The nub of the climate change thing problem

[D1B]

L.A. Times: Study confirm warming is cyclical, naturally caused, NOT result of human activity.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-p ... story.html

...Times editors to be burned at stake for heresy.

The study found that weakening winds accounted for more than 80% of the warming trend along the Pacific Northwest coast between Washington and Northern California. In Southern California, weaker winds were responsible for about 60% of the increased warming.

Very interesting however what accounts for the remaining 20%/40%?

Also,

But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

referring to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist.


Thanks for the article, T-man.

The other 20-40% is caused by the flatulance coming from Tman's big mouth.

[travelinman67]

Very interesting however what accounts for the remaining 20%/40%?

Also,
referring to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist.


Thanks for the article, T-man.

The other 20-40% is caused by the flatulance coming from Tman's big mouth.

Look in the mirror. You're looking at a goat.

With each day you witness my superior intellect.

Some day I might tell you how I do it.

[JohnStOnge]

[kalm]

Is fracking safe then?

[JohnStOnge]

Is fracking safe then?

As far as I know, by any reasonable standard, yes.

I don't even think our culture has decided on what "safe" means. But I do believe that there has been an awful lot of exaggeration with respect to the risk associated with fracking. For instance: I don't think it's been demonstrated that it represents a risk of contamination of water supplies. Heard a bunch of debate about that locally recently due to a proposal to do fracking in Tangipahoa Parish. You hear the opponents talk about all these documented incidents of water contamination in areas where fracking is practiced. Only problem is it hasn't been shown that the water contamination was the result of fracking. So on and so forth.

[D1B]

The other 20-40% is caused by the flatulance coming from Tman's big mouth.

Look in the mirror. You're looking at a goat.

With each day you witness my superior intellect.

Some day I might tell you how I do it.

The same intellect that made you give up and drop out? Or makes you continue to take bait only to get thrashed and made a fool?

Tbag, I'm the puppeteer.

[travelinman67]

Look in the mirror. You're looking at a goat.

With each day you witness my superior intellect.

Some day I might tell you how I do it.

The same intellect that made you give up and drop out? Or makes you continue to take bait only to get thrashed and made a fool?

Tbag, I'm the puppeteer.

You contribute nothing. Yourself, Densedawg and Cap'n are CS's Trolls.

Truth

[Ibanez]

Is fracking safe then?

As far as I know, by any reasonable standard, yes.

I don't even think our culture has decided on what "safe" means. But I do believe that there has been an awful lot of exaggeration with respect to the risk associated with fracking. For instance: I don't think it's been demonstrated that it represents a risk of contamination of water supplies. Heard a bunch of debate about that locally recently due to a proposal to do fracking in Tangipahoa Parish. You hear the opponents talk about all these documented incidents of water contamination in areas where fracking is practiced. Only problem is it hasn't been shown that the water contamination was the result of fracking. So on and so forth.

You don't know what safe means? Like, Clinton not knowing "is" or you just don't know it means.

[D1B]

The same intellect that made you give up and drop out? Or makes you continue to take bait only to get thrashed and made a fool?

Tbag, I'm the puppeteer.

You contribute nothing. Yourself, Densedawg and Cap'n are CS's Trolls.

Truth

You definitely are our bitch.

Regarding contributions...

My posts: brilliant absurdist humor, borderline psychopathic rants about the evils of religion-especially the Catholic Church, and well-timed/hilarious cracks, personal attacks and fire starters.

Your posts: boring and long ass articles cut and pasted from the Heritage Foundation blog.

No one would know you even left this place.

I was gone for two days and 89Hen sent me a dozen roses and a letter begging me to at least make an appearance. The guys missed me so.

[travelinman67]

You contribute nothing. Yourself, Densedawg and Cap'n are CS's Trolls.

Truth

You definitely are our bitch.

Regarding contributions...

My posts: brilliant absurdist humor, borderline psychopathic rants about the evils of religion-especially the Catholic Church, and well-timed/hilarious cracks, personal attacks and fire starters.

Your posts: boring and long ass articles cut and pasted from the Heritage Foundation blog.

No one would know you even left this place.

I was gone for two days and 89Hen sent me a dozen roses and a letter begging me to at least make an appearance. The guys missed me so.

In your own mind.

Grow up.

[houndawg]

Is fracking safe then?

As far as I know, by any reasonable standard, yes.

I don't even think our culture has decided on what "safe" means. But I do believe that there has been an awful lot of exaggeration with respect to the risk associated with fracking. For instance: I don't think it's been demonstrated that it represents a risk of contamination of water supplies. Heard a bunch of debate about that locally recently due to a proposal to do fracking in Tangipahoa Parish. You hear the opponents talk about all these documented incidents of water contamination in areas where fracking is practiced. Only problem is it hasn't been shown that the water contamination was the result of fracking. So on and so forth.

Yeah. All those earthquakes that Oklahoma never used to have are just coincidence.

[JohnStOnge]

You don't know what safe means?

What I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as zero risk and I don't think people have any fixed standard as to the point at which risk is reduced to the point where a given activity is "safe."

Like, is a person not "safe" if they don't wear one of those ridiculous looking helmets while riding a bicycle? What's the risk of being injured if you take a particular bike ride with that stupid looking helmet vs. what it is if you take a particular bike ride without it? Is the difference sufficient to say it's "safe" to ride with a helmet but "not safe" to ride without one? How many things does that person do every day which carry a higher risk than riding a bicycle without a helmet and they think of as "safe?"

Or is one person being "safe" because they buckle their kid into a car seat to take a 2 hour drive to go see grandma in the city while another person is being "unsafe" by sticking their kid in the car and driving a couple of blocks to the supermarket to grab a gallon of milk? I'd say the majority of people probably think so. But the kid who takes the 2 hour drive to grandma is the one more at risk of injury or death.

That sort of thing. I hate to be cynical but I've come to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are complete idiots with respect to the concept of thinking intelligently about risk. Like I thought of the car seat thing because I was recently involved in a discussion with a number of people where it was clear that those people just cannot grasp the fact that whether or not a kid is in a car seat is just one of many factors impacting the risk to that kid during a vehicle trip and that it does not mean that kid is necessarily "safer" than another kid who is not in a car seat on another trip is. They have this simplistic, dogmatic perception that a kid in a car seat is "safe" while a kid that's not in a car seat is not. Trying to get such people to think intelligently about risk is like trying to talk to a bunch of rocks. Totally brainwashed robots repeating slogans imbedded into their brains through public health and safety propaganda.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah. All those earthquakes that Oklahoma never used to have are just coincidence.

The problem is that it's not true that Oklahoma never used to have earthquakes.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ ... istory.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And even if it were true, it wouldn't be valid to say, "There were never any earthquakes in our experience in that area then they had fracking and then there were some earthquakes therefore tracking caused earthquakes."

[Skjellyfetti]

lol. there is a fault in oklahoma. they did have earthquakes.

no where even remotely close to the levels they currently have them.

[JohnStOnge]

lol. there is a fault in oklahoma. they did have earthquakes.

no where even remotely close to the levels they currently have them.

So you think that showing that the frequency of Earthquakes in Oklahoma was greater near the end of the period 1978 - May, 2014, shows that fracking causes earthquakes?

[Ibanez]

You don't know what safe means?

What I'm getting at is that there is no such thing as zero risk and I don't think people have any fixed standard as to the point at which risk is reduced to the point where a given activity is "safe."

Like, is a person not "safe" if they don't wear one of those ridiculous looking helmets while riding a bicycle? What's the risk of being injured if you take a particular bike ride with that stupid looking helmet vs. what it is if you take a particular bike ride without it? Is the difference sufficient to say it's "safe" to ride with a helmet but "not safe" to ride without one? How many things does that person do every day which carry a higher risk than riding a bicycle without a helmet and they think of as "safe?"

Or is one person being "safe" because they buckle their kid into a car seat to take a 2 hour drive to go see grandma in the city while another person is being "unsafe" by sticking their kid in the car and driving a couple of blocks to the supermarket to grab a gallon of milk? I'd say the majority of people probably think so. But the kid who takes the 2 hour drive to grandma is the one more at risk of injury or death.

That sort of thing. I hate to be cynical but I've come to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are complete idiots with respect to the concept of thinking intelligently about risk. Like I thought of the car seat thing because I was recently involved in a discussion with a number of people where it was clear that those people just cannot grasp the fact that whether or not a kid is in a car seat is just one of many factors impacting the risk to that kid during a vehicle trip and that it does not mean that kid is necessarily "safer" than another kid who is not in a car seat on another trip is. They have this simplistic, dogmatic perception that a kid in a car seat is "safe" while a kid that's not in a car seat is not. Trying to get such people to think intelligently about risk is like trying to talk to a bunch of rocks. Totally brainwashed robots repeating slogans imbedded into their brains through public health and safety propaganda.

You're such a cynical person. The reason for the child safety seat, helmet, pads, etc.. isn't because you aren't necessarily unsafe without them. It's because when an accident occurs, they can prevent injuries or even death. The issue is that you can take a risk, but also take actions to mitigate risks. It's called insurance. A child in a head on collision, if in a car seat, is more likely to survive and have less injuries than one that is not. Same goes with a person in a seat belt. A 2 hour drive vs a 2 minute drive doesn't really matter since it only takes a few seconds for some jackass to run the stop sign, 1/2 block from your house, and collide with you. You're more likely to be involved in an accident within 25 miles of your home, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

I bet you hate sunscreen as well. A little cancer never killed nobody, right?

[JohnStOnge]

I googled around a little and it looks to me like the suspected culprit in earthquakes is not fracking itself but is instead the operation of disposal wells. Example of the idea in the abstract at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/448" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. If you read it carefully, though, it's kind of like the climate change thing we're talking about. What would be necessary to "unequivocally" attribute the increase in earthquake frequency to disposal practices would depend on data that are "rarely accessible" so the authors took another approach. So what they're saying is that the approach they took is not one that can lead to an unequivocal conclusion. And the approach is...as is the case in the Climate Change thing...using models that can't be validated.

Anyway, if you go with it, fracking indirectly caused an increase in earthquakes because it caused an increase in production and that caused an increase in waste injection.

That's how I read it anyway. And I saw some other stuff like that.

[Ibanez]

lol. there is a fault in oklahoma. they did have earthquakes.

no where even remotely close to the levels they currently have them.

So you think that showing that the frequency of Earthquakes in Oklahoma was greater near the end of the period 1978 - May, 2014, shows that fracking causes earthquakes?

Is there a relationship between an increase in earthquakes and the beginning of fracking?

Is it possible that you DON'T know everything about everything?

[Ibanez]

I googled around a little and it looks to me like the suspected culprit in earthquakes is not fracking itself but is instead the operation of disposal wells. Example of the idea in the abstract at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/448" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. If you read it carefully, though, it's kind of like the climate change thing we're talking about. What would be necessary to "unequivocally" attribute the increase in earthquake frequency to disposal practices would depend on data that are "rarely accessible" so the authors took another approach. So what they're saying is that the approach they took is not one that can lead to an unequivocal conclusion. And the approach is...as is the case in the Climate Change thing...using models that can't be validated.

Anyway, if you go with it, fracking indirectly caused an increase in earthquakes because it caused an increase in production and that caused an increase in waste injection.

That's how I read it anyway. And I saw some other stuff like that.

From the article you linked:

The number of earthquakes is increasing in regions with active unconventional oil and gas wells, where water pumped at high pressure breaks open rock containing natural gas, leaving behind wastewater in need of disposing.

I'm not an expert, but isn't that what fracking is?

Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

A 2 hour drive vs a 2 minute drive doesn't really matter since it only takes a few seconds for some jackass to run the stop sign, 1/2 block from your house, and collide with you. You're more likely to be involved in an accident within 25 miles of your home, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The reason people are more likely to be involved in an accident within 25 miles of their house, on average, is because, on average, they spend a lot more time driving within 25 miles of their house than they do driving outside of that radius.

A 2 hour drive vs. a 2 minute drive does matter. All other things being equal, more time of exposure means more likelihood of accident. Think about it this way: You drive two minutes. There is a certain risk of accident associated with that. Now, if you continue to drive after that two minutes is up, do you think the risk is zero from that point on? If it's not zero that means continuing to drive beyond 2 minutes carries a higher risk than driving two minutes then stopping is. And the answer the the question of whether the risk is zero if you continue to drive beyond two minutes is, of course, "no." It's not zero.

Same if you're talking about starting from a certain point and driving 25 miles and back vs. driving 200 miles and back. Once you drive 25 miles, do you think that the risk becomes zero for 175 miles there then 175 miles back before returning to something greater than zero for the final 25 miles back to the starting point? Of course not.

That doesn't mean every 25 miles of driving is riskier than every 200 miles of driving. Distance is one factor. Highway miles tend to be less risky than city street miles in terms of accident frequency. City miles tend to be riskier than rural miles. So on and so forth. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, more miles mean more risk. And if you were to take some step that would result in cutting the total miles driven in the United States by 50%, for instance, it's virtually certain that you'd see a dramatic decrease in the absolute number of traffic accidents and traffic fatalities.

[travelinman67]

So you think that showing that the frequency of Earthquakes in Oklahoma was greater near the end of the period 1978 - May, 2014, shows that fracking causes earthquakes?

Is there a relationship between an increase in earthquakes and the beginning of fracking?

Is it possible that you DON'T know everything about everything?

IF...fracking is responsible for generating a high number of low energy earthquakes (sub < mag 1), then in fact the process is facilitating incremental low level releases thus deterring higher level releases which could result in large scale damage and loss of life.

Go Fracking!!!

[JohnStOnge]

From the article you linked:
The number of earthquakes is increasing in regions with active unconventional oil and gas wells, where water pumped at high pressure breaks open rock containing natural gas, leaving behind wastewater in need of disposing.


I'm not an expert, but isn't that what fracking is?


Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not an expert on that either but I read the abstract and other things like it as saying that it's the wastewater disposal that causes the issue rather than the fracking itself. In other words, as I read it anyway, they could solve the problem if they could modify the way in which the wastewater generated during tracking is disposed of so that it doesn't cause the problem it's causing when it's being disposed of now.

Also, my understanding is that conventional oil and gas operations also generate wastewater in need of disposal. Perhaps not as much. But it does generate it.

[D1B]

Is there a relationship between an increase in earthquakes and the beginning of fracking?

Is it possible that you DON'T know everything about everything?

IF...fracking is responsible for generating a high number of low energy earthquakes (sub < mag 1), then in fact the process is facilitating incremental low level releases thus deterring higher level releases which could result in large scale damage and loss of life.

Go Fracking!!!

Link?

Sorry Tbag, but your Portland State degree and current status as society drop out/loudmouth malcontent doesn't qualify you make this determination.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is there a relationship between an increase in earthquakes and the beginning of fracking?

Is it possible that you DON'T know everything about everything?

IF...fracking is responsible for generating a high number of low energy earthquakes (sub < mag 1), then in fact the process is facilitating incremental low level releases thus deterring higher level releases which could result in large scale damage and loss of life.

Go Fracking!!!

Why do you think they're generating sub 1 magnitude earthquakes?

Of the 30 in the past week. 0 have been sub 1.

http://earthquaketrack.com/p/united-sta ... oma/recent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The graph I posted previously was just earthquakes greater than 3 magnitude.

[JohnStOnge]

The reason for the child safety seat, helmet, pads, etc.. isn't because you aren't necessarily unsafe without them. It's because when an accident occurs, they can prevent injuries or even death. The issue is that you can take a risk, but also take actions to mitigate risks. It's called insurance. A child in a head on collision, if in a car seat, is more likely to survive and have less injuries than one that is not. Same goes with a person in a seat belt.

What I'm talking about is that some people will be horrified if they see somebody drive 2 blocks to the supermarket to pick something up without a car seat, as though the person they're looking at is taking this HORRIBLE irresponsible risk and not protecting the safety of their child. while they themselves will do something like take a recreational drive over a much longer distance while thinking their kid is "safe" because they put them in a car seat.

Yes, in any one given scenario, the risk is lower if the kid is in a car seat. But there are many scenarios. In my experience most people do, for instance, think that it's "safe" to drive their kid two miles to see grandma in the city with the kid in a car seat while it's "unsafe" to drive their kids two blocks to the supermarket without a car seat to get some milk. And they're completely wrong about that. Plus you can't get the concept through their thick skulls.

I actually have a reason for thinking about that particular thing. About a week ago I was alone at my house with my grand daughter and needed something from the store. We have a nice supermarket about 2 blocks from my house that we go to all the time. But I did not have a car seat so I had to feel like I'd have to worry about being seen by a cop or by some safety nazi fellow citizen if I stuck my grand daughter in my truck and drove the two blocks to the supermarket. Yet if I had a car seat, put my grand daughter in it, and drove 15 miles into Baton Rouge to pick something up from my office everyone would be fine with it even though the risk to my grand daughter would be substantially greater.

It's ridiculous to have laws that put that kind of restriction on people and interfere with decisions like that..