Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

Very interesting, Koy.

 

Except the part where Lovelock is wrong of course.

 

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising

 

This would be a textbook case of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

1). Twelve years is not enough time to separate out the signal from the noise on climate change

 

2). The world has not stopped warming, just ask the sea ice in the Arctic. Oh, and there's the fact that 9 of the hottest 10 years ever recorded have happened since 2000.

 

3). The reason we haven't seen a steady year on year increase in temperatures has been because of ENSO. Over the last few years, La Niña conditions have predominated, which means the heat has been going into the oceans rather than the air. Interestingly, we seem to be heading back into El Niño conditions at the moment.

 

Oh, and this argument is No9 in the list of things deniers get wrong at Skeptical Science

[ArabiaTerra]

A pessimistic view of global warming:

 

http://guymcpherson.com/2012/06/were-done/

 

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I'm currently reading the links he's embedded in the article trying to find flaws in his reasoning.

 

Nothing so far.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

A better view

 

[tirvaluk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

[shetlandpeat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

 

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue.

[ArabiaTerra]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

Here's a graph which demonstrates how the Daily Fail is continuing it's stalwart tradition of being completely and utterly wrong every time it mentions climate change:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif

From here.

 

Edit: And as SP's link above shows, they're not just wrong, they are actively and knowingly lying to you about it.

 

Why do you read newspapers which have been proven to repeatedly lie about things like this? Seriously! Why do you accept a single word these lying scum say? I would love to know because I just can't get my head around it. What is your major malfunction?

[ArabiaTerra]

Some food for thought:

 

http://skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html

 

Thawing permafrost will release carbon to the atmosphere that will have an appreciable additional effect on climate change, adding at least tne quarter of a degree Celsius by the end of the century and perhaps as much as one degree. (In comparison, Swart and Weaver (2012) calculated that combustion of the in-place resources of the Alberta oil sands would increase temperatures by 0.24-0.50°C.)

 

The temperature effect of the coming permafrost feedback is not sensitive to the emission pathway that we choose to follow.

 

The permafrost feedback response to our historic emissions, even in the absence of future human emissions, is likely to be self-sustaining and will cancel out future natural carbon sinks in the oceans and biosphere over the next two centuries.

 

Unfortunately, there are several good reasons to consider the outlook in MacDougall et al. as rosy; as the authors themselves make clear. However, as bad and inevitable as they are, feedbacks from the permafrost are just the (de-)icing on the fossil fuel cake that we are busy baking. It is still up to us to infuence how severe climate change is going to be.

(my emphasis)

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The future for oil and gas exploration.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/seadrill-order-idUSWEA274320120924

 

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/10/01/shell-contracts-four-dynamically-positioned-ultra-deepwater-drill-ships

 

http://www.maersktechnology.com/Stories/Stories/Pages/Ultra-DeepwaterDrillships.aspx

[paulb]

should the above be on the global warming thread.

 

7 x 5kw turbines were installed last week. our is up and running producing at least 50kw each day. so even for a simple small turbine its looking like about a 50% efficiency. we are limited to only add 3.6 to the grid the other is dumped to a heater in the hall way. its never been as warm in there.

 

people are voting in quite large numbers to use alternative energy. none can be stand alone it needs a good mix of everything. with the possible volume of shale gas in the north sea we would be fools to ignore it.

 

however with an oil company planning to bypass shetland with their gas pipeline this should have us worried.

[shetlandpeat]

This document may help explain the problems with shale gas.

 

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NG_58.pdf

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

To Paul B, Why should my links not be on this thead?

 

The discussion here is about artificial warming of the planet due to human civillisation's burning of fosil fuels.

There are some debaters who state we need to stop fossil fuel use now to avoid catastrophe.

I am pointing out factual evidence that the search for, extraction and consumption of all fossil fuels is to continue with out any reduction.

 

There are now hundreds of thousands of wind mills world wide

http://www.globalwindday.org/faq/how-many-wind-turbines-are-there-in-the-world/

But the demand , extraction and consumption of all fossil fuels continues undiminished.

 

Good luck with your wind generator, let us know if she's still standing in 6 months !

 

And to Professor peat, when it come to shale gas or tar sand extraction, if they burn 1 unit to produce 2 then it will be done.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=122363

 

A trillion cubic feet, it's kinda hard tae imagine....

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9717728/The-worlds-commodity-supercycle-is-far-from-dead.html

 

Some interesting statements from the article above :-

 

It is not entirely clear to me why a such a China would be energy frugal. The country is to add 125m cars over the next five years, half the entire US fleet, which will have to be parked in multi-story blocks or below ground. Petrol at the pump costs 66p a litre, so it is not exactly rationed. (Saudi Arabia is worse of course: it costs 5p for diesel).

In any case, the Reserve Bank of Australia -- keenly alert to the China’s story -- disputes the basic premise. It argues in a report that construction will not peak in absolute terms for another five years as 20m rural migrants pour into the cities each year. The pace will not slow much until the urbanisation rate reaches 70pc in 2030.

 

Yet all the nagging worries about resource depletion are still there. New supplies of oil are mostly deep in the ocean beneath of layers of salt, or in Russia’s arctic High North, or in Canadian tar sands at a production cost of $90.

The US National Academy of Sciences says that 26pc of all copper that ever existed in the earth’s crust has already been lost in usable form for mankind, and to my knowledge this claim has not been refuted. Platinum supplies are even tighter.

The shift towards an animal-protein diet in China and across Asia continues to gobble up supply of grains as feed, in competition with biofuels. United Nations data shows that the world is losing 12m hectares of arable land each year (Britain’s total is 17m) due to urban sprawl and degradation, yet there are an extra 73m mouths to feed each year

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9731201/Blackpool-shale-gas-deposit-50pc-larger-than-first-thought.html

 

300 trillion cubic feet of gas.......

[shetlandpeat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9731201/Blackpool-shale-gas-deposit-50pc-larger-than-first-thought.html

 

300 trillion cubic feet of gas.......

 

Interesting, although the company doing the research is pulling out if there is not the OK given by the GOV.

 

the 1,000 square kilometres covered by the Bowland Basin to the east of Blackpool

Now, each pad will drill horizontally for a mile, up to 6 wells per pad, that is quite allot. Then to think that there will be trillions of contaminated water to deal with. Shale gas will turn out to be expensive, there is no way of doing it on the cheap, with all that gas, the prices will probably be kept artificially high to pay for it.

 

The message is already there in the way we have to extract carbon fuels, time is running out (long term and short term). It seems the companies doing this are having to go to extreme measures.

 

The chances are, the gas will probably be transported by wire or HGV tankers. As the pads are short term, the installation of treatment plants, pipe works and feeds into the National Grid Gas network may be too expensive.

 

Locally, in the Bowland area, communities may benefit from 106 monies, CIL monies and other "smoothers" they will be the only ones. The mainland grid will be topped up for a while, nothing however any where else, that too will probably not be viable given the short term of shale gas.

 

As ever, it will be the share holders that could benefit.