The nub of the climate change thing problem

[D1B]

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.

sorry Tbag. /thread.

[Grizalltheway]

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..

It's TWO BLOCKS. Just walk to the goddamn store.

[Ibanez]

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.

Water is wet and AZ likes dark chocolate.

[Ibanez]

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.

So you contend that Fracking itself doesn't generate the earthquakes but associated activities do.

[Ibanez]

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..

It's TWO BLOCKS. Just walk to the goddamn store.

I thought the same thing. Walk the two blocks.

[travelinman67]

Gotta read it all...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/24/ob ... epage=true

[kalm]

Gotta read it all...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/24/ob ... epage=true

I read it all and find myself dumber for having done so.

[Grizalltheway]

Gotta read it all...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/24/ob ... epage=true

I read it all and find myself dumber for having done so.

[travelinman67]

Gotta read it all...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/24/ob ... epage=true

I read it all and find myself dumber for having done so.

You really can't become dumber.

Just sayin'

[JohnStOnge]

So you contend that Fracking itself doesn't generate the earthquakes but associated activities do.

That's if what the guys who published the paper are thinking is true. I'm not going to pay to get the full article but I read their article to say that the data to actually test their hypothesis are not available so they used some models to show that the associated activities potentially cause an increase in earthquake activity.

That's a shame because if all somebody looks at is the title of the paper it'd be reasonable to think that they'd actually shown that the activities did cause the increase in earthquakes.

To go to another level I'll go ahead and say that even if they had the data they referenced as difficult to obtain they could not really unequivocally show a cause and effect relationship because it'd still be observational data. Like it or not you need a controlled experiment to show a cause and effect relationship.

I'm sorry but that's a rule of the scientific method. It's ignored a lot. But it's still a rule.

[travelinman67]

1,695 cold records smashed in 10 day period...

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014 ... en-by-25f/

[D1B]

1,695 cold records smashed in 10 day period...

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014 ... en-by-25f/

Dumbfuck.

[BlueHen86]

1,695 cold records smashed in 10 day period...

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014 ... en-by-25f/

It's just like that movie where climate change caused the next ice age, only it's happening under Obama's watch and not that of the Cheney look alike.

Oh well, the sooner we can burn the tax code to stay warm, the better.

[travelinman67]

Defense Secretary Hagel selling "Climate Change" in Peru.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... -security/

ISIS
Iran
Yemen
North Korea
China
Russia
Somalia
Taliban
Al Quaeda
Boko Haram

The legitimate threats to U.S. national security can be found around every corner...

...yet Barack Hagel wastes time globe trotting to hype mythical anthropogenic global warming.

Failed

Propagandist

Scam

[kalm]

Defense Secretary Hagel selling "Climate Change" in Peru.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... -security/

ISIS
Iran
Yemen
North Korea
China
Russia
Somalia
Taliban
Al Quaeda
Boko Haram

The legitimate threats to U.S. national security can be found around every corner...

...yet Barack Hagel wastes time globe trotting to hype mythical anthropogenic global warming.

Failed

Propagandist

Scam

I hope you don't throw in the towel anytime soon on this...just for entertainment's sake!

[Chizzang]

Defense Secretary Hagel selling "Climate Change" in Peru.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... -security/

ISIS
Iran
Yemen
North Korea
China
Russia
Somalia
Taliban
Al Quaeda
Boko Haram

The legitimate threats to U.S. national security can be found around every corner...

...yet Barack Hagel wastes time globe trotting to hype mythical anthropogenic global warming.

Failed

Propagandist

Scam

He's just trying to use anything he can get to allow (secure) more military funds
Its about getting more money T-man

We're a military Industrial Complex
The funding must go up..!!!
to do that we need NEW ENEMIES and lots of 'em



Global Warming = its a threat to National Security (add 25 billion to Pentagon Budget)

[travelinman67]

Defense Secretary Hagel selling "Climate Change" in Peru.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... -security/

ISIS
Iran
Yemen
North Korea
China
Russia
Somalia
Taliban
Al Quaeda
Boko Haram

The legitimate threats to U.S. national security can be found around every corner...

...yet Barack Hagel wastes time globe trotting to hype mythical anthropogenic global warming.

Failed

Propagandist

Scam

He's just trying to use anything he can get to allow (secure) more military funds
Its about getting more money T-man

We're a military Industrial Complex
The funding must go up..!!!
to do that we need NEW ENEMIES and lots of 'em



Global Warming = its a threat to National Security (add 25 billion to Pentagon Budget)

If it were only about wealth control, I'd be less vocal.

It's about freedom control. In CA, Gov. Moonbeam is blaming the drought on "climate change". He then inversely controls water rights and consumption under the guise of responding to "climate change". Problem is, this primarily effects farming. To fund his new bureaucracy, Moonbeam has a 7.4 billion "water" initiative on the ballot, 2.7b earmarked for conservation management. And it goes on and on and on.

And it's not just our military budget...Kerry, pitching for U.N. mandated global wealth distribution and deindustrialization...

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepav ... e-n1895068

It's about concentration of power within an global oligarchial class that doesn't include democratization.

[AZGrizFan]

It's TWO BLOCKS. Just walk to the goddamn store.

I thought the same thing. Walk the two blocks.

Says two people without kids (except the newbie). We'll see how you feel about walking to the store here shortly, Mr. Ibanez.

[kalm]

He's just trying to use anything he can get to allow (secure) more military funds
Its about getting more money T-man

We're a military Industrial Complex
The funding must go up..!!!
to do that we need NEW ENEMIES and lots of 'em



Global Warming = its a threat to National Security (add 25 billion to Pentagon Budget)

If it were only about wealth control, I'd be less vocal.

It's about freedom control. In CA, Gov. Moonbeam is blaming the drought on "climate change". He then inversely controls water rights and consumption under the guise of responding to "climate change". Problem is, this primarily effects farming. To fund his new bureaucracy, Moonbeam has a 7.4 billion "water" initiative on the ballot, 2.7b earmarked for conservation management. And it goes on and on and on.

And it's not just our military budget...Kerry, pitching for U.N. mandated global wealth distribution and deindustrialization...

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepav ... e-n1895068

It's about concentration of power within an global oligarchial class that doesn't include democratization.

Water rights might end up being a huge deal, but having personally been involved with a water and energy conservation project, there is much that can still be done and this requires leadership.

Now, where in that Kerry article is the part about wealth distribution and deindustrialization?

[travelinman67]

Great Lakes SIX DEGREES COOLER THAN AVERAGE!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/w ... an-normal/

[LeadBolt]

There's a lady in my neighborhood that has five houses between her home and the tennis courts. She plays tennis twice a week for exercise and drives an SUV to and from the tennis courts.

She and her husband are big global climate change fanatics and dis anyone in the neighborhood that does anything they disagree with on the community website they manage as being immoral about putting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. He teaches at GA Tech in engineering, but considers himself an expert on global warming.

It's these kind of people, along with a lack of observable, unadjusted significant data for a 15 year period of increased global temperature while CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to go up that give climate change (a term they changed from global warming earlier) a bad rap.

Remember that the period of warming that occurred from the late 1970's to the late 1990's followed a period of cooling that Immeadiately preceded the warming.

[kalm]

There's a lady in my neighborhood that has five houses between her home and the tennis courts. She plays tennis twice a week for exercise and drives an SUV to and from the tennis courts.

She and her husband are big global climate change fanatics and dis anyone in the neighborhood that does anything they disagree with on the community website they manage as being immoral about putting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. He teaches at GA Tech in engineering, but considers himself an expert on global warming.

It's these kind of people, along with a lack of observable, unadjusted significant data for a 15 year period of increased global temperature while CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to go up that give climate change (a term they changed from global warming earlier) a bad rap.

Remember that the period of warming that occurred from the late 1970's to the late 1990's followed a period of cooling that Immeadiately preceded the warming.

I'm pretty sure the "pause" has been accounted for.

[AZGrizFan]

There's a lady in my neighborhood that has five houses between her home and the tennis courts. She plays tennis twice a week for exercise and drives an SUV to and from the tennis courts.

She and her husband are big global climate change fanatics and dis anyone in the neighborhood that does anything they disagree with on the community website they manage as being immoral about putting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. He teaches at GA Tech in engineering, but considers himself an expert on global warming.

It's these kind of people, along with a lack of observable, unadjusted significant data for a 15 year period of increased global temperature while CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to go up that give climate change (a term they changed from global warming earlier) a bad rap.

Remember that the period of warming that occurred from the late 1970's to the late 1990's followed a period of cooling that Immeadiately preceded the warming.

I'm pretty sure the "pause" has been accounted for.

I'm sure.

[kalm]

I'm pretty sure the "pause" has been accounted for.

I'm sure.

In fact I was replying to you in another thread with an article explaining it.

[travelinman67]

I'm sure.

In fact I was replying to you in another thread with an article explaining it.

"Using Mann's Hockey Stick, and amalgamating the flavonoids constant to ameliorate the clapper variable within a dynamic transference of consensual function, then factoring the exponential gator sneeze, we easily see the unexplainable readily becomes fact."