• Is it better to ship oil by trucks and trains than with pipelines?

    Best answer: Pipelines are the most efficient method. This includes thru-put, safety, energy conservation and economics. Trains come in second and trucks are very inefficient and expensive. The only reason to use trucks is that there is no other method available at the time. In support of this, you may consider that the... show more
    Best answer: Pipelines are the most efficient method. This includes thru-put, safety, energy conservation and economics. Trains come in second and trucks are very inefficient and expensive. The only reason to use trucks is that there is no other method available at the time.
    In support of this, you may consider that the preferred method of transportation by the oil companies is the pipeline. Why is that? It is the most practical. Oil companies like to make a profit. And they can make the most profit by the use of pipelines. It is as simple as that.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Who are the real deniers?

    Best answer: Well, it was my answer you're referring to so I'll explain. The original question, in the link you provided, examined the Hadcrut4 data which shows temperatures from 1850 to the present day. This set of data shows global average temperature per month. What the original questioner did was smooth that data... show more
    Best answer: Well, it was my answer you're referring to so I'll explain.

    The original question, in the link you provided, examined the Hadcrut4 data which shows temperatures from 1850 to the present day. This set of data shows global average temperature per month. What the original questioner did was smooth that data in such a way as to highlight a 60 year cycle. When combining this 60 year 'cycle' with a rising trend in temperature, you get a reasonable fit to the data.

    What I argued was that if you take this dataset, which shows temperature as a function of time, and perform an analysis on it to examine the cyclical patterns in it (a Fourier Transform which gives you a graph of amplitude of cycle versus frequency or period) you don't get an appreciable spike in the 'spectrum' with a 30 or 60 year cyclical time. Therefore, you cannot claim on the basis of a direct analysis of the Hadcrut4 data that it contains evidence of a 60 year cycle.

    How does this statement square with the PDO? Well, the following graph shows the PDO index from Jan 1900 to Jan 2017:

    http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo...

    What you can see is that there's a period from 1900 to 1940 where the PDO index flips high and low but is mostly high. There's a period from about 1940 to 1980 where the index is low. There's a bit from 1980 to 2000 where it's high again, but then goes low for a couple of years, then high, then low, then high. The point is, what you have here is not some nice uniform 60 year cycle. What you have is a spiky mess with highs and lows. Sometimes it looks like an almost 80 year cycle. Sometimes it's shorter. So the point is that taking the Hadcrut data and smoothing it so you get what looks like a 60 year cycle, and then claim that 60 year cycle is due to the PDO isn't correct. It's not as nice as that. Hence you don't see the 60 year spike in the Fourier Transform. It's not regular. It has different periods.

    The second issue is how does the PDO affect global temperature? Remember, the original Hadcrut4 data shows global averages. What we know is that the PDO index is not always directly correlated with temperature. For example, we know that temperatures are positively correlated with PDO index over western North America, mid-latitude central and eastern Asia, and central and northern Australia. However, the correlation is negative over northeastern North America, northeastern South America, southeastern Europe, and northern India.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/...

    So, the PDO isn't a nice regular 60 year cycle and some regions are warmer during high PDO index and some are colder. Why would you subsequently expect the Hadcrut4 data to show you a nice 60 year cycle due to the PDO if it's based on averages?

    I'm not denying the existence of the PDO or it's impact on our climate over decade-length timescales. All I argued was that you can't take the Hadcrut4 data, smooth it to give you a 60 year cycle because it looks nice, and then subsequently say the 'shape of the smoothed data is due to the PDO because I want the PDO to be a 60 year cycle in the average global data'! Which appears to be your argument ...
    14 answers · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • Why are we worried about global warming when it says online we are still in an ice age?

    Best answer: We should be technically cooling towards the next glacial maximum, but this takes tens of thousands of years. It's not something to worry about today. By contrast many scientists fear a warming of about 3-4 C by 2100. 3-4 C not sound like much? Consider that during a glacial maximum, temperatures are only... show more
    Best answer: We should be technically cooling towards the next glacial maximum, but this takes tens of thousands of years. It's not something to worry about today. By contrast many scientists fear a warming of about 3-4 C by 2100.

    3-4 C not sound like much? Consider that during a glacial maximum, temperatures are only about 6 C cooler. 6 C cooler, and the planet was unrecognizable: ice sheets miles thick across many continents, sea levels hundreds of feet lower. We are on track for a change of a similar magnitude -- albeit in the opposite direction, and about 500 times faster. The idea that the gradual natural ice age will stave off global warming is like looking at water rapidly rising in your house during a flood, and saying "well water evaporates, so nothing to worry about."
    10 answers · Green Living · 1 day ago
  • Will the new scientists that Scott Pruitt appoints be paid to do nothing?

    Best answer: I hope not. The EPA's role should be to provide/enforce reasonable regulations that protect the environment. It has morphed into something far worse than that and I think Pruitt wants to get a leash on that beast. At least, that is what I hope he is doing. I don't like too much power in unelected... show more
    Best answer: I hope not. The EPA's role should be to provide/enforce reasonable regulations that protect the environment. It has morphed into something far worse than that and I think Pruitt wants to get a leash on that beast. At least, that is what I hope he is doing.

    I don't like too much power in unelected bureaucrats. EPA would declare a puddle a wetlands and basically confiscate any property from anyone it felt like. They would arbitrarily flex their muscle to harm capitalism to push a leftist agenda that never seems to win at the ballot box but seems to get its agenda furthered through courts and bureaucracy. Most of the US public has had it winning elections only to have the government power grow and grow and grow and grow with no end in sight. I wish Pruitt luck but the swamp is deep.

    It is going to be 90 Deg F here in Southern California even considering the decreasing solar radiation due to it being November 22.. How do you account for that? You suggest a "cooling sun" only leaves CO2 as the cause of warming. There are lots of causes out there and the effects from the sun are more complicated than just cooling and warming.
    9 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Can you help me make a hook statement about global warming?

    I am writing an essay about an ad and how it promotes the idea that global warming must be stopped. I need help making a hook for this essay.
    I am writing an essay about an ad and how it promotes the idea that global warming must be stopped. I need help making a hook for this essay.
    7 answers · Global Warming · 1 day ago
  • Windmills?

    what is the best energy source a windmill or a watermill
    what is the best energy source a windmill or a watermill
    9 answers · Green Living · 2 days ago
  • Are global warmers giving away the game, openly declaring that capitalism is their target?

    Best answer: The Ctrl-Left hates Capitalism. The media and left blame extreme weather on climate change, global warming. Now, what is that caused by? What's causing climate change? Well, if you listen to them, capitalism is. Our progressive, advancing lifestyle, our SUVs, our air-conditioning is causing climate change. Our... show more
    Best answer: The Ctrl-Left hates Capitalism. The media and left blame extreme weather on climate change, global warming. Now, what is that caused by? What's causing climate change? Well, if you listen to them, capitalism is. Our progressive, advancing lifestyle, our SUVs, our air-conditioning is causing climate change. Our output of CO2, which is a direct result of our civilization and standard of living improving, and they blame that because they don't like capitalism. It's a threat to socialism. Socialism is where they are fully empowered. In Capitalism, they're not; they resent it.

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
    — Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III

    Every single policy of the un-American, regressive, totalitarian Left has redistribution of property at its root.
    13 answers · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • Should the Keystone XL Pipeline be blocked to prevent global warming?

    Best answer: It is one of the infrastructure things that improves the efficiencies of the transportation of oil. It is much cheaper and economical to transport it via pipeline than train and much safer so you'd think environmentalists would like it. It shouldn't increase GW, it should decrease it but it kind of... show more
    Best answer: It is one of the infrastructure things that improves the efficiencies of the transportation of oil. It is much cheaper and economical to transport it via pipeline than train and much safer so you'd think environmentalists would like it. It shouldn't increase GW, it should decrease it but it kind of reveals that many opponents are opponents of any fossil fuels.

    Even if they remove the government obstacles, they may decide it isn't worth it to build. If Obama didn't throw obstacles in front of it, it would have likely already been constructed but now it is less economically viable IMO. These businesses have to fight these PC warriors and their leftist lawyers and all the red tape they throw up as well and they may decide it isn't just isn't worth it.
    12 answers · Global Warming · 4 days ago
  • Why do global warmers keep pushing solutions that don't work, according to their own models?

    Best answer: Hey! It is a $1.5 Trillion a year scam. Their solutions are not science, but snake oil. If they ever would come up with real scientific answers that would end the scam. nd poor old Gore would end up in the poor house. Such a pity.
    Best answer: Hey! It is a $1.5 Trillion a year scam. Their solutions are not science, but snake oil. If they ever would come up with real scientific answers that would end the scam. nd poor old Gore would end up in the poor house. Such a pity.
    8 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Is JRA-55 a good way to estimate global temperature?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/23/b... How much is your answer dependent on the resulting values?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/23/b... How much is your answer dependent on the resulting values?
    5 answers · Global Warming · 15 hours ago
  • Is Mike a paid global warming denier shill?

    Best answer: He rotely and blindly copy-pastes the dumbest anti-science lies from the con man site Wattsup. The same garbage that has been shoveled here and shown to be patently false hundreds of times already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger) http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php With nearly half... show more
    Best answer: He rotely and blindly copy-pastes the dumbest anti-science lies from the con man site Wattsup. The same garbage that has been shoveled here and shown to be patently false hundreds of times already.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wat...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

    With nearly half the US Congress http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/H... already fundamentally denying basic science,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
    http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

    no rational fossil fuel interest group would waste a dime funding such low-level copy-cat BS.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
    7 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • What are 5 consequences of climate change and why do they effect.?

    Best answer: Most of the suspected effects of global warming, good or bad, are speculative. But, even though some places with cold winters will get warmer, "perfect," warm climates already exist in lower latitudes. It seems to me that it would make more sense to move people to places with ideal climates, than to warm... show more
    Best answer: Most of the suspected effects of global warming, good or bad, are speculative. But, even though some places with cold winters will get warmer, "perfect," warm climates already exist in lower latitudes. It seems to me that it would make more sense to move people to places with ideal climates, than to warm an entire planet.

    One thing that we can be sure of Is that, as Earth warms, ice will melt, causing the sea level to rise. Many places that already have warm climates, such as Florida and many Pacific island nations will be under water.

    Another effect that according to historical and paleo records, is that some places will become wetter, and other places, such as Western North America, including Western Canada, will become dryer.

    Another effect will be that as glaciers melt, people will lose stable sources of drinking water.

    Some people will have you believe that warming will turn Earth into a lush paradise. Earth already is a lush paradise. Why mess with that?
    6 answers · Global Warming · 2 days ago
  • Is global warming a myth like leprechauns, eskimos and bigfoot?

    Best answer: That is a pretty funny list, leprechauns, an obvious myth; Bigfoot, not proved; and Eskimos, an obvious real group of people (Inuit, they don't typically like the name of Eskimo). GW is a name given to a phenomena because it sounds vaguely threatening and it was already warming anyway so with luck alarmists... show more
    Best answer: That is a pretty funny list, leprechauns, an obvious myth; Bigfoot, not proved; and Eskimos, an obvious real group of people (Inuit, they don't typically like the name of Eskimo). GW is a name given to a phenomena because it sounds vaguely threatening and it was already warming anyway so with luck alarmists could blame everything including increased bigfoot and leprechaun sightings on our CO2 emissions.
    18 answers · Global Warming · 6 days ago