Lack of Global Warming Messes with Russian Arctic LNG Plans

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Thank goodness browsers have built in Google search to define words.  I had to use it several times on this page alone to find out the meanings of some of the chemical terms in this thread.  Much faster than the old fashioned way of searching through a hard copy dictionary (I have more than a dozen of them, old and dog eared).

[DanilKa + 443]

On 6/30/2018 at 1:43 AM, NickW said:

We can make some reasonable assumptions based on  the historical geological evidence which shows a clear relationship between high CO2 levels and higher global temperatures 

there is a bit of a lag there. http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

there is a bit of a lag there. http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/

Introduction

The Vostok Ice core is one of the finest geochemical data sets ever assembled. I first visited this topic in December 2014 in a post called The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4. For background information on Vostok, readers are directed to that post.

One of the key observations I made was that at the inceptions of the last 4 glaciations, CO2 lagged temperature by several thousand years:

At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

The post has now had over 8000 reads and is probably one of the most read texts on this subject. And yet the Climate Science community continues to ignore the fairly profound implications of what the data actually shows. 

[DanilKa + 443]

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The post has now had over 8000 reads and is probably one of the most read texts on this subject. And yet the Climate Science community continues to ignore the fairly profound implications of what the data actually shows. 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". - Upton Sinclair

[Richardo + 6]

Lack of global warming? Hardly! https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/arctic-wintertime-sea-ice-extent-is-among-lowest-on-record

March 23, 2018

 

Arctic Wintertime Sea Ice Extent Is Among Lowest On Record

Sea ice in the Arctic grew to its annual maximum extent last week, and joined 2015, 2016 and 2017 as the four lowest maximum extents on record, according to scientists at the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA.

For some anti-science individuals it's a short leap to denigrate those who study the science, submit volumes of peer-reviewed studies and research data based on overwhelming empirical evidence, by distilling their work down to "nonsense."

Well, that's an easy conclusion to make considering that a certain Omniscient One denies global warming and climate change calling it a "Chinese hoax." What could be more inviolable a proclamation than that!? 

Before you know it, winter will arrive and we'll be treated to another great self-anointed scientist, Oklahoma's Senator James Inhofe who will stride to the podium in the dead of winter and offer a snowball as "proof" that it is cold outside, ergo, global warming is a hoax.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by Richardo

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Ok, I'll play  : )    It would be much appreciated if you could read the entire article below before you reply:

Global Warming: Thirty Years of Hype, Hysteria and Hullabaloo

... Doubt in global warming catastrophe grew. This worried the catastrophists. If global warning was not a problem, then it didn’t need a solution. But the solution was too intoxicating to abandon.

Neither Hot Nor Cold

Enter “climate change.” Global warming became like that movie where the lady on the train vanishes, and where everybody claimed never to have seen her. Climate change, not global warming, was always the real worry.

This was a brilliant move. The earth’s climate was never static; it is impossible that it should ever be static; therefore, it will always change. When anything bad happened, which was certain, it was climate change. When anything good happened, it was Look! Squirrel!Every ill and misfortune could once again be blamed on lack of government.

Wouldn’t you know it, though. The atmosphere again refused to cooperate! Oh, sure, there was the occasional hurricane or drought to keep things spicy. But on the whole it was nice outside. And nobody would ever admit that it being nice outside was because of climate change. Climate change by definition brought only evil.

[Transition + 12]

I find that a lot of the discussion here about global warming or climate change is way over my head. To return to a particular locale of the Russian Arctic, is it fair to say that weather (and eventually, climate) is an uneven proposition, region-wide. We seem to assume a steady-state transfer of heat based solely on conduction regarding warming and climate. Meanwhile, a huge amount of heat transfer is by conduction and radiation. A lot of the difference in temperature from one area of the Arctic to another is due to changes in water and air currents, and also surface coloration (gray value). The region, like every other region on our planet, is dynamic, with lots stuff moving around and with changing heat absorption/reflectivity. 

I hope we will not be surprised if we find large differences in temperature change within a region. Russia has the most ice breakers. They don't care if this year ice is there. They know it could be very different next year.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ok, I'll play  : )    It would be much appreciated if you could read the entire article below before you reply:

Global Warming: Thirty Years of Hype, Hysteria and Hullabaloo

... Doubt in global warming catastrophe grew. This worried the catastrophists. If global warning was not a problem, then it didn’t need a solution. But the solution was too intoxicating to abandon.

Neither Hot Nor Cold

Enter “climate change.” Global warming became like that movie where the lady on the train vanishes, and where everybody claimed never to have seen her. Climate change, not global warming, was always the real worry.

This was a brilliant move. The earth’s climate was never static; it is impossible that it should ever be static; therefore, it will always change. When anything bad happened, which was certain, it was climate change. When anything good happened, it was Look! Squirrel!Every ill and misfortune could once again be blamed on lack of government.

Wouldn’t you know it, though. The atmosphere again refused to cooperate! Oh, sure, there was the occasional hurricane or drought to keep things spicy. But on the whole it was nice outside. And nobody would ever admit that it being nice outside was because of climate change. Climate change by definition brought only evil.

Enjoy the warmth, it is a delightful time to be alive.  In another 400 years or so, the planet is headed for another collision with the Ice Age.  Whether it will be a Big Ice Age, lasting some thousands of years, or a Little Ice age, which could only last for say 400 to 600 years, nobody knows.  Either way, the planet is headed for uncomfortable times.  [Presumably by then wiser heads will have developed nuclear reactors to a high degree of perfection and the heat and power will be there to accommodate living in an ice age. Luke Skywalker can lead the way forward.] 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 7/1/2018 at 5:56 AM, NickW said:

Given the quantities you describe do you think there could be a potential to export your poo fuel to Europe which seems intent (along with NA forest owners)  on burning down North Americas forests in the form of wood pellets (an awful policy) 

BTW the picture above looks more like a gasifier? 

Nothing is going to dissuade Southern US woodlot owners from chopping down trees and making wood pellets for the European industrial boiler market.  Yes, it is stupid to do; no, it is not going to stop because there is too much coin being tossed around.  The woodlot owners can (maybe) convert some of the trees into construction lumber, in that they have a fresh head start now that Trump has whacked the Canadian lumber with a new tariff;  or possibly get into the plywood business, although that seems dominated by mills in Oregon and Washington State;  or they can try for the pulp and paper business, what little is left of that; or possibly into chipboard, fashioned with lots of glue into a cheap form of plywood without the plies; or they can convert the wood into pellets and sell it all to the Europeans, where buyers get hefty taxpayer subsidies. 

Well, once you see the subsidies, and the money, it is irresistible.  Remember, the customer is not the Buyer for the boiler; the customer is the Greenie with a squeeze on the taxpayers.  And the Greenies will win, because in Europe, there is this inexhaustible amount of taxpayer dollars to go slice off for these projects.  (Actually, the Europeans would be better off to buy anthracite coal and go burn that, but hey that's another story.)

Burning wood is beyond-belief dumb, it causes vast amounts of smog and is a big pollution problem in the valleys in Northern New Hampshire, where everybody heats with cordwood and it gets seriously cold, but nobody has any money so it's that or shiver or freeze.  So, people cut wood and saw it up for firewood, cheap enough to do.  I see people follow the power-line crews around with beat-up pickups and feast on cut trees like locusts, all gone in a flash in sawn sections 16 inches long, some guys even split as they go!  Amazing. America, ya gotta love the spirit!

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Jim Pace + 7]

Tom, I have great respect for your training and intellect, however you should probably check some weather records before spouting the old wives tale about very cold weather at night in the desert. I live at 4400 ft elevation in New Mexico where recently it has been between 96 ant 104 deg.F in the day and never drops below 70 to74 deg.F at night. As a rule of thumb during our lowest humidity days (8 to 14%) the difference in the days high at the nighttime low is approx. 30deg.If you question my numbers check the Albuquerque weather bureau records.

I enjoy your posts, just maybe stick to oil (-:

All the best Jim

 

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Introduction

The Vostok Ice core is one of the finest geochemical data sets ever assembled. I first visited this topic in December 2014 in a post called The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4. For background information on Vostok, readers are directed to that post.

One of the key observations I made was that at the inceptions of the last 4 glaciations, CO2 lagged temperature by several thousand years:

At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

The post has now had over 8000 reads and is probably one of the most read texts on this subject. And yet the Climate Science community continues to ignore the fairly profound implications of what the data actually shows. 

Its not been ignored - its been discussed countless times. 

All this demonstrates is that in the case of recent Ice ages the initial warming was caused by another factor. In no way does this disprove that CO2 and CH4 are warming gases. Basic Physics confirms this. 

FWIW the initial trigger was probably orbital variation (Milankovitch) which warmed the oceans and created a positive feedback loop as they released CO2 and Methane. Other factors may have been changes in Ocean currents. The closing of the Isthumus of Panama is a likely contender for being what triggered the Quarternary Ice Ages in the first place. 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

57 minutes ago, Jim Pace said:

If you question my numbers check the Albuquerque weather bureau records.

I enjoy your posts, just maybe stick to oil (-:

All the best Jim

Jim, thanks for your feedback.  No worries, I'm a climate change skeptic, which is not the same as a climate change denier.

If you take note of my intro to the article:

19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ok, I'll play  : )   It would be much appreciated if you could read the entire article below before you reply:

this was meant to be more playful than deadly serious.  An invitation to look at an opposing, skeptical view.

A bit of background on why I said " OK, I'll play  : ) " ...

Back in ye olden days on the now defunct Oilpro forum, there were 2 topics of discussion that generally caused heated debates and looooong arguments in neverending threads, 20+ pages long.  The most contentious were the "environmental" threads, where staunch true believers from opposite sides would endlessly debate and both sides would generally refuse to consider that the opposing camp might possibly have some truth.  As a moderator who normally at least scanned through   every.   single.   comment.   on   every.   single.   thread.   to make sure there weren't actionably offensive comments that needed handling, the "environmental" threads generally just made me roll my eyes at the exercise in futility of trying to get the warring camps to play nice together.

The other topic that caused heated threads was Trump (before the election).  That's a different kettle of fish.  Politics is generally divisive.

Threads on this new Oil Price forum are basically nice and calm, and as a moderator I rarely see the need here to intervene to calm down heated exchanges.

So... when I mentioned "OK, I'll play" it was mostly just me gently poking a hornets nest for amusement.  (*Bad* moderator... bad.)

Anyway... carry on, have fun commenting, and yes please do call me out if I say something stupid.  Sometimes it's playfully deliberate, sometimes it's not.

If it's not obvious yet what I was trying to do, here's an excerpt from the About Me section of my profile:

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

[spiritdawg + 1]

I don't need anyone to tell me the water level has risen on our waterfront property in Davao, PI.  We lost 8 feet of our dock to a storm and we're pulling back rather than rebuild.  My families homes are now flooded regularly and some relatives had to move.  My neighborhood in WA state is home to dozens of Marshallese families who's former homes are now permanently under water. 

Don't take my word for it.  The US military is also fighting rising sea levels against the wishes of Der Fuhrer.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/

While you argue numbers with others willing to argue numbers, (Economics is my gig so I get paid to "interpret" numbers for clients),  life goes on and reality is dealt with.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Jim Pace said:

Tom, I have great respect for your training and intellect, however you should probably check some weather records before spouting the old wives tale about very cold weather at night in the desert. I live at 4400 ft elevation in New Mexico where recently it has been between 96 ant 104 deg.F in the day and never drops below 70 to74 deg.F at night. As a rule of thumb during our lowest humidity days (8 to 14%) the difference in the days high at the nighttime low is approx. 30deg.If you question my numbers check the Albuquerque weather bureau records.

I enjoy your posts, just maybe stick to oil (-:

All the best Jim

 

That's fascinating, Jim.  When I was younger I went across country by car with two buddies, camping out on the way.  Going across the Southern high desert I recall it getting cold at night, to the extent that we used sleeping bags and blankets in the tent. I think it was August.  Seriously hot during the day, though. Is the moderated night temp a result of cloud cover?  

[Jim Pace + 7]

First things first Jan. I owe you an apology. My comments on the weather was mis-directed to you. You were only commenting on a post by I believe Tom. He was the one who I should have been commenting on, not you.

Rule #1 read the post properly. Right?

About the SW desert weather. I'm an old desert rat having lived in the area all my life. I know that the higher the elevation the colder it gets, day or night. Naturally with no cloud cover at say an elevation of 6 to 7000 ft. it can get pretty chilly at night even in mid summer. Cloud cover definitely will moderate the temperature at night.

At the lower elevations it can literally stay very warm all night. My rule of thumb of a 30deg. difference between highs and lows seem to work well most of the time with mostly clear skies.

Kindest Regards

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, Jim Pace said:

First things first Jan. I owe you an apology. My comments on the weather was mis-directed to you. You were only commenting on a post by I believe Tom. He was the one who I should have been commenting on, not you.

Rule #1 read the post properly. Right?

About the SW desert weather. I'm an old desert rat having lived in the area all my life. I know that the higher the elevation the colder it gets, day or night. Naturally with no cloud cover at say an elevation of 6 to 7000 ft. it can get pretty chilly at night even in mid summer. Cloud cover definitely will moderate the temperature at night.

At the lower elevations it can literally stay very warm all night. My rule of thumb of a 30deg. difference between highs and lows seem to work well most of the time with mostly clear skies.

Kindest Regards

Similar as my experience in low altitude deserts in the Middle East and Australia.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

x

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said: