Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Sun 21 Jan 2018, 18:49:03**

http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/2018/ ... he-arctic/

Scientists find surprising evidence of rapid changes in the Arctic

Posted: **Sun 21 Jan 2018, 23:45:58**

Thanks wf and P for the info!

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 09:44:37**

Great you spend time in funky Belgium Plant!
Yeah, misunderstandings happen frequently, that is why they have Brussels as European Capital for creating even more fuzz, here has never been a united Europe to start with, no Union whatsoever but an agreement to make money work for themselves, an economic pact.
It will fall apart as soon asthings get ugly.

While ago got pulled over near Liege, told them me no speak French........had to pay over 2000 euro, plain robbery for a malfunctioning roadtax machine, the basterds.
Then few weeks ago wrecked a car at the same place and the police were kind and helpfull, even filled in the documents, had to explain I did not have any insurence....my boss, he family are oppposed to being insured for religious reasons, just like muslims do not eat pork I told them in my best French...hihi.

Back to CC?

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 11:28:38**

The forecast is for an inch of rain over New England tomorrow. That will melt off most of the foot of snow I have on the ground filling the brooks and rivers with a high potential for ice jams and related flooding.
This is not unprecedented but a rarity. My grandfather hitched up his team and plowed one of his fields in January circa 1905 just to be able to say he had once done it.

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 13:36:49**

The established science shows carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that humans produce greenhouse gas emissions, and that humans have had some effect on Earth’s climate. However, important issues remain unanswered: Are humans or other natural conditions responsible for the majority of the past century’s warming? Is global warming, on balance, bad or good for humanity? If humans are responsible, and the results are generally harmful, what are the best responses? On each of these points, there is widespread disagreement, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

https://spectator.org/new-mexico-schools-to-teach-climate-dogma/

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 16:15:58**

KaiserJeep wrote: Are humans or other natural conditions responsible for the majority of the past century’s warming?

What are the other "natural conditions" you imagine might be causing global warming?

We know CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere have gone up dramatically due to human FF use, and we know CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases, so a link between CO2/CH4 and greenhouse warming is a viable scientific hypothesis.

However, you seem to be positing that something else might be causing global warming? What other scientific hypothesis do you have to explain the global warming?

Whats your alternative hypothesis to explain global warming?

Cheers!

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 18:09:08**

My hypothesis is that human activities have had minimal effect upon climate. The Milanković cycles alone have produced periodic glaciation and brief periods of intense warm climate between glaciation.

During each warm period, one reaches the point that we are at now, where permafrosts are melting and releasing copious amounts of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As the greenhouse effect intensifies, we reach the peak interglacial temperature, which we call the Climatic Optimum. Forests grow in what were formerly arctic tundra regions. The tropical rain forests march Northwards. Hot deserts form around the equatorial regions. All quite naturally.

The Climatic Optimum ends with an abrupt temperature decline - perhaps caused by a prolonged intense wildfire season that fills the atmosphere with smoke. Carbon capture is maximized and sea levels rise, forming peats and trapping carbon where it cannot decay. Widespread plankton die-offs take place in the oceans, and layers of dead animal and plant matter form on the ocean floor. In millions of years and after many more such Milanković cycles, new deposits of coal and petroleum exist in the Earth's crust.

Mankind can do little to slow or speed up or lessen or increase what is happening. We didn't cause them, orbital mechanics caused them, the slowly interacting cycles of precession, obliquity, and eccentricity that in turn cause changes in solar insolation.

Even if mankind's activities hastened or intensifies the natural climate cycles, we are helpless to change them. The slow march of the planets around the Sun will continue, and with it the changes in insolation.

Nevertheless, it is a genuine emergency that we are running out of FF's to burn for energy. I advocate using the remaining supplies of FF's to transition to other forms of energy production. I take this position for the benefit of the human species, not because I care about the fate of this ball of dirt that is our temporary home.

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 18:19:35**

KaiserJeep wrote:My hypothesis is that human activities have had minimal effect upon climate. The Milanković cycles alone have produced periodic glaciation and brief periods of intense warm climate between glaciation.

Yes, of course.... but if you actually calculate the climatic forcing due to Milankovitch Cycles it has been v e r y G r a d u a l l y forcing the earth's climate to cool for the last 8,000 years.

That clearly can't account for the ongoing global warming the planet has experienced over the last 150 years.

Bzzzzzzt! Your hypothesis is hereby falsified.

Cheers!

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 19:29:14**

The truth of the matter would be that you cannot precisely calculate anything when it comes to climate. We don't have nearly enough data collection and much of the surface temperature data collected is compromised by the urban heat island effects. In fact, there is only one way that we can collecte valid temperature data, which is with infrared sensors facing Earth from space.

Unfortunately such sensors show that the Earth is cooling, not warming.

Even if it wasn't inconveniently cooling, the presence of warming does not confirm or disprove the theory of AGW.

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 20:06:03**

KaiserJeep wrote:The truth of the matter would be that you cannot precisely calculate anything when it comes to climate. We don't have nearly enough data collection and much of the surface temperature data collected is compromised by the urban heat island effects. In fact, there is only one way that we can collecte valid temperature data, which is with infrared sensors facing Earth from space.

Unfortunately such sensors show that the Earth is cooling, not warming.

Even if it wasn't inconveniently cooling, the presence of warming does not confirm or disprove the theory of AGW.

Then, again, there's a sucker born every minute.

Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 16676.html

Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset.

“This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde [weather balloon] data.”

In an article on the Carbon Brief website about the new research, data scientist Dr Zeke Hausfather said it showed an even faster rate of warming since 1998 – at nearly 140 per cent – than previous satellite-based studies......

Whatever you choose to believe it seems, but the idea that humans juicing the atmosphere, dumping giga-tonnes of carbon and giga-watts of energy into the air results in cooling, is absurd, IMO.

Anyway, tell it to the folks in Anchorage, which has been warmer than Atlanta this winter.

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 20:14:31**

KaiserJeep wrote: In fact, there is only one way that we can collecte valid temperature data, which is with infrared sensors facing Earth from space.

Unfortunately such sensors show that the Earth is cooling, not warming.

That would seem to be consistent with a planet that has more greenhouse gases holding in the heat. Think of two men going outside on a cold winter day -- one wearing a T-shirt and the other a down parka. We'd expect the T-shirt clad man to radiate more heat than the man wearing a well insulated down parka (well at least until the T-shirt clad man dies of hypothermia!).

Posted: **Mon 22 Jan 2018, 20:56:13**

KaiserJeep wrote:... the presence of warming does not confirm or disprove the theory of AGW.

Actually the warming that is occurring does confirm the theory of AGW.

Thats how science works.....a hypothesis is generated and data is collected to test the hypothesis. IF the data is consistent with the hypothesis, then it confirms the validity of the hypothesis.

The theory of AGW predicts we should be seeing global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is just what the data shows.

Cheers!

Posted: **Tue 23 Jan 2018, 02:06:51**

Plantagenet wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:... the presence of warming does not confirm or disprove the theory of AGW.

Actually the warming that is occurring does confirm the theory of AGW.

Thats how science works.....a hypothesis is generated and data is collected to test the hypothesis. IF the data is consistent with the hypothesis, then it confirms the validity of the hypothesis.

The theory of AGW predicts we should be seeing global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is just what the data shows.

Cheers!

That is just so wrong. For the AGW theory to be proven, it's simply not enough that warming is occurring. You must also prove a causal relationship exists. There are multiple causes for warming and cooling trends, none of which can be ignored.

Secondly, the satellite data over the last three and a half decades, interpreted by everyone except Hausfather, shows a cooling trend. I have no doubt this is temporary and embedded in a longer period of warming as we emerge from the Pliestcene Glacial period and approach the Climatic Optimum, but the fact that you fasten on the one analysis that has been interpreted as warming demonstrates that you suffer from what is called confirmation bias.

In fact the AGW fanboys are famous for such things, blaming every heat rash they experience on the neighbor's SUV. Look around this Forum with an unbiased eye, and you'll note this statement is confirmed here on most days.

Often, most of you seem to forget that most people merely pay lip service to the theories about AGW, and otherwise live their lives unchanged. If any of you actuallly believed tha AGW was real, you'd change your lifestyles as a result. But you haven't, because you really don't believe. You still fill your ICE vehicle with fuel regularly, you still consume power from the electrical grid generated by FF's, you still eat imported foodstuffs and consume and discard petrochemicals in myriad forms.

DON'T YOU? If you really had faith in your convictions, you would live it and not just talk about such things. But you don't.

Posted: **Tue 23 Jan 2018, 11:28:28**

"The Right Thing" when it comes to CC is many things. Owning an EV and filling it with renewable energy. Generating renewable grid energy that offsets your consumption. Eating locally sourced foods. Minimizing petrochemical consumption. You could go on and on. FF exhaustion is an excellant - and real - motive to do the very same things.

But the mere existence of warming does not establish that the AGW theory is correct. The Earthsat data integrates the IR radiation from an entire visible hemisphere in a single measurement. It says that a modest cooling has occurred since we started making such measurements. It is the reason - the main reason - that John R. Christy and Roy Spencer have such controversy surrounding them. They have successfully defended the Earthsat data since 1979.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/02/05/satellites-and-global-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/

Posted: **Tue 23 Jan 2018, 18:20:49**

KaiserJeep wrote:For the AGW theory to be proven, it's simply not enough that warming is occurring. You must also prove a causal relationship exists.

The causal relationship between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their effect on climate is a proven scientific fact.

Your lack of understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases doesn't change the fact that greenhouse gases control the temperature of our planet.

Cheers!

Posted: **Wed 24 Jan 2018, 03:48:27**

I understand the greenhouse effect, in fact did an experiment to confirm it in Junior High School. But the theory of AGW says that the extra carbon dioxide being injected into the atmosphere is causing extra warming to occur on a planetary scale.

The only data that is comprised of measurements of the temperature of an entire visible hemisphere (Earth-facing IR measurements) has since 1979 not shown warming to exist. Many point-source temperature measurements in various parts of the globe also show cooling not warming.

I don't believe that you can even prove that the Earth is warming overall. But the Milanković equations say that it SHOULD be warming. Certainly you are a long long way from proving AGW when you can't even prove warming.

Posted: **Wed 24 Jan 2018, 04:11:30**

KJ the retreat of glaciers world wide is all the proof we need that the earth is indeed warming. The ice is a totally unbiased and incorruptible indicator.
The extent and future trends of this warming, with tipping point doom scenarios etc. is the issue.
I for one think that burning ninety million barrels a day of petroleum products alongside a similar amount of coal for decades can not possibly have had no effect on the climate. The waste heat from the tail pipes and smoke stacks is an enormous figure even if the CO2 and other green house gasses are not trapping more of that heat in the atmosphere.
But then you come hard up on the issue of what to do about it. I see no good answer there that doesn't involve reducing the human population by six billion people or so by whatever means proves to be effective.
All the other alternatives, EVs powered by windmills etc. are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted: **Wed 24 Jan 2018, 06:10:05**

Climate aside, I think that running out of FF's to burn is really, really going to hurt. Most or all of those six billion humans will die when that occurs. Climate change if real is only a symptom of human overpopulation.

Posted: **Wed 24 Jan 2018, 06:15:33**

KaiserJeep wrote:Climate aside, I think that running out of FF's to burn is really, really going to hurt. Most or all of those six billion humans will die when that occurs. Climate change if real is only a symptom of human overpopulation.

When you consider the portion of the worlds fossil fuels used for unnecessary transportation compared to the portion used by agriculture we will be quite a way down the backside of the production curve before die off is assured.

Posted: **Wed 24 Jan 2018, 17:36:48**

...storms in the winter of 2013–2014 transported boulders at elevations up to 29 m above high water, and at inland distances up to 222 m.

Among the clasts transported are eighteen weighing more than 50 t, six of which exceed 100 t. The largest boulder moved during those storms weighs a fairly astonishing 620 t.

If this can happen in current conditions, expect even bigger boulders moved even further as storms get ever more severe...

Cox et al (February 2018), "Extraordinary boulder transport by storm waves (west of Ireland, winter 2013–2014), and criteria for analysing coastal boulder deposits", Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 177, Pages 623-636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.12.014

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5217302350

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Collision Chaos

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4

Re: Climate Chaos Is Here Pt. 4