UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (59) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 455476  
Subject: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Since we seem to have become another environment board and people have been questioning "Global Warming". OK its been cold this winter but that is weather not climate.

I used to fly over the area a lot beginning in 1971 with my last patrols in 1980. I also spent seven weeks up there on an "Ice Capable" navy AOR flying back seat utility helicopter work. You can't imagine how much fun you can have with 3000 pounds of batteries for a sub tracking system in a box slung 20 feet below the bird when it starts to twirl and swing. We had to move over 100 of these pallets from the ship to a site on Devon Island. This does not even mention "herding" a family of 3 Polar bears away from some scientists that were working on the ice or slinging a 3500 pound sea sled that wanted to fly itself. }};-O

While the great lakes are 80% covered in ice.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/stunning-ice-covered-great-lakes-se...

The Arctic ocean is warming and removing the reflective capability thereby speeding up the warming.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/time-lapse-video-s...


Good luck to us all.


Tim
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445197 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Speaking of Ice the US men's hockey are just about to start playing Finland in Ice Hockey. Should be a great game.

Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445198 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
The Arctic ocean is warming and removing the reflective capability thereby speeding up the warming.

Not to worry.

Area Of Old Arctic Sea Ice Has Tripled Since Mid-2011

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/death-spiral-u...

NSIDC graphics showing 4/5 year old ice in week 35, 2011 and week 51, 2013.

January 1st Global Sea Ice Area Was The Highest Ever Measured During The Month Of January

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/january-1st-gl...

January 1st global sea ice area was 17,932,000 km², which is the highest ever recorded during the month of January.

Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Up 15% Since 1979

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/antarctic-sea-...

Antarctica is at its summer sea ice minimum now, and ice area is up 15% since 1979.
_____________________

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445200 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Area Of Old Arctic Sea Ice Has Tripled Since Mid-2011


This is why METaR is not a great place for discussion on the environment.


Tim


https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445207 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Good luck to us all.


Tim

I am going to say it. You are basically a liberal stuck inside a fossil fuel world.

Photovoltaics will change all that. And yes we have the battery technology on the way, flow batteries without the membrane.

Time marches on.....

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: namkato Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445249 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 3:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
bjchip says global warming will cause a cataclysmic worldwide social and economic revolution

he says debt levels will cause the same thing

the horse race is on; can't wait to see which one wins!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: namkato Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445255 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 3:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-t...

snip snip:


"I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths........ Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths.

Settled? Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California last Friday. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even the New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

None of this is dispositive. It doesn’t settle the issue. But that’s the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” — an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PolymerMom Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445277 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Ah, the "settled science" meme! Consider:

Here’s an inconvenient truth for the “settled science” crowd. No science, no matter how broad, will ever be settled. All scientific theories are provisional. There are always scientists poking around the edges of the most fundamental matters of nature, including the ones we teach to students as established fact.

Think of it this way. Almost all reputable scientists make their living challenging what others have agreed upon.


http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2014/01/30/Settled-scien...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445279 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 32
Sorry, but Goddard is a habitual and consistent climate liar.

In this case he is merely telling partial truths to mislead us, but that really doesn't matter much.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

oops.... don't look at that bit.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/s...

Don't look at that either.

Don't pay any attention to the physical basis for the differences between the Antarctic and the Arctic.


Just listen to the nice man telling you how all the scientists on the planet who actually know how this works are involved in a massive plot to take control of the world... instead of reporting the facts.

Delusional doesn't begin to describe Goddard's "information".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445280 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 11:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Photovoltaics will change all that. And yes we have the battery technology on the way, flow batteries without the membrane.

Do you have ANY idea how seriously difficult that sort of change is going to be? I'm with Hansen. What you are advocating is NOT adequate.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOp...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445281 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/22/2014 11:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
For what it is worth, I think that debt and the consequences of it, are in the lead. ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wzambon Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445288 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 8:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
All scientific theories are provisional.

And the terms "believers", and "deniers" sound more like the language used at a heresy trial.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445290 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 9:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
There are really only TWO possibilities here (apart from massive conspiracy theories). One is that someone is tampering with data, and we know how that works out.

http://boards.fool.com/people-who-work-with-manipulated-tamp...

The other is that the science (* not the scientists *) is agreeing with some actual physical reality, as with evolution, or gravitation...

The review of the papers, not the opinions of the scientists, gives us the 97% number and that sort of thing is never an accident.

So the science as far as it is necessary to settle it, is settled. The risk analysis needs doing and Lord Stern had a few choice words about just how badly he UNDER-estimated the risk.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/27/nicholas_s...

I've posted what I expect to happen a few times. This is an externality for the markets at present. Not as important as whether the Fed statement says the tide should go out or come in... and I expect that to continue for years more. Just saying you want to watch out for it, because the 2x4 event that gets the attention of the market, well for your investment purposes, you'll be better off it you can see it coming soon enough to duck.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445305 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Delusional doesn't begin to describe Goddard's "information".


bjchip

While the TV guys love a good climate change argument (which keeps these guys in business) the simple truth is the debate is about ideology? Since it is impossible to debate ideology the time trying is wasted.

Frankly by doing so on METaR we are providing another platform for these ideologues.

But of course the decision was made to allow it so I guess we don't have much choice?


Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445309 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Delusional doesn't begin to describe Goddard's "information".

bjchip


Translation: Goddard presents information that contradicts my beliefs and which I cannot refute. Therefore I must resort to calling him names.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: namkato Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445324 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For what it is worth, I think that debt and the consequences of it, are in the lead. ;-)
================================

Duly noted, thx. You never know when someone will want to make a bet.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445341 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 36
Sorry Fleg, I DID refute his conclusion and I HAVE caught him in outright lies on several occasions. I have never seen any argument from his website that was not either scientifically invalid, an outright lie, a half-truth with false logic or simply logical non-sequitur.

If you find that you are experiencing issues with reality due to a prolonged exposure to this source, I suggest that you discontinue its use.

While you are at it you may wish to also discontinue Fox News... as their standards are similar.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/19/fox-alert-o-reilly-fact...

Note that they came to a conclusion first and looked for arguments to support it. This is what we have learned to expect, but there is seldom such blatant evidence of this journalistic failure to respect the truth.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinfo...

People living in that "twilight zone" do not have control of what they see.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: matson15 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445349 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/23/2014 10:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Delusional doesn't begin to describe Goddard's "information".


well......
yeah; But,


it's a living.

follow the money

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445358 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 1:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30
Area Of Old Arctic Sea Ice Has Tripled Since Mid-2011

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/death-spiral-u......

Here we go again. Novices having a "scientific debate" about the data. I looked this up only because I never heard of Steven Goddard before, and didn't know if he might actually be worth listening to. Turns out he isn't. He has a masters in electrical engineering. And further, the article you cite was very quickly refuted by the organization he tried to use in support.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-ste...

What’s really refreshing and amusing is how “Goddard” was immediately taken to task by none other than Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center researcher whose iconic graph of accelerated sea ice loss I recently featured in a post. See here:

“Steve chose a graph that shows what he wants to portray while ignoring all the other institutions that show either a record low for 2011 or a “tie” with 2007. University of Bremen already announced it is a new record low. In my opinion, given the error margin of the measurement and algorithms, 2007 and 2011 basically tied in their extent this year. NSIDC will likely show 2011 as the second lowest, but again it’s within the error margin (which is about 50,000 sq-km).”


I said it before, and I'll say it again. It is ludicrous for bloggers and posters to think they can read an article, find a graph, or whatever, and stumble on some gem that proves that "the entire climate science community is wrong!!!!". It indicates a woeful lack of understanding how real science works.

Sure, it's fun to read the articles and learn new stuff. But don't kid yourself that you or any other novice (including me) are going to "outsmart" the entire global science system. It just ain't gonna happen. Your time would be better spent learning to accept that, and to accept that AGW is very real. It took a few decades for climate scientists to come to that conclusion, but all those who are immersed in the data on a daily basis have done so. And no non-specialist like you or me or bichip or anyone else has any basis to contradict them.

Why common folks such as those who would post on TMF have a problem accepting that is really odd. I know why corporations don't want to accept it (profits). But for us little folks here, there is no such motivator. It makes no sense.

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445359 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 1:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Why common folks such as those who would post on TMF have a problem accepting that is really odd. I know why corporations don't want to accept it (profits). But for us little folks here, there is no such motivator. It makes no sense.

1poorguy

Have your first rec for this great set of thoughts. But be very careful. You are posting to a group who by and large believe the end is coming. If you actually state the end is coming coming they will turn on you. It seems you have a different end in mind.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: qazulight Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445361 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 7:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
Why common folks such as those who would post on TMF have a problem accepting that is really odd. I know why corporations don't want to accept it (profits). But for us little folks here, there is no such motivator. It makes no sense.

My problem is this:

1. I have a high degree of confidence that there is more energy in the atmosphere

2. I have a lessor confidence that this heat is primarily due to CO2.

3. If it were primarily due to CO2, I have no hope that the world could make a significant difference in the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

4. I suspect that if the world did reduce the amount of CO2, the amount of heat already in the atmosphere would still cause changes in the weather. (Notice I said weather, the concentration of heat is a climate thing, the result is a weather thing)

5. The most troubling aspect to me, is not that the world will be a different place, rather the models used so far have completely failed to model the weather changes based on the rising heat content. (Not just in the atmosphere, but also the ocean.)

As such I cannot make investment decisions, or lead my family to safety based on any models. I cannot give myself a false hope due to the dismal records of the models.

So, my response to the climate change debate has been to ignore it.

Cheers
Qazulight

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445365 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
As such I cannot make investment decisions, or lead my family to safety based on any models. I cannot give myself a false hope ...

So, my response to the climate change debate has been to ignore it.

Cheers
Qazulight



Which for we of the unwashed masses is probably the best choice. I invest in the oil and gas industries because they make money for me. If I thought for one second I could change the world by not doing so I probably would quit but I don't. Instead I fill my light bulb sockets with LED bulbs, drive my little S-40 Volvo 3-4 times a week and watch the Arctic Ice and the over specialized Polar bear struggling to survive.

At 66 I can only hope my spawn evolved to handle the changes that are probably inevitable.


Regards
Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445374 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Which for we of the unwashed masses is probably the best choice. I invest in the oil and gas industries because they make money for me. If I thought for one second I could change the world by not doing so I probably would quit but I don't. Instead I fill my light bulb sockets with LED bulbs, drive my little S-40 Volvo 3-4 times a week and watch the Arctic Ice and the over specialized Polar bear struggling to survive.


Tim, Qaz and others,

There is an honest problem with this approach. There are new technologies on the drawing board that will be available in the next ten years or less.

When someone like WEB buys a company he applies a DCF or a FCF depending on his preferences. In fundamental value approaches to the market DCF/FCF methods pretty much over the long haul supply the numbers for what a stock issue should be priced. On a rolling basis a DCF/FCF in say XOM today looks good. I say a rolling basis because this is not a trading proposition, but a LTBH. On a rolling basis five years from now I dont expect XOM to look so good. Substitutes will be entering the energy market at a much more rapid pace.

Many of the substitutes are localized. PV is not just a massive set of arrays in a field in Iowa. It can be the roof of your house or part of your back yard. New battery technologies are being developed to store the energy as well. And Fuel cells will have come a long way to begin the process of replacing gasoline powered cars about 10 to 15 years from now.

Dave

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445379 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
On a rolling basis five years from now I dont expect XOM to look so good. Substitutes will be entering the energy market at a much more rapid pace.

Unless XOM posititions itself to get into alternative energy sources, in the same way Shell and Conoco Phillips are doing now. I'd love to have XOM stock right now as opposed to just being an interest owner.

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445380 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
LWW,

How are Shell and Conoco Phillips getting into the alternative energy sector?

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445385 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 1:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
If you question whether the models work, here's a really interesting graph of a model run with the ENSO information correctly timed rather than being random. It is stuck against the actual temperatures.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/pogah_cru.jpeg

The models haven't "failed" they're actually quite good. The physics work or that "model" would not be able to achieve a 0.97 correlation coefficient. Just remember that the models have to use statistics in place of prediction for much of what they project. That's why the trend is based on 100 years of history, never 10 or 20.

That we don't have a good method of predicting ENSO makes it a lot harder to do things that we ought to do... like convincing people that this is serious, but I do not in honesty think people in general can understand it is serious until it starts actually affecting them, rather than their children. The real trouble is still comfortably in the future.

When it comes to the present, what I call the 2x4 event (whatever it actually is), will result in the conversion of the population. This will be utterly complete and those who have fostered denial will disappear from the political landscape. Several political parties and philosophies may cease to exist for the next 1000 years, but it will be a lot too late to actually act.

Here's a different approach
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/cowtan-way/#more-7024...

and a bit of discussion
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate....

Still - If you demand to get "weather" out of a climate model you are asking too much of the thing. It can only tell you roughly what is going to happen to the planet, not what is going to happen to South Dakota. Having unrealistic expectations isn't going to help you come to good decisions.


This however :

If it were primarily due to CO2, I have no hope that the world could make a significant difference in the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.</i

and item 4 that follows it, are substantial and reasonable observations. Largely because the world isn't trying and it isn't TRYING because there are wealthy people opposing action of any sort at all. The "Merchants of Doubt" isn't just a phrase.

Yet if the world DID act, the CO2 currently in the system would not increase TOO much more and the climate might well be persuaded to not pass into completely unprecedented (for our civilization) extremes.

I'm no more optimistic than you, but it remains a possible thing.

As I pointed out to Namkato, it looks to me like debt based disaster is going to occur before climate based catastrophe. Neither to occur (climate certainly not and debt I think not) this year.

Good luck.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: qazulight Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445389 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 1:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
There is an honest problem with this approach. There are new technologies on the drawing board that will be available in the next ten years or less.

When someone like WEB buys a company he applies a DCF or a FCF depending on his preferences. In fundamental value approaches to the market DCF/FCF methods pretty much over the long haul supply the numbers for what a stock issue should be priced. On a rolling basis a DCF/FCF in say XOM today looks good. I say a rolling basis because this is not a trading proposition, but a LTBH. On a rolling basis five years from now I dont expect XOM to look so good. Substitutes will be entering the energy market at a much more rapid pace.

Many of the substitutes are localized. PV is not just a massive set of arrays in a field in Iowa. It can be the roof of your house or part of your back yard. New battery technologies are being developed to store the energy as well. And Fuel cells will have come a long way to begin the process of replacing gasoline powered cars about 10 to 15 years from now.


Dave,

You accurate about the energy and batteries. However, the losses in oil and gas may not be as much as you think. Even if we quit burning all oil and gas, we would still need to produce oil and gas as they are primary feed stocks for most of our advanced materials. Further, despite the apparent glut of carbon bases energy, the new energy sources are expensive, they require a great deal of on going labor to maintain. So, while we will probably see a continuing decrease in hydrocarbon demand, (in the U.S.) we will not see a decrease in hydrocarbon prices.

Additionally, be sure and watch this entertaining video and revisit the demand for aircraft from Asia. This will give you a little shock as the idea that world wide demand for hydrocarbons will fall is a pipe dream.

While Hans has a hope that the demand can fall by 25 percent as he shows in this video.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-and-the-magic-w...

The odds are, that the fall will be made, not by fear of climate change, but by the expense of hydrocarbons. As such the dollar amounts that the companies dealing in hydrocarbons can remain high, even while the volume starts to fall.

Cheers
Qazulight

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445392 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So you consider yourself qualified and competent to dispute the science community, and by extension, the scientific method? Based on what?

As I said to another poster a while back, this isn't a reflection on yours or anyone else's intelligence. But there is no way a novice such as you can make an intelligent judgment on this topic. The only reasonable course is to accept that the scientific community has declared this "unequivocal". (I believe that was the exact word used recently.)

It's fine to ask "how do they know that", or "how much further increase is built-in even if we stopped tomorrow", or any of a number of other possible questions. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It's quite another matter to say "no, you guys are wrong and I'm going to ignore you". That is an almost-unrestrained hubris.

I also think it as unwise as consulting multiple MDs, all telling you that you need (for example) chemo, and telling them "no I don't".

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445394 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

The odds are, that the fall will be made, not by fear of climate change, but by the expense of hydrocarbons. As such the dollar amounts that the companies dealing in hydrocarbons can remain high, even while the volume starts to fall.

Cheers
Qazulight

Qaz,

Why are hydrocarbons expensive? Perhaps most of you are missing the main point here. Hydrocarbons are expensive for a very indirect reason. When you burn a hydrocarbon to make steam the process of mining the hydrocarbon or putting in the gas well and then producing the steam and finally shipping the electricity down the wire uses 92% of the energy involved. Only 8% of the energy as electricity gets to an end point. Many end points are a ridiculous waste. Every town in America has its shop signage lite up at 3 am.

The bar for alternative energies is actually quite low.

Hans said by 2050 the units of energy would drop 25%. I actually think the drop will be even more. And that more people will have washing machines. The production of greenhouse gasses will drop significantly over the next 35 years. The earth will heal. Right now the green movement is a political movement. The reality is a technical reality not a political movement. As PV becomes more efficient in comparison to hydrocarbons a massive shift will occur. The other massive shift will be in fuel cells. The recent testing of Synthetic Double Perovskites are a huge advance in that area.

As far as today's hydrocarbon prices, those products are in dollars. As the dollar strengthens/appreciates at some point going forward hydrocarbons will decrease in price. You are making your statements during a period of relative dollar weakness. A depreciated dollar wont be lasting.

Then again if you look at the 1950 to 1960 period and gasoline prices by the barrel, the price went from $8 to $10 over that period. It was almost a flat line to slightly up of 25% over the decade. That is an inflation rate of close to 2% per year. The factor you dont see in that approach is the expansion of consumption by Americans and Europeans in that period. So the end results of this decade, 2014 to 2024, will be based on how fast alternative energy enters the market. By 2024 a drop in the price of hydrocarbons should be beginning to be factored into the markets. There will be permanent declines in how much oil, gas and coal are used in all sorts of processes, except farming. And even when it comes to farming we need significant progress. A different topic.


Dave

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445395 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 2:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It seems you have a different end in mind.

Not really. I'm putting my scientist hat on. I have a respect for the method, and the many thousands of researchers who take data, analyze data, publish results for their peers to scrutinize, go to conferences to share and discuss and defend their results, etc. All of this leads to further and further refinements, eventually reaching "the answer" that is supported by the data. It's not a fast process, but it is the most powerful method for acquiring knowledge known to man.

And I take exception to any individual who thinks they "know better". They have no basis to say that. They're either guessing or trying to rationalize their predisposed position. And in science that is not acceptable. The data is the data, and you have to deal with it whether you like it or not. That's science.

You'll note I'm not debating the data. I'm defending the scientific method. I have no "end in mind". With my background I know the method, and I understand its power. That's all I (or anyone else) need. What I want or "have in mind" is completely irrelevant to what the science tells us.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445397 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 2:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

There is nothing wrong with asking questions. It's quite another matter to say "no, you guys are wrong and I'm going to ignore you". That is an almost-unrestrained hubris.

Poorguy,

You are not reading Tim or Qaz correctly. They agree with your assessment if you read them carefully. They just dont have the answers so they put the problem aside. It is not their calling. They are admitting that.

Qaz is more inclined to discuss the energy markets and the timing of events. Tim is more inclined perhaps because of his age to just ride it out in energy stocks. He does not like what he sees at all for his grandchildren.

I am quite optimistic. And I have a lot of scientific reasons to be so after a few years of reading MIT articles on future energy source and battery technologies. Along with other readings from the MIT website that I have been documenting on this board for a few years now. Things will look up in the next ten years going forward. The earth will heal its self. Much of the CO2 is being produced by burning oxygen and then some of the CO2 is being released into the atmosphere because it is part of what the earth actually is, the earth will soak it up again as we humans change how we garner our energy. It will be much cheaper to garner energy through sources that are not toxic to our planet.

As I just said this is a serious pressing technical problem, but it is not really a political problem at all. The Greens are barely making any dent in the problem at all because it is a matter of future technologies. They are on their way.

I am trying to figure out the multitude of reasons for not having a long term buy and hold in XOM. It is a lonely business.

Dave

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445401 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
People living in that "twilight zone" do not have control of what they see.

"The Outer Limits".

(We control the horizontal and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousands channels, or expand one single image to crystal clarity and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445402 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

(We control the horizontal and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousands channels, or expand one single image to crystal clarity and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive.)

Good thing I stopped smoking pot 30 years ago.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445405 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 3:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How are Shell and Conoco Phillips getting into the alternative energy sector?

They are both getting involved in renewable and sustainable energy sources.

http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-development/our-ap...

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/...

LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445412 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 4:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

As such I cannot make investment decisions, or lead my family to safety based on any models. I cannot give myself a false hope due to the dismal records of the models.

So, my response to the climate change debate has been to ignore it.


Same here.

The Earth has been going through periods of warming and cooling for eons. Whether we have anything to do with what is or isn't going on now is irrelevant.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spinning Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445417 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 5:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 42
The Earth has been going through periods of warming and cooling for eons. Whether we have anything to do with what is or isn't going on now is irrelevant.

There have been fires on Earth for eons. Whether we have anything to do with fires is irrelevant. No point in paying for fire departments or smoke detectors or sprinkler systems.

There have been diseases on Earth for eons. Whether we have anything to do with how diseases spread is irrelevant. No point in paying for medicine or sanitation or vaccination.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445420 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 6:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If I thought for one second I could change the world by not doing so I probably would quit but I don't... and watch the Arctic Ice and the over specialized Polar bear struggling to survive.

Not to worry Tim, grizzlies are doing fine and since grizzlies and polar bears are close cousins IF the ice melts we can expect the pizzly er... prizzly ... grolar bears to do just fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybr...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445421 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The Earth has been going through periods of warming and cooling for eons. Whether we have anything to do with what is or isn't going on now is irrelevant.

There have been fires on Earth for eons. Whether we have anything to do with fires is irrelevant. No point in paying for fire departments or smoke detectors or sprinkler systems.


Non sequitur

There have been diseases on Earth for eons. Whether we have anything to do with how diseases spread is irrelevant. No point in paying for medicine or sanitation or vaccination.

Ditto

There's no "fire department" on Earth big enough to put out this fire. If you wish to try I suggest you start with China. Rots-0-Ruck.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445423 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 7:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You are not reading Tim or Qaz correctly. They agree with your assessment if you read them carefully. They just dont have the answers so they put the problem aside. It is not their calling. They are admitting that.

Perhaps. It does sound like "Qaz" does not believe the science community, but has chosen to ignore it. I was really addressing the first bit. If he chooses to ignore it, that's certainly his prerogative. I ignore all sorts of science topics because I don't find them interesting, or at least not sufficiently that I want to spend any time on them. For example, the Higgs Boson. I'm aware they have declared they found it. But I'm not really following it closely, and I certainly am not going to dispute the claim they are making. To refuse to believe them would be, in my opinion, foolish because I simply don't have the background or knowledge (despite being a physicist) to make such a claim (without literally years of study and work in the field).

So it is here, too.

The earth will heal its self. Much of the CO2 is being produced by burning oxygen and then some of the CO2 is being released into the atmosphere because it is part of what the earth actually is, the earth will soak it up again as we humans change how we garner our energy. It will be much cheaper to garner energy through sources that are not toxic to our planet.

I'm not sure the data is in on that, but again this is not my field. What is the tipping-point for a runaway greenhouse effect? And if humans continue to destroy the mechanisms that "soak it up" (specifically forests and the oceans (plankton, mostly, as I recall)), can the Earth recover at all?

The Greens are barely making any dent in the problem at all because it is a matter of future technologies. They are on their way.

I think the Greens aren't making any headway because they are standing in the way of profits and convenience. Corporations won't stand for the former, and humans mostly won't stand for the latter. So they get shoved out of the way. Certainly new technologies are on the way, but are they enough and will they come soon enough? I don't know.

This at least is better than arguing cherry-picked bits of data! :-)

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spinning Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445424 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
This board has Risk in its title, so presumably we are here to help us think about risk. There is a lot about the climate system and climate change that is uncertain. Most of the big hullabaloo is arguing about whether this result is right or wrong, or whether that conclusion is supported by the majority of scientists. But I almost never see a serious discussion of risk that concludes there is no risk of climate change. The risk is almost always swept under the rug by those who want to minimize the impact of climate change.

There are some basic facts that have been tested countless times in laboratories and observations that lead to the inescapable conclusion that we are at risk of serious human caused climate change. Maybe it won’t happen, climate change itself may not be certain. But the risk of climate change is certain.

The specific amount of warming, the regional character of the warming, and its impact on drought, floods, sea-level rise, and hurricanes are all uncertain. The best guess we have about the details of the warming comes from models, with all their warts.

A crucial point about uncertainty is that it makes the problem worse. Uncertainty cuts both ways, maybe climate will change less than projected but maybe it will change more. The costs of climate change grow steeply with the amount of warming. Any potential cost savings from the chance of smaller climate change is swamped by the increased costs of the chance of larger warming.

So those who argue that the science is less certain than advertised, that scientists are pretending they know more than they truly do, are in fact arguing that the risk is greater than the scientists claim.

My personal view is that if we stopped arguing about the reality of the risk, there are relatively cheap things we can do that mitigate the climate change risk and at the same time help the U.S. and the world in other ways.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: qazulight Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445428 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 9:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
You are not reading Tim or Qaz correctly. They agree with your assessment if you read them carefully. They just dont have the answers so they put the problem aside. It is not their calling. They are admitting that.

Perhaps. It does sound like "Qaz" does not believe the science community, but has chosen to ignore it. I was really addressing the first bit. If he chooses to ignore it, that's certainly his prerogative. I ignore all sorts of science topics because I don't find them interesting, or at least not sufficiently that I want to spend any time on them. For example, the Higgs Boson. I'm aware they have declared they found it. But I'm not really following it closely, and I certainly am not going to dispute the claim they are making. To refuse to believe them would be, in my opinion, foolish because I simply don't have the background or knowledge (despite being a physicist) to make such a claim (without literally years of study and work in the field).


1poorguy,

The first statement is the most accurate. The words believe or deny are absolutes. As investor, or a more accurate position in this case, patriarch, I tend to make decisions based on likely outcomes, not on absolutes.

For instance, a couple of years ago when real estate was cheap and the stock market looked like a rigged game, I invested in a town house (cash) and took out a 30 year loan on a new home, both in Deep East Texas. I did this to move some of my assets out of the hands of the people in New York city. What I did not do was sell everything I had in stocks and buy timber land or a chicken farm. (However, the chicken farm was probably the best deal ever.) I did this because I perceived that the chances were that we would have significant inflation over a multi-decade time period. At this time, my move does not look so wise. Especially in light of the fact that couple of large apartment complexes have been built in the college town and the college enrollment has dropped putting pressure on rents around town. I did not spend all my money on real estate because I saw a probability, but because I saw a probability I spent some.

When it comes to climate science, it appears that the scientist have gathered and analyzed evidence that indicates a large probability that the environment is gaining energy (this energy is mostly being stored as heat, however, energy can be stored or expended, so as the environment, i.e. land, atmosphere and mostly the oceans gain heat we will have more energy stored in the environment for weather related activities. What these activities will be and where these activities will have positive and negative effects has not been modeled well. Actually the models have been so inaccurate as to be completely worthless for patriarch level leadership decisions.)

So, it is not that I do not believe the scientist, nor is it that I ignore the scientist, it is that the scientist have not given me anything that I can use to guide my family.

When it comes to MACRO scale decisions like, a carbon tax, or CO2 curbs, I do not attempt to make them for the reasons that Hans mentioned in his video, and because the costs of hydrocarbons will rise due to the rising cost of extraction and these rising costs themselves will limit the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere. However, that does leave the problem of coal, however, even that problem is taking care of itself in China with people simply choking on there own waste.

Finally, while a change in the global climate, especially an abrupt change, which is a possibility could wipe out most of humanity and all of society, that is a possibility. If we were to stop burning all fossil fuels in a relatively short time, we would wipe out most of humanity and maybe save society, and the wiping out of most of humanity part is a probability, a very likely probability.

I believe, and this is with a great deal of certainty, that the the people of the world will not voluntarily eliminate 80 to 90 percent of the population, leaving about a billion people on the planet. This is my generous estimate of the population that could survive without fossil fuels.

Further, as best as I understand it, the heat is being added to the environment not because of heat being produced on earth but rather because of the heat being retained from the sun due to the CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems to me that this is much like a person with a fixed thermostat or heat source in his home. He adds insulation until the house starts getting warmer then thinks, "Oh the house is getting warmer, I will quit adding insulation." then he sits around and wonders why his house is still getting warmer. Of course it is still getting warmer! The heat source is still there and the insulation is still there! The best I understand, if we quit putting CO2 in the atmosphere today, cold turkey, shut the place down, the environment would continue to add heat until the CO2 in the atmosphere was sequestered to the point that the heat from the sun and the heat lost to space reached equilibrium.

So, due to the fact that people do not want to die, (today...everybody wants to go to heaven, just not right now) the world will continue to burn fossil fuels. And due to my assumption that the earth's environment would continue to gain heat even if the all fossil fuel consumption was stopped, a different climate on earth is a given.

So, with a fact, people don't want to die now, and an assumption, the climate is going to change no matter what, I only can hope to adapt. However, I cannot make a decision on how to adapt because all of the models what the climate will do have proven to be completely worthless and apparent "common sense" outcomes are fraught with logical error. So, rather than attempt to wrestle with a problem that gives me no statistical advantage I simply watch and work on problems that I can gain an advantage.

For instance, fracking. Fracking is a labor intensive way of pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground. Even with a worldwide deployment of fracking (We are not there yet, and this is probably why HAL, http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL&ql=0 is selling at a multiple of 24 with a yield of 1.1 percent vice T at a multiple of 10 and a yield of 5.6 percent, or KMP with a multiple of 20, yield 5.8 percent). we will probably only be able to hold oil at around today's prices for less than 10 more years.

I look at fracking and I don't see the world floating in oil. I see the world not dying of starvation in the next 10 years with a chance, and it is just a chance to build a future. So I see fracking, and I buy,

VFF.TO because the climate will change, but people will eat.

I buy Solar City, because this oil is not cheap.

I buy Tesla, because, well; I don't have any yet, but I keep hoping something bad will happen so I can grab some shares.

I buy KMP, because oil is going to get shipped and pipe is the best way to do it.

I study math and chemistry to prepare myself to work with massive batteries and fuel cells, because energy reliability and costs are critical to the industry I work in, (and batteries and fuel cells are just cool.)

What I do not do it is fret over things I cannot control, or support policies that would probably be as successful as Hitlers "Battle of the Bulge, or the Japanese plan at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

All this is not to say I am sanguine about the environment, on the contrary, I take as many actions as I can to prepare myself and my family for changes in the environment, and I am frustrated at the lack of useful tools to project what the environment will be like in the near (30 years) future. These uncertainties make it impossible for me to campaign for any big multi-generation bets on the future. I.E. A million dollar chicken farm, or a 2 or 3 hundred acre tree farm. I simply cannot put that much, (essentially all of my assets plus leverage)into a single project with the possibility of significant climate change wiping me or my children out.

I will note, on the bright side, sudden climate change is not currently forecast as a probability. Although it is possible. even then, the rapid climate change is not a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220141625.ht...

With a gradual climate change, I believe that not only will humanity survive, civilization will survive, and thrive.

Cheers
Qazulight

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445429 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 9:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So those who argue that the science is less certain than advertised, that scientists are pretending they know more than they truly do, are in fact arguing that the risk is greater than the scientists claim.


And the way to mitigate financial risk is to diversify - to invest in

Print the post Back To Top
Author: qazulight Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445432 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 10:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So those who argue that the science is less certain than advertised, that scientists are pretending they know more than they truly do, are in fact arguing that the risk is greater than the scientists claim.

To the best of my ability I have followed the success rates of the climate models. For short term, i.e. my lifetime, and local, I.E. Texas or Alaska, the models cannot measure anything with any accuracy. So, for me, a broad statement like "The risks are unknown." is a better statement than, "The risks have been understated" or "The risks have been overstated."

It is my opinion that the scientists are doing their best to model the climate and the weather. However, it appears that this is a massively complex system like the DNA helix, or MACRO economics and it takes a lot of testing to fathom it.

My personal view is that if we stopped arguing about the reality of the risk, there are relatively cheap things we can do that mitigate the climate change risk and at the same time help the U.S. and the world in other ways.

It is my personal view that if were to take action against climate change the outcome would probably have the same effect as a swarm of love bugs trying to stop my car. On the other hand, many of the things we might do to stop climate change, would probably be beneficial in other ways. I mean, even a swarm of love bugs makes me wash my car more often.

Cheers
Qazulight (I believe that love bug juice is an awesome solvent, I know it will eat through clear coat...I wonder how to monetize that.)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445435 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 11:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This board has Risk in its title, so presumably we are here to help us think about risk. There is a lot about the climate system and climate change that is uncertain. Most of the big hullabaloo is arguing about whether this result is right or wrong, or whether that conclusion is supported by the majority of scientists. But I almost never see a serious discussion of risk that concludes there is no risk of climate change. The risk is almost always swept under the rug by those who want to minimize the impact of climate change.

Actually, that isn't the problem.

Pretty much everyone who's studied the question agrees that climate change is happening and it's a risk worthy of consideration.

But that's where the agreement ends. From there on, two major factions exist; and one of those is willing to discuss the risk only on its own terms - while pretending that the other faction is denying or ignoring the risk.

The two major factions do not agree on, among other things:
* the likely direction of major climate change in the next century
* the likely magnitude of major climate change in the next century
* the likely causes of major climate change in the next century
* whether the climate change of the past century is unusual, or cyclical

Obviously all four of those have a significant impact on what one should do in response to the risk.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445437 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/24/2014 11:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Actually, the non-sequitur was yours. What happened before says nothing about the causes of what is happening now. The argument you made is simply not related.

The earth has warmed and cooled before for many reasons, but that fact has no bearing on whether the science saying that "this time it is CO2", is correct or not. That's why that example was used.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/15/us-china-usa-clima...

China takes it a lot more seriously than the US House of Representatives or a fair mob of US Senators.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-a-finamore/what-is-chi...

Moreover, they are working harder at it than the US even now.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445439 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 12:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
One of those factions isn't major anywhere else in the world but Oz... a country dependent on its own extractive industries, and Canada which has the same problem.

It is among other things, almost completely unrepresented among the scientists who study climate science, or in the climate science data.

So what we can understand from this is that there is ONE faction that is ignoring the science in favor of the profits.

That is perilous, because when the climate changes sufficiently to generate the 2x4 event (the one that gets the attention of everyone because it is so far from normal that the general population gets scared) that faction will suffer such a loss of credibility and fall from grace that no man can foresee its return. Keep it up and there may be NO Republican, Conservative, Libertarian or Tea party for the next millennium and that'd be bad. Balance is better.

Rather than denying that science is legitimate conservatives should embrace it and look for ways to change things that involve shifting as little money and power to government as possible. THAT would be a win-win for everyone.

Not an "economic" risk, those are embedded in the climate risk and related governmental risks, but the loss of that check on big government is an indirect risk to our long term economic health.

I posted a link to Hansen's latest paper above in this thread. It is important.

Important to understand that he is taking it to some of the so-called "green" movement for their opposition to nuclear. Very very few people who understand the science are objecting to nukes... but there are definitely a fair number of "greens" who come up short on the engineering and need for electrical energy in bulk to make up for the fossil energy they want shut down.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445447 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 3:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
LWW,

COP gave us a nice propaganda line.

And Shell gave us biofuels. How do biofuels slow the amounts of CO2 being put out into the atmosphere? We would still be burning oxygen etc....

Does COP actually list what is doing anywhere? Or are those completely empty words? I think that is a very fair question. I have seen a lot of empty words.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445450 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 4:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

As I said to another poster a while back, this isn't a reflection on yours or anyone else's intelligence. But there is no way a novice such as you can make an intelligent judgment on this topic.

Poorguy,

Between the comments....

You brought up 'tipping point'. This is hyperbole. I am not at all clear that the better scientific minds really think of a tipping point. And if they do I dont think they really define it the way the alarmist do.

The 'tipping point' is up in the air as to when.

Right now we are talking a matter of a few degrees over the last century? Correct me if I am wrong. I do realize the range between zero degrees celsius and 100 degrees celsius is not as wide as it seems. We can run out of degrees to add very easily. I am not firmly focused on the warming science. I believe that the globe has a massive problem, but I am not sure it wont be overcome.

The Greens are a political movement. They are right to see big oil and other industrialists as forwarding their own agendas at odds with the rest of us. And staying at odds with us because those same industrialists are serving our wants and needs. So the Greens politicize the scientific problem of global warming.

In the US the Greens doing this are seen as repugnant. So the Greens are trying to win over as many folks as possible. And it finally it is looking like they may succeed. I know they are not a party in our system with even much of a minority, but their sway in the process is starting to show up in some serious polling data.

What will the Greens in the Democratic or Republican parties do in American if they do get a majority in power? The English conservatives have embraced environmentalism. What have they done?

Climate studies are scientific without any debate. This is because it is a measurable mathematically oriented type of problem.

Our pollution will cause a catastrophic problem if we dont change.

The CO2 has to stop being added. And that is not the only pollution problem we have.

This is a technical problem and all alternatives to it that are political by nature will not resolve this problem. Except funding alternative energy research projects. With the growing world wide population more CO2 will be produced if we dont stop it altogether.

You need to bank on technical solutions.

If the Greens and the climate scientists really want a direction to go in for the future good, then new technologies are it. This is old news to the Greens. It is worn out news. But here in the states many more people are beginning to take notice of global warming. This at a time when there are prospects of major technical changes in how we get our energy.

You know that there are 37 different fully understood chemical reactions so far. The last the 37th reaction was about how gasoline is burned in a combustion engine. They never fully understood the process of burning hydrocarbons prior to late last year. They think there maybe other processes to map out. Finding out how number 37 works gives some researches hope of finding related chemical reactions. Science is moving ahead suddenly at a very fast pace.

Dave

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: qazulight Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445459 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 9:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You brought up 'tipping point'. This is hyperbole. I am not at all clear that the better scientific minds really think of a tipping point. And if they do I dont think they really define it the way the alarmist do.

The 'tipping point' is up in the air as to when.


It is my opinion that the tipping point has past.

Cheers
Qazulight (At least we will live in interesting times)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tim443 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445463 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 10:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well 50 posts on this thread that was intended to just show what I thought was an interesting animation. Now you know why I think environmental discussion belong on other boards.

Sorry I started it but on that note I will ignore it.

Tim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: legalwordwarrior Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445471 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 12:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And Shell gave us biofuels. How do biofuels slow the amounts of CO2 being put out into the atmosphere? We would still be burning oxygen etc....

Until they figure out some sort of cold fusion, energy will require something to be burned. However, biofuels and renewable fuel sources mean less drilling, which means fewer acres of trees having to be chopped down to make room for platforms and roads to get to the sources. Chop down fewer trees, and arguably, the trees will continue to pump out oxygen. People put out huge amounts of CO2, yet no one ever goes out and says "Let's limit the population" well, okay, China did that, but that was in response to starvation, not CO2 emissions.

Does COP actually list what is doing anywhere? Or are those completely empty words? I think that is a very fair question. I have seen a lot of empty words.

I have a relative who is fairly high up the food chain of COP. They are doing some very cool stuff, they just haven't made much of it public yet. Their choice of acquisitions has been interesting.

The way I look at it, we're going to need renewable fuels, and the big oil companies understand that. They will invest where it shows the best profit for them. Just as gasoline and electricity replaced kerosene, they will make the changes they need in order to continue to profit.


LWW

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445492 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 2:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The earth has warmed and cooled before for many reasons, ...

Ah, now we're getting to the point.

... but that fact has no bearing on whether the science saying that "this time it is CO2", is correct or not. That's why that example was used.

Ah, but it does. When your cat has been pi$$ing on the rug it's more likely that a new wet spot is attributable to your cat than the Good Humor man driving by.

Real scientists don't declare fatwas against other scientists who disagree with them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445519 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That was quite a clarification! Thanks for taking the time.

I expect humanity will survive, but I also suspect there will be a lot of pain and mayhem. I expect significant population reduction to occur because of this as ecosystems collapse due to climate and weather pattern changes. New ones will develop, but that's not generally a quick process (it's generally easier to destroy than to create). But that's purely a guess on my part.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445523 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 4:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I am not at all clear that the better scientific minds really think of a tipping point. And if they do I dont think they really define it the way the alarmist do.

As I said, not my field. I do recall reading an article many years ago that there is a point which, when reached, will result in a runaway greenhouse effect. It will self-reinforce (i.e. feedback will sustain it). I don't now recall the details. It's very possible current scientific thinking has abandoned that idea.

Science is moving ahead suddenly at a very fast pace.

I don't know about "suddenly", but it definitely is moving VERY fast today. My chief concern is what seems to be a growing segment of the population who doesn't really understand "science". I'm not referring to the nitty-gritty of 37 chemical reactions. I'm talking about how an observation leads to a hypothesis that leads to testing that leads to theories, and those theories are further refined with more data, etc, going through peer review and scrutiny and criticism until we finally "know" something. Perhaps imperfectly, but we "know" it. And people respond with "it's just a theory" (because they think a theory is a guess). And they think themselves competent to cherry-pick some data and hold it up as proof that scientists don't really know anything, they're just guessing, they just want to get rich on research grants (ha!!!), etc.

Ignorance about how science works seems to be a growing problem, and it could prove catastrophic. Especially when science attempts to inform about the consequences of policy.

1poorguy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445524 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When I was a kid I loved the B&W version, and as a young(ish) adult I also enjoyed the revived version. Some really unique stories. And not episodic.

1pg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445530 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/25/2014 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And Shell gave us biofuels. How do biofuels slow the amounts of CO2 being put out into the atmosphere? We would still be burning oxygen etc....

Biofuels put CO2 into the atmosphere just like fossil fuels.

But the carbon in the fossil fuels came out of the atmosphere a long time ago, mostly when atmospheric CO2 was at the normal level. So putting it back into the atmosphere helps return the atmosphere to normal.

The carbon in biofuels came out of the modern CO2-depleted atmosphere. So putting it back into the atmosphere has no net effect.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: aleax Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Global Fool Pro Community Winner Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445547 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/26/2014 12:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Much of the CO2 is being produced by burning oxygen

"Burning" means rapid, exothermic oxidation. So you can't be "burning oxygen" (oxidating oxygen?!). What do you mean?!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: desertdaveataol Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445627 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/26/2014 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

The way I look at it, we're going to need renewable fuels, and the big oil companies understand that. They will invest where it shows the best profit for them. Just as gasoline and electricity replaced kerosene, they will make the changes they need in order to continue to profit.

Ah, written by someone who "gets it". Yes, we are indeed going to need renewable fuels. And some sort of new batteries that don't weigh so much and can store as much power as a tank of gas in roughly the same space.

Desert (It will come some day) Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 445662 of 455476
Subject: Re: Arctic Ice Date: 2/27/2014 10:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0


Much of the CO2 is being produced by burning oxygen

"Burning" means rapid, exothermic oxidation. So you can't be "burning oxygen" (oxidating oxygen?!). What do you mean?!

Aleax,

I am old fashioned.

Dave

PS do an MIT.edu search under chemical reaction number 37, if the search works you will come upon an article some one to three months old. It is the actual newly found chemical reaction on how a combustion engine works. Since most of the CO2 we are discussing comes from tailpipes this is a fair idea of how we get our pollution problem, how hydrogen, carbon and oxygen burn in an engine. To be honest, the article does not actually go into how the specifics work. It points to a much more complicated research paper only recently presented. Chemical reaction 37 is the last found chemical reaction. This is fully informed discovery. They hope in time to find still other chemical reactions and/or understand them fully.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (59) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement