Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Nature has a way of telling OBD he is full of nonsense. Typical isn't it.
OBD why don't you tell the members here why this is happening?

[FDRnH48LvhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDRnH48LvhQ

Here you go. Note the date please.
State of the Sea Ice – January 2015

Guest essay by Robert A Cook, PE

state-of-sea-ice-jan2015
Sea ice concentration, north and south poles as observed by satellite. Image from University of Illinois Cryosphere Today

Annually, the President is required to address the nation and report on the State of the Union. Other writers here regularly report on the oceans and El Nino/ENSO conditions, the duration and status of the extended “pause” in global warming we now are enjoying, and the global average satellite temperature anomalies. Thus, let us plan on summarizing, multiplying, dividing, and discussing the status of the world’s remaining sea ice on or about the twenty-second day of each month.

In particular, for the twenty-second of each month, we will calculate and present for discussion:

that day’s solar radiation level at top of atmosphere (TOA),
that day’s declination angle (the tilt of the earth’s axis towards or away from the solar plane),
that day’s average Antarctic and Arctic sea ice area and extents,
an estimate of the latitude of the edge of that day’s Antarctic and Arctic areas,
at the edge of the sea ice for that day, estimate the total reflected and absorbed solar radiation into open water and sea ice for a clear day. (This requires an estimate of the sea ice albedo for that day, the solar elevation of the sun for each hour of that day, an estimate of the open ocean water albedo each hour at each solar elevation angle, and an estimate of the atmosphere’s clarity that day, and the air mass attenuating the sun’s energy each hour of that day at that latitude. )
an estimate of the average additional heat losses each hour on that day from the open ocean and from the sea ice.
Why regularly discuss sea ice area?

Well, with the “pause” now extending 18 years – 3 months, and with every other CAGW prediction regularly failing as CO2 steadily increases, Arctic sea ice loss is just about the only defense left of the CAGW’s basic predictions. It is regularly hyped and used, so you need to know the details of why they think it is important, and the limits to that assumed importance. (Certainly, the CAGW proponents will not tell you of any limitations or constraints Arctic sea ice poses to their theory of Arctic amplification!) Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, is failing every assumed CAGW result, and is just uniformly ignored. On the other hand, because it disproves the basic CAGW predictions, you need to know the details of Antarctic sea ice, the problems it poses, and the threats it poses.

Why the twenty-second of each month?

It is a convenient and exciting (well, interesting at least) day for almost all of the changes in all areas we need to look at through the year: solar radiation levels, the earth’s declination, the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice minimums and maximum areas. The summer and winter solstices (longest day and longest night of the year occur on or about the 22 Dec and 22 June each, the fall and spring equinox fall 90 days later on 21-22 March and 21-22 September each year. The Antarctic sea ice maximum occurs during the two weeks after 22 Sept each year, the Arctic sea ice minimum occurs a few days earlier: now it is averaging 15-20 Sept. The Antarctic sea ice minimum occurs around 22 Feb each year, the Arctic sea ice maximum occurs a the weeks after 22 March. Solar radiation is not quite as convenient scheduled, but it is at least completely predictable: maximum solar TOA occurs halfway between 22 Dec and Jan 22 each year, solar TOA minimum occurs 5 July, halfway between 22 June and 22 July.

Antarctica first?

I will usually mention Antarctic sea ice first for several reasons.

First, it is almost always ignored by the CAGW press agents because the Antarctic sea ice reflects badly on several of their predictions about the effects of CO2 in particular and global warming in general. As observers of the global warming debate, you need to know what is happening all over, not just what the press agents want you to know, and what they don’t want you to know.

As important as that is, you will find through the next few months just how much more important the Antarctic sea ice area actually is to the world’s heat balance: The much-hyped Arctic amplification is a very real effect. But it does NOT only occur in the limited area of the Arctic (where sea ice has been receding for several decades) but around the unlimited seas and ever-increasing sea ice surrounding the Antarctica. Down south, where the sun is always higher in the sky and the solar energy reflected back into space much greater, sea ice area really does matter. Up north? Not so much almost all of the year.

Equations.

I will not go into a lot of the equations involved in this first report – there is time for that a bit later. They need to be covered, and the constants and variables need to be looked at in detail. Few “facts” you think you know, very few of the “Wikipedia” constants and textbook assumptions about sea ice really are constant, and almost none of the facts about sea ice, albedos, and solar radiation levels that “everybody knows” are, in fact, actually facts that can stand up to close examinations.

Models and constants and equations?

Challenge any item or equation you disagree with or wish to expand upon. I will in general treat any specific equation sourced from common geometry (such as a conversion of area into latitude, or the solar elevation angle calculated for a day-of-year and hour-of-day and latitude as a specific ‘thing”. It is not a model, nor an approximation. At sea level, the sun really is exactly that high in the sky on that hour of that day of the year at that latitude on earth. If you disagree with an equation, cite your source and justify the difference.

Measured data from field research is a bit different. In general, I will not use error bars or approximations nor will I use purely theoretical data or laboratory approximations such as the Fresnel equations for the albedo of water. (Pure water, in a lab, measured in still air from still water with perfectly aligned parallel and perpendicular light waves? Those conditions do not occur around Cape Horn.)

Everywhere possible, I will quote the experimental data for actual measurements taken in the Antarctic and Arctic itself (sea ice albedo, air temperatures, water temperatures, winds and wind direction, sea ice area, cloudiness and direct/indirect radiation levels); or from the measurements of real seas and real winds and real waves in the open ocean (ocean albedo). I will often approximate experimental results (particularly x,y graphs from old pdf files and graphs) with equations and curve-fit lines. Expect this, and offer better approximations as you see fit and as you can. But the original experiment results ARE the data! You can argue with my approximations (models ?) of each experiment, but you cannot disagree with the real world. Equally, each real world experiment has its own limits and its own assumptions. Again, each source will be discussed in detail over time. Each experimental source will be cited as each detailed equation is discussed – and there will be disagreements between measured results from different sources writing in different journals at different times. Where the source article does present a specific equation or approximation of his or her own work, that equation or constant will usually be used “as-written” for that time frame or those conditions. (For example, in 2001, Dr Judith Curry measured Arctic sea ice albedo as 0.823 That value will be used for all sea ice between January and early May. Her data showed a significant decrease in Arctic sea ice albedo between May and early September, and so her reported values will be curve-fit, and used for all Arctic sea ice albedos between those dates. She has no recorded values for albedo between September and January, so the 0.823 value will be assumed valid after September.)

Solar radiation will usually be addressed pretty much as the measured source data was obtained: in terms of direct radiation only under clear skies with typical Arctic conditions at typical arctic latitudes. Diffuse radiation and cloud cover and relative humidity levels are very important, but we need to get through many other things first. Land area and sea ice area will generally use millions of square kilometers as units (abbreviated as Mkm^2) . Angles are usually in degrees.

Your additions and questions about any value are encouraged of course, but –as Willis requires, always cite exactly what item or quote you question and why you feel it needs to be corrected.

I will not take credit for the basic research results discussed here – all of the hardest field work has already been done years before by many people and many teams from many nations and many institutions, nor of the basic equations and fundamentals used each time. Others deserve that credit, and they will be credited as each detail is discussed. I do acknowledge integrating their work together, and am responsible for the results discussed each time in this series.

Enough talk – You are (probably) even less interested than I in philosophical minutia of the differences between models and equations, between predictions and presumptions and projections and forecasts.

 

[OldBlackDog]

22 January 2015, Day-of-Year (DOY) = 22

Antarctic Sea Ice Area (SIA)

The Antarctic sea ice continues to melt as the year progresses towards its summer minimum in late February. The Antarctic sea ice anomaly is now just under 1 million square kilometers, representing an area of “excess sea ice” about half the size of Greenland.

Cryosphere (Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois)

[Note: There are several other reliable labs and institutions reporting daily sea ice areas and extents. Cryosphere at the University of Illinois is unique in reporting both. All SIA and SIA values differ from each other day by day, so for consistency across both poles, I will only use Cryosphere’s values for area. ]

SIA 1979-2008, = 3.102 Mkm^2, Average this date

SIA 2015, DOY 22, = 4.067 Mkm^2, Actual this date

SIA Anomaly, 2015, DOY 22 = 0.965 Mkm^2, Anomaly this date

Percent increase of Antarctic SIA = 31.1% more Antarctic sea ice than normal for this date

Total Antarctic Ice = 14.0 + 1.5 + 4.1 = 19.6 Mkm^2.

Antarctica’s ice now covers a total area of 19.5 Mkm^2 = 14.0 mkm^2 of continental land ice + 1.5 Mkm^2 of permanent shelf ice plus 4.1 Mkm^2 of total sea ice.

The edge of the Antarctic sea ice is at latitude -67.5 south, very close to the Antarctic Circle at -66.5 south latitude.

Antarctic Sunlight, DOY = 22.

Solar radiation at Top of Atmosphere (TOA) = 1405 watt/m^2, this date (whole earth exposure)

Declination Angle = -0.347, Tau (the Day Angle) = 0.36

At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice, at -67.5latitude, sunrise occurs at 02:00 AM, sunset at 22:00 PM.

At noon, at -67.5 latitude, air mass = 1.482; direct sunlight on a flat surface = 1104 watts/m^2

At noon today, peak radiation on the sea surface = 744 watts/m^2 at a 42.4 solar elevation angle

At noon today, Sea Ice albedo = 0.823; 132 watts are absorbed, 612 watts are reflected into space

At noon today, Open ocean albedo = 0.043; 712 watts are absorbed, 32 watts are reflected.

Today, this day of year, for every “excess” meter of Antarctic sea ice, you can see that 581 watts/m^2 are reflected back into space (clear day, at noon). And “sunlight” occurs for 20 of the 24 hours down south at latitude -67.5.

Arctic Sea Ice Area (SIA)

22 January 2015, Day-of-Year (DOY) = 22

The Arctic sea ice continues to expand towards its spring maximum in late March. As expected, even as every individual day grows longer after the winter solstice on Dec 22, the Arctic continues to lose heat into space. This heat loss is seen as an increase every day in the Arctic sea ice area.

Today’s Arctic sea ice anomaly remains negative at -0.679 Mkm^2. This continues its decade long negative value, and this value continues the steady negative sea ice anomaly started in early 2013 and continued through all of 2014. However, today’s anomaly is significantly smaller than both 2007 and 2012’s record low sea ice anomaly, and it represents an increase in Arctic sea ice area since 2005. (Today’s sea ice area is larger than most days since 2005, though the difference (the anomaly) remains negative with respect to the 1979-2008 mean area.) Today’s Arctic sea ice anomaly remains within 2 standard deviations of the 1979-2008 mean, and that continues a trend begun in 2013 and continued through most the days since.

Today’s Arctic sea ice anomaly is negative, and represents an area of “lost sea ice” roughly half the size of Hudson’s Bay’s 1.6 Mkm^2.

Cryosphere (Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois)

SIA 1979-2008, = 13.131 Mkm^2, Average this date

SIA 2015, DOY 22, = 12.453 Mkm^2, Actual this date

SIA Anomaly, 2015, DOY 22 = -0.679 Mkm^2, Anomaly this date

Percent decrease of Arctic SIA = 5.1% less Arctic sea ice than normal for this date

Total Arctic Sea Ice Area = 12.453 Mkm^2

The edge of the Arctic sea ice lies approximately at latitude 72.0 north, well north of the Arctic Circle at latitude 66.5. (This assumes a circular Arctic sea ice cap, centered at the north pole. The actual Arctic sea ice is only roughly circular, and its geometric center lies closer to the Canadian coast than to the Russian coast.)

Arctic Sunlight, DOY = 22.

Solar radiation at Top of Atmosphere (TOA) = 1405 watt/m^2, this date (same as Antarctica)

Declination Angle = -0.347, Tau (the Day Angle) = 0.36 (same as Antarctica)

At the edge of the Arctic sea ice, at latitude 72.0 north, the sun never rises above the horizon.

(Further south, at latitude 70.1 north, the sun just barely nudges the horizon for a few minutes at noon.)

At noon today, air mass = infinity, solar elevation angle = -1.9 degrees

At noon today, peak radiation on the sea surface = 0 watts/m^2 at -1.9 solar elevation angle

At noon today, sea ice albedo = 0.823, but no energy is absorbed

At noon today, open ocean albedo is meaningless.

Today, this day of year, for every “lost” square meter of sea ice, the open Arctic ocean loses more energy from increased long wave radiation from the open ocean water, from increased convection and conduction losses up to the sea surface, and from increased evaporation losses. In all cases, at this latitude at all hours of the day, more energy is lost from the open Arctic Ocean water than from ice-covered Arctic waters.

Today, this day of year, less Arctic sea ice = more heat loss from the Arctic ocean.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/01/23/the-bloom-is-off-the-boom-how-alberta-blew-it/


The bloom is off the boom: How Alberta blew it

By Mitchell Anderson | Jan 23, 2015 4:29 pm

Looks like the party’s over in Alberta — and the hangover will be a doozy. Collapsing global oil prices mean the high-cost, low-value oilsands industry has suddenly skidded from “unstoppable force” to full stop. For years Canadians were told that Alberta is destined to be a global energy superpower — a message backed by millions in publicly-funded cheerleading and a chorus of uncritical coverage in the mainstream media.

Out in the real world, capital markets were cooling for years on such overheated hype, with some oilsands investment funds shedding more than two-thirds of their value since 2008. The slow, steady decline in investor confidence accelerated into free-fall in the last six months, with blue-chip energy companies like Suncor losing billions in book value since last June.

So what does Alberta have to show for some 24 billion barrels of conventional crude and bitumen that have so far come out of the ground? The province is currently over $12 billion in debt and is projected to run a budget deficit of $500 million this year, the seventh consecutive year in the red for a province that prides itself on having a sharp fiscal pencil.

Resource prices often go through boom and bust cycles, and this is certainly not the first in Alberta, as evidenced by a certain iconic bumper sticker. Yet to fully grasp Canada’s colossal lost opportunity, we need to look toward our Norwegian neighbours.

Norway, like Canada, was scaling up its petroleum industry in the early 1970s. It endured the same cyclical rides in resource pricing, and negotiated terms with many of the same foreign companies.

Yet Norway now has over $1 trillion socked away in its sovereign wealth fund, a dedicated repository of all petroleum revenues. Even if oil was worth nothing tomorrow, the country would still have no public debt, fully funded social programs that we can only dream of, and a very large nest egg to transition to a new economy.

So where is our nest egg? The Alberta Heritage Fund was started almost 15 years before the Norwegian oil fund, yet the province has not contributed a dime of resource revenues since 1987. This moribund fund has only two per cent of the value of Norway’s pile of cash, which is now the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.

Norway and Alberta continue to have comparable populations and petroleum production. What did they do right and we do so wrong? Is it really that clear cut? Well, actually it is.

Alberta and Norway obviously have very different ideological bents, and 40 years ago you could have a spirited argument on which worldview would come out on top. But such esoteric speculation is no longer necessary given the hard facts in full view on their respective balance sheets.

The real deficit (in Alberta) is not economic but intellectual. Some observers have made the case that the free-market mindset that got us in this mess is actually a long-term project of powerful outside forces eager to acquire Canada’s treasure trove of resources at rock-bottom prices.

The laissez-faire approach to resource management in Alberta has been a fiscal disaster compared to what might have been. In 2012, the province collected a mere $4.04 in royalties per barrel of oil equivalent. That same year, the Norwegian taxpayer raked in $46.29 on their petroleum production — more than 10 times as much. How did they achieve such vastly better results? By embracing a profitable public involvement and oversight in their resource economy that would be abhorrent to the Fraser Institute worldview that has taken root in Alberta.

While it is true that Norway’s Brent crude is worth much more than the low-grade bitumen currently wrung out of the oilsands, Alberta has also produced enormous amounts of conventional crude since oil was discovered in the Turner Valley southwest of Calgary 100 years ago.

Ignoring the oilsands altogether, Alberta has produced 18 per cent more conventional crude and natural gas than has Norway — and the province didn’t have to venture hundreds of kilometres into the North Sea to get it.

For now the latest Alberta bender is over, and it’s time to take stock of certain destructive lifestyle choices. The budgetary cupboards are bare, yet Canada’s allegedly “richest” province has an unfunded municipal infrastructure deficit of up to $24 billion. A badly-needed new cancer treatment facility has just been delayed past 2020. The long-overdue plan to build or modernize over 230 schools by 2018 is threatened by an $11-billion “fiscal hole” in provincial finances.

According to the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, “Alberta continues to have the lowest overall tax system in Canada, with the lowest fuel taxes, no sales tax, no health premiums, no capital or payroll taxes, and low personal and corporate income taxes. Albertans and Alberta businesses would pay at least $10.6 billion more in taxes each year if Alberta had the tax system of any other province.”

While provincial finances are grim and real estate values are about to fall off a cliff, the real deficit is not economic but intellectual. Some observers have made the case that the free-market mindset that got us in this mess is actually a long-term project of powerful outside forces eager to acquire Canada’s treasure trove of resources at rock-bottom prices.

If so, this audacious endgame has been a stunning success. The anti-tax sentiment has intruded so far into the collective psyche of Alberta voters that they almost have Stockholm Syndrome, punishing any politician that threatens to raise resource rents. The last Alberta election almost saw a Fraser Institute alumna become premier. If there is an upside to the most recent downturn in Alberta, it is bringing into crystal clear focus the abject fiscal failure of decades of “free market” resource policies promoted by well-funded think tanks.

But there are sound reasons for hope. Jim Prentice is likely the most capable person to sit in the premier’s chair since Peter Lougheed. His opposition on the political right collapsed like wet cardboard when he arrived on the scene, giving him a unique opportunity to go to the polls and introduce a modest sales tax or even a meaningful carbon tax. One of the sad legacies from decades of anti-government cheerleading has been the dearth of talent attracted to the public side of the table. If Prentice is bold and principled, he has a chance to change that culture of perceived public mediocrity.

Albertans are in for a rough ride, but the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Now that the bender’s over, it’s time to have that conversation.
[Tyee]

Mitchell Anderson writes for the Tyee. Find his previous Tyee stories here.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

 

[agentaqua]

...I am debating, you just do not like my way of doing it as it does not fit with what you want..

Really? How about responding to those questions I posted a ways back, then. Your chance to shine, OBD.

 

[OldBlackDog]

ummm...95% of the published science.....

OBD - If I spend a tiny bit of effort here - would you reciprocate like-wise - and not immediately jump to cut and paste whatever the "anti" of my view is here - and show a bit of respect and at least rationally consider what I am trying to say here - also respectfully? Think of it as a challenge to both of us.

1 - Science is never "perfect" - although it tries (or should, anyways) to - mostly through the venue of peer-review. Yes, some internet bloggers and news stories also are very trustworthy - but many - as you know - are not.

Agree.

2 - Most people outside of those employed in the sciences - often do not have enough experience, familiarity, training and/or experience in the peer-review world to really understand what the peer-review process is, and how it works. Same can be said for a number also in the sciences.

This is changing.

3 - Most people in the sciences at least recognize that there is a difference between blogs, news, and published science. Some have even developed enough critical skills to critique, gauge, and "rate" the published work. The best way to do that - officially and scientifically - is to write back to that journal and submit a letter of comment. Sometimes that precipitates several scientific comments back and forth that are very enlightening and provide much depth and insight into anyone who wishes to immerse themselves in the debate. Generally, most thorough and "good" scientific papers generate less debate on an article-by-article basis. This would be the appropriate place for the climate blog deniers to publish their critiques. Not surprisingly - there have been very few if any scientific letters of comment that I have witnessed from the climate change deniers compared to the extent of the available peer-reviewed literature. There is of course a reason for that. Can you guess why?

Money. Pure and simple.


4 - News and blogs do not work as above. News people are told there are always 2 sides to a story - and they normally give equal time to opposing views IRRESPECTIVE of any scientific consensus. That is if there is say 95% consensus that climate change is real, largely caused by human activities, and somewhat avoidable - we should have 95 scientists beating up on 1 industry hack on a talk show bench - but that seems to never happen. Again - can you guess why?

Newspapers are lazy and do not check their facts. Happens every day with everything, not just global warming.

5 - Individual scientific papers are judged on a stand alone basis - but the field of science moves ahead by consensus. That is why we no longer believe the world is flat for example - or that the Earth is *NOT* the center of the solar system - although it is the center of our observable Universe - a very different reasoning. The courts similarly have what they call the weight of evidence when they reach decisions - and the weight of evidence in the scientific literature is that Climate Change exists - the predicted extremes are largely human-induced and potentially something we should take seriously.

Then you cannot complain when your predictions prove to be wrong! And there are lots of them that your scientists are wrong about. It is sure interesting that you group cannot question these but has to defend it as a mistake.
Well people have stopped caring about globla warming due to your predictions that did not happen.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

6 - Whether or not human-induced Climate Change exists or not - our supply of hydrocarbons is limited - and we are burning through them. This is something that I have never seen the climate change deniers mention. Developing new technologies such as "green" energy based on renewable sources, along with the jobs-jobs-jobs mantra to extend our oil-based supplies should be welcomed by the business community. All of the business community - except for big oil, apparently. I don't see how any climate change denier could seriously argue against this - even you OBD.

They are inventing new technologies and using less renewables . Just look at how far they have gone with automobiles. I am not arguing this point.
Soon they will run autos on water, then there will be new concerns.

As said by many scientists, the earth is to complex for man to understand it yet.
Fact, they are learning new thing about it every day and showing us how much they really do not know yet.
To say we know everything there is and can predict the future is just stupid.

 

[GLG]

To say we know everything there is and can predict the future is just stupid.

Wait a minute.... Your team has done just that.
Wonder how that has worked out for them?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

The adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies



In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.

One surprise is that the three surface records, all run by passionate believers in man-made warming, in fact derive most of their land surface data from a single source. This is the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), managed by the US National Climate Data Center under NOAA, which in turn comes under the US Department of Commerce.

But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.

Below, the raw data in graph form



To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.

But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.

Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report (see “New Zealand NIWA temperature train wreck” on the Watts Up With That science blog, WUWT, which has played a leading role in exposing such fiddling of the figures).

By far the most comprehensive account of this wholesale corruption of proper science is a paper written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?”, by two veteran US meteorologists, Joseph D’Aleo and WUWT’s Anthony Watts (and if warmists are tempted to comment below this article online, it would be welcome if they could address their criticisms to the evidence, rather than just resorting to personal attacks on the scientists who, after actually examining the evidence, have come to a view different from their own).

One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.

In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.

But at least, if they’re hoping to see that “universal climate treaty” signed in Paris next December, we can be pretty sure that it is no more going to happen than that 2014 was the hottest year in history.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for responding, OBD. I don't have enough time right now - other than a quick reply.

As said by many scientists, the earth is to complex for man to understand it yet. Fact, they are learning new thing about it every day and showing us how much they really do not know yet. To say we know everything there is and can predict the future is just stupid.

Weell...I never expected for us to know everything about the world. Maybe if I believed I might end up some lifetime a god - I might expect it at some time.

I did, however - expect us to know enough that if we were getting wet - we might want to get out of the rain. I don't really need to be able to accurately predict exactly how much rain will fall, or when exactly it will end to do that. Same goes for this climate change - "controversy" as labelled only in the denial camp. We don't really need to spend time arguing that sea level rise will be 5 cm per decade or 7 in order to realize that is a bad thing - and maybe we might want to plan for it.

We don't need to know "EVERYTHING" in order to act now. We just need to know that we can - do it -that is.

Even if ONLY for the fact that we will eventually run out of oil/hydrocarbons. We might want to plan for that, as well.

The IPCC, the NASA, the NOAA, the every friggen one of 95% of scientists in the world are *NOT* performing this elaborate hoax on OBD on the Sportsfishing Forum. They don't know you exist, OBD.

If they are earning an occasional paycheck doing the work they like - doesn't mean we should ignore them. Let me give you an example:

OBD goes to the doctor after reading all of these posts, especially GLGs. Says he has a headache. Says he believes there is a conspiracy against him. Doctor says hmmm - gets OBD a catscan. Catscan shows bad tumour (just an example, OBD - I really don't wish this on you). OBD says to Doctor - I don't believe you - you CAN"T know EVERYTHING about my brain - furthermore - someone pays you money to do you job!!! OMG!!! OBD instead turns to Tony's Pizza House and Bad Haircuts - and asks Tony what he thinks. Tony says - I can give you a haircut where you can't see it. Don't worry about it. OBD goes home and gets a goood sleep. Fairytale?

I hope so.

 

[GLG]

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph

Who wrote this nonsense? Oh it was this guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Gee wonder what's next that this "expert" will write about?

He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[SUP][2][/SUP] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[SUP][3][/SUP]

Seems to be an expert at being wrong..... Typical from your team.
5 minutes .... Yup that's all this article gets from my time but I do wish I had that back... LOL

So how is that climate gate lawsuit going?
Last I heard there was a house for sale in Toronto to pay the bills.
Did the "hat in hand" website come to be to help pay for the defense?
Did you send in your check like you were told to?

 

[GLG]

Here you go. Note the date please.
State of the Sea Ice – January 2015

Guest essay by Robert A Cook, PE

Date noted and this should be interesting, due keep us up to date with this guys climate model.
His theory is there is no global warming and the proof is the Antarctic sea ice is growing....
OBD you sure hang with a strange crowd at Tony's house of pizza and climate change.con
I find this statement rather telling or maybe amusing.....

We could lose EVERY square meter of Arctic sea ice EVERY day in September and STILL have a net loss of solar energy into space due to today’s “excess” Antarctic sea ice.

Perhaps you could point him to this......

“Anything that changes the balance between energy input and energy output of the Earth has the potential to change its temperature.” January 23rd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/...mies/#comments

 

[GLG]

The New England Patriots pointed to a study released today which they say shows that the alleged deflation of footballs in recent games was not due to human causes.
"It's just natural variation," explains the executive summary of the study. "Footballs have had different inflation pressures for thousands of years."
The study was released today by the Edelman research firm, which usually focuses on swatting away the damaging efforts of environmentalists to impede progress. "It's a little different than our normal work, but we saw an opportunity to protect an American business from overzealous conspiracy theorists," their spokesperson said.

Economist Bjorn Lomborg, who contributed to the study, said "It's really a question of where teams choose to put their resources. Do they want to whine about alleged rule breaking, or should they focus on better pass defense?"
"This whole case is just an excuse to impose over-regulation and Soviet style collectivism on the game," put in Newt Gingrich. "Teams supply their own footballs - that's a market-based solution. If the league insists on measuring ball pressure, or even executing a takeover of the ball supply, where will it end?"
"And don't let scientists get hold of this one," Gingrich added. "They will parley this into grants for season-long tailgating "research" junkets to all the best games at taxpayer expense."
The American Enterprise Institute provided a supporting statement. "Out of all the teams in the league, it's normal variation that one of them is going to have an insanely low rate of fumbles, year after year. And that team happens to be the Patriots. It's only envious carping to complain if their excellence has led them to be the best One Percent of all teams ever in avoiding fumbles."
Unfortunately, the release of the study was marred by a conversation caught in a live microphone at an industry conference. Edelman Vice President Lauri Hennessey was heard appearing to mock people who might be concerned about fair play, saying "When I'm talking to people in Seattle, of course I say I'm concerned about ball deflation. They're pretty wacky out there."

Still, Senator James Inhofe was quick to embrace the study. "This deflation scare is all a hoax," He declared. "It's arrogance to presume that any person can control the pressure to which a football is inflated. Some things are just up to God. Patriots means America, and America means God. So whatever inflation was in those balls, we should just accept it."
Patriots quarterback Tom Brady also invoked powerful patriotic images to lay the controversy to rest. "America loves a winner," he said. ""America loves results. And from a results point of view, not getting caught is the same as not cheating. Right?"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-study-proves-ball-deflation-Not-Human-Caused

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/c...-glaciers-release-billions-kilograms-co₂-2050

Melting Glaciers to Release Billions of Kilograms of CO₂ by 2050
A new study finds sea-level rise isn't the only thing to fear about melting glaciers.
BY ANDREW REEVES
JAN 23 2015 | IN CURRENT EVENTS
CATEGORIES: WILDLIFE - WATER - HABITAT PROTECTION - CLIMATE CHANGE

Antarctic Ice Shelf Loss Comes From Underneath by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center \ CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

WE KNOW SEA levels are risig as climate change causes glaciers to melt. But it turns out rising seas may not be the only catastrophic by-product of glacier melt we need to worry about.

A new study from researchers at Florida State University published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience has discovered there will be a substantial carbon impact resulting from the loss of glaciers and ice sheets that cover roughly 11 per cent of the Earth’s surface.

Glaciers act as sinks for both local and distant sources of carbon, CO₂ that is then released downstream if and when the ice melts or breaks away into the sea.

Robert Spencer, a professor of oceanography at Florida State working with researchers in Alaska and Switzerland, used measurements of ice sheets from Greenland, the Antarctic and mountain glaciers from around the world to determine just how much carbon was being stored there and how quickly they anticipate its release.

Glaciers act as sinks for both local and distant sources of carbon, CO₂ that is then released downstream if and when the ice melts or breaks away into the sea.

The results aren’t good. Spencer and his colleague Eran Hood, an environmental scientist at the University of Alaska Southeast, predict the outflow of organic carbon will increase by 50 per cent by 2050.

But the Antarctic ice appears more stable than ice contained in Greenland or on mountain peaks. It’s the mountain glaciers that are likely to release the largest volume of dissolved organic carbon, they found, while the Greenland sheets are projected to release the largest volume of particulate organic carbon. (Dissolved organic carbon can pass through a 0.45 micrometre filter, whereas particulate organic carbon contains particles larger than 0.45 micrometres and cannot pass through the same filter.)The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains roughly six petagrams of organic carbon (approximately six trillion kilograms) in its glacier ice, more than the carbon stored in mountain glaciers or the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Spencer and Hood also found that loss of glacier mass is responsible for roughly 13 per cent of the yearly fluctuation in how much dissolved organic carbon a glacier releases. Other factors impacting glacier melt include warming temperatures, evaporation and scouring by wind.

Climate change is speeding up the process. Glacier melt is expected to result in a cumulative release of 15 teragrams (15 billion kilograms) of CO₂ by 2050. This is “equivalent to about half of the annual flux of dissolved organic carbon from the Amazon River,” according to the report.

“The loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high-latitude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land-to-ocean fluxes of organic carbon," Hood said in a release.

Melting glaciers and ice sheets, which contain approximately 70 per cent of the Earth’s freshwater, have long been known to contribute to rising sea levels. But their role in sea-level rise was also questioned this week with a new study published January 14 in the journal Nature.

Carling Hay and Eric Morrow, fellows in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, shows the previous estimates of global sea-level rise from 1900 to 1990 (between 1.5 millimetres and 1.8 millimetres per year) were over-estimated by as much as 30 per cent. The rise was closer to 1.2 millimetres annually, they suggest.

The Earth’s oceans have been rising at a much faster rate than previously imagined.

This isn’t cause to celebrate, however. The sea-level rise since 1990 has been systematically low-balled, they believe. Hay and Morrow argue that, for the past 25 years, the Earth’s oceans having been rising at a much faster rate than previously imagined.

"It's a larger problem than we initially thought,” Morrow said of the findings. According to their research, global sea levels have risen by three millimetres annually since 1990.

The disagreement over how significantly sea levels have risen seems, in one sense, to be splitting hairs. Is the difference between 1.2 millimetres and three millimetres a year substantial at the planetary scale? It’s a difference of less than a centimetre, after all.

But Morrow fears any future calculation of sea-level rise based on the old 1900 to 1990 data would be incorrect, given the intricate models used to predict sea-level rise would not have been properly calibrated. “That calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century,” he said.

As of now, Spencer and his colleagues are unaware of what impact that volume of dissolved and particulate organic CO₂ will have on the world’s water bodies, regardless of how quickly they’re rising.

"People have to think about is what this means for the Earth," Spencer said. "We know we're losing glaciers, but what does that mean for marine life, fisheries, things downstream that we care about? There's a whole host of issues besides the water issue.

Andrew Reeves

Andrew is an award-winning environmental writer based in Toronto with a Masters in Geography from the University of Toronto. Andrew covers Ontario environmental politics for the A\J Current Events blog and on his own blog, The Reeves Report. Follow him on Twitter.

 

[agentaqua]

http://ht.ly/EvntW

The rise of Lee Brain and oil pipeline critics as mayors in B.C.
What the..? moment for oil companies: the new mayors aren't big fans of controversial pipelines in their regions.
Jenny Uechi Nov 18th, 2014

Lee Brain, Phil Germuth, Gregor Robertson, Derek Corrigan
Top left: Prince Rupert mayor Lee Brain; top right: Kitimat Mayor Phil Germuth; bottom left: Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson; bottom right: Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan
Lee Brain, who many remember as the oil executive's son who delivered a powerful testimony against Enbridge at the Northern Gateway hearings two years ago, just became mayor of Prince Rupert.

It's not good news for Enbridge, which was -- until recently -- considering moving its terminal for the Northern Gateway pipeline from Kitimat to Prince Rupert, after Kitimat residents and city council came out against the project.

Brain told the Vancouver Observer he remains categorically opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.

"I'm not in favour of any oil through Prince Rupert. I think even if it's by rail -- people in this community are not interested in shipping out bitumen.

"I'll be absolutely firm in my stance on Enbridge. I don't think (Northern Gateway) is an economically or environmentally sound proposal. I will absolutely be vocal about that," Brain said.

Brain's stance on Northern Gateway was shared by outgoing Prince Rupert mayor, Jack Mussallem, who said the community wasn't interested in helping Alberta move its oil to Asia.

<iframe width="600" height="362" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1X3VynNZQaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Video of Lee Brain speaking to the Joint Review Panel on Enbridge Northern Gateway in Prince Rupert in 2012.

Brain said people began seeking him out to run for mayor after his speech on Northern Gateway.

"After my Enbridge testimony, people law me as a leader in the town. So I said, 'You know what? It's time for me to step up."

In what Northwest Coast Energy news described as a "What the..." moment for Enbridge, then-Kitimat councillor Phil Germuth grilled Northern Gateway president John Carruthers in March with hard, technical questions about the company's capability to prevent oil spills.

That same councillor has now been elected as Kitimat's new mayor.

Germuth won an overwhelming victory with 1,828 votes, while Kitimat Chamber of Commerce director Trish Parsons garnered 530 votes. Outgoing mayor Joanne Monaghan, who tried to remain positive but neutral on the Northern Gateway proposal, came in third at 447 votes. According to Northwest Coast Energy, Germuth told supporters after his victory that he was "pro-development". However, he has demonstrated skepticism toward corporate promises to protect the environment.

<iframe width="604" height="333" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/w7k_XJ57X9I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Video of John Carruthers being questioned by Phil Germuth by Dan Mesec

In Smithers, incumbent mayor Taylor Bachrach -- who testified to the Joint Review Panel in 2012 that Enbridge Northern Gateway would ruin the salmon economy in Northern B.C. -- kept his seat.

Further south, other mayors who have been vocal in their criticism of pipeline projects scored wins in the election.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan -- whose fiery speeches in opposition of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion are now famous -- won a crushing victory for his fifth consecutive term.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan at anti-Kinder Morgan rally on Sept. 13, 2014 - Photo by Mark Klotz

In Vancouver, Gregor Robertson was elected mayor for the third term, despite strong criticism of his Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker opposition by the NPA as overreaching on issues outside the city's jurisdiction.

According to a recent report, Robertson's strong stance on Kinder Morgan actually helped him secure a victory in a tight race against his opponent, who he suggested was being funded by big oil money.

The election results, combined with the U.S. Senate's surprise rejection of a Keystone XL pipeline approval bill today, signify uncertain times for large oil infrastructure projects in the year ahead.

Photo of Mayor Gregor Robertson by Mychaylo Prystupa

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/pipeline-incidents/

Pipeline map: Have there been any incidents near you?
From small to large-scale spills to fires, explosions and worker deaths
By Michael Pereira, CBC News Last Updated: October 22, 2013
Ever wonder whether your community contains any buried pipelines? Or if any issues have arisen with them over the years?

Through an access-to-information request, CBC News obtained a data set of every pipeline safety incident reported to the federal regulator in the past 12 years.

The National Energy Board oversees cross-border pipelines. The data doesn’t include smaller pipelines within provincial boundaries.

The documents reveal details about more than 1,000 incidents that have happened across the country from 2000 until late 2012 and suggest the rate of overall incidents has doubled in the past decade.

An incident can include anything from a fire or explosion to a spill, leak or a worker fatally or seriously injured.

Explore the map below to see incidents near your city or filter using various categories, such as the type of event, substance spilled or company name. Click on each incident to read a full description.

You can help CBC add to the website by sending us your stories related to an incident or tell us about other ones missed by the database.

We are also looking for people to review summaries of the incidents to help us identify discrepancies between the summaries and the original NEB documents. See the Can You Help? button on each incident summary or email us.

Source: National Energy Board pipeline incident database, Jan. 1, 2000-Nov. 21, 2012, Canadian Regulated Pipeline: Rupture Excel spreadsheet, Transportation Safety Board investigation reports, Reportable Liquid Releases Jan. 2008-April 2013. Pipeline map courtesy Living Oceans Society.

Note: CBC News found a number of blanks and inaccuracies in the NEB database. CBC supplemented what was provided but this is originally NEB data based on an access-to-information request and errors may still exist.

 

[agentaqua]

The BC Energy Plan
http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/bcep/default.aspx?hash=9

 

[agentaqua]

Still, Senator James Inhofe was quick to embrace the study. "This deflation scare is all a hoax," He declared. "It's arrogance to presume that any person can control the pressure to which a football is inflated. Some things are just up to God. Patriots means America, and America means God. So whatever inflation was in those balls, we should just accept it."

OMFG! Jim! They have things called pressure gauges now - along with things called air pumps. I bet the secret service guys who drive him places in his SUV know this because they probably check the air pressure on his tires regularly as part of their war on terrorists - gotta get away fast! This guy is a so-called "leader", eh?

Why is ignorance celebrated in the world leaders - esp. the Conservatives/Republicans - esp. in the States? This is one of the "saviors" in the denial camp. You can see how some US deniers confuse religion and science - it's pretty bizarre. Ignorance does *NOT* equal Christian values IMHO. However - I guess we should thank Inhofe for allowing us to exercise our Christian charity in accepting people with malfunctioning brains. As rumour has it - God made stupid people too.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.bcsea.org/policy/50-shades-of-electric-vehicles-policy

50 SHADES OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES POLICY

Submitted by Guy Dauncey on January 22, 2015 - 10:09am


NOTHING
Nothing. It’s the building block of all mathematics, from which numbers begin.

It’s also the current state of federal policy on electric vehicles in Canada. The BCSEA wants to change that and start adding some numbers, and we are seeking fifty volunteers to help us do so.

Five years after the government-funded Electric Vehicle Technology Roadmap for Canada http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/nrcan/M154-33-2009-eng.pdf recommended adopting a goal of 500,000 EVs by 2018, nothing has been done to advance their take-up.

There is a federal election coming, however, and just as the climate crisis is a top issue demanding federal leadership, a coherent climate platform must include strong measures to reduce carbon emissions from transportation, which produces 28% of Canada’s carbon pollution.

A shift from to electric vehicles combined with a shift to renewable electricity could go far to reduce those emissions, while also reducing the harmful health impacts caused by air pollution.

The BCSEA is seeking 50 volunteers to help put EVs on the agenda for this year’s federal election. We want to generate a ‘race to the top’ among the parties, so that the next government will have made strong promises to support electric vehicles, and be armed with the best policies to take to Paris for the big UN climate talks.

WHAT MIGHT AN IDEAL ELECTRIC VEHICLES POLICY INCLUDE?
Adopt the vision of the Electric Vehicle Technology Roadmap for Canada, and establish a goal to see 500,000 EVs on the road by 2024, and the full conversion of Canada’s light-duty vehicle fleet to EVs by 2040.
Establish a High-Level Electric Vehicles Task Force dedicated to making Canada EV-friendly.
Require Canada’s auto-industry to reduce vehicle fleet CO2 emissions standards from the current 153 grams CO2 per km by 2016 to the EU goal of 95g CO2/km by 2020, and zero grams by 2040.
Match US EV incentives and tax breaks, equivalent to US $7,500 per vehicle. This would cost $750 million over 5 years for 100,000 vehicles, plus support for more charging stations.
Apply a CO2 emissions scale to the federal sales tax for new and used vehicles, with a lower rate of tax on efficient vehicles being cross-financed by a higher rate of tax on inefficient vehicles.
Seek a continental agreement with the United States and Mexico for the transformation of North American vehicle industry to zero carbon transportation.
WHAT DO CANADA’S POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE TO OFFER?
The Conservative Party website does not address transportation or EVs. Information on the Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada websites suggest that the government’s support for EVs is primarily in the form of information and coordination, with some research. The prime minister has said that Canada would harmonize its climate policies with the US. Logically, therefore, the government should match the US EV incentive of up to $7,500, which has encouraged the sale of 290,000 electric vehicles. Canada’s EV total sales by January 2014 were just 6,000.

The NDP’s Policy Book makes no mention of electric vehicles, but they believe in “investing in the development of “green cars”.

The Liberals’ Transport Policy also makes no mention of electric vehicles, but they have resolved “to propose an integrated, intermodal national transportation strategy, that serves large and small communities, within two years of taking office.”

The Green Party's Vision Green has an extensive policy which includes working with the motor industry, provinces and others to develop a sustainable vehicles strategy leading to an 85% reduction in emissions by 2040; requiring a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions from new vehicles by 2020 and 90% by 2025; and offering rebates up to $5,000 for the purchase of the most efficient vehicles, financed by fees on the inefficient vehicles. (By way of disclosure, I contributed extensively to the Green Party’s Climate Policy seven years ago, including EV policies.)

FIFTY VOLUNTEERS…
We are seeking fifty people who will join our BCSEA Electric Vehicles Policy Letter https://www.bcsea.org/electric-vehicles-policy-backgrounder -Writing Team, and undertake to write a personal letter to one or more of the people listed below, seeking support for a strong EV policy. Each letter will be different - hence fifty shades of policy.

Would you be willing join our team? If you can, email Tom Hackney, the BCSEA Policy Director, at thackney@bcsea.org, and send us a copy of any letter you write (it helps us to know how successful our efforts are).

Would you be willing join our team? To do so, please send us an email to info@bcsea.org

People to write to:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 http://pm.gc.ca/eng/contactpm stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
Lisa Raitt, MP, Minister of Transport, Tower C - 330 Sparks St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5 www.tc.gc.ca/eng/minister-contact.htm mintc@tc.gc.ca
Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Opposition, 300 - 279 Laurier West, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9 www.ndp.ca/contact thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca
Hoang Mai, Oppostion Transport critic, Room 1170, La Promenade Building, Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 Hoang.Mai@parl.gc.ca
Justin Trudeau, M.P., 81 Metcalfe Street, Suite 600, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6M8. www.liberal.ca/contact/ justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
David McGuinty, Liberal Transport critic. House of Commons, 111 Justice Building, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 david.mcguinty@parl.gc.ca
Elizabeth May, M.P., Green Party of Canada, PO Box 997, Station B, Ottawa, ON K1P 5R1 elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca
For our EV Policy Background Paper, see HERE, and the attachment below.
- See more at: http://www.bcsea.org/policy/50-shades-of-electric-vehicles-policy#sthash.ZpdKl8Aj.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-climate-change-may-lead-to-bigger-blizzards/

How Climate Change May Lead to Bigger Blizzards
January 26, 2015, 5:32 pm ET by Tim Molloy

With every winter storm, including the blizzard hitting the Northeast this week, climate change skeptics return to a familiar argument: If the world is getting warmer, why am I stuck out here, shoveling so much snow?

Climate scientists tell FRONTLINE that blizzards don’t refute evidence of climate change — in fact, climate change can make blizzards more intense. The first thing people need to understand, they say, is the difference between climate and weather.

Also read: 2014 Was the Warmest Year on Record, NASA and NOAA Say http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-was-the-warmest-year-ever-nasa-and-noaa-say/

“Weather is telling us what is happening at a particular time,” said Rutgers Climate Institute co-director Anthony Broccoli. “Climate is telling us the statistics of the weather we experience. One analogy that is often used is that weather determines what clothes you wear on a particular day, but climate describes what clothes you have hanging in your closet.”

So what will we be wearing in the future? Climate change may mean that people in cold regions will spend fewer days in snow boots. But on the days they need them, they’ll really need them.

“You have to remember that there are two factors that result in heavy snow: It has to be cold enough to snow, and the atmosphere has to be moist,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Also read: How Has the World Warmed Where You Live? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/how-has-the-world-warmed-where-you-live/

Winters will likely get shorter as a result of climate change, Oppenheimer said. “On the other hand,” he said, “during the period when it is cold enough to snow, if you’ve got enough moisture in the air, you can get some wicked big snowstorms.”

Why does climate change lead to more moisture?

“The maximum amount of water vapor that can be present increases with increasing temperatures. That’s just a consequence of the laws of physics,” Broccoli said.

Global sea temperatures have gone up about one degree Fahrenheit since the 1970s because of human activity, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The higher sea temperatures lead to higher temperatures above the sea surface. That warmth moves throughout the year, and at this time of year, gathers off the East Coast.

“If we have a storm that’s developing, it reaches out as far as a thousand miles away and grabs the available moisture, and brings it into the storm so that it snows harder,” Trenberth said. “At this time of year, this is exactly what you expect.”

And what should we expect in the coming years? Perhaps the same pattern we’re seeing lately, suggests Oppenheimer.

“The bottom line is in the future we’ll have a shorter snow season overall but more very intense storms,” he said. “Has this already started? Probably so.”

If you’re hunkered down for this week’s blizzard, this might be a good time to nestle up with Climate of Doubt http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/ , FRONTLINE’s look inside the groups that have shifted the direction of the climate change debate. You can watch it here:

 

[OldBlackDog]

Date noted and this should be interesting, due keep us up to date with this guys climate model.
His theory is there is no global warming and the proof is the Antarctic sea ice is growing....
OBD you sure hang with a strange crowd at Tony's house of pizza and climate change.con
I find this statement rather telling or maybe amusing.....


Perhaps you could point him to this......

You really are one of these. So sad.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/energy-east-pipeline-draws-halifax-protest-1.2932509

Energy East Pipeline draws Halifax protest
Stop Energy Halifax calls for public meetings
The Canadian Press Posted: Jan 26, 2015 8:11 PM AT Last Updated: Jan 26, 2015 8:11 PM AT

Members of Stop Energy East Halifax head to a protest outside the library in Halifax on Monday. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

A group opposed to the development of the Energy East Pipeline is calling on the National Energy Board to open up meetings about the project to the public, an idea the federal regulator says it is considering.

About a dozen people staged a rally Monday in Halifax as the board met with groups during closed-door meetings to discuss the project.

Members of Stop Energy East Halifax held signs and a makeshift pipeline with the words "tar sands=climate bomb" in front of the Halifax Central Library.

Over the next week, National Energy Board officials will meet with groups in the four Atlantic provinces to discuss how it can improve its pipeline safety and environmental protection programs, part of a cross-country tour.

Board chairman Peter Watson was in Halifax on Monday to meet with groups including the Maritimes Energy Association, petroleum engineering students at Dalhousie University, Antigonish's deputy fire chief and the Ecology Action Centre.

'Extreme impacts' on climate

But Stop Energy East Halifax said the invite-only meetings should be open to the public.

Spokeswoman Evelien VanderKloet said other people affected by the project, including First Nations groups and property owners along its route, should be included.

"We see this pipeline as a bigger pubic issue because of the extreme impacts that's it's going to have on climate change," said VanderKloet.

But the National Energy Board said it hasn't ruled out holding public meetings in the future. Spokesman Tom Neufeld said organizing public meetings across the country is costly and time-consuming and the board wasn't sure at the outset if there was enough public interest.

"Quite frankly, we just didn't know if people would come," said Neufeld. "We thought the best way to contact Canadians that really are impacted directly by our work was to call them directly and ask for meetings.

"But if there's interest ... we just might have them."

Meeting Canadians 'in their kitchens'

Many groups have asked to be invited to the meetings but Stop Energy East Halifax has not, he said.

"Quite honestly, if they contacted us, we would try and fit them in the schedule."

Neufeld said board officials will meet with First Nations groups and property owners along the pipeline's route will either be met with directly or will be represented by political leaders such as mayors.

"We're willing to meet with Canadians in their kitchens," he said, adding they have such a meeting in New Brunswick later this week.

Neufeld also encouraged the public to provide feedback about the pipeline on the board's website.

Energy East would give Western oil producers access to a deep-water port, in this case on the Bay of Fundy.

Energy East would convert an existing natural gas pipeline to oil, and expand the line further into Quebec and New Brunswick.

At a cost of $12 billion, the 4,600 kilometres of pipe would transport 1.1 million barrels of oil a day from Alberta and Saskatchewan.

© The Canadian Press, 2015