The Environment Thread

[pigseye]

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

and here it is.

 

Very illuminating. About the person that posted it.

I like how you twisted the Chevron defense into an admission, nice try though,

Quote

 

“Chevron’s lawyer plucked his strategy right from the climate-denier playbook,” environmental group the Center for Biological Diversity climate scientist Shaye Wolf told Earther.

Apparently, the “climate-denier playbook” includes citing the IPCC. Chevron agreed with the IPCC’s scientific assessment, while the company did not agree with policy proposals the international body suggests, the oil entity argued.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/with-the-dismissal-of-the-exxonknew-lawsuits-climate-alarmists-are-now-in-bizarro-world/

 

[pigseye]

Since you White Walkered this thread lets keep up on the latest scientific studies that continue to blow holes in theory:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/23/uncertainty-mounts-global-temperature-data-presentation-flat-wrong-new-danish-findings-show/#sthash.NKE4BzVn.GkhkpeR6.dpbs

Quote

Lansner wrote: “CO2 theory apparently does not work in valleys. Rather, we need ocean-trends to affect temperature data to see alarming temperature rise after 1950. Areas without ocean noise in data show that the heat balance over the Earth today resembles 1930-50.”

You gotta love the Danes, go Jets, Go Ehlers. 

[JCon]

54 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Since you White Walkered this thread lets keep up on the latest scientific studies that continue to blow holes in theory:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/23/uncertainty-mounts-global-temperature-data-presentation-flat-wrong-new-danish-findings-show/#sthash.NKE4BzVn.GkhkpeR6.dpbs

You gotta love the Danes, go Jets, Go Ehlers. 

Quoting  Energy & Environment articles? A little journal that's dedicated to climate change denial. 

 

Please use reputable sources. 

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, JCon said:

Quoting  Energy & Environment articles? A little journal that's dedicated to climate change denial. 

 

Please use reputable sources. 

Danish scientists not good enough for you JC?

Everyone knows you can't get a contrarian paper published today, the system is fixed. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, pigseye said:

Danish scientists not good enough for you JC?

Everyone knows you can't get a contrarian paper published today, the system is fixed. 

Sure you can- those denier theories have peers over here:

https://www.tfes.org/

 

 

[Mama Fresco]

Just checking in after a long absence.  After catching up I've realized that discussing/debating big or small points isn't going to get us anywhere.  The bottom line is that the majority of scientists agree that humans play a big part in climate change and if anyone just looks around the world, it can easily be seen that weather occurrences are steadily increasing in numbers and severity.  The way I look at it is to treat it like an insurance policy (life, fire, auto insurances).  Most of the time you don't need the insurance because these accidents, fires and premature deaths don't happen to the majority of people but yet the majority of people do carry these insurances.  

So living our lives as if climate change can be affected by human behaviour is as necessary as any of these insurances.  Because even though we can't prove 100 % that humans are causing climate change, can we really afford to take the chance that this claim can be wrong and do nothing?  The effects of climate change are and will be increasingly staggering for hundreds of millions of people.   Can we take the chance (just because some people are refuting it) and treat climate change as if it's only Mother Nature?   Can we really adopt a let's wait and see what happens attitude? 

  No one can prove with 100% accuracy either way.  So because the risks are so great, I am treating climate change like something that can be affected (like this is my insurance policy 'in case it's real' just like insurance is for 'in case it happens'),  that every person can do their part to combat it.  So I'm going to sign out of this debate and go reduce my footprint as much as I can, bug politicians, donate to groups and green energy initiatives, in order to do my part.  I just cannot take the chance and wait till it's proved one way or another.  As long as there's a chance that human's are causing Climate Change, we have to fight it with everything we have.   

How about changing the direction of this thread with a challenge everyone, what can we do to fight Climate Change?  Any new and innovative suggestions?

[blue_gold_84]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-atlas-canada-1.4604056

Quote

The Climate Atlas of Canada allows users to zoom in on their hometowns and see just how hot it is likely to get this century. The red zones are areas most likely to experience greater increases in temperature changes between now and 2080. (Climate Atlas of Canada)

https://climateatlas.ca/

[Mark F]

5 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://climateatlas.ca/

Prairies are going to be hot as hell.

Wait till the glaciers in the Rockies are gone. Which they will be.

Thanks for the info.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

Quote

 

In The Greenhouse Effect, a 1988 internal report by Shell scientists, the authors warned that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the situation”.

They also acknowledged that many experts predicted an increase in global temperature would be detectable by the end of the century. 

They went on to state that a “forward-looking approach by the energy industry is clearly desirable”, adding: “With the very long time scales involved, it would be tempting for society to wait until then before doing anything.

“The potential implications for the world are, however, so large that policy options need to be considered much earlier. And the energy industry needs to consider how it should play its part.

Oil giant Shell was aware of the consequences of climate change, and the role fossil fuels were playing in it, as far back as 1988, documents unearthed by a Dutch news organisation have revealed.

They include a calculation that the oil company’s products alone were responsible for 4 per cent of total global carbon emissions in 1984.

They also predict that changes to sea levels and weather would be “larger than any that have occurred over the past 12,000 years”.

 

 

 

Due to the decision to ignore this , these companies now have a massive financial problem similar to the tobacco industry.

article in "the Independent"

Next we might see shareholder actions against them.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

It was in 1988 that the IPCC announced that the greenhouse effect was real, of course the oil companies knew about it, so did everyone else in the world at that time, lol.

[pigseye]

Here's what Environment Canada has to say about March 10, 2018 in Winnipeg where I live,

https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-38_metric_e.html

In 1955 on this day it was 24.4C

and in 1997 it was -16.9C

That's a natural variation in temperature of 41.3C

 

[JCon]

22 hours ago, pigseye said:

Here's what Environment Canada has to say about March 10, 2018 in Winnipeg where I live,

https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-38_metric_e.html

In 1955 on this day it was 24.4C

and in 1997 it was -16.9C

That's a natural variation in temperature of 41.3C

 

That's the temperature. I thought we this topic was about climate? 

Edited April 11, 2018 by JCon
Typo

[pigseye]

32 minutes ago, JCon said:

That's the temperature. I though we this topic was about climate? 

Climate is 30 years of weather, 1955 - 1997 is 42 years, see what I did there? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

31 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Climate is 30 years of weather, 1955 - 1997 is 42 years, see what I did there? 

Yeah...

[Mark F]

Quote

 

Xcel Energy is a utility company with millions of electric customers in the middle of the country, from Texas to Michigan. In booming Colorado, the company asked for proposals to construct big power plants using wind turbines and solar panels.

The bids have come in so low that the company will be able to build and operate the new plants for less money than it would have to pay just to keep running its old, coal-burning power plants.

You read that right: In parts of the country, wind and solar plants built from scratch now offer the cheapest power available, even counting old coal, which was long seen as unbeatable. 

Across its eight-state system, Xcel predicts that well over half its electricity will come from renewable sources by the mid-2020s. It will be one of the cleanest large utility companies in the country.

 

NYT.

[Mama Fresco]

41 minutes ago, Mark F said:

NYT.

Canada is so behind.  We need to catch up.  Kinder Morgan pipeline is supposed to help save our economy!  How about wind and solar energy saving our economy?  With all our hydro power, how much of it is being sold to the US and are we making any money on it?

[JCon]

1 hour ago, Mama Fresco said:

Canada is so behind.  We need to catch up.  Kinder Morgan pipeline is supposed to help save our economy!  How about wind and solar energy saving our economy?  With all our hydro power, how much of it is being sold to the US and are we making any money on it?

Kinder Morgan, like all pipelines, is designed to move oil from point A to point B the safest and quickest way possible. It's far more environmentally friendly than transporting it by rail. 

There is still a large market for oil. We still need. Why not sell what we have? 

The other energy sources, like wind and solar, are catching up and the market demand will shift. But not yet. 

[Mama Fresco]

Pipelines may be safest and quickest but so many people and environmental groups are against them that it might just be better to use the 2nd best way which would be by rail car.   Probably cheaper to run rail lines around cities and towns then to build another pipeline.  Rail lines around cities and towns would be to avoid another Lac Megantique.   We're well on the way to the end of oil on a large scale, so why keep fighting a battle that likely can't be won.   

[JCon]

11 hours ago, Mama Fresco said:

Pipelines may be safest and quickest but so many people and environmental groups are against them that it might just be better to use the 2nd best way which would be by rail car.   Probably cheaper to run rail lines around cities and towns then to build another pipeline.  Rail lines around cities and towns would be to avoid another Lac Megantique.   We're well on the way to the end of oil on a large scale, so why keep fighting a battle that likely can't be won.   

Moving rail lines around cities help with human safety but does little to help the environmental impact. Also, it's costly and that cost is borne by the public. Pipelines are more environmentally friendly, can be removed when they no longer serve a purpose, do not have huge need for alternate infrastructure and are largely paid for by investors. 

[Mark F]

Big moves towards renewables are being made without regard to any market. China for instance. They decide what to do, and just do it. spending hundreds of billions on renewable energy. 

The oil industry, (or any industry) doesn't do a very good job of cleaning up after itself, shut down the corporation, leave the public with the leftovers example....see Chevron in Ecuador, 

Canada....

"A massive number of oil and gas wells, facilities and pipeline segments stand to be added to the already bulging files of the Alberta Orphan Well Association in the wake of the likely failure of Sequoia Resources Corp.

All of the Calgary-based company’s operating licences were ordered suspended after the privately held oil and gas company warned the Alberta Energy Regulator late last month it was ceasing operations “imminently” and, as a result of “defaults in municipal tax payments,” would not be able to afford to reclaim all of its properties.

The AER said Sequoia owns licences for 2,300 wells, almost 200 facilities and nearly 700 pipeline segments.

That list doesn’t include 700 to 800 Sequoia wells where production has been stopped and the wellbore has been cleaned up but the surface hasn’t been restored, said Lars De Pauw, executive director of the Orphan Well Association."

Canada really needs to get off it's duff regarding renewable energy. That's where the jobs are going to be in energy. 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mark F

[JCon]

21 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Big moves towards renewables are being made without regard to any market. China for instance. They decide what to do, and just do it. spending hundreds of billions on renewable energy. 

The oil industry, (or any industry) doesn't do a very good job of cleaning up after itself, shut down the corporation, leave the public with the leftovers example....see Chevron in Ecuador, 

Canada....

"A massive number of oil and gas wells, facilities and pipeline segments stand to be added to the already bulging files of the Alberta Orphan Well Association in the wake of the likely failure of Sequoia Resources Corp.

All of the Calgary-based company’s operating licences were ordered suspended after the privately held oil and gas company warned the Alberta Energy Regulator late last month it was ceasing operations “imminently” and, as a result of “defaults in municipal tax payments,” would not be able to afford to reclaim all of its properties.

The AER said Sequoia owns licences for 2,300 wells, almost 200 facilities and nearly 700 pipeline segments.

That list doesn’t include 700 to 800 Sequoia wells where production has been stopped and the wellbore has been cleaned up but the surface hasn’t been restored, said Lars De Pauw, executive director of the Orphan Well Association."

Canada really needs to get off it's duff regarding renewable energy. That's where the jobs are going to be in energy. 

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that oil companies reap huge benefits without helping with the long-term environmental costs. That is a failure of leadership on our politicians. 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we're going to continue to extract bitumen from ground and transport it across our country. We should be encouraging the safest way to do that. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by JCon

[pigseye]

Well there is some good news, global average temperatures are cratering, so let's see if that trend continues

https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=003

 

[pigseye]

As for today what does Environment Canada have to say

https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-38_metric_e.html

Record high 25 C in 1968

You'd think with all that CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere since 1968 (50 years for those who need help) we'd have been able to surpass that high? What's the problem?  

[JCon]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

As for today what does Environment Canada have to say

https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-38_metric_e.html

Record high 25 C in 1968

You'd think with all that CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere since 1968 (50 years for those who need help) we'd have been able to surpass that high? What's the problem?  

Yeah, it's almost like climate and temperature are different things. 

[pigseye]

8 minutes ago, JCon said:

Yeah, it's almost like climate and temperature are different things. 

I'm not the one posting models 80 years in the future showing temperatures on the prairies.

If it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

If CO2 is the control knob for temperature, then is Winnpeg immune to the affects?