The environment thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

3 posts up.

OOPS! missed that.

[Balta1701]

I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but maybe this was deliberate.

 

Video at link.

 

That's former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino.

[Balta1701]

The NY Times is alleging that BP was violating their permit and drilling several thousand feet deeper than allowed.

At least one worker who was on the oil rig at the time of the explosion on April 20, and who handled company records for BP, said the rig had been drilling deeper than 22,000 feet, even though the company’s federal permit allowed it to go only 18,000 to 20,000 feet deep, the lawyers said.

 

BP strongly denied the claim that it was drilling deeper than was allowed.

 

“The allegation surrounding the permitted depth is factually incorrect,” said Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman. Mr. Gowers said that the rig was permitted to drill to 20,211 feet and that it drilled to 18,360 feet.

[HuskyCaucasian]

BP to try unprecedented engineering feat to stop oil spill

Officials of BP, the oil giant that owns the leaking well, said Monday they plan to try the unprecedented effort this week.

 

If successful, they say, the "pollution containment chamber" could reduce the underwater gusher by more than 80 percent and provide the first success in industry and government efforts to control the spill that began April 20 with an explosion and fire on an offshore rig.

....

a 100-ton, 40-foot-tall rust brown device that workers were still putting together Monday in the Port Fourchon, Louisiana, workyard, where welders' torches showered sparks as gulls flew overhead. It is the biggest such chamber ever constructed, BP officials say.

 

Their plan is to lower the chamber to the ocean floor where the biggest of three leaks in the well's underwater piping occurs. It would straddle the pipe and lock itself into the seabed, so that the leaking oil goes into the chamber itself.

 

Then the question becomes how to pipe it up to a giant tanker on the surface, 5,000 feet up. It is by far the deepest attempted use ever of such a containment chamber, according to BP officials.

 

"This has been done in shallow water; it's never been done in deep water before," Suttles said.

 

Very interesting idea!

[Balta1701]

The death toll from the storms in TN which had nothing to do with the record temperatures and consequently huge amounts of moisture in the air when a cold front came through is up to 27.

 

It's really remarkable how "Snow" proves that the climate isn't changing and we can report that, but heavy rains associated with record high temperatures across an entire region can't ever be linked to changing climates.

[NorthSideSox72]

The death toll from the storms in TN which had nothing to do with the record temperatures and consequently huge amounts of moisture in the air when a cold front came through is up to 27.

 

It's really remarkable how "Snow" proves that the climate isn't changing and we can report that, but heavy rains associated with record high temperatures across an entire region can't ever be linked to changing climates.

I personally find it silly to try to directly link any of those cases to climate change. Its just not possible to say that one particular event occurred, or was worsened, by climate change. It may have been, but we can't know that with anything approaching certainty.

 

Now, if you want to say that increasing temperatures will create certain changes in the atmosphere, which raise the general risk level for certain types of storms in a given region... I could see that as at least believeable.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I personally find it silly to try to directly link any of those cases to climate change. Its just not possible to say that one particular event occurred, or was worsened, by climate change. It may have been, but we can't know that with anything approaching certainty.

 

Now, if you want to say that increasing temperatures will create certain changes in the atmosphere, which raise the general risk level for certain types of storms in a given region... I could see that as at least believeable.

agreed

[Balta1701]

I personally find it silly to try to directly link any of those cases to climate change. Its just not possible to say that one particular event occurred, or was worsened, by climate change. It may have been, but we can't know that with anything approaching certainty.

 

Now, if you want to say that increasing temperatures will create certain changes in the atmosphere, which raise the general risk level for certain types of storms in a given region... I could see that as at least believeable.

You're half right, but I still disagree on the other half...this is exactly the type of event that you would call a symptom of a changing climate. It was spurred by record temperatures unreachable a few years ago at this point in the season. It broke every record. It's going to look like a small event in another decade or so at business-as-usual.

 

The odds of this event happening 50 years ago were so that it's hardly worth calculating. Now, this really wasn't that extreme of an event, considering how many other temperature records we've broken this year.

[Balta1701]

Good point...does anyone really know what the "Chemical dispersants" that BP is dumping into the gulf actually are?

The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.

 

“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade off – you’re damned if you do damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”

 

BP did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

 

...

According to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, the dispersants and the oil they leave behind can kill fish eggs. A study of oil dispersal in Coos Bay, Ore. found that PAH accumulated in mussels, the Academy’s paper noted. Another study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 found that PAHs affected the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The research suggests the dispersal of the oil that’s leaking in the Gulf could affect the seafood industry there.

[StrangeSox]

You're half right, but I still disagree on the other half...this is exactly the type of event that you would call a symptom of a changing climate. It was spurred by record temperatures unreachable a few years ago at this point in the season. It broke every record. It's going to look like a small event in another decade or so at business-as-usual.

 

The odds of this event happening 50 years ago were so that it's hardly worth calculating. Now, this really wasn't that extreme of an event, considering how many other temperature records we've broken this year.

 

It would need to be verified statistically to show causation, but I think it serves as an excellent counterexample to why "OMG! Lots of snow means AGW = Lulz!" stories are so retarded.

[StrangeSox]

The NY Times is alleging that BP was violating their permit and drilling several thousand feet deeper than allowed.

 

How many units of Exxon-Valdez are we at now?

[Balta1701]

It would need to be verified statistically to show causation, but I think it serves as an excellent counterexample to why "OMG! Lots of snow means AGW = Lulz!" stories are so retarded.

I'm not exactly sure you can "Verify something statistically".

[Balta1701]

How many units of Exxon-Valdez are we at now?

Franky, I don't think anyone really has a clue. We're somewhere between 0.1 and 1, depending on the actual leak rate. The estimates from satellite photos suggest that we're close to 1.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not exactly sure you can "Verify something statistically".

 

You know what I mean.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're half right, but I still disagree on the other half...this is exactly the type of event that you would call a symptom of a changing climate. It was spurred by record temperatures unreachable a few years ago at this point in the season. It broke every record. It's going to look like a small event in another decade or so at business-as-usual.

 

The odds of this event happening 50 years ago were so that it's hardly worth calculating. Now, this really wasn't that extreme of an event, considering how many other temperature records we've broken this year.

 

Wait, so lemme follow this logic train here:

 

Record low temperatures and snow falls = nothing to get excited about

 

Record warming temperatures and rain = proof of the existence of climate change!

 

Ah. I get it now!

 

And what does the bolded even mean? I swear EVERY season we hit records of some sort - hottest day on record, coolest day on record, most rain in a month, most snow in a month....blah blah blah blah blah. It means nothing IMO. Our climate system changes ALL the time and has for however long you think the earth has existed.

 

I just find this whole notion silly since every old person alive can remember the great storm of X, or the great flood of X, or the crazy cold summer in X, or the crazy hot winter in X. It's all so random. If global warming truly existed (in this context) then we'd be seeing ONLY warming records on a SEASONAL basis. We wouldn't see cold temperature/snowfall records thrown into the middle of it.

 

I'm still waiting for all of those devastating category 5 hurricanes and tornadoes that would repeatedly destroy the country. Unless I missed it, we haven't seen ONE in the last 5 years since those fool-proof predictions came out. The Day After Tomorrow showed how it'll happen. I've been anxiously awaiting the inevitable.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Wait, so lemme follow this logic train here:

 

Record low temperatures and snow falls = nothing to get excited about

 

Record warming temperatures and rain = proof of the existence of climate change!

 

Ah. I get it now!

 

And what does the bolded even mean? I swear EVERY season we hit records of some sort - hottest day on record, coolest day on record, most rain in a month, most snow in a month....blah blah blah blah blah. It means nothing IMO. Our climate system changes ALL the time and has for however long you think the earth has existed.

 

I just find this whole notion silly since every old person alive can remember the great storm of X, or the great flood of X, or the crazy cold summer in X, or the crazy hot winter in X. It's all so random. If global warming truly existed (in this context) then we'd be seeing ONLY warming records on a SEASONAL basis. We wouldn't see cold temperature/snowfall records thrown into the middle of it.

 

I'm still waiting for all of those devastating category 5 hurricanes and tornadoes that would repeatedly destroy the country. Unless I missed it, we haven't seen ONE in the last 5 years since those fool-proof predictions came out. The Day After Tomorrow showed how it'll happen. I've been anxiously awaiting the inevitable.

 

False.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wait, so lemme follow this logic train here:

 

Record low temperatures and snow falls = nothing to get excited about

 

Record warming temperatures and rain = proof of the existence of climate change!

 

Ah. I get it now!

 

And what does the bolded even mean? I swear EVERY season we hit records of some sort - hottest day on record, coolest day on record, most rain in a month, most snow in a month....blah blah blah blah blah. It means nothing IMO. Our climate system changes ALL the time and has for however long you think the earth has existed.

 

I just find this whole notion silly since every old person alive can remember the great storm of X, or the great flood of X, or the crazy cold summer in X, or the crazy hot winter in X. It's all so random. If global warming truly existed (in this context) then we'd be seeing ONLY warming records on a SEASONAL basis. We wouldn't see cold temperature/snowfall records thrown into the middle of it.

 

I'm still waiting for all of those devastating category 5 hurricanes and tornadoes that would repeatedly destroy the country. Unless I missed it, we haven't seen ONE in the last 5 years since those fool-proof predictions came out. The Day After Tomorrow showed how it'll happen. I've been anxiously awaiting the inevitable.

While I agree with some of your general train of thought, you are incorrect on the cold end of what happened. There was no record cold, or anything of the sort. There was record SNOW. Very different.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

While I agree with some of your general train of thought, you are incorrect on the cold end of what happened. There was no record cold, or anything of the sort. There was record SNOW. Very different.

 

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...ax,highmin,snow

 

Look at the amount of low temp records just in the last WEEK.

 

And yeah, the same graph also shows the number of high temp records too (274 v. 203). My point is that if there was some general warming trend, it makes no sense that there would also be low temp records (especially that many). To me that just shows that weather patterns change on a daily basis.

[BigSqwert]

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...ax,highmin,snow

 

Look at the amount of low temp records just in the last WEEK.

 

And yeah, the same graph also shows the number of high temp records too (274 v. 203). My point is that if there was some general warming trend, it makes no sense that there would also be low temp records (especially that many). To me that just shows that weather patterns change on a daily basis.

Have you ever taken a statistics class? Are you familiar with terms like exponential smoothing or moving averages?

[NorthSideSox72]

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...ax,highmin,snow

 

Look at the amount of low temp records just in the last WEEK.

 

And yeah, the same graph also shows the number of high temp records too (274 v. 203). My point is that if there was some general warming trend, it makes no sense that there would also be low temp records (especially that many). To me that just shows that weather patterns change on a daily basis.

My whole point earlier is that individual outlier events - whether they be highs or lows, rains or storms - are not indiciative of a warming trend, in my eyes. So I was saying, I think Balta's trying to link these floods directly and surely to global warming was almost as silly as the people standing in snow drifts in DC this winter saying SEE, NO WARMING! They are both silly.

 

More useful is general temperature change trends, and those are quite clearly rising.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

My whole point earlier is that individual outlier events - whether they be highs or lows, rains or storms - are not indiciative of a warming trend, in my eyes. So I was saying, I think Balta's trying to link these floods directly and surely to global warming was almost as silly as the people standing in snow drifts in DC this winter saying SEE, NO WARMING! They are both silly.

 

More useful is general temperature change trends, and those are quite clearly rising.

 

Right, and i'm agreeing with you. I was just showing you that on a daily basis there are record colds that are recorded. If that site went back 5 months, I'm sure I could find you a bunch of places that got at, or near, record lows (including the Chicago or the east coast).

[bmags]

I don't think it's that silly. You have to understand, there can still be snow in winter and it be a warmer winter. The warming creates more moisture in the air, and therefore: more precipitation in both winter and summer. Just because it's frozen in the winter doesn't mean it's a sign that global warming is a hoax, it's actually quite the opposite.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think it's that silly. You have to understand, there can still be snow in winter and it be a warmer winter. The warming creates more moisture in the air, and therefore: more precipitation in both winter and summer. Just because it's frozen in the winter doesn't mean it's a sign that global warming is a hoax, it's actually quite the opposite.

Its neither. It proves nothing and disproves nothing, in and of itself. You need more data points than one storm, or one winter, in one region.

 

[Balta1701]

Its neither. It proves nothing and disproves nothing, in and of itself. You need more data points than one storm, or one winter, in one region.

Proving a trend requires lots of data points. Saying "This particular event is totally outside the realm of what would be expected without this set of changes" is a different thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Proving a trend requires lots of data points. Saying "This particular event is totally outside the realm of what would be expected without this set of changes" is a different thing.

And the quoted statement isn't true here, nor was it true for the snow in DC.