The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I haven't been reading much on Global Warming recently or melting in the North. So I will post the Tuesday Jan. 25th forecast for Whale Cove.

Whale Cove, Canada
Forecast Details:
Sunshine and clouds mixed. Dangerous wind chills approaching -65F. High -29F. Winds NNW at 20 to 30 mph.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Well, here's todays weather for Whale Cove.

Forecast Details:
Snow showers. Dangerous wind chills approaching -45F. High -17F. Winds NNW at 15 to 25 mph. Chance of snow 40%.

Of course, It doesn't sound like global warming and I do hope the Polar Bears can find ice on Hudson Bay and the icebergs don't melt.

I didn't just pick Whale Cove out of thin air. A company I have shares in has a large mineral deposit at Ferguson Lake in Nanavut, about 150 km's away.

I see the paper companies in B.C. are starting to pick up a bit. One mill a company in which I have shares in has been shut down. Is that seen as being a good thing from and environmental point of view? It seems to be positive for the share price. I've already got a triple and have tens of thousands of shares.

[Craig Sadler]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

... all possible because of the extra heating in our atmosphere.

what about the volcanic ash that shut down airways for weeks this summer? you would have to think that short term events like flooding and extreme fires could be caused by something like that, couldn't they?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

"There was so much surplus electricity flooding the market, Ontario generators even had to pay users as much as 13 cents a kilowatt hour to take surplus power off their hands at times.

Typically, those negative prices only apply to a few isolated hours. But on New Year's Day, the hourly Ontario energy price for the whole day was negative, averaging -$20.29 per megawatt hour -- the lowest daily average since records began.

As a result, Ontario power generators paid $1.46 million to external markets to rid themselves of power on Jan. 1, according to the province's Independent Electricity System Operator. "


Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/Power+exp...#ixzz1AnQMlZQS

It's too bad they don't stay with either kilowatt hour or megawatt hours. For anyone who doesn't notice it's kind of misleading. I guess using -20.29 per megawatt hour is more dramatic than staying with the same unit and calling it -0.02 cents a kilowatt hour.

Still, they do have a problem and we have to pay for their planning.

I don't know the costs. Is it cheaper to pay these amounts and have private enterprise supply the infrastructure and electricity in the long run OR is it cheaper for us to build our own infrastructure. I understand they are giving private interests incentives to build the infrastructure, such as solar. I haven't seen the contracts.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

The blithering incompetents that have given us Ontario's green energy policy are at it again. They had to pay Quebec and the U.S. to take their surplus power from them in December and on January 1st, 2011. I guess it must have been windy that day.

"There was so much surplus electricity flooding the market, Ontario generators even had to pay users as much as 13 cents a kilowatt hour to take surplus power off their hands at times.

Typically, those negative prices only apply to a few isolated hours. But on New Year's Day, the hourly Ontario energy price for the whole day was negative, averaging -$20.29 per megawatt hour -- the lowest daily average since records began.

As a result, Ontario power generators paid $1.46 million to external markets to rid themselves of power on Jan. 1, according to the province's Independent Electricity System Operator. "


Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/Power+exp...#ixzz1AnQMlZQS

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

- Just as an example, but this is obviously well beyond the research skills of Gary. And anyway it can't be true because Gary doesn't believe mere scientists.

Ed seems to have problems with his reading and research skills. Doesn't beleive scientists. The link starts out quoting a Canadian sceintist like this:

"Polar bear numbers are increasing
'Dr. Mitch Taylor, biologist for the Department of Environment in Canada, says that Polar Bear populations are increasing. Dr. Taylor admits that in one region, western Hudson Bay, the population has decreased, while the rest of the regions have increased. In an interview with the Scotsman, Dr. Taylor explains "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."' (Mitchell Taylor)"

So the biologist sees an increase in the population which isn't surprising seeing as the Polar Bear migrates. The decrease in some areas is due to HUNTING, he says.

Regarding the rebuttal, it doesn't give the credentials for Blackburn. She could be anyone. Certainly there are no figures and the piece is general with percentages and pie graphs replacing what should be hard numbers.

You will fill us in on the credentials of the writer, because I'd hate to think you're hanging your hat on such a general article which so carefully omits numbers. Of course, if the writer has no idea of the numbers, and indeed gives the caveat:

"First of all, a few points need to be made about polar bear numbers:

Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.
Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting, particularly following the introduction of snowmobiles, airplanes and ice breakers, led to a huge decline in certain subpopulations. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.
Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers."

So tell us, Ed Seedmore. Did you read your reference material, or did you simply hope we would not?

Oh great hunter and conservationsist. Have you travelled to Hudson Bay in search of the mighty Polar Bear and taken pictures of the bear in its natural habitat?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

You don't know or we would be looking at all sorts of references.

Reduced once more to mere personal attacks I see. Really Gary, you are getting more and more pathetic.

Well, it took me about a minute to find http://www.skepticalscience.com/pola...al-warming.htm

- Just as an example, but this is obviously well beyond the research skills of Gary. And anyway it can't be true because Gary doesn't believe mere scientists.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

We're well above that, actually, but I will leave it to Gary to reconsider his position never to do actual research on his own and find out for himself. I shall not, however, hold my breath while awaiting this event.

You don't know or we would be looking at all sorts of references.

My favourite was the picture of that singer and his wife on the ice with a seal. Save the seals. You want the Polar Bears to eat them but that's another story. I particularly liked the part where the ungrateful seal bit his missus. Do you remember that one?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Put a number on the Polar Bears which have starved to death around Hudson's Bay. So far we're at Zero.

We're well above that, actually, but I will leave it to Gary to reconsider his position never to do actual research on his own and find out for himself. I shall not, however, hold my breath while awaiting this event.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

But alas, contrary to Gary's imagination, heat is a perfrectly objective phenomenon caused by the motion of atoms and molecules.

I didn't work in an air conditioned library sorting books and so forth. I did service work in places like steel mills and hot boiler rooms amongst many other places. Places where you finished and walked out into the coolness of temperatures well above 90 degrees F.

So, big man. Put a number on the Polar Bears which have starved to death around Hudson's Bay. So far we're at Zero. The best way for a Polar Bear to preserve blubber is to follow the example of chess players. Sit in one spot for hours at a time with little movement.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

You see, heat is relative and subjective.

No greater proof of Gary's utter scientific evidence is possible. Case closed.

I hope Gary will feel free to visit the inside of an oven running at four hundred degrees Celsius any old time. He will of course be completely unhurt because the motion of molecules (which is, objectively, what heat is), is completely subjective.

Or he could immerse himself in liquid nitrogen for say ten minutes because the cold he feels will all be perfectly subjective and he will emerge unharmed.

But alas, contrary to Gary's imagination, heat is a perfrectly objective phenomenon caused by the motion of atoms and molecules. And if the molecules and atoms in your body stop moving, you will stop too. But you are welcome to try the experiment and report back, or not.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Notice he isn't challenging the massive forrest fires and mega heat in Russia last summer, nor the extreme flooding in Australia going on right now, all possible because of the extra heating in our atmosphere.

I notice you are careful to use the weasel word "possible".

In an case, adjectives such as "mega" and "extreme" aren't worth a reply. They don't quantify the magnitude, or lack thereof, but ask the reader to use his or her imagination.

Hot is a steel mill around the furnaces. I would expect to walk out of one of those mills into the cool air of what you refer to as "mega heat in Russia". You see, heat is relative and subjective.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Stick to the facts. Just the facts as you imagine them.

Hardly worth the bother since Gary isn't interested in mere facts. If he were he could find them easily enough.

Notice he isn't challenging the massive forrest fires and mega heat in Russia last summer, nor the extreme flooding in Australia going on right now, all possible because of the extra heating in our atmosphere.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like that idea about transporting them to Antartica.

I only have shares in Air Canada and Jazz Air. I bought them when the prices got very low and it was thought they would not do well. I still have a lot of the things I bought when I was writing that depression thread. Some I sell and rebuy when they drop. :)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

But it can't be happening because Gary hasn't heard of it!

You didn't answer any of my hard questions on numbers which tells me you don't have a clue. No surprise there.

While Polar Bears prefer seals, they will eat almost anything. Also, hibernating Polar Bears do not eat. That part is important for you to remember.

Polar Bears do seasonal migrations to follow the ice.

CLICK HERE...

Your article doesn't mention the deaths but an opinion of a couple of weeks less ice. The Bears "might" be underfed for a couple of weeks but "starving" doesn't seem to be in that article you linked.

Stick to the facts. Just the facts as you imagine them. :)