Canada's Gas Prices

[bush_cheney2004]

How can Obama make a pledge for 2030 when he's only Prez for 2 years?

The same way PM Chetien did for the Kyoto treaty....not his problem.

[jbg]

Think I got it

Thanks jbg, now I have two methods.

The "other method" doesn't provide clickback to the post you're quoting. That's why I prefer "my" method.

[jbg]

One of the big problems with weather observations is there are so many variables, you can't measure temperature in a location, move it over ten meters , a kilometer or 20 and expect to get anywhere near an accurate trend established. Back in the early nineteen hundreds some guy with a thermometer hanging outside of his ill insulated window is not going to compare with at least ten sophisticated weather stations out in various locations today. That's a little like measuring your speed with your finger stuck out the window and comparing it with a radar gun.

Quite true. There are daily debates on weather boards as to whether New York City's temperatures are best measured at Central Park (now used for official readings), LaGuardia Airport or Newark Liberty Airport. During the late 1950's or early 1960's the measuring location was moved from Battery Park to Central Park. Media reports from 1953, using Battery figures, for example, on one hot early September day showed a high of 97F and now the official data for the same date now shows a record high of, I think, 101.

It's a good point that cuts a lot of ways.

My argument is we don't know the weather and temperature trends of the last five hundred years, everybody is talking storm of the century, storm of the millennium etc., we don't know what weather was like here before we showed up and even after before the continent was so populated.

Here we differ. If you can "think outside the box" a little, histories of agriculture and military battles are a pretty good proxy for actual readings. One of the reasons I do not believe in "global warming" is that the histories show comparable conditions to today.

I believe people enter politics with the desire to fix the world, as time goes on with the strain of lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy people, the next election and such their views and desires become skewed. Harper is stuck between huge corporate interests and the environmental movement, he cannot win there and I believe that's why he is trying to drag our interest away from there (and his party scandals) by posturing on his world travels, scaring us with terrorism, the surplus, free trade and such. He wants to get reelected, if he can make a million jobs appear in Ontario at the expense of the environment, he will.

No politician desiring election will cripple the economy over a hypothetical and unproven problem.

[jbg]

This deal mean nothing. It is all talk. China can keep pumping it out till 2030. So why is everyone picking on Canada ,Canadians included, that we wreck our economy for nothing. Why doesn't Suzuki and the gang go to china and protest there?

I'll tell you one thing; if Suzuki and Gore took your advice and did their speaking in China or Russia, they wouldn't be "speaking" for long unless a jail cell had a telephone.

[The_Squid]

I'll tell you one thing; if Suzuki and Gore took your advice and did their speaking in China or Russia, they wouldn't be "speaking" for long unless a jail cell had a telephone.

This deal mean nothing. It is all talk. China can keep pumping it out till 2030. So why is everyone picking on Canada ,Canadians included, that we wreck our economy for nothing. Why doesn't Suzuki and the gang go to china and protest there?

Suzuki and Gore are not Chinese. They are attempting to influence their own countries in what they feel is a positive way. To tell them to go to China because China is worse (and you disagree with their goals) is asinine.

[Michael Hardner]

One of the big problems with weather observations is there are so many variables, you can't measure temperature in a location, move it over ten meters , a kilometer or 20 and expect to get anywhere near an accurate trend established.

Trends are about changes over time, not over weather prediction.

Back in the early nineteen hundreds some guy with a thermometer hanging outside of his ill insulated window is not going to compare with at least ten sophisticated weather stations out in various locations today. That's a little like measuring your speed with your finger stuck out the window and comparing it with a radar gun.

Right, but yet you somehow get a clear trend of warming. That wouldn't happen with random drift, mathematically speaking. Can you explain it ?

My argument is we don't know the weather and temperature trends of the last five hundred years, everybody is talking storm of the century, storm of the millennium etc., we don't know what weather was like here before we showed up and even after before the continent was so populated.

We know what the temperatures were, to a reasonable certainty.

It's still an estimation with many variables to consider. There are millions of factors that could have played into how those all the way from sunspots to volcanic activity half way around the planet, it's not cut in stone.

Now you're talking about predictive variables not temperature measurement, which is something else entirely.

I can teach you about the math if you'd like.

True but energy consumption is still rising at an alarming rate, of course another issue is natural gas supply.

Sure. So, we're off coal now. I guess you accept that eliminating coal is a thing.

I believe people enter politics with the desire to fix the world, as time goes on with the strain of lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy people, the next election and such their views and desires become skewed. Harper is stuck between huge corporate interests and the environmental movement, he cannot win there and I believe that's why he is trying to drag our interest away from there (and his party scandals) by posturing on his world travels, scaring us with terrorism, the surplus, free trade and such. He wants to get reelected, if he can make a million jobs appear in Ontario at the expense of the environment, he will.

Sure. So we're off the "no political will thing". I guess you're accepting that the politics behind climate change is a thing.

Correction All "SPONSORED" climate science is against me...

Very true. Amateur science is a lot more in your favour.

It's the fad of the day. Yesterday it was "GLOBAL WARMING", today it's "CLIMATE CHANGE", tomorrow?

Tomorrow may have a different word, but it will still be a thing.

We used to call it 'shell shock' and now we call it 'PTSD'. Does that mean it's not real ?

It also correlates with the increase in human population, solar power, heat units we produce, increase in radio waves the list goes on...

But solar power, radio waves don't cause the temperature to increase, and CO2 does in the laboratory.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy chat shows so I don't know, I do however think for myself and I wonder why some of this stuff gains such traction.

I guess for the same reason cancer research does - it's about science and real causes that affect our lives.

I'll see what I can find, this maybe some of the reasons Harper has such a desire to control scientists findings.

I don't know whether to read your statement as pro- or anti-Harper.

You seem like a nice enough person, so I advise you to apply your skepticism even-handedly. If you do, you'll find that the fringe dwellers generally can't deliver on their promises of the big lie.

This goes for GMO scaremongering, 9/11 scaremongering, and Climate Change scoffmongering.

Once in a long while, mainstream science will prove to be way off base. But it's pretty rare.

[jbg]

Suzuki and Gore are not Chinese. They are attempting to influence their own countries in what they feel is a positive way. To tell them to go to China because China is worse (and you disagree with their goals) is asinine.

Why is it asinine? What is asinine is to crater our economies while China picks up the ability to pollute and externalize costs on an unlimited basis, at least till 2030. And when 2030 comes and China sticks their tongue out what are we going to do, have an angry U.S. Congressional resolution or White House speech?

[The_Squid]

Why is it asinine? What is asinine is to crater our economies while China picks up the ability to pollute and externalize costs on an unlimited basis, at least till 2030. And when 2030 comes and China sticks their tongue out what are we going to do, have an angry U.S. Congressional resolution or White House speech?

It's asinine because if someone you don't agree with would like to change policy in their home country, there is a democratic system of doing so whether you agree with them or not. Every citizen is free to do so without having to go to a "worse country" and change them first. It's a ridiculous and stupid notion.

[PIK]

If there are really concerned about the enviro, they would, but the money is here, fighting the tars sands and that money is coming from where? Our competitors?

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you seriously trying to tell us you know what the PM is thinking now? So your basis for argument is that you know what goes on in the PM's mind at any given moment...interesting. Is this a natural gift or did you need to develop it through mental exercises?

No I developed it by watching and listening to Harper, as annoying as that can be.

[Boges]

No I developed it by watching and listening to Harper, as annoying as that can be.

So no citation or evidence whatsoever.

[overthere]

It's the fad of the day. Yesterday it was "GLOBAL WARMING", today it's "CLIMATE CHANGE", tomorrow?

No, in climate terms yesterday was called THE ICE AGES.

I'm not sure how they were connected to humans, but I am willing to blame sooty campfires lit by Neanderthals as being to blame.

[The_Squid]

No, in climate terms yesterday was called THE ICE AGES.

I'm not sure how they were connected to humans, but I am willing to blame sooty campfires lit by Neanderthals as being to blame.

No one denies the climate has changed in the past or will again in the future... it's the rate of change and reasons for change that are different now.

Here is some basic information for you about climate change:

The historical record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. [1]

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming. [1]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

[overthere]

No one denies the climate has changed in the past or will again in the future... it's the rate of change and reasons for change that are different now.

Here is some basic information for you about climate change:

So qwe both acknowledge that the next Ice Age is inevitable.

What is your estimate on our ability to change that date of arrival? Assume we do everything possible to change it, or we do nothing. Will either cpourse of action/inaction change the ETA and by how much?

[The_Squid]

So qwe both acknowledge that the next Ice Age is inevitable.

What is your estimate on our ability to change that date of arrival? Assume we do everything possible to change it, or we do nothing. Will either cpourse of action/inaction change the ETA and by how much?

Your questions are nonsensical. My "estimates" are meaningless. I am not a climatologist. Look at what the science tells us.

[Michael Hardner]

So qwe both acknowledge that the next Ice Age is inevitable.

Perhaps 15,000 years away ? Does that mean we do nothing about our current warming period ?

And we know why the earth was hotter in the past - I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. If the idea is that we could be going through another warming period due to those factors then the answer is that we're in a different situation now.

Human-generated CO2, which is known to increase atmospheric temperatures, is at a record high and so temperatures are increasing....

[bush_cheney2004]

....Human-generated CO2, which is known to increase atmospheric temperatures, is at a record high and so temperatures are increasing....

So what ? If temperature increases (or decreases) are accelerating due to "anthropogenic warming", then just adapt at an equivalent rate, just as mankind has always done. Believe it or not, humans have survived several glacial and interglacial periods before.

Edited November 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[PIK]

Not as annoying as listening to trudeau talk like a drama teacher.

[overthere]

Perhaps 15,000 years away ? Does that mean we do nothing about our current warming period ?

And we know why the earth was hotter in the past - I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. If the idea is that we could be going through another warming period due to those factors then the answer is that we're in a different situation now.

Human-generated CO2, which is known to increase atmospheric temperatures, is at a record high and so temperatures are increasing....

Yes, I get all that but what is the answer- the scientific answer- to my question?

I'll rephrase.

We agree that the next Ice Age will come at some point in the future.

If we do absolutely nothing, how will affect the arrival date of that catastrophic event?

If we completely stop adding CO to our atmosphere right now or in the near future, how will that effect the arrival date of an Ice Age?

[Michael Hardner]

So what ? If temperature increases (or decreases) are accelerating due to "anthropogenic warming", then just adapt at an equivalent rate, just as mankind has always done.

Yes, that it is one response. Even adaptation needs to get going at this point, if you accept that prevention is pointless.

Believe it or not, humans have survived several glacial and interglacial periods before.

Not according to the bible it hasn't. What science books are you reading ?

[Michael Hardner]

We agree that the next Ice Age will come at some point in the future.

If we do absolutely nothing, how will affect the arrival date of that catastrophic event?

If we completely stop adding CO to our atmosphere right now or in the near future, how will that effect the arrival date of an Ice Age?

I suspect the best answer is "we don't know". But an event 15,000 years in the future is a lot lower on the concern list than something that's a few decades away.

[PIK]

1.13/l today

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Trends are about changes over time, not over weather prediction.

Trends still require a uniform recording medium, this is especially important for temperature, you just can't throw out thermometers, replace them, move them around for a couple decades and call it a "trend".

Right, but yet you somehow get a clear trend of warming. That wouldn't happen with random drift, mathematically speaking. Can you explain it ?

No, satellite images (last 35 years) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8 and as I said, the polar regions, not the whole planet. Here's a little of Canada's prairie winter 2013 http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=5BA5EAFC-1&offset=10&toc=show .

We know what the temperatures were, to a reasonable certainty.

"Approximately"

Now you're talking about predictive variables not temperature measurement, which is something else entirely.

Still affects temperature...

I can teach you about the math if you'd like.

That might be kind of cool actually, we are talking tree rings right?

Sure. So, we're off coal now. I guess you accept that eliminating coal is a thing.

Maybe, coal may still be an alternative http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-capture-history-made-in-saskatchewan-besting-once-ambitious-alberta-1.2786478 . Especially if we run out of gas...

Sure. So we're off the "no political will thing". I guess you're accepting that the politics behind climate change is a thing.

Nope, politicians are still caught between Canada's economic engine (petroleum) and the environment, guess what gets votes and guess what looses...

Very true. Amateur science is a lot more in your favour.

Amateur science is honest science, not sponsored by the fad of the day.

Tomorrow may have a different word, but it will still be a thing. We used to call it 'shell shock' and now we call it 'PTSD'. Does that mean it's not real ?

Maybe, maybe not, reducing carbon output is probably a good thing but it's competing against globalization and a limited world where the human population is being fed the unlimited growth pill. We can't have it both ways and until people wakeup and realize this we aren't going to save it.

But solar power, radio waves don't cause the temperature to increase, and CO2 does in the laboratory.

You got links to prove this? Where's the science?

Solar power? Think about it solar panels absorb sunlight that normally gets reflected back to space...HMMM?

I guess for the same reason cancer research does - it's about science and real causes that affect our lives.

Cancer research doesn't seem to be going anywhere either.

I don't know whether to read your statement as pro- or anti-Harper.

I'm politically neutral at this time...

You seem like a nice enough person, so I advise you to apply your skepticism even-handedly. If you do, you'll find that the fringe dwellers generally can't deliver on their promises of the big lie.

You too, some of it is devils advocate but I've seen and heard allot in my life that justifies skepticism. This world in which we live is not "environmentally friendly" at this time and getting less so every day.

This goes for GMO scaremongering, 9/11 scaremongering, and Climate Change scoffmongering.

It's good to know you have it all figured out. The sixty countries that banned GMOs are just scaremongering? http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#axzz3JaCuVvOf http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/gmo-safety-zmgz13amzsto.aspx#axzz3JaCuVvOf and more... A bunch of quacks?

Did you know the twin towers and building seven were the only sky scrapers to collapse due to fire? Just an observation. Am I a conspiracy nut just because I look at stories from a different perspective?

Once in a long while, mainstream science will prove to be way off base. But it's pretty rare.

It might be becoming more frequent...

[On Guard for Thee]

So what ? If temperature increases (or decreases) are accelerating due to "anthropogenic warming", then just adapt at an equivalent rate, just as mankind has always done. Believe it or not, humans have survived several glacial and interglacial periods before.

We might survive, but guess what, you're life won't be recognizable.

[Michael Hardner]

Trends still require a uniform recording medium, this is especially important for temperature, you just can't throw out thermometers, replace them, move them around for a couple decades and call it a "trend".

That's not what has happened. There is a trend, and no serious science doubts that. There is enough data from the past to see that.

No, satellite images (last 35 years)

Not sure where the video comes from. Looks like a downward trend to me though.

Still affects temperature...

What does ?

That might be kind of cool actually, we are talking tree rings right?

No - it's regression analysis, part of statistics. Roughly how it works is, the main factors affecting temperature are put into a statistical model, based on physical science, and mapped over time to see the relationship. It's continually adjusted.

If you do it with CO2 and radiative forcing, you come up with a relationship. CO2 has increased since the industrial age, correlated to temperature.

Nope, politicians are still caught between Canada's economic engine (petroleum) and the environment, guess what gets votes and guess what looses...

You're moving away from what you said, though.

Amateur science is honest science, not sponsored by the fad of the day.

That statement means nothing. The greenhouse effect has been hypothesized and studied since the 18th century, hardly a fad.

You got links to prove this? Where's the science?

Where's the science that discusses the greenhouse effect ?

Here's something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

It's not a serious conversation we're having. You might have some fringe science that you're following, but you haven't even posted that so I can't say for sure.

Anyway, if scientific orthodoxy makes you suspicious then I can't really convince you here on my own, so best of luck.

Did you know the twin towers and building seven were the only sky scrapers to collapse due to fire? Just an observation. Am I a conspiracy nut just because I look at stories from a different perspective?

No, you're a conspiracy *guy* if you believe conspiracies such as 9/11, Sandy Hook, JFK, etc. etc.

I wish you the best in your travels.