Ok this argument is moot now. I finally managed to perfect my time machine and went to the year 2050. Seems the Asteroid we missed wiped out 90% of us in 2037 anyway.
Ok this argument is moot now. I finally managed to perfect my time machine and went to the year 2050. Seems the Asteroid we missed wiped out 90% of us in 2037 anyway.
It is finally warming up here in Ontario. It snowed last week, but didn't stick. A longer winter is perfectly in order given the natural swings in the Global Weather patterns.
And let us remember that the GW Alarmists' prediction of increased numbers of hurricanes, drowning and starving polar bears, and inundated low lying islands made 15 years ago have still not come to pass. Let us also remember the IPCC weather models touted a decade ago to inspire fear in us also have not come to pass.
The whole thing is a put-up job by people interested in making a buck on the public purse.
Ah come on...because its colder than seasonal right now, or because polar bears haven't gone extinct, therefore AGW isn't true? That's pretty bad science.
climate is always changing. I didn't say it does not. What I am saying is that the exaggerated claims of Gore and his friends are plainly false. Anthropologically induced doomsday is a figment of a fertile imagination. Will the weather continue to change? Yep.
climate is always changing. I didn't say it does not. What I am saying is that the exaggerated claims of Gore and his friends are plainly false. Anthropologically induced doomsday is a figment of a fertile imagination. Will the weather continue to change? Yep.
Arn
And yet you seem to readily accept in Revelations and the end time theories of the Bible. (not that there is anything wrong with that )
Why doesn't it surprise me you don't trust the science?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2013).]
Andrew Weaver is a University of Victoria climate modeller, and has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the “Bible” on Global Warming hysteria.
His latest study surprised even him. The Canadian "boogey-man" has been over-hyped. It turns out it is NOT Canada’s oilsands (tar-sands to opponents – sounds dirtier – tar is a by-product of coal by the way) that would be the undoing of the planet, but rather the burning of coal that is the greater threat.
"They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C."
“Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.”
“…burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.”
Of course, there are no plans to reduce coal production/burning anywhere in the world – not even the US EPA will touch that one. In the US, coal burning power plants are the major source of electricity. Must be a huge coal lobby backing Obama.
-
Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study
One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.
"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."
In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Swart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.
They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.
In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.
Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.
"The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming," Weaver said. "The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas."
He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal — not the oilsands — that governments have to worry about. As well, there's so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.
"One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas," Weaver said. "As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we're less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them." Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.
Weaver's analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.
He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oilsands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oilsands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. "We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."
He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.
"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.
"I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."
Andrew Weaver is a University of Victoria climate modeller, and has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the “Bible” on Global Warming hysteria.
His latest study surprised even him. The Canadian "boogey-man" has been over-hyped. It turns out it is NOT Canada’s oilsands (tar-sands to opponents – sounds dirtier – tar is a by-product of coal by the way) that would be the undoing of the planet, but rather the burning of coal that is the greater threat.
"They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C."
“Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.”
“…burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.”
Of course, there are no plans to reduce coal production/burning anywhere in the world – not even the US EPA will touch that one. In the US, coal burning power plants are the major source of electricity. Must be a huge coal lobby backing Obama.
-
Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study
One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.
"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."
In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Swart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.
They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.
In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.
Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.
"The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming," Weaver said. "The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas."
He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal — not the oilsands — that governments have to worry about. As well, there's so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.
"One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas," Weaver said. "As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we're less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them." Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.
Weaver's analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.
He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oilsands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oilsands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. "We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."
He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.
"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.
"I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."
Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study
It's meaningless to compare carbon dioxide released from burning "all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands," "all the world's vast coal deposits," "all the abundant natural gas," and "all the oil in the world." At the very least, you would need to normalize each resource for its relative abundance in order to to develop rates suitable for comparison.
Conclusions Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
If your source is right we get to go on polluting with cheap fossil fuels at no risk. If they're wrong we will pay with $60,0000,0000,000 in global economic loss according to the other source. What the heck, let's just roll the dice. It's only a sixty million dollar question. Do I need to say sarcasm?
Do you have information on new technology for capturing and storing co2 from the coal plants that I haven't heard of? The last I heard the coal plant operators were saying that any feasible technology for addressing that problem are not economically feasible.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Many fokds have a skewed view of coal fired plants. The reason is they think they are all like Detroit Edison which was a filthy plant.
New coal fired plants produce mostly just steam. The low emissions technology makes new coal plants very low emissions producers.
I personally like nuclear but I can accept that modern coal is plentiful, cheap, on our shores, and does not pollute as in days gone by.
If your source is right we get to go on polluting with cheap fossil fuels at no risk. If they're wrong we will pay with $60,0000,0000,000 in global economic loss according to the other source. What the heck, let's just roll the dice. It's only a sixty million dollar question. Do I need to say sarcasm?
It would cost trillions to fight it, with minimal effects.
Conclusions Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
Oh Bear it's cute when you contradict your own posts when posting whatever you find (I'll assume your original source is WUWT?).
So seeing as the paper accepts the fact the climate is warming and cites the IPCC 2007 report, is it safe to assume you do as well?
You and your posts are worse than useless. The point, which you always miss, is that EVEN THE WARMISTS ADMIT IT ISNT AN ISSUE.
Actually looks like you missed the point as they are merely talking about methane hydrate being released as a slow tipping point. At least that's what I read, did you have something different to report?
Actually looks like you missed the point as they are merely talking about methane hydrate being released as a slow tipping point. At least that's what I read, did you have something different to report?
Which contradicts the scare story you posted about $60 trillion in expected costs in the relative near term.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand?
Newf scary article debunked by a published paper: Conclusions Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.
All that is saying is methane release won't be catastrophic. It's not saying that other feedbacks won't occur (methane isn't the only one) and also isn't saying that global warming of 0.2 C per decade will be harmless.
Is your argument that AGW isn't happening, or that it's happening but doesn't matter?
All that is saying is methane release won't be catastrophic. It's not saying that other feedbacks won't occur (methane isn't the only one) and also isn't saying that global warming of 0.2 C per decade will be harmless.
Is your argument that AGW isn't happening, or that it's happening but doesn't matter?
The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.
The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.
It's not nullified, it suggests it will not be catastrophic which hopefully is true. I agree with you though the article I posted DID have a sensational headline however their claim seemed to be "“The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from offshore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer."
Also don't forget about the amounts of methane that the fracking is sure to cause! Those pesky well failures aren't solved AFAIK.
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-26-2013).]
The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.
No. The methane positive feedback loop, according to this paper, may not be catastrophic.
You would be a lot more convincing if you had an alternate, consistent, comprehensive argument to destructive AGW. Is AGW happening, or is it not? Is it destructive, or is it not? Your arguments, 66 pages into this thread, continue to change. You are throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks.
AGW has traction because its the only credible, comprehensive theory. Is it perfect? No. Is it devoid of self-interested parties and governmental bodies? No. But its much better than any other theory we have.
Oh Bear it's cute when you contradict your own posts when posting whatever you find (I'll assume your original source is WUWT?).
So seeing as the paper accepts the fact the climate is warming and cites the IPCC 2007 report, is it safe to assume you do as well?
Actually if you read the article (and read between the lines) all it is really pointing out is that the sky is falling and we need to invest all this money NOW in the global warming field to "possibly" prevent this from happening in the future.
It said that could bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees Celsius by between 15 and 35 years – to 2035 if no action is taken to curb emissions and to 2040 if enough action is taken to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise below 2 degrees.
Scientists have said the rise in global average temperatures this century needs to stay below 2 degrees Celsius to prevent devastating climate effects such as crop failure and melting glaciers.
However, the International Energy Agency warned last month that the world is on course for a rise of 3.6 to 5.3 degrees Celsius citing record high global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year.
Or translated, gives us a pile of money now so we can keep the temperature rise below 2° - this despite the fact that the rise is below 1°. Besides how is all this money going to stop China from polluting less? There is a big push on over there to become the world leader in manufacturing with little regards to the environment.
"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."
I did read it, however it's not MY article just one I linked.
Or translated, gives us a pile of money now so we can keep the temperature rise below 2° - this despite the fact that the rise is below 1°. Besides how is all this money going to stop China from polluting less? There is a big push on over there to become the world leader in manufacturing with little regards to the environment.
so you are taking this as an exemplary action, progressive and positive? China is the worst polluter on the planet. It's cities are a nightmare. We are not talking about CO2, but more like a soup of chemical smog. They are way overdue. If the Chinese had air like you and me, they'd be in heaven.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-26-2013).]
(not that there is anything wrong with that 
)
