# No snow this year says climate scientist



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

In fact, no ice anywhere, he apparently claims. So cancel plans to go south for Christmas, and enjoy the sun in Canada. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

And if you see snow and ice in the future, keep you mouth shut otherwise you could get prosecuted for being a "denier". Looks like the church is back to persecute Galileo, only this time the church is climate science. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...eral-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

But wait, there's more. couldn't it be that 95% of climate science is just about making money? this guy in the following link gets a paltry $250,000 a year for a part time climate science job, and is apparently under investigation for double dipping in the 1.5 trillion climate science industry. 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nd-obamarico-letter-serious-questions-answer/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...to-be-a-crook-to-work-in-climate-science-but/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, and the world isn't suffering record breaking flooding, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Be nice if it was true. I've been listening to their predictions and climate models for 30 years, none of them have been right yet. But, we can always hope. Canada could use some Global Warming.

2 hurricanes in 10 years is record breaking all right, we used to get 3 or 4 every year. Bet it sucks to be the guy that is simultaneously having a flood and a drought.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> Yes, and the world isn't suffering record breaking flooding, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels.


The last 11 years is on record as the biggest hurricane DROUGHT the USA has ever experienced during the record keeping period (back to the 1800s)-that won't keep the sheep from squealing GLOBAL WARMING the next time one hits-even if the next one hits 10 years from now.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

sags said:


> Yes, and the world isn't suffering record breaking flooding, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels.


Actually hurricanes have been less frequent contrary to activist claims...it just seems more often since now we blame every gust of wind or earthquake on man induced climate change.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Yes, and the world isn't suffering record breaking flooding, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels.


If you check the history of hurricanes I think you will find it doesn't match your claims. According to this history,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes

the frequency of hurricanes was much higher in the 1880's compare to recent times. the most intense hurricane to hit the US was in 1935, long before it became popular to worry about global warming. Climate change theorists create myths so people gladly shovel money at them. Sadly, the money could be better spent on other concerns.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Pluto said:


> In fact, no ice anywhere, he apparently claims. So cancel plans to go south for Christmas, and enjoy the sun in Canada.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/


Did you read the article? It was talking about arctic sea ice. Nowhere in the article did it say there would be no snow or ice anywhere this winter.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^

Yes, I read the article. LOL. I was wondering if anyone would catch that. You get the prize. 
However, don't you think that if both polar caps melted that it is a reasonable inference there would be no snow anywhere else?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We had snow last week. Better trade out that crystal ball for a new model.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Climate change is reflected not in the numbers of hurricanes or droughts per year, but in their increasing levels of intensity.

Drought is causing major problems around the world in California, Australia and increasing the susceptibility of forested areas to fire.

The fire in Fort McMurray is an example of a fire in a drought area. Insurance companies are evaluating their risk to increased catastrophic events and considering higher premiums or withdrawing insurance from areas of high risk. Nobody analyses or understands risk factors better than insurance companies.

Rising sea levels are already causing problems along areas of low elevation. Property in Florida is becoming unsaleable due to the rising water level. It is difficult to dispute sea levels are rising as they slowly inch their way up the docking posts and breakwalls year after year.

Severe weather pattern changes, snow in Saudi Arabia, floods in the UK, are evidence the climate is changing.

Scientists know it exists. There is no uncertainty about it. The only uncertainty is if climate change is being affected by human activity.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Polar bears are invading small villages and threatening oil workers in the Arctic in increasing frequency.

Locals say the bears are starving because they can't get out on the ice to hunt seals.

Climate change is forcing a lot of change in the Arctic region. 

Longer seasonal open water passage is the catalyst for different countries claiming ownership in the Arctic.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Climate scientists have a great way to explain away every anomaly that occurs to their myriad number of models...no one here is denying climate change...only the fact that blaming it on man using carbon to fuel historic money transfers is suspect. If it acts like a duck then its a duck.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Breitbart isn't a very credible news source. It is the right-wing equivalent of HuffPo.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> ^
> 
> Yes, I read the article. LOL. I was wondering if anyone would catch that. You get the prize.
> However, don't you think that if both polar caps melted that it is a reasonable inference there would be no snow anywhere else?


lol, Pluto is a liar. How clever.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This is the thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on earth.

If there is the tiniest of odds the scientists are correct that human activity contributes to climate change, is it worth the risk to ignore it ?

View attachment 12073


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Insurance companies know that increased intensity of weather is costing them higher catastrophic damage payouts.

_Some industries seem to have had trouble believing the scientists who warn that human activity is warming the planet by releasing long-sequestered carbon.

The insurance business is an exception, as Eric Reguly pointed out in a 2013 article titled No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business._

_"What we have is evidence that property-related insurance losses from extreme weather are increasing not only in Canada, but also internationally," Thistlethwaite says. "And this aligns with climate change research that suggests that the warmer the atmosphere is, the more extreme weather you're likely to get."_

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fort-mac-climate-insurance-1.3576918


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

sags said:


> Insurance companies know that increased intensity of weather is costing them higher catastrophic damage payouts.
> 
> _Some industries seem to have had trouble believing the scientists who warn that human activity is warming the planet by releasing long-sequestered carbon.
> 
> ...


YES-as long as we pay every last nickel we have to Goldman and ManBearPig and various other grifters the planet will be saved-that is what Goldman Sachs does for a living-they save the planet-they are the Mother Theresa of Wall Street Grifters.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

sags said:


> Insurance companies know that increased intensity of weather is costing them higher catastrophic damage payouts.


Actually Geico owned by Berkshire would disagree...but don't let that detract from a great cbc breaking news article.

From Mr Buffet

Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat rates have fallen steadily in recent years, which is why we have backed away from that business. If super-cats become costlier and more frequent, the likely – though far from certain – effect on Berkshire’s insurance business would be to make it larger and more profitable.

As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up nights. As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread.

To me, the point is there are people who are able to justify discrediting thousands of experts when they find one wing nut saying something ridiculous. ... and I hope those people never have power over me because I don't want to be subjected to their incompetence.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread.
> 
> To me, the point is there are people who are able to justify discrediting thousands of experts when they find one wing nut saying something ridiculous. ... and I hope those people never have power over me because I don't want to be subjected to their incompetence.


Yeah-these crazy wing nuts should just shut up and follow authority blindly like the rest of the braindead sheep-11 year hurricane drought? I don't care if it is an 111 year hurricane drought-just shut up and pay up-these authority figures are just trying to sacrifice their lives for ours, kinda like JC.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On the contrary, you misinterpreted what Buffet said.

He recognizes that climate change will be a major problem, but says that short term casualty insurance will raise premiums to cover the additional risk, which will increase the premiums sold and make the companies more valuable.

As far as increased catastrophic payouts.........

_Other insurers have already expressed concern about these changes. Carl Hedde, head of risk accumulation for insurer Munich Re America, says: “*The number of loss-relevant, weather-related natural catastrophes worldwide has almost tripled since 1980*. We do think that the warming climate – depending on region and peril concerned – does play a certain role.”

Buffett does believe the possibility of more frequent and damaging hurricanes and floods in the future. Rather than costing his company money, he expects these future catastrophes will actually raise profits. He draws an analogy with Berkshire-owned car insurance company Geico. In 1951, he explains, Geico’s “average loss-per-policy was then about $30 annually. Imagine your reaction if I had predicted then that in 2015 the loss costs would increase to about $1,000 per policy”.

But rather than destroying Geico, *these rising losses were actually indicative of handsome revenues.* “*These increased costs have been promptly matched by increased premiums*,” Buffett explains. “So, paradoxically, the upward march in loss costs has made insurance companies far more valuable.”
_

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...-policy-berkshire-hathaway-shareholder-letter


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance

This goes against activist dogma no?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Insurance companies know that increased intensity of weather is costing them higher catastrophic damage payouts.
> 
> _Some industries seem to have had trouble believing the scientists who warn that human activity is warming the planet by releasing long-sequestered carbon.
> 
> ...


they are trying to scare people into buying too much insurance. The property damage costs should be inflation adjusted, and per capita. Florida is more populated now, therefore more buildings so obviously there will be more damage in $ terms. the most intense US land fall hurricane was in 1935. so intensity has gone down.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Pluto said:


> they are trying to scare people into buying too much insurance. The property damage costs should be inflation adjusted, and per capita. Florida is more populated now, therefore more buildings so obviously there will be more damage in $ terms. the most intense US land fall hurricane was in 1935. so intensity has gone down.


Yeah-the MSM spins it so the sheep think more property damage equals GW-no it equals more people moving into hurricane territory.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread.
> 
> To me, the point is there are people who are able to justify discrediting thousands of experts when they find one wing nut saying something ridiculous. ... and I hope those people never have power over me because I don't want to be subjected to their incompetence.


How do we know they are not all wing nuts? this one guy says the polar caps will be melted by last month, and none of his peers say anything. In that case what does "peer reviewed" mean? Apparently not much. Then some of these wing nuts discussed prosecuting "deniers". That's similar to what Stalin did around 1950 - a law was passed that no science papers could get published unless it conformed to the goals of the state. All papers had to be reviewed by a political committee before publication. Science should be independent of the state.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

sags said:


> This is the thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on earth.
> 
> If there is the tiniest of odds the scientists are correct that human activity contributes to climate change, is it worth the risk to ignore it ?
> 
> View attachment 12073


That's neither here nor there since no one had come up with a credible plan to stop it. All they are doing is using it as an excuse to impose restrictive new laws and new taxes. Ask your MP how Canada's new climate tax will stop Global Warming, if he is honest he will tell you it won't. What it will do is cost you thousands of dollars per year in new taxes.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> Yeah-these crazy wing nuts should just shut up and follow authority blindly like the rest of the braindead sheep-11 year hurricane drought?


I see you've gone long on chromosomes. Interesting choice.

I'm sure you and pluto don't have any money in the markets, because there are equities which lose money, proving it isn't possible to make money with any equities, ever.

Your move, brainiac.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> That's neither here nor there since no one had come up with a credible plan to stop it.


No one except a consensus of environmental scientists. ... or do you mean credible to you? I suppose you're going to keep your 1972 Plymouth Grand Fury idling until you're convinced climate science is real?

There are actually quite a few highly credible ideas to reduce the warming trends. At this point, the warming trends cannot be stopped, as they are too far progressed, but they can be mitigated and long term global survival is possible.

Between CO2 reduction, improving the efficiency of carbon based fuel sources we will need to continue to use, improved public transportation, improved energy efficiencies across the board, solar, wind, and even painting the top surfaces of roads and buildings white, a very significant dent can be made in the problem. There is also the Musk rocket to Mars. I say the first on that rocket should be those most keen on soiling the nest in which we all live. They will be useful in warming up Mars and do us all a good service.

If you don't care about future generations, are you a good person?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think everyone here cares about future generations...raising our taxes won't do anything to contribute to combating our planet warming. Ruining our economy will ham string our country when we need money to adapt to a warmer climate. That's the problem using the "chicken little" conversation endlessly and why many Canadians finally call bs.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

TomB19 said:


> No one except a consensus of environmental scientists. ... or do you mean credible to you? I suppose you're going to keep your 1972 Plymouth Grand Fury idling until you're convinced climate science is real?
> 
> There are actually quite a few highly credible ideas to reduce the warming trends. At this point, the warming trends cannot be stopped, as they are too far progressed, but they can be mitigated and long term global survival is possible.
> 
> ...


Canada is imposing a $10 per tonne carbon tax starting in 2018. Don't believe me? Don't believe my wacky right wing web sites? How about Justin Fucking Trudeau, do you believe him? And the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are they a wacky right wing web site?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/trudeau-carbon-tax-scare-tactics-1.3805715

Nothing about how this will eliminate Global Warming, or Climate Change, because the fact is, it won't do anything but take money out of your pocket as a taxpayer. Go ahead and read up on climate taxes, cap and trade and all the rest of it. The experts that are promoting these things will admit they are ineffective.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> I see you've gone long on chromosomes. Interesting choice.
> 
> I'm sure you and pluto don't have any money in the markets, because there are equities which lose money, proving it isn't possible to make money with any equities, ever.
> 
> Your move, brainiac.


Listen Chump-if you told me a stock was going to go way up long term and I looked at the chart and it was trading LOWER THAN ELEVEN YEARS AGO I would be reasonably skeptical that your whole theory was total B/S-then when I find out you are being paid under the table to push this garbage stock on everybody that would be the clincher.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> No one except a consensus of environmental scientists. ... or do you mean credible to you? I suppose you're going to keep your 1972 Plymouth Grand Fury idling until you're convinced climate science is real?
> 
> There are actually quite a few highly credible ideas to reduce the warming trends. At this point, the warming trends cannot be stopped, as they are too far progressed, but they can be mitigated and long term global survival is possible.
> 
> ...


Your ignorance is laughable-you know some people are actually aware of a large industrial nation called China-that pumps out the CO2 that causes you to wet your pants.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"No one except a consensus of environmental scientists. ... or do you mean credible to you? I suppose you're going to keep your 1972 Plymouth Grand Fury idling until you're convinced climate science is real?"

You are slightly mistaken. It was Global Warming icon David Suzuki who drove a Greyhound bus from coast to coast, solely to promote his "Green" agenda. I drive a 4 cylinder economy car, and plan my trips to combine 3 or 4 errands to minimize fuel use. He flies hundreds of thousands of miles every year to climate events, I have been on an airplane once in my life. He owns 4 houses, I own one, and my energy consumption is the lowest possible.

The fact that I can smell bullshit does not depend on how much carbon I burn.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Who are you arguing with, Rusty?

The carbon tax is neither the biggest implication of the new Trudeau policy nor is it necessarily a bad idea.

The capping of power generation emissions to 420 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour of power production has far deeper implications than the carbon tax. 420 tonnes/gWh happens to be the carbon dioxide production of a natural gas plant. Suffice to say, coal is close to triple that. Coal, in it's current form as the cheapest form of power generation that we have, is being extincted.

Anyone who can afford it will have solar panels on their house in the next decade. House scale energy storage is the magic bullet to solve this. Coal is palliative. Oil will be next.

I have no doubt the "guest worker" program is designed by business and implemented by government to create an underclass of cheap labour. I've been pondering the bulk immigration policies and wondering if they are designed to increase the chance of Canada being able to produce a product of any kind in a post oil economy.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> You are slightly mistaken. It was Global Warming icon David Suzuki who drove a Greyhound bus from coast to coast, solely to promote his "Green" agenda. I drive a 4 cylinder economy car, and plan my trips to combine 3 or 4 errands to minimize fuel use. He flies hundreds of thousands of miles every year to climate events, I have been on an airplane once in my life. He owns 4 houses, I own one, and my energy consumption is the lowest possible.



Good for you. Sincerely.

Green is good engineering and good logistics, such as you describe.

Like any good idea, environmental progress has been co-opted by forces trying to hook their cart to the Green movement. Much like the aerodynamic toasters of the 1950s, many green products are ridiculous. Still, being environmentally responsible remains a sound idea.

Green is building a bridge to carry a specific capacity using less material and/or labour. Green is car-pooling to cut the carbon footprint in half (which I do with my wife every day... and then walk 1.5km to work). Green is common sense.

Somewhere between claiming humans can dump an infinite amount of their garbage into the atmosphere with zero consequence and moving to a cave in the mountains to live a diet of leaves and berries there lays a compromise we can all live with that will keep the bulk of our lifestyle intact. In the mean time, and even then, I have no doubt ignorant people will continue claiming ignorant things.

I'm not excited about thoughts on what is going to happen to the cost of energy and I understand that people hate change but we simply can't keep doing exactly what we are doing and expect a different outcome than the one we are facing.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> Good for you. Sincerely.
> 
> Green is good engineering and good logistics, such as you describe.
> 
> ...


Anybody ignoring the elephant-CHINA is the definition of ignorant or full of B/S-take your pick.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> Anybody ignoring the elephant-CHINA is the definition of ignorant or full of B/S-take your pick.


Oh, yes. The old, "Hey, he shot 20 people and I only shot three so I'm not guilty of murder" argument.....

You've provided a choice. In your case, I will choose B/S.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> Oh, yes. The old, "Hey, he shot 20 people and I only shot three so I'm not guilty of murder" argument.....
> 
> You've provided a choice. In your case, I will choose B/S.


Einstein: You are just looking stupider than ever now-if the goal is to prevent murder and you think it makes logical sense to ignore the guy who killed 20 and go after all the little guys you are nothing but a crooked cop or judge-take your pick.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Nelley said:


> Einstein: You are just looking stupider than ever now-if the goal is to prevent murder and you think it makes logical sense to ignore the guy who killed 20 and go after all the little guys you are nothing but a crooked cop or judge-take your pick.


I mostly ignore you but you happen to have posted something that is almost relevant. You have proven the hypothesis that a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters will eventually write something worthwhile.

In a substantial way, we are causing the Chinese to pollute because we are buying their under priced crap. By subjecting Canadian manufacturing to a robust tax regime, environmental laws, and intellectual property protections, and then opening the door so big business can bring in ultra cheap Chinese knock-off products, we are part of the problem.

If a political option existed that would work against this reality, I would vote for them but corporations own the two major parties in Canada and could own the third, we don't know.

Now, have a banana.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

BEST NEWS EVER - THE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Science invents way to turn CO2 into Vodka. I am not kidding.

http://newatlas.com/co2-ethanol-nanoparticle-conversion-ornl/45920/


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

TomB19 said:


> I mostly ignore you but you happen to have posted something that is almost relevant. You have proven the hypothesis that a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters will eventually write something worthwhile.
> 
> In a substantial way, we are causing the Chinese to pollute because we are buying their under priced crap. By subjecting Canadian manufacturing to a robust tax regime, environmental laws, and intellectual property protections, and then opening the door so big business can bring in ultra cheap Chinese knock-off products, we are part of the problem.
> 
> ...


This isn't rocket science-everyone who wasn't making money from this scam saw through it the moment the biggest "problem" was granted exemption. Look-you basically are admitting you see this scam but somehow psychologically you are fighting it.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

TomB19 said:


> I mostly ignore you but you happen to have posted something that is almost relevant. You have proven the hypothesis that a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters will eventually write something worthwhile.
> 
> In a substantial way, we are causing the Chinese to pollute because we are buying their under priced crap. By subjecting Canadian manufacturing to a robust tax regime, environmental laws, and intellectual property protections, and then opening the door so big business can bring in ultra cheap Chinese knock-off products, we are part of the problem.
> 
> ...


Interesting analysis. You have a good point there. If we offloaded our environmental responsibilities to China by destroying our manufacturing base do we have the right to crab about their environmental irresponsibility? But, I am not sure the solution is to pile more taxes and regulations on our own economy that has already been decimated by taxes and regulation.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> ...I am not sure the solution is to pile more taxes and regulations on our own economy that has already been decimated by taxes and regulation.


I'm not, either.

BTW, the economy hasn't been decimated but it is clearly being pressured in a downward direction by corporate interests: namely, outsourcing and off-shoring.

... and we like it. We could have chosen to buy goods manufactured in Canada and avoid the cheap, Chinese junk but we went straight for the junk which has evolved over the years to be generally acceptable in quality.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Interesting analysis. You have a good point there. If we offloaded our environmental responsibilities to China by destroying our manufacturing base do we have the right to crab about their environmental irresponsibility? But, I am not sure the solution is to pile more taxes and regulations on our own economy that has already been decimated by taxes and regulation.


Yes we would have the right to crab about it if GW was going to wipe out human civilization like ManBearPig promises.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Speaking of climate science....

Last week, I took a tour of the first _production scale_ carbon capture and sequestration coal fired power plant on Earth. Right now, it's unique but a larger CCS coal fired plant is nearly finished in Texas with other projects under way.

On the tour, they have a graphic with flags of the nations who have toured the facility. They are coming up on half of the nations on earth which have sent engineers, scientists, and politicians to tour a CCS plant outside of Estevan, Saskatchewan.

Everyone is interested. It strongly appears to be the way of the near future.

We can't turn away from coal and we can't fix the problem but we can help minimize the damage to buy us time to bring better solutions online. This is incremental technology and it's expensive.

In China, when they have a smog warning and everyone is told to stay indoors, and it's happening very frequently these days, the remedy to the problem is to wait for a windy day. No joke.

The problem is real and it is on a trajectory to impact the viability of Earth as a host planet for humanity. It can be fixed. I have no doubt, it will be fixed. It will probably have to get quite a bit worse before people will control those who are working against the planet but that day will come. One day, this issue will cause us to lose a significant quantity of our human rights. When you're on a small spacecraft with 10 other people, you can't let a couple of individuals drink all the water and eat beans endlessly because the rest need to drink and breathe, also.

The point being: Go solar!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

TomB19 said:


> I'm not, either.
> 
> BTW, the economy hasn't been decimated but it is clearly being pressured in a downward direction by corporate interests: namely, outsourcing and off-shoring.
> 
> ... and we like it. We could have chosen to buy goods manufactured in Canada and avoid the cheap, Chinese junk but we went straight for the junk which has evolved over the years to be generally acceptable in quality.


To be fair it was the NIMBYites, Greenies, intellectuals and bureaucrats who wanted to shut down our manufacturing base and proposed we sell each other insurance and hamburgers instead. The working class saw through it from the start.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I couldn't agree more, Rusty.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Saskatchewan should have won a nobel prize for its Boundary Dam coal plant, but since its not cool enough, too easy and cheap it has been ignored by most governments including our own moron in chief. That's why we know the fix is in...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Good news about the power plant in Estevan. Now maybe they could combine that with the CO2 => alcohol process. Ethanol has many industrial uses and can also be used to make Gasohol or used as fuel by itself. I also have heard, that coal ash contains thorium which can be used with uranium in nuclear power plants. The kicker is that the conventional uranium reaction only uses 1% or 2% of the energy in the fuel rods which is why they remain so radioactive. While the thorium process uses over 90% meaning the used fuel rods are almost depleted of radioactivity. It also means you could reuse the old fuel rods we already have in storage, get more out of them than you did the first time, and when you were done they would be much less dangerous.

Meanwhile Obama is keeping his promise to destroy the coal industry. Not sure if it is due to his scientific ignorance or his wish to destroy bible thumping gun toting white deplorables.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Here is a very interesting comparison of various types of power generation (Wind, solar, coal, natural gas, nuclear) and its importance to different economies around the world. It was recorded at an energy conference in China in 2012. The speaker is Bob Hargraves author of Thorium: Energy Cheaper Than Coal. I just found it in a search for information on thorium power.

https://youtu.be/ayIyiVua8cY


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Eder said:


> Saskatchewan should have won a nobel prize for its Boundary Dam coal plant, but since its not cool enough, too easy and cheap it has been ignored by most governments including our own moron in chief.


Easy and cheap? lmao!!!!!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

CCS sounds like a bit of a non-starter given the cost and technical complexity. By all means, continue R&D, but I suspect some combination of nuclear and solar are going to be more fruitful.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The cost over run was associated with up grading the old coal plant. New coal plant would be 25% cheaper to build and actually produces power 24/7 unlike unicorn farts...err solar haha. Like I said....we aren't looking for solutions we are looking for control...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

All those stories about "global warming" are bullshit and propaganda promoted by Liberals as an exuce to raise taxes  ... Global warming is one of the 3 most "important" issues....another 2: aliens invasion and zombies/vampires 
Also don't listen to all those "environmental scientists", all they want it's increased funding , grants etc...
Just look at last 10-15 years in your area.... in our area, 3 cold and snowy winter following by 2 warm ones...similar with summers


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Eder said:


> The cost over run was associated with up grading the old coal plant. New coal plant would be 25% cheaper to build and actually produces power 24/7 unlike unicorn farts...err solar haha. Like I said....we aren't looking for solutions we are looking for control...


I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but I'm getting mine from the source. Yours isn't entirely accurate.

The plant was not quick, easy, or cheap. It also isn't operating at capacity plate efficiency. What it's doing is functioning at an efficiency within about 15% of the specification after massive delays and cost overruns. It's showing promise in that it's largely doing what it was designed to do, it appears the next generation plants could be built at a savings but 25% is an extremely optimistic number that is well beyond the number SaskPower is quoting.

The old turbine was almost at end of life so it was replaced. Power plants don't last forever. Design life varies but I believe the units in that plant have a 50 year operating life.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

andrewf said:


> CCS sounds like a bit of a non-starter given the cost and technical complexity. By all means, continue R&D, but I suspect some combination of nuclear and solar are going to be more fruitful.


Without CCS, I don't see how we can continue to keep the grid up. At least in our province, the scale of the coal plants is difficult to understand without seeing them. There is a continuous stream of huge trucks and wheel loaders hauling coal to the furnaces. I'm pretty sure they have the largest front end loaders made. The trucks are no longer the largest but they are massive to stand beside.

SaskPower has committed to 60MW of solar and had intended on building 100MW of wind in 2016. I understand the wind has been delayed do to environmental problems.

These are big projects. Expensive, too. I'm sure they will be done but these things take years to bring online and the scale makes them a small fraction of the necessary production. When you need 4 gigawatts, 160MW of renewable energy isn't all that significant.

The web site cites 1.6GW of new wind between 2019 and 2030. That will be a massive build. It's a decade and a half away, it's going to be hugely expensive, and we are going to want to have some lights on in the mean time. There's no turning away from coal.

http://www.saskpower.com/about-us/m...wer-targets-up-to-50-renewable-power-by-2030/

Nuclear will probably be a significant component in generation infrastructure in the future. There is some really good work being done on nuclear that is very exciting.

In the mean time, I'm going to pick up some more AQN. lol!


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

*"And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."*


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> Speaking of climate science....
> 
> Last week, I took a tour of the first _production scale_ carbon capture and sequestration coal fired power plant on Earth. Right now, it's unique but a larger CCS coal fired plant is nearly finished in Texas with other projects under way.
> 
> ...


1. Smog in China: CO2 is not smog. Smog is all the other crap in smoke from burning coal. Sequestering co2 will not solve smog problems. 

2. Go Solar! Have you gone solar? If not, what stopped you? How many square miles of solar panels have you calculated that it would take to power Toronto, for example, at its current consumption? Then, daily, when the sun goes down, everything goes back to the way it was in 1850 until sunup. Presently solar is completely impractical. It isn't efficient and there is no viable storage of large quantities of power. 

3. Reportedly, China has recognized their smog problem and their solution is nuclear. Apparently they are looking at using a version of the Candu reactor. As far as I know nuclear is the only current solution to fears of too much co2, and smog.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Storage is not an insurmountable problem. Solar at least matches the demand curve pretty well, with the exception of colder climates that use a lot of electric heat (like Quebec). It won't be able to manage everything, though. 

Nothing says we have to get to 100% renewable... there can still be a NG peaker component to the supply mix. And NG can be derived from biomass to make it carbon neutral (solves the storage problem to some extent). Gasoline can also be produced from biomass in a reasonably efficient way (it would be economical today if not for low oil prices).


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Storage is not an insurmountable problem. Solar at least matches the demand curve pretty well, with the exception of colder climates that use a lot of electric heat (like Quebec). It won't be able to manage everything, though.
> 
> Nothing says we have to get to 100% renewable... there can still be a NG peaker component to the supply mix. And NG can be derived from biomass to make it carbon neutral (solves the storage problem to some extent). Gasoline can also be produced from biomass in a reasonably efficient way (it would be economical today if not for low oil prices).


I'm not convinced there is enough biomass to supply present demand. (Interestingly, if oil and gas came from living entities that died over millions of years, they qualify as biomass too. If so, oil and gas is carbon neutral.)
did you calculate how many square miles of solar panels it would take to power Toronto? And the cost of buying, installing and maintaining them? 

Storing large quantities of power from solar is a long way off. According to predictions by alarmists, we'll all be dead due to climate change by the time the storage problem is solved. 
Musk is making noises about building and selling solar panels that are the roof of a building. That sounds interesting. And he has reportedly talked of adapting his Tesla car battery for storing power from solar, or something like that. But this kind of tech is a long way from widespread use.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

From WUWT....
_
"The UA researchers measured the heat-island effect of a solar array at the UA Tech Park at Rita Road and Interstate 10. They found that its overnight temperatures were about five to seven degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer than a nearby plot of undisturbed desert."_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> I'm not convinced there is enough biomass to supply present demand. (Interestingly, if oil and gas came from living entities that died over millions of years, they qualify as biomass too. If so, oil and gas is carbon neutral.)
> did you calculate how many square miles of solar panels it would take to power Toronto? And the cost of buying, installing and maintaining them?


By that argument, all power is nuclear, because everything is powered by a star at some point. Oil & gas is not carbon neutral by any accepted definition of the term, because it involves releasing fossilized carbon back into the carbon cycle.

I googled something for you, since you were curious. A graphical representation of the area that would need solar panels to fulfill US energy demand. I'm guessing the question is rhetorical.








http://modernsurvivalblog.com/alter...a-of-solar-panels-to-power-the-united-states/



> Storing large quantities of power from solar is a long way off.


Says who?



> According to predictions by alarmists, we'll all be dead due to climate change by the time the storage problem is solved.


Strawman. 



> Musk is making noises about building and selling solar panels that are the roof of a building. That sounds interesting. And he has reportedly talked of adapting his Tesla car battery for storing power from solar, or something like that. But this kind of tech is a long way from widespread use.


For varying definitions of 'a long way'.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

steve41 said:


> From WUWT....
> _
> "The UA researchers measured the heat-island effect of a solar array at the UA Tech Park at Rita Road and Interstate 10. They found that its overnight temperatures were about five to seven degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer than a nearby plot of undisturbed desert."_


And so? Black things with 15-25% efficiency converting solar energy to electricity will be converting most of the rest to heat. Do you think this is material to the overall albedo of the planet?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Thorium reactors could provide all the power we need and are much safer than present day nuclear reactors. They don't create new nuclear waste and actually use up old nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) and render them harmless. Or at least less dangerous.

The thorium process could be used in the Candu reactors we have although it would work more efficiently in new purpose built reactors.

A couple of years ago I did some research on the net. Among other things I found a 1984 report by the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada recommending they start work on thorium, with the idea of switching over in 15 years. They said at the time, we had enough uranium to last 30 or 40 years but if we used thorium the existing stocks of uranium would last 1000 years.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I don't know much about thorium but it sounds extremely promising. Even Elon Musk has mentioned it. Bill Gates thinks it's the only way forward and Bill completely dismisses solar, particularly consumer level solar.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

There are alternatives. Solar may work in places like Arizona, at least during the day time. Geothermal works too especially in places where hot magma is near the surface like Yellowstone. California already gets 10% of its electricity from geothermal. Thorium seems to be a good fit for Canada since we have the raw materials and very stable areas to build them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

This was not a comment on Canada's new carbon tax but I think it applies anyway.

Courtesy Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker

'Carbon tax. A carbon tax is the worst of all taxes when it comes regressive tax additions because non-discretionary purchases of food and energy are a much higher proportion of a poor-person's income compared against a rich person. Poor people spend several times, as a percentage of their income, on energy as do rich people and roughly double as much on food eaten at home. Food production is quite carbon-intensive and will never be otherwise; as such carbon taxes will raise the cost of food materially. Carbon taxes will decimate the poor and middle class; the rich will laugh at them since their spending on these goods and services are a non-material percentage of their income. Note that a carbon tax is an explicit part of the Democrat Party's platform.'


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^It's no different than value added taxes like HST. And it is very easy to address the regressive effects of such taxes, including measures like the HST refund for low-income individuals.

BC implemented a non-trivial carbon tax and the world did not come to an end. Fear mongering about carbon taxes is losing its potency.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Pluto said:


> 1. Smog in China: CO2 is not smog. Smog is all the other crap in smoke from burning coal. Sequestering co2 will not solve smog problems.


Yes it will.

The CCS process requires particulates (namely fly ash) and other contaminates be filtered, prior to the carbon being absorbed into amine. In fact, absorbing carbon is the very last step. For this reason, the CCS process produces several useful chemicals, as well as the carbon which is converted into carbon dioxide. The CO2 is also useful in some situations so there are cases where it and other chemicals can be sold. The fly ash can also be sold for use in manufacturing concrete. We used to breathe all of that stuff and still do, from other plants.

Happy orbiting, Pluto.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> By that argument, all power is nuclear, because everything is powered by a star at some point. Oil & gas is not carbon neutral by any accepted definition of the term, because it involves releasing fossilized carbon back into the carbon cycle.
> 
> I googled something for you, since you were curious. A graphical representation of the area that would need solar panels to fulfill US energy demand. I'm guessing the question is rhetorical.
> 
> ...


OK. 

1. give me a specific example of a "biomass fuel" that does not release carbon back into the carbon cycle. You realize that organic chemistry is carbon based chemistry. so anything "bio" whatever is carbon based. 

2. Why haven't you gone solar already? Give me a date in which you believe you will be getting all you energy from solar. And What will be the temperature of the globe by that date?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

TomB19 said:


> Yes it will.
> 
> The CCS process requires particulates (namely fly ash) and other contaminates be filtered, prior to the carbon being absorbed into amine. In fact, absorbing carbon is the very last step. For this reason, the CCS process produces several useful chemicals, as well as the carbon which is converted into carbon dioxide. The CO2 is also useful in some situations so there are cases where it and other chemicals can be sold. The fly ash can also be sold for use in manufacturing concrete. We used to breathe all of that stuff and still do, from other plants.
> 
> Happy orbiting, Pluto.


OK problem solved then. Now we can get rid of all the carbon taxes and what not. Yes? No more smog, no more co2. We are all done. Since the problem is solved what do we need carbon taxers for?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Climate change is reflected not in the numbers of hurricanes or droughts per year, but in their increasing levels of intensity.
> Drought is causing major problems around the world in California, Australia and increasing the susceptibility of forested areas to fire.


Be that as it may ... tree rings, sediment and other natural sources say before Global Warming droughts have been 10 and 20 years long. Is a three year drought atypical when the past has had much longer ones?


Cheers


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> ^It's no different than value added taxes like HST. And it is very easy to address the regressive effects of such taxes, including measures like the HST refund for low-income individuals.
> 
> BC implemented a non-trivial carbon tax and the world did not come to an end. Fear mongering about carbon taxes is losing its potency.


No, the world will not come to an end. It is perfectly astonishing how far down you can crush the poor without destroying them entirely. So there is no reason not to pile tax upon tax upon tax. They will  always be around when you want some dirty work done. If they aren't beaten down far enough we can always bring more in from overseas.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Pluto said:


> OK problem solved then. Now we can get rid of all the carbon taxes and what not. Yes? No more smog, no more co2. We are all done. Since the problem is solved what do we need carbon taxers for?


We need the carbon tax to force what is left of Canadian manufacturing to the government's will. They have a choice of 1) pay billions in new taxes 2) spend billions on CO2 remediation 3) shut down their factories and send the rest of the jobs to China. For the government and globalists, it's win/win/win.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^

OK. Well apparently andrew has a redflag deal on a solar panel and batteries that will get him off the grid soon with 100amp service 24/7. maybe that stuff can be manufactured in Sask with the manufacturing facilities powered TomB19's coal fired plant.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Pluto said:


> OK problem solved then. Now we can get rid of all the carbon taxes and what not. Yes? No more smog, no more co2. We are all done. Since the problem is solved what do we need carbon taxers for?


The CCS plant at Boundary is sized and designed to capture up to 90% of carbon emissions. They only need to get down to natural gas power production levels of carbon emissions, for now. That would remove around 60% of the CO2. As for the particulates and other toxins, my understanding is that nearly 100% of those will be removed, as it is required to occur before the carbon removal process, so as not to damage the extremely expensive carbon absorption fluid.

The process requires energy so the more carbon that is captured, the less efficient the plant will be.

The Estevan area has lignite coal (the lowest grade), so it is a heavy producer of combustion effluent. Higher grades of coal will produce less emissions, providing higher power production at the same level of exhaust contaminants.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Pluto said:


> Well apparently andrew has a redflag deal on a solar panel and batteries that will get him off the grid soon with 100amp service 24/7. maybe that stuff can be manufactured in Sask with the manufacturing facilities powered TomB19's coal fired plant.


We aren't as far from that redflag deal as most think. We need Musk to ramp up his gigafactory because his storage facilities are key to unlocking 24 hour solar.

The Powerwall 2.0 will be unveiled with the Tesla Solar Roof product at a press conference on October 28th. If the Solar Roof product is compelling from aesthetic and practical standpoints, it will be a game changer.

I find it odd Tesla is working with Panasonic after SolarCity acquired Silevo. Silevo technology was supposed to complete with the highest efficiency cells while being cheap to manufacture. Panasonic has more traditional cells, as far as I know.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The latest thing, eliminate CO2 by feeding cows sea weed. Isn't science amazing?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630?pfmredir=sm

They claim a 99% reduction in cow methane. As cattle are one of the biggest causes of CO2 emissions this is huge.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

*Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol* 



> Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks Olivaw for confirming what I posted here 

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...te-scientist?p=1301889&viewfull=1#post1301889

More good news, CO2 is turbocharging plant growth around the world

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/19/ala/


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> OK.
> 
> 1. give me a specific example of a "biomass fuel" that does not release carbon back into the carbon cycle. You realize that organic chemistry is carbon based chemistry. so anything "bio" whatever is carbon based.


Biomass doesn't release previously fossilized carbon to the atmosphere. The carbon comes from the atmosphere and returns there within months or a small number of years.




> 2. Why haven't you gone solar already? Give me a date in which you believe you will be getting all you energy from solar. And What will be the temperature of the globe by that date?


The is a stupid argument, and you should expect a stupid answer.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> No, the world will not come to an end. It is perfectly astonishing how far down you can crush the poor without destroying them entirely. So there is no reason not to pile tax upon tax upon tax. They will always be around when you want some dirty work done. If they aren't beaten down far enough we can always bring more in from overseas.


Did the poor get crushed in BC as a result of the carbon tax + the offsetting measures they took to make it revenue neutral? Evidence please.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> OK problem solved then. Now we can get rid of all the carbon taxes and what not. Yes? No more smog, no more co2. We are all done. Since the problem is solved what do we need carbon taxers for?


Carbon tax would be needed to make CCS financially viable, considering it is more expensive to operate than traditional dirty coal.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Carbon tax would be needed to make CCS financially viable, considering it is more expensive to operate than traditional dirty coal.


That may be, although I suspect it would be far cheaper to pay the tax than to sequester carbon, but it certainly isn't the driver behind CSS. The federal government has mandated that current coal plants either be cleaned up or shut down in the next few years.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^Bizarrely, Conservatives became huge fans of a profusion of government red tape when it came to industry by industry carbon regulations. Revenue neutral carbon tax is the conservative (small C) approach to reducing emissions.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> No, the world will not come to an end. It is perfectly astonishing how far down you can crush the poor without destroying them entirely. So there is no reason not to pile tax upon tax upon tax. They will always be around when you want some dirty work done. If they aren't beaten down far enough we can always bring more in from overseas.


Hear, hear.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Carbon tax would be needed to make CCS financially viable, considering it is more expensive to operate than traditional dirty coal.


BC doesn't have coal fired plants that I'm aware of. So why does BC have to make CCS viable? Why can't they just raise prices for energy from more expensive plants?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

BC doesn't need coal at all.

Pluto, you are advocating government price controls. Are you a commie? I prefer the approach of taxing the bad thing and letting the market figure out efficient ways of reducing the bad thing.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Biomass doesn't release previously fossilized carbon to the atmosphere. The carbon comes from the atmosphere and returns there within months or a small number of years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Biomass: Give an example. Maybe wood. So if we get our fuel from wood, corn and what not, all is solved according to you. 
But if oil is dinosaurs, where do you think they got their carbon from, if not the environment? 
2. You're funny. Solar is the answer according to you. You make it sound like a couple of solar panels in Allen Gardens, an outbuilding with some batteries, hook the system up to the power lines, and Presto all all of TO is solar powered. Asking you about your time line and road map for all this is quite legitimate. Solar, at best, with a huge $ investment could at best supply 2-3% of consumed power with current technology. But apparently you are unaware of that.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> BC doesn't need coal at all.
> 
> Pluto, you are advocating government price controls. Are you a commie? I prefer the approach of taxing the bad thing and letting the market figure out efficient ways of reducing the bad thing.


Huh? Government price controls? What are you talking about? You're funny.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Huh? Government price controls? What are you talking about? You're funny.


You're saying that CCS will succeed by charging higher than market prices for power. That's only going to happen through coercion, because consumers pay the market price for power.

I'm not installing solar panels for the same reason I don't pump my own oil.


----------

