Are You For Reel

[Anonymous]

I somtimes help people to do fleet planning. I see a lot of data. One of my eggheads wrote a program that compiles seasonal ice data from the past 15 years all over the arctic and maps it against temperature fluctuations, whale migrations, trade routes, AIS data, vessel ice class, and various other parameters. The purpose is to demonstrate trafficability restrictions by season. It's a very impressive database.



As I mentioned, I also speak to a lot of government and oil execs who are planning fleets. They aren't looking to profit from rhetoric, they are trying to figure out billions worth of assets that they will need for the next 30 to 40 years. These people also see a lot of data and/or have the resources to gather their own.



Two things are true:

1. Global warming exists and it is having a serious effect on ice seasons, which in turn has a serious effect on weather patterns. It's pretty simple really. Water, and particularly frozen water absorbs a huge amount of energy. When that energy is released, or rather ceases to be absorbed at a different time period, things happen. It doesn't mean that on the second Tuesday in September on Granville street it will be 16 degrees instead of 15 degrees, it means that all that rogue energy that wasn't there before is bouncing around in the system, wreaking havoc. What that energy will do at any one time is anyone's guess. It could turn a tropical storm into a hurricane. It could create a pressure front and make a particular area much colder. It could modify the course of an ocean current leading to all sorts of disastrous effects. Who knows? It's going to be kind of exciting to find out.



2. Some people will never accept this. People don't really take the time or lack the intelligence to understand complicated concepts. They don't understand that temperature is not a measure of energy. Eventually, a higher level of energy through entropic transformation ends up as higher heat, which results in higher temperature, hence the term "warming", but it can take all sorts of interesting paths to get there.



Anyway, it doesn't really matter. People affect the planet. The planet affects people. In recent times, we've managed to shelter and air condition our way out of most of those effects, but it's a temporary condition. You can't really expect society to give up it's niceties based on a threat that we've rendered dormant for generations. It will come back regardless of anything we do or don't do and we won't really take it seriously until it does.



It's already taking a serious economic effect, it's just hidden from the average person. It has nothing to do with government rhetoric, carbon offsets, or the other usual obfuscation. I'll give you an example: Say a civil engineer is designing a dam. He designs his dam to withstand a one hundred year storm without damage and maybe a four hundred year storm without failure. But if the one hundred year storm actually strikes three times in the space of ten years, the criteria change. All of a sudden what was the four hundred year storm becomes the one hundred year storm and the four hundred year storm is projected as being much bigger. The dam has to be much stronger to be safe and is thus much more expensive. Project that across virtually all engineered infrastructure and it becomes extremely expensive.

I also speak a lot with senior decision makers in the oil industry. I also speak with contractors about new technology and how they are able to cope with unexpected weather fluctuations. I have also seen data from the past three decades about what impact weather has on our business.



What I can tell is this, there is no consensus. Many will tell you freeze up comes later, but so does break up. From the stats I have seen machinery is working more days in muskeg country now than they were 35 years ago. Now, this has as much to do with innovation as it does climate. As you know, companies are always looking for ways to maximize assets. A little single drilling rig doing shallow shale wells in Athabasca costs at least a $1000/hour. It sure isn't making that sitting in a boneyard in Nisku.



In addition to planning and designing in-situ, I work a lot with the transportation side. No, not sea-going. I work with pipeline and especially rail. What I can tell you from working with CN mostly and ancillary contractors like A&B and PNR is they are changing their infrastructure too to meet changes for customers and yes unexpected weather. The biggest problems for rail caused by weather are track buckling in the summer, pull-aparts in the winter and flooding, flooding, flooding. CP had to shut down it's main line(CTC territory) on the Brooks sub because of Southern Alberta's flood of the the century last year. This was a cost passed on to all Canadians.



However, in talking with senior engineering people like David Ferryman at CN or Brett Laing at CP, they feel climatic changes(if any) have played a negligible part on their business. They are far more worried about acts of terror than the weather. Trains have gotten much longer. The time between them is much shorter. Hence the need for better infrastructure like joint removal(CWR), more ballast with sharper shoulder run-off, replacing 115 lb rail with 136 whenever possible and the use of Dyna-cat tamper liners to stabilize it all. These changes are especially evident on track that is along flood plains(more CP than CN).



It occurs to me that nobody really believes the doom and gloom scenario that global warming is a new thing, it's totally man-made and that if we don't move in a cave today the world will die tomorrow. Certainly government doesn't believe it if they are flying a fleet of jets to Copenhagen with hundreds of personal limos waiting for them. Industry and government are both looking for ways to gouge us from it. Science in turn will follow the money trail.



We have entered into a decade and a half period where temperatures have stopped warming. Now, I'm sure Romero will post a graph from NOAA that says otherwise, but their data is deceptive for a reason. Current global ice pack falls within historic norms. In fact, the Southern oceans which have warmed the fastest are having the effect of increasing the size of Antarctic ice. They are moving together and getting bigger!!



Anyway, even if we were to believe that global warming is new and man-made we could turn the corner it in five years by replanting the Brazilian and Indonesian rain forests and converting all power plants from coal to NG(a potential boom for BC). Instead China and India are commissioning new coal-fired power plants everyday. No real solutions are coming forward because nobody really believes this a disaster and neither do they believe we can really change climate. It really is a faux emergency.



Climate science is still very much in it's infancy.

[Obvious Li]

both excellent posts....as usual i tend to lean towards the position put forward by SL...mostly because it is closer to reality and mirrors what the general public thinks....most people accept that the climate changes....it always has.....the question is are we facing climate Armageddon and clearly we are not....some people and businesses, in some regions, will be inconvenienced.....but that happens daily somewhere for a myriad of reasons.....i take the position that technology will expand and develop to  accommodate any increases in temperature and resulting weather changes......weather damage will occur....it does now.....everywhere and at any time.....it always has......people have to learn to live in areas less affected by weather patterns......housing built at sea level and overlooking rivers that flood was never very bright....and Reel....being educated and intelligent is as far apart as chalk and cheese.

[Anonymous]

both excellent posts....as usual i tend to lean towards the position put forward by SL...mostly because it is closer to reality and mirrors what the general public thinks....most people accept that the climate changes....it always has.....the question is are we facing climate Armageddon and clearly we are not....some people and businesses, in some regions, will be inconvenienced.....but that happens daily somewhere for a myriad of reasons.....i take the position that technology will expand and develop to  accommodate any increases in temperature and resulting weather changes......weather damage will occur....it does now.....everywhere and at any time.....it always has......people have to learn to live in areas less affected by weather patterns......housing built at sea level and overlooking rivers that flood was never very bright....and Reel....being educated and intelligent is as far apart as chalk and cheese.

I love, love, love reelsy.  ac_wub  ac_flower  ac_drinks

[reel]

There seems to be a perception (if not here, then over there) that because I believe global warming is occurring, I must be a foaming at the mouth, carbon offset peddling greenie.  This is simply not true.  I can't be certain that the current warming trend and the effects it is having are anthropomorphic.  I strongly suspect it is a contributing factor, but I don't know it.  I certainly don't support the current fad diet-like reaction of carbon offset scams (though I do somewhat support carbon taxes for totally unrelated reasons).



I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make a decent argument one way or the other as to the human factor in it.  That said, as stated, on the other board, I do believe it is happening, though I have no idea on severity, outcome, or duration.  The massive energy sinks in the world are the oceans, the polar ice caps, and land ice.  The rest of the systems seem to more or less react to what those are doing.  The ice caps and the land ice are melting, thus contributing less as energy sinks.  It's hard to say what the oceans are doing since they have a temperature volatility far greater than the variation we'd be trying to measure, but it seems like they are also warming.



I'm not saying that the sky is falling.  I'm not even saying that we should do anything about it.  God knows I haven't done anything myself on a personal level (other than that I'm a big fan of efficiency, which has coincidental benefits to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide I produce).  I'm just saying that something is happening and people undeniably do have an impact on the planet, so there's a pretty good chance we are a factor.



I would also argue that there are some good ideas out there amongst all the really bad ones that have big benefits in other areas, so it can't hurt to implement those.  Reducing our reliance on coal in favour of NG is a good example.

[reel]

Shen, atmospheric weather conditions are just too unpredictable to be a business consideration.  I firmly believe that a global warming scenario will only make them more unpredictable due to an increase in energy in the system, caused by depletion of the existing sinks.  Thus, on land, where conditions are ruled by atmospheric, this wouldn't necessarily manifest as an earlier melt in a localized area, but it could result in much slower or much faster melts, increasing flood risks, and making seasons less predictable, thus increasing costs.

[reel]

and Reel....being educated and intelligent is as far apart as chalk and cheese.

Not quite sure what you mean by this Munday, but I'm going to guess this is directed at my ex-wife's phd?  She got it in when she was 23 and she is exceptionally intelligent (about academic subjects anyway).  She did not, and may still not, believe in anthropogenic global warming.  A least not in the same sense that others do.  Her view was that humans do not affect the planet, they only affect their own (and their contemporary's) ability to survive on the planet.  Once humans manage to kill themselves off, one way or another, the planet will carry on relatively unaffected by the brief nuisance.  Thus, it's arrogant in the extreme to imagine that we have any effect on the planet, such as AGW.



Did I mention she's a depressive?

[reel]

And finally, if I say anthropomorphic instead of anthropogenic one more time, will someone please just shoot me?

[Obvious Li]

and Reel....being educated and intelligent is as far apart as chalk and cheese.

Not quite sure what you mean by this Munday, but I'm going to guess this is directed at my ex-wife's phd?  She got it in when she was 23 and she is exceptionally intelligent (about academic subjects anyway).  She did not, and may still not, believe in anthropogenic global warming.  A least not in the same sense that others do.  Her view was that humans do not affect the planet, they only affect their own (and their contemporary's) ability to survive on the planet.  Once humans manage to kill themselves off, one way or another, the planet will carry on relatively unaffected by the brief nuisance.  Thus, it's arrogant in the extreme to imagine that we have any effect on the planet, such as AGW.



Did I mention she's a depressive?

sorry Reel..that was not directed at any one in particular....i did not know you had a wife or even an ex-wife ( i have three of those) sorry to hear that......no, it was meant as a general comment in that it seems the "intelligencia" that are promoting global climate Armageddon resulting in human species annihilation think that if only the rest of us poor ignorant bastards were as smart as they were (meaning educated) we would obviously see the need to live in caves and eat granola to save ourselves.....my point is just because people taking my side of the debate didn't go to UT or watch CBC or fawn over Justin's new hair cut doesn't mean they aren't every bit as intelligent and informed on this subject as the idle some more crowd...in fact, i would argue, they are factors more intelligent...i too, as do most people i know,  do everything we can in our daily life to make the planet around us a better place to live.....but that does not include beggaring my neighbor.....i have mixed feelings about carbon taxes..if they were to be used for the purposes intended i could probably live with some form of carbon penalties....however, knowing govt. as i do i fully expect the funds would be poured into general revenue and sent to Quebec or wasted on the natives etc....so no to carbon taxes at this time.

[Obvious Li]

and Reel....being educated and intelligent is as far apart as chalk and cheese.

Not quite sure what you mean by this Munday, but I'm going to guess this is directed at my ex-wife's phd?  She got it in when she was 23 and she is exceptionally intelligent (about academic subjects anyway).  She did not, and may still not, believe in anthropogenic global warming.  A least not in the same sense that others do.  Her view was that humans do not affect the planet, they only affect their own (and their contemporary's) ability to survive on the planet.  Once humans manage to kill themselves off, one way or another, the planet will carry on relatively unaffected by the brief nuisance.  Thus, it's arrogant in the extreme to imagine that we have any effect on the planet, such as AGW.



Did I mention she's a depressive?

she makes an excellent point...i suspect humans will destroy each other in large enough numbers, to make a difference long before the climate does....... ac_dance

[Chickenfeets]

The disappearance of human beings through their own folly would be no big loss to the planet.



This place is old. And we are but a fleeting moment in its history.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a perception (if not here, then over there) that because I believe global warming is occurring, I must be a foaming at the mouth, carbon offset peddling greenie.  This is simply not true.  I can't be certain that the current warming trend and the effects it is having are anthropomorphic.  I strongly suspect it is a contributing factor, but I don't know it.  I certainly don't support the current fad diet-like reaction of carbon offset scams (though I do somewhat support carbon taxes for totally unrelated reasons).



I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make a decent argument one way or the other as to the human factor in it.  That said, as stated, on the other board, I do believe it is happening, though I have no idea on severity, outcome, or duration.  The massive energy sinks in the world are the oceans, the polar ice caps, and land ice.  The rest of the systems seem to more or less react to what those are doing.  The ice caps and the land ice are melting, thus contributing less as energy sinks.  It's hard to say what the oceans are doing since they have a temperature volatility far greater than the variation we'd be trying to measure, but it seems like they are also warming.



I'm not saying that the sky is falling.  I'm not even saying that we should do anything about it.  God knows I haven't done anything myself on a personal level (other than that I'm a big fan of efficiency, which has coincidental benefits to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide I produce).  I'm just saying that something is happening and people undeniably do have an impact on the planet, so there's a pretty good chance we are a factor.



I would also argue that there are some good ideas out there amongst all the really bad ones that have big benefits in other areas, so it can't hurt to implement those.  Reducing our reliance on coal in favour of NG is a good example.

I just want you to fuck me. It's my fucking birthday, I'm loaded, what's your excuse for being so fucking sexy?

[Anonymous]

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2014/09/21/teach-science.JPG?itok=5Dl4A8ra">

I never knew NYC was so fucking white?? Just scream climate change and watch the white assholes crawl out of the fucking woodwork.

[Anonymous]

Shen, atmospheric weather conditions are just too unpredictable to be a business consideration.  I firmly believe that a global warming scenario will only make them more unpredictable due to an increase in energy in the system, caused by depletion of the existing sinks.  Thus, on land, where conditions are ruled by atmospheric, this wouldn't necessarily manifest as an earlier melt in a localized area, but it could result in much slower or much faster melts, increasing flood risks, and making seasons less predictable, thus increasing costs.

Oh I agree and I did not want to imply that it is. Rail infrastructure for instance is built to handle heavier payloads than before, not for changing weather patterns.



Now with global warming, there is a little problem with your theory....it stopped warming more than a decade a half ago. Antarctic sea ice is at it's highest level since 1979. Current weather does not really outside historic norms. Sorry, no emergency.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a perception (if not here, then over there) that because I believe global warming is occurring, I must be a foaming at the mouth, carbon offset peddling greenie.  This is simply not true.  I can't be certain that the current warming trend and the effects it is having are anthropomorphic.  I strongly suspect it is a contributing factor, but I don't know it.  I certainly don't support the current fad diet-like reaction of carbon offset scams (though I do somewhat support carbon taxes for totally unrelated reasons).



I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make a decent argument one way or the other as to the human factor in it.  That said, as stated, on the other board, I do believe it is happening, though I have no idea on severity, outcome, or duration.  The massive energy sinks in the world are the oceans, the polar ice caps, and land ice.  The rest of the systems seem to more or less react to what those are doing.  The ice caps and the land ice are melting, thus contributing less as energy sinks.  It's hard to say what the oceans are doing since they have a temperature volatility far greater than the variation we'd be trying to measure, but it seems like they are also warming.



I'm not saying that the sky is falling.  I'm not even saying that we should do anything about it.  God knows I haven't done anything myself on a personal level (other than that I'm a big fan of efficiency, which has coincidental benefits to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide I produce).  I'm just saying that something is happening and people undeniably do have an impact on the planet, so there's a pretty good chance we are a factor.



I would also argue that there are some good ideas out there amongst all the really bad ones that have big benefits in other areas, so it can't hurt to implement those.  Reducing our reliance on coal in favour of NG is a good example.

It would seem your views on the issue of anthropogenic global warming are about the same as my own. I believe the earth has probably warmed a little in recent decades. I too suspect that man has most likely contributed a little bit too it.



Do I think it is a big emergency that man can reverse? Most definitely not. Do I think arbitrary targets will reduce C02 emissions even if C02 is as bad as some extremists would have us believe? Not a chance, the West cheats, so does anyone actually think the developing world won't?



I would support adaptation to a slightly warmer world if that is what the long term trend is. Like you said, carbon offsets are scams. Common sense stuff like not building housing below sea level and in the path of flood zones.



As I said, I support the basic idea that the planet has warmed slightly, but I am not convinced it is unprecedented or an existential threat. I don't think there is much we could do to change the climate even if there was a real will around the globe to change that.

[Anonymous]

^I'm of the opinion that few people seriously believe that the planet is warming up at a dangerous pace, it's all caused by man-made activity and by simply reducing or eliminating our dependence of fossil fuels we can reverse course. Certainly the people who preach this doom and gloom to us do not walk the talk.