclim. Palaeoecol., 1980, 29, 281-300.

Mörner, N.-A., 1999. Sea level and climate: rapid regressions at local warm phases. Quaternary International, 60, 75-82.

Mörner, N.-A., 2007. Sea level changes and tsunamis. environmental stress and migration over the seas. Internationales Asienforum, 38, 353-37.

Pirazzoli, P., 1991. World atlas of Holocene sea-level changes. Elsevier Ocenogr. Ser. 58, 1–300.

van de Plassche, O., 2000. North Atlantic climate-ocean variations and sea level in Long Island Sound, Connecticut, since 500 cal yr A.D, Quaternary Res., 53, 89–97.

Shepard, F.,P., 1963. Thirty-five thousand years of sea level. In: Essays in Marine Geology in Honour of K.O. Emery, T. Clements, Ed, p. 1-10. University of California Press, Berkeley.

————————————
 
“Modern seas unprecedented”: An insult to geology and sea level research


Is the latest sea-level rise unusual? Kurt Lambeck said it was, based on his version of the Holocene seas, calculated with modeled crustal movements (to try to guess the rises and falls of the beaches where the sea levels were changing). Obedient science reporters broadcast his message to the world without asking a single hard question. But when the error bars are 2 meters wide and the dating estimates range over hundreds of years, I thought it beyond silly to think we could estimate 100-year average sea level rises in the time of Moses. Nils-Axel Mörner agrees, and shows data below from 50 years of research which demonstrates that sea levels are always oscillating, and that in Europe, the US, the Indian Ocean past changes are larger than the current ones. Nils has published nearly 600 papers on observations of sea-levels around the world. He calls the Lambeck paper an “insult” to geologists and sea-level researchers. — Jo

————————————————————————————————————–

An insult to geology and sea level research


by Nils-Axel Mörner
————————————

What peer reviewed journal was this published in? I know the website of JoNova. You know the "Skeptical Science for dissident thinkers" (his words not mine)

Jo Nova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/mo...-an-insult-to-geology-and-sea-level-research/

It looks like a science paper so why is it not published in a journal? This would be earth shattering news if it was true..... Nobel prize stuff right there.... Quick phone the IPCC and tell them we have a cure for AGW..... The cure is there is no AGW because the proof is there is no sea level rise. After all if the water is warming then physics would tell us that it will expand. No sea level rise = no warming.
You team cracks me up when they "make stuff up'

Why is it that you never post up the links to these "science" papers? Embarrassed perhaps from where they come from?
 
OMG, you are funny.
The only information you will allow is from a supposed peer reviewed scientist. That is only if it agrees with your ideals.


Still waiting for your answers to the "Risk" questions.....
Then I'll tear into to it if you want....
I read it and lets just say that it will be easy....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh dear.... OBD your team has made it to the big leagues.

logo_2x.png


Report: Climate Change Skeptics Could Reach Catastrophic Levels By 2020


700.jpg

Scientists say it may be too late to effectively combat climate change deniers and that humanity may simply have to learn to live with their negative effects.

WASHINGTON—In a worrying development that could have dire implications for the health of the planet, a report published Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the number of climate change skeptics could reach catastrophic levels by the year 2020.
According to the agency’s findings, the rising quantity and concentration of individuals who willfully deny or downplay the ruinous impact of the ongoing climate crisis will no longer be manageable by the end of the decade, leading to disastrous consequences for global ecosystems that may well prove irreversible.
“In recent decades, we have observed an alarming increase in people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of global warming, which has exceeded even our worst-case projections,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, confirming a worldwide spike in the number of deniers who are actively seeking to discredit the scientific consensus that human activity is responsible for climate change. “If this trend continues at its current rate, we will pass a critical threshold of unfounded skepticism within the next six years that will have devastating repercussions on every continent and in every ocean, threatening the entire global population.”
“For the continued survival of Earth’s plant, animal, and, indeed, human life, that kind of runaway ignorance is a frightening prospect and one that we can no longer afford to discount,” she continued. “If we don’t contain climate change skeptics soon, we’re putting the very planet at risk.”
Since the latter half of the 20th century, the EPA noted that more and more regions, biomes, and even human commercial and industrial activities have suffered the harmful effects of individuals who refuse to accept that the ongoing rise in global surface temperatures is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the report revealed an alarming upsurge in the number of authors of discredited scientific studies questioning the reality of climate change, adversarial cable news show guests who scoff at the notion that humans can affect Earth’s weather patterns, and politicians whose opinions are controlled by fossil fuel company lobbying groups, all of whose increased presence in the world jeopardizes the planet’s vulnerable biosphere.
Additionally, the report noted a shocking jump in the number of uninformed citizens among the public at large, whose widespread dissemination of misleading data, half-truths, and outright lies regarding climate trends has already facilitated the destruction of numerous natural resources and hundreds of species, while putting still others at imminent risk.
“The fact that the very existence of global warming somehow remains a topic of contention demonstrates that the density of these skeptics has spiraled out of control,” McCarthy said, citing data from the report showing that the concentration of the most ardent deniers recently reached a previously unheard-of 1,500 people per million. “While the U.S. remains the planet’s largest producer of climate change skeptics, countries halfway around the world are suffering environmental destruction from the actions of these people who refuse to acknowledge the threat of extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels. The effects of these outspoken deniers are truly global in scope.”
While the EPA report recognized that past efforts to reverse the proliferation of climate change deniers failed to stem the spread of their erroneous beliefs, it suggested that renewed education initiatives and well-informed public debate could at least limit the emergence of the most destructive and stubborn individuals who continue to dispute a conclusion supported by 97 percent of scientists.
However, with the rise of such individuals having only accelerated over time, the report’s authors conceded that it may no longer be possible to eliminate this devastating man-made phenomenon.
“The profusion of these skeptics was something that we as a nation should have made a better effort to get a handle on in the past,” said report co-author Gena Orlofsky, noting that the increase in private sector groups actively seeking to cast doubt on the reality of declining biodiversity and the melting of the polar ice caps was observable as early as the 1990s. “At this point, so much pseudoscience and misinformation have been released into the world that we simply have to accept that those who refuse to ‘believe’ in objective scientific fact aren’t going away. All we can do is attempt to minimize their impact on our planet.”
“It’s a terrible shame. There was a time when I hoped we would be able to reverse this trend and return our understanding of the consequences of our actions to normal levels,” she continued. “But frankly, it appears to be far too late now.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/

 
I am sure the author of this article will love your criteque.




What peer reviewed journal was this published in? I know the website of JoNova. You know the "Skeptical Science for dissident thinkers" (his words not mine)

Jo Nova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/mo...-an-insult-to-geology-and-sea-level-research/

It looks like a science paper so why is it not published in a journal? This would be earth shattering news if it was true..... Nobel prize stuff right there.... Quick phone the IPCC and tell them we have a cure for AGW..... The cure is there is no AGW because the proof is there is no sea level rise. After all if the water is warming then physics would tell us that it will expand. No sea level rise = no warming.
You team cracks me up when they "make stuff up'

Why is it that you never post up the links to these "science" papers? Embarrassed perhaps from where they come from?
 
Sorry, not written by anyone of value using your criteria.





Oh dear.... OBD your team has made it to the big leagues.

logo_2x.png


Report: Climate Change Skeptics Could Reach Catastrophic Levels By 2020


700.jpg

Scientists say it may be too late to effectively combat climate change deniers and that humanity may simply have to learn to live with their negative effects.

WASHINGTON—In a worrying development that could have dire implications for the health of the planet, a report published Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the number of climate change skeptics could reach catastrophic levels by the year 2020.
According to the agency’s findings, the rising quantity and concentration of individuals who willfully deny or downplay the ruinous impact of the ongoing climate crisis will no longer be manageable by the end of the decade, leading to disastrous consequences for global ecosystems that may well prove irreversible.
“In recent decades, we have observed an alarming increase in people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of global warming, which has exceeded even our worst-case projections,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, confirming a worldwide spike in the number of deniers who are actively seeking to discredit the scientific consensus that human activity is responsible for climate change. “If this trend continues at its current rate, we will pass a critical threshold of unfounded skepticism within the next six years that will have devastating repercussions on every continent and in every ocean, threatening the entire global population.”
“For the continued survival of Earth’s plant, animal, and, indeed, human life, that kind of runaway ignorance is a frightening prospect and one that we can no longer afford to discount,” she continued. “If we don’t contain climate change skeptics soon, we’re putting the very planet at risk.”
Since the latter half of the 20th century, the EPA noted that more and more regions, biomes, and even human commercial and industrial activities have suffered the harmful effects of individuals who refuse to accept that the ongoing rise in global surface temperatures is due to greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the report revealed an alarming upsurge in the number of authors of discredited scientific studies questioning the reality of climate change, adversarial cable news show guests who scoff at the notion that humans can affect Earth’s weather patterns, and politicians whose opinions are controlled by fossil fuel company lobbying groups, all of whose increased presence in the world jeopardizes the planet’s vulnerable biosphere.
Additionally, the report noted a shocking jump in the number of uninformed citizens among the public at large, whose widespread dissemination of misleading data, half-truths, and outright lies regarding climate trends has already facilitated the destruction of numerous natural resources and hundreds of species, while putting still others at imminent risk.
“The fact that the very existence of global warming somehow remains a topic of contention demonstrates that the density of these skeptics has spiraled out of control,” McCarthy said, citing data from the report showing that the concentration of the most ardent deniers recently reached a previously unheard-of 1,500 people per million. “While the U.S. remains the planet’s largest producer of climate change skeptics, countries halfway around the world are suffering environmental destruction from the actions of these people who refuse to acknowledge the threat of extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels. The effects of these outspoken deniers are truly global in scope.”
While the EPA report recognized that past efforts to reverse the proliferation of climate change deniers failed to stem the spread of their erroneous beliefs, it suggested that renewed education initiatives and well-informed public debate could at least limit the emergence of the most destructive and stubborn individuals who continue to dispute a conclusion supported by 97 percent of scientists.
However, with the rise of such individuals having only accelerated over time, the report’s authors conceded that it may no longer be possible to eliminate this devastating man-made phenomenon.
“The profusion of these skeptics was something that we as a nation should have made a better effort to get a handle on in the past,” said report co-author Gena Orlofsky, noting that the increase in private sector groups actively seeking to cast doubt on the reality of declining biodiversity and the melting of the polar ice caps was observable as early as the 1990s. “At this point, so much pseudoscience and misinformation have been released into the world that we simply have to accept that those who refuse to ‘believe’ in objective scientific fact aren’t going away. All we can do is attempt to minimize their impact on our planet.”
“It’s a terrible shame. There was a time when I hoped we would be able to reverse this trend and return our understanding of the consequences of our actions to normal levels,” she continued. “But frankly, it appears to be far too late now.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/

 
No, they would not fudge temperatures..



Australian Meteorologists Caught Fudging Temperature Measurements, New Zealand too!
UPDATE: See this important New peer review paper finds no significant 20th century warming for New Zealand despite the official manipulated record.

a href="http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/23/australian-meteorologists-caught-fudging-temperature-measurements" title="By Darren Nelson">By Darren Nelson

A storm of sorts has been brewing in Australia, a tempest caused by anthropogenic global warming activism. Scientist Jennifer Marohasy and environment editor Graham Lloyd, among others have been reporting on the fact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been “fudging” historical temperature records to fit a warming narrative.

On her blog, Marohasy reported,"[T]emperatures have been diligently recorded at places like Bourke in outback New South Wales since 1871. Then there’s the Bureau’s official record that takes a revisionist approach: first truncating the data and then passing it through complex mathematical algorithms.”

“[BOM] has constructed a synthetic climate record whose relevance to climate change is not scientifically defensible,” said William Kininmonth, a retired meteorologist and former head of the National Climate Centre (NCC) at BOM.

Prof. Bob Carter, science policy advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), said, “Official correction of the temperature records by national agencies was first detected in the USA for NASA, and shortly thereafter the release of the Climategate emails revealed similar procedures were in use by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which prepares the UKs temperature records.”

Changed Cooling to Warming

Marohasy reported she had “analysed the raw data from dozens of locations across Australia and matched it against the new data used by BOM showing that temperatures were progressively warming.”

“In many cases,” Marohasy added, “temperature trends had changed from slight cooling to dramatic warming over 100 years.”

BOM said the agency had used global best practices and a peer-reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records from weather stations across the country. The data from some of weather stations underwent a process known as “homogenization,” allegedly to correct for anomalies. Historical data was altered to account for a wide range of non-climate-related influences such as the type of instrument used, choice of calibration or enclosure, and where it was located.

However, Kininmonth noted, “There is no justifiable basis to modify actual observations without evidence of changed instrumentation or environmental factors; where there is evidence of such changes the adjustments can only be considered speculative, especially if the adjustments are made on the basis of statistical links to independent observations from tens of kilometres away.” According to former television meteorologist Anthony Watts, “[e]ssentially all the homogenization does is spread the warm bias around.”

Specific Data Manipulation Revealed

The Australian and Weekend Australian have been closely following and reporting on this developing story through environment editor Lloyd. In the August 23, 2014 Australian, Lloyd wrote, “It goes to heart of the climate change debate, in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top