WWTBAM Bored

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:President Obama will ask Congress Tuesday to speed up the construction of new icebreaker ships in order to protect U.S. interests and resources in the Arctic, amid growing concern that the U.S. has ceded influence to Russia in the strategic waters.

Yes, global warming has increased the need for them ironically:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oba ... ic-n419336

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:President Obama will ask Congress Tuesday to speed up the construction of new icebreaker ships in order to protect U.S. interests and resources in the Arctic, amid growing concern that the U.S. has ceded influence to Russia in the strategic waters.

Yes, global warming has increased the need for them ironically:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oba ... ic-n419336

This is irony http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY
A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:This is irony http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY
A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY

It's not the coverage of the ice but its thickness that matters:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Ar ... overed.htm

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:This is irony http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY
A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY

It's not the coverage of the ice but its thickness that matters:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Ar ... overed.htm

And higher temperatures make the ice thicker?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:This is irony http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY
A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY

It's not the coverage of the ice but its thickness that matters:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Ar ... overed.htm

And higher temperatures make the ice thicker?

Actually, yes, sometimes. I don't know if that's what's going on here, and I don't claim to be an expert, but yes, higher temperatures can make ice thicker.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:This is irony http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY
A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-glad ... u63ce:KmMY

It's not the coverage of the ice but its thickness that matters:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Ar ... overed.htm

And higher temperatures make the ice thicker?

Of course not. What I linked to shows they're getting thinner.

I haven't looked at this topic for years. My position on climate change is well known, and I got tired of arguing about it. But this story caught my eye:

Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought

650% more, in fact. Even the best climate models are useless if their input data are so lousy. GIGO, as they say.

jarnon wrote:I haven't looked at this topic for years. My position on climate change is well known, and I got tired of arguing about it. But this story caught my eye:

Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought

650% more, in fact. Even the best climate models are useless if their input data are so lousy. GIGO, as they say.

The article contains at least one statement that appears to me to be a factual error.

Chris Mooney wrote:Trees pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they grow, and cutting or burning them down releases that carbon again.

Burning trees releases (some of) their carbon into the atmosphere. Cutting them down doesn't. It merely ends their role in pulling more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:I haven't looked at this topic for years. My position on climate change is well known, and I got tired of arguing about it. But this story caught my eye:

Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought

650% more, in fact. Even the best climate models are useless if their input data are so lousy. GIGO, as they say.

The article contains at least one statement that appears to me to be a factual error.

Chris Mooney wrote:Trees pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they grow, and cutting or burning them down releases that carbon again.

Burning trees releases (some of) their carbon into the atmosphere. Cutting them down doesn't. It merely ends their role in pulling more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. --Bob

I would imagine they are referring to the decomposition process. Also not an expert, but I would imagine most of the carbon in the tree is re-released in some way, and the vast majority of that would be to the atmosphere.

Bob78164 wrote:Burning trees releases (some of) their carbon into the atmosphere. Cutting them down doesn't. It merely ends their role in pulling more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. --Bob

It depends. If the trees are cut for logging, their lumber retains the carbon. But clearcutting forests to make new farms, and leaving the trees to rot, releases their carbon. Obviously, clearcutting has other negative effects as well.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nas ... han-losses

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nas ... han-losses

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

It might...If...I don't think.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nas ... han-losses

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

It might...If...I don't think.

There's a consensus of "It might", "If" and "I don't think"s. So it is settled. Let's dismantle capitalism.

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro- ... -needs-em/

News from Australia
The head of the CSIRO is doing what the Greens say they want — moving beyond the debate and putting more money into adaption and mitigation. Where’s the Greens statement applauding him…?

This is a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

http://www.echopress.com/opinion/letter ... gy-freedom

The author is the Minnesota 7th Congressional District person for the "Citizens Climate Education Network" and she writes in fairly often. I think she was at the Soil Health thingie that I talked about in "Snirt". If not her, it was her doppelganger, as one lady kept trying to turn the conversation to Global Warming.

Pull Quotes>>>"when we could have fuel free for the taking?"<<<

>>>"Free fuels don't go bankrupt like so many of the coal companies or the oil frackers."<<<<<

Obviously, her group's focus tested buzzword is "Free Fuels"-also she appears to have never heard of Solyndra or any of the other endless examples of renewable energy companies that have gone bankrupt. We also had a local solar panel manufacturing company run into serious financial difficulties recently.

Be that as it may, Wind and Solar are manifestly not free. IIRC, it costs about 2 million dollars to put up a large wind turbine-to say nothing of the environmental/economic costs of rare earth minerals/copper mining etc involved in solar/wind manufacturing projects.

It is simply impossible for someone who views solar/wind as "Free" to develop a rational/realistic energy policy.

It will put money in your pocket!

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There's a consensus of "It might", "If" and "I don't think"s. So it is settled. Let's dismantle capitalism.

Yes- it's always helpful to assign extreme positions to people you don't agree with...

Spock wrote:It is simply impossible for someone who views solar/wind as "Free" to develop a rational/realistic energy policy.

It is equally irrational for those who think the "free market" will "naturally evolve our energy strategy" for us.

You think climate models are bad?

They are way more scientific than the "models" we keep using to gauge which economic decisions are the best ones to make.

Here's the deal. Irrespective of global warming, we need to have a coherent strategy for getting off fossil fuels.

The reason is no one understands that our "economic signals" are telling us that continued reliance on them is going to be a major constraint/drag on future economic growth. They don't understand why our current supply "glut" is actually a major warning sign to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Our "way of life" is a dissapative structure like our bodies- it needs constant smooth energy inputs to function and grow.

Fossil fuels are very soon...if not already...going to be a less smooth, less constant energy input.

By the time economic signals that REALLY let us know this start appearing, it will be too late to change without MAJOR economic dislocation.

To good not to post
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -scumbags/

I disagree. I want blood. Entrails too, please. Those of us who have spent years of our lives being mocked and traduced and demeaned by these verminous charlatans deserve our pound of flesh, not only for the sake of sweet vengeance, but also for the greater cause of scientific honesty and journalistic integrity.

Jeemie wrote:

Spock wrote:It is simply impossible for someone who views solar/wind as "Free" to develop a rational/realistic energy policy.

It is equally irrational for those who think the "free market" will "naturally evolve our energy strategy" for us.

You think climate models are bad?

They are way more scientific than the "models" we keep using to gauge which economic decisions are the best ones to make.

Here's the deal. Irrespective of global warming, we need to have a coherent strategy for getting off fossil fuels.

The reason is no one understands that our "economic signals" are telling us that continued reliance on them is going to be a major constraint/drag on future economic growth. They don't understand why our current supply "glut" is actually a major warning sign to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Our "way of life" is a dissapative structure like our bodies- it needs constant smooth energy inputs to function and grow.

Fossil fuels are very soon...if not already...going to be a less smooth, less constant energy input.

By the time economic signals that REALLY let us know this start appearing, it will be too late to change without MAJOR economic dislocation.

I have never quite understood how a Glut tells us a shortage is coming. You will also have to pardon me if I have less than 100% confidence in your predictive abilities.

10 years ago(or so), when there was a shortage of natural gas in this country and major investment was flowing towards import terminals-your side never saw the natural gas glut coming. You never saw the Bakken/ Eagle Ford/Permian etc coming in oil.

I watched your side talking the Bakken down all the way up-"Oh, it might get to 200,000, but won't go beyond-Oh, it might get to 400,000-but not beyond."-etc

I would love if you could show me somebody that said early that it will get to 1,000,000. It is still above that-but dropping slowly, because it doesn't work at these low levels.

However, that oil is still there and in the short term there are a lot of wells that are not finished that can be completed in weeks-if/when oil goes up.

Long term-when prices go up-somebody will drill it-it may not be the same companies as are there now-but somebody with strong hands will do it.

The big weakness that I see on your side is that you only think technological advances will come on your side. You do not factor in the technological advancements on the fossil fuel production side.

Spock:

I am actually quite disheartened at the lack of technological progress in the area of renewable energy. It makes me worry about how bad the economic dislocation will be once the ever-increasing difficulty in maintaining a smooth, inexpensive delivery of energy becomes more apparent.

That said, the "technical advances" on the fossil fuel side actually all are technical advances that were made decades ago. They just were never widely used because the price of oil never rose high enough to make it economically worth it to use them on a wider scale.

Coal-to-liquids started in the 1920s.
Directional drilling started in the 1930s.
Hydraulic fracking started in the 1940s.
Cyclic steam injection in the 1950s.
Deep water drilling technology is from the 1970s.

There is literally no technology the oil industry uses today that wasn't invented decades ago- all that has happened is there have been some incremental improvements over when these technologies were first used.

And all the technological advances have one thing in common- they require the input of more energy over time to produce the equivalent amount of energy from the "low hanging fruit" of the easy-to-drill oil, and most times, rates of depletion happen faster and faster.

The problem with your side is you do not understand that what determine ultimately whether we have a shortage of oil is not the amount of oil in the ground, but the rate at which it can be extracted, and the amount of energy that's left over after it's been extracted than can be used for useful work like growing the economy.

Your side doesn't understand that we could have 60 trillion barrels of oil in the ground, but if it takes us the equivalent of 1 barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil, then it's like we have no oil at all. Or if we can only produce 95 mbpd, but the world needs 100 mbpd in order to sustain even moderate growth in the economy, then we are going to have a shortage.

Your side also doesn't understand the power of the exponential function, and how fast even modest growth in energy consumption can cause a large increase in the product being consumed. I know your side doesn't understand this because every time it evaluates a new source of oil and how long it can sustain us, I hear/see the dreaded words that are fingernails across the chalkboard for me- "This oilfield has enough oil to fulfill 1/5 of the US' needs at current rates of consumption.

Your side doesn't understand that a symptom of Peak Oil actually can be periodic gluts and lower prices because of a couple of factors- one being, that if economic growth is constrained, then people's wages can't grow fast enough, and demand for oil crashes even as the price does, and the second being investors start using oil as a hedge as opposed to actually using the oil to do things, because there are no investments in real economic growth worth going after.

Everything we have seen...the massive amounts of debt that have been pumped into the economy that yield no economic growth, the use of assets as investment hedges as opposed to investing in them to do something with, the supply/demand disconnects based on miniscule changes in economic conditions...the tanking of the stock market at the mere mention of the idea that the debt spigot will soon be turned off....points to constraints to future economic growth. Everything we have seen hints that that constraint is primarily the change in the availability of energy to keep the whole modern economy going.

But no one wants to admit that.

Jeemie wrote: Irrespective of global warming

These are good words to start or finish an epitaph of global warming hysteria

Jeemie wrote: That said, the "technical advances" on the fossil fuel side actually all are technical advances that were made decades ago. They just were never widely used because the price of oil never rose high enough to make it economically worth it to use them on a wider scale.

Coal-to-liquids started in the 1920s.
Directional drilling started in the 1930s.
Hydraulic fracking started in the 1940s.
Cyclic steam injection in the 1950s.
Deep water drilling technology is from the 1970s.

There is literally no technology the oil industry uses today that wasn't invented decades ago- all that has happened is there have been some incremental improvements over when these technologies were first used.

LOL

The integrated circuit was invented in 1959.
The LCD screen has been around since the 1970s as well.

I guess there have been some minor incremental improvements in those as well, but no new technology.