Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1204
    MEMBERS
  • 62541
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 174351 views.
ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

4/2/18

You wish. I understand it only too well. Time for you to face the truth. Go ahead, you can do it.

Perhaps putting it in layman's term will help you make the infinitesimally tiny leap of logic . . .

Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

Related image

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v.Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.

No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup —a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plaintiffs—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.

“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.

Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.

 

Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”

The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.

Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/2/18

Wonderful!  Could you explain this to me..

Radiative forcing (in W m–2) is an exogenous perturbation in the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. Forcings become warmings via –

The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m2: Roe 2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to yield the reference sensitivity. To a first approximation, it is the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature and emission flux density. Its value is thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit change in flux density, i.e., at today’s values 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. However, owing to altitudinal variation, the modeled value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.).

Then we can move onto the next paragraph...

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

4/4/18

What's your deal? Can't see the forest for the trees?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/4/18

No, I honestly do not have the faintest idea what any of the article said.

We can all read the title, sure, but after that...

Wasn't even in my language!

In reply toRe: msg 168
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/4/18

Oh, for Fuck's sake!

Three workers look out at smoke rising from the ocean.

An Indonesian oil company has denied responsibility for a major oil slick off the coast of Borneo, which appears to be spreading and contaminating new stretches of coastline and local fisheries.

At least four fishermen died in Balikpapan Bay on the weekend when part of the slick ignited. A fifth fisherman is missing.

The toxic slick is at least 4 kilometres long and fishermen say it has already killed at least one protected dugong that washed up on a local beach yesterday.

Fishermen in the town of Balikpapan, in the Indonesian province of East Kalimantan, said they would hold a protest on Wednesday over the lack of responsibility shown by the Indonesian Government and the state-owned oil company Pertamina.

"We demand the stakeholders investigate and punish the culprit who's caused this ecological disaster and caused the loss of lives," Maspele said.

Pertamina said the spill had nothing to do with its nearby refinery or undersea pipeline.

The general manager of the nearby Pertamina Unit V Refinery said the company's divers had not been able to find any pipeline leaks.

"That's the reason why we're still running the refinery facility normally," manager Togar Manuring said.

The fishermen and environmentalists were sceptical about Pertamina's claim it was not responsible for the slick.

"We think there must be a leak from the Pertamina pipe because it's located very close to the oil — maybe 100 metres," Pradarma Rupang, from the local environmental group Jatam, said.

"There is no shipwreck, no collision, no sinking ship, no burned ship, nothing. Suddenly oil appears in the middle of the sea.

"People in the coastal area smelt oil at midnight on March 31, then there was a fire at 10:00am. There's an offshore refinery of Pertama nearby."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/borneo-oil-spill-spreading-to-new-stretches-of-coastline/9611146

In reply toRe: msg 169
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/4/18

Turns out there was a ship.

Indonesian police are questioning the crew of a bulk coal carrier over an oil spill off the island of Borneo that killed four fishermen and continues to pollute local waters.

Police have taken fuel samples from the Panama-flagged MV Ever Judger, which remains in Balikpapan Bay.

The ship, which is crewed by Chinese nationals, had been due to take a load of Indonesian coal to Malaysia.

The spill continues to affect the bay, with aerial footage showing it has spread across a wide area.

A police forensic team has taken fuel samples from the ship as well as from a nearby refinery operated by state-owned oil company Pertamina, East Kalimantan provincial police chief Inspector General Priyo Widyanto told ABC News.

Pertamina pipelines run across the bay.

"We're questioning some witnesses including the boat crew of MV Ever Judger, also the local residents, workers from Pertamina — and we're waiting for all the results," Inspector General Widyanto said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/borneo-oil-spill-sees-police-question-coal-carrier-crew/9614942

I don't care who's fault it is, I care about who is cleaning it up!

In reply toRe: msg 170
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/5/18

Nope!  Turns out they were lying.

Indonesia's state-owned oil company Pertamina has finally admitted it is responsible for a major oil spill on the coast of Borneo.

Key points:

  • The admission by Pertamina follows four days of denials by the company
  • It says one of its undersea pipelines was severed and crude oil poured into the bay
  • The refinery continued operating as normal for several days after the initial leak

Pertamina said one of its undersea pipelines was severed last week, causing crude oil to pour into Balikpapan Bay.

Five fishermen died when the oil spill ignited last week.

The pollution spread throughout the bay killing local marine life including protected dugongs and dolphins, and has caused an overpowering stench across Balikpapan, a city of 700,000 people.

The admission by Pertamina follows four days of denials by the company.

Until Tuesday the company continued to claim that Pertamina's own testing showed the oil was marine fuel, not the crude oil that runs through the company's pipelines.

The company also claimed that it had sent down divers and they had not spotted any damage to their pipes.

The refinery continued operating as normal for several days after the initial leak.

But now Pertamina says its sonar equipment revealed a punctured pipeline as the source.

It said it knew this information on Tuesday but it did not make it public until late on Wednesday.

"When we checked on the first day it all looked normal," said refinery director Togar.

The tests showed that one of its pipes had shifted 100 metres from its original position.

Togar said the pipeline had been dragged out of position and ruptured "by a heavy force".

He didn't elaborate but the bay is used by bulk coal vessels.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/9/18

Climate change litigation rising with the seas

A high swell inundates the shore, flooding houses on Marshall Island.

When they first warned more than 30 years ago that human activity could create an enhanced greenhouse effect, scientists hoped it would lead to decisive action to lower fossil fuel emissions.

Instead, levels have continued to rise to a point most scientists agree that climate change accelerated by fossil fuel emissions is changing the weather and intensifying storms.

"Plan A was the hope governments would step up and social movements would be powerful enough to put pressure on governments," University of Adelaide Law School Associate Professor Peter Burdon said.

"But that hasn't happened, so Plan B is to try the courts," he said.

Across the world a shift towards climate change litigation is gathering steam as low-lying island countries and even United States' cities take aim at governments and big oil companies for failing to act proportionately on emission reductions.

One of the most recent cases involves 21 teenagers in the US state of Oregon, who have been given judiciary permission to sue the federal government for failing to uphold their constitutional rights.

"They assert that the actions of the [US] government and their delays and failure to take meaningful action against climate change has violated their generation and their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property," Professor Burdon said.

"They've gone through several layers of hearings and at every stop, the government has sought to throw it out, and have been joined by companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, but it was decided they had a legal case and it can be heard."

Elsewhere in the US, cities such as San Francisco and Oakland have filed lawsuits against big oil and gas companies to pay damages caused by rising seas, while in the Netherlands, Friends of the Earth have threatened litigation against Royal Dutch Shell if it doesn't bring its business in line with the Paris Agreement within eight weeks.

It follows a landmark ruling in the Hague District Court during 2015, which forced the Netherlands government to reduce emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 after it was found to be breaching a duty of care.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-10/climate-change-litigation-rising-with-the-seas-plan-b/9627870

The precedent is set... RELEASE THE LAWYERS!!!

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/13/18

New Zealand bans offshore oil and gas exploration in quest for zero emissions

Permits for offshore oil and gas exploration will no longer be issued by the New Zealand Government as part of its commitment to a clean energy future.

Key points:

  • The move will not affect existing permits for exploration or extraction
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has pledged to reduce the country's net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050
  • New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom says the move is a "kick in the guts"

The move will not affect existing permits for exploration or extraction, meaning the industry is likely to continue in the nation for several more decades.

The decision under Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is a change in direction after nine years of conservative leadership which favoured expanding the industry.

Ms Ardern, who was elected Prime Minister last year, has pledged to reduce the country's net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.

Her Government also plans to plant 100 million trees each year and ensure the electricity grid runs entirely from renewable energy.

The oil and gas industry is relatively small in New Zealand, employing about 11,000 people and accounting for about 1 per cent of the overall economy.

It is dwarfed in importance by farming and tourism.

But the industry is important to the Taranaki region, where most of the activity is centred.

New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom told Radio New Zealand the move was a "kick in the guts for the future of the Taranaki economy".

But Ms Ardern said no-one would be losing their job as a result of the move.

"We're striking the right balance for New Zealand," Ms Ardern said.

"We're protecting existing industry, and protecting future generations from climate change."

But New Zealand National Party MP Jonathan Young described the move as "economic vandalism".

"This decision is devoid of any rationale. It certainly has nothing to do with climate change," Mr Young said.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
RRBud

From: RRBud

4/14/18

Petroleum products are really too valuable to just burn - - IF (very large IF) there are viable alternatives for use under all conditions.

Unfortunately, current and foreseeable near-future energy technologies will be unlikely to achieve the reliability, availability and affordability of petroleum-based fuels.  And even if such technologies were to appear today, there are other sources of known "greenhouse" gases that are produced by all living organisms, so the promise of zero emissions is a blatant, deliberate lie.  The only way to reduce "greenhouse" emissions to zero would be to have NZ sterilized and its surface turned into glass.

However, I appreciate the goal of reducing unnecessary "greenhouse" and other emissions as far as is practical, as I also support reducing, refining, and recycling the materials in the organic waste stream as much as is practical to do.  Mostly that last challenge is ignored.

TOP