Global Warming

[Outlaw Yogi]

Just briefly ...

As central America was (or still is) in drought I predicted our east coast would get floods this summer.
I should have checked sat images showing where the warm water in the Pacific is.
Seem El Nino is returning, so rather than flood, we're likelt to get more drought.
Bit annoying, I want more water in my dam.

Anyway .. an associate has recently returned from Churchill in arctic Canada.
He's no activists or anything of the sort. Just a former able seaman (OZ navy)
who lost an eye and had an arm blown off.
He saw an online vid about some crew trying to prevent extinction of Canadian Eskimo Dog breed,
so went over to help out. Turns out they're all coke heads.

He took lots of pics. One in particular shows a drilling rig in the middle of town (Churchill).
Not for oil or minerals, but to check the permafrost.
The permafrost is thawing and enire towns/villages are sinking as the ground turns to mud.
The freight trains (export to Europe) are restricted to 30kph because the tracks move as the ground becomes slush.

Anyone denying global warming or claiming a hiatus therefor is a liar or an idiot, or both.

Have a nice day.

[IQS.RLOW]

Anyone who claims anything as result of a few anecdotes is a complete fucking moron who is too stupid to be allowed an opinion.

Enjoy your nice day.

[Super Nova]

Farting will need to be outlawed next. Methane has been overlooked in many of the media reports.



A Potent, Overlooked Greenhouse Gas

Nov. 25, 2014

Five years ago in Copenhagen, President Obama pledged to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. In Beijing a few weeks ago, as part of a landmark agreement with China, he went one better by pledging a 26 percent to 28 percent cut by 2025. The first target will be hard to reach — and the second virtually impossible — without a determined effort on his part to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

Methane, the major component of natural gas, accounts for roughly 10 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in this country, but its chemical properties make it a more potent heat-trapping gas in the short run than carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Although methane emissions are also produced by landfills and agricultural operations, the easiest to control are the methane leaks that occur in the drilling and transmission of natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil. These emissions are expected to rise substantially as industry continues to exploit old and new natural gas deposits through the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

Mr. Obama promised to address methane emissions in March as part of his Climate Action Plan, and the White House and Environmental Protection Agency are in the final stages of writing proposed regulations. The rules should be as tough as possible and national in scope. They can be administered by the states, as many are under the Clean Air Act, but they should be mandatory, not voluntary, as many in the industry have argued. And they should seek to control methane leaks at every stage of the process, including drilling and production at the wellhead, storage and transmission and distribution. As formidable as it sounds, a coalition of environmental groups estimates that emissions could be halved without any new technologies and at a cost of about 1 percent of industry revenues.

As a practical matter, controlling methane emissions is essential to realizing the climate-related advantages of natural gas. When burned in power plants, natural gas produces only about half the carbon dioxide of coal. But that advantage is reduced and could be erased altogether if methane emissions are not controlled.

What is mainly at issue here, of course, is the future of the planet. But also it’s Mr. Obama’s climate legacy, which already includes greatly increased automobile efficient standards and, assuming they survive court and congressional challenges, his proposed rules governing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Strong methane regulations could complete that legacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/opini ... .html?_r=0

[Super Nova]

SN are you saying you've never heard of Lomborg before or his views or never had them yourself?

Yeah heard of him. Bjørn Lomborg some of his views I do not agree with. I posted the article because I thought it was a good article and it in it's self was thought provoking, He is controversial indeed.

[Rorschach]

Really...? Most of the stuff he says is just common sense I'd have thought.

[Super Nova]

Really...? Most of the stuff he says is just common sense I'd have thought.

Exactly.

[IQS.RLOW]

Bjørn Lomborg some of his views I do not agree with.

Really...? Most of the stuff he says is just common sense I'd have thought.

Exactly.

So you admit that you don't follow common sense when it comes to this subject.

Can you explain when you got taken in by this religion that made you completely ignore all common sense?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Anyone who claims anything as result of a few anecdotes is a complete fucking moron who is too stupid to be allowed an opinion.

Enjoy your nice day.

Anyone who disputes overwhelming evidence doesn't have a valid opinion, and I'll enjoy watching them cry for help when the weather destroys everything they possess.

[Outlaw Yogi]

[

Can you explain when you got taken in by this religion that made you completely ignore all common sense?

Can you elaborate on which Doomsday church tells you what to say and how to ignore the blatantly obvious?

[Super Nova]

[

Can you explain when you got taken in by this religion that made you completely ignore all common sense?

Can you elaborate on which Doomsday church tells you what to say and how to ignore the blatantly obvious?

No no.

IQ is saying I belong to a Doomsday Church that ignores the science of there is NO Warming.

IQs church is one of "she'll be right mate... do nothing and when we pull our head out the sand... science will have fixed it without having to reduce emissions because there was never a warming problem created by mankind"

I say the science and forecast say otherwise and we need to mitigate the risks now.