Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[transmitterdan]

The EPA has been known to underestimate the cost of its regulations. Capturing methane from oil wells is costly especially if the amount of methane released is small. They assume that the price of natural gas will help recover the cost but it quite often costs a lot more to recover the methane and deliver it to storage than the sell price. The EPA received a lot of comments about this but ignored them.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

EPA's Methane Rule Won't Slow Warming, Will Increase CO2 | The Daily Caller

And for an exemplar of just how lunatic the AGW movement is the above with a click through to the supporting links pretty much says it all. Big increase on regulation that increases the cost of energy for zero gain. All in all, a perfect summary of the entire scam.

From the article in the Daily Caller:

A report by the firm ICF International, which cited 75 scientific studies and EPA reports, concluded that methane emissions are declining in both absolute terms and per unit of natural gas produced, despite an enormous increase in the amount of gas produced. Absolute methane emissions from natural gas fell by 15 percent between 1990 and 2014, and emissions per unit of natural gas produced dropped by 43 percent over the same period.

.
.
The U.S. has been emitting a lot more methane than we thought, says EPA | Washington Post

April 15, 2016
The Environmental Protection Agency has released a major upward revision to its estimates of total emissions of methane, a hard-hitting if short-lived greenhouse gas, in an annual inventory that the agency submits to the United Nations. The revisions will further up the stakes in a political battle over regulations that the agency is preparing to issue that could affect operations at thousands of oil and gas wells.

“Data on oil and gas show that methane emissions from the sector are higher than previously estimated,” said the agency in a news release upon the report’s release. “The oil and gas sector is the largest emitting-sector for methane and accounts for a third of total U.S. methane emissions.”

Prior inventories, such as last year’s report, which provided data through the year 2013, had suggested that the U.S.’s highest source of methane was ruminant animals like cattle and other livestock, rather than the oil and gas industry.

The agency revised upward total methane emissions in the U.S. for the year 2013 from 636.3 million metric tons to 721.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, driven in significant part by increased estimates of emissions from oil and gas operations. And the overall methane emissions number is still higher for 2014, the most recent year in the inventory, at 730.8 million metric tons.[...]

[Christian Ho]

Hello Everybody,
got nothing to do with sailing BUT, whilst you are busy writing and discussing here, at this very moment in Toledo, Spain 90.000 tons of old tyres are burning. Don't even think about climate change, since we are able to produce such environmental disasters. The human species is the only one on this planet, who is capable of finishing up with this planet!!!
However, all the best to you, your Christian Ho

[SV THIRD DAY]

This could explain quite a bit...
Political hacks being hired by campaigns and movements to be internet trolls.

Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls - Breitbart

So are you debating a real person online or a paid hack pushing an agenda?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This could explain quite a bit...
Political hacks being hired by campaigns and movements to be internet trolls.

Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls - Breitbart

So are you debating a real person online or a paid hack pushing an agenda?

Where do I sign up to get paid?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Christian Ho

Hello Everybody,
got nothing to do with sailing BUT, whilst you are busy writing and discussing here, at this very moment in Toledo, Spain 90.000 tons of old tyres are burning. Don't even think about climate change, since we are able to produce such environmental disasters. The human species is the only one on this planet, who is capable of finishing up with this planet!!!
However, all the best to you, your Christian Ho

Don't worry, this whole thread has nothing to do with sailing

Yes, that's quite the fire. Apparently it was arson?

We had a big tire fire in this province about 26 years ago. It spurred some changes which have been very effective.

It's unfortunate that tires remain a disposal problem in some areas. Recycling is possible. Discarded tires can be put to many other uses, or shredded or ground up and used other ways, or decomposed (pyrolysis) to a liquid or gas fuel and ash. Here in Ontario, there are recyclers who will PAY you for old tires (in commercially viable quantities, like from garages or auto wreckers)

You can make very effective mosquito traps from old tires.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

This could explain quite a bit...
Political hacks being hired by campaigns and movements to be internet trolls.

Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls - Breitbart

So are you debating a real person online or a paid hack pushing an agenda?

Paying for trolling?? Seems silly, when so many of you will do it for free.

Of course, we already know who's spending the big bux for misinformation.

Always amusing for the left to be accused of what is Standard Operating Practice on the right. Breitbart.com itself is pretty much a troll.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And what do you think an increase in MSL of 1.5 inches over the next next century due to thermal expansion in the oceanic mid depth means? We should be worried, you reckon? How much should we spend over the next 85 years to impact the handful of molecules per million we can impact that might reduce that 1.5 inches by a fraction of a millimeter? One trillion? Two? Thirty?

I think you may want to do some more reading on these subjects. There seem to be some gaps in your understanding.

For instance: Do you think that thermal expansion is the only thing that can alter sea level?

And, I'm sorry you still don't want to meaningfully engage on how much we can alter our impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration. If you missed my responses on that topic, I'm sure you can find them.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not according to the EPA's analysis.
From table 1-2 (page 1-8) of the EPA’s “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Final Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,Reconstructed, and Modified Sources”

Total Monetized Benefits $290 million (2020) - $540 million (2025)
Total Costs $240 million (2020) - $360 million (2025)
Net Benefits $54 million - $180 million

Regulatory Impact Analysis ➥ https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oila...6/nsps-ria.pdf

Right-o, and Obamacare is saving the average family $2,000 per year, ethanol saves energy and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause increased unemployment among unskilled workers. Got it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I think you may want to do some more reading on these subjects. There seem to be some gaps in your understanding.

For instance: Do you think that thermal expansion is the only thing that can alter sea level?

And, I'm sorry you still don't want to meaningfully engage on how much we can alter our impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration. If you missed my responses on that topic, I'm sure you can find them.

At 700 meters plus, yes, thermal expansion is the only thing that impact surface sea levels. What else are you suggesting? More water down there? (hint: it's already all water) Perhaps it isn't me that needs a quick refresher on basic science.

And I think I have engaged in meaningful analysis of this topic. That analysis tells me that the increase in sea level cited by your own post of 1.5 inches over a century is a rounding error and hardly something to pretend is a problem. I have also pointed out that based on the IPCC's own data, the "meaningful" actions you might support, a la the Paris Accords, will cost trillions and impact average global temperatures by 1/5th of a degree C and then only if every nation does what they say they will do, and they aren't doing that even now.

A meaningful conversation on how we can impact our imput to atmospheric carbon should center around why humanity would waste so much money for such little effect. Beyond that, I guess it's just an examination of the narcissistic delusions of warmists.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Christian Ho

Hello Everybody,
got nothing to do with sailing BUT, whilst you are busy writing and discussing here, at this very moment in Toledo, Spain 90.000 tons of old tyres are burning. Don't even think about climate change, since we are able to produce such environmental disasters. The human species is the only one on this planet, who is capable of finishing up with this planet!!!
However, all the best to you, your Christian Ho

As Randy Newman wrote, only God can make a river, but only man can make it burn.

Cuyahoga River Fire | Cleveland Historical

[SV THIRD DAY]

299 bottles of beer on the wall...299 bottles of beer, you take one down, pass it around and make another MMGW Cultist post for 300 bottles of beer on the wall.

Have a great weekend everyone one, off to start ripping up the Teak deck....

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

From the article in the Daily Caller:

.
.
The U.S. has been emitting a lot more methane than we thought, says EPA | Washington Post

I must say, your cut and paste skills are excellent. Almost robotic in their consistency.

And yes, we're emitting more methane. And the EPA rule will cost a great deal of money and will reduce global temps by 5/1000th of a degree by the end of the century. If 100,000 people agree not to exercise for six months we'd have about the same effect at no cost at all.

You see SO, this debate really isn't about how many cartoons you can post, or quotes from the cartoonist at skepticalscience you can cut and paste. The debate is, or should be, over whether or not humanity is actually having a material effect on climate, and if so, whether there is anything you can do about it short of killing off 3/4 of the global population or returning to the 15th century. Based on the IPCC, that is very unlikely. The rest of the cant dished up by warmists on this thread is simply rhetorical self flagellation until you get real and address those very salient points.

Which you won't.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

299 bottles of beer on the wall...299 bottles of beer, you take one down, pass it around and make another MMGW Cultist post for 300 bottles of beer on the wall.

Have a great weekend everyone one, off to start ripping up the Teak deck....

Ugh. But it will look nice when done...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You see SO, this debate really isn't about how many cartoons you can post, or quotes from the cartoonist at skepticalscience you can cut and paste. The debate is, or should be, over whether or not humanity is actually having a material effect on climate, and if so, whether there is anything you can do about it short of killing off 3/4 of the global population or returning to the 15th century.

I see two things that need clarifying:

1. Do you in fact think that humanity is actually having a material effect, or not, on climate?
2. Can you explain how it is you've got your head so far up your ass about what we can or cannot do about #1?