• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Dog

Climate news

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, slug zitski said:

Any science that helps to refine and prove the climate model is worthwhile 

That shit is not science.  He said "a cooling is beginning" with no evidence.

Maybe you should stop posting this crap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

The rate of warming does not agree with the climate models.

 

That's shill shit.  It's tired.  You aren't good at this.

Fuck the models I don;t need them the look at what has happened already and come to my own conclusions.

Do you have any 'interesting science' to back up the claim that the planet is cooling as your hero claims?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

in Australia,

 

Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report

 

A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.

Ha - that old chestnut. http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/11/G20-Fossil-Fuel-Bailout-Full.pdf

Firstly, 'oilchange international' is hardly an objective source.  No matter. Let's delve a little deeper (its always good to go a couple of levels down into the rabbit hole, ramdom).

Quote

In Australia, this includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration. The report also classifies the Federal Government's fuel rebate program for resources companies as a subsidy.

 

From page 51 of that report:

Quote

The Australian Government provides several national subsidies aimed explicitly at promoting fossil fuel exploration, in addition to production subsidies that also benefit exploration activities. In total, these national subsidies are worth between $2.9 and $3.5 billion each year (Geoscience Australia, 2014).

 

The Geoscience Australia (2014) reference in that paper points to http://www.ga.gov.au/about/corporate-documents/funding-2013-14

No mention of billions of dollars of subsidies.  In fact Geoscience Australia has an annual budget of something like $200M.. so no idea where $3-3.5B comes from. Do you?  Maybe its  "$26 million per annum" for the next 100 years?

No mention from that very same page that, quote: " Resources sector economic activity accounted for $190 billion in exports and 7.4% of GDP in 2010-11", nor that they pay approximately $15-20B per annum in royalties and company tax

No matter.

 

Quote

The largest of these subsidies is a fuel-tax credit scheme; the Australian mining industry – including coal companies – receives more than $2 billion in subsidies every year (Environment Victoria and Market Forces, 2014).

This is the funniest.  The fuel excise is (notionally) for funding of roads. Exemption (rebates) for that excise are available to just about any off-road activity.

ref. https://www.ato.gov.au/business/fuel-schemes/fuel-tax-credits---business/eligibility/eligible-activities/all-other-business-uses/

Quote
  • agriculture
  • fishing
  • forestry
  • mining
  • marine and rail transport
  • nursing and medical services
  • burner applications
  • electricity generation by commercial generator plant, stationary generator or a portable generator
  • construction
  • manufacturing
  • wholesale/retail
  • property management
  • landscaping
  • dredging
  • panel beating
  • greenhouse heating
  • cement kilns
  • quarrying
  • industrial furnaces
  • non-fuel uses, including  
    • fuel you use to clean machinery parts or drums
    • diesel you spray directly onto a road as a sealant
    • fuel you use as a mould release
    • fuel you use as an input or ingredient – for example, printer inks, paint and adhesives.

 

I'll ignore the 'subsidies for fossil fuel, versus investment in renewables' slight of hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Fuck the models I don;t need them the look at what has happened already and come to my own conclusions.

 

so tell us ramdom.  What have you observed personally in your sad, short little life that convinces you we're headed for thermal armageddon ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Ha - that old chestnut. http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/11/G20-Fossil-Fuel-Bailout-Full.pdf

 

lets ignore the 'subsidies for fossil fuel, versus investment in renewables' slight of hand.

 

 

 

Annual fossil fuel subsidies from G20 total $452b including $5b from Australia

Let's put that into renewables shall we?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

A new report by the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International

Are you going to address any of my points above, or just add lazy links to some third-hand news report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, duncan (the other one) said:

A new report by the Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International

Are you going to address any of my points above, or just add lazy links to some third-hand news report?

That's all I need to do to continue to make you look like a fuckwit, it's easy. 

If you think that report is wrong, let's have the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, random said:

That's all I need to do to continue to make you look like a fuckwit, it's easy. 

If you think that report is wrong, let's have the evidence.

 

How about you find the primary source of "$2.9 - 3.5B/year Geoscience Australia (2014)"

The fuel excise subsidy (the other $2B) - I've debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, duncan (the other one) said:

How about you find the primary source of "$2.9 - 3.5B/year Geoscience Australia (2014)"

The fuel excise subsidy (the other $2B) - I've debunked.

Subsidies go to fossil fuel companies.  You can spin it all you like but that wont change. 

So our government is subsidising climate change, while strangling alternative energy.  That's fucked!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - because you are too lazy... newspaper article you linked refers to this report, which is just an update of the one I previously went through like a dose of salts.

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2015/11/empty_promises_full_report_update.pdf

Data is listed by country at https://www.odi.org/publications/10058-empty-promises-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-and-coal-production

Australian data is here: https://www.odi.org/publications/10071-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-and-coal-production-australia

they even have a handy spreadsheet - total is $USD 4.7B for 2014.

Let's have a look at the top 5 claims by value, shall we.  Value / 'Subsidy Type' / Description

All the 'Tax Expenditure' ones are somehow equating lack of tax (or rebate) as a subsidy. I guess the % of your income you don't pay to the government is a subsidy. Go figure.

 

1. $1.75B  / Tax Expenditure  /  Statutory effective life caps – accelerated depreciation for fossil-fuel assets

Standard business depreciation, like every other corporate entity in Australia. 

 

2. $0.9B / Tax Expenditure  / Fuel tax credits to mining companies for fuel consumption

discussed above. Standard excise rebate for off-road use of fuel.

 

3. $0.84B / Direct Spending /  Energy Security Fund

This ones a bit trickier.  It references an Environment Victoria report, which is linked from https://environmentvictoria.org.au/2014/03/03/cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-boon-for-the-budget-reduces-pollution/ but no longer exists at that link.  Through the magic of the net, I found a copy here: http://www.chemtrailsgeelong.com/uploads/EV & MF_Fossil fuel subsidies in 2014_FINAL.pdf

It mentions the "Energy Security Fund – payments and free permits to the most carbon intensive power stations"

Quote

Energy Security Fund: values calculated by multiplying the value of free permit allocations to carbon pollution‐intensive coal‐fired power stations (41.705 million per annum – see
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon‐Pricing‐Mechanism/Industry‐Assistance/coal‐fired‐generators/Pages/default.aspx) with the forecast carbon price (obtained from Chart 5.1: Australian carbon price,www.carbonpricemodelling.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/content/chart_table_data/chapter5.asp) where the price taken reflected the second half of that financial year. The Australian Treasury does not include measures related to the Clean Energy Future beyond 2013‐14 as Government policy is to repeal the legislation. However, as this outcome is not certain, we have retained the Energy Security Fund payments (which are linked to the carbon price) in this analysis, providing totals that both include and exclude this measure.

Talk about circular reasoning!  Make up a carbon price emitters have to pay (remember, as Julia says, "its not a tax"), allow some exemptions/rebates, then call it expenditure.  About as magical as Wayne's budget surpluses.

Its another rebate / tax exemption for a fictitious "Carbon Price"

 

4. $0.5B / Tax Expenditure / Deduction for capital works expenditure.
Source http://www.tai.org.au/content/pouring-more-fuel-fire

These sorts of tax deductions are legally used by all sorts of businesses right throughout Australia. Nothing to see here.

 

5. $0.13B / Direct Spending / Capital injection to Stanwell Corporation for coal power plant and mine improvements, including Meandu Mine, Tarong Power Station, Stanwell Power Station, Mica Creek Power Station, Swanbank Power Station (Queensland)

Details in the Qld 2013/14 budget paper 3: https://s3.treasury.qld.gov.au/files/bp3-2013-14.pdf

Firstly, "Stanwell Corporation" is the Qld government owned electricity generation utility.

"Stanwell Corporation's capital purchases for 2013-14 is $196.1 million, which primarily relates to maintaining operations at the various Queensland power station sites."

So the spending is capital improvement and maintenance on a 100% government-owned business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, random said:

Subsidies go to fossil fuel companies.  You can spin it all you like but that wont change. 

So our government is subsidising climate change, while strangling alternative energy.  That's fucked!

go back and read it. It is not a subsidy.. unless you consider the tax you don't pay to be a subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extractive industries...minerals...oil.....will always need special treatment.

 

a company may prospect and develope a  potential resource at great expense , then find out that the resource is not economically extractable or that market prices have collapsed and the investment wasted. 

i have no problem with policies that help these industries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

You have led a sheltered life Dunc.  You have no fucking idea do you?

In the US

"(MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period."

in Australia,

Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report

A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.

The govt wrote $592 billion check to energy? Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BHB Billiton of Australia, one of the world’s largest coal companies will break with an international coal organization and threatened to also withdraw from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the groups’ backward stances on climate change."  Per the BBC: 

Seems that the smarter rats are leaving the sinking ship "Denial".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Extractive industries...minerals...oil.....will always need special treatment.

 

a company may prospect and develope a  potential resource at great expense , then find out that the resource is not economically extractable or that market prices have collapsed and the investment wasted. 

i have no problem with policies that help these industries. 

Why do "extractive industries" need special treatment?  Because they aren't economically viable as commercial ventures even paying crappy wages, no benefits and not being responsible for the mess they leave behind?  Is that it?  It certainly isn't because of their societal value.

BTW, aren't solar and wind and hydro also "extractive industries"?  Or does it only count for subsidy if you're dealing with single-use fuels like coal, gas and oil?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Extractive industries...minerals...oil.....will always need special treatment.

 

a company may prospect and develope a  potential resource at great expense , then find out that the resource is not economically extractable or that market prices have collapsed and the investment wasted. 

i have no problem with policies that help these industries. 

The exact same argument could be made for renewable energy, automotive (every time they start relying on gas guzzling monster vehicles fuel prices jump up and people want efficient vehicles) and even the fashion industry (As soon as the clothes are designed a new fashion comes out with a changed a pleat or hemline and everything has to be retooled.)    Either we switch to a managed economy, or we allow free market to work.   Why should we pick favorites?   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Extractive industries...minerals...oil.....will always need special treatment.

 

a company may prospect and develope a  potential resource at great expense , then find out that the resource is not economically extractable or that market prices have collapsed and the investment wasted. 

i have no problem with policies that help these industries. 

shbokjlc.jpeg.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

go back and read it. It is not a subsidy.. unless you consider the tax you don't pay to be a subsidy.

Yes I do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

no answer to any of my points ramdom?

 

Didn't think so - you're a whiney, empty vessel.

Been sailing.  Your points are weasel words. 

$5bn subsidy a year to fossil fuels in Australia, what don't you get about that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Then the answer to your question is yes, and you will not find many arguing against that.

A more important question for useful idiots such as yourself to answer is by how much?

I can see how much, it is being measured very accurately.

2016-12_p14.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

Been sailing.  Your points are weasel words. 

$5bn subsidy a year to fossil fuels in Australia, what don't you get about that?

How many subsidies to brewers, growers, builders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

How many subsidies to brewers, growers, builders?

You don't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, random said:

I can see how much, it is being measured very accurately.

2016-12_p14.png

I do not see a +/- (X *10 to the 21 ) .  What is the accuracy of the measuring devices involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

I do not see a +/- (X *10 to the 21 ) .  What is the accuracy of the measuring devices involved?

They were the accuracy required by the specialists responsible.  Please contact them directly to ask. 

More to the point, over time, less accurate devices would still detect the trend shown.  

You don't know jack about this stuff WarpedBird 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, warbird said:

I do not see a +/- (X *10 to the 21 ) .  What is the accuracy of the measuring devices involved?

Over what range?  When you know the difference between a thermometer and a bolometer,  come back and we can talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Over what range?  When you know the difference between a thermometer and a bolometer,  come back and we can talk.

I do, NOAA does not have bolometers in the sea surface fleet. The sea surface fleet is the bulk of global surface temp sensors. Those sensors have an accuracy of +/-1 degreeC (2degree swing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Laker said:

They don't?  I don't want to blow my cover, but I can assure you that triple-point referenced bolometers are used.

Good, what percent of the fleet? NOAA specs page states +/-1 C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would not be "fleet based" as you say, but part of the instrumentation packages they deploy.  Every ship at some point has deployed and retrieved instruments.  One of the accurate and reliable instruments in general use is based on the same principle as the depth meter, usually in the same package, that can measure ripples on the surface of the water from hundreds of feet down.  Quartz is a very stable element, one part in 10*14.  We can measure frequency very accurately with digital counters.  A column of quartz is set to resonate at a set frequency, usually in the megahertz.  As the column is loaded, this frequency changes.  In depth meters, this is done by exposing one end of the column to ambient pressure.  In the thermometer, a stable material with a high coefficient of thermal expansion is used.  Usually amber.  The high thermal expansion material strains the low expansion material and causes a change in frequency. The result is a thermometer that is accurate to within at least one part in 10*6 and over the -20 to +40 C range that is being observed, 10*-5 degrees is entirely possible as an accuracy.  Of course you run into problems with the definition of temperature at such accuracy and of course there is the correction for pressure.  The thought of your $1M AUV running around with a thermometer accurate to only +/-1 C is disturbing at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Laker said:

This would not be "fleet based" as you say, but part of the instrumentation packages they deploy.  Every ship at some point has deployed and retrieved instruments.  One of the accurate and reliable instruments in general use is based on the same principle as the depth meter, usually in the same package, that can measure ripples on the surface of the water from hundreds of feet down.  Quartz is a very stable element, one part in 10*14.  We can measure frequency very accurately with digital counters.  A column of quartz is set to resonate at a set frequency, usually in the megahertz.  As the column is loaded, this frequency changes.  In depth meters, this is done by exposing one end of the column to ambient pressure.  In the thermometer, a stable material with a high coefficient of thermal expansion is used.  Usually amber.  The high thermal expansion material strains the low expansion material and causes a change in frequency. The result is a thermometer that is accurate to within at least one part in 10*6 and over the -20 to +40 C range that is being observed, 10*-5 degrees is entirely possible as an accuracy.  Of course you run into problems with the definition of temperature at such accuracy and of course there is the correction for pressure.  The thought of your $1M AUV running around with a thermometer accurate to only +/-1 C is disturbing at best.

Glad you are here Laker.  WarpedBird has been banging on about this shot for years, showing his ignorance.

Carry on I can't wait for him converse with you.  Gentleman to Gentleman.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where Warbird, as the true scientist, reconsiders.   He withdraws his objections to the radical new theory since exciting new research methodoligy has convinced him his previous few years were an academic dead end.   In fact, he abruptly withdraws his poster exploring the affect of water evaporation from slime mold on mercury thermometer readings and devotes the rest of his career to better understanding the consequences of his lifestyle on his planet.  Exciting times are afoot, I eagerly await his next paper.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, random said:

Glad you are here Laker.  WarpedBird has been banging on about this shot for years, showing his ignorance.

Carry on I can't wait for him converse with you.  Gentleman to Gentleman.

giphy.gif

Still a dickhead I see! Didn't look at my NDBC link when I posted it years ago, probably still won't.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rsa.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lark said:

This is where Warbird, as the true scientist, reconsiders.   He withdraws his objections to the radical new theory since exciting new research methodoligy has convinced him his previous few years were an academic dead end.   In fact, he abruptly withdraws his poster exploring the affect of water evaporation from slime mold on mercury thermometer readings and devotes the rest of his career to better understanding the consequences of his lifestyle on his planet.  Exciting times are afoot, I eagerly await his next paper.   

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rsa.shtml

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Laker said:

This would not be "fleet based" as you say, but part of the instrumentation packages they deploy.  Every ship at some point has deployed and retrieved instruments.  One of the accurate and reliable instruments in general use is based on the same principle as the depth meter, usually in the same package, that can measure ripples on the surface of the water from hundreds of feet down.  Quartz is a very stable element, one part in 10*14.  We can measure frequency very accurately with digital counters.  A column of quartz is set to resonate at a set frequency, usually in the megahertz.  As the column is loaded, this frequency changes.  In depth meters, this is done by exposing one end of the column to ambient pressure.  In the thermometer, a stable material with a high coefficient of thermal expansion is used.  Usually amber.  The high thermal expansion material strains the low expansion material and causes a change in frequency. The result is a thermometer that is accurate to within at least one part in 10*6 and over the -20 to +40 C range that is being observed, 10*-5 degrees is entirely possible as an accuracy.  Of course you run into problems with the definition of temperature at such accuracy and of course there is the correction for pressure.  The thought of your $1M AUV running around with a thermometer accurate to only +/-1 C is disturbing at best.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rsa.shtml

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Wave period is sensitive to one second plus or minus one second.   How can they possibly figure out Great Lakes waves if they are off by that much? I wouldn’t even bother checking the buoy data.   Except as I pointed out a while back and Raz’r explained in some detail, statistics are like magic (my words).   Uncertainty  from a field of data points is smaller than measurment precision.   See examples on pp 21and 22.  Even I can follow these, and statistics seems like magic to me.   As we tried to explain a while back, your argument is wrong even without Lakers professed knowledge of what sensors are being used.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lark said:

Wave .   Except as I pointed out a while back and Raz’r explained in some detail, statistics are like magic (my words).   Uncertainty  from a field of data points is smaller than measurment precision.   See examples on pp 21and 22.  Even I can follow these, and statistics seems like magic to me.   .   

That is only valid if the measurement inaccuracies are random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

That is only valid if the measurement inaccuracies are random

Are they not?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

So.....you don't know. Thus you cannot presume.

WarpBird has been thoroughly reamed by science.  Funni as shit to watch.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warble should call NOAA and let them know their data is all wrong. Because I'm sure none of the thousands of people (scientist, engineers, technicians) working in the climate field over the past hundred years have ever thought about measurement accuracy. Why would they. It's a huge oversight and thank god WB was here to catch it. 

Thanks WB, you may have just saved us from saving the world.

dial-meat-thermometer-23-401-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the surface temperature accuracies quoted are the same for different buoys.  You can go to web pages like Sea-Bird Scientific for the specs to the sort of temperature probes that would be used and they would state an accuracy of 25 micro Kelvin.  The values for the ADCP are reasonable, if on the conservative side.  The accuracy numbers for the waverider buoys may be OK because of the issues with mixing of air and water temperatures at the interface.  Perhaps they take the same approach with all the floating buoys.  They are measuring and stating they are measuring surface temperature, which is not really valid in the situations we are talking about.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 7:00 PM, Laker said:

Interesting that the surface temperature accuracies quoted are the same for different buoys.  You can go to web pages like Sea-Bird Scientific for the specs to the sort of temperature probes that would be used and they would state an accuracy of 25 micro Kelvin.  The values for the ADCP are reasonable, if on the conservative side.  The accuracy numbers for the waverider buoys may be OK because of the issues with mixing of air and water temperatures at the interface.  Perhaps they take the same approach with all the floating buoys.  They are measuring and stating they are measuring surface temperature, which is not really valid in the situations we are talking about.   

 

...yet, NOAA data is based on those platforms I listed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 20, 2017 at 6:09 AM, slug zitski said:

Extractive industries...minerals...oil.....will always need special treatment.

 

a company may prospect and develope a  potential resource at great expense , then find out that the resource is not economically extractable or that market prices have collapsed and the investment wasted. 

i have no problem with policies that help these industries. 

I'm not sure I follow. I own an oil and gas E&P company, and we do fine without subsidies. Our biggest problem is regulatory overreach and enforcement by bureaucrats who usually have no industry experience and usually very little industry specific knowledge.

our tax flow has always gone one way, me to the government. 

Your second paragraph is a pretty good description of dry hole risk. Yes, if we find an uneconomic resource, and the host government decides, for whatever reason, that it is in the national interest to develop the resource anyways, then there will have to be some sort of support.  I happen not to like those deals. I, and I think most oil guys, like my profit clean and simple. Find for X, develop for Y, produce for Z, sell for (X+Y+Z)x2. We've been pretty lucky at that. Of course, I only operate in the US.

As an aside, I don't post here often, but occasionally read these threads. You are quite a breath of fresh air in what is normally a grim, self-congratulatory groupthink. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know little of the industry.  I do read that in my region there is a valuable offshore gas field .  The big oil companies are ready to work .  The issue is transporting the gas into the present gas distribution,   pipline network . Evidently the oil companies will not proceed unless they recieve government help..taypayers money , political support ....for onshore infrastructure .

i would imagine that you are the same...ports, transport links...

long term investments  that need government guarantees ,, political approval  .

as a taxpayer i view this as in the public interest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:

...yet, NOAA data is based on those platforms I listed....

Interesting, isn't it.  You would think those darn scientists didn't know what they were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

Interesting, isn't it.  You would think those darn scientists know who is payng thier way...

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, warbird said:

FIFY

Those rich universities drowning out the poor fossil fuel companies with fake science?   

https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world. Most of that money—most of the fraction of it that can be tracked, anyway—goes to think tanks that produce policy papers and legislative proposals favorable to donors’ interests, super PACs that support politicians friendly to industry or oppose those who are not, or mercenary lobbyists and consultants, in some instances employing the same people who fought to suppress the science on smoking. In terms of impact, however, few investments can rival the return that the conservative donor class has gotten from the small cohort of evangelical theologians and scholars whose work has provided scriptural justifications for apocalyptic geopolitics and economic rapaciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, warbird said:

FIFY

Sarcasm is such a hard thing to do with an email.  So much so that I must remember to stop trying to do it.  The Canadians, after their revolution with the Harper government, at least offer complete access to the raw data from such things as the Ocean Observatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lark said:

Those rich universities drowning out the poor fossil fuel companies with fake science?   

https://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298

Conservative groups, funded by fossil fuel magnates, spend approximately one billion dollars every year interfering with public understanding of what is actually happening to our world. Most of that money—most of the fraction of it that can be tracked, anyway—goes to think tanks that produce policy papers and legislative proposals favorable to donors’ interests, super PACs that support politicians friendly to industry or oppose those who are not, or mercenary lobbyists and consultants, in some instances employing the same people who fought to suppress the science on smoking. In terms of impact, however, few investments can rival the return that the conservative donor class has gotten from the small cohort of evangelical theologians and scholars whose work has provided scriptural justifications for apocalyptic geopolitics and economic rapaciousness.

Tin foil hat?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 9:45 AM, warbird said:

I do not see a +/- (X *10 to the 21 ) .  What is the accuracy of the measuring devices involved?

You don't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warbird said:

 

OK, let's assume the temperatures stay the same from now on. How much air will you have to put in your tires to offset the extra weight from the load being cold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 4:12 AM, random said:

You have led a sheltered life Dunc.  You have no fucking idea do you?

In the US

"(MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period."

in Australia,

Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report

A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.

Hmmm, they get 70% of the subsidies and produce 90% of the energy.

Sounds like they are getting screwed

energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite cold ending to 2017, it was the warmest year on record in Austin. And, don't be fooled by this brief cold spell--global warming is alive and well. Austin's 5 hottest years have ALL occurred since 2006. Austin's records date to 1890s.

3D4A7DC4-4D8A-4D2F-98D2-818E04B9D618.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Despite cold ending to 2017, it was the warmest year on record in Austin. And, don't be fooled by this brief cold spell--global warming is alive and well. Austin's 5 hottest years have ALL occurred since 2006. Austin's records date to 1890s.

3D4A7DC4-4D8A-4D2F-98D2-818E04B9D618.jpeg

Have you considered plotting the growth in the population in the area to the temperatures?  It looks like your 72.0 to 72.1 is about a 0.13% increase.  In that same time frame, Austin added over 100K in population.  The suburban area expanded as well.

All those new folks have arrived and want air conditioned houses and pump the warm air inside out to where the thermometers are.

Move out to the less built up area of Elgin and the annual average is in the 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So @Saorsa is claiming, at least in the Austin area, warming is entirely driven by human activity. 

Perhaps it is true similar warming influence by every  city in the world could possibly be a factor in the general warming of the planet?? !!!

The globe is mighty large but there are billions of these humans each of whom is contributing a little.

What if all the carbon based fuels being burned by those billions are causing changes to the atmosphere?

What if fumes from that burning change how the  atmospheric blanket around the globe absorbs or radiates energy?? 

What if the equilibrium temperature is being altered? 

What if the globe is so big, the forces of change can be operating for hundreds of years before the changes become detectable?

What  if those forces of change are irreversible or take many centuries to “turn off.”?????

 

WOW!! Those thoughts are certainly upsetting. Let’s not think about it!!! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

So @Saorsa is claiming, at least in the Austin area, warming is entirely driven by human activity. 

Perhaps it is true similar warming influence by every  city in the world could possibly be a factor in the general warming of the planet?? !!!

The globe is mighty large but there are billions of these humans each of whom is contributing a little.

What if all the carbon based fuels being burned by those billions are causing changes to the atmosphere?

What if fumes from that burning change how the  atmospheric blanket around the globe absorbs or radiates energy?? 

What if the equilibrium temperature is being altered? 

What if the globe is so big, the forces of change can be operating for hundreds of years before the changes become detectable?

What  if those forces of change are irreversible or take many centuries to “turn off.”?????

 

WOW!! Those thoughts are certainly upsetting. Let’s not think about it!!! 

 

 

Now, shitwit, where did I say entirely?

I've never said the world isn't getting warmer, just that none of the idiotic proposals to date will make one bit of difference.

After Greenies denied the idea for years even the EPA now recognizes urban heat islands.

As long as you keep making the island bigger, the temperature will increase.

You're the dunce that picked a rapidly growing urban center for your example.  There's a clue in that old saying

THINK GLOBAL ACT LOCAL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

So @Saorsa is claiming, at least in the Austin area, warming is entirely driven by human activity. 

Perhaps it is true similar warming influence by every  city in the world could possibly be a factor in the general warming of the planet?? !!!

The globe is mighty large but there are billions of these humans each of whom is contributing a little.

What if all the carbon based fuels being burned by those billions are causing changes to the atmosphere?

What if fumes from that burning change how the  atmospheric blanket around the globe absorbs or radiates energy?? 

What if the equilibrium temperature is being altered? 

What if the globe is so big, the forces of change can be operating for hundreds of years before the changes become detectable?

What  if those forces of change are irreversible or take many centuries to “turn off.”?????

 

WOW!! Those thoughts are certainly upsetting. Let’s not think about it!!! 

 

 

You could use that case to stop all economic activity whatsoever.

What if the sun god is displeased because we haven't sacrificed a virgin in a while?  Is it really worth the risk?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

You could use that case to stop all economic activity whatsoever.

What if the sun god is displeased because we haven't sacrificed a virgin in a while?  Is it really worth the risk?

The supply of virgins is being depleted by Islamic martyrs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, By the lee said:

 

10 hours ago, By the lee said:

Two good examples.  The first shows that if you stop polluting the earth will wipe its ass. 

The second the relationship between ocean O2 levels and nitrogen fertilizers which make feeding the world cheaper. 

Conservation is still the key

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, warbird said:

The front is in the picture......

The sun rises in the west on your world?

Rotating_globe.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ishmael said:

For one horrible moment I thought those were pictures of my eyeballs.

Colored floaters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 5, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Saorsa said:

The supply of virgins is being depleted by Islamic martyrs.

 

Now hold on just a second, Wilbur!  (If I may call you Wilbur.  Just pretend I'm Mr Ed, just for a leetle bit....)   The virgins that the Martyrs do whatever they do with are in heaven, right?  And that means everyone in heaven has expired? (How old are are these virgins?)  Or are they just on loan to heaven, but when they get back to earth they are they officially undeflowered?  Or is the deflowering retroactively withdrawn?  (eewww....)  Or maybe all the females who go to heaven become virgins?   Perhaps ozone is caused as a byproduct of any type of virgin churning?  I call this the Pence Multiphasic No Man Made Global Warming Virgin Churning Theory.  Or maybe the Martyrs, never having tasted alcohol, get really shit faced for the very first time,  and just think the 'virgins' are virgins?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amati said:

Now hold on just a second, Wilbur!  (If I may call you Wilbur.  Just pretend I'm Mr Ed, just for a leetle bit....)   The virgins that the Martyrs do whatever they do with are in heaven, right?  And that means everyone in heaven has expired? (How old are are these virgins?)  Or are they just on loan to heaven, but when they get back to earth they are they officially undeflowered?  Or is the deflowering retroactively withdrawn?  (eewww....)  Or maybe all the females who go to heaven become virgins?   Perhaps ozone is caused as a byproduct of any type of virgin churning?  I call this the Pence Multiphasic No Man Made Global Warming Virgin Churning Theory.  Or maybe the Martyrs, never having tasted alcohol, get really shit faced for the very first time,  and just think the 'virgins' are virgins?

 

 

Just draw pretty faces on the Martyr's backs and you'll have an undulating line of happy drunks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

JANUARY 12, 2018

Global Warming Stirs the Methane Monster

by ROBERT HUNZIKER

 

Screen-Shot-2018-01-11-at-5.12.52-PM.png

Photo by Jeremy Buckingham | CC BY 2.0

It’s January, yet methane hydrates in the Arctic are growling like an incensed monster on a scorching hot mid-summer day. But, it is January; it’s winter, not July!

On January 1st Arctic methane at 2,764 ppb spiked upwards into the atmosphere, which, according to Arctic News: “Was likely caused by methane hydrate destabilization in the sediments on the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.” (Source: Unfolding Arctic Catastrophe, Arctic News, January 2, 2018) Once again, with emphasis, it’s January; it’s winter, and there’s little or no sunshine above the Arctic Circle. So, what gives? Why are alarming levels of methane spewing into the atmosphere in the dead of winter?

For starters, record low sea ice volume, which has been dropping like a leaden weight for years because of human-generated (anthropogenic) global warming. That’s a recipe for trouble, big time trouble as methane hydrates (lattices of ice that entrap methane molecules) get exposed to warmer water. In that regard, average sea ice volume throughout 2017 was at record lows.

Making matters worse yet, extraordinarily warm water currents flow into the Arctic from nearby ocean waters that have been absorbing 90% of global warming. Ergo, Arctic water in thin ice does not cool down without a lot of thick ice to melt the warm water currents. So, abnormally warm water remains into winter months and, in time, reaches sediments at the bottom of the ocean, disrupting methane hydrates, which have stored tonnes of methane over millennia. However, in due course, all hell breaks loose with large-scale methane eruptions, one of those “Naw, it can’t be happening” moments.

Here’s the problem: On average, sea surface temps were 23.35°F warmer during the period October 1 to December 30, 2017 compared to the 30-year average temperature. On October 25th, the sea surface was as warm as 63.5°F. For the Arctic, that’s hot, not just warmer. And, that brings forth a big-gulp question: What’s going to happen in summertime when methane hydrates are more exposed?

After all, methane (CH4) is a dominating greenhouse gas that makes carbon dioxide (CO2) look like a piker during initial years and packs the walloping risk of runaway global warming, which, in turn, threatens agricultural sources of food… not a good scenario. Imagine the chaos, considering the fact that “runaway” means totally out of control!

In all, an impending disaster seems destined to happen, but nobody knows when. It will likely occur unexpected by an ill advised, crass, blundering, philistine society blindsided by a scorched planet and extensive loss of foodstuff. Chaos spreads throughout when all of a sudden, unexpectedly, crops fail. One bad crop season follows another and another. For example, Syria, where its 2006-11 devastating drought caused 75% of Syria’s farms to fail and 85% of livestock to die. That’s a wipeout!

In the end, as crops fail, it’s too late to take remedial action beyond dealing with dystopian warring factions locked in bloodthirsty combat over morsels of foodstuff.

Not only that, one more nasty early warning sign of trouble is right around the corner: The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) January 3rd year-end headline reads: “Baked Alaska and 2017 in Review,” stating: “… notably high temperatures prevail over most of the Arctic, especially over Central Alaska.” That’s permafrost country! That’s where tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of methane lies in-waiting to spring loose into the atmosphere. After all, global warming is the kissing cousin to methane buried in permafrost.

And, of equivalent concern on a worldwide basis: “In 2016 – now and at least for another year, the hottest year on record – global sea ice extent suffered a precipitous drop, plummeting from a fairly average 2015 value to a new record low. Now, as we wrap up 2017, data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that annual average global sea ice extent has dropped again, hitting an even lower record value.” (Source: Global Sea Ice Hits New Record Low for 2nd Year Straight, The Weather Network, January 8, 2017)

Meantime, the two poles, north and south, are in the early stages of collapse. Scientists know it, and there is lots of chatter about geo-engineering and assorted methodologies to fix anthropogenic global warming before it consumes civilization in a fireball, but those proposals are in dreamland for the moment. Hopefully, one of their fixit ideas works “to scale” because the planet is likely too big for geo-engineering schemes to work without some kind of unintended consequence, which may be worse than the original fix. In fact, nobody really knows for sure what will happen when the biosphere is forced to behave according to computer-designed plans. It’s an enormous undertaking!

Therefore, it is recommended that today’s push-button, screen-watching youth learn survival skills rather than playing games for hours on end, endlessly, moronically pre-occupied with electronic fantasylands, because one day in the near future that fantasy turns to harsh reality, likely hitting hard, really hard.

After all, eco-migrants, numbering tens of thousands, are already worldwide phenomena, especially along the southern and eastern Mediterranean Sea regions, where land is turning bone dry faster than anywhere else on the planet. It’s the start of the Great Global Warming Migration scenario… but, pray tell, where to?

 
More articles by:ROBERT HUNZIKER

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites