In The News

[knocker]

I can't quote Times article as I've been warned off.

The developed world may soon be compensating the developing world for climate change

However, there is a rather important story in today's newspapers: the potential amount of shale gas we have in this country is larger than we thought. As the Times (£) reports:

"The British Geological Survey (BGS) is carrying out an independent analysis of shale gas reserves which it plans to publish in the new year. It is understood that the BGS will estimate that the 1,000 square kilometres covered by the Bowland Basin to the east of Blackpool contains 300 trillion cubic feet of gas, equivalent to 17 times the remaining known reserves in the North Sea. A year ago Cuadrilla published an estimate of 200 trillion cubic feet for the Bowland Basin. At the time the company said that the figure was conservative. But many experts dismissed it as unrealistic."

The Chancellor announced in his Autumn Statement, that there would be tax breaks to incentivise shale gas developers, which would result in at least 30 new gas-fired power plants being built by 2030. As a result, our domestic energy bills are likely to come down, in time. We will also be less dependent on unreliably available and unethically owned gas from Russia and the Middle East. As Lord (Nigel) Lawson writes in today's Daily Mail:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/12/the-developed-world-may-soon-be-compensating-the-developing-world-for-climate-change.html

[Methuselah]

And now for the Goon Show: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton?INTCMP=SRCH

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058.abstract

As an addition to the discussions over on the Greenland thread.

The paper appears to make it clear that the current rises in GHG's has no equal in over 300 million years. As such the rate of change will be very different to other periods leaving only final extents of comparable GHG levels can be seen as useful?

[pottyprof]

The paper appears to make it clear that the current rises in GHG's has no equal in over 300 million years. As such the rate of change will be very different to other periods leaving only final extents of comparable GHG levels can be seen as useful?

Why would anyone with a time machine want to say anything else??

Oh.. Hang on..................

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why would anyone with a time machine want to say anything else??

Oh.. Hang on..................

Eh?

I hope a day spent looking at building information model data hasn't dulled my mind to the point that I'm missing the obvious!?

[Gray-Wolf]

I can only think that P.P. does not understand/give credence to proxy measurements from the past? I think if he was clearer on the myriad of methods, esp. relating to atmospheric concentrations? and how we can use them to show (accurately) todays atmospheric mix, he would look more kindly on the science?

Coming from a Geology background myself the reconstruction of past ecosystems, from the 'leftovers' from that time, has never appeared 'Voodo' to me but I can see the lack of acceptance of such would lead to a feeling that the past is an 'unknown' with no one having a right to desribe it without having visited it?

I have not visited many places of the planet but do not dismiss my understanding of it because it is built up of 'proxy' info of scientific measurements and stuffed animals ( and those majikal pictures on that screen I have...lol...)

[Gray-Wolf]

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/51788

Another piece of the warming added to the puzzle?

[pottyprof]

I can only think that P.P. does not understand/give credence to proxy measurements from the past? I think if he was clearer on the myriad of methods, esp. relating to atmospheric concentrations? and how we can use them to show (accurately) todays atmospheric mix, he would look more kindly on the science?

Proxy measurement has it's uses and I don't deny that but a small error can lead to huge errors down the line. Proxy data has huge error margins so it is fairly useless with regards to accuracy. It may give us a general feeling as to what things used to be like but basing any kind of mathematics around these figures is going to result in those error margins being carried through to the final output. Depending on what you are wanting to prove means you can grab any figure you want over a huge range of figures in that error margin and if one doesn't work then go grab another until it does. Nobody questions the data used because it is within the range of error.

Does anyone have access to the raw data and the figures and calculations used?

[Gray-Wolf]

Would love to see this aired!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Proxy measurement has it's uses and I don't deny that but a small error can lead to huge errors down the line. Proxy data has huge error margins so it is fairly useless with regards to accuracy. It may give us a general feeling as to what things used to be like but basing any kind of mathematics around these figures is going to result in those error margins being carried through to the final output. Depending on what you are wanting to prove means you can grab any figure you want over a huge range of figures in that error margin and if one doesn't work then go grab another until it does. Nobody questions the data used because it is within the range of error.

Does anyone have access to the raw data and the figures and calculations used?

Don't you think it depends on the type of proxy data?

A review of the paper here discusses the proxy measurements they used in an easy to understand manner I think.

Not sure about getting the raw data though, best to contact the authors for that.

[4wd]

Would love to see this aired!

I'm not surprised.

Hating those who supply the energy that is keeping you warm and that computer running is on a par with stupidity to hating those who keep food in the shops.

I suggest you switch off the gas and electric at the mains and see how it feels.

[pottyprof]

Don't you think it depends on the type of proxy data?

No, because all proxy data has an inbuilt error. Do they have differing levels of error? Yes, so some give a better feel than others. As for proxy data arrived at by using one area of the planet, local environment factors could adversely affect the result, just as European blocking patterns don't reflect global temperatures.

A review of the paper here discusses the proxy measurements they used in an easy to understand manner I think.

Not sure about getting the raw data though, best to contact the authors for that.

Thanks for that. Will have a read later.

[Devonian]

I'm not surprised.

Hating those who supply the energy that is keeping you warm and that computer running is on a par with stupidity to hating those who keep food in the shops.

I suggest you switch off the gas and electric at the mains and see how it feels.

So, energy suppliers and farmers should be beyond criticism? That is what you're saying?

[laserguy]

So, energy suppliers and farmers should be beyond criticism? That is what you're saying?

Is that what you think he's saying? No-one is beyond criticism.

Edited December 11, 2012 by jethro

[Devonian]

Is that what you think he's saying? No-one is beyond criticism. I've not watched the video clip; don't need to as the heading and the fact that it was posted by a rabid warmist says all I need to know. Do they (and presumably farmers too,as you infer ) really hate children? What is it with you guys?

They were questions...

Edited December 11, 2012 by jethro

[laserguy]

OK I'm bored; gave in and watched the clip and as expected was confronted with scenes of floods and forest fires an' stuff. Yawn. Do the tens of thousands of people at Exxon and other oil concerns hate their children too,or do they live in an invisible anti-climate change shield? I trust that the folk who post such twaddle on here are powering their computer with one of those foot-pedal devices one used to see on vintage sewing machines? Seriously,the hypocrisy of the warmists is truly staggering to behold.

[Methuselah]

Come on you guys...Can't y'all have an adult discussion?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that folk have got carried away with some gallows humour here? I'd be very proud that i knew someone with all the answers here on the board but I'm afraid I don't. I think this has a lot to do with many folk being a good distance from understanding the questions to be answered?

Our move away from fossil fuel dependence will either be voluntary or enforced. We will choose to adopt more renewable ,clean energy providers or be forced to by circumstance.

Some folk feel that fossil fuels have caused great damage to our planet. They do not question what 'energy' has enabled through the industrialised portion of human history just the hidden costs that we were unaware of for the longest period of it's usage.

With the evidence of that damage rising weekly, in the uptick of papers both confirming it's damage and the upward revisions of the scale of that damage, surely both the companies and Govts should be actively investing into alternatives and not the same product that has caused the damage? The rude amounts of profit oil comp.s appear to make dwarf current investment in R&D of renewables and implementation of schemes bringing renewables on line. Govt s ,now committed to compensate poorer nations for the past damage fossil fuel use has caused, give out very mixed messages when they actively signal Fossil fuel comps to expand production or move into novel areas of fossil fuel usage?

All Advertising exaggerates. It is the thing used to entice us toward that product. This is an advert under discussion.

We know fossil fuel damages the ecosystem. We have all seen the oil spills. Do folk really believe this is a clean industry?

[jethro]

I think that folk have got carried away with some gallows humour here? I'd be very proud that i knew someone with all the answers here on the board but I'm afraid I don't. I think this has a lot to do with many folk being a good distance from understanding the questions to be answered?

Our move away from fossil fuel dependence will either be voluntary or enforced. We will choose to adopt more renewable ,clean energy providers or be forced to by circumstance.

Some folk feel that fossil fuels have caused great damage to our planet. They do not question what 'energy' has enabled through the industrialised portion of human history just the hidden costs that we were unaware of for the longest period of it's usage.

With the evidence of that damage rising weekly, in the uptick of papers both confirming it's damage and the upward revisions of the scale of that damage, surely both the companies and Govts should be actively investing into alternatives and not the same product that has caused the damage? The rude amounts of profit oil comp.s appear to make dwarf current investment in R&D of renewables and implementation of schemes bringing renewables on line. Govt s ,now committed to compensate poorer nations for the past damage fossil fuel use has caused, give out very mixed messages when they actively signal Fossil fuel comps to expand production or move into novel areas of fossil fuel usage?

All Advertising exaggerates. It is the thing used to entice us toward that product. This is an advert under discussion.

We know fossil fuel damages the ecosystem. We have all seen the oil spills. Do folk really believe this is a clean industry?

Isn't that the same as saying we have all seen the motorway pile up's, do folk really believe cars are safe?

Cars are perfectly safe but occasionally the person behind the wheel gets it wrong or a mechanical failure causes an accident. Fossil fuels have enabled people to live a longer, healthier, wealthier life, occasionally a mechanical failure or human error may result in environmental damage.

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a little disingenuous isn't it J'? Have you seen the West African Oil fields? That mess is not an occasional accident but the way they do things there (as no legislation exists to stop them).

Have you seen the smogs in China around their coal industrialised areas? Is that accidental? I'm sure that there are folk better placed than me to outline the damage that the fossil fuel industry has purported through it's years of industry?

[jethro]

That's a little disingenuous isn't it J'? Have you seen the West African Oil fields? That mess is not an occasional accident but the way they do things there (as no legislation exists to stop them).

Have you seen the smogs in China around their coal industrialised areas? Is that accidental? I'm sure that there are folk better placed than me to outline the damage that the fossil fuel industry has purported through it's years of industry?

To go back to the cars comparison, we have speed limits, the highway code, the MOT test and the restriction on drinking, plus a minimum age limit and driving test. None of these existed when cars were first invented, they have been introduced by successive governments. If governments fail to introduce legislation or safe practise policies, then they are lacking - the problem is with the lack of legislation, not the fossil fuel industry. All businesses will function on the most cost efficient basis in order to generate the most profit, that's not unique to the fossil fuel industry and often companies have to be made to sacrifice a little profit in order to comply with health and safety. I think it is wrong and in this context, invalid to blame the woes of environmental damage and climate change on the fossil fuel industries. People really ought to think how their life would be without the use of fossil fuels, for a start off, we wouldn't be having this on-line debate without electricity and the petro-chemical industry.

[knocker]

Report compares greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions tracking across North America

Addressing gaps, improving comparability key to advancing domestic and regional emissions objectives

Montreal, 10 December 2012—Right now, if businesses or environmental officials need to estimate the impact of different greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures in one country or region of North America compared to another, they face multiple GHG reporting regimes with varying levels of detail and complexity.

In response, Canada, Mexico and the United States are seeking to improve the comparability of emissions data in North America to advance domestic carbon emissions objectives, standards, regulations and policies by 2015, as part of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Council’s strategic priorities.

In North America, trinational climate policy cooperation to reduce such emissions would ultimately depend upon comparable GHG emissions data and information from each country.

Working through the CEC, the countries have taken an important first step in looking at the state of comparability of emissions data at national and subnational levels with the completion of a background report: Assessment of the Comparability of Greenhouse Gas and Black Carbon Emissions Inventories in North America. To access the full report, click here.

http://cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=25316&SiteNodeID=655&BL_ExpandID=&AA_SiteLanguageID=1

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just because fossil fuels have, temporarily at least, made the lives of people in quite a few countries better, is far from meaning that they're good for the ecosystem.

It's the unrealistic and destructive idea of unlimited economic growth and consumerism that has lead to such ridiculous needs for energy, and the power of the hydrocarbon industry within governments that has contributed to them having such dominance in the energy market.

The world could manage quite well without using so much fossil fuel. People might have to go for local beef rather than Brazilian, buy locally made toys rather than Chinese imports for their kids and maybe stick a solar panel or 2 on their roof, pay a little more for electricity while a renewable infrastructure is put in place.

How different might things be if the money that went on fossil fuel subsidies and clean up operations (among many things) went into developing a renewable energy based infrastructure and improving efficiency in renewables? Suppose we'll never know.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that BFTV, I thought I might have finally flipped and not given my undying appreciation to the great God petrochemical there for a moment?

Why should an appreciation of what we have now be used as an instruction for keeping the staus quo esp. when we have discovered how myopic such a view is? This is not Piaget now is it? are we really suggesting we sacrifice quantity of life for quality? Logans Run anyone?

When you discover something is bad for you you do not hark back to all the pleasure it has brought you through your time using it you simply seek to stop using it?

To me it is as simple as that but it appears to be far from that simple with the producers of that comodity appearing to be hand in hand with Govt.s to ensure it's continued usage. It's like Govt. drugs. There are so many no toxic substances for personal relaxation why does Govt. only allow us access to one of the most dangerous? Is it really to keep us tanked to the point of not questioning?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Is it really to keep us tanked to the point of not questioning?

They can try. Never stop questioning......