Lack of Global Warming Messes with Russian Arctic LNG Plans

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Seems that the distinct lack of global warming in the Arctic region - where Russia is intent to dominate the Arctic LNG and Oil & Gas exploration & production - has caused some hiccups.

Global warming alarmists have been predicting large swathes of Arctic regions to melt, which would allow ships to freely travel on water where Arctic ice used to be.

Whoops.

Hmmmm, maybe time for Russia to rethink their Pinky and the Brain type world domination of Arctic hydrocarbons, since the global warming narrative hasn't seemed to arrived yet in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, In The Arctic...

In a development that could further advantage OPEC members as they step up production to compensate for falling exports out of Venezuela and (potentially) Iran, the Barents Observer is reporting that two of Russia's largest Arctic out-shipment points for oil and LNG have become "packed with ice" leaving tankers and carriers stranded in the "paralyzed" area,which hasn't been this packed with ice at midsummer in four years. Experts had expected that ice clogging up the Gulf of Ob would melt with the summer months, allowing Rosatomflots, the state-owned energy company responsible for the region, to avoid relying on their nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear the area.

According to Rosatomflot, its icebreakers will be working at least through the first week of July to free stranded ships from the ice. Two icebreakers, the Taymyr and the Vaygach, are working overtime. There are also several smaller tugs and icebreakers working in the waters around the Sabetta port.

One Rosatomflot representative pointed out that the climate change fears which had analysts worried about rapid melting of ice caps in the Arctic have apparently receded.  ...

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Global warming is a reality in the Arctic but it's not affecting all the region the same way.

As you can see on these two maps of the ice cap, the first from march 2012 and the second from march 2017, there is a reduction of the ice cap in many parts of the Arctic but you can also notice some other parts were the ice cap has extended. And you will notice that the Barents sea between the Svalbard archipelago and New Zemble (the long thin island) is one of the regions were the ice cap has increased.

 

 

Port Sabetta and Novly Port, the two russian arctic ports mentioned in the article, are both on the Gulf of Ob (the eastern shore of the Yamal peninsula) not far from New Zemble island.

 

 

When we talk about global warming we have to consider not only the world "warming" but also the word "global". Global warming doesn't means it will be local warming everywhere. It can be local warming in seven locations and local freezing in three locations.

Assuming that global warming doesn't exist because it is not occurring in one precise location is a false assumption.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

30 Years of Global Warming Forecasts all Failed

The Wall Street Journal just published a review of the Global Warming Forecasts for the past 30 years. They have not even come close to the scenarios they put forth back in 1988. On June 23, 1988, the then NASA scientist James E. Hansen who helped to start all this nonsense testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He stated that he expressed had a “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the claimed CO2 induced “greenhouse effect and observed warming.”That is how government characterizes something when they are guessing – “high degree of confidence” which was the same words used to invade Iraq who had weapons of mass destruction. He later came out and said: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” (August 25, 2002). The CIA Director testified before Congress and said: “We said in the estimate with high confidence that Iraq had them.”see Transcript Washington Post). Why does anyone EVER believe those in government? They cannot even forecast GDP accurately when they fudge the numbers.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

I havent a high degree of confidence in governments but i have a high degree of confidence in thermometers...

 

 

[DanilKa + 443]

2 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

I havent a high degree of confidence in governments but i have a high degree of confidence in thermometers...

you haven't heard? can't trust thermometers either... https://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/02/bom-blast-dubious-record-hot-day/

There are over trillion reasons to believe in AGW - don't fall for it. Unless of course you one of recipients, and I'm wasting my time.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Global warming has zero to do with CO2 and everything to do with slight wobbles or tilts in the north-south rotational axis.  The explanation is a bit technical.  The masses on the earth's crust are not evenly distributed, so the spinning globe acts a bit like your car wheel when you knock the weights off: it tends to wobble.  Every now and then a wobble gets beyond the ability of the globe to re-stabilize and a new tilt occurs, changing the surface temperature.

Unfortunately, not all tilt changes will bring us a nice warm climate.  History shows that the majority of changes have brought on cold.  You can expect the planet to stay pleasantly warm for another 400 years, and  then it is back to Ice Planet Hoth.  Unfortunately the long-term prognosis is for a very cold planet and sheets of ice over large chunks of the earth surface; the last time around, the ice was a mile thick over New York City.  Altogether an unpleasant prospect. The future of the planet is to be ice-bound for 90% of the time, so enjoy the warmth while it is still around. 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

The Russians have been pursuing the Arctic for decades. They're not exactly betting all on global warming to make the Arctic plan happen.

As regards the thing itself, I'm just glad they started calling it climate change. Right now I'm sitting in 14 degrees Celsius and English rain when usually it should have been 30 degrees and sunny.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

24 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The Russians have been pursuing the Arctic for decades. They're not exactly betting all on global warming to make the Arctic plan happen.

Yes, I know.  But I tried to model my narrative somehow around the idea that had popped into my head of Pinky and the Brain as Putin's Arctic LNG.  Meh.  I'll try harder for better ideas next time.

[DanilKa + 443]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Global warming has zero to do with CO2 and everything to do with slight wobbles or tilts in the north-south rotational axis.  The explanation is a bit technical. 

pretty good explanation here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2018/05/02/climate-change-due-to-solar-variability-or-greenhouse-gases-part-a/

In addition to cycles below, there is a theory that solar activity affecting way magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays which are causing vapor nucleation and clouds formation. Supposedly, sun is entering into quiet phase - may explain why global warming become climate change ))

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Putin as Brain is marvelous! I love Pinky and the Brain. I was needlessly literal. Too cold for fun. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Putin as Brain is marvelous! I love Pinky and the Brain. I was needlessly literal. Too cold for fun. 

Now if only I figure out which current world leader could fit the role of Pinky.  Hmmmm.  Gimme a minute here.  This is a toughie....

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Global warming has zero to do with CO2 and everything to do with slight wobbles or tilts in the north-south rotational axis.  The explanation is a bit technical.  The masses on the earth's crust are not evenly distributed, so the spinning globe acts a bit like your car wheel when you knock the weights off: it tends to wobble.  Every now and then a wobble gets beyond the ability of the globe to re-stabilize and a new tilt occurs, changing the surface temperature.

Unfortunately, not all tilt changes will bring us a nice warm climate.  History shows that the majority of changes have brought on cold.  You can expect the planet to stay pleasantly warm for another 400 years, and  then it is back to Ice Planet Hoth.  Unfortunately the long-term prognosis is for a very cold planet and sheets of ice over large chunks of the earth surface; the last time around, the ice was a mile thick over New York City.  Altogether an unpleasant prospect. The future of the planet is to be ice-bound for 90% of the time, so enjoy the warmth while it is still around. 

Radiative physics not your strong point then? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Radiative physics not your strong point then? 

Actually, I studied physics at Yale.  Could build you a nice nuclear warhead, if you like.  Not much future in that job market, though. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, DanilKa said:

pretty good explanation here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2018/05/02/climate-change-due-to-solar-variability-or-greenhouse-gases-part-a/

In addition to cycles below, there is a theory that solar activity affecting way magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays which are causing vapor nucleation and clouds formation. Supposedly, sun is entering into quiet phase - may explain why global warming become climate change ))

I recall that just about every serious AGW study has considered and ruled out Milankovitch cycles as a significant factor in the recent observations of global warming. The clue is in the time spans in your diagram😉

As hard as it seems to appreciate taking upwards of 35 bn of hydrocarbons out of the ground each year and sticking them in the atmosphere  is probably the main culprit.

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, I studied physics at Yale.  Could build you a nice nuclear warhead, if you like.  Not much future in that job market, though. 

So why does virtually every AGW study (of whom Physicists are a major contributor) rule out Milankovitch Cycles as a significant factor? 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, I studied physics at Yale.  Could build you a nice nuclear warhead, if you like.  Not much future in that job market, though. 

The Iranians might be interested...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

 

2 hours ago, NickW said:

The Iranians might be interested...

And what happens to you when you finish the design?  "Disappearing" is not to my taste. 

There was this Canadian fellow who got involved in designing and building some giant cannon for Saddam some decades back.  After the monster was built, he "disappeared," mostly to prevent him from making embarrassing statements about that cannon to the press.  The general consensus was that he was put on his knees and shot in the back of the head.  Seems to be a common enough approach. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

So why does virtually every AGW study (of whom Physicists are a major contributor) rule out Milankovitch Cycles as a significant factor? 

You would have to ask the guys who wrote the studies.  I did not. 

The issue is more complex than Milankovitch, and further there is no discernible correlation between human activity and global warming.  THat sounds counter-intuitive, as people have for the past 200 years burned staggeringly huge amounts of coal and impossibly large amounts of oil, so you would intuitively think that all that burning just has to affect something. It probably does, but surface temperatures are not part of it. 

I don't like discussing this either in public or in private as the subject has turned into some sort of religious hysteria, and the people that are not scientifically trained are never going to accept rational thoughts, it is just too explosive an issue. And although Oilprice is a serious forum I shudder to test the waters here.  Let me say, however, that the amount of CO2 has zero impact, other than to let trees and crops grow a bit faster.  CO2 is measured in parts per million; it is a trace gas, roughly at the same concentration as Argon.  Do you hear cries of some Argon crisis?  Now, CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas, and you can prove this to yourself by comparing what happens in some balmy area such as the coast of Delaware to the high desert of New Mexico.  In Delaware the day temp is say 75 degrees and at night it might drop off to 60-65 on a summer evening.  Now go up onto the high desert in New Mexico, where the day temp could be say 110 F.  And at night by midnight you will be frantically scavenging for firewood to keep from dying from hypothermia, it gets so cold.

Now if CO2 is this big greenhouse gas then as a gas it will be equally dispersed throughout the atmosphere, and you have the same concentrations in New Mexico as you have in Delaware.  So your night temps should be about the same.  And it is not.  The reason is the amount of water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas; the water vapor in Delaware is plenty high, as the ocean provides that.  And in the desert of New Mexico the air is dry and no vapor, so the heat just blasts off into space and you freeze to death. 

So much for all those hysterical and crazy theories about CO2. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

You would have to ask the guys who wrote the studies.  I did not. 

The issue is more complex than Milankovitch, and further there is no discernible correlation between human activity and global warming.  THat sounds counter-intuitive, as people have for the past 200 years burned staggeringly huge amounts of coal and impossibly large amounts of oil, so you would intuitively think that all that burning just has to affect something. It probably does, but surface temperatures are not part of it. 

I don't like discussing this either in public or in private as the subject has turned into some sort of religious hysteria, and the people that are not scientifically trained are never going to accept rational thoughts, it is just too explosive an issue. And although Oilprice is a serious forum I shudder to test the waters here.  Let me say, however, that the amount of CO2 has zero impact, other than to let trees and crops grow a bit faster.  CO2 is measured in parts per million; it is a trace gas, roughly at the same concentration as Argon.  Do you hear cries of some Argon crisis?  Now, CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas, and you can prove this to yourself by comparing what happens in some balmy area such as the coast of Delaware to the high desert of New Mexico.  In Delaware the day temp is say 75 degrees and at night it might drop off to 60-65 on a summer evening.  Now go up onto the high desert in New Mexico, where the day temp could be say 110 F.  And at night by midnight you will be frantically scavenging for firewood to keep from dying from hypothermia, it gets so cold.

Now if CO2 is this big greenhouse gas then as a gas it will be equally dispersed throughout the atmosphere, and you have the same concentrations in New Mexico as you have in Delaware.  So your night temps should be about the same.  And it is not.  The reason is the amount of water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas; the water vapor in Delaware is plenty high, as the ocean provides that.  And in the desert of New Mexico the air is dry and no vapor, so the heat just blasts off into space and you freeze to death. 

So much for all those hysterical and crazy theories about CO2. 

Water vapour is well known to be the predominant causal  factor in global warming (approx 70%) but the water content of the atmosphere is fairly stable so its not driving any significant change. This primarily explains your Delaware (nice damp maritime climate) v New Mexico (Contental super dry climate) observation along with proximity to the nice warm Ocean😉

On the hand hand CO2 (and other gases) have been rising substantially for 200 plus years and has a been a significant driver in climate change. I suspect that effect has been dampened significantly by factors such as the Oceans absorbing CO2 and the albedo effect of atmospheric Sulphur and soot emissions. Will be interesting to see what happens as China cleans up its emssions and that masking effect is reduced. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

And what happens to you when you finish the design?  "Disappearing" is not to my taste. 

There was this Canadian fellow who go involved in designing and building some giant cannon for Saddam some decades back.  After the monster was built, he "disappeared," mostly to prevent him from making embarrassing statements about that cannon to the press.  The general consensus was that he was put on his knees and shot in the back of the head.  Seems to be a common enough approach. 

To be fair you don't need to work for them. Infact avoid nuclear weapons altogether  here is a scheme to make yourself a multi millionaire in no time at all. 

As a Yale Graduate why not build that model to categorically disprove CO2 has any significant effect on Global climate that will stand up to academic peer review. If you can the Fossil Fuel industry, particular Coal will throw Dinothorian amounts of cash at you. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

 

On the hand hand CO2 (and other gases) have been rising substantially for 200 plus years and has a been a significant driver in climate change.

Nope, no causative evidence of that.  None whatsoever.  Be careful not to mix correlation with causation. 

Your cold cycle hits roughly every 1,500 years, when a cyclic confluence of events peak simultaneously, although on different time cycles.  You also get a _mini-winter or cold summer roughly every 87 years.  And in New England, you get a Class 4 Hurricane whacking in roughly every 65 years, so New England is in for one humdinger of a storm any day now.  It will knock down every single tree for the first 40 to 50 miles from the coast, stripping Long Island and the COnnecticut shoreline bare.  Why?  Because the last biggie was in 1938, and the forest since then now has trees 80 years old, with lots of topping and not enough root structure to withstand the torque forces. And none of that has anything to do with "global worming," that pattern is traced back to the days of the Spanish Galleons, centuries before the industrial revolution. It is what it is.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

To be fair you don't need to work for them. Infact avoid nuclear weapons altogether  here is a scheme to make yourself a multi millionaire in no time at all. 

As a Yale Graduate why not build that model to categorically disprove CO2 has any significant effect on Global climate that will stand up to academic peer review. If you can the Fossil Fuel industry, particular Coal will throw Dinothorian amounts of cash at you. 

I am busy with an interesting project, designing a machine that will convert cow manure into a solid boiler fuel, to displace both coal and woodchips so loved by the environmental enthusiasts.  I anticipate selling $6.5 billion in machines, with a gross margin of 55%.  For three billion, I am quite willing to get out of bed.  Plus, it gets rid of the manure, the No. 1 cause of phosphorus pollution in the waterways and the cause of cyanobacteria blooms that cause so much havoc.  Three years ago Lake Erie has such a bloom that extended out 22 miles from the shore of Toledo, Ohio, which shut down drinking water for 400,000 people for months.  So: you think there might be a market for those machines? 

[NickW + 2,714]

52 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am busy with an interesting project, designing a machine that will convert cow manure into a solid boiler fuel, to displace both coal and woodchips so loved by the environmental enthusiasts.  I anticipate selling $6.5 billion in machines, with a gross margin of 55%.  For three billion, I am quite willing to get out of bed.  Plus, it gets rid of the manure, the No. 1 cause of phosphorus pollution in the waterways and the cause of cyanobacteria blooms that cause so much havoc.  Three years ago Lake Erie has such a bloom that extended out 22 miles from the shore of Toledo, Ohio, which shut down drinking water for 400,000 people for months.  So: you think there might be a market for those machines? 

Given how good Cows are at extracting energy from food sources leaving very little in the poo I suspect your boilers will be a waste of money, notwithstanding the fact your post is a wind up.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Given how good Cows are at extracting energy from food sources leaving very little in the poo I suspect your boilers will be a waste of money, notwithstanding the fact your post is a wind up.  

COw manure has the same BTU content as soft coal. 

It has been used as a heating and cooking fuel in India for twenty centuries at least.  Used by hundreds of millions of people. 

And yes, this is a "wind up," as I have patiently written a long series of detailed posts just for you, and I have not received even one up-vote from you for the effort. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

COw manure has the same BTU content as soft coal. 

It has been used as a heating and cooking fuel in India for twenty centuries at least.  Used by hundreds of millions of people. 

And yes, this is a "wind up," as I have patiently written a long series of detailed posts just for you, and I have not received even one up-vote from you for the effort. 

You'd be wrong there

Comparison with Coal & Lignite For comparison, samples of Texas lignite (TXL) and Wyoming Powder River Basin (PBR) coal were analyzed in the same manner as the FB materials. As shown in Table 5, moisture contents were 38.34 +/- 0.34% w.b. and 32.88 +/- 0.36 % w.b. respectively, which is considerably higher than for the FB materials of Tables 1, 3 and 4. Ash contents were much lower for the coal 8.40 +/- 3.11% d.b. vs. 18. 59 +/- 0.85% d.b. for TXL. The latter value is only slightly lower than for LA-FB and LA-FB-PC. Sulfur was higher (0.98 +/- 0.15% d.b.) in TXL than for PRB coal (0.41 +/-0.03 % d.b.) or either of the FB sources. On a dry matter basis, total carbon was much higher for TXL and PRB coal (60.30 +/-0 0.92 % and 69.32 +/- 2.82 % d.b., respectively) than either LA-FB or HA-FB. N was slightly lower and P and Cl much lower for either TXL or PRB coal compared to LA-FB or HA-FB. As expected compared to feedlot biomass, HHV was considerably higher for both TXL and PRB coal on an as-received basis (6,143 +/- 127 BTU/lb w.b. and 7,823 +/- 282 BTU/lb w.b.); dry basis (9,962 +/-170 and 11,657 +/- 455 BTU/lb d.b.); and DAF basis (12,236 +/- 84 vs. 12,724 +/- 97 BTU/lb DAF). Elemental ash analyses appeared similar for TXL and PRB coal, but with differences vs. FB for several parameters. Additional analyses will be needed to verify any trends.

http://agrilife.org/amarillo/files/2011/01/combustionfuel_5.pdf

Dung is  used because like Lignite, its cheap / free and readily available. 

That doesn't mean its a good fuel.