Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[GLG]

I thought it was a pretty interesting article and have no doubt why the headline was chosen nor do I confuse a newspaper editor with one of our leaders. Although with the general publics lack of critical thinking they certainly can influence opinion. Papers are business' and as such want to sell papers so they'll use attention grabbing headlines. I like that it points out that there's more than one use for coal as I suspect if you asked 100 people on the street what coal was used for somewhere near zero would ask what kind. Instead they'd say dirty power, GHG, C02 etc...... I don't know the usage split numbers either and would be curious to know, look out Google here I come. Also if people want to take it one step further before they choose a side on the expansion debate hopefully they can ask themselves if they're ready for the sacrifices required to negate the need for expansion. You know like new boat trailers and pick ups.

I think you missed this part... that it came from the BC government and not some newspaper.

Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett -
“Most people don’t think of coal when they go shopping for gifts, but the fact is without the coal that is mined right here in British Columbia, we wouldn’t have access to things like smartphones, cars or even shopping malls.
British Columbians can take pride in knowing that no matter the product or where it was made, it probably wouldn’t exist without B.C. coal.”
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/1...h-bc-coal.html

Old Billy seems to have put his foot in his mouth and turned it sideways.

Admirable and noble stance to be sure but may not really be reality based. Just like the energy industry this one works to satisfy the wants and needs of an ever growing population that isn't willing to give up the things required to make the expansion or even current production go away. They'll make a bunch of money doing so because they're good at what they do, which will probably **** a bunch more people off as the socialists hate success. As oil prices drop watch consumption rise on the personal level. People (the same ones that battle expansion of all resource extraction) will burn more gas this summer than last if it's still cheap (relative term). Stop with the crotch fruit already people that's the real problem!!

All the more reason to put a price on CO2 no matter where it comes from. It's not a socialist thing it's using the market to do what it does best. It lets consumers make their own decisions on how they spend their money. If they decide to continue using fossil fuel then they will pay for it but I suspect it wont work out that way. We need to send the correct price signal to the market and let the market do it's thing. Painting a socialist brush to the problem is a lazy way to make an argument.

PS; You never did answer my question you stayed hung up on the title.

Edit; couldn't find the precise breakdowns in the time available this morning but did learn a couple things, 75% of met coal is used for iron the rest for smelting other metals. Canada supplies (that's nationally not provincially) about 3% of the worlds needs, Japan is the largest importer not China, 90% of BC's exported coal is met coal. So globally we're a fart in the wind. Whether the ore is heated with coal, natural gas, or electricity (likely derived from burning coal as it's still the largest source of electricity globally) the reality is still the same. It's going to expand with the population unless we're all prepared for some major changes to our personal lives. So one can choose to support Canadian coal, jobs and the economy or other producers like Australia which is likely comparable or our good buds in Russia as they're the next 2 above us global production wise. Ideals vs reality.

So the choice is to support Canadian coal or non-Canadian coal. That's framing the argument with a false choice and never a good way to make a point. How about letting us decide by putting a price on the CO2? If they burn the coal to make steel then the price should reflect that. If they don't then no worries and prices will stay the same. Can't get much simpler then that.

It's not easy to find the info on what percentage is used in the steel and what is used to burn to melt that steel. Bottom line is price it and let the market pick the winner. Who knows maybe Aluminium or Carbon Fiber or Plastic is a better choice. FYI steel in cars is changing because of the new regulations for gas mileage. To save weight the industry is using less mild steel and more high strength steel. No one should complain about that and if it takes more met coal that is not burnt to produce that, it's a good thing. I can tell you one thing.... racing to the bottom with no concern about CO2 is very bad thing.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/oilsan...-east-of-edmonton-well-is-shut-down-1.2156624

Oilsands breach fouls water east of Edmonton, well is shut down
Wolf Lake, Alta.

The location of Wolf Lake, in Alberta, in shown in this image taken from Google Maps. (Screengrab / Google Maps)
The Canadian Press
Published Friday, December 19, 2014 9:15PM EST

BONNYVILLE, Alta. -- A breach at a Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. oilsands operation east of Edmonton has fouled a groundwater aquifer in the area.

The Alberta Energy Regulator says CNRL (TSX:CNQ) reported a break in a well at its Wolf Lake high pressure cyclic steam stimulation project in late October.

The regulator says since then the company discovered elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the aquifer about 50 kilometres south of Bonnyville.

Ryan Bartlett, a spokesman for the regulator, says the well has stopped operating and CNRL can't resume operations until the well meets regulatory requirements.

He says public health and safety are not at risk and the nearest private water wells are 15 kilometres away.

He says CNRL will be required to clean up the aquifer.
Use of this Website assumes acceptance of Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© 2014 Bell Media All rights reserved.
Bell Media Television
comscorebeacon

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/oilsan...ton-well-is-shut-down-1.2156624#ixzz3MlClT4Fx

 

[GLG]

I don't agree with his stance on Climate Change but I'm pretty sure the point he was making was about the accuracy of scientific predictions.

OBD has a way with taking predictions that were made 30 years ago and holding them up as some kind of proof that climate change is false. It's old trick and little more then "hand waving" ..... does it matter when the Arctic sea ice is gone in the summer? Is 2012 or 2030 the right date? The whole point is we have never seen a summer that is ice free there in 2.4 million years. It's the trend that is important and so far it looks like it won't stop. You don't need computer models or thermometers or peer reviewed science papers to see with our own eyes what is happening right now up there. That's why OBD comes back to this so often to somehow prove that it is not happening..... The problem is his team knows the only shot they have is to cherry pick the data so the less informed are left with an impression that the Arctic sea ice is "back to normal". A mugs game for sure.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-fracking-they-made-very-different-decisions/
Wonkblog
These two states had the same basic information about fracking. They made very different decisions
By Chris Mooney December 22

Workers tap into Marcellus natural gas at an active Hydraulic Fracturing drilling operation outside of Wellsboro, Pennsylvania operated by Shell. (Photo by Brett Carlsen for The Washington Post)

Last week, New York Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo banned the practice in his state of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" -- blasting chemical laden water deep beneath the Earth at extreme pressures in order to crack rock and release natural gas. The move followed a report from the New York Department of Health, finding "significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes" that may be associated with the technology. It found the science on this question was uncertain but worrisome, and that was enough to put on the brakes.

Yet just a month ago, outgoing Maryland Democratic governor Martin O'Malley decided to let fracking go forward in the western part of his state. This, in turn, was based on a report from Maryland's departments of Environment and Natural Resources, which concluded that with adequate regulation,"the risks of Marcellus Shale development can be managed to an acceptable level."

So what's going on here? How can two states comprehensively assess the risks of hydraulic fracturing and then decide on very divergent policies?

Certainly, it's not that they were looking at radically different science. The reports came out within a month of one another, and given that these are professional state scientific agencies, they probably didn't miss much of significance to their assessments. And indeed, both reports acknowledge that there are risks from fracking, due to the potential for both water and air contamination -- although there is a great deal that we still don't know about the magnitude of these risks, or the long term effects.

So if the science didn't divide Maryland and New York, what did? Here are four factors:

The politics. First and most obviously, it is hard not to note that Maryland governor Martin O'Malley is on the way out, to be replaced by a strongly pro-fracking Republican, Larry Hogan. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, on the other hand,was just reelected, which surely made his decision easier. So a ban on fracking in Maryland would, in all likelihood, have been a top priority for the state's new governor to reverse. In New York, the political context is totally different.

Which agency did the report. In Maryland, the Environment and Natural Resources departments did the study, whereas in New York it was the Department of Health, observes Stanford's Rob Jackson, who has published a number of influential studies on the link between fracking and groundwater contamination. "It's not surprising that a health department would frame the issue differently -- and reach a different conclusion," said Jackson. Environment and natural resources departments are more likely to balance health and environmental risks against economic promise -- but health departments primarily worry about protecting people.

Indeed, Kate Sinding of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which just released a report of its own on the health risks associated with air emissions from fracking-enhanced drilling, points out that Maryland also did a health-focused report of its own. It was conducted by the Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health at the University of Maryland, College Park, on behalf of the state. And that report found that in eight separate areas where fracking could have public health effects, the risks were "high" in four of them, "moderately high" in three, and "low" in only one area (earthquakes):

Source: "Potential Public Health Impacts of Natural Gas Development and Production in the
Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland," Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health
School of Public Health University of Maryland, College Park. July 2014.

"If you actually look at what the health professionals were saying in the two states, they’re pretty aligned," says Sinding.

The broader and final Maryland report acknowledged these risks, but nonetheless concluded that "best practices and rigorous monitoring, inspection and enforcement can manage and reduce the risks."

The amount of land at stake. Let's face it: Maryland also has less at stake, overall, than New York does, simply because a much smaller area is on the table for drilling and fracking. "The thing is, Maryland has a tiny bit of land in play, where New York has a huge amount of the Marcellus and Utica. So, there is a very big difference in scale," says Alan Krupnick of Resources for the Future.

A simple look at a map proves the point -- we’re only talking about a slice of western Maryland, wedged between West Virginia and Pennsylvania, that’s promising for drilling. Here's a map from the U.S. Geological Survey of the extent of the Utica Shale (maps of the Marcellus Shale lead to a similar conclusion):

Source: USGS

This means the benefits, but also the risks, from fracking loom considerably larger in New York. If ten years from now, more science is in and the health risks look even more severe than they do now, there could be many more people at risk in New York.

The precautionary principle. The starkest difference, though, may be that unlike Maryland's research, the New York health report pretty clearly hews to an approach known as the "precautionary principle," which suggests that in the face of inadequate scientific information about risks, it is wise to pause and wait for more data, rather than allow potential harm to occur. The precautionary principle was on full display in a statement by acting New York health department commissioner Howard Zucker, who remarked,

I have considered all of the data and find significant questions and risks to public health which as of yet are unanswered. I think it would be reckless to proceed in New York until more authoritative research is done. I asked myself, 'would I let my family live in a community with fracking?' The answer is no. I therefore cannot recommend anyone else's family to live in such a community either.

It is important to recognize that the precautionary principle is not a purely scientific position -- nor is it an anti-scientific one. Rather, it represents a risk-aversive orientation towards scientific uncertainty -- a conscious decision that unknown risks are too serious to ignore.

That's why criticisms of New York's move on "scientific grounds" don't make much sense. For instance, one blog post at the pro-fracking site Energy in Depth sought to individually critique some of the health-related studies that fed into the New York report. But that's kind of missing the point: These studies don't need to be the unassailable "truth" in order for New York to justify its precautionary position. Rather, the state simply needs to be able to point to a body of evidence that, on the whole, raises concern.

Granted, if you were to act in a highly precautionary fashion towards every imaginable risk, nothing would ever happen in the world. A reasonable articulation of the precautionary principle, in contrast, is one in which risks must at least be plausible before they prevent an action -- like drilling and fracking -- that also has clear economic and other benefits. In this case, though, the risks are plausible, although highly uncertain, notes Stanford's Rob Jackson. "I do think there’s enough information on the air side and the water side at least to be concerned," he says -- though he emphasizes that there is a great need for longer term health studies, with much larger pools of research subjects.

What all this shows is that these two decisions on fracking, while draped in scientific language, were -- in fact -- probably not really scientific decisions at all.
Chris Mooney reports on science and the environment.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/alaska_fish_follow_food/index.cfm


Alaska fish adjust to climate change by following the food
Contributed by Michael Milstein December 2014

Not all species may suffer from climate change. A new analysis shows that Dolly Varden, a species of char common in southeast Alaska, adjust their migrations so they can keep feasting on a key food source – salmon eggs – even as shifts in climate altered the timing of salmon spawning.

The resiliency of species to climate change may depend on how well they adapt to climate-driven changes in their food and habitat, such as altered growth of plants they feed on. A mismatch in timing between predators and the availability of prey could cause some species to lose access to food. But others such as Dolly Varden that successfully adjust to shifts in climate and prey offer a climate change story with a happy ending, according to the study published in Freshwater Biology.
Ignoring environmental cues may help this predator

The Dolly Varden’s secret appears to be that instead of taking its migration cues from environmental variables such as water temperature or streamflow, the species cues directly off the presence of salmon the Dolly Varden depend on for food, the study found.

“Despite warming temperatures and shifting salmon migrations, Dolly Varden do a great job of following their food,” said lead author Chris Sergeant of the National Park Service’s Inventory and Monitoring Program in southeast Alaska. “Species that can handle a high degree of variability are the ones that should be most resilient to further changes associated with climate.”

Dolly Varden get most of their energy over the course of each year by gorging themselves on salmon eggs, which are abundant in summer and rich in energy thanks to the same fatty acids that make fish healthy for humans. Eggs from any single species of salmon may be available during a narrow spawning window of two to six weeks. The Dolly Varden must follow salmon migrations closely to take full advantage of this annual salmon egg bonanza.
Sticking with salmon to find food

But salmon migrations are shifting as the climate warms. Previous research by the University of Alaska and NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center in southeast Alaska’s Auke Creek has shown that pink and coho salmon now migrate to their spawning grounds 10 to 17 days earlier while sockeye salmon migrate eight days earlier.

Instead of falling out of synch with salmon, though, seagoing Dolly Varden in Auke Creek have accurately adjusted their annual migrations from the ocean back to freshwater to stick with the salmon. The adjustment has maintained their access to egg meals, according to the new research that includes coauthors from the University of Wyoming and NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
Researchers rely on long record of fish migration data

The research depended on a wealth of fish data from a weir on Auke Creek maintained primarily since 1980 by NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center Auke Bay Labs, supported by collaborations with the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. From 1997 to 2006 crews counted and measured Dolly Varden migrating from the ocean, past the weir and into Auke Creek, providing an unusual long-term picture of fish migration times.

“We’re really indebted to the people who kept that record going for so long,” said Eric Ward of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. “It turns out to be very valuable in understanding how species are responding to the changing climate.”

Researchers in the new study used the weir data to examine the relationship between migrations of salmon and Dolly Varden from year to year. They found the timing of Dolly Varden migration more closely related to the presence and timing of the salmon than on environmental variables such as temperature and precipitation that are often seen as driving animal migrations.

In short, the Dolly Varden are shifting their migration to follow their food instead of following temperatures or other environmental cues that, as the climate changes, might otherwise lead them to migrate at a different time than the salmon that provide their most important food.

The researchers cautioned that it’s unclear whether other salmon predators could adjust their timing to follow salmon as effectively as Dolly Varden do, apparently by watching salmon passing by or detecting salmon eggs through smell. But the adaptability of Dolly Varden suggests that at least some species may be more resilient to climate-induced changes in migration timing than ecologists might assume.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Touchy Feely Science – one chart suggests there’s a ‘pHraud’ in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony
Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago December 23, 2014
“…startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.””

Willis Eschenbach tips me to a story by Marita Noon, titled:

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

I’ve reproduced portions of it here, with a link to the full article. The graph with ALL the data is compelling.



“Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.

The science and engineering website Quest, recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”

Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.



Feely’s four-page report: Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that shows a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

…

The December edition of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change features commentary titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”

However, an inquisitive graduate student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.

Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.

Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising as instrumental ocean pH data has been measured for more than 100 years since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:

“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”

“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”

Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last email exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the email string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”

MWAcompilationOfGlobalOcean_pHJan82014

Regarding the chart in question, Wallace concludes: “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”

“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

Full story here: http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/

There’s a petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/restore-the-worlds-ocean-ph-measurements
.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...-wiped-out-by-2100-new-study-claims-1.2881635
Chinook salmon could be wiped out by 2100, new study claims

The Canadian Press Posted: Dec 22, 2014 2:20 PM ET Last Updated: Dec 23, 2014 11:38 AM ET
A new study has found that 98 per cent of chinook salmon will be gone by 2100 if climate change warms the water.

A new study has found that 98 per cent of chinook salmon will be gone by 2100 if climate change warms the water. (Hobbit Hill Films, LLC, Isaac Babcock via WNET Thirteen/Associated Press)

New climate-change research involving a University of British Columbia scientist predicts that one of the West Coast's most prized salmon stocks could be wiped out over the next 85 years.

A study has concluded that there is a five per cent chance of a catastrophic loss of the chinook salmon by 2075, and a 98 per cent chance the population will suffer catastrophic losses by 2100, if climate change warms the water.

An international research team looked at the ability by the chinook to adapt to warming water temperatures caused by climate change.

UBC zoologist Anthony Farrell was part of the research group and says the juvenile salmon studied developed serious heart problems in water temperatures higher than 24.5 C.

Once past that temperature, the study found that the heart couldn't go any faster and would either slow or go arrhythmic.

The study was recently published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Chinook salmon are the primary food source for the endangered southern resident killer whale population.
Corrections

An earlier version of this story, which was based on information provided by UBC, said that upwards of 98 per cent of chinook salmon will be gone by 2100. The university later corrected that to say there's a 98 per cent chance the population will suffer catastrophic losses by 2100.
Dec 22, 2014 9:28 PM ET

 

[OldBlackDog]

Nature admits peer review filters out controversial “champion” papers

How to separate creative genius from creative mistakes? Not with peer-review. It is a consensus filter.

Classical peer review is a form of scientific gatekeeping (it’s good to see that term recognized in official literature). Unpaid anonymous peer review is useful at filtering out some low quality papers, it is also effective at blocking the controversial ones which later go on to be accepted elsewhere and become cited many times, the paradigm changers.

And the more controversial the topic, presumably, the worse the bias is. What chance would anyone have of getting published if, hypothetically, they found a consequential mathematical error underlying the theory of man-made global warming? Which editors would be brave enough to even send it out for review and risk being called a “denier”? Humans are gregarious social beings, and being in with the herd affects your financial rewards, as well as your social standing. Even high ranking science journal editors are afraid of being called names.

Mark Peplow discusses a new PNAS paper in Nature:

Using subsequent citations as a proxy for quality, the team found that the journals were good at weeding out dross and publishing solid research. But they failed — quite spectacularly — to pick up the papers that went to on to garner the most citations.

“The shocking thing to me was that the top 14 papers had all been rejected, one of them twice,” says Kyle Siler, a sociologist at the University of Toronto in Canada, who led the study1. The work was published on 22 December in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

There is no formalized sure-fire system to find and reward the creative genius needed for the big leaps in science. Their work must be impeccable logical, but it is an art to cut through human biases to recognise that genius. And art cannot be mandated or controlled. We should never place much confidence in a formalized process, especially one that’s unpaid and anonymous, to spot the papers that will be the most cited 50 years from now.

But the team also found that 772 of the manuscripts were ‘desk rejected’ by at least one of the journals — meaning they were not even sent out for peer review — and that 12 out of the 15 most-cited papers suffered this fate. “This raises the question: are they scared of unconventional research?” says Siler. Given the time and resources involved in peer review, he suggests, top journals that accept just a small percentage of the papers they receive can afford to be risk averse.

For the record:

Siler and his team tapped into a database of manuscripts and reviewer reports held by the University of California, San Francisco, that had been used in previous studies of the peer-review process.

Anyone who thinks “peer review” is somehow part of the scientific method does not know what science is.

h/t to the brilliant Matthew.

REFERENCES

Peplow, Mark (2014) Peer review — reviewed, Top medical journals filter out poor papers but often reject future citation champions. Nature,doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16629 [Discussion of Siler et al]

Siler, K., Lee, K. & Bero, L. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112 (2014).

Rating: 9.8/10 (39 votes cast)

Nature admits peer review filters out controversial "champion" papers, 9.8 out of 10 based on 39 ratings
Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mxxnywo

 

[Fish Assassin]

I just opened this thread not to read it but to say, take the some time off guys. Enjoy the holidays with your families.

Merry Christmas,

 

[OldBlackDog]

LOL!
WH Science Advisor: 'Human-Caused Warming' SAVING Earth from 'Another Ice Age'

Man-made global warming is saving the Earth from “another ice age,” White House Science Advisor Eric Holdren says in a new video promoting man-made global warming theory:

“We know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the main cause of the warming of the earth’s climate that has been measured over the past few decades. The warming is unequivocal.

“While the climate of the earth has changed over the millennia as a result of natural factors – principally changes in the tilt and orientation of the earth’s axis and rotation, and in the shape of its orbit around the sun – those changes occur far too gradually to have noticeable effects over a period of mere decades. In their current phases, moreover, they would be gradually cooling the earth – taking us to another ice age – if they weren’t being more than offset by human-caused warming.”

 

[OldBlackDog]

Same to you and yours and to all the people who read or are involved in this post.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year.

I just opened this thread not to read it but to say, take the some time off guys. Enjoy the holidays with your families.

Merry Christmas,

 

[GLG]

GLG another question for you regarding CSC (carbon capture), where should we put it?

Saskatchewan is trying this with a coal fired electric plant right now. The are selling the CO2 to the oil companies to be used on enhanced oil recovery projects. I have no problem with that as long as the CO2 stays in the ground. I do think it would be better to not produce the CO2 in the first place but old king coal just does not seem to want to die. You don't have to explore for new oil fields if you can work the old ones and store CO2 at the same time. Seems like a win win to me.
2 things to think about....
CO2 works like a thermostat. The more we put in the air, the warmer things will get. It takes time... just like in a house you turn up the thermostat, the house will warm up till it reaches the temperature setting. This takes time in a house as it takes a while for your furnace to warm up the mass inside your house. At some point your house will reach equilibrium and then your heat input will be the same as your heat loss. You will be in balance. Same thing with the earth. It takes time for the system to come into balance depending on the amount of CO2 in the air. The problem is we keep turning up the thermostat every year by adding more CO2. So if we were to stop putting CO2 in the air we will still need time to reach a balance. This is one of the most troubling things with this problem. We are not in balance and there is a lot of heating left on the books. It's accumulating and it has to go somewhere. Currently that is in the Arctic / Greenland and the oceans. We only have so much budget left in those place.

2nd thing.... I don't know anyone that is saying that we can stop tomorrow with the CO2 we are currently putting out. Most are saying we need a plan to reduce and stop. This gives time for the world economy to catch up and replace the current energy production with a new one. One that is not based on fossil fuels. Can we do it?... we have no choice as this is something that needs to be done as fast as possible. It's possible if we have everyone working to the same goal. It's not helpful when some loud voices are intent on keeping the status.... same old same old. We did not leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot.

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

The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years.

But as many Canadians know, the weather had many others ups and downs.

Here is Environment Canada's list ranked from 1 to 10 based on factors that include their impact on Canadians, the extent of the area affected, economic effects and longevity as a top news story.

1. Baby it was cold outside

"Canada’s reputation as the second coldest country next to Russia was reaffirmed in winter 2013-14," said the national weather agency on its website.

Canadians gripped by bone-chilling temperatures
Snowfall records were set in Windsor, Ont., Kenora, Ont., Calgary, Red Deer and a handful of other cities. It was also the winter of the dreaded "polar vortex," or a circulation of frigid, dense Arctic air that moved much farther south than normal.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222131356.htm

Coral reveals long-term link between Pacific winds, global climate
Date: December 22, 2014
Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Summary: New research indicates that shifts in Pacific trade winds played a key role in twentieth century climate variation and are likely again influencing global temperatures. The study uses a novel method of analyzing coral chemistry to reveal winds from a century ago.

In the equatorial atolls of western Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean, a coral record has revealed the importance of Pacific winds on global temperatures. New research has found that weak trade winds from 1910-1940 caused an increase in warming, while stronger winds 1940-1970 led to temperatures leveling off.

New research indicates that shifts in Pacific trade winds played a key role in twentieth century climate variation, a sign that they may again be influencing global temperatures.

The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Arizona (UA), uses a novel method of analyzing chemical changes in coral to show that weak tropical Pacific trade winds coincided with globally warming temperatures early in the twentieth century. When the natural pattern shifted and winds began to strengthen after 1940, the warming slowed.

The finding gives support to the theory that strong Pacific trade winds are currently helping to prevent global temperatures from climbing, even as society continues to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. When the winds weaken as part of a natural cycle, warming will likely resume once again, the authors say.

"Strong winds in the tropical Pacific are playing a role in the slowdown of warming over the past 15 years," said lead author Diane Thompson, a postdoctoral scientist at NCAR. "When the winds inevitably change to a weaker state, warming will start to accelerate again."

"Mother Nature is always going to inject little ups and downs along our path to a warmer world," said University of Arizona professor Julia Cole, a co-author. "We're trying to understand how those natural variations work so that scientists can do a better job of predicting the actual course of climate change into the future."

The study is being published this week in Nature Geoscience. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, as well as by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Arizona, Philanthropic Education Organization, U.K. Natural Environment Research Council, and U.S. Department of Energy.

Where is the heat going?

Despite increases in greenhouse gases, global surface temperatures have not risen significantly since 2001. This pause in global warming, often called the hiatus, has become the focus of research by climate scientists who are trying to track the missing heat.

By using climate models and observations, scientists are finding evidence that the heat is going into the subsurface ocean, perhaps as a result of changes in atmospheric circulation. A study earlier this year in Nature Climate Change, by an international team of climate scientists, pointed to unusually strong trade winds along the equator in the Pacific Ocean that are driving heat into the ocean while bringing cooler water to the surface. This is leaving less heat in the air, thereby temporarily offsetting warming from increasing greenhouse gases.

The study by Thompson and her colleagues indicates that this process has happened before, and in the opposite direction: weaker winds allowed warming to accelerate.

The research team focused on the early twentieth century -- a time when a third of the century's global warming took place, even though major accumulations of greenhouse gases were not yet occurring. Some previous research suggested that rising sea-surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean were to blame. That warming did not begin until the mid-1920s, however, when the global atmospheric warming was already well underway.

As it turned out, the researchers had access to an important piece of evidence. Sitting in a UA lab was an old core drawn from a coral skeleton near a western tropical Pacific island. It had been chemically analyzed in the 1990s and then largely forgotten.

Thompson, while working on her doctoral dissertation, realized that the core could reveal tropical Pacific wind patterns during the period from 1894 to 1982 when it had grown just outside of the island's lagoon.

The reason has to do with the effects of wind on water chemistry. When strong bursts of wind came in from the west, they stirred up manganese in the sediment at the bottom of the lagoon. The local corals took up the manganese in their skeletons as they grew. Such wind bursts from the west occur more commonly when the trade winds, which normally blow from the east, are weak.

Chemical analysis of the yearly banded coral skeleton showed a comparatively high occurrence of these spikes in manganese to calcium from about 1910 to 1940--the same period when Earth experienced significant warming. However, the number of these events dropped between the 1940s and 1970s, when temperatures leveled off.

Thompson and her co-authors compared the ratio to wind observations since 1960, when observations became more reliable, and verified that the high manganese-to-calcium ratio correlated with weaker trade winds. They also combed through more scattered records before 1960 and again found a correlation of the chemical ratio to wind strength.

Thompson stressed that the winds are just one contributor to changes in global climate. Another reason that temperatures leveled off in mid-century likely has to do with increased industrialization and emissions of particles that block sunlight and exert a cooling influence. Later in the century, increased emissions of greenhouse gases played a dominant role.

"This research shows that the influence of winds on climate is not anything new. These mechanisms have been at work earlier," Thompson said. "We believe this is a significant contribution to understanding the role of natural processes in modulating global temperature change."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: 1.Diane M. Thompson, Julia E. Cole, Glen T. Shen, Alexander W. Tudhope, Gerald A. Meehl. Early twentieth-century warming linked to tropical Pacific wind strength. Nature Geoscience, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2321

 

[triplenickel]

I think you missed this part... that it came from the BC government and not some newspaper.

Correct, totally missed it, thought he was the source of it but assumed the headline was created by an editor as I didn't look closely enough. Same question though maybe the third time will be the charm. Title (which I bet is meant to be a tad humorous) aside what's wrong with the subject matter?

It lets consumers make their own decisions on how they spend their money.

Everybody does on a daily basis as this has been the western way of life since day one here.

If they decide to continue using fossil fuel then they will pay for it but I suspect it wont work out that way.

As I'm sure you're well aware coal and O&G aren't only used for optional luxury items, they're mostly for basic necessities and driving the prices up to where consumption is cost prohibitive would be political suicide. A huge segment of society can't afford any extra costs for cars, fuel, food, or electricity consumers are ultimately the ones that will pick up the tab for the increases. Do you honestly believe that would fly?

We need to send the correct price signal to the market and let the market do it's thing.

Who do you think will pick up the tab for that? What politician is going to make it happen?

Painting a socialist brush to the problem is a lazy way to make an argument.

That was just a side rant on my part, it was in no way an argument, the argument can be found in the rest of the paragraph I'll put it back here again for you;
Just like the energy industry this one works to satisfy the wants and needs of an ever growing population that isn't willing to give up the things required to make the expansion or even current production go away.

So the choice is to support Canadian coal or non-Canadian coal

Unless you think coal is going away it's just that easy. You need coal, you can't get away from it, so where do you want it to come from? Even windmills and solar panels need it and Mt. Polley copper to become reality.

If they burn the coal to make steel then the price should reflect that. If they don't then no worries and prices will stay the same.

Cool, throw some levies on it and people will stop buying Canadian coal. That will stop the consumption right, not like they'll just fill the gap from some other part of the planet with no doubt worse practices than Canada's. The population is growing and the needs will be met somehow.

Would you care to make a bet on how long until someone starts squawking about pumping c02 into the earth? I reckon if it ever goes large scale the same arguments used against fracking regarding the potential of the product migrating will be used.

You are passionate and no doubt in my mind you're no dummy but I think your singular focus makes you unable to see the big picture and accept the reality of the world we live in and the compromises needed to make it run. Reality is a *****. I hate myself for getting sucked back into this vortex! lol Support responsible balanced resource management it's the basis for every product and economy on this planet.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141127212321.htm
Education is key to climate adaptation
Date: November 27, 2014
Source: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Summary: According to new research, education makes people less vulnerable to natural disasters such as floods, landslides, and storms that are expected to intensify with climate change.
Given that some climate change is already unavoidable--as just confirmed by the new IPCC report--investing in empowerment through universal education should be an essential element in climate change adaptation efforts, which so far focus mostly in engineering projects, according to a new study from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) published in the journal Science.

The article draws upon extensive analysis of natural disaster data for 167 countries over the past four decades as well as a number of studies carried out in individual countries and regions, published last year in a special issue of the journal Ecology and Society.

The research shows that in many cases--particularly where the exact consequences of climate change are still unclear--educational expansion could be a better investment in protecting people from the impacts than conventional investments such as building sea walls, dams, irrigation systems, and other infrastructure.

"Education is key in reducing disaster fatalities and enhancing adaptive capacity," says Wolfgang Lutz, Director of IIASA's World Population Program and Founding Director of the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital, a collaboration of IIASA, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and the Vienna University of Economics, who wrote the article together with IIASA researchers Raya Muttarak and Erich Striessnig, who have dual affiliations with the Vienna Institute of Demography and the Vienna University of Economics and Business, respectively.

"Our research shows that education is more important than GDP in reducing mortality from natural disasters. We also demonstrated that under rapid development and educational expansion across the globe, disaster fatalities will be reduced substantially," says Muttarak.

Climate models project that extreme weather events such as hurricanes are likely to increase with climate change. And with rising sea levels, floods will become a greater danger in low-lying coastal areas. So researchers from IIASA's World Population Program launched a major research project to explore the connections between fatality rates in such disasters, education levels, and other potential factors that could contribute to resilience such as wealth and health.

Previous research had shown that education plays a major role in development, including poverty alleviation and economic growth. In regard to climate change adaption, "Education directly improves knowledge, the ability to understand and process information, and risk perception. It also indirectly enhances socioeconomic status and social capital. These are qualities and skills useful for surviving and coping with disasters," says Muttarak.

The new study shows that education is the key factor in enhancing adaptive capacity to already unavoidable climate change. This insight is also reflected in the new generation of IPCC-related scenarios, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) which were developed by IIASA researchers in collaboration with other leading global change research institutes to jointly capture different future socioeconomic challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Using these SSPs, the new study illustrates how alternative future trajectories in education lead to greatly differing numbers of expected deaths due to climate change. Therefore, says Striessnig, "Investment in human capital not only empowers people to achieve desirable socioeconomic outcomes, but it also has a protective function against diverse impacts climate change may have over the coming decades."

With 100 billion dollars currently pledged per year for climate funding through the Green Climate Fund, the researchers say it is vital to examine where the money would have the greatest impact.

Striessnig says, "We need to think about how to best allocate the funds raised for the adaptation to future climate change. Currently many of these funds are destined to support less flexible engineering projects or agricultural strategies. Such efforts are also vitally important, but in light of the major uncertainties about climate change impacts, it makes sense to invest some of the funds in mechanisms that will empower people to flexibly adapt to whatever changes might occur."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: 1.Lutz W, Muttarak R, Striessnig E. Universal education is key to enhanced climate adaptation. Science, 28 November 2014 %u2022 Vol. 346 no. 6213 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257975

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222131547.htm

Distribution of fish on northeast US shelf influenced by both fishing, climate
Date: December 22, 2014
Source: NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Summary: Scientists studying the distribution of four commercial and recreational fish stocks in Northeast US waters have found that climate change can have major impacts on the distribution of fish, but the effects of fishing can be just as important and occur on a more immediate time scale. The four species studied -- black sea bass, scup, summer flounder, and southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Bight winter flounder -- have varied in abundance and have experienced heavy fishing pressure at times over the past 40 years.

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus).
Credit: NEFSC/NOAA

Scientists studying the distribution of four commercial and recreational fish stocks in Northeast U.S. waters have found that climate change can have major impacts on the distribution of fish, but the effects of fishing can be just as important and occur on a more immediate time scale.

The four species studied -- black sea bass, scup, summer flounder, and southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Bight winter flounder -- have varied in abundance and have experienced heavy fishing pressure at times over the past 40 years. Scientists examined the distribution of the four species using Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) research trawl survey data collected between 1972 and 2008. Generalized additive models were used to determine if the distributions of the four species had changed over time, and if these changes reflect changes in temperature or fishing pressure.

The researchers found that black sea bass, scup, and summer flounder exhibited significant poleward shifts in distribution in at least one season. The shifts in black sea bass and scup were related to temperature, while the shift in summer flounder was related to a decrease in fishing pressure and an expansion of the population age structure. The southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Bight stock of winter flounder showed no change in distribution.

"The study combined a range of resources at the Center, long-term oceanographic data and trawl survey data," said Richard Bell, a National Research Council research associate working at the NEFSC's Narragansett Laboratory in Rhode Island and lead author of the study. "Using these data, we demonstrated how a combination of fishing and climate can influence the distribution of marine fish. It is not one or the other."

Increasing ocean temperatures have significantly affected marine life, inducing shifts in distribution and changes in abundance. Climate change alters the distribution of suitable habitats, forcing organisms to move to a more favorable area of their range or attempt to survive under less than ideal conditions. Fishing reduces the abundance of marine populations and truncates their size and age structure, which can lead to range contractions or shifts.

Fishing typically removes the larger fish from a population. Larger, older summer flounder are typically found further north, and as exploitation reduced the numbers of summer flounder in the 1980s and 1990s, larger fish were preferentially harvested by the fishery. The remaining summer flounder population, dominated by smaller fish, subsequently became centered further south. The northward shift of the stock in recent decades was linked to an increase in the number of larger, older fish as the population has rebuilt.

"The fish were not shifting northward with warmer conditions, but simply re-colonizing their former habitat areas," said Bell.

Northerly shifts in scup and black sea bass are linked to increases in temperature and are more tied to climate than fishing.

The study suggests multiple factors specific to individual species need to be considered when developing management regulations for living marine resources. The management of each of the four species analyzed in this study is based on spatial allocations, and shifts in stock distributions can cause a mismatch between the distribution of fish and the catch allocations for different regions and states.

Findings from the study were published online in the ICES Journal of Marine Science.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: 1.R. J. Bell, J. A. Hare, J. P. Manderson, D. E. Richardson. Externally driven changes in the abundance of summer and winter flounder. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2014; 71 (9): 2416 DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu069

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222111559.htm

Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia
Date: December 22, 2014
Source: CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment
Summary: Images of craters on Yamal Peninsula, caused by collapsing permafrost, have become world famous. But did you know that this permafrost extends to the ocean floor? And it is thawing.
The magnificent images of a crater on Yamal Peninsula, caused by collapsing permafrost, have become world famous. But did you know that this permafrost extends to the ocean floor? And it is thawing.
Credit: Image courtesy of CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment

Yamal Peninsula in Siberia has recently become world famous. Spectacular sinkholes, appeared as out of nowhere in the permafrost of the area, sparking the speculations of significant release of greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

What is less known, is that there is a lot of greenhouse gas methane released from the seabed offshore the West Yamal Peninsula. Gas is released in an area of at least 7500 m2, with gas flares extending up to 25 meters in the water column. Anyhow, there is still a large amount of methane gas that is contained by an impermeable cap of permafrost. And this permafrost is thawing.

"The thawing of permafrost on the ocean floor is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world´s oceans." says PhD Alexey Portnov at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.

Portnov and his colleagues have recently published two papers about permafrost offshore West Yamal, in the Kara Sea. Papers look into the extent of permafrost on the ocean floor and how it is connected to the significant release of the greenhouse gas methane.

Permanently frozen soil

Permafrost, as the word implies, is the soil permanently frozen for two or more years. For something to stay permanently frozen, the temperature must of course stay bellow 0°C.

"Terrestrial Arctic is always frozen, average ground temperatures are low in Siberia which maintains permafrost down to 600-800 meters ground depth. But the ocean is another matter. Bottom water temperature is usually close to or above zero. Theoretically, therefore, we could never have thick permafrost under the sea," says Portnov "However, 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, the sea level dropped to minus 120 meters. It means that today´s shallow shelf area was land. It was Siberia. And Siberia was frozen. The permafrost on the ocean floor today was established in that period.

Last glacial maximum was the period in the history of the planet when ice sheets covered significant part of the Northern hemisphere. These ice sheets profoundly impacted Earth's climate, causing drought, desertification, and a dramatic drop in sea levels. Most likely the Yamal Peninsula was not covered with ice, but it was exposed to extremely cold conditions.

When the ice age ended some 12,000 years ago, and the climate warmed up, the ocean levels increased. Permafrost was submerged under the ocean water, and started it´s slow thawing. One of the reasons it has not thawed completely so far, is that bottom water temperatures are low, some -- 0,5 degrees . That could very well change.

A fragile seal that is leaking

It was previously proposed that the permafrost in the Kara Sea, and other Arctic areas, extends to water depths up to 100 meters, creating a seal that gas cannot bypass. Portnov and collegues have found that the West Yamal shelf is leaking, profoundly, at depths much shallower than that.

Significant amount of gas is leaking at depths between 20 and 50 meters. This suggests that a continuous permafrost seal is much smaller than proposed. Close to the shore the permafrost seal may be few hundred meters thick, but tapers off towards 20 meters water depth. And it is fragile.

"The permafrost is thawing from two sides. The interior of the Earth is warm and is warming the permafrost from the bottom up. It is called geothermal heat flux and it is happening all the time, regardless of human influence. " says Portnov.

Evolution of permafrost

Portnov used mathematical models to map the evolution of the permafrost, and thus calculate its degradation since the end of the last ice age. The evolution of permafrost gives indication to what may happen to it in the future.

If the bottom ocean temperature is 0,5°C, the maximal possible permafrost thickness would likely take 9000 years to thaw. But if this temperature increases, the process would go much faster, because the thawing also happens from the top down.

"If the temperature of the oceans increases by two degrees as suggested by some reports, it will accelerate the thawing to the extreme. A warming climate could lead to an explosive gas release from the shallow areas."

Permafrost keeps the free methane gas in the sediments. But it also stabilizes gas hydrates, ice-like structures that usually need high pressure and low temperature to form.

"Gas hydrates normally form in water depths over 300 meters, because they depend on high pressure. But under permafrost the gas hydrate may stay stable even where the pressure is not that high, because of the constantly low temperatures."

Gas hydrates contain huge amount of methane gas, and it is destabilization of these that is believed to have caused the craters on the Yamal Peninsula.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment. The original article was written by Maja Sojtaric. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal References:
1.Alexey Portnov, Jurgen Mienert, Pavel Serov. Modeling the evolution of climate-sensitive Arctic subsea permafrost in regions of extensive gas expulsion at the West Yamal shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 2014; 119 (11): 2082 DOI: 10.1002/2014JG002685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002685
2.Alexey Portnov, Andrew J. Smith, Jürgen Mienert, Georgy Cherkashov, Pavel Rekant, Peter Semenov, Pavel Serov, Boris Vanshtein. Offshore permafrost decay and massive seabed methane escape in water depths >20 m at the South Kara Sea shelf. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; 40 (15): 3962 DOI: 10.1002/grl.50735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50735

 

[GLG]

Touchy Feely Science – one chart suggests there’s a ‘pHraud’ in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony
Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago December 23, 2014
“…startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.””

Willis Eschenbach tips me to a story by Marita Noon, titled:

What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

I’ve reproduced portions of it here, with a link to the full article. The graph with ALL the data is compelling.


Full story here: http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/


.

Wow ... is someone play a joke on your team? Did you go to the source and read it or are you so smitten by watts that his word is gold... Go to the source and see the quality of the article and check the links. Here is something that would be a red flag. This graph from the source.

Please tell us OBD what fossil fuel and cement production has to do with OA?
Here is another red flag if you know anything about Man Made Global Warming

As he initially did with Wallace, Sabine (should he see this) will likely dismiss me as some two-bit blogger who “will not last long” in my career. I invite him to prove me wrong—as Dr. Tim Ball has done with Michael Mann of the “hockey stick” fame. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/wha...ies-are-based-on-phraud/#sthash.iJx9paX1.dpuf

So the question is How did Tim Ball fair up against my team?
You can find the answer here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[SUP][27][/SUP]claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[SUP][28][/SUP]However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at theUniversity of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[SUP][29][/SUP] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[SUP][30][/SUP]
In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[SUP][31][/SUP] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[SUP][28][/SUP] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[SUP][30][/SUP] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

What a bunch of sad sacks your team has turned out to be... Do you really think the world would not notice that OA was not happening like your team claims? Perhaps watts just wanted to send out a xmas present to the fanboys..... sad, sad ... sad.....

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141204142619.htm

Maintaining a reliable value of the cost of climate change
Date: December 4, 2014
Source: University of Chicago
Summary: The Social Cost of Carbon puts a dollar value on the climate damages per ton of CO2 released, and is used by -- among others -- policymakers to help determine the costs and benefits of climate policies. A group of economists and lawyers urge several improvements to the government's Social Cost of Carbon figure that would impose a regular, transparent and peer-reviewed process to ensure the figure is reliable and well-supported by the latest facts.

Car exhaust.
Credit: © Wrangler / Fotolia

The term Social Cost of Carbon is a figure that puts a dollar value on the climate damages per ton of CO2 released, and is used by, among others, policymakers to help determine the costs and benefits of climate policies. In the latest issue of the journal Science, a group of economists and lawyers urge several improvements to the government's figure that would impose a regular, transparent and peer-reviewed process to ensure it is reliable and well-supported by the latest facts.

"By providing an estimate of the damages from an extra ton of CO2 emissions, the Social Cost of Carbon tells us how much money we should devote to mitigating emissions. It separates the efficient policies from the wasteful ones, and for this reason is an incredibly useful tool in devising climate policy," said Prof. Michael Greenstone, one of the authors of the analysis and the director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. "Having said that, every day we are learning more about the science behind climate change and the economic impacts it imposes. It's vital that policy keeps up as our knowledge evolves."

The researchers suggest that the value be updated routinely, specifically they recommend every five years to balance the need for incorporating the latest research with a thorough review process. Part of that process should entail a review by the National Academy of Science's National Research Council, they say, to allow outside experts to be part of the process and suggest changes. They also argue that a single Social Cost of Carbon estimate should be maintained and shared by all government agencies.

"Greenhouse gas emissions cause the same damage, regardless of whether they are emitted through car tailpipes or factory smokestacks, and no matter where in the world they come from," Greenstone said. "For this reason, one, consistently used and rigorously maintained estimate of climate damages is imperative to ensure our climate policies are providing the maximum benefits for the least costs."

William Pizer, the lead author of the study and a professor at Duke University, further emphasized this need.

"To ensure that value exists, it's important that we draw on the expertise of all government agencies, as well as independent experts in the field," Pizer said. "This level of high-quality collaboration and peer review would decrease the likelihood of political factors interfering with the process, and ensure we have the most robust Social Cost of Carbon."

The authors give an example of why such a consistent, collaborative and well-supported value is important. When the Social Cost of Carbon value used today, which was developed with a vigorous approach, is applied to the EPA's recent Clean Power Plan that limits emissions from existing power plants, the benefits of the rule vastly outweigh the damages. However, when applying a past value used by a single agency, the plan's benefits do not exceed the costs.

Additionally, Greenstone noted that the figure is not just a tool for policymakers. The courts, businesses and others use this figure to make important decisions on the impacts associated with climate change.

"The U.S. Social Cost of Carbon is becoming a focal estimate of the likely climate damages globally," Greenstone said. "It's critical that that we get this number right, because it will influence policy around the world."

Greenstone and some of his colleagues have initiated a larger project to determine an even more rigorously maintained cost of climate change at a global scale. "Our hope is that this ongoing research project will inform the periodic revisions of the Social Cost of Carbon that we advocate for in this Science article."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Chicago. The original article was written by Victoria Ekstrom High. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: 1.W. Pizer, M. Adler, J. Aldy, D. Anthoff, M. Cropper, K. Gillingham, M. Greenstone, B. Murray, R. Newell, R. Richels, A. Rowell, S. Waldhoff, J. Wiener. Using and improving the social cost of carbon. Science, 2014; 346 (6214): 1189 DOI: 10.1126/science.1259774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259774