To all my skeptic friends... I need your help.
I am confronted every day with people who only saw one side of the climate debate. Only the alarmist view, nothing more.
The only thing they know about the skeptics is that we don't believe the climate is changing and we are all paid by some evil industry somewhere!
Anyway, you know what I am talking about.
Here's where I need help... I want to build a library of articles and video where we can point someone willing to see the other side of the issue (skeptic view) and be willing to learn.
But I don't want them to start with something that will turn them off, I want to present things as a learning curve where they will learn first what is CO2 and how is temperature measured, for example... I don't want to present them with the conclusion that most of us know that took decades of following debates and reading everything available made possible.
I want to start them soft, show them slowly some facts that the alarmist side are not showing, something that will slowly help them understand the debate and not turn them off to the other point of view while only dismissing us like we are all crazy people!
So... I would like you to comment below this post and propose articles, podcast and video that can help the general public understand this debate, without turning them off.
Thanks for the help!
Voici la question qui me guide dans mes recherches...
The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato
mercredi 4 novembre 2015
To all my skeptic friends... I need your help.
vendredi 23 octobre 2015
Did you know that Canada signed the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009, thereby committing to reducing its GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
Here's the graph from environment Canada:
So the whole of Canada emissions today is around 0.75 Gt, this gives us 0.35 PPM increase per year according to this calculation. Wow... a big number! But wait... the target is to reduce by 17% compared to the 2005 level... which is around 621 or 0.621 Gt per year. Again in PPM this is 0.29 PPM... or a big reduction of 0.06 PPM per year. The atmosphere today is around 400 PPM... so what is 0.06 PPM difference make?
Let's look at a graph of the CO2 seasonal variation and compare this...
If you zoom in on the seasonal uptake, which is the amount of CO2 the world plants and ocean consume.. it's around 6 PPM in 2014... so nature naturally reduces the CO2 PPM in the atmosphere by a factor of 100 times more every season that what would would achieve if we were to meet the reduction targets.
So this target compared to the amount already in the atmosphere and the natural variability is pretty much in the noise level... right... but how do Canada emissions compared to the world then.
Here's the Global emissions per regions in the world:
Look at east Asia and pacific region... them alone are emitting 13M or 13Gt... this is like 17 times more that the whole of Canada!
For the whole world, we emit close to 35M or 35Gt of CO2 annually... So Canada is emitting around 2% of global emission... do you think that reducing from 0.75Gt to 0.621Gt per year will make any difference globally? Probably not! It would actually be a 0.37% reduction per year globally.
Can we calculate the impact on global temperature? Well, according to some theory... we have what is called climate sensitivity numbers... this is how much warming in °C a doubling of CO2 (PPM) will bring to the world...
Here's how this number evolved over the years:
samedi 3 octobre 2015
Comme a mon habitude, quand je vois quelque chose d'intéressant sur Twitter, je le republie... avec ou sans commentaire... dans ce cas-ci avec commentaire... donc voici ce qui a déclenché certaine question, qui je crois mérite des clarifications.
Voici le post que j'ai trouvé intéressant:
Ce graphique montre le nombre de morts, causé par les événements climatiques/météo extrêmes.More people worldwide are safer from extreme weather events. http://t.co/TcmFRjZNiP #Joaquin pic.twitter.com/9K4n6MvBH3— HumanProgress.org (@humanprogress) October 3, 2015
Le commentaire fait sur le Re-Tweet est:
The more energy we have the more we are safe from weather events.Quelque point de clarification... qui est impossible a faire sur Twitter en 140 caractères ou moins... d'où la nécessité parfois d'expliquer les choses en détail sur un blog post!
Si l'on remonte a la source de l'information, ou trouve que ce graphique est basé sur cette étude.
Dans cette étude, l'on trouve ce graphique avec ces références. Donc le site human progress s’est basé sur ce graphique.
Les références sont:
EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. Available at: http://www.em-dat.net. Data downloaded Aug 24, 2009
McEvedy C, Jones R. . New York, N.Y.: Penguin; 1978.
19)World Resources Institute. . Available at: www.wri.org.Accessed Aug 24, 2009
Il est à noter que la figure 1 dans la même étude est aussi très importante pour comprendre le contexte:
Some advocates of greenhouse gas controls have asserted, without proof, that much of the increases in recent decades could be due to global warming. However, one should expect that even if there were no change in climate or climate variability, the proportion of events recorded in EM-DAT would increase over the decades with (a) the advance of telecommunications, (b) broader news coverage, (c) globalization of international aid, and (d) an increased tendency by authorities to declare natural disaster emergencies for a variety of reasonsJe suis parfaitement en accord avec ces interprétations des données.
Donc malgré cette "croissance" des catastrophes naturelles... de moins en moins de morts en nombre absolu "Death per year (in 1000s)" et en nombre relatif a la population "Death rates per yr (per million)" diminue.
Voici quelques pistes d'explication trouvée dans l'étude: (Je recommande de lire l'étude pour plus de détail). J'ai mis en gras les passages qui supportent mon commentaire ajouté au Re-Tweet.
The remarkable 99.8% drop in annual drought fatalities indicates that the increases in available food supplies outstripped even the unprecedented population increases of the 20 century.
The remarkable increase in food supplies occurred for a number of reasons: (a) Greater use of existing technologies (e.g., irrigation and fertilization) and the development of new technologies (e.g., the suite of technologies constituting the Green Revolution) increased crop yields on the farm, and reduced pre-and post-harvest losses and wastage at every stage of the food chain. (b) Expanded commerce allowed food to move rapidly and in unprecedented quantities from surplus areas to deficit areas. (c) Greater wealth increased the purchasing power of consumers and governments in developing countries, allowing imports to compensate for shortfalls in production. It also allowed developed countries and charities to establish food aid programs to help out in both chronically food-short areas and during emergencies. (d) Essential to all of these factors was increased availability of relatively cheap electricity and petroleum-based fuel and other products for transportation, fertilizer, food packaging, refrigeration, and pesticides
The 89.8% decline in annual flood fatalities between 1900–89 and 1990–2008 possibly reflects better control, prevention, and management of floods through construction of dams and other infrastructure, supplemented by better emergency response measures facilitated by improvements in transportation systems, flood forecasting, and management of water facilities, among other things.Donc il est clair que toutes ces améliorations sont directement reliées à une plus grande utilisation des énergies de toutes sortes.
Il est très clair aussi que les énergies fossiles jouent un roule très important et primordial dans tout ce qui est mis en gras ci-haut.
En conclusion de cette étude, il est intéressant de lire:
Many environmentalists and like-minded politicians have proposed the expenditure of trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One stated rationale is to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming- induced increases in extreme weather events projected by questionable climate models. The result would be to diminish, if not curtail, the economic development and hydrocarbon-fueled technology that has resulted in enormous actual reductions in such mortality. In contrast, human well-being could be greatly improved by devoting much smaller sums to alleviating the health and safety problems responsible for most premature mortality (see Table 2).Quelques questions qui avaient été posées avec tentatives de réponses:
- En valeur absolue ou relative?
- Qu'est-ce qu’on inclut comme étant attribué aux changements climatiques et qu'est-ce qui ne l'est pas? Y a-t-il consensus là-dessus au moins?
- Est-ce qu'on tient compte des améliorations technologiques de protection contre les catastrophes climatiques?
- N'est-ce pas un peu comme les accidents mortels d'auto qui diminuent alors que le parc automobile ne cesse d'augmenter...?
1) Le graphique de l'étude montre les deux... relatif à la population mondiale et absolue en millier.
2) Ici il faudrait définir "changement climatique" Il existe 3 définitions courantes:
- Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
- Climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
- Dictionnaire Oxford:
- A change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.
Est-ce qu'il y a consensus?
Le débat est ici, et c'est beaucoup trop long à expliquer, mais je pointerais sur ce site pour s'informer. Il existe clairement deux camps. Celui des alarmistes qui prétendent que le consensus existe et que l'homme est responsable. Et l'autre camp qui prouve à coups d'étude et d'explication (comme le site ci-haut explique) que le consensus n'existe pas et que les variations climatiques sont en grande majorité, voire plus naturelle qu'anthropogénique. Mais de quel coté l'on se place dépend beaucoup de notre idéologie philosophique de départ... somme nous humaniste ou anti-humaniste?
3) C'est bien expliquer plus haut
4) Je dirais que oui... malgré (ou causé par) de l'augmentation de la population, nous devenons plus sécuritaire... c'est le propre de l'humanité de s’améliorer grâce au génie humain.
En conclusion: (voir références plus bas)
1) Je crois fermement que les "changements climatiques" sont en grande majorité de sources naturelles.
2) Je crois fermement que l'augmentation de CO2 dans l'atmosphère est positive pour la biosphère.
3) Je crois fermement que le génie humain trouvera des solutions à tout ce qui est devant lui.
Références: Quelques sources d'informations qui supportent mes conclusions:
1) Mes Tweet
2) Ces livres (pour nommer seulement les derniers que j'ai lus)
- Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel | Alex Epstein and Stefan Molyneux
- Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax
- Michael Crichton | States of Fear: Science or Politics?
- George Carlin - Saving the Planet
- Tim Ball - The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
lundi 7 septembre 2015
This could be some good news, but...
Generating and storing renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, is a key barrier to a clean-energy economy.
- titanium dioxide
- gallium arsenide
- Plastic (oil from fossil fuel)
lundi 20 juillet 2015
How to report the news!
I was reading those news headlines and was wondering how the news was reported. This is a good example of ALARM-ISM or how to report the news in a way to make it appear more emotional and catastrophic.
This spill happened around the week of July 13th 2015, in Alberta near Fort McMurray.
You can read headlines like those on :
Nexen pipeline leak in Alberta spills 5 million litres
Nexen Energy spill south of Fort McMurray covers about 16,000 square metres
Here's the detail of the article with my highlights I want to discuss:
One of the largest leaks in Alberta history has spilled about five million litres of emulsion from a Nexen Energy pipeline at the company's Long Lake oilsands facility south of Fort McMurray.
The leak was discovered Wednesday afternoon.
Nexen said in a statement its emergency response plan has been activated and personnel were onsite. The leak has been stabilized, the company said.
The spill covered an area of about 16,000 square metres, mostly within the pipeline corridor, the company said. Emulsion is a mixture of bitumen, water and sand.
The pipeline that leaked is called a "feeder" and runs from a wellhead to the processing plant.
"All necessary steps and precautions have been taken, and Nexen will continue to utilize all its resources to protect the health and safety of our employees, contractors, the public and the environment, and to contain and clean up the spill," the company said in the statement issued Thursday.
Peter Murchland, public affairs manager for the Alberta Energy Regulator, said officials were notified late Wednesday and had staff onsite Thursday to work with Nexen.
"My understanding is that the pipeline and pad site had been isolated and shut-in earlier today, effectively stopping the source of the release," Murchland said
Nexen has contained the leak and started cleaning up the area, he said. There was no word on how long that might take.
"They go through a cleanup phase in accordance with the regulations set by the AER," he said. "And we'll have our subject-matter experts work alongside the operator, today and going forward, to make sure that safety and environmental requirements are met."
The regulator's staff are there to oversee the company's cleanup efforts. Murchland said there have been no reports about any effect on wildlife. The regulator has ordered the company to implement a wildlife protection plan.
Premiers talks focus on energy, pipelines
Greenpeace issued a statement Thursday condemning Alberta's history of pipeline spills.
"As provincial premiers talk about ways to streamline the approval process for new tar sands pipelines, we have a stark reminder of how dangerous they can be," Greenpeace said in a news release.
Canada's premiers are meeting in St. John's, where a major topic of discussion is a national energy strategy.
"This leak is also a good reminder that Alberta has a long way to go to address its pipeline problems, and that communities have good reasons to fear having more built," said Greenpeace communications officer Peter Louwe. "New pipelines would also facilitate the expansion of the tarsands — Canada's fastest-growing source of carbon emissions — and accelerate the climate crisis even more.
"We need to stop new pipeline projects before they're built and focus on building renewable sources of energy that are sustainable and won't threaten communities, our environment, and the planet."
In April 2011, a Plains Midstream Canada ULC pipeline leaked 4.5 million litres of crude oil near a First Nations community in northwest Alberta.
That leak was the largest in the province in 35 years. It contaminated more than three hectares of beaver ponds and muskeg in a densely forested area.
- largest leaks in Alberta history
- Largest by how much, double, triple? Just saying largest is a bit misleading. The article talks about the second largest at the end which was for 4.5 million litres instead of "around" 5. So not a big difference considering you probably estimated the 5 million.
- five million litres
- There are many ways of measuring volumes. But if you want to capture the imagination using litres is the way to go! 5 millions, OMG. 5 millions litres is also 5000 cubic meter, less alarming. Or another way of putting it, it's 8 seconds of the discharge of the nearby Athabaska river. You can also measure it in barrels of oil, which is around 42 thousand. For a comparison, the proposed keystone XL pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels per day (1). So this would be a spill of less than 2h of this pipeline. Ok enough said on the volume!
- Covered an area of about 16,000 square metres
- Here's another way of using as large a number as you can. What other area measure can you use? You could have used 0.016 km^2. Or you could have compared it to the area of Alberta in percentage... 0.0000024% (3) of Alberta was temporarily covered by oil that will be removed soon... Oh sorry, this is not alarming enough!
- There was no word on how long that might take.
- The company web page is keeping the public informed on a daily basis of the progress of the clean-up: http://www.nexencnoocltd.com/en/Operations/OilSands/PipelineFailure.aspx
- no reports about any effect on wildlife.
- This is a very small area and any animals probably already left. According to steps taken, there's a lot of monitoring and measures taken to keep the wildlife away.
- As of July 28th: Continued wildlife monitoring, A single deceased mallard was found in the release area. The mallard was heavily decomposed and it is believed that it was deceased prior to the release. Nexen has notified the applicable regulators.
- Greenpeace... how dangerous they can be
- I don't have great respect for this organization, taking every opportunity to destroy the reputation of companies they don't like. Did they offer their help to protect the environment? They have budgets of million of dollar, they could have sent a crew of people to help minimize the spill... nope!
- Pipelines remains the safest way to transport oil
- We are getting better and better at transporting it (4)
- "We need to stop new pipeline projects before they're built and focus on building renewable sources of energy that are sustainable and won't threaten communities, our environment, and the planet."
- Please wake up greenpeace... renewable like wind and solar cannot be used to replace oil in all those services it provides:
- Finished Motor Gasoline (51.4% – a bit more than the national average)
- Distillate Fuel Oil (15.3%)
- Jet Fuel (12.3%)
- Still Gas (5.4%)
- Marketable Coke (5.0%)
- Residual Fuel Oil (3.3%)
- Liquid Refinery Gas (2.8%)
- Asphalt and Road Oil (1.7%)
- Other Refined Products (1.5%)
- Lubricants (0.9%)
- Maybe we can use a bit more electric cars, but we are not there yet. Maybe we can produce all those product by other means, but nothing proven and economically viable exist.
- We need to put things in perspective.
- This spill is not that important and clean-up is under way
- We are getting cleaner and cleaner
- Demand for oil will only grow since we have a growing population that needs it to get out of poverty and since we don't have yet other resources to use instead.
- We need to concentrate on better detection and automatic valve closure to prevent those inside a few seconds of detection. This is where we need more R&D and regulations.