Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. The report notes that despite China's efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India, ASEAN countries and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States.
“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch of the book. “Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable, I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable. For this to change, we need to radically accelerate deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.”
The Executive Director also called for more investment in high-efficiency coal-fired power plants, especially in emerging economies. "New plants are being built, in an arc running from South Africa to Southeast Asia, but too many of these are based on decades-old technology," she said. "Regrettably, they will be burning coal inefficiently for many years to come."
Global coal demand growth has been slowing in recent years, and the report sees that trend continuing. Coal demand will grow at an average rate of 2.1% per year through 2019, the report said. This compares to the 2013 report's forecast of 2.3% for the five years through 2018 and the actual growth rate of 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2013.
As has been the case for more than a decade, the fate of the global coal market will be determined by China. The world's biggest coal user, producer and importer has embarked on a campaign to diversify its energy supply and reduce its energy intensity, and the resulting increase in gas, nuclear and renewables will be staggering. However, the IEA report shows that despite these efforts, and under normal macroeconomic circumstances, Chinese coal consumption will not peak during the five-year outlook period.
The report's forecasts come with considerable uncertainties, especially regarding the prospect of new policies affecting coal. Authorities in China as well as in key markets like Indonesia, Korea, Germany and India, have announced policy changes that could sharply affect coal market fundamentals. The possibility of these policy changes becoming reality is compounding uncertainty resulting from the current economic climate.
The issue of low prices remains a hot topic among coal market participants. Last year's report emphasised that many coal producers were running at losses, largely driven by take-or-pay infrastructure contracts or financial liabilities. Coal prices have declined even more since last year, but several factors have helped producers withstand further economic pain.
"Our analysis shows that the price floor provided by production costs has decreased significantly, not only because producers reduced costs by gaining economies of scale, better management and budget discipline, but also due to external factors," said Keisuke Sadamori, Director for Energy Markets and Security. "Depreciation of local currencies in the main exporting countries has been significant and low oil prices also help, as oil represents a significant share of coal costs, especially in open-pit operations."
Coal use in OECD member countries is projected to decline in the outlook period, as growth in Turkey, Korea and Japan fails to offset declines in Europe and America. In the United States, retirement of coal capacity and competition from shale gas will lead to a 1.7% decline per year on average during the forecast period. Australia is set to account for the largest growth in exports as Indonesia, driven by higher domestic demand and government policies, slows shipments abroad. IEA

 

[OldBlackDog]

Thought you could not answer the questions.

What nonsense... you have no idea how things work do you? No I'm not a climate scientist but my background in science enables me to understand what is going on. I can read and comprehend the basic theory and I get the rest. How about you? Your questions are answered in hundreds of science reports from all the major science institutions in the world. Global warming is caused by the added CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere every year. If you don't get that part you really should not be here commenting on science. Even Watts understands this part..... Tell us OBD what would happen to the earth if we removed all the CO2?
This is simply stuff OBD you don't need a degree in science to know what is going on. If you can't understand then take the advice from science and act accordingly.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –

CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming

by William M. Gray

Professor Emeritus

Colorado State University

(see project website for background on author – http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/)

December 23, 2014

Abstract

The massively funded international global warming movement has grossly exaggerated the threat from CO2 gas increases. This warming scare has been driven by a cabal of international politicians and environmentalist groups using erroneous climate model warming predictions to brainwash an uninformed global public. Their purpose was to scare the public into accepting global government and restrictions on their freedoms and lifestyles to prevent a made-up looming climate catastrophe. Truth of their CO2 warming assertions was of little importance. What mattered was the degree to which the public could be indoctrinated to believe the threat. The many large global warming projections have not and will not be realized in the coming years. The science behind these CO2 induced warming projections is very badly flawed and needs to be exposed to the public. We will see only negligible amounts of CO2 induced global warming in the coming decades. The future temperature changes which do occur will be natural and primarily a result of the changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation patterns of which ocean salinity variations is the primary driver. We can and should do nothing about natural climate change but adjust to it.

Economic progress dictates that the US and the world continue with and expands their use of fossil-fuels. Any significant shift to the much more costly wind and solar energy sources should not go forward. Such a shift would greatly lower the US and the world’s living standards and do nothing to benefit the globe’s climate. This global warming charade cannot long continue. Time and truth are on the side of the warming skeptics.

Current Conditions

Increasing amounts of CO2 gas in the atmosphere over the last 18 years have not caused any increase in mean global surface temperatures. Despite voluminous media and scientific claims to the contrary, the global temperature, global sea ice, severe weather, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, etc. are not showing any of the changes predicted by the warming alarmists and the many numerical modeling simulations on which most of these warming claims have been scientifically based. I am sure the coming years of observations will add more verification for the discrediting of this CO2 driven catastrophic warming hypothesis.


I strongly recommend the reader consult the internet blog Real Science by Steve Goddard for much more documentation on the ever increasing failure of the CO2 global warming projections. Goddard also gives numerous examples of how our and other government climate-weather agencies have been artificially reducing older surface temperature measurements so as to give the appearance of larger upward surface temperature trends than have really occurred. This apparent data tampering goes against all scientific methodology and needs to be exposed and corrected by an outside independent investigative group.

The general public, without the technical background to judge the scientific reliability of these many and continuous alarmist warming pronouncements have become brainwashed. An unhealthy alliance has developed between government and climate-weather scientists. The apparent broad level of scientific backing for the CO2 warming hypothesis has been obtained through massive governmental research grant awards to those scientists who were willing to support (or not criticize) such dubious politically driven global warming claims.

We all want to trust our government and believe that the media is giving us objective news. But with our government’s and the media’s continuous and alarmist statements on increasing CO2 ability to cause dangerous future global warming we all need to become skeptical. The public has been deceived by not being able to hear the other side of the global warming argument. The many scientific arguments against the human-induced global warming hypothesis have purposely not been covered by the media or discussed by our government. When such negative warming arguments do occasionally come up, they are harshly criticized by environmentalists, celebrities, and governmental officials who know next to nothing about how the global climate system functions. An open and honest scientific dialog on the global warming issue has yet to take place. The statement that the scientific argument for large CO2 induced global warming has already been settled is a total fabrication.

Crux of the Flawed Science

(water-vapor feedback and surface evaporation cooling)

There are many flaws in the global climate models. But the largest flaw is a result of the climate model’s inability to realistically deal with the small horizontal scale (and model unresolvable) changes brought about by the globe’s thousands of individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements (Figure 1). An increase in the totality of these deep Cb convective units adds drying to the upper troposphere (Figure 2). This is in contrast to the assumptions implicit in the General Climate Model (GCM) simulations which increase upper tropospheric water-vapor as a result of enhanced rainfall and Cb convection associated with rising levels of CO2.

 

[OldBlackDog]

he model simulations have followed the unrealistic physical ideas emanating from the National Academy of Science (NAS), 1979 (or Charney Report). This report speculated that as the troposphere warms from CO2 increases that this warming would be accompanied (follow the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship between temperature and moisture) by a moisture increase such that the relative humidity (RH) of the air would remain near constant as the temperature increased. Implicit in this NAS assumption of CO2 induced warming was the necessity that this increase of moisture would add additional blockage of infrared (IR) radiation to space beyond what the CO2 gas did by itself. The net IR blockage to space from increasing CO2 was thus assumed to occur not only from the CO2 gas itself but also from the extra water-vapor gain needed to keep the RH near constant as the temperature rose. This additional water-vapor gain was shown by the models to have about twice as large an influence on reducing IR blockage to space as the CO2 increase by itself. Thus, any CO2 increase of one unit of IR blockage to space would simultaneously bring along with it an additional two units of water-vapor blockage of IR loss to space. This additional moisture related blockage of IR loss to space (associated with CO2 induced warming) has been designated as ‘positive water-vapor feedback’. All the CO2 climate models have strong amounts of positive water-favor feedback.

It is this large and direct tie of water-vapor increase with CO2 induced temperature rise which is the primary physical flaw in all of the GCM CO2 doubling model simulations. This is the reason why all the GCMs have so strongly over-predicted the amount of global warming which will occur with a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Observations show that the warming or cooling of the upper troposphere does not occur with RH remaining close to constant. Temperature and RH tend to change oppositely from each other and not in unison as the models assume. My project’s study of cumulus convection and tropical cyclone formation over many decades has taught me that the NAS 1979 (Charney) Report assessment that rising CO2 amounts will occur with water-vapor increase is not a realistic assessment of how these parameters change in the upper troposphere.

The GCM CO2 simulations are also constructed so as to have their moisture simulations arranged such that water-vapor changes occur uniformly at both upper and lower tropospheric levels. By contrast, the observations of moisture change at upper and lower tropospheric levels show them to be little related to each other (Figure 3).

ScreenHunter_5526 Dec. 24 08.59

Figure 3. Correlation of lower and upper troposphere moisture changes. The GCM models simultaneously simulate the same moisture changes at both the lower and upper tropospheric levels – high correlation. The observations however, show very little correlation between upper and lower tropospheric moisture changes.

Our observation analysis finds that increases in cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud intensity and frequency brings about a decrease in upper tropospheric water-vapor, not an upper tropospheric moistening as the model simulations show.

The deeper and/or the more intense Cb clouds become the higher is their rainfall efficiency. Cb clouds rain out most of their moisture as they overshoot from the top of their positive buoyancy layer near 300 mb (~ 10 km) and penetrate higher into the stabilizing upper troposphere where they became weaker and terminate their upward motion. The Cbs weakening upward vertical motion at these high levels leave little upper-level moisture as they die. Their updrafts deposit their saturated but miniscule moisture content air and liquid cirrus clouds high in the troposphere. These are the heights where the vertical gradients of saturation air is, percentage-wise, very large. Any subsidence of this cold upper-level saturated air parcels to lower and warmer levels causes an especially large reduction of the sinking air’s RH.

For instance, a saturated air parcel at 200 mb (12 km height) and a temperature of -53oC will contain little moisture even though it is saturated. If this parcel then sinks with no mixing to 300 mb (~10 km height) and takes on the temperature of the lower-level air it will have its RH reduced from 100 percent to only 12 percent (Figure 4). Such Cb induced upper-level air parcel subsidence to lower levels induces an upper-level drying and with it an increased infrared (IR) radiation loss to space. The contrast of these two processes is seen in Figure 5. The crucial flaw of the models is that they have not made a proper up-and-down mass balance of the upper-troposphere’s vertical motion that would have accounted for the high rainfall efficiency of the Cb air which penetrates above 300 mb and the very dry return flow subsidence.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Example. To balance the influence of a doubling of CO2 by radiation alone it would be required that the temperature of the globe be warmed by 1oC. The models then assume that this CO2 induced warming of 1oC will (following the Charney Report assumptions) cause a moisture increase that will further reduce IR loss to space, such that there will have to be an additional 2oC upper-level warming beyond the needed 1oC warming from the CO2 by itself. The combination of these two processes is assumed to bring about an upper-level 3oC global warming over the whole tropics (30oN-30oS). Of this 3oC warming 2oC would be designated as positive water-vapor feedback warming. Such an expected strong and positive temperature increase and positive water-vapor feedback of a doubling of CO2 is quite unrealistic.

Our project’s many years of analysis of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) observations of IR loss to space in association with enhanced Cb convection and rainfall do not show a decreased IR blockage to space (as the models have indicated will occur) but rather an enhancement of IR loss to space. Our data analysis is, by contrast with the models, representation of a negative water-vapor feedback – the larger the rainfall rate, the lower the upper tropospheric water-vapor content and the greater the IR loss to space (Figure 6).

ScreenHunter_5529 Dec. 24 09.08

Figure 6. Changes in 300 mb temperature, specific humidity (q – gm/kg), and relative humidity (RH) by area between two reanalysis rainfall difference data sets for the tropics. Rain differences average 3.9 percent for the 10 highest minus 10 lowest monthly differences and 1.9 percent for the (95-04)-(84-94) data set differences. Negative values are in red. All 300 mb moisture parameters showed water-vapor and RH decreases with enhanced rainfall.

Real global warming to be expected. Without upper-troposphere water-vapor change and without enhanced surface evaporation cooling associated with extra rainfall, the pure radiation response to a doubling of CO2 would indicate we should expect about a 1.0oC global warming. But even with zero assumed water-vapor change this 1oC warming is two to three times larger than what will likely take place. This is because about 60 percent of the 3.7 Wm-2 IR blocking to space from a doubling of CO2 will be balanced by an enhancement of surface evaporation and an increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2½ percent. A zero water-vapor feedback will thus be expected to only bring about a 0.4oC global temperature rise from CO2 doubling.

We show that there is a very modest degree of negative water-vapor feedback of 0.1 to 0.2oC. With this occurring we should expect that the real amount of global warming that will occur from a doubling of CO2 would be only about 0.2-0.3oC or about 5-10 percent the amount projected by the many global models of 2-4oC. The AGW threat and especially the catastrophic AGW (or CAGW) threat cannot be a realistic assertion of how the planet’s climate system functions.

Continue Economic Growth

If this evaluation is correct, then the people of the globe should not have to worry about rising levels of CO2 at this time. Enhanced fossil-fuel utilization and rising levels of economic gain should continue. The world needs to greatly reduce its concern for the trumped up CO2 global warming threat. We need to concentrate on the many more legitimate and serious world problems which are before us.

We should all be grateful for the tremendous advancements in living standards, health, and overall well-being which the utilization of fossil-fuel energy has made possible. Fossil-fuel energy has been one of humanity’s greatest blessings.

Higher levels of fossil-fuel usage will bring about yet greater economic and society benefits. Increased CO2 will also bring an enhancement of vegetation growth, a small global rainfall increase, and a very slight global temperature rise – all positive changes for humankind.

Many people who accept that humans are degrading the environment are confusing local environmental problems with CO2 induced global warming. The two are very different. We must all work to reduce or eliminate local pollution and health hazards but disregard the false harangues of saving the planet from the trumped-up imaginary CO2 induced warming.

The wisest course of action for our country and the world at this time should be to have the foresight and courage to ‘do nothing’ regarding the increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which are being emitted into the atmosphere. The coming generations will be in a better position to decide whether any human response to the rising levels of CO2 gases might be justified.

Author’s Background

The author holds an MS (meteorology) and Ph.D. (geophysical sciences) from the University of Chicago. He has been a weather-climate forecaster, researcher, and university graduate school professor for 60 years. He has supervised 70 MS and Ph.D. students. He originated and has been involved with Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasting for the last 31 years.

Gray has never received any research funding from any fossil-fuel source. His position on the global warming issue has led in recent decades to loss of all federal research support he had previously received. His research on this topic continues only through his own funding. Gray and his Colorado State University research project colleagues have published many papers and issued many project reports over many years on cumulus convection and atmospheric moist processes. It is on this topic for which the climate models lack realism and the primary reason for their grossly unrealistic large warming projections. These papers and reports can be found at (http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/).

Acknowledgement. The author is most grateful to Barry Schwartz and to Amie Hedstrom who has provided the data crunching support for this study and have offered much other auxiliary assistance.

 

[GLG]

Thought you could not answer the questions.

Science 101 is not something I'm going to teach you... If you can't comprehend what's the point of me wasting my time getting up to speed. It's your job to do your own homework not mine. You need to read science not just look at steves gonads website. Oh dear ......Can't teach an OBD a new trick now can we.

 

[GLG]

Alex Epstein: Wrapping our minds around climate change

He would not be trying to sell you a book now would he? Perhaps he is speaking for his clients..... http://alexepstein.com/communications-consulting/

 

[GLG]

Stop Climate Fear Mongering –

CO2 Increases Can Cause Only Minimal Warming

by William M. Gray

Skip all the hand waving and lets get right to the point of his argument....

We show that there is a very modest degree of negative water-vapor feedback of 0.1 to 0.2oC. With this occurring we should expect that the real amount of global warming that will occur from a doubling of CO2 would be only about 0.2-0.3oC or about 5-10 percent the amount projected by the many global models of 2-4oC. The AGW threat and especially the catastrophic AGW (or CAGW) threat cannot be a realistic assertion of how the planet’s climate system functions.

Here is what we know
CO2 at 280 ppm is zero warming/cooling (per industrial)
CO2 at 400 ppm is 0.8 C warming (today)
Here is what the old guy would like us to believe
CO2 at 560 ppm is an extra 0.2 C (280 X 2)
Does anyone in their right mind think that's going to work.

His idea is that clouds are going to save us.... How has that work so far? Have these clouds showed up yet to balance the system and prevent warming? If this was correct then we should have seen no temp increase with the increase in CO2. Are they going to show up some time in the future like magic? The old guy can wish and claim all he want's but we are just not seeing his ideas work out. Want proof... look at the arctic sea ice ... it's going.... going... and will be gone soon enough. How are his magic clouds working out on that one... LOL

edit added:
Why is it the author published on steves gonads website and not in a peer reviewed science journal? It's not like he has never published before. He was the go to guy for hurricane track projections at one time in his career.

 

[GLG]

From steves gonads ... the website that OBD likes to look at.

So how has that cooling thing working out for you....

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/blogs/how-talk-people-about-climate-change

How to Talk to People About Climate Change

Three tips for steering the conversation in the right direction.

BY Stephen Bocking
Apr 30 2014 | IN EcoLogic
Categories: Research - Climate Change - Best Practices

Woman and man having a conversation on the street.
Listening should be a big component of conversations about climate change.
Conversation by Felipe Cabrera \ CC BY-SA 2.0

The climate is changing, and more quickly than expected. What was once only in computer models is now before us: rising temperatures, melting Arctic ice, migrating species, Hurricane Sandy and other storms. Disruption is the new normal.

A month ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented its most recent report, describing the changes expected in coming decades, and how humanity might adapt. Here's a useful summary. The bottom line: climate change will affect everyone and everything. So it's really worth getting on with responding.

Yet so far the response seems mostly… nothing. As Sarah Boon asks, What's an environmental scientist to do?

There are several options. One is retreat: head to the hills, for a good think about the sorry state of the world. Paul Kingsnorth has made an eloquent argument for withdrawal:

If you don't go out seeking, if you don't retreat, if you don't put yourself into the wilderness with nothing to carry you, you will never see what you need to shed or what you need to gain. You will never change. And if you never change, neither will anything else.

It's an attractive option, and Kingsnorth presents it beautifully. Who doesn't love quiet time in the woods? But while soaked in ecocentric rhetoric, Kingsnorth's argument is deeply human-centered: personal feelings determine right conduct. Yet in a time that demands urgent change, this seems counterproductive (especially since it's better for the environment to live where there are lots of people). Would civil rights activists have advanced their cause by heading to the woods for a real good think about segregation?

Climate scientist Michael Mann has a more constructive message: If you see something, say something. In his view, being a scientist carries an obligation: tell others what you know.

Great. But what should scientists (and other concerned people) actually say? Here are three ideas.

1. Explain what scientists know.
Highlight the fact that they have reached consensus. With the media always aiming to present "balanced" views, that fact that reality is unbalanced – 97% of scientists are convinced climate change is happening – can get lost. There's also evidence that awareness of this scientific consensus can be a powerful motivator. It clears away debate, enabling a serious conversation about what to do next.

2. Listen.
Facts are not enough. They can even be unhelpful: gloomy predictions of catastrophe may only paralyze. Instead, climate communicators need to practice listening. As Katherine Hayhoe and others have argued, climate conversations must be informed by how people know and care about the world. Seeing climate change with one's own eyes is a powerful motivator, and so are explanations that connect with how people believe the world works. Whether, say, actions by government, business, or individuals are considered effective influences how people respond to climate information. So those who talk about climate need to know how their audience sees society and the world. That means hearing what they have to say.

3. Remember the So What.
People need viable solutions more than warnings, and ideally, solutions that are not just about climate change. These might be local – say, finding an alternative to highway expansions that hardwire a city's car dependency. Nationally, this could mean making the case for an energy efficiency revolution. The point is: solving the climate conundrum only starts with the science.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Lol, lol.lol?

http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/blogs/how-talk-people-about-climate-change

how to talk to people about climate change

three tips for steering the conversation in the right direction.

By stephen bocking
apr 30 2014 | in ecologic
categories: Research - climate change - best practices

woman and man having a conversation on the street.
Listening should be a big component of conversations about climate change.
Conversation by felipe cabrera \ cc by-sa 2.0

the climate is changing, and more quickly than expected. What was once only in computer models is now before us: Rising temperatures, melting arctic ice, migrating species, hurricane sandy and other storms. Disruption is the new normal.

A month ago the intergovernmental panel on climate change presented its most recent report, describing the changes expected in coming decades, and how humanity might adapt. Here's a useful summary. The bottom line: Climate change will affect everyone and everything. So it's really worth getting on with responding.

Yet so far the response seems mostly… nothing. As sarah boon asks, what's an environmental scientist to do?

There are several options. One is retreat: Head to the hills, for a good think about the sorry state of the world. Paul kingsnorth has made an eloquent argument for withdrawal:

If you don't go out seeking, if you don't retreat, if you don't put yourself into the wilderness with nothing to carry you, you will never see what you need to shed or what you need to gain. You will never change. And if you never change, neither will anything else.

It's an attractive option, and kingsnorth presents it beautifully. Who doesn't love quiet time in the woods? But while soaked in ecocentric rhetoric, kingsnorth's argument is deeply human-centered: Personal feelings determine right conduct. Yet in a time that demands urgent change, this seems counterproductive (especially since it's better for the environment to live where there are lots of people). Would civil rights activists have advanced their cause by heading to the woods for a real good think about segregation?

Climate scientist michael mann has a more constructive message: If you see something, say something. In his view, being a scientist carries an obligation: Tell others what you know.

Great. But what should scientists (and other concerned people) actually say? Here are three ideas.

1. Explain what scientists know.
Highlight the fact that they have reached consensus. With the media always aiming to present "balanced" views, that fact that reality is unbalanced – 97% of scientists are convinced climate change is happening – can get lost. There's also evidence that awareness of this scientific consensus can be a powerful motivator. It clears away debate, enabling a serious conversation about what to do next.

2. Listen.
Facts are not enough. They can even be unhelpful: Gloomy predictions of catastrophe may only paralyze. Instead, climate communicators need to practice listening. As katherine hayhoe and others have argued, climate conversations must be informed by how people know and care about the world. Seeing climate change with one's own eyes is a powerful motivator, and so are explanations that connect with how people believe the world works. Whether, say, actions by government, business, or individuals are considered effective influences how people respond to climate information. So those who talk about climate need to know how their audience sees society and the world. That means hearing what they have to say.

3. Remember the so what.
People need viable solutions more than warnings, and ideally, solutions that are not just about climate change. These might be local – say, finding an alternative to highway expansions that hardwire a city's car dependency. Nationally, this could mean making the case for an energy efficiency revolution. The point is: Solving the climate conundrum only starts with the science.

 

[OldBlackDog]

LOL, you really are funny.

Skip all the hand waving and lets get right to the point of his argument....



Here is what we know
CO2 at 280 ppm is zero warming/cooling (per industrial)
CO2 at 400 ppm is 0.8 C warming (today)
Here is what the old guy would like us to believe
CO2 at 560 ppm is an extra 0.2 C (280 X 2)
Does anyone in their right mind think that's going to work.

His idea is that clouds are going to save us.... How has that work so far? Have these clouds showed up yet to balance the system and prevent warming? If this was correct then we should have seen no temp increase with the increase in CO2. Are they going to show up some time in the future like magic? The old guy can wish and claim all he want's but we are just not seeing his ideas work out. Want proof... look at the arctic sea ice ... it's going.... going... and will be gone soon enough. How are his magic clouds working out on that one... LOL

edit added:
Why is it the author published on steves gonads website and not in a peer reviewed science journal? It's not like he has never published before. He was the go to guy for hurricane track projections at one time in his career.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Again, thought you could not answer.

Science 101 is not something I'm going to teach you... If you can't comprehend what's the point of me wasting my time getting up to speed. It's your job to do your own homework not mine. You need to read science not just look at steves gonads website. Oh dear ......Can't teach an OBD a new trick now can we.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Lot better than Al Gores.

From steves gonads ... the website that OBD likes to look at.

So how has that cooling thing working out for you....

 

[GLG]

Again, thought you could not answer.

Again you can't comprehend my answer can you. You think I didn't answer but as usual you are wrong.... Perhaps if I make it a math problem you might get it.

first I'll post what I answered.

"Stick a thermometer into Canada and it read a measly 0.1 C above normal — the coldest year since 1996 and certainly out of step with the planet, which was on target to being the hottest year since modern records began in 1880," Environment Canada says.

Extreme heat and extreme cold gave us a 0.1 C above normal.
Would it be nice to have an average heat and average cold for a normal temp?
That's not the case and why I consider your arguments nonsense.
You like to cherry pick the news story don't you... Is that the what you call an argument?



Here is the logic that most people should be able to follow

-20 (cold) + 20 (warm) = 0 - Normal
-40 (freezing) + 40 (hot ) = 0 - Extreme
The answer is still zero but one is normal and the other is extreme. Do you understand the concept of an average? Math 101

Also what part do you not understand in this sentence.

planet,on target to being the hottest year since modern records began in 1880

What a coincidence another record..... starting to see a pattern yet OBD? How is the paws working out for you? I see you have put up you fake data graph again... where did come from "Tony's house of pizza and climate change.con"

 

[GLG]

Global warming and cooling, yes. It always was and will be.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[triplenickel]

We don't have a choice not to do something. The debate is how do we get it done. How do we not put the world economy in the tank and still curb our CO2? The only way I see forward is with a price on CO2 and let the market do it's thing. Currently we are paying for the rise in CO2 and that's reflected in food and damages to our cities through flooding events. We are also paying in upgrades to infrastructure to handle current and future problems. Insurance rates going up from more damage events then normal. Taxes going up so we can harden our towns from weather events. The problem is we are not putting the true cost at the source. We will keep paying one way or another until the cost are tied to the problem. Does that mean we have to give up everything? No it means we have to do things a lot smarter then we are currently doing it. Why can't we have an electric car to run to work? Why can't we have electric heat pump to heat our house. Why can't we have hybrid system where pure electric won't work? Is it going to be easy? No it's not, but we have some clever people in the world that can help, given the chance.

We don't have to give up everything right now. We do have to start now so that we are on a path to stop putting more CO2 in the atmosphere then is removed. That is something that can be and is measured right now.

Tech has a way of going from the high end to the low end over time. Just look at air bags, anti-lock breaks and fuel injection. At one time they we only available in high end cars. Now you would be hard pressed not to find those items on any car. Things change and the market adapts. Canada's economy did not collapse just because we brought these things out. Same with computers they have gotten faster and more powerful and cheaper to boot. We are seeing that with solar power panels. They are not on the same curve but they are close. Look at the telephone, we started with land lines and then cell phones have taken over the market. Some countries skipped the land line and went straight to cell phones. That worked...... if we can do that what is stopping us from doing the same thing elsewhere?

Take fishing boats.... what is stopping us from going electric? Can we do it right now? Yup but I don't think it is prime time yet. We could go electric kicker right now with current tech. Future tech would replace the main at some point. Let's say you and I like to fish on the weekends. Could we have a solar panel charging our boat during the week and have enough power to make it through the weekend fishing. Free fuel but we had an up front cost with the equipment. It's not common now but could it be in 10 years?

It's all possible if we start down this path and we have the courage to face the fact that we need to do something. There are enough troubling signs that we can't afford not to do something. I don't expect everyone to fall in line as there will always be freeloaders that ride the coat tails of us. I'm hoping that there will be enough of us pushing the tech to get the job done. It would be helpful if we put a price on the CO2 to assist the market so that we can speed up the transition to clean energy.

One last point....... Make the carbon tax revenue neutral like we have here in BC, it works. That way we send the signal but we reap a delayed benefit long after we spent the money.

I hear what your saying I can't say I disagree but you've answered your own questions already. Especially along these lines;

Why can't we have an electric car to run to work? Why can't we have electric heat pump to heat our house. Why can't we have hybrid system where pure electric won't work? Is it going to be easy? No it's not, but we have some clever people in the world that can help, given the chance.

This isn't an attack but maybe for lack of better words a reality check. GLG why do you choose to spend your money on a boat instead of solar panels and a full electric car? Simple answer, you don't want to. There's nothing at all stopping you and the rest of society is exactly the same. Are you waiting for the government to drive hydro and fuel costs so high you have no choice because that's what it sounds like your saying to me. I'm not chastising or attacking it's just an example.

You quoted my post but didn't address any of the social issues I brought up as major roadblocks, it was a delightful feel good post though. Why is that? Ever consider a career in politics? You can really fill space without answering the question!

Merry Christmas I wish I was home rather than stuck here bored enough to be on this thread again. But rest assured people you can turn up your thermostats, crank up the gas ranges to make your turkey dinners, enjoy your hot showers my crew and myself will keep the gas flowing for you and your families today just try not to complain too much when you get the bill it costs money to keep people from their homes and families on days like this.

 

[triplenickel]

Global warming, not global freezing.
This is your scientific reply,extreem heat and cold gave us this?
Really. Beautiful.

Yes that's what climate change gives us, warming and cooling.

 

[triplenickel]

Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States.

I wonder if Asia is somehow taking too much of the blame here. If the manufacturing sector still existed in North America and hadn't been shifted to Asia by us western consumers (that's right all of us own as much of it as the greediest evil capitalist pig CEO's do) would the global emissions totals be any different?

 

[GLG]

I hear what your saying I can't say I disagree but you've answered your own questions already. Especially along these lines;



This isn't an attack but maybe for lack of better words a reality check. GLG why do you choose to spend your money on a boat instead of solar panels and a full electric car? Simple answer, you don't want to. There's nothing at all stopping you and the rest of society is exactly the same. Are you waiting for the government to drive hydro and fuel costs so high you have no choice because that's what it sounds like your saying to me. I'm not chastising or attacking it's just an example.

I am taking steps to get off fossil fuels. Currently it's very hard to do so. I tried to buy an all electric car but the dealer here would not support me and the infrastructure is not setup. If I lived in Vancouver this would have been easy. I did the next best thing and bought a hybrid for the wife. So went from 13 L/km to 4 L/km so that's a step in the right direction. Her old vehicle was on it's last legs and it needed to be replace. Too many break downs and you can't have the wife stranded on the side of the road. Now for solar panels.... I'm currently looking / planning to set some up. Not sure if I will put them on my house or put them in an array with others here in the valley. The cost have come down so much that pay back is now less then 7 years. That's an all in price and I'm sure with my own labour I can drive that price down more. I'm also looking at a project in Ontario and through crowd source funding may kick some in there too. Alberta looks like it may start moving in this direction also and through friends may kick some money there too. The change in government leadership there looks promising. The whole point is we need to start thinking of going down these roads and not just the "same old same old", clearly that's not working and change is needed. So where do you get your best bang for your buck is top of mind. With that said something that I did years ago was to divest all my investments out of O&G and put them into funds that either were "green" investments or investments in local infrastructure municipal bonds to help communities upgrade and prepare for the future. So you see there are ways to do things and you just don't have to keep going down the same old road.

You quoted my post but didn't address any of the social issues I brought up as major roadblocks, it was a delightful feel good post though. Why is that? Ever consider a career in politics? You can really fill space without answering the question!

Yes there are major road block and I don't have an answer except pointing out that a price on CO2 is how I see Canada going forward. The social issues of increasing the cost can be offset by making that price revenue neutral. Exactly how we are doing it here in BC with fuel. Not sure if this answers your question and if not feel free to ask again.

Merry Christmas I wish I was home rather than stuck here bored enough to be on this thread again. But rest assured people you can turn up your thermostats, crank up the gas ranges to make your turkey dinners, enjoy your hot showers my crew and myself will keep the gas flowing for you and your families today just try not to complain too much when you get the bill it costs money to keep people from their homes and families on days like this.

Stay safe and Merry Christmas to you and your family. I know what it's like to spend the holidays working far away from home. No worries on the NG front I gave that up 10 years ago. We still need NG here in Canada and the US as I see that as an important step to get off the coal. It's the LNG part I don't think is a smart move that our current leadership is in love with at the moment. So much so she is willing to forgo taxes and royalties to get her dream off the ground.

If you bored have a look at this website....
http://www.gabenergy.com/