wyly Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 You obviously don't understand what a feedback loop is. If such a thing existed it would have been triggered by slow warming and that slow warming would have accelerated rapidly. That did not happen therefore there are no run away feedback loops triggered by melting arctic ice. more tim bull-shytte..."run away" is your embellishment, an ice free arctic will trigger more warming it can do nothing but...this is the same dark/reflective/heat experiment I did in the 8th grade...science classes must have been a real challenge for you... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
punked Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 more tim bull-shytte..."run away" is your embellishment, an ice free arctic will trigger more warming it can do nothing but...this is the same dark/reflective/heat experiment I did in the 8th grade...science classes must have been a real challenge for you... Yep it is a fact that it takes energy to melt ice 333 J/gram. That water temp wont raise until you melt all the ice. This is why we put ice in our drinks. When that ice is gone the Temp of water then raises. Quote
punked Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 I would like to take this moment to say I am in support of a pipeline going East and have been for many many years. Quote
wyly Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 No I know what a feedback loop is sorry to tell you. Your hypothesis of "It did not happen before there for it can not happen now" however is what I don't understand. That has to be the stupidest thing said today. You clearly do not understand how science works. BTW you have shown nothing that "proves" there was no feedback loop in 13000 years ago. As for "We can not know what happened in the past" we certainly can. There are plenty of ways science has found to look at our past records and figure out what happened. You need to read a book or something because everything you are saying doesn't make any sense what so ever. Your arguments are flawed even a 5th grader could see the problems with your reasoning. it's the common theme among the denier crowd, "I don't understand it so it can't be true"there has to be a feedback loop, it's impossible for there not to be...be then he slips in "runaway" implying claims that have never been made... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 I would like to take this moment to say I am in support of a pipeline going East and have been for many many years. and I always questioned why we don't refine crude here, why the hell are we sending those jobs to the US?... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 Your hypothesis of "It did not happen before there for it can not happen now" however is what I don't understand.It means it is extremely unlikely. This is a basic tenet of science: observer what happened in the past and use that to predict what is likely to occur in the future. In the past we did not see warming accelerate as a result of melting arctic therefore it is irrational to assume that it likely to occur today. Quote
punked Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 It means it is extremely unlikely. This is a basic tenet of science: observer what happened in the past and use that to predict what is likely to occur in the future. In the past we did not see warming accelerate as a result of melting arctic therefore it is irrational to assume that it likely to occur today. A basic tenet of science IS NOT to take say "in a very different situation something didn't happen therefore it can not happen". That is not a tenet of science in the least. Again this seems to be a very different situation, what took 5000 years last time might take 200 years this time. I am sure real scientists are closing no doors to explain something which is unprecedented. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 TimG doesn't believe in science. Quote
wyly Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 A basic tenet of science IS NOT to take say "in a very different situation something didn't happen therefore it can not happen". That is not a tenet of science in the least. Again this seems to be a very different situation, what took 5000 years last time might take 200 years this time. I am sure real scientists are closing no doors to explain something which is unprecedented. it's a completely different scenario not at all the same, humanity didn't play a role in the warming back then... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
CPCFTW Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 Who cares? I live in canada, I want it to be warmer. Toronto saved tons of money on snowplowing last year. Poverty causes a hell of a lot more deaths than rain and flooding... Destroying wealth trying to solve this "problem" will kill far more people than it will save. Quote
kraychik Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Or trying to find a solution to Dutch Disease, which OECD recognized as a problem in Canada. Well, if the OECD says so, then it must be true! No organisation is more more committed to honestly advocating for Canada's best interests than the OECD, right? Edited September 30, 2012 by kraychik Quote
kraychik Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 None of the examples you give are the NDP saying the "tarsands" should be shut down. Stopping government subsidies to a thriving sector of the economy is not hostility, it's common sense. Layton's talk about the environmental damage being done in the oilfields is a reality of the industry and I wouldn't call trying to find better ways to extract bitumen from the dirt hostility. The talk has always been about finding a sustainable way to tap the resource. Right, because terms like "government subsidies" are honest ways to describe tax credits to incentivise development of a valuable commodity that leads to massively increased government revenues by growing the tax base? I guess the excise taxes on gasoline and massive regulatory departments staffed with paper shufflers tasked with preserving "safety" don't qualify as the exact opposite of a "government subsidy"... The real subsidy is, of course, the massive taxes paid to the government through profits generated via this industry. The industry is subsidising the government. Of course, in cybercoma's socialist fantasy (otherwise known as Bizarro World), somehow the government is subsidising the wealth creators. Quote
punked Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 Well, if the OECD says so, then it must be true! No organisation is more more committed to honestly advocating for Canada's best interests than the OECD, right? How about the Conservative governments report that said it is a real thing in Canada or are they lying to? Quote
punked Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 Who cares? I live in canada, I want it to be warmer. Toronto saved tons of money on snowplowing last year. Poverty causes a hell of a lot more deaths than rain and flooding... Destroying wealth trying to solve this "problem" will kill far more people than it will save. The problem is a world food shortage. Or do you think our neighbors to the south are going to be just fine to have people starving? How about China? Seriously you thinking of the problem the way a 1st grader would. Quote
WWWTT Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 Right, because terms like "government subsidies" are honest ways to describe tax credits to incentivise development of a valuable commodity that leads to massively increased government revenues by growing the tax base? Ya it is a good idea! Catch is,its only a good idea if the cost of oil hovers around 60$ a barrel or lower. What's the cost of oil now?Is it 60$ a barrel? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted September 30, 2012 Report Posted September 30, 2012 I would like to take this moment to say I am in support of a pipeline going East and have been for many many years. Then stop getting stuck in these climate change debates. Like it or lump it the oils going to come out. Lets get the biggest bang for the buck and keep it Canada to strengthen other sectors. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WIP Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 I'm coming very late to this thread as I only joined the site yesterday, so please excuse me if I cover points brought up by others. You say: If there's not enough oil to supply gas for cars, then get rid of the damned cars! There is enough oil to supply gas for cars. There will be for many years to come. Some of it will come from the oil sands in northern Alberta. Getting rid of cars is not an option, it's a left wing pipe dream. Like everyone warming their homes with tide power. Well first, welcome aboard Mapleleafweb....although I'm not that qualified to serve as the welcoming committee as I was away for...actually I can't remember when I last posted a comment here. I often get sick and tired of politics, fade out and see if anything's changed 6 months later. On this subject, it's already been pointed out that the problem is not that we are completely out of petroleum, it's a matter of how much more carbon intensive and energy intensive the oil we're extracting now has become. And it's not just a problem with tar sands and shales! All mining and resource development goes after the low-hanging fruit first, and just as mining started with the highest ore quality/easiest to develop deposits, petroleum started with oil deposits that were close to the surface. So, back in the 1930's, the energy return on energy invested - EROEI of the average oil deposit was about 100 to one - one barrel of oil producing 100 barrels of oil to send to the refineries. Over the years, EROEI numbers have been steadily dropping as most of the major oil fields that are still being pumped today were discovered more than 40 years ago. The EROEI of oil from tar sands has also been dropping since Shell Oil started digging up surface deposits with those giant shovel machines back in the late 70's. Today, bitumen is extracted from the deeper deposits through steam assisted gravity drainage systems that can only recover at most, about 75% -- leaving a lot of residue to seep into lakes, rivers and groundwater over the coming decades in Northern Alberta. This area will be a giant toxic wasteland for decades and likely centuries to come. But the wider implications for carbon emissions come from the fact that, after upgrading and refining bitumen, the EROEI drops to about 3 to 1, using one third of that oil just to get the rest out of the ground and turn it into something that can be used to fill your gas tank. There is just no sense to going down this road, except that there is not the will or resolve in leaders and the population to do anything dramatic that will radically change a lifestyle that has only been around for about 80 years. That global climate change is occurring is a given, IMHO. The questions that arise are, how much of it is naturally occurring, and how much are we causing? These questions lead to a much more important one. What can we do about it?Let's say we are not causing climate change at all. It's totally occurring naturally. Then we can do nothing about it. No, even if it was happening naturally, like through intense volcanism as occurred a few times previously in Earth's history, we would still have to do something about it or face extinction. If we lived during the period of the Permian/Triassic Extinction 250 million years ago, when what is now Siberia, was an area of constant, slow moving lava flows for at least 100,000 years, we would have to find ways to sequester to either stop the flow or sequester an awful lot of carbon - or go extinct, as more than 99% of species living on Earth at the time ended up. Let's say we are causing it. 100%. Then , given that our contribution comes from the emissions caused by a population that has grown from somewhere around a billion and a half to over 7 billion since they started serious greenhouse gas emissions (industrial revolution)it appears we can do nothing about it. Most of the world's population has a low carbon footprint. It's the millions of cars, the factory farms, the airplanes, the factories...in China now...which produce a barrage of consumer products, most of which serve no real purpose. This is where the extra carbon emissions are coming from! And, to put it in proper perspective, it's not that human activity is producing 100% of the carbon; it's that our extra contributions are more than can be sequestered through natural processes like rock weathering. It's worth pointing out that so far, half of the extra carbon has been absorbed by the world's oceans, lowering ph and this ocean acidification is killing off corals, shellfish, and if it continues long enough, will kill off the rest of ocean life as the world's oceans turn into anoxic swamps filled with cyanobacteria....it's happened at least once before in the planet's history and is already in the process of happening again. Does anyone really think another couple of windfarms is going to replace all that ice? When cost of production is factored in, windmills don't have a great EROEI either. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 You are delusional. Here is more formal definition of 'petroleum' (a.k.a. oil) that makes it clear that the oils sands are just one type of oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum I guess if we can redefine oil down far enough we'll be calling coal deposits oil also. We also have a record antarctic ice extent so it appears that "global" warming is only affecting one of the poles. No, that's a bogus story concocted by "Watt's Up" and maybe started at one of the other denial websites first. Fact is the Southern oceans are warming also...in some areas faster than the Arctic. The reasons why the Arctic is melting fast, while the Antarctic is not, and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet may be slightly increasing in volume would likely have more to do with topography than temperatures. The ice in the Antarctic is on a large land mass, while in the Arctic, we have an ocean - which allows circulation of warmer water coming up through convection currents. In the past, the Arctic Ocean and Greenland have melted numerous times, while we have to go back pretty far to find the last time the Antarctic Continent was ice free. But, the important point is that Antarctic is far from gaining enough ice to balance the dramatic rate of ice melt in the Arctic. And for us, living in the Northern Hemisphere, it's the melting of the Arctic that affects us, not what's happening in the Antarctic. Not very likely given the fact that the arctic ice cap was 1/2 what it is today in the early Holocene. If run away feedback did not occur then it is not going to occur now. Okay, which orifice do those numbers come out of? The Holocene started less than 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age...and the ice didn't immediately melt! It was a gradual thawing. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
CPCFTW Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 The problem is a world food shortage. Or do you think our neighbors to the south are going to be just fine to have people starving? How about China? Seriously you thinking of the problem the way a 1st grader would. How is the problem a world food shortage? If that is the problem, then doesn't the millions of people supposedly dying from GW help us? Wouldn't there be more land to farm in Canada if temperatures rose? Does giving away taxpayer dollars to China and India for carbon credits because our "cumulative" emissions are higher somehow protect us from this world food shortage? In case you haven't noticed, there has always been a world food shortage. Billions have been starving for centuries. The only thing that has reduced the impacts of the "world food shortage" are petroleum-based fertilizers, and the pursuit/creation of wealth leasing to industrialization. The problem is that as more people get lifted out of poverty by capitalism (see China, India, Brazil) food demand and prices will continue to rise. But this thread is about the NDP who hated the tar sands until they heard they could ship the oil to Quebec refineries. Anyone who has paid attention can now see the NDP is lost and will say anything to get elected. NDP's message: polluting is despicable... unless it creates jobs for Quebecers! Quote
Fletch 27 Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 So now Mulcair wants to even FURTHER strenghen our dependance and reliance on oil (Dutech Disease)? Cutting through Northern Ontario with a pipeline (ohhh the possible environmental imact). This guy just achieved a "double-flip-flop with a twist"! Quote
TimG Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 But, the important point is that Antarctic is far from gaining enough ice to balance the dramatic rate of ice melt in the Arctic. And for us, living in the Northern Hemisphere, it's the melting of the Arctic that affects us, not what's happening in the Antarctic.blah blah. With logic as convoluted as that you will soon be arguing that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans 6000 years ago. The fact is the climate picture is extremely complicated and we know at less that you claim. You can rationalize away contradictory data but the it does not change the reality. Okay, which orifice do those numbers come out of? The Holocene started less than 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age...and the ice didn't immediately melt! It was a gradual thawing. http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdfResults indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century. Quote
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 Timmay... what does your distraction have to do with the climate and Arctic sea ice conditions of today? Quote
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 So now Mulcair wants to even FURTHER strenghen our dependance and reliance on oil (Dutech Disease)? Cutting through Northern Ontario with a pipeline (ohhh the possible environmental imact). This guy just achieved a "double-flip-flop with a twist"! Not at all. Keeping the oil within Canada will lower foreign investment which lowers upward exertion on the Canadian dollar. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 Timmay... Who is Timmay??? Why do you keep calling people here names buddy!?!? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Fletch 27 Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 This is not a "flip flop"? This is a flip-flop by any and all deffinition. An epic flip-flop.. Where would said "refineries" land? What are the chances Mulcair favors Quebec? Now should the Quebecers have a referendum to seperate and GET that wish? Where would that leave the rest of Canada? You really think that the refineries wont be subsidized? Mulcair is out for Quebec and Quebec alone. NOW all of a sudden a pipe-line is acceptable? The pipeline would be 3x as long as the proposed BC line.. We would eliminate the other Markets by his bright idea.. Cut off the states? Cut off asia? This guy is completely off of his rocker and pandering to Quebec.... Not at all. Keeping the oil within Canada will lower foreign investment which lowers upward exertion on the Canadian dollar. WWWTT Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.