bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 What's the big deal ? Most of Florida is suppose to be under water. Ever been to the Everglades ? Canadians will just have to winter someplace else ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 What's the big deal ? Most of Florida is suppose to be under water. Ever been to the Everglades ? Canadians will just have to winter someplace else ! If it's supposed to be under water, then why did you build high rise condos all over it? And I've probably seen more of the everglades than you could dream of. And have you actually got anything to say we could actually take seriously? Quote
TimG Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) 3 to 5 mm/year? What planet are you talking about? Certainly not the same one that Florida, for instance, exists on. The streets are disappearing there due to ice cap/glacial melt as well as thermal expansion of sea water.Learn the science: Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 mm and +2.9 mm per year ± 0.4 mm since 1993. ... If this acceleration would stay constant, the 1990 to 2100 sea level rise would range from 280 to 340 mm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Less than a 1ft by 2100 based on a simple extrapolation of the currently measured SLR. Now people love to make scary predictions but there is no real data to support these predictions at this point. Just unvalidated computer models. Florida should be able the manage a 1-2ft SLR by 2100 and the cost would likely be a lot less than a futile CO2 reduction exercise. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Besides, what do all the above (and usual) links to American sources about C02 "pollution" have to do with oil and the future of Canada ? That ain't gonna change an election outcome. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Learn the science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Less than a 1ft by 2100 based on a simple extrapolation of the currently measured SLR. Now people love to make scary predictions but there is no real data to support these predictions at this point. Just unvalidated computer models. Florida should be able the manage a 1-2ft SLR by 2100 and the cost would likely be a lot less than a futile CO2 reduction exercise. How about between 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100. Even Florida does't have the wherewithal to deal with the cost of something as simple as sewage drainage faced with that. Oh well, the everglades will become a great home for ever more gators. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Besides, what do all the above (and usual) links to American sources about C02 "pollution" have to do with oil and the future of Canada ? That ain't gonna change an election outcome. look at all the revnew y'all will lose when snowbirds stop going to Fla. because their condos are awash! Quote
nerve Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Because it is the the truth one discovers when one reads the the actual scientific basis for the various claims instead of relying on Greenpeace press releases. Not at the levels we are talking about. You really need to educate yourself. According to science the current rise is about 3-5mm per year which means it would take 30,000 years for that level of SLR to occur. Now some studies claim this rate will accelerate and estimate about 1m or so by 2100 - a rate that is slow enough to allow people to adapt as needed. Adapting to a slow SLR will be certainly more cost effective than trying to stop it from happening which is most likely impossible. A no. We have a bunch of chicken littles running around with dubious computer models saying such things might occur but these are largely the same people that predicted mass starvation by 2000 or bird flu pandemics by 2010. i.e. just because someone says something might occur that does not mean it actually will and and this point the real data supports a much less alarmist view of the issue since the earth may be warming but it is warming at a rate much slower than was predicted by these magical climate models. TimG you are a troll. Thank God the masses are not as ignorant and evil as you are in denying what is actually going on. I can understand you saying its just business but denying this stuff is absolutely disgusting. People should be able to make informed choices, something you appear unable to do. So you are saying all the major scientific outlets, the US government, national geographic, major science journals, and antarctic geologists are all just Green Peace puppets? Dear God, the fact speak for themselves, you are denying the obvious. Are you a flatearther too? How about we are all dead in 50 years if this stuff isn't manage appropriately. You are not taking all inputs into account. THE ICE IS MELTING FROM THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM, THE SHELVES ARE "BREAKING OFF" meaning they will float away and melt in the water, not the air. You are not accounting for "breakage of really really really big, like bigger than the city you live in chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the ocean. You are not accounting for the active volcanos that will be uncovered as this ice breaks up that will spew out sulfur and large quantities of CO2. Whole islands of ice may slide into the ocean due the way the topography lies in some parts. The North including greenland are growing beyond what was expected. Understand the levels were vastly underestimated as certain effects were not taken into consideration such as the jet stream resulting in melting at far higher rates in some years due to extended warm exposures. Taking the status quo and applying it to a growing MORE Extreme environment is not going to get accurate results. The status quo doesn't exist anymore, it is creating new anarchistic climate patterns. THIS IS CLIMATE CHANGE, not the issue of global warming - global warming is like someone kicking your shin, CLIMATE CHANGE IS SOMEONE DRIVING A MAC TRUCK INTO YOU. I am guessing you think NASA is just another manifestation of green peace too huh? http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 ....I am guessing you think NASA is just another manifestation of green peace too huh? http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Please...what does any of this regurgitated American propaganda have to do with oil and the future of Canada ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
TimG Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) So you are saying all the major scientific outlets, the US government, national geographic, major science journals, and antarctic geologists are all just Green Peace puppets?What I am saying is there is a huge difference between what the literature actually says and what the various activists claim. Many of things you claim as "facts" are not facts at all - they are conjecture. If you want to understand the issues you have to learn to separate the facts from the conjecture and insulting me just because I am look more carefully at the science than you just makes you look like an idiot. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
nerve Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) What I am saying is there is a huge difference between what the literature actually says and what the various activists claim. Many of things you claim as "facts" are not facts at all - they are conjecture. If you want to understand the issues you have to learn to separate the facts from the conjecture and insulting me just because I am look more carefully at the science than you just makes you look like an idiot. Who the hell cares what I look like, you write like one and that is what is important here. TimG I really hope you are just a troll because if you aren't please just sit down and remain silent. You will get us all killed if you continue to just say cause the future hasn't happened, we just don't know. Sorry man there is a lifetime of information that indicates this stuff has been happening. Often times it has underestimated what has happened. Obviously you aren't looking more carefully because you are taking a line that will get us all killed. You are in the boat with the urine drinkers and flat earthers with your climate change denial. It is very pathetic. I'm hoping you can just realize once the ice is gone it is gone. I could supply you with a lifetime of scientific data but I doubt you would even look at it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7iEYgb50yc WOODS HOLE, Mass., Oct. 12 (UPI) -- In a new study on the future of sea level rise, researchers looked specifically at the mechanisms that control surface melting on Antarctica's ice shelves.Their analysis suggests ice shelves will double their melting rate by 2050. By 2100, surface melting may precipitate ice shelf collapse, leading to a dramatic rise in sea level. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/10/12/Study-Melting-of-Antarcticas-ice-shelves-to-intensify/1801444662959/ http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2563.html It gets worse... Its not a linear relationship, it is exponential. Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve Quote
TimG Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) TimG I really hope you are just a troll because if you aren't please just sit down and remain silent. You will get us all killed if you continue to just say cause the future hasn't happened, we just don't know.A little hint: someone who says things that you disagree with is not a troll. I believe everything I write and, more importantly, I feel that my opinions are grounded with an understanding of what the scientific literature actually says. Now you can hyperventilate as much as you want but just because you think the end of the world is nigh that does not mean it is true and people who do not agree with your chicken little nonsense should not shut up just because it upsets you. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
nerve Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) A little hint: someone who says things that you disagree with is not a troll. I believe everything I write and, more importantly, I feel that my opinions are grounded with an understanding of what the scientific literature actually says. Now you can hyperventilate as much as you want but just because you think the end of the world is nigh that does not mean it is true and people who do not agree with your chicken little nonsense should not shut up just because it upsets you. TimG you offer nothing to this discussion you have not demonstrated any climate trends, but instead have your head in the sand. It is you who is purporting nonsense and me supplying facts based on not only future projections but also decades of research findings which sadly fell short of what actually occurred. Not to be alarmist but DING DING DING. Where is your evidence of a stable future environment, stability in past weather patterns, and stable ice shelves and water levels? What is your explanation for increasing global temperature? Or are you saying that the global temperature isn't rising, water levels aren't rising and the polar regions aren't melting? Seriously? Your position is absurd and frankly not based in reality. here is your chance to show the facts. The world is waking up to people like you and your dangerous threat to society and the planet http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11924776/Judges-plan-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial.html Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial’ A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change You are a real threat to the human race. It is fraud in the worst kind. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/india-triple-co2-emissions-new-climate-commitment/ or perspective, we need only think of the likely responses to all this claptrap by China and India (which has just announced that it intends to triple its CO2 emissions by 2030) Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve Quote
TimG Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Where is your evidence of a stable future environment, stability in past weather patterns, and stable ice shelves and water levels? What is your explanation for increasing global temperature? Or are you saying that the global temperature isn't rising, water levels aren't rising and the polar regions aren't melting? Seriously? Your position is absurd and frankly not based in reality.My argument is that the people predicting serious problems are basing their claims on climate models which have never shown any ability to usefully predict future changes in climate (sure they get the trend right but predict too much warming which means they cannot tell us anything useful about the magnitude of changes to come). This means there is a huge amount of uncertainty implied by any of these claims. This means the future is effectively an unknown. Things might be bad - or they might not. We can't know with any level of certainty that is sufficient to justify massive social/economic changes being demanded. One top of this uncertainty we have the observation that anytime the prophets of doom started wailing in the past reality never comes close to the doomsayers' predictions. Therefore it is reasonable to simply assume that whatever happens it won't be as bad as the alarmists claim. The last thing: I find it tiresome that you cannot seem to understand that warmer world is not necessarily a worse world. i.e. you cannot establish that warming is bad by simply pointing to evidence of warming. You need more and there is little reliable evidence that can be used to establish that assertion. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG Quote
dialamah Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 A little hint: someone who says things that you disagree with is not a troll. I believe everything I write and, more importantly, I feel that my opinions are grounded with an understanding of what the scientific literature actually says. Now you can hyperventilate as much as you want but just because you think the end of the world is nigh that does not mean it is true and people who do not agree with your chicken little nonsense should not shut up just because it upsets you. What about the people who have actually already had to relocate entire towns, due to warming? Or the ones who are trying to find a place to move too, before their communities disappear? These things have already happened, are happening. Does your careful scientific analysis take those real-life-happening-right-now facts into account, or do you disregard them as 'chicken little' nonsense as well? http://tcktcktck.org/2014/01/fijis-first-village-relocated-due-climate-change/ http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/remote-alaskan-village-may-need-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/46174/ https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/ARVIAT_CCAP_E http://climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact http://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2014/sep/15/climate-change-refugees-un-storms-natural-disasters-sea-levels-environment http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ Quote
waldo Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 My argument is that the people predicting serious problems are basing their claims on climate models which have never shown any ability to usefully predict future changes in climate (sure they get the trend right but predict too much warming which means they cannot tell us anything useful about the magnitude of changes to come). This means there is a huge amount of uncertainty implied by any of these claims. This means the future is effectively an unknown. why dismiss empirical evidence? Why dismiss 'ALL' models? In regards your earlier comments about extremes, you know certain extreme's have been linked to increased warming, particularly within a regional focus. Why dismiss the significant and devastating aspects of 'storm surge' in regards sea-level rise? We've touched upon model projections enough for you to realize 'SOME' models have done reasonably well in warming projections. . Things might be bad - or they might not. We can't know with any level of certainty that is sufficient to justify massive social/economic changes being demanded. One top of this uncertainty we have the observation that anytime the profits of doom started wailing in the past reality never comes close to the doomsayers' predictions. Therefore it is reasonable to simply assume that whatever happens it won't be as bad as the alarmists claim. again, empirical evidence... correlation with GHG emissions. Until you can present an alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal cause tie to warming and related climate change, it remains... your nemesis. Your earlier comments on the positive "plant food" aspects of CO2 are just silly... in line with the other guy around here who forever makes improper claims about the "CO2 fertilization effect". You forever play the "alarmist strawman"... measures intended to reduce reliance on fossil-fuels over the next 40-50 years is not alarmism; your response is. . Quote
nerve Posted October 13, 2015 Author Report Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) why dismiss empirical evidence? Why dismiss 'ALL' models? In regards your earlier comments about extremes, you know certain extreme's have been linked to increased warming, particularly within a regional focus. Why dismiss the significant and devastating aspects of 'storm surge' in regards sea-level rise? We've touched upon model projections enough for you to realize 'SOME' models have done reasonably well in warming projections. . again, empirical evidence... correlation with GHG emissions. Until you can present an alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal cause tie to warming and related climate change, it remains... your nemesis. Your earlier comments on the positive "plant food" aspects of CO2 are just silly... in line with the other guy around here who forever makes improper claims about the "CO2 fertilization effect". You forever play the "alarmist strawman"... measures intended to reduce reliance on fossil-fuels over the next 40-50 years is not alarmism; your response is. . Just to be clear this wasn't about reducing emissions as we know the Chinese and Indians are intent on trippling their current emissions over the next 30 years and other major emitters are missing targets, but I think we need to do the following: 1. Realize that it is real 2. Understand we need to adapt to survive, this means planning well ahead for the changes that will take place 3. Realize that is going to take tons and tons of resources. 4. The only alternative is to hit the breaks and WWIII is not going to be pretty, a reset, nuclear winter, would probably result from nuclear Armageddon regardless. Even if that is an answer to warming, it isn't one that will produce much better results at this point. Do you realize that this proposal in itself shows how dire the situation is? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/ Realize where this is heading. Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve Quote
waldo Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Just to be clear this wasn't about reducing emissions as we know the Chinese and Indians are intent on trippling their current emissions over the next 30 years and other major emitters are missing targets, but I think we need to do the following: no - adaptation without accompanying mitigation simply sets up for iterative adaptation upon adaptation upon... and no, that is not the 'Chinese/Indian intent', as both have (relatively recently) made one-on-one agreements with the U.S. toward reducing emissions... both have indicated they will work positively towards realizing an emissions reduction agreement result at the upcoming COP 21 in Paris. Notwithstanding the initiatives China has taken domestically towards reducing emissions... notwithstanding it's recent weeks announcement to introduce a cap-&-trade system. fwiw: your link isn't yet another 'whiz-bang' geo-engineering silver-bullet, as you say, 'proposal'... it's simply a comment on the potential atmospheric impact of a 'small-scale' nuclear weapons explosion. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Do you realize that this proposal in itself shows how dire the situation is? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/ Realize where this is heading. Nope...just more of the usual American infotainment that seems to be the favourite for alarmists on both sides of the border. There is no pending doom from so called "climate change"...the future of Canada is...Canadian. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted October 13, 2015 Report Posted October 13, 2015 Nope...just more of the usual American infotainment that seems to be the favourite for alarmists on both sides of the border. There is no pending doom from so called "climate change"...the future of Canada is...Canadian. please sir! You should actually read the article... it has nothing to do with your stated 'climate-change pending doom' strawman. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 Oil prices will never see $40 a barrel again. Uhm, it's already up to $47 a barrel. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
nerve Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Uhm, it's already up to $47 a barrel. US dollar is down. $46.28 for WTI. Western Canadian Select is like $34.33 This with cost of production ranging from 46 to much higher per barrel meaning they are paying out /loosing atleast 12$/barrel these days. The newer developments are loosing upwards of 50$/barrel they produce and sell. This is what makes the Suncor buyout sane. Regardless of what it means for petrocanada's/NEP's offspring to buy of the oilsands means in Alberta. Edited October 14, 2015 by nerve Quote
Smallc Posted October 14, 2015 Report Posted October 14, 2015 US dollar is down. Probably because oil is up. Quote
nerve Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Probably because oil is up. Markets are saying the reason was China’s trade slump, which extended into September. Imports collapsed, suggesting weak domestic demand especially investment demand. Exports were described as “feeble”. Also hurting the dollar were faded expectations for a Fed interest rate hike this year Pacing the RMB.. Edited October 14, 2015 by nerve 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.