Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harper OKs Controversial Investment Treaty with China
Opponents long argued FIPA will hand resource control to Chinese companies.
By Jeremy J. Nuttall, Today, TheTyee.ca




Trade Minister Ed Fast signs the FIPA agreement in Russia, September 2012. Photo: Government of Canada.


Court dismisses First Nations challenge against Canada-China FIPA
Taking apart Tories' Party Line on China-Canada Treaty
A Conservative MP's letter attempting to soothe citizens worried about FIPA is misleading says expert Gus Van Harten, who breaks it down item by item.
Investment Treaties Like FIPA Spin Huge Profits for Lawyers
Canada, for example, is being sued for $250 million and legal teams feast off such wrangling.
Read more: Federal Politics,
The Harper government has officially ratified a controversial trade deal with China, it announced today.

The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement will come into effect on Oct. 1, according to a press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development.

Since its 2012 signing in Vladivostok, Russia, the deal has been subject to controversy, with opposition members calling it a "flawed" agreement.

In a news release, International Trade Minister Ed Fast said the deal will "protect" Canadian business interests in China.

Others, such as Osgoode law professor and investment treaty expert Gus Van Harten, have argued that it will hurt Canadians by giving too much control over resources to Chinese companies, many of them state-owned.

'This is so disappointing': Hupacasath rep



The Hupacasath First Nation on Vancouver Island launched a failed challenge to stop the agreement from coming into effect on the basis Ottawa did not consult with the nation before signing the pact.

The court decision is up for appeal and a decision is expected soon, but the nation's Brenda Sayers said she now fears there may be no recourse.

She criticized the government and Minister Fast for not allowing the band's case to go through the court system before ratifying the deal.

"Ed Fast has said himself a few times that it was a matter before the courts," Sayers said. "This is so disappointing."

The federal New Democrats have argued the deal will place Canada at the whims of Chinese business for 31 years, and in the past have demanded the government abandon the deal.
 
A look at carbon dioxide vs. global temperature
Anthony Watts / 15 hours ago September 12, 2014
Danley Wolfe writes:

The piece below appeared in op-ed pages of many newspapers and online recently, released by by Agence-France-Presse (AFP) one of the largest news agencies in the world. I saw it in the Korean Herald, September 9, 2014 edition, and it appeared in most newspapers all over the world, including and especially developing economies such as Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, etc. This is the latest example of emotional propaganda pieces presenting alarmist one sided messages to push public opinion and policy action.



GENEVA (AFP) — Surging levels of carbon dioxide sent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a new record in 2013, while oceans, which absorb the emissions, have become more acidic than ever, the UN said on Tuesday.

“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said Michel Jarraud, the head of the World

Meteorological Organization that released a report on the issue on Tuesday. “We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” Jarraud said in a statement. “We are running out of time,” he warned. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide all broke fresh records in 2013, said the report. Global concentrations of CO2, the main culprit in global warming, soared to 396 parts per million last year, or 142 percent of pre-industrial levels — defined as before 1750.

That marked a hike of 2.9 parts per million between 2012 and 2013 alone — the largest annual increase in 30 years, according to the Greenhouse Gas Bulletin. The report also showed that so-called radiative forcing, or the warming effect on our climate attributed to greenhouse gases like CO2, increased 34 percent from 1990 to 2013. A quarter of emissions are absorbed by the oceans, while another quarter are sucked into the biosphere, naturally limiting rates of warming gases in the atmosphere.

But CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and in the oceans for even longer. The gases stored in the oceans also have “far-reaching impacts,” WMO warned, since more CO2 in the water leads to increased acidity, altering the ocean ecosystem. Every day, the world’s oceans absorb some four kilos of CO2 per person each day, WMO said, calling current ocean acidification levels “unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years.” And things will only get worse, Jarraud said.

“Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification,” he said, adding that “the laws of physics are non-negotiable.”

The author is a member of the Climate Change Task Force which has three stated objectives:

· To maximize the opportunities offered by the climate negotiations

· “Re-calibrate” the international response to climate change and outline a framework for Copenhagen follow-up

· Promote active engagement of civil society and the wider public in the search for adequate solutions to the challenges of climate change

This press release like most climate advocacy today focuses on CO2 level increase without acknowledging and avoiding mentioning any hiatus in global temperatures – either current or the one that occurred during mid 1940s to mid 1960s. But the hiatus is so important to understand because this appears totally inconsistent with the IPCC position that today (in the AR5) the probability / likelihood now of human activities causing climate change is much greater than in previously, in past AR assessments. So why is it such a difficult question to understand let alone mention?

In attempting to better understand this myself I took brief look at the data – Mauna Loa CO2 (ppm) data vs. NASA GISS global mean (absolute) land temperatures. The CO2 data starts in 1959 which limits the analysis to 1959 to 2014 to date. Basically – for this data set – all of the increase in temperature has taken place during mid 1970s to late 1980s. IPCC’s “climate sensitivity,” which is the modeled temperature increase for a doubling in CO2 relies heavily on the temperature rise during this period of time.



There is significant loss of fidelity in the data with multi period time averaging. But this is a neat thing to do if one wishes to control the messaging, which we see all the time including recently. Of course another huge issue is cherry picking data/ time periods to include in the analysis.



A better way to look at this is in cross plots of the corresponding CO2-temperature data as shown below. If there is 95% certainty that global warming is predominately caused by manmade activities the relationship should be easily discernible … including by the naked eye. In fact the cross plot below covering over the period mentioned there were two hiatuses totaling 35 years out of the total 56 years (nearly two-thirds of the time), exhibiting no or very little correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. So how can the IPCC in AR5 increase the probability (to 95%) of manmade causes being the overwhelming predominant and by implication the only important forcing of global warming? (my question).



CONCLUSION

Focusing on the most recent hiatus below, both visually and in a 1st order linear regression analysis there clearly is effectively zero correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature.



In “statistician speak” the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significantly different than zero. Specifically for the period 1998-2014 (to date) the XY plot has an R squared of 0.0068. The AR5 climate sensitivity is 2-4.5oC for a doubling of CO2, with most like value of 3oC, whereas these data suggest a value more like 0.4 oC for a doubling of CO2 (which is indeed meaningless given the R squared).



Data Sources

Mauna Loa: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

NASA GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

About these ads

37 Votes
GoogleTwitter51Facebook76StumbleUponRedditEmail

September 12, 2014 in Carbon dioxide.
 
Oh OBD....

What is up with watts up?
This Op-Ed some how is presented to prove global warming is false?
Lets post up his graphs....

clip_image002_thumb2.jpg


CO2 and temp..... I don't see hockey stick.... looks flat to me... LOL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clip_image004_thumb1.jpg


Curious he uses a 10 month running average..... Perhaps 12 month ... like 1 year....
Why did he do that? Perhaps he needed to for his special new math.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clip_image006_thumb2.jpg


Nice but what does it mean when you use 10 month data points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clip_image0081.jpg


And for the grand coup de grâce CO2 VS Temp 1999 to 2014 ..... see global warming is false.... no trend.
Look for yourself.. well I tinny bit but nothing to get worked up about....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
clip_image010_thumb1.jpg


Know for the Math on how he got the numbers (short version Bla Bla Bla , science talk)
His sheep has no idea what he just said.....
================================


My Translation of his Math
pYogaPretzelMan.jpg


There you go... if you hold your leg just right it all makes sense.
============================================

Or you could look at some data from someone that knows what they are doing...
co2_gisstemp.png



It snowed in Calgary so we must be getting an Ice Age....
You guy's crack me up....
 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes
Philip Kokica, b, , , Steven Crimpc, 1, , Mark Howdend, 2,
Abstract
December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.

Fig. 1.
Global monthly mean land and sea surface temperature anomaly: January 1882 to April 2012 time series relative to a 1901–2000 base period (grey line), and a 5 year running mean of this time series (black line) (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html). ( Smith et al., 2008).
 

Attachments

  • 1-s2.0-S2212096314000163-gr1.jpg
    1-s2.0-S2212096314000163-gr1.jpg
    14.8 KB · Views: 60
Obama’s Lonely Climate Summit – world leaders are staying home
Anthony Watts / 1 day ago September 16, 2014
Eric Worrall writes: The imminent climate summit in New York is rapidly turning into an utter embarrassment for President Obama and UN Secretary General Bank Ki-Moon, in addition to becoming a bit of a punishment round for national deputy leaders.

Aussie PM Tony Abbott today defended his decision not to hop on an earlier flight to America, so he could attend the UN climate conference in New York, because he has more important matters to attend to, such as running the country.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...mmit-in-new-york/story-fni0xqrb-1227060005413

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also indicated they likely won’t attend the summit.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/top-leaders-from-china-india-to-skip-un-climate-change-summit/

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated he will not be attending. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...rper-to-skip-un-climate-summit-183946998.html

Even Angela Merkel, President of über green Germany, will not be attending the UN climate summit. http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/26/...ference-burying-the-global-climate-agreement/

Of course, things would probably have been totally different, if the summit organisers had guaranteed that attendees would definitely not have to sit through any more boring climate presentations by former Vice President Al Gore.
 
Photograph by: DARRYL DYCK , THE CANADIAN PRESS
A judge has refused to grant the city of Burnaby an injunction to stop a controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project by Kinder Morgan.

In a brief ruling released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown said she would not give the reasons for her decision until possibly next week.

Greg McDade, a lawyer for Burnaby, said outside court that the next move is to see what the federal National Energy Board (NEB) does in the wake of the ruling.

The company has asked the NEB, which earlier granted permission for the project, to make an order that Burnaby stop getting in the way of the work.

McDade said there was no indication when the NEB might make its decision.

The city has also asked the court to rule on whether its bylaws trump any ruling made by the NEB but there is no indication whether the court will hear those arguments.

In August the city issued stop-work orders and fined the multi-billion dollar energy company for cutting down 13 trees in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation area.

The RCMP were called to the scene after a confrontation between city employees and pipeline workers, who were engaged in a geotechnical survey in the area as part of a plan to triple the pipeline’s capacity.

The city claims that the work also obstructs Burnaby roads and diverts traffic — all in contravention of city bylaws.

In August, the NEB ruled that the company had the power to enter onto Burnaby’s lands without the city’s agreement.

The NEB has not yet decided to approve the pipeline expansion, which calls for a new pipeline along a new route to the Burnaby terminal, 13 new tanks and two new delivery lines.
 
Key facts about global temperature

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.
The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
 
OBD thanks for pointing out this wacky stuff from Lord Monchton
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

It might be worth investigating the "Lordships" claims with some videos.
The 10 Questions to keep in mind and watch these videos.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Peter Hadfield (Potholer54)
Monckton Bunkum Part 1 – Global cooling and melting ice – YouTube
[fbW-aHvjOgM] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&index=1
 
Monckton Bunkum Part 2 – Sensitivity – YouTube
[PTY3FnsFZ7Q] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&index=2
 
Monckton Bunkum Part 3 – Correlations and Himalayan glaciers – YouTube
[fpF48b6Lsbo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&index=3
 
Monckton Bunkum Part 4 — Quotes and misquotes – YouTube
[C3giRaGNTMA] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&index=4
 
Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord? – YouTube
[TRCyctTvuCo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo&list=PL8E2FEA64D20EC9AF&index=5

That is not all there is ..... but that’s my short list….
 
Climate Change Summit No Shows Leave Obama and Clinton out on a Limb on Global Warming Rhetoric say Friends of Science
President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to ramp up the rhetoric about global warming being the greatest threat to the world, but leaders of countries like India, China and even Germany – the former bastion of green energy - will not be attending the upcoming world leaders UN Climate Summit Sept 23 in New York. “Climate has not changed,” said India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi – contradicting the catastrophic climate views of fellow countryman Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.




No Global Warming - 17 years 11 months
... claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the [Obama's climate action] Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.
Calgary, Alberta (PRWEB) September 11, 2014

A United Nations Climate Change Summit entitled “Catalyzing Action” appears to have lost steam before it even starts as the leaders of three influential nations will not attend the world leader’s forum, leaving the Obama-Clinton-Kerry triumvirate, who claim global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, out on a limb say Friends of Science.
Germany’s Angela Merkel will not attend the New York Climate Summit as reported by the German daily TAZ. Germany is presently building some 20+ coal plants as reported by Forbes Aug. 31, 2012 to return grid stability and affordability to power prices for industry and consumers.
According to a Sept. 4, 2014 Bloomberg report neither President Xi Jinping of China nor Prime Minister Narendra of India will attend the world leaders day long climate summit Sept. 23, 2014 in New York. [bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-03/xi-and-modi-said-to-skip-un-climate-summit-later-this-month.html]
The Guardian asks "Is Narenda Modi a Climate sceptic?" in its report of Sept. 09, 2014 as India’s Prime Minister Narendra says, “Climate has not changed.” [theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/narendra-modi-india-prime-minister-climate-change-sceptic]
This contrasts sharply with the catastrophic forecasts spun by ENGOs out of the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) headed up by Modi’s fellow countryman Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s IPCC since 2002.
Climate catastrophe rhetoric in the US is not supported by scientifc evidence say Friends of Science, challenging President Obama's recent July 16, 2014 statement reported in The Hill calling climate change is a 'direct threat' to US [ thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/212476-obama-climate-change-is-direct-threat-to-us].
A growing number of scientists, like Judith Curry, question the current 16+ year 'hiatus' in warming, as outlined in her Jan. 16, 2014 testimony to the US Senate on Environment and Public Works wherein she said:"...claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process."
Friends of Science point out in the attached editorial supplement, that surface temperature data from the Met Office, U.K, shows no global warming since 1998, despite a rise in carbon dioxide. NASA Satellite temperature data of the lower atmosphere indicates no global warming for over 17 years.
The climate models used by the IPCC have diverged wildly from the measurements since 1998, making them useless for setting public policy. The Human-caused climate change has been overwhelmed and negated by natural cooling forces, including low solar activity and changing ocean currents, which many thought was impossible.
Polar global sea ice, which was previously shrinking, has increased over the last three years to above the 1997 - 2008 average area. The 2013 annual average sea ice area is the largest of the century.
This apparent discrepancy between hard evidence and political rhetoric is explained by journalist and author Donna Laframboise, her work summarized in a Wall Street Journal report of Sept. 24, 2013 wherein she pointed out that many IPCC lead authors or scientists have ties to or are even on the payroll of green-agenda driven organizations.
Friends of Science hold the position that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2) or human activity.
About
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.
Contact:
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org
E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org
PDF Print
 
OldBlackDog said:
The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.
Contact:
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org
E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org
PDF Print
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out this group. Did you check them out like I did?
Our own homegrown deniers with friends in high places....
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

There is lot's more back story on that crew.....
http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science-tim-ball-takes-the-brunt
and here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary_School
Anyway....
I like this part....

Polar global sea ice, which was previously shrinking, has increased over the last three years to above the 1997 - 2008 average area. The 2013 annual average sea ice area is the largest of the century.
Click to expand...
Wow who would have thought that the Arctic was all patched up and back to normal but I guess that's not what they said..... Perhaps the snow they got last week has froze their hat racks.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Looks like 10 for 10 (years) on least amount of ice in the Arctic known to mankind.
At that rate it should be gone by 2030 or sooner.
You still good on our bet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png
 
Just for fun take these graphs and:

1) Replace the word "Opinions of climate and earth scientists....." with "doctors opinions on your tumor"
2) On the x-axis replace "largely caused by humans" with "think your tumor should be removed"
3) On the x-axis replace "little or no human effect" with "think you'll be just fine if we leave that tumor where it is"

What would you do Walleyes or OldBlackDog? I'm guessing you would have the tumor removed. Why is it that things are different for climate science? I would suggest that due to huge profit motives, there is a tremendous effort from oil companies and other in the energy sector to amplify the voice the few % who disagree with the bulk of the climate science community. I'd also suggest that there is an active effort in manipulating public opinion through the media.
GLG said:
800px-Climate_science_opinion2.png
Click to expand...
 
This is all about money and computer programs that do not take into effect all the components.
All these scientists need a job.


seadna said:
Just for fun take these graphs and:

1) Replace the word "Opinions of climate and earth scientists....." with "doctors opinions on your tumor"
2) On the x-axis replace "largely caused by humans" with "think your tumor should be removed"
3) On the x-axis replace "little or no human effect" with "think you'll be just fine if we leave that tumor where it is"

What would you do Walleyes or OldBlackDog? I'm guessing you would have the tumor removed. Why is it that things are different for climate science? I would suggest that due to huge profit motives, there is a tremendous effort from oil companies and other in the energy sector to amplify the voice the few % who disagree with the bulk of the climate science community. I'd also suggest that there is an active effort in manipulating public opinion through the media.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpringVelocity
Prawning Closed Again for 3 month Window
Replies
0
Views
2K
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
4K
seachicken
seachicken
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
CIVANO
April 1 rules
Replies
75
Views
9K
searun
searun
W
Government of Canada working to rebuild Pacific salmon populations
Replies
9
Views
3K
mbowers
mbowers
Back
Top