Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does this matter? Even if climate change does produce slightly more welfare for the next 70 years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There is one obvious reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.

So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years. That’s like having radiotherapy because you are feeling too well. I just don’t share the certainty of so many in the green establishment that it’s worth it. It may be, but it may not.



This was the first hit in a google search filled with all kinds of info.
 
Let's here your thoughts on this 3X5

Something to think about on the course we are heading on. A study from the Quinsam River, Campbell River BC

Adaptive potential of a Pacific salmon challenged by climate change


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n2/full/nclimate2473.html

Pacific salmon provide critical sustenance for millions of people worldwide and have far-reaching impacts on the productivity of ecosystems. Rising temperatures now threaten the persistence of these important fishes[SUP]1, 2[/SUP], yet it remains unknown whether populations can adapt. Here, we provide the first evidence that a Pacific salmon has both physiological and genetic capacities to increase its thermal tolerance in response to rising temperatures. In juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a 4 °C increase in developmental temperature was associated with a 2 °C increase in key measures of the thermal performance of cardiac function[SUP]3, 4[/SUP]. Moreover, additive genetic effects significantly influenced several measures of cardiac capacity, indicative of heritable variation on which selection can act. However, a lack of both plasticity and genetic variation was found for the arrhythmic temperature of the heart, constraining this upper thermal limit to a maximum of 24.5 ± 2.2°C. Linking this constraint on thermal tolerance with present-day river temperatures and projected warming scenarios[SUP]5[/SUP], we predict a 17% chance of catastrophic loss in the population by 2100 based on the average warming projection, with this chance increasing to 98% in the maximum warming scenario. Climate change mitigation is thus necessary to ensure the future viability of Pacific salmon populations.

Figure 1: Mean increase in maximum heart rate (fHmax) among all offspring from the +0 °C (black line) and +4 °C (grey line) treatment groups of Quinsam River chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha).
nclimate2473-f1.jpg

Offspring were reared in two temperature treatments, reflecting current and future conditions, and the response of their fHmax to warming was measured from their acclimation temperature. Shown for each treatment group are the Arrhenius…


Figure 2: Norms of reaction among paternal half-sib families of Quinsam River chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha).
nclimate2473-f2.jpg

af, Offspring were reared in current (+0 °C) and future (+4 °C) temperature conditions and measured for their resting fH (fHrest;a), peak fH (fHpeak; b), scope for fH (fHscope; c), Arrhenius break temperature (TAB; d), the temperatur…



So what does this mean.......
If we continue with business as usual there is a 98% chance that by 2100 it will be game over for fishing for springs here in the SoG. If we take action now and try to keep the temps below 2C there is only a 17% chance it will be game over. Or we could listen to the fossil fuel companies and party hard and leave it for our kids to fix the problem. But then, if you think about it, it would probably be too late and we would have sold them down the river.

Time for action...... first things first, peer pressure.
 
There is hope. It is not all doom and gloom.


Studying juvenile sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in an Alaskan watershed that had experienced a 1.9°C increase in summer water temperature over the prior 46 years, Bentley and Burgner (2011)4 hypothesized that the warming of the region "would have resulted in a corresponding increase in fish metabolism, and thus potential consumption rates, that would increase infestation rates of the tapeworm Triaenophorus crassus." The set of events and their envisioned interaction seemed quite logical, so they proceeded to test their hypothesis by comparing infestation rate data for T. crassus collected between 1948 and 1960 with similar
data obtained in 2008 and 2009 from the Wood River system of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
In discussing their findings, the two U.S. researchers from the University of Washington's School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences say in "comparing the average summer air temperature to the parasite prevalence of juvenile sockeye salmon, we found no significant relationship over the fifteen years of collected data." They also report in "evaluating the influence of average summer air temperature on the parasite infestation rates of juvenile sockeye salmon, we again found no significant relationship for either parasite abundance or parasite intensity," further
noting "when we compared the 13 years of historic parasite prevalence to equivalent data collected in 2008 and 2009, we did not find a statistically significant positive long-term trend in the data." Moreover, according to Bentley and Burgner, "the parasite abundance of examined sockeye salmon smolts also did not exhibit a statistically significant long-term trend using the eight years of historic data and the two years of contemporary data." Lastly, they write "evaluating the relationship between time and parasite intensity produced similar results as the other five comparisons, with there not being a statistically significant positive relationship." In light of such observations, in the concluding sentence of their paper Bentley and Burgner say their data demonstrate "the complex effects of warming have not summed to generate a measurable change in the infestation rates of juvenile sockeye salmon in the Wood River
system."
Also working in Alaska, but focusing on salmon in Auke Creek, a small lake-outlet stream near Juneau, where there have been complete daily counts of all adult pink salmon migrating into the creek since 1971, Kovach et al. (2012)5 set out to use "phenotypic data on migration timing, archived genetic samples and data from a marker locus, the allele frequencies of which were experimentally altered more than 30 years ago, to determine whether change in migration timing in a population of pink salmon has a genetic basis (i.e., microevolution)." In doing so the
three researchers determined both even- and odd-year adult pink salmon that spawn in the warming Alaskan stream are migrating into freshwater nearly two weeks earlier than they did
40 years ago. They also found experimental data "support the hypothesis that there has been directional selection for earlier migration timing, resulting in a substantial decrease in the late- migrating phenotype (from more than 30% to less than 10% of the total abundance)." They also report "from 1983 to 2011, there was a significant decrease-over threefold-in the frequency of
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a genetic marker for late-migration timing, but there were minimal changes in allele
frequencies at other natural loci."
Commenting on their findings, Kovach et al. say "these results demonstrate that there has been rapid microevolution for earlier migration timing in this population," which has allowed both the odd- and even-year groups of salmon "to remain resilient to environmental change," as has
also been demonstrated by Kinnison and Hairston (2007). And they note in closing "population abundance in 2011 was the second highest on record," further indicating that the salmon of Auke Creek are "persisting
through rapid temperature warming."
 
Let's here your thoughts on this 3X5

Obviously don't want to see them gone from the SOG, but would it be a catastrophic end of the world scenario? Are they our primary food source, is it our only fishing opportunity, will we/them be unable to adapt? It would suck but we'd deal with it. Plus it looks like there's hope they have more adaptive potential than previously thought. I'd also say there are more likely reasons the population will suffer sooner.

Or we could listen to the fossil fuel companies and party hard
first things first, peer pressure

Glad to see you coming around to figuring out where the real responsibility rests even if it's only partial. You can be as mad as you want at the oil companies but they only exist for one reason, because you, your family, and friends give them lots of money and don't want to stop.

Protesting them will continue as always to get the cause nowhere. Global demand up 900,000bpd + global surplus = past methods of protest/reduction fail. The world isn't ready for the revolution, we need the bridge.

Also how about your thoughts on OBD's post about the ugly unmentioned side of green energy with the Mongolian mining and Chinese production of the neodymium? Combine the inability of the wind farms to meet demand requiring ongoing fossil fuel consumption to meet needs plus the results of the mining of the minerals for the magnets and general construction metals it seems likely the planet has lost for this effort. Britain and the like would have been better off burning BC LNG for their power. Consider the business side and looming end to their subsidies and it sounds like a fail. Apologies if I missed your response earlier but it seems like as long as the resource extraction isn't in our backyards people don't care.

Now lets ramp up the neodymium production so everyone can drive electric cars.

One other thing I remember you answered earlier but can't remember how and since the thread is too big to go back through I was hoping you could refresh me on is why not CNG for your new truck?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously don't want to see them gone from the SOG, but would it be a catastrophic end of the world scenario? Are they our primary food source, is it our only fishing opportunity, will we/them be unable to adapt? It would suck but we'd deal with it. Plus it looks like there's hope they have more adaptive potential than previously thought. I'd also say there are more likely reasons the population will suffer sooner.

"catastrophic end of the world scenario" those are words from the OBD's of the world not mine. Here is what I think... There will be winners and there will be losers. The earth will survive one way or another. The past proves that. The question is who will be the winners? There is no guarantee that we will be the winners but I have faith that we are smart enough to do the right thing and with some hard work we can over come what ever nature throws our way. We may be the generation that is curse at, in the future, but those folks will find a way to survive and eventually prosper.

Well I guess you have a choice. Business as Usual and it would suck to have to go to Alaska or the Arctic to fish for springs. Or perhaps do something about it. As for the Campbell River springs adapting, the answer is no. 24.5 C is lethal end of story. The genes that control the cardiovascular system, as this study suggest, don't have the ability to adapt. Time is not on their side. Hope is a mugs game. I do agree that they could be in trouble for a lot of reasons and not just climate change.


Glad to see you coming around to figuring out where the real responsibility rests even if it's only partial. You can be as mad as you want at the oil companies but they only exist for one reason, because you, your family, and friends give them lots of money and don't want to stop.

Protesting them will continue as always to get the cause nowhere. Global demand up 900,000bpd + global surplus = past methods of protest/reduction fail. The world isn't ready for the revolution, we need the bridge.

I'm not angry at all. If I was looking for blame I would put it squarely on the policy makers. They should know better as the science is clear and the solutions are within our grasp. Mind you those policy makers like Harper should be doing a lot more then just talking the good talk. Talk is cheap action is what counts. How about some regulations on the fossil fuel industry. Why should they get to increase their CO2 and everyone else has to cut back. Yes we have heard the sector by sector approach but when is it the fossil fuel sectors turn? Is it after the candle stick maker industry?:rolleyes: Yup talk is cheap but we do have a chance to vote this bum out and put the next bum in. I lean to the right when it comes to voting but I can't vote for Harper. In fact I'm not just going to vote for someone else but I'm going to go help the team I think that can beat his man. Yup I will volunteer and do what ever is asked. Will kick in some money, knock on doors, put up signs what ever. Just need to find out who has the best chance of kicking the bums out.

There is lot's of evidence now that the "bridge" you speak of NG is not the solution. The solution is distributed clean energy as fast as possible. The numbers for NG don't add up to be a solution.


Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13837.html#tables



Also how about your thoughts on OBD's post about the ugly unmentioned side of green energy with the Mongolian mining and Chinese production of the neodymium? Combine the inability of the wind farms to meet demand requiring ongoing fossil fuel consumption to meet needs plus the results of the mining of the minerals for the magnets and general construction metals it seems likely the planet has lost for this effort. Britain and the like would have been better off burning BC LNG for their power. Consider the business side and looming end to their subsidies and it sounds like a fail. Apologies if I missed your response earlier but it seems like as long as the resource extraction isn't in our backyards people don't care.

Now lets ramp up the neodymium production so everyone can drive electric cars.
Yea what OBD posts are mostly nonsense. Most of the time he is trolling and just looking to get a reaction. Don't know why he does that but my guess is he is bored.

Neodymium.... a few years back the US was very worried about the state of affairs with this and other "rare earth" minerals. No one likes the idea that China controls the world market. Plus as was pointed out they don't have a very good track record when it comes to treating their people or their environment. As for the nonsense OBD posted, well lets just say it's half the story. It was pointed out that windmills use a lot of neodymium and as you pointed out so do electric cars. But here is the thing, they can be recycled after they have completed there service life. The stuff is worth a far bit of coin so it pays to recycle it. I know that when I bought the hybrid car that was one of the things that was pointed out. I think we have regulations that say we have to recycle the battery and traction motor. One of the selling points was also the amount of recycled material that was in the new car. So you see there has been some thought into this problem. I think we could agree the the 3r's are a good thing. So now that we know that windmills and cars "rare earth" metals are recycled let's look at other uses of neodymium. Here is a link to some data from the US.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1072/OFR2013-1072.pdf

Neodymium use per year in the US 2010 data

Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalysts for petroleum refining = 1.4 million pounds
Automotive (general applications) = 167,551 pounds
Cell phone and other mobile devices = 189,597 pounds
Electric and hybrid vehicle motors = 661,386 pounds
Electronic power steering in vehicles = 57,320 pounds
External disc drives for servers = 13,4481 pounds
Game consoles = 141,095 pounds
OEM speakers in vehicles = 15,432 pounds
Personal computers and laptops = 970,033 pounds
Catalysts,electronics, fuel additives, glass,imaging contrast dyes,magnets,nuclear fuel rods, phosphors,polishing powders, and others = 1.3 million pounds

So the question is what products are recycled and what products get burned or thrown out at the end of life cycle. I also don't see windmills on that list unless its in the last one, under other. OBD post was a "look how bad those guys are but we hope you don't look deeper, well, because that would spoil things."

Here is a question for you 3X5.. what the heck is Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) catalysts for petroleum refining, and why do they need 1.4 million pounds of the stuff every year. Do they recycle that or is it gone.. up in smoke.

As for Tol and Lomborg and the author of your post.... well lets just say they have a track record and even their peers have stopped listening to them and for good reasons. Do you own research on them and you will come to the same conclusion on you own. Look for their admitted opp's in their math that changes the out comes. It's really comical to read the post by Tol and Lomborg and the dancing they do when the math errors are pointed out. The point is that if this is the best the denial crowd can muster we should have won hands down. I guess the problem is not the math or the science it must be something else. Perhaps money and those that like the way things are and don't want the party hard to stop.

One other thing I remember you answered earlier but can't remember how and since the thread is too big to go back through I was hoping you could refresh me on is why not CNG for your new truck?

I would rather have a plug in hybrid truck so that most of the time it would be running on hydro. I looked at CNG many years ago and went with propane as CNG would require a home pump to refuel. I'll keep my options open and when it's time to buy I'll see. One thing for sure is it needs to put a big dent in CO2 emissions from well to wheels.
 
a genetic marker for late-migration timing, but there were minimal changes in allele
frequencies at other natural loci."
Commenting on their findings, Kovach et al. say "these results demonstrate that there has been rapid microevolution for earlier migration timing in this population," which has allowed both the odd- and even-year groups of salmon "to remain resilient to environmental change," as has
also been demonstrated by Kinnison and Hairston (2007). And they note in closing "population abundance in 2011 was the second highest on record," further indicating that the salmon of Auke Creek are "persisting
through rapid temperature warming."

Well that's odd I thought you had proof that the world is not getting warmer? Now you have proof that it is....
So we can hope that we can fish in Alaska?
min-bristol-bay-map-RC-pew.jpg


It's all fine and dandy that the parasite load will be ok in the future in Alaska but what about here in the SoG? You OK with righting off the springs in the Campbell River? 24.5C river temp and it's game over. No getting around that fact. Know any other rivers that this might be a problem there OBD? What was the river temp last year in the Puntledge River again? Was it 22 C ? What are you going to do about it?
 
[u92O8LSkezY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u92O8LSkezY

Published on Jul 11, 2013
Daniel G. Nocera is the Patterson Rockwood Professor of Energy at Harvard University. Before joining Harvard, Nocera was on the faculty of MIT where he was the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy. He is widely recognized in the world as a leading researcher in renewable energy at the molecular level. He has recently accomplished a solar fuels process that captures many of the elements of photosynthesis and he has now translated this science to produce the artificial leaf (Innovation of the Year for 2011, Time Magazine). He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Indian Academy of Sciences. He was named as 100 Most Influential People in the World by Time Magazine.

A new epoch, characterized by ecological, environmental integrity and economic balance might be possible through a decentralized carbon-neutral energy system. Daniel Nocera describes his incredible discovery: how to emulate photosynthesis, to store energy in water splitting and meet future global energy needs.
 
And the river temperatures were caused by?
Check the temperatures attached. No heat records recently?
Think MAN is screwing with the river?





Well that's odd I thought you had proof that the world is not getting warmer? Now you have proof that it is....
So we can hope that we can fish in Alaska?
min-bristol-bay-map-RC-pew.jpg


It's all fine and dandy that the parasite load will be ok in the future in Alaska but what about here in the SoG? You OK with righting off the springs in the Campbell River? 24.5C river temp and it's game over. No getting around that fact. Know any other rivers that this might be a problem there OBD? What was the river temp last year in the Puntledge River again? Was it 22 C ? What are you going to do about it?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    96 KB · Views: 27
Divestment Ethics And Realities

stockCollege students who support divestment of fossil fuel stocks are passionate about their cause. Just look at their word choices. Though they could never function even one week without hydrocarbon energy, they call fossil-fuel companies “rogue entities,” assert that oil, coal and natural gas interests have the “political process in shackles,” and believe most of the world’s known fossil fuel resources must “stay in the ground” to avoid “catastrophic global warming.” It’s a shortsighted view of energy ethics and corruption.

Their over-heated hysteria over climate change is fanned by groups like 350.org and college professors who rehash doom-and-gloom forecasts about rising seas, dying species and other cataclysms that they insist can be remedied only by terminating fossil fuel use and investments in fossil fuel companies.

But in their lemming-like rush to glom onto claims that human carbon dioxide emissions will destroy life as we know it, they reveal an abysmal understanding of true science, our planet’s turbulent climate history, creative free markets, and what academia once proudly espoused: open, robust debate.

Of course, deceptive information is exceedingly useful to community organizers and agitators, particularly those who occupy Oval Offices, endowed chairs, government regulatory agencies and Big Green war rooms – and want to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Bombarding impressionable students with such intellectually dishonest drivel is equally useful … and detestable.

Just as bad, too many students devote their time and energy to divestment campaigns, when they should be learning and applying critical-thinking and ethical skills. Honest analysis reveals that divestment will have negligible to zero effects on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, climate change or energy company stock prices, even if every university in the country gave in to the students’ anti-fossil fuel pleas.

Indeed, college and university endowments are not large enough to create even a ripple in fossil fuel investments. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that university endowments have about $400 billion invested in stocks; the National Association of College and University Business Officers puts the figure at $456 billion. Of that, only about 2.1% was invested in fossil fuel stocks in 2010-2011. That is a pittance in the overall stock market, which was valued at some $18 trillion in 2012 and now is much larger. In fact, it amounts to only about 0.05% or a nickel out of every $100 – and any fossil fuel stocks sold by an endowment would be purchased by another investor almost immediately.

Moreover, fossil fuel stocks historically have been good investments for schools. A Sonecon study found that endowment investments in oil and natural gas equities in 2010-2011 provided returns of a whopping 52.8% – nearly twice the returns from all other U.S. publicly traded stocks, real estate securities and foreign equities. This fact is not lost on university presidents, who have a fiduciary duty to grow their endowments, to pay for student scholarships, new and remodeled facilities, and other expenditures that further their educational objectives.

American University trustees voted against divestment in November 2014, saying AU financial advisers “could not provide assurance that the effect of divestment would not be insignificant.” Actually, a recent Compass Lexecon analysis found that an investment portfolio totally divested from fossil fuels lost 70 basis points and cost significantly more every year in management fees to keep them “fossil-free.”

When asked whether he would sell University of Colorado fossil fuel stocks, President Bruce Benson said flatly, “I’m not going to do that.” Similarly, Harvard University President Drew Faust rejected demands for divestment and reminded proponents that Harvard “exists to serve an academic mission.” Harvard must be “very wary of steps intended to instrumentalize our endowment in ways that would appear to position the University as a political actor, rather than an academic institution,” she stated.

Just as importantly, the world’s largest energy companies dwarf the likes of ExxonMobil and other U.S. firms – but are owned by foreign governments and are not publicly traded. Caterwauling college kids at Stanford, Swarthmore and elsewhere will not cause companies to abandon what they do best: develop and produce fossil fuel energy for people who need them for jobs, living standards, health and welfare.

That raises this discussion’s most critical point, which is generally brushed aside by divestment advocates. These campaigns are part of a global anti-hydrocarbon crusade that would inflict enormous harm on working class families, and even worse consequences on Earth’s most destitute citizens.

In 2012, coal, oil and natural gas supplied 87% of the world’s energy, Worldwatch Institute figures show. Further, despite the Obama Administration’s war on coal, International Energy Agency data reveal that global coal usage is rising and by 2017 will likely supplant oil as the dominant energy resource.

Fossil fuel companies and their shareholders know traditional forms of energy will continue to power the world for the foreseeable future, because there are no viable alternatives. Solar, wind and other energy resources cannot supply enough energy to meet the world’s needs; they are not price competitive without huge subsidies; and they require fossil fuels and millions of acres to manufacture, install and operate.

Nor is it sufficient to claim anti-fossil fuel demands are well-intended, when the real-world consequences are so readily apparent and so easily predicted. In developed nations they cost jobs and degrade living standards, health, welfare and life spans. In poor countries they perpetuate electricity deprivation, unsafe water, disease, squalid environmental conditions, inability to adapt to climate changes, and early death.

To inject these vital ethical considerations and counter climate cataclysm concerns, students at a number of colleges and universities have launched Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACTcampus) chapters to promote free markets, less government intervention and regulation, and better lives for more people. Their motto is “scientific truth without the spin.”

The University of Minnesota chapter proclaims that “Western values of competition, progress, freedom and stewardship can and do offer the best hope for protecting not only the Earth and its wildlife, but even more importantly its people.” These sound science and “stewardship of creation” principles should guide discussions, debates and decisions on all campuses. So should accurate information about climate change.

Divestment activists often claim that climate science is settled. Far from it. The supposed connection between carbon dioxide and planetary temperature is far from proven. Indeed, contrary to alarmist forecasts and computer models, Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years, the United States has not been struck by a Category 3-5 hurricane for a record nine years, “extreme weather events” have not become more frequent or severe during the past 100 years, and other “crises” have not materialized.

Nevertheless, both NOAA and NASA, perpetual purveyors of scary climate headlines, have again used ground-based data to pronounce that 2014 was the hottest year on record. These temperature reports “are ridiculous,” say experts like Dr. Tim Ball, historical climatologist and former professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The measurements are taken mostly in always warmer urban areas, the raw data have been “adjusted,” “homogenized” and manipulated, and the alleged year-to-year differences are measured in hundredths of a degree – a mere fraction of their margin of error!

Moreover, it is impossible to get accurate average global temperatures based on ground stations, because the data do not exist, Dr. Ball notes. “There are virtually no data for 70% of Earth’s surface that is oceans, and practically no data for the 19% of land area that are mountains, 20% that are desert, 20% boreal forest, 20% grasslands, and 6% tropical rain forest.” So NASA “just invents data” for these areas.

Unfortunately, instead of facts, campus politics will likely drive divestment demands this weekend (February 13-14), when college students demonstrate, hold sit-ins and organize flash mobs for Global Divestment Day. In many ways, to quote Macbeth, it will be “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But for many people, the consequences could be dire – or even deadly.
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216064931.htm
More infectious diseases emerging because of climate change
Date: February 16, 2015
Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Summary: The appearance of infectious diseases in new places and new hosts is a predictable result of climate change. Climate change brings humans, crops, wildlife and livestock into contact with new pathogens, which are more likely to jump from one host to another than scientists previously believed.

Journal Reference: Eric P. Hoberg, Daniel R. Brooks. Review article: Evolution in action: climate change, biodiversity dynamics and emerging infectious disease. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2015 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0553 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0553
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216064929.htm
Satellite images reveal ocean acidification from space
Date: February 16, 2015
Source: University of Exeter
Summary: Pioneering techniques that use satellites to monitor ocean acidification are set to revolutionize the way that marine biologists and climate scientists study the ocean. This new approach offers remote monitoring of large swathes of inaccessible ocean from satellites that orbit the Earth some 700 km above our heads.

Journal Reference: Peter E. Land, Jamie D. Shutler, Helen S. Findlay, Fanny Girard-Ardhuin, Roberto Sabia, Nicolas Reul, Jean-Francois Piolle, Bertrand Chapron, Yves Quilfen, Joseph Salisbury, Douglas Vandemark, Richard Bellerby, Punyasloke Bhadury. Salinity from Space Unlocks Satellite-Based Assessment of Ocean Acidification. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015; 150127113132008 DOI: 10.1021/es504849s http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es504849s
 
Is the IPCC the IOC of Science?





I was having a discussion online, on Twitter, about the field of Climate Science. The basis of the discussion was a simple question: what does it take to be considered a "climate scientist"? and the corollary: who is qualified to comment on and provide reviews of climate science? As many of you may know, I have taken flack for suggesting that highly educated and well-trained individuals outside the academic sphere have anything to say about the topic and deserve the opportunity to be heard. The debate went back and forth with people pointing out that climate science is a complicated field and methodologies used in climate science are too complicated for input from the general public. What no one was able to actually define was: what it took to be called a "climate scientist". My opinion, coming out of the discussion, was that climate science is not really "a field" as much as a group of fields centered on answering questions about several inter-related topics. During the course of the discussion a thought occurred to me. If I had to describe the field of climate science in a way that best expresses its current status in the world, I think the best analogy would be the various sports that make up the Olympic Games. With that thought in the back of my mind, I went out for a run and as the kms flowed underfoot, I became more certain that this was a readily-accessible way to make people understand what climate science is all about.




In my view, climate science is not a "subject", per se, but rather a field made up of a number of disparate subjects, many of which had few interactions prior to the creation of the field of “climate science”. A population ecologist studying the effects of climate change on woodland bird populations has pretty much nothing in common with an aerosol physicist, but under the umbrella of "climate scientist" they can be considered to be working in the same field. They do share some very important similarities in that both are highly educated, having reached the apex of their respective fields, but their methodologies and field techniques have about as much in common as an athlete in the modern pentathlon has with a beach volleyball player (no opinion on which is which). On a day-to-day or week-to-week basis these people do not interact, but once every few years they are asked to do their best for an international audience.




The more I thought about it, the more intriguing this analogy became. The Olympic Games bring together the world's greatest specialists, in their individual sports, while the IPCC brings together the top scientists in their fields. Both then ask those specialists to perform under the eyes of the world. Consider that the IOC is a body started with the best of intentions that was supposed to be above politics. Over time, however, it has been a lightning rod for politics. Does this sound like the IPCC? The membership of the IOC includes some of the top athletes and athletic officials on the planet. It is also the home for numerous has-beens, never-weres and political hacks. Remind you of anything? It has been argued that in the last 50 years the IOC has become a fiefdom controlled by a small body of bureaucrats who are accountable to no one but themselves? See the similarities? It is not all bad, however, as the Olympic Games are one of the premiere sporting events on the planet. They represent a showcase for some of the planet’s greatest athletes and are home to some of the best officiated sports on the planet. But the Olympics, due to their rules allowing inclusion of all member states, were also the place where "Eddie the Eagle" demonstrated that he was not quite ready for prime time, while officials in figure skating were accused of colluding to ensure that their respective athletes got on the podium, regardless of how they performed on the ice. Most importantly, while it is possible to respect the athletes who have spent years perfecting their craft, it is also incredibly easy to get turned off by the ugly politics and the crass behavior of the bigwigs who have made a home in this unaccountable organization.




Going back to the citizen-scientist question, as a young man I used to be a runner. In University I ran track and field, with my event being the steeplechase. I had the benefit of truly excellent coaching and was even given the opportunity to coach track for several years, a couple of which I did under another great coach who taught me the intricacies of the various sports. Now I was never going to be an Olympic athlete, as I lacked the genetic gifts to be the very best, but I know more about track and field than most people in my community. I have also served as a running instructor/coach and have taught many hundreds of people how to run. When I watch high-level athletes, I can appreciate their skill and given time and slow-motion film, I can break down a steeplechaser’s stride and figure out whether they are dragging their following foot over the hurdle. Were I to do so, I could even give advice to an athlete who is much more talented than me. Their reply could range from: “who are you? I already have a coach” to “thanks for the info, I will look at the films and see if you have caught something that my coach missed”. Similarly, I can watch a high-hurdler or a 400 meter hurdler and identify issues with their technique (if an issue exists). In a similar vein, Steve McIntyre may not be a “climate scientist” but his knowledge of data analysis far exceeds that of many academics and when he suggests a statistical analysis has a fault, I would suggest listening very carefully.



So where am I going with all this? Well while not all of us can be Olympic athletes a lot of people out there have the knowledge and skill to assess their efforts. Meanwhile, while you might be a “climate scientist” you may have no clue of the strengths and limitations of another “climate scientist’s” work. Moreover, it is likely that even though you are a “climate scientist” that someone else, often outside the academic sphere, knows more about topics outside of your specific area of expertise, than you do. Finally to return to our analogy, both Usain Bolt and Ben Johnson are technically Olympians, but we hold one in much higher esteem than the other. Similarly, it is possible to hold some climate scientists up as examples for the next generation of scientist while recognizing that not all climate scientists meet those lofty standards.

http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.c...d-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=7
 
10 Anti - Global warming lies, that may shock you.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #1

“Bats change the warming power of the sun" – Ya - we all know these are evil creatures. It's a little advertised FACT that there are so many bats out there - and they are all black - that they are responsible for the reason we have global warming. Please do not tell us that they come out at night - because if you do - you are one of those cappuccino-slurping West Coast Hippie Lefie Commie Freaks who only want to kill every job on the planet. PS. God hates you.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #2

“Lyme Disease Spreads” – Lymes - when added to California Lemonade, a Daiquiri, or a Salty Dog Collins - are good for you. More global warming means more Lymes. It's all a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #3

“National Security is not Threatened – Global warming means shorts. There's less places to hide swords. So less terrorists. It's a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #4

“Sea Levels Rise" – but it's a good thing. We all get waterfront property. It's a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #5

“Allergies Worsen" – So there's more particulate matter. Who cares. It's all in China anyways. The more sick days they take - the more our manufacturing industries take up the slack. It's a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #6

“Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests" – So what - we loose a few trees. More room for drilling rigs that way - and we get dunnage to place under our machines in the process. It's a good thing. Damn trees destroys the view anyways. How did you think we got these here prairies anyways? It's a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #7

“Canada: The New America" – Well it kinda already is - isn't it? It's a good thing. Just ask Harper.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #8

“Economic Consequences" – Ya - but only for those industries that depend upon unaltered ecosystems - and that would be - give me a minute - I'll think of one - oh ya! - the stock market. It's a good thing. Or wait - Ya I think so. hmm. maybe i'd better think about this. Call me back next election.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #9

“Infectious Diseases Thrive" – ya - but I got stock in the pharmaceutical industry - so I'm good. F*ck you though. It's a good thing.

Denier Alarmist Assertion #10

“Shrinking Glaciers" – Oh come on! Have you ever even been to one? Damn cold things. They are of no practical value except for ice in my rye - and the fridge is closer for that. It's a good thing.

There you have it. Nothing to worry about. Just ask my benefactors - the Kochs.

You just spun every single wheel in the temple of Eco-Socialistic Harper Derangement.
 
"Fossil fuel companies and their shareholders know traditional forms of energy will continue to power the world for the foreseeable future, because there are no viable alternatives. Solar, wind and other energy resources cannot supply enough energy to meet the world’s needs; they are not price competitive without huge subsidies; and they require fossil fuels and millions of acres to manufacture, install and operate.

Nor is it sufficient to claim anti-fossil fuel demands are well-intended, when the real-world consequences are so readily apparent and so easily predicted. In developed nations they cost jobs and degrade living standards, health, welfare and life spans. In poor countries they perpetuate electricity deprivation, unsafe water, disease, squalid environmental conditions, inability to adapt to climate changes, and early death."

Fossil Fuel Divestment.jpg
 
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

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


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


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

Adjusted Puerto Casado.JPGRaw Puerto Casado.JPG

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

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

An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century."
 
And the river temperatures were caused by?
Check the temperatures attached. No heat records recently?
Think MAN is screwing with the river?

Please supply the source of your records.
A link would be helpful and I will comment after that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top