Bowsite.com

Zero Hedge excerpted some of the original article here....I will copy a excerpt in the next post

From the article; Dire Forecasts Wrong When they ran the updated simulation in 2018, the conclusion jolted them: Earth’s atmosphere was much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than decades of previous models had predicted, and future temperatures could be much higher than feared—perhaps even beyond hope of practical remedy.

“We thought this was really strange,” said Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. “If that number was correct, that was really bad news.”

The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model. “I think our higher sensitivity is wrong too. It’s probably a consequence of other things we did by making clouds better and more realistic. You solve one problem and create another.”

Because clouds can both reflect solar radiation into space and trap heat from Earth’s surface, they are among the biggest challenges for scientists honing climate models.

At any given time, clouds cover more than two-thirds of the planet. Their impact on climate depends on how reflective they are, how high they rise and whether it is day or night. They can accelerate warming or cool it down. They operate at a scale as broad as the ocean, as small as a hair’s width. Their behavior can be affected, studies show, by factors ranging from cosmic rays to ocean microbes, which emit sulfur particles that become the nuclei of water droplets or ice crystals.

“If you don’t get clouds right, everything is out of whack.” said Tapio Schneider, an atmospheric scientist at the California Institute of Technology and the Climate Modeling Alliance, which is developing an experimental model. “Clouds are crucially important for regulating Earth’s energy balance.”

In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.

Dr. Gettelman, who helped develop CESM2, and his colleagues in their initial upgrade added better ways to model polar ice caps and how carbon and nitrogen cycle through the environment. To make the ocean more realistic, they added wind-driven waves. They fine-tuned the physics in its algorithms and made its vintage Fortran code more efficient.

Even the simplest diagnostic test is challenging. The model divides Earth into a virtual grid of 64,800 cubes, each 100 kilometers on a side, stacked in 72 layers. For each projection, the computer must calculate 4.6 million data points every 30 minutes. To test an upgrade or correction, researchers typically let the model run for 300 years of simulated computer time.

In their initial analysis, scientists discovered a flaw in how CESM2 modeled the way moisture interacts with soot, dust or sea-spray particles that allow water vapor to condense into cloud droplets. It took a team of 10 climate experts almost 5 months to track it down to a flaw in their data and correct it, the scientists said.

much more at the WSJ

It's all modeling. Junk in and junk out......but yet they hang their hats on it.

This is not a denial of human caused climate change. But I agree with the scientist in the article:

“I think the climate models are the best tool we have to understand the future, even though they are far from perfect,” said Dr. Gettelman. “I’m not worried that the new models might be wrong. What scares me is that they might be right.”

I'm screwed.

I think the points creep is way more critical than global warming! If we are talking the new term of climate change, we'll the climate has been changing since we have had a climate. As a private citizen, don't litter, recycle when you can and do your best to keep your truck running.

Stay well.

Predicting weather change is tough already, and this was written before that massive underwater volcanic eruption.

We still don’t understand all of the non-man made factors contributing to climate change, until we do let’s continue to learn, take a rational approach, and give a hoot, don’t pollute.

The point here is; THEY WERE WAY OFF....and there are massive policy decisions by politicians jumping on the bandwagon based on that junk science.

How far off were they exactly?

"For me, it's a religious thing," she said in November after leading a 21-member congressional delegation to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland. "I believe this is God's creation, and we have a moral obligation to be good stewards."

Spends $500K since 2020 on private jets. It's not about the climate. It's about control. And after the the dems saw how "compliant" the serfs were under COVID, well hell, that was just a practice run.

IMO....the other moving question is what happened to the ice age when there was no industrialized (ie...man-made) influence? How could it have happened? Could natural dynamics have occurred and was that the influence on the ice age? If we hold that to be true, could it also be true the earth's natural dynamics is causing the temps to rise since the ice age? That seems to get lost in the discussion.

“ what happened to the ice age when there was no industrialized (ie...man-made) influence? How could it have happened? Could natural dynamics have occurred and was that the influence on the ice age? If we hold that to be true, could it also be true the earth's natural dynamics is causing the temps to rise since the ice age? That seems to get lost in the discussion.”

Your premise assumes man is the only thing that affects climate. Scientists have never made that claim. But what we do know for a scientific fact is if you add more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere then it traps more heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and we know that the combustion of fossil fuels is the major cause.. Climate scientists are now only debating how much of an effect it will have and the answers are extremely complicated. But someday our kids, grandkids, and/or our great grandkids will find out.

And these idiots can’t understand why nobody trusts a thing they say.

No...not at all. In fact I suggest it's just the opposite if you read what I wrote carefully. The issue I believe several here are making is what agenda-driven politicos and alarmists are doing with the data that may or may not be accurate.

Seminar was JAN 22 at SCI VEGAS AND 3 other requests in Col pending 77 photos and many tips on practice and getting CLOSE

What happens if you are wrong and climate change prediction do actually happen and we did nothing to prepare? What happens if climate scientists are wrong but we did prepared?

Then they are happy when they see the overweight rotund healthy polar bears walking the beaches.

Ah drycreek…what does the Bible say about judging others in the eyes of God? There are plenty of versus that discuss the subject.

Ie Beware of bowlibs and their false/deceptive diatribes..........

You're taking a relatively small data set and extrapolating into the unknown, untested, and unproven. But hey - an academic has to eat as well, right?...

^....that's a great point. Our knowledge and technology isn't that old when compared to the age of the Earth. However we're trying to use what we have today to understand what happened in the past and try to predict what will happen in the future. In that context....we don't have a lot to work with.

OHHHHH, now finally it makes sense why we've had almost every day in January and February so far well below zero (sometimes several days in a row in the -20 below range).

As long as people have been thinking about the future, they've been predicting the end of the world. So far, they're 0 for infinity.

Under 2 miles of Greenland ice are butterfly remains-"How did they get there??"

Warm weather fossils exist under Antarctica. "How did they get there?"

Pelosi takes private jets, so does Gore Obama and all the other alarmists who say the science is settled. But yet they have several heated outdoor pools they don't use, buy shoreland in the very areas they say will be flooded-due to weather change. Must believe in their own theories, right??

It's all about money and control, always has been. Cherry pick research and reports that it the narrative, reject everything that doesn't

By the way folks in my state are scrambling for extensions to their ice augers since the weather has been so cold this year. Probably will be hunting turkeys in the snow too.

What a stupid baiting question. Optimum for what and where? For farming in Greenland or elk in RMNP or hurricanes in the gulf? It’s not about a single optimum temperature. It’s about the potential negative changes that may happen with a rise in greenhouse gases.

CO2 levels have always risen and fallen. Long before fossil fuel. Increased CO2 means there are more plants. Yes, it’s cool to say plants produce oxygen by absorbing CO2. But, the nifty scientists often forget that plants produce large amounts of CO2 at night by respiration. By absorbing O2 out of the atmosphere. Creating CO2 in the process.

The rates at which plants photosynthesis to produce oxygen versus CO2 at night, I cannot remember. But, I’m pretty certain that plants produce more CO2 through respiration then they do O2 during photosynthesis.

I’m not going to go into detail on that. No one listens when you do. So, just research it. Then put that in your personal science book. I’m tired of the constant misunderstanding of these phenomenons.

People quote science models as the dead set truth. It’s like the Covid debate. Science says…. It blows my mind that it’s ok to do this from one side. While they pick apart an opposing hypothesis with every angle imagined. All the while quoting their opinion as science.

Now politicians damn sure aren't scientists & some scientists make very good points.

I will say that in va that weather has changed a lot in the last 40 years. So far this winter we've had 1 day that the daytime high was below 32. These days your more likely to be wearing a tee shirt than a jacket on x Mas day. 30 - 40 years ago single digits for weeks at a time were normal

Iv been on the va coast for 22 years now. Places I hunted in leather boots years ago now ya need knee high rubber & if it's a full moon hip waders the change has been drastic.

On the other hand the edge or continental shelf where I offshore fish 60 miles out was once a dry canyon & on the other extreme the Atlantic shoreline was once as far west as Richmond.

So if ya look at it in that broad perspective the coastal water rise isn't drastic at all....

Actually it's only at night when sunlight is lacking that plants produce more CO2; during the day they produce up to 10 times more oxygen than CO2 and the overall impact is that plants are considered to be a "carbon sink", producing more oxygen than they consume.

What is under debate is what the impact of increased warming could have on the overall ratio; some have postulated that the increase will be negligible while others feel the impact may be significant.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4562

Finally, you posted something believable, "may happen" being the two words of note.

Thanks for the link. I didn’t have it in me to post anything relating on the topic. There are too many that would suggest it was biased or Inaccurate in comparison to the multi billion dollar climate change scheme they’v e built their life around.

Less freedom and more Government spending. It's not a coincidence.

Based on historic CO2 levels, the data suggests that about a third of atmospheric carbon is attributable to man-made sources.

I believe man has an impact, but I don't believe it is an existential threat. I have a hard time with it because I'm a biologist and work with data a lot. And adjusting/manipulating data is a big no no. The temperature record has been adjusted and I have a hard time with that. The past has been cooled and the present warmed by climate scientists. Also, the world temperature data record is crap. The U.S. by far has the best temperature record. Australia and Europe is decent. The rest of the world and the oceans is garbage. It's manufactured. Then when you take the best data source, the U.S. and manipulate it, it creates doubt in my mind. Most of us also lived through a very cold period, the 70s. So our perspective is also skewed. We think that was normal. Maybe it isn't. I remember cold winters with huge piles of snow. Well, yeah, that was when scientists said we were headed for another ice age. Remember? Hopefully in my remaining lifetime, we go through another cooling trend and this goes the way of the dodo bird.

As far as converting to more renewables, I'm ok with it as long as our lifestyles don't take a hit and it isn't thrust upon us too fast. It has to be reliable. If we can maintain our current lifestyle without burning fossil fuels, who wouldn't be ok with that? But if we must reduce our lifestyle and live with unreliable energy sources, there will be civil war, if not world war. Also, if renewable energy is thrust on the world too fast, many people that can't afford it will die.

The x axis is wrong. There is no way to know what the real CO2 levels were "800,000" years ago...

Sure there is, in places like Greenland and Antarctica.

Nope. Ice cores don't show the reality. No way ice sheets have stayed intact that long undisturbed. One volcanic eruption will skew the data. Freeze/thaw cycles followed by build up later on will skew the data. That idiot "Bill Nye the Science Guy" thinks the data is real too...

Yep. Yes they do. And any disturbances are also accommodated with the analysis.

The physics is well understood, well tested, and accounts for disturbances like volcanic eruptions and thermal variations (particularly over longer durations when the effects become muted).

Karen driving Jayden and Brayden to soccer practice in her Tahoe in the US isn't that.

Just easier to push Karen around than CCP.

I'm sure one mega volcanic eruption can do in an hour what humans took 100 years to do but none the less I do believe we are in deed affecting the planet.

One, they're describing age, not CO2 or CH4 levels. It's saying that, generally speaking, at any given point, there maybe a 5% error in estimating the age. It will compress or extend the trends of atmospheric content, but not change the measured level of gas. Like I said, models are always wrong...just a matter of how wrong they are. In this case, I'd say the estimated error is pretty insignificant when describing the overall trend.

The point here is not about climate…it about the snake oil politicians you hang your hat on and defend.

Do you realize that the champions of Climate Change are a bunch of hypocrites not concerned one bit about the Climate?

Gore, Pelosi, Kerry, etc, etc generate more CO2 in one flight of their private jet than I will do in a lifetime of driving my truck. One flight KS! These are the folks you choose to believe. If John Kerry was really concerned with CC don’t you think he and his entourage can fly FC on an airline to lessen his carbon footprint.

A thinking man is going to see the hypocrisy of these folks. Gores wealth has skyrocketed due to carbon credit trading….hmmmmmm.

.

And, as expected, there was so surprise on who’d be along shortly to set everyone straight on how they need to be looking at this.

I could care less what those politicians you listed say or do. I do care about the scientific consensus (+85%) that says man-made climate change is happening and negative consequences are probable.

Well, for work I help companies minimize impacts to ecosystems. I help get renewable energy projects permitted. I also work with endangered species and ecosystem protection (wetlands). We also do ecorestoration and put native plant habitats on the ground. Personally, I did build a house with energy efficient HVAC, 2x6 walls, along with other energy efficient materials. I’ve never calculated it but I’m guessing my carbon footprint is way negative. Oh yeah, I work from home mostly.

How about you scentman?

Relative to any fossil fuel…they don’t.

“amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.”

But, but, but, it's going to kill us all!!! Give me a break.

Yes, I did compare world wide temps with only America’s CO2 production. I did so because In no other country are people so dumb to insist the things only entitled Americans get entrenched in.

It’s also just my guess that Glunt hit the nail on the head when he pointed out these same people refuse to correlate why the push is on America to change. While blindly giving other countries a free pass on it. It’s so blatant it’s consideration was present in pre Trump trade deals.

Just sayin’.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL advances the science and engineering of energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, and renewable power technologies and provides the knowledge to integrate and optimize energy systems.

Vestas - Vestas Wind Systems A/S is a Danish manufacturer, seller, installer, and servicer of wind turbines that was founded in 1945.

Siemens Gamesa - Siemens Gamesa is a leader in the renewable energy industry, working to provide the world's best offshore and onshore wind turbines and services.

Not exactly "unbiased" data, my friend.

If there are any polar bears in the Antarctic, maybe I have to rethink my stance on climate change :^)

Prove many will believe anything if they can profit from it.

Spoken from a guy in finance…you’re projecting lol. What a tool.

I own a company that ALSO helps to minimize negative impacts to the ecosystem, by locating underground water leaks in cities/utilities domestic water distribution systems, which helps to minimize and reduce their water loss, along with several other potentially negative impacts to the ecosystem. (I threw in “potentially” cuz I know much you like that word)

I’ve ALSO done eco-restoration projects on my farm, that “potentially” help “possible” endangered or threatened species (mostly deer) in my area. AKA- Wetlands restoration and CRP. Lots of native plant habit in those babies! (Pays pretty well, too) and is awesome deer habitat.

I ALSO built an energy efficient house and installed a geothermal heating/cooling system in in. I’ll even go ya one better. There are plans in the works, here in Iowa, to run a carbon sequestration pipeline through much of the state, then to the final underground storage site in Illinois. The proposed route will “potentially” go through my property. I’m all for it, mostly because they will “potentially” pay me a pretty decent chunk of change. Another “potential” benefit of it is, that it will run roughly parallel to an existing natural gas pipeline on my property. My hope is, that somehow the two opposing pipelines will somehow cancel each other out. Heck, I might even get a few carbon credits out of the deal!

This “climate change” crap is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind. It was the next big ice age coming, when I was in high school, then they changed it to global warming when the narrative changed. Now, it’s climate change, so they could go either way and still claim to be correct. The climate certainly does change, and has for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, long after we’re gone. I’m all for being a responsible steward of the land, but until China and all of the other biggest offenders are forced to comply with similar standards as the U.S. it won’t matter much what we’ve done here, in the grand scheme of things. I wonder how many bazillions of tons of carbon emissions were released by that single volcanic eruption near Tonga?

As that article I posted points out, the science on this is wrong…thus many of these folks pushing the “SKY IS FALLING” are basing it on junk science.

I doubt there is one person here that disagrees with trying to do better when it comes to a better environment-Thats not the problem. The problem is the current politicians running the show.

Renewables are part of the solution but a back of the envelope calc shows its not enough..and we see it here in CA with rolling blackouts and PGE telling us power prices are going up big at night. That is the solution from the Dems that have been running our state forever, dont wash clothes at night.

We currently have clean nuclear technology- Small nuclear reactors- that don’t melt down and can be used as a spiderweb interconnecting renewable sources and cities across the country making for not only clean power but a solid power grid that could be shifted where needed. The current Dem regime won’t entertain this due to their fringe elements. Right now 10 well placed bombs would blackout 1/2 the country. Its not just an energy issue, its a security issue.

The current Dems think E cars is the total answer. I’ve seen comments by the SoCal grid operators that their grid is stretched to the max ( they buy power from other states) and that another 250,000 E cars would topple them.

Its a multi faceted solution. Did you know that diesel exhaust run over a catalyst comes out pretty clean? E cars, solar, wind, nuclear and even diesel and gas are part of the solution.

We all want better but will never see a common sense solution from the current crop of Democratic politicians- maybe a Manchin or Sinema…but not these other knee jerk clowns.

.

When it's based on models, the science is always wrong. The article you posted says, on the whole, they aren't that wrong.

I see these percentages floating around. The famous one is 97%. Not sure where the 85% came from. But my question is, are they in consensus that there is man made warming? Or that there will be negative consequences? Because most of the negative consequences haven't really materialized. In MN, it seems our winters have gotten a bit warmer, our summers are wetter, and our minimum summer temps (nighttime temps) are a bit warmer. Our summer highs have actually not changed much and, looking at data, may actually be declining for the last 90 years. We definitely have fewer 90 degree days than in the past. I'm a fisheries employee, and in the land of 10,000 lakes, there has to be a Walleye in every lake. So we produce a lot of them for stocking. We haven't been able to produce as many because our shallow lakes don't winterkill as often, and we need winterkill so there is no competition for the fry we dump in them. If there is competition, we don't produce as many. So I guess that might be deemed a negative effect. Shallow lakes that winterkill are also better for ducks as there are more invertebrates in lakes without fish. But these negatives are not existential threats to mankind. Although angry fisherman may want to kill me because they can't catch a walleye. But we have more bass now! So there's that.

Sea levels are rising!! Yeah, they've been rising at the same rate for as long as they've been measured.

Hurricanes are more intense!! Nope, not happening.

More weather extremes!! Nope! Even the IPCC says that isn't happening.

Food shortages!! Nope, crop yields continue to increase and we produce 25% more food in the world than the world needs.

Pacific Islands (Maldives) disappearing!! Nope, many are actually getting larger.

All the media alarmism is based on worst case scenario models that haven't even been close to right. In fact, the most conservative model is overestimating temperatures.

There funny part, when you think about it........how do they know how wrong they are?

>

The physics is well understood, well tested, and accounts for disturbances like volcanic eruptions and thermal variations (particularly over longer durations when the effects become muted)."

Wrong again. Assumptions are made that each layer, or freeze/thaw cycle, accounts for one year. Nothing could be further from the truth because they have NO idea what the true conditions were. Depositional layers are individual storm events, not a counted time duration. Their models are based off of observed data in our day (200 year or so time span). That's the problem with models. Data generated by models for future or past events are merely guesses based on a very small fragment of reality.

Well, you never know for certain going forward because you're always using what has happened as a proxy for what will happen. But typically you will history match a model to get a sense of how accurate the model is in predicting reality and that is how you measure how wrong or right your model is. This is exactly what the article you posted discussed ("In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models—scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.")

It's worth noting, you can also get a good history match and still incorrectly weight all the variables in your model.

Wrong. They have all kinds of ways to estimate the age (geochemical, radiometric, geological, etc). And scientists have plenty of idea what conditions were like as we step back in time.

Kudos to you t-Roy for “potentially” having a positive effect on climate change.

“ Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? No.”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

“Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

“ According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/42/what-do-volcanoes-have-to-do-with-climate-change/

“Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere. However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.

In comparison, while volcanic eruptions do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption of CO2 twice daily.“

Without Googling it, do you know what the largest source of greenhouse gases is? And what approximate percentage of all greenhouse gases does it represent?

Matt

That's not news. Over the last 50 years I don't recall them ever getting it right. Ever. Spectacularly wrong at times. No shame. No apologies. Just move on to predicting the next crisis. Ever wonder.... why?

Very telling when they DO get caught fudging the numbers, or Hockey Sticks. And clearly do so for economic reasons, more grants, more control. Cannot really trust anything that comes from them again.

This is about control, money, power. Financing One World Globalists. Fear being the biggest player, not climate. Instill fear in a population and they become controllable. They will give up anything for "security". Anything. And will follow and carry out the whims of evil people without question. It's happened over and over in history. Have to be blind not to have seen that in play for near the last two years.

Think most folks have seen that. They will no longer sit and quietly take it. And there will be a reckoning. Soon. Watching it unfold right now.

Good question. Without googling it, I don’t know the answer. I would guess big sources to be natural respiration, decomposition, and venting (volcanoes, seeps, etc). Haven’t really a clue what the percentage breakdown is or if those are even right.

The answer is water vapor. Approximate;ly 97% of all green house gases is naturally occurring evaporation of water. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide represent the other 3% of green house gases. Of that 3%, man-made CO2 is only a small fraction.

Just something for you to chew on.

Matt

I'm just an old country boy. I'm not into politics or science. I'm into hunting & fishing & in my brief 60 years on this planet the changes I've experienced while in the outdoors hunting & fishing have been pretty drastic.

40 years ago frost & occasionally snow in Oct were normal now 80s &even 90s is the norm in Oct.

I remember the first day rifle season the 3rd sat in Nov. one year in the early 80s the high was 5 degrees.

I remember another incident when I had several deer hanging that I killed the last week of the season which is the first week of Jan. We'll those deer froze solid & stayed froze solid for a month. I had every stray dog for a mile around my house. It's forecasted to be 60 here on Sat.

Natural events in the life of the earth. Or caused by humans ??? I'm not a scientist

In va the changes in the weather have been pretty extreme over the last 45 years this I do know.

Siri is wrong, or you asked the wrong question. Heat, electricity, and transportation *may* be the largest sources for man-made CO2, but they are certainly not the largest sources for all greenhouse gases.

These facts stem way back to the great Genejockey vs Jim Johnson global warning debates over 20 years ago. Jim Johnson, as you know, was wicked smart. He was the one who opened my eyes to this often overlooked tidbit of information.

Matt

I misread the question to mean sources of carbon dioxide. There is indeed far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 (and it is a greenhouse gas). With that said, C02 and water vapor act in different ways with respect to the greenhouse effect and their ultimate effect on things like surface temperatures are not simply a function of their atmospheric mass or volume fractions.

I think a lot of people mistakenly think CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, because that's all you hear about. In reality, CO2 is a very small fraction of greenhouse gases, and man-made CO2 is an even smaller fraction of that. In that context, it's very difficult for me to believe that humans are having much of an impact on global climate change.

Matt

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

"CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has “windows” that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/?sh=7e0f52193238

"Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce."

In my very uneducated opinion, until scientist can accurately model the patterns and effects of clouds, which can have different and opposite effects on global warming depending on which type of clouds are produced and where, the science of climate change will remain unsettled.

Heck, just look at how meteorologist struggle to get local daily weather forecasts correct. Hurricane models often predict paths that vary by hundreds of miles. I think it's rather naive to think scientist can accurately gauge and predict human's effects on global climate change over decades.

Matt

There isn't huge $ in status quo, so the alarmists/leftists/socialists/dems just pull out their bag of magic trick BS to convince most of the people that the polar bears are dying off, weather patterns are irreversibly shifting, cows are farting too much, lawn mowers and chainsaws have to be full electric, eating meat is racist ETC ETC and the people incapable of thinking for themselves just eat it up.

Not to worry, the bUiLd BaCk BeTtEr clan has an outrageously expensive plan to fix all of it!

Those same scientists that claim they know through radiometric dating have no idea what the starting amounts of parent ions were present against the existing amounts of daughter ions.

Also, there are many examples showing error such as when a tree that was embedded in rock that carbon dated to "50,000 years" and the surrounding rock dated to "millions of years" was discovered while drilling test holes. The sedimentary rock was deposited the same time the tree was.

When metamorphic rocks form, geochemistry changes. Another example is the eruption of Mount St Helens where a rock formed from the eruption that dated one thing, yet separate components dated other things at "younger" ages. None were in agreement with each other so there are errors that can exist in the guessing game.

Conventional academia has decided to all agree on certain things that takes thousands and millions of years to explain, because given enough time, anything is "possible". Conventional academia really doesn't know, but they all agree so it must be true. Never mind everything we know is limited to what we have observed only...

Want to really twist your head..... just wait until the north and south poles magnetically flip....... that's been happening for some time. Our magnetic fields protect us from a great deal of solar effects that work to literally strip our atmosphere, cosmic radiation, solar particles.... and has been moving at an ever faster pace, from about 10 miles per year when first able to measure to roughly 34 miles per year, has moved over 600 miles in less than 200 years.

Add in that we are way overdue for major eruptions (such as in Yellowstone) and other geological events, meteor strikes (SMOD....) stuff happens. Only man's ego and vanity thinks they can control "changes" on this planet screaming through space. Some think we can control the very weather. When these same people are wrong pretty much every time they even try to predict it's dire future.

No worries though. Man has adapted though massive climate changes before. Ice ages even. Edens turned to deserts. Hopefully will again. If we don't kill ourselves off in a Nuclear Winter or man made bio-weapons first......

Have a great weekend. Enjoy it. Relax......

They have plenty of idea of how much of a given isotope was present. Saying they have "no idea" isn't remotely true.

Also, there are many examples showing error such as when a tree that was embedded in rock that carbon dated to "50,000 years" and the surrounding rock dated to "millions of years" was discovered while drilling test holes. The sedimentary rock was deposited the same time the tree was.

Just because there are examples of unexplainable phenomena doesn't mean the base science is not usable or untrue in every case. Just because Newton's laws were superseded by Einstein's general theory of relativity, and just because Einstein's laws break down at the quantum level doesn't mean they should be completely disregarded.

Conventional academia has decided to all agree on certain things that takes thousands and millions of years to explain, because given enough time, anything is "possible". Conventional academia really doesn't know, but they all agree so it must be true. Never mind everything we know is limited to what we have observed only...

They don't agree on things because "anything is possible." They agree on things because theories and hypotheses have been tested and challenged based on available evidence per the scientific method and that is how we have arrived at these conclusions.

You can’t argue any different then that and then defend it as anything is possible. From a perspective meant to be anything but an opinion. Period. No further discussion needed.

That’s categorically false. It’s far more than just a hypothesis. Saying different and ignoring the mounds of experiments and data that go far beyond hypothetical is some combination of naïveté, intellectual laziness, or just “outright lying.” You can decide what it was.

Plainly, It’s doing what you do. Ignoring the details that hurts your opinion’s legitimacy. You argue the way models are created. As being the best information that we have. Yet dare not even whisper they might be blatantly wrong. Based only on what we know?

Well, That’s changed leaps and bounds over time. And, I don’t expect that to stop.

See my point?

And that’s exactly how science works. So, again, to suggest as it pertains to any of these topics - be it dating things, be it climatology, or anything else - that “we have absolutely zero evidence” and it’s purely speculation on how any of these things work is a result of naïveté, ignorance, or dishonesty. You decide.

Through testing and experiment, we have observed outcomes and "theorized" what those laws are forward and backward through time. Had the tree not been tapped, every geologist would have said through "peer review" the lithology at that point was millions of years old.

Do some research when you get a chance. A gentleman did his dissertation in geophysics on rapid plate subduction and continental drift that completely debunks "peer reviewed" theory on the subject that also lends explaination to the phenomena that caused massive evaporation of water, followed by massive amounts of rainfall, planet cooling, and ice ages. And, it didn't happen over tens of millions of years either.

And, since we're being scholastic, he's published extensively. We can continue trying to explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you...

No, I’m not. Sure, we can never say definitively what was happening millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have mounds of evidence to describe things. And until someone has proved that the laws of physics, the processes of chemistry, the forces of geology, etc behaved drastically different in the past (which no one has done, even this geophysicist you’re referencing whose work I’m sure I can find plastered over creationist websites), that evidence remains pretty compelling.

As I previously said the changes iv witnessed in va my brief time on is planet have been fairly significant. Overall much warmer & sea level rise on the coast.

However if ya consider that a very long time ago the the ocean shoreline was 60 miles to the east & even longer than that it was 100 miles to the west. So a curred day rise of a few feet is rather insignificant in those terms.

But than again if ya have to spend 50k + to raise your waterfront house to keep it insured that 2' sea level rise is pretty damn significant

In the end, individual actions will matter more. Some people will smarten up and not build in flood plains. Some will invest in better insulation or more efficient vehicles. And some will go blithely to ruin. But governments will dither, because getting re-elected is Job 1.

"There are plenty of versus that discuss the subject."

Name two, please.

Sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.

In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels.

The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.

In many locations along the U.S. coastline, high-tide flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.

I'm reading that the rise in water level on the VA's coast is more due to the land is sinking, than the water rising.

Matt

Click on one of the VA stations.

Click the Tide/Water level tab

Click Sea Level Trends

All stations that have Sea level trends show no acceleration of rise.

Have a great weekend!

I don't give a damn about the politics on the issue & perhaps I should. All I know is my real life experiences.

By the way it was 65 here today & forecasted to hit 68 tomorrow & 30 years ago ice breakers stayed busy keeping the shipping channels open in the Chesapeake bay. Another real life experience that doesn't need a graph or link to show the change

I don't know the answer...I do know that building a bunch of E cars and hoping we have enough power to run them is not working here in CA where they cannot keep up with demand. I'm tired of stupid solutions like Battery farms to store Solar energy. The stat I saw was it would take the biggest battery factory in the world [Teslas giga factory] over 1,000 years of battery production to store enough electricity for 8 hours of demand in the US. These stupid pie in the sky ideas need to stop.

I'm tired of knee jerk solutions by hypocrite politicians. I remember them talking about developing an energy policy back in the 60's....and that can has been kicked down the road ever since. How many bombs would it take to tank our grid and put 1/2 the country in the dark?

>

Which will amplify any effects that come from a mean sea level change.

‘We thought this was really strange,’ said Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. ‘If that number was correct, that was really bad news.’

The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change”

That right there is why Science works: People who are prepared to sniff out inconsistencies and challenge their own beliefs, rather than clinging to them regardless of what is comfortable, convenient or profitable.

Of course, strictly speaking, in Science there are no Beliefs - only understandings/interpretations of the data, always subject to review in light of fresh evidence….

Where I live, temps are normal for a mountain winter, but our snowpack is 150% of normal. So much for snow "becoming a thing of the past".

Renewable energy is a good idea if it includes nuclear and isn't rushed ahead of the technology and infrastructure. But that's not part of the "green deal" currently. When it's forced on the public before it's ready, simply for religious/ideological reasons, people are going to start saying, "Hey, wait a minute! You (media and climate alarmists) didn't tell us our entire way of life would be compromised!"

Guess who solves giant challenges? Free people that are prosperous.

What makes anyone think that polar ice caps are even supposed to be there?

These threads are always interesting.

It is approximately a one hour drive from each of these refineries to this piece of ground they were going to use. They would have to drive tanker trucks with the carbon dioxide until a pipeline was built. Your telling me all the emissions from the trucking and building a pipeline is better than carbon dioxide? I don't believe it, but they get some stamp that says they are.

First off, I'm uneducated, 1/2 way through the 9th grade to be exact.

Here are a few of my observations in my 61 years on this planet. The majority lived in NW & eastern VA

The winters were much colder in the 60s through the 90s like Jan & Feb rarely above the 30s and these days Jan & Feb rarely below the 40s. It's predicted to hit 80 degrees this coming Thursday and certain flowers & trees are already blooming here. Imo this is a drastic change......in a relatively short time

Water level along the coast...,...in the 23 years I've lived here places that only flooded during MAJOR STORMS now flood during the full moon......again a drastic change in a relatively short time.

I recently drove to Georgia to pick up a hound dog and from VA to GA EVERY BODY OF WATER I crossed was evidently way down with floating docks and long walkways leading to them, old wooden docks high & dry some 20- 30' or more from the waterline. Again this is a drastic change in a relatively short time.

Barges not able to navigate the Mississippi,,, none or very limited ice fishing in the north this winter.

I could go on& on but my point is these recent events have occurred in an extremely short amount of time comparatively speaking in the life of the planet. Yes the planet has gone through extreme changes in the past but most spread out over huge amounts of time.

It humor's me that the majority of sportsman whome tend to be conservative, republican, tend to take a head in the sand bullpoop point of view on the subject. In light of some of the recent changes mentioned above.

Now I'm not in agreement of our government's approach to the situation. But I'm also not gonna let my political views blind me to what's right in front of my face either.

Folks, things are changing quickly.....and out of all the folks on this planet the sportsman whome spend the most time out in nature should recognize this , but for whatever reasons the sportsman seam to be some of the biggest deniers.

I just don't understand .....

Basically, you don't like any of the possible solutions to the problem so your just going to pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

Way back when we had warm years...then cold years...then warm years..then cold or average etc..etc

Storms more severe? dunno ask somebody that got flooded out in 72 by Agnes if that wasn't severe.

So here in PA we are experiencing a warm year.....but ya know the world is a little bigger than PA, ....seems just a few weeks ago the NE broke some cold records, snow records etc...

One thing i do know though is ya just can't look at the climate change opinion alone...look at these peoples whole mentality and way of thinking. And..........if they seem to struggle with other common sense stuff, ya know, like?....yea you know ,normal stuff, (without going into detail)....what on earth makes ya think you can trust their opinion about climate change?

lets face it folks.......liberalism etc....is a mental disorder, a few bricks short of a full load, and a bit wacky.

does the climate change?.....more than likely.....Do these educated people have it all figured out?....don't be so gullible.

Basically, I don’t like having to pay more money for combating something we have little to no historical data on. Especially when the Democrats think they have all the answers, yet aren’t concerned about the countries that don’t make the same efforts we are forced to!

It also wouldn't "fix" or significantly change the climate, so theres that.

The best plan to deal with climate fluctuations is to spend our time, energy and resources adapting and preparing instead of pretending we can steer it. Part of that is having a strong, healthy economy.

Big difference when a distaster hits an isolated, poor, third world civilization vs a modern prosperous one.

No one I know opposes cleaner energy. The path to get there is to have a society that has the fuel, freedom and prosperity to dream, invent, risk, create and profit from solutions.

We listened to "experts" 2020 - 2021 as well, remember?

There's all kinds of things that could wipe humanity and all life off the planet. No need to invent new reasons.

Matt

I look forward to waking up tomorrow. Does that count?

Matt

Matt

Then why is it that the biggest proponents for fixing it are nowhere to be found when a chemical Armageddon is killing a small town in Ohio? I haven’t heard much about finding and condemning the saboteurs of the NORD pipeline either. At least not since they started to push for banning lawnmowers and weed eaters.

I think the important question that needs to be asked is; where does the emergency really lie? Is it to save the world from ALL environmental disasters, or to simply fatten up the federal coffers as we concentrate solely on doing away with the evil fossil fuels?

The earth has always gone thru cooling and hotter periods, ever since the recording of the weather has existed.

It's all about control and money. It's always under the banner of The environment, National Security, or Saftety. If you think extreme environmentalism works..what happen to California? We have enough gullible folks in this country to believe whatever some professor says..or some politician

Can't find good investment? Make one up!

There's an old saying that people keep forgetting - "Follow the money!" My corollary to that is, "Who's getting rich? Never mind the philosophy, who's making a profit?"

Al Gore's net worth was less than $2 million when he ran for President, today it's around $300 million. Heckuva Plan B.

Fyi most models have a "best, most likely, and worst case" scenario prediction to them

Rocky D.... I honestly don't think extracting billions of tons of fossil fuels from the planet & then burning them for energy is a "natural process"

I absolutely believe that humans and the industrial revolution have affected the planet-climate.

I do agree with you that's there's little were gonna do to change it, or at least in "our lifetime" ........

Yeah kinda like the ones I remember from 2013, 2000, 1996, 1991, 1983, 1971-72, 1965-66, and my parents who dealt with it in 1940...Oh yeah a rare occurrence indeed.

I expect to be bowhunting turkeys in the snow (again) this spring, due to global warming, climate change, blah, blah, BS.

I absolutely believe that humans and the industrial revolution have affected the planet-climate."

To refer fossil fuels as billions of tons means you have no idea what fossil fuels really are and you believe in too many fairytales...

I also will admit that I heat my house with wood, drive a diesel truck, both personal and for work, and burn between 80 and 100 gallons of gas on an offshore tuna fishing trip in my boat. I'm absolutely not innocent when it comes to burning fossil fuel.

I do believe that in doing so we are affecting the planet- atmosphere. To what extent ???? That I don't know either

I absolutely don't believe in ferry tails. And I'm fully aware that the science can be manipulated to fit a variety of narratives, Covid for example,,,I'm proudly unvaxed. And in fact never had a flue shot either.

My days are limited on this planet...... I'm 61 with 3 stints in my heart. I'll be very surprised if I live another 20 years.

But what about our grandchildren's, Children's, children, even if the science is only partially correct.

For us to live today with a "screw it attitude" with complete disregard of our future generations is kind of a selfish attitude don't ya think !!!!!

This is as obtainable as equity and a bigger distraction than diversity!

A whole lot of this shite means nothing except to manipulate the people to serve those in power!"

Well said.

The loss of freedom and well-being that comes with worshipping man-made climate change ideology is immeasurably more dangerous to future generations than a common sense, market based transition to new sources as we figure out how to harness them.

The earth had cooled( froze over, and covered with glaciers), and then warmed(thawing the glaciers) 5 times in the last 450 million years.

The climate is, and has always been changing. I don’t believe anyone with half a brain denies that.

That isn’t the debate. The debate is wether or not it is caused by man. Like everything else, there is no debate allowed. If someone thinks it’s a natural cycle, just like the earth has gone through several time they are a climate change denier.

The man made climate change advocates don’t claim the earth hasn’t froze and thawed several times. Their current claim is that this warming period is happening at a faster rate than ever before.

To measure historical temps before the 1900’s, scientist use models to estimate.

So the argument is comparing models/estimates from the last 450 million years, to the observed measured temperatures since 1880(the last 143 years).

So we are arguing about a possible less than 1 degree rate of change difference between known numbers over 143 years, comparing them to models/estimates over 450 million years.

I think it was the coldest February 23rd here in history.

Snow all the way down to sea level.

Seaside Oregon, Newport Oregon, and Lincoln City Oregon are all beach towns, and we’re all white this morning.

Very rare weather event here.

Is this true? Or is the media just ultra focused on it now? The media keeps saying weather is more extreme, but when scientists actually speak, they say no, there is no clear trend in extreme weather events. Their models say there will be eventually. But they haven't happened yet and their models haven't been very good so far at predicting the future.

I’m curious what personal sacrifices are you making on a daily basis to fight climate change. What financial “investments” have you made in your home,vehicles, and other things you need/use a lot to fight climate change?

Funny really.

I absolutely admit that I'm a hypocrite when it comes to the subject, I burn wood for heat , drive an old diesel truck, burn lots of gas offshore fishing etc.

All I know for sure is that in (my lifetime) living in Virginia the weather has changed significantly

It just completely dumbfounds me when folks for whatever reason deny what's right in front of their face.

Huh?

Wise words from Pete Buttplug.

“The climate crisis is here today, threatening Americans’ lives and livelihoods, our homes and businesses, and even the way we travel and operate our federal agencies,” Secretary Pete Buttigieg said. “

Buttplug is being investigated for his constant use of private jets.

I'm on the coast of VA and land that only flooded during a major storm 20 years ago now floods every full moon high tide. Record breaking 82 degrees in VA beach the other day & at the same time record breaking cold & snow on the west coast.

Yes absolutely things have been changing for an extremely long time in the life of the planet.

They just seem to be changing a bit more quickly recently.

I can see the liberals scrambling to keep the continent together back then. Blaming white folks for causing the land mass to separate.

These are all considered fossils. They have all been buried, decayed, and transformed by temperature and pressure over billions of years.

First and foremost is credibility. And yes that includes moral credibility, if your off balance morally, the rest will be off balance as well...Society seems to be rolling downhill at a rapid rate. leaders standing on a podium, making speeches, society in a buzz of activity, arguing who is right, who is wrong, taking sides etc....all oblivious to the fact that they are slowly self destructing, and rolling downhill....wealth and power....and no sense of direction, and to dumb to realize it.

My advice is get out of that wagon.....then decide.

I can see the liberals scrambling to keep the continent together back then. Blaming white folks for causing the land mass to separate.

Ultimately the government is funding the research & construction of the projects and at the same time the agencies conducting the research on the dead whale's is also government funded.

Has anyone ever known a snake to voluntarily cut it's own head off !!!

Oil flows thru the porous and fractured crust of the earth for long distances. The fact that a once dry well fills back up doesn't mean the earth is producing oil faster than we are consuming it. It's common for oil companies to use new and more intensive drilling technologies on existing fields because it's cheaper than exploration and development of new fields.

Sure, we'll discover new fields and better ways to extract the oil, and it will last a lot longer than the "Peak Oil" alarmist claim, but I think it's an ignorant stretch to claim oil is "renewable" in the same sense that we speak of other renewable energy sources.

Matt

Was reading up on electric trains, and it makes a certain sense to power vehicles by lines or live rails rather than batteries. But that won't work for a 100 million cars.

Has Ford re-started their electric pick-up line yet?

It requires rapid and deep deposition to trap the organics that then decay to sludge, aka, oil. Billions of years? Don't buy it - doesn't make logical sense.

As far as coal goes, it doesn't take that long to make coal. Non-fossilized branches and bark have been found in coal seams while mining...

This^

It’s crazy to me that we all cannot agree on 3 things; 1) that we need to find better and more efficient, energy sources, 2) that we eventually need to wean ourselves back from fossil fuels and 3) we need a better energy grid.

A nuclear atom has 1 million times the energy of an oil molecule…thats part ofthe solution right there. We have new nuclear reactor solutions that don’t melt down…and the waste can be recycled. Pair a network of these new smaller reactors to a grid that maximizes renewables- problem solved…though its expensive.

The problem is politics. Just the word nuclear incites the Quasi environmentalists which dictate to the Dem party.

Like HDE said, this is really not even close to accurate in terms of what happens. It has everything to do with sedimentary deposition and nothing to do with "continental drift." The origin of the organic material that ultimately acts as the source of our oil and gas reservoirs are diverse and intertwined with the depositional environment in which they've been trapped - river beds, river deltas, ancient lakes, reefs, shallow and deep marine environments, sand dunes, etc. And no, the geological processes that create oil and natural gas work waaaaay slower than the rate at which we're consuming hydrocarbons so calling them renewable is a gigantic stretch.

In petroleum geology, source rock is rock which has generated hydrocarbons or which could generate hydrocarbons. Source rocks are one of the necessary elements of a working petroleum system. They are organic-rich sediments that may have been deposited in a variety of environments including deep water marine, lacustrine and deltaic. Oil shale can be regarded as an organic-rich but immature source rock from which little or no oil has been generated and expelled. Subsurface source rock mapping methodologies make it possible to identify likely zones of petroleum occurrence in sedimentary basins as well as shale gas plays.

Take a look at the link if you want to read more about the types of depositional settings that essentially are the foundation of our petroleum reservoirs. This is literally the type of stuff I work on, az. But I'm sure you know more than me...

That's literally what you did. No one said the processes have stopped. What was said is that it takes LOTS of time for oil to form and accumulate. It has taken millions of years for the oil we are using now to get there. There aren't "younger" sources of oil that are being generated to make up for what we are extracting now, which is what you are suggesting. Anyone with even a minimal exposure to petroleum geology should understand this.

Well said.

Matt.

It's not rocket science folks..............

I've lived the majority of my life in VA. The winters used to be cold, we ice scared on frozen ponds, you could hang deer for a week outside,Dec, Jan & Feb were rarely above freezing daytime high temps etc. There have been 3 days so far this winter with a daytime high below freezing. The trees & flowers are blooming , 82 degrees on Friday and I saw a bumble bee today.

I moved to the coast in 2000 places I hunted in leather boots 23 years ago, now you need knee high rubber boots and sometimes hip waders.

I don't need a graph or survey or scientific data to prove anything and I'm not some liberal dingbat claiming the sky is falling. Point blank period...where I live it's getting warmer and the water is rising or the land is sinking.

I'm simply stating my true life experience living in VA.

I agree 100% with nuclear power. If we can power a battle ship or aircraft carrier with nuclear power why not electric sub stations.

I honestly believe many folks are reluctant to acknowledge the same changes I've whitnessed in my lifetime for fear of being associated with political Views or beliefs they are against.

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear power. But, I don’t want a nuclear plant built with hundreds of miles of where I live. With the amount of unknown terrorists that’s likely crossed the southern border in the last 20 years, it’d make for an easy jihad if one of them decided to blow one of these plants up.

What would happen if we had nuclear power plants and Putin finally gets pissed that NATO is funding attempts to take over a section of the former Soviet Union? After promising not too? Remember, they got missiles we don’t have. They can hit the continental United States from their home land. We can hit them from within our lower 48 borders.

If nuclear power production isn’t a danger in these scenarios, then over look me and correct me. If they are, be careful what you ask for.

There are A lot of ideas, theories, and people reciting the science of energy production. But, we seem to have a pretty good thing going concerning making energy. And, we have nothing but a scientific theory on how long ago these coal seems were produced.

Here in southern WV, there are 13 mineable seams of coal. From mountain top to the 13th seam is at least a couple thousand feet. I find it amazing that people claim to know how the complexities of the world developed. When human kind and their science can’t prove how people got here.

Timex, did you know that eastern VA is a deciduous rain forest? You constantly quote the days of old and act as if we are headed down a road untraveled before. What if the region is experiencing the temperatures it’s supposed to now?

I’ve spent a far amount of time in the Shenandoah river valley. I never remember temperatures as regular that you described as your youth experiences.

In your often quoted saying of “I’m just a dumb country boy”, have you considered the amount of run off created by industrialization as possibly the reason there are swamps now versus 45 years ago?

I’m not being a wise guy. I’m just confused how so many people have the answers to things we can’t possibly know. Yet, we base things on what we think we know. That’s called ignorant at worst. And guaranteed as naive.

I could be wrong but if Putin is gonna nuke something it's probably gonna be the white house and is so we're both screwed irregardless...

The point being....the world is a lot bigger than your front door.

It's called 'deterrence' and it works.

The only thing that never changes, is the fact that everything changes. Just because things change doesn’t mean they’re broken.

As I said before, I’m sure this has been thought about and planned for by the powers that be. But, the powers that be are as inept as a toddler concerning decision that impact Americans. So, I don’t for one second believe that these plants aren’t targeted as we speak. If we build more……. Everyone gets the point.

Here we go. I don’t know why we don’t just hire Dana as our national security adviser. He seems to have it all figured out.

I do know this though. If canada invaded America, the idea of retaliation wouldn’t stop America from doing what it had to do to get it righted. Why everyone assumes that doesn’t apply over there is beyond me. Especially given the variables involved. So, let’s provoke him. Let’s do what we promised we wouldn’t. He’s just ignorant. Let’s do it.

Tuned, if they nuked Washington, that would kill you. But, not me. Or, most of Americans. There has to be more to it than your answer.

I noticed you didn’t answer the questions about the swamp. I know why you didn’t. Which was my point.

You had the most feared American president in office last cycle. He was so feared the same people we are fighting today, we’re considered friends. Yet, you called it treason then. But, now it’s a deterrence.

Give me a break.

Do you have any idea what it takes to refine enough plutonium (or uranium) for *one* bomb?

"Plutonium and weapons

It takes about 10 kilograms of nearly pure Pu-239 to make a bomb (though the Nagasaki bomb in 1945 used less). Producing this requires 30 megawatt-years of reactor operation, with frequent fuel changes and reprocessing of the 'hot' fuel. Hence 'weapons-grade' plutonium is made in special production reactors by burning natural uranium fuel... "

But hey what the heck. It's February the flowers & trees are blooming, bumble bees buzzing around frogs are chirping and I've already been chewed on by a few skeeters. Life is good my friend.

Not surprisingly, az is wrong again.

This goes back to my , “Do the Math” comment…the current Dem admin is more concerned with agenda and no science or math will get in their way. They are literally running us into the ground.

Heres a paragraph from the report, I posted the link above. Insidelinespjm.com

Overall, the amount of generation retirements appears to be more certain than the timely arrival of replacement generation resources and demand response, given that the quantity of retirements is codified in various policy objectives, while the impacts to the pace of new entry of the Inflation Reduction Act, post-pandemic supply chain issues, and other externalities are still not fully understood. Should these trends continue, PJM could face decreasing reserve margins for the first time in its history.

You Democrats need to open your eyes….

Don't get me wrong Putin, china & the Arabs in bed together is significant.

But Putin alone doesn't seem like much of a threat these days.

Timex, a better question is do you truly believe that Russia couldn’t squash Ukraine if so desired? You can’t be that naive.

We heard it from the bowsite educated bunch for weeks. How Putin couldn’t afford to do this. It’d be over in a month. They were broke. No one would do business with them. Etc…. Well, all that was wrong.

We are feeding Ukraine weapons and money. As is a lot of the world. Why? Because nato countries would love to have Ukraine as a member. Why aren’t they? Because it would officially start world war 3.

You can’t just listen to politicians and the mainstream “unbiased” media on why Putin did this. There are variables involved that aren’t making headlines. And, when you consider them all, it kinda makes sense if your job is to protect Russian interests.

My only question is why are all the talking heads acting as if we have Putin right where we want him. We don’t. He’s playing us as a fool. Why? Because we have bought and paid for fools leading us. Say it ain’t so. You can’t. Hunters already proved that.

Now, we have enemies training together. It isn’t for a soccer match. Why? Because we have spineless fools for leadership. And, previous spineless leaders lied to and mocked Putin over Russia joining NATO.

The whole world is now holding its breath hoping we aren’t bombing one another next month. And the Dana’s and Timex’s of the world acts like Putin Is incompetent. You betcha.

Aren’t the Chinese, Russians, and North Korea in bed together. Hey Timex, in case you missed it, Putin isn’t poking the big bear alone.

My goodness wake up. Putin has his countries support. He has the support of half of Ukraine. Putin now has the support of China. Openly. Putin has had the support of North Korea. This isn’t heading in the direction of world peace.

Let’s build more nuclear plants. Let’s pass more policy to further weaken this country’s ability to make energy. In the face of world war 3! That’s a great idea.

We debate stuff like energy production. Because Half our country is ok with policy that cripples business in this country. While showing zero regard as our foe’s grow stronger and stronger.

We had America investing in a lab in Wuhan. Experimenting on a coronavirus. It escaped. Ukraine had its own biological laboratory that American money and interests were investing in. In the name of health. Hell, what could go wrong with that? Besides, wasn’t that the disguise for the Wuhan lab? Health reasons.

Yep, let’s build a bunch of nuclear power plants. Let’s talk about how we got Putin right where we want him. Because he’s scared. He wasn’t too scared to invade Ukraine. But, Dana and Timex thinks he’s scared. You got that right.

Come next election, you fellas keep preaching how Trump tore this country apart. How he made us look like fools. Let’s elect more politicians like Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden instead. That’ll fix it. So they can continue to be bribed to pass further legislation crippling this country. While the most evil people on the planet continue to strengthen and combine forces for the World Cup.

Obviously, things changed before or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I think everyone knows that if they’d stop and think for themselves. Versus reciting the narrative they’ve obviously bought into. Lock, stock, and barrel.

Things are a changin’!!!!!!

You get on this forum and insinuate every one but you is out of touch with reality. Really? Reality says the earth has always changed. It’s a known. What you seem to miss is everyone agrees with that.

I don’t take meds. So, I haven’t missed any. But, if we are going to discuss reality, let’s discuss it.

The reality is even country boys are being led to discuss something like climate change in the face of what might be the end of the world as we know it.

It’s a flippin’ narrative. It’s not a new revelation. Or even science. We all know this. Things change.

Concerning Putin, reality say you are wrong. He isn’t afraid of poking us. He’s afraid of unleashing the whole world on him until he gets people in his corner. Guess what? Reality is seeing that play out.

And, if it goes all the way, you likely be able to walk those areas in leather boots again. Because It’s gonna be nuked off the face of the earth.

That’s reality.

Relax....... brother........

Concerning my feelings on why I’ve posted the way I did, I’m Just unsure Who’s going to stop evil when America can’t. NATO is nothing but a title minus American money and mite.

We are throwing the gift of America, to the whole world, down the drain. From within. And narratives like climate change play a big part in the intentional weakening of this country.

It’s a serious problem that’s easy to fix if Americans weren’t so blinded by the narratives meant to hide those intentions.

I'll keep my opinion of your opinion to myself.

Have a good evening sir.

These environmentalists have effectively shut down the renewable resource logging industry and initiated hundreds of lawsuits not to cut anything. This overgrown forest condition is what creates these massive fires.

The unintended consequences from these dumb ass environmentalists has been studied; ( from the U of Chicago)

UChicago study finds single year of wildfire emissions is close to double emissions reductions achieved over 16 years

As wildfires raged in California again this summer, the damages are adding up. In 2020 alone, wildfires killed 30 people and caused more than $19 billion in economic losses. On top of the immediate damages, the wildfires lead to pollution that is set to shave nearly a year off the life expectancy of residents in California’s most polluted counties if pollution levels persist. What is often ignored is that, fueled by climate change’s higher temperatures and drier conditions, the wildfires also contribute to climate change. A new analysis finds the wildfires in 2020 alone make up 30 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Bravo you dumb asses….

Headline; Fauci 'Prompted' Scientists To Fabricate 'Proximal Origins' Paper Ruling Out Lab-Leak: House GOP Dr. Anthony Fauci - who offshored banned gain-of-function research to make bat coronaviruses more transmissible to humans - has been accused by Congressional investigators of having 'prompted' the fabrication of a paper by a cadre of scientists aimed at disproving the Covid-19 lab-leak theory.

On February 1, 2020, Fauci and his boss, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, and at least eleven other scientists participated in a conference call during which several of them warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China - may have been intentionally genetically manipulated.

Three days after the call, four participants from the call (Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Tulane School of Medicine virologist Robert Garry, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut and Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin) seemingly discarded their concerns over a lab-leak, and drafted "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," which they sent to Fauci and Collins.

Also heavily involved (yet not credited) was Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the current Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization.

As a related aside - the Washington Examiner revealed last week that two authors of "Proximal Origin" who initially expressed concerns over a lab-leak and then changed their tune (Anderson and Garry), received millions in NIH grants under Fauci.

Now, according to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Fauci 'prompted' the creation of the paper; Paper at link

All so Biden could spend $8 trillion during the pandemic…oh but the Dems claim that didn’t have anything to do with inflation….

The link is to the page where the US scientists fudged the climate data…..just made it up to suit their theory of Global warming….wow, just wow

This thread is getting out of control! Where are the bowlibs to tell us the real truth and set us straight?!

Some crack detective work there, Hackbow. Unfortunately, you're pointing at a dip that occurred in March through August of 2020. We had this little thing called COVID happen then, maybe you heard of it. This dip that you are pointing to started nearly six months before Biden was even elected.

For a more accurate representation of when Biden entered office, see the graphic above. I've linked to the field level data if you want to confirm for yourself. Again, Biden has next to nothing to do with the steady rise of oil production since the date he entered office (just like he has next to nothing to do with prices at the pump).

But Jason, what accounts for it then? Could it be 'supply and demand'? Does capitalism actually work? Hmmm.

Government policy affects optimism and investment. As well as supply. Which affects fuel pricing. To say otherwise is lying.

He over rode them, can’t that get in the way of their climate agenda…the Biden admin stonewalled and jacked the price so high for the lease they didn’t get competitive bids.

Show me a fed agency the Democrats haven’t wrecked..and introduced politics? You can’t.

Did you see the latest Biden ( or Soros or Obama, whomever is actually pulling Bidens strings) nominee for the FAA?

He could not answer one question Senator Ted Budd asked about aviation systems. He was 0 for 7. He was clueless as to issues relevant to his job description.

The Democrats criteria is not experience ( to help keep us safe) instead they install easily manipulated minorities or LGBT’s….look at Bidens record.

youtube link above….

Dems complain about the Reps….but look at the truth and facts they are exposing right now…. .

The administration doesn't set prices for leases. They are awarded by auction.

He did, but that has nothing to do with the cost to acquire a lease. The reason the Cook inlet auction didn't attract much activity is because it's a played out basin viewed as not very attractive for most O&G producers.

Another alleged conservative hating on the free market. Hackbow, what's an "acceptable" level of profits for all these oil companies?

What regulations have changed in the last two years that moved the industry from record losses to record profits?

All you've done is rambled like a mad man, talking about zombies and what not. I asked two very straightforward questions. I'll ask them again.

What is an acceptable amount of profit for oil companies to make?

The industry has gone from record losses/bankruptcies to record profits. You said this is a result of a change in regulations (I quote "...the politicians who created regulations that result in this scenario"). What regulations are those?

His public comments and policy with an irrational 10-15 year timeline essentially kills any increase in refineries…and negatively hampers new oil projects.

Whats even worse…he has no comprehensive plan to replace it. The Midwest grid operator has a report stating we will not have enough power in the future with the current policy. Bidens solution amounts to billions in Tax credits to folks that buy an EV…no matter that here in Ca, the Socal grid operator said they are tetering on the brink of capacity right now. No wonder we have brownouts.

Biden throwing a few billion at nuclear and grid stuff amounts to spitting in the ocean.

Sure we need to ween ourselves off of oil and develop new improved energy sources…but we need a comprehensive long term viable plan instead of the current knee jerk policy bowing to ignorant environmental weinies.

Including j6 thanks to Tucker! He showed a video of officer Sicknick (sp?) (one of the five officers that they claim was killed that day) walking through the Capitol shortly after he was killed with a fire extinguisher. But I’m sure DanaC and the others will tell you that Tucker must have doctored the videos before he aired them! Lol! Liberals don’t realize that it’s OK to admit you’re wrong now and then.

Oops I’m off topic! Or am I? The OP topic is about liberal lies as well. They all seem to go hand in hand.

Matt

Let me see if I got this right. So your answer to the profit is "it's unacceptable because oil companies are in cahoots with the government to stick it to the people?" So does Biden hate oil or companies or love them? I can't tell based on your line of thinking.

And regarding regulations, you first said there were changes in regulations that led to this scenario of record oil company profits, but then highlighted the fact that not one regulation has changed since oil companies were actually losing billions of dollars, going bankrupt, and laying 10s of thousands of workers off. So which one is it?

It is the decision making at the highest levels of those corporations, with the blessing/cajoling of the fedgov, that results in market fluctuations affecting price, employment, inflation, etc. It has become a toolbox for power grabs caused by instability rather than helping create stability and an environment in which middle to lower income folks have less trouble improving their lot. It has become a toolbox for power grabs caused by instability rather than helping create stability and an environment in which middle to lower income folks have less trouble improving their lot.

You clearly have no clue how any of this works, Hackbow. Decisions around investment and supply lag price movements - which are always driven by broader market forces largely out of control by oil companies - not the other way. Just another example of your distorted world view leading you to a wrong conclusion, once again.

And regarding your questions:

But please tell us what would happen if you were to publicly ridicule diversity training at one of your corporate events.

Probably the same thing that would happen to any employee that publicly ridiculed their company, regardless over what. There would be disciplinary action.

Further, tell us what would happen if your employer rejected diversity in its hiring practices - even if the highest ranked candidates were all homogeneous in color and chromosomes.

This hypothetical is incredibly flawed. Undoubtedly, the highest ranked candidates will not all be homogeneous - be it related to visible characteristics or those that lie below the surface. To that end, if ultimately your workforce looked and acted exactly the same, you run all kinds of risks to optimal performanced - from a lack of diversity of thought to failing to attract the best candidates because they may feel alienated by a homogenous workforce.

What would happen to your company's profits as a direct result?

Per the answer above, there is a very real chance that they will suffer when compared to a diverse workforce.

We aren't dependent on foreign oil, that's the point. We choose to import about 40% of our oil because it's cheaper than domestically produced oil, even with shipping costs.

Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been tapped into several times in the last 2 decades.

Facts, not Fox.

Matt

Depends on what your definition of "dependent" is, but generally we import oil to meet demand and to take advantage of market pricing. We are net importers of crude, but net exporters of refined petroleum products. On balance the net trade is about zero these days.

The Strategic Reserve was tapped in an attempt to add more supply to the market and lower prices.

Thankfully we have Oil corps that did this…other wise our energy costs would be a heck of a lot higher…making that inflation even worse.

And theres the Fox comment. You probably don’t know if you don’t read Fox…that many of the supposed fake news reported by the other news agencies are in fact true. News flash..the Hunter laptop is Real, There was no Trump Russia collusion- all made up by the Dems, Its 99.9% that Covid came from the Wuhan lab…and there is documentation Fauchi was covering his ass. Oh yeah, and Bidens boy Sam Britton was caught red handed stealing and fondling other peoples clothes.

Scarily, that only the tip of the iceberg…many more debacles that one wouldn’t know when their news is edited…..

Interesting that oil production facts get produced….but when fact after fact about stupidity behind the Bidens many Policies comes out….the liberal Dems ignore it.

Another member pinged me and he is right on- until the brainwashed Dems realize their confirmation bias…we are doomed.

Matt

“ You clearly have no clue how any of this works, Hackbow. Decisions around investment and supply lag price movements - which are always driven by broader market forces largely out of control by oil companies - not the other way. Just another example of your distorted world view leading you to a wrong conclusion, once again.”

Those market forces are also largely driven by government policy. Are they not? No need to answer. Even 5th graders know that.

Anyway, one thing you definitely are intent on accomplishing causing disrupt to support your middle of the road ideology. With your circling of every topic.

As always anytime someone discusses cause and affect and how it is playing out in the structuring of our society, you play the same card and talk as if it’s incoherent rambling. You aren’t that dumb. Only too ignorant to realize no one else is that dumb either.

Why don’t you stop. It’s ok to offer an opinion. But, you try and push your opinion as fact and talk in circles trying to align them as the real facts. Contradicting yourself while doing so. No one here buys your inflated egotistical crap. It’s false and it’s an apparent lie.

It kills me that liberals preach grey but, try and define things as black and white when it’s convenient for them. It truly showcases the weakness of a faithless conviction in everything except their own ego.

But his, and other libtard (including those from RINOs) policies allowing oil producers to make record profits from less production while financially supporting the politicians who created regulations that result in this scenario are responsible

Yup, sounds like you're completely ok with oil company profits LOL

Those market forces are also largely driven by government policy. Are they not?

Believe it or not, WVM, there are forces much greater than government policy that influence supply and demand.

You're so right. I have no clue how any of it works. Especially the part where you admit above that saying the wrong things or not hiring the approved way will result in dire consequences...not because of the consequences of the free market, but due to the consequences of not supporting an ideology.

Yes, generally saying the wrong things (depending on the rule set) or blatantly ignoring a company policy (be it hiring or otherwise) generally carries consequences. Maybe that's why people like you seem to struggle in this world. This is pretty basic stuff, Hackbow. And furthermore, this is quite literally an outcome of the free market - companies and their management are free to decide what that is for them.

You're so marinated in libtard ideology that you're incapable of separating actual facts from the belief system. My exact words were; "...if you were to publicly ridicule diversity training at one of your corporate events?" In your attempt to show me how wrong I was, your words were this; "Probably the same thing that would happen to any employee that publicly ridiculed their company..."

My point was if you want to "ridicule" (ie, to make fun of, taunt, mock, deride, etc) anything company related - be it decisions of management, diversity training, pay and benefits, you name it - there will likely be consequences. Again, this is not shocking. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word ridicule??

Those market forces are also largely driven by government policy. Are they not? No need to answer. Even 5th graders know that.

What policy caused the oil price crash in 2015? What policy has led to continued increased production under Biden and prices dropping roughly 40% over the last 7 months?

You are simply lying when you say government policy is a small influencer of oil markets. Flat out lying. Government policy is the biggest influencer of fossil fuel markets. You know that. If it weren’t so, we wouldn’t have administrations trying to convert to alternate power sources. And, the industry wouldn’t live by regulations. Period. End of story. No need for 18 paragraphs trying to deflect from it.

Own it. Don’t deflect from the real issues. It’s easy. Say it out loud.

“It’s ok if everyone doesn’t think I’m the authority.”

Whoosia.

Speaking of deflection, I see you refused to answer my questions. Not surprising.

Your question had no bearing on the point. None. It was simple deflection on your part. So you can control the narrative. And, deflect from the obvious topic at hand. In order to justify your numbing existence in these threads.

It’s simple. Government policy affects oil markets more than any one variable. Which was Hackbow’s point. It utterly defines the playing field. The rules. It directs optimism and investment. In simplest terms It literally creates the market. Yet, we’ve had 6 years of you declaring otherwise.

I may not work in the oil field but, my guess is if your employer read some of the dumb stuff you’ve posted in defense of your personal politics, you likely wouldn’t either. I bet your companies first quarter meeting in 2025 won’t be about the Super Bowl champs. It’s going to be about the policies of the elected administration in THIS country.

Go ahead, come up with another Einstein response. We don’t want anyone on bowsite to get confused about you having all the answers.

Matt.

We are so lucky to have the likes of you two.

Of course they can't, or they won't, because it doesn't fit their narrative of "it's all the fault of the government."

Since you don't want to answer those questions, maybe you'll answer these. If we could push a button tomorrow and make the government disappear, tell me what effect that would have on the oil industry? What would happen to prices? What would happen to production? What would happen to investment?

"Those market forces are also largely driven by government policy."

Then, BEG asked this question:

"What policy caused the oil price crash in 2015? What policy has led to continued increased production under Biden and prices dropping roughly 40% over the last 7 months?"

WV's response:

"The answer to the question is irrelevant.

Too funny.

I've never said "zero effect." I've said you all give the government FAR too much credit for what happens. But maybe you can answer the questions, Rocky? Tell me which policies have been moving the oil market over the last 7 months? You said it's multiple policy issues - point to one change in regulation or policy that caused these moves. What about in 2015?

Furthermore, as a thought exercise, tell me what would happen to oil prices, oil production, and CAPEX investment in the oil sector if we made the government disappear.

Funny that Dems focus on Oil production…but then ignore the grid operators telling us there won’t be enough energy in the future if we follow the Dems Climate policy.

Dems also ignore the fact that much of these Climate predictions are hack science and politically motivated.

Now we have that Dem excuse maker Yellen saying we will loose money because of climate change…Sheesh, .selling us down a river.

Well which is it? Did his policy have a massive effect or did the industry find a workaround?

I'll help. The answer is neither. There was nothing significant put in place by this administration that needed some work around by the industry. The most impactful action taken by the administration was the suspension of federal leasing, which was overturned by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Furthermore, production from a new lease would be years to decades from hitting the market, so no meaningful impact on the market or meaningful impact on company's strategy to deal with this Executive Order (which has now been undone).

Biden's position on energy sucks. It's the height of comedy that on one hand he argues for more alternative energy sources and on the other begs the industry for more production. Regardless, don't confuse words with actions.

So why is it that MA and other states are down to $3.00 and we still pay almost a dollar a gallon more in Idaho? Not to mention diesel that is still around $4.50. And don’t tell me that it has to do with our geographical location. Other than someone lining their pockets, there’s no reasonable explanation for the huge price differences from state to state.

Link is to comments that totally contradict you BEG……by the CEO of Chevron that knows a little bit about oil don’t you think? Grin

from link;

“Chevron CEO says there may never be another oil refinery built in the US Mike Wirth points to the federal government's policies on energy”

At every level of the system, the policy of our government is to reduce demand, and so it’s very hard in a business where investments have a payout period of a decade or more," Wirth said. "And the stated policy of the government for a long time has been to reduce demand for your products."

Fact after fact……outlining the many ways the Biden admin hampered our energy security in the US….

Heres a few articles outlining the stonewalling, and illustrating the distain the Democrats have for energy development from pipelines to oil facilities

Business Groups Urge Biden Administration to Support Domestic Energy Production, Act on Stalled Offshore Leasing Program

API Statement on Biden Administration’s Energy and Climate Executive Orders

Sorry, America: OPEC+ Oil Rebuff Keeps Focus on Flawed White House Energy Policies

White House Blame Game Redux on Gasoline Prices

Wait, Grey the great Ghost will be along shortly and pat BEG on the behind with an ‘atta boy so he can respond.

No idea what your state taxes are on fuel. I can tell you that Connecticut gas prices have long been higher than MA because of higher state tax. (And I know MA folks who drive to NH to buy cigarettes...)

Worship Biden? I've been clear that he's terrible and his stated positions on energy on terrible. Again, I also know how to separate words from actions. He can say all he wants. Just like Greta Thurnberg or Al Gore can. Without meaningful regulation or legislation behind those words, they are largely hollow.

At every level of the system, the policy of our government is to reduce demand, and so it’s very hard in a business where investments have a payout period of a decade or more," Wirth said. "And the stated policy of the government for a long time has been to reduce demand for your products."

And then he pointed to legislation from decades before Biden was in office.

Wirth went on to list examples such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for fuel efficiency in vehicles that Congress first enacted in the 70s, the Renewable Fuel Standard created in 2005 requiring a certain amount of biofuels like Ethanol to replace petroleum-based fuels, and electric vehicle tax subsidies.

Did this legislation have an effect on refining margins and markets? Sure, but again, it is so minor when viewed in context of the other factors that effect margins. Use the Renewable Fuel Standard as an example. Please tell me what oil prices and oil production did in the three year period following its passage?

I encourage you to dig around on Chevron's website, look at their stated strategies, and report back to what they think the future for oil and gas holds.

Business Groups Urge Biden Administration to Support Domestic Energy Production, Act on Stalled Offshore Leasing Program

API Statement on Biden Administration’s Energy and Climate Executive Orders

How much do you know about leasing, Beendare? What is the average time from lease acquisition to production? How many outstanding OCS leases have yet to be explored and appraised? How many are yet to have production?

There is a healthy backlog of leases owned across the industry that oil companies have yet to get to. There are only so many people and rigs to mature these opportunities. The time from exploration (in the success case) to production is often measured in decades. So the leasing ban had essentially no impact on the industry's ability to operate.

Now had it stayed in effect for, say, multiple years or decades, then yes, it would be a problem. But you'll rest assured knowing that the Inflation Reduction Act mandated that auctions go forward on a prescribed schedule. So it's back to business as usual.

Was it a dumb EO by the president? Yup. Did it have a meaningful impact on the industry, prices, production, etc? Nope.

The Democrats climate policy is endemic of all of that parties policy decisions. They created a bad guy; Climate Change…and they are the Knight on a white horse.

This latest from the Dems sums up the ridiculousness of their ideology;

The White House just gave the “Women of Courage “ award…to a biological male.

Eat your heart out Greta Thunburg, the world is going to end sooner than even YOU thought!! Lol!

Matt

Matt

We'll miss our dear friends in Sanibel, though. There's a slim chance they'll join us for a week, or so, in the Keys. Fingers crossed.

Matt

I love it too.

I’ve heard the term before but I’m not sure I know what it means. What is a 15 minute city?

Spike78

You realize that what you have your underwear in a knot about is nothing new

Any union town with factories and manufacturing has been that way forever. Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland etc etc etc. people lived and shopped and ate in the area they lived in

Nothing better than local mom and pop restaurants and local meat markets etc

The more mobile the society was the less of that was present

My suggestion to you is to get on an airplane and do some traveling. See for yourself

I have a good friend who daughter just graduated from Oxford, you know that university in Oxford England. Her slant from being there is a little different I also have a friend who lives in Oxford. X air force pilot. Further right wing than you can imagine without conspiracy non sense

His slant is a little different also. But he lives there so he may be brain washed

Bottom line is with all the talk of 15 min cities in several English towns nothing has been implemented other than some traffic pattern changes.

We have so much more to worry. About than that, but hey knock yourself out

Have a great weekend. Get some sun!

It’s pretty obvious the Biden administration is using the Nazi tactics that worked in the 1930s. They create an Imperative; CLIMATE CHANGE…. and they create a bad guy just like the Nazis did to the Jews, but in this case, it’s “The Rich”…..and Big Bad Corporations… and the Democrats will be the white nights to save us.

What most democrat voters don’t understand is that the rich pay the Lions share of the income tax the stat varies, but it’s something like the top 10% pay over 70% of the total tax. Most rich, it was not handed to them. They have worked very hard to get it within the system. The Democrats appeal to the innate jealousy of someone that has less.

Then the Democrat, voter base does not realize that the politicians are tricking them by taxing corporations. Tax is a passthru expense. It just drives up the cost of goods and services. So what the Democrats are doing is jamming us all and making it look like they are the white night.

Its trickery and it looks like the majority of voters across the United States are not smart enough to figure this out. The current administration is using the magician trick of “Look over here.”….. don’t worry about that man behind the curtain.

You mean the democratic left wing voters aren’t smart enough to figure it out. Myself and most other conservatives I know can see right through it. It’s no different than these J6 cultists, that believe 5 cops died that day. I don’t know if they actually believe it, or they’ve just been so brainwashed they can’t see straight.

Millionaires and Billionaires making themselves feel superior by talking about how the peasants should live.

If billionaires were really in a panic about climate change, they wouldn't be flying private Jets and buying waterfront homes. And they would be screaming for more nuclear power plants. But they are not....

I just think there are a lot of foolish people out there. For instance if a guy looks down and sees he got a weiner, but thinks he's a woman, that's odd. But a guy that observes such oddity and claims it's perfectly normal....he's plain foolish. The whole climate change stuff , some of it might be true, some of it is foolish.

You discern, but people that are off base in one thing are often off base in other issues as well, hence my first point.

A common sense approach to caring for our world, is simply right and proper and good stewardship. A lot of hot air by people that are a few brick short of a full load is another.

There are foolish people on both sides of the fence with the climate change issue...

One guy thinks it's ok to abuse the earth with no consequence.....

the other guy is wandering around trying to figure out what bathroom to use and saying..."dang it's hot in here, that's climate change, save the planet, stop beef production and eat salad, drive a EV, and outlaw hunting, guns, and diesel pickups, vote for Biden, and aw those two guys make a cute couple....

somewhere in between the two fools, is the rest of normal, hard working Americans, doing the best they can.

No different than those that want to prevent someone from corner crossing by stepping from public land to public land.

Or, those in congress that pass a healthcare plan for the citizens but have the option of having an entirely different and better healthcare plan.

These hypocrites all over and not limited to someone's net worth.

Sea level rise.....places I used to hunt in leather boots 20 years ago I now need knee high rubber & occasionally hip waders.

Again,,,in my life things have changed....no doubt,,,,,

But who knows, that next cold spell could be right around the corner......I'm not scared.

That didn't occur anywhere else on earth....

Sounds more like local drainage and land development issues. Hardly a global existential threat.....

And, Since the earth was a tiny speck of dust floating in the atmosphere. (James Michener book on Alaska, LOL)

Follow the money. Big Climate has billions to use to con unsuspecting low-information citizens.

As far as graphs adjusted or non adjusted, whatever, when I was young teens & 20s for weeks at a time were normal,,,ice skating on ponds in winter , normal,,,so far this winter we've had """one""" day that got down to 32 degrees. I'm no scientist, just saying in my 62 years living in va the winters have become considerably milder and the graph reflects that I was born at the beginning of a cold trend also reflects my life experience.

I think in a lot of folks the words, climate change, immediately triggers the political aspects of associated with it. I agree 100% that it is what it is & one major volcanic eruption can do more to the atmosphere in a day than humans in who knows how long.

But I'm also not gonna just ignore the changes I've witnessed in my lifetime, is all I'm saying.

Follow the money...

More like the planet is dieing & if you don't believe it, its all your fault.

I believe it's natural........but when I talk of the changes I've witnessed during my life living in va, a certain amount of folks , tend to get all huffy puffy about it. As if I'm full of poop......

There are lots of good resources out there that give a sense of how we know this isn't just normal, expected climate behavior. I find the NASA (linked) and NOAA climate (climate.gov, particularly if you go to the climate data primer section) websites to provide a pretty good primer.

Really - and how many of the "experts" are funded from sources outside the Big Climate industry? Very few, because if they don't follow the established religious doctrine and produce the expected results, their grants are pulled. Thats what happened to my late friend, Dr. William Gray, who led the top hurricane and tropical storm research team in the world.

NASA and NOAA funding are largely dependent upon promoting alarmism. Yet no scientist from either of those organizations has been able to prove that CO2 is a causal factor in climate change. It can't be reproduced in the lab. It is a classic case of correlation vs. causation, while hard data like the Vostok Ice Cores and other long term sampling appears to show CO2 as following the atmospheric warming.

Look up Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She was one of the most ardent climate alarmists, a former IPCC reviewer,, and is now blowing the top off the hoax. Of course, the MSM and grant funded "researchers" are doing everything possible to bury her ever since her book came out and she started doing interviews last fall.

There are plenty of scientists working outside the halls of academia on climate change for corporations and companies who have far greater incentives than government grants.

And for every Judith Curry, there are literally 10 scientists who've come to the opposite conclusion when looking at the data. And you're right Jaq. Like a professor I had in college said. "Correlation doesn't equal causation...but it's a damn good place to start."

Of course they do. They get paid to produce those results. Sheesh!

"There are plenty of scientists working outside the halls of academia on climate change for corporations and companies who have far greater incentives than government grants."

Yep, follow the money. Big Green corporate funded "scientists" are likely the most corrupt, because they stand to make a hell of a lot more money, stock options, bonuses, etc.. than the typical grant funded lackey. Unfortunately, there are far fewer of those jobs available.

Meantime I'm going to go out and snowshoe through three feet of snow, which Dr. David Viner famously predicted in 2000, "By 2020, snow will be a thing of the past. Children just arent going to know what snow is."

I'm not talking about Big Green corporate funded scientists. I'm talking about the scientists working for companies that are essentially the ire of Big Green.

Since the seafloor sonar mapping has taken place there's been a significant increase in the numbers of dead marine mammals,,,,,,,,,incidentally the folks doing the necropsy that have found no link between the dead whales & the folks conducting seafloor sonar mapping are both funded by the same agencies.

Yes, temperatures fluctuate. Yes, we've been colder and even warmer at times in the past. What is happening now with regard to the rate of temperature change has no real precedent in the data. We are warming up at a rate that is essentially 10 times faster than any other rate in history.

The Gods Must Be Crazy

And that was after reading many posts.

Funny that the NOAA USHCN and GHCN temperature graphs of actual measurements don't show that. Only when they are "adjusted" to reflect the desired outcome, like what the researchers at the Hadley Center CRU were caught doing when they attempted to "hide the decline" (their words).

Another interesting aspect is how the IPCC attendees (who fly in in private jets) "negotiate" an agreed-upon temperature increase to plug into models to further create alarm to lead to total upheaval of the entire global economy and way of life, while forcing the greatest wealth redistibution scheme in history, then in 10 or 20 years we will be told, "nevermind". Since when is anything scientific "negotiated"?

There is no question humans have an effect on climate. Where the gigantic and terrifically disruptive question lies, is "how much". No one knows. But if companies had stopped making snow shovels in 2000 based upon the models we're supposed to use to guide every aspect of our economy and our lives , we would all be screwed today.

I also would bet that Greta would've meant business as a Shield Maiden in the Great Heathen Army too...

They are not adjusted to reflect a desired outcome. That’s patently false. The means by which temperatures are adjusted and the methodology is well documented and peer reviewed. Even Judith Curry won’t argue the world isn’t warming.

There is no question humans have an effect on climate. Where the gigantic and terrifically disruptive question lies, is "how much". No one knows

Agreed.

Now humans may not like it. But the planet will not care. It will be just fine. With or without us.

People will do something stupid that will end humans long before we harm this planet. Nukes, man made virus, cyber attack.

Matt

If we can’t protect innocent children. Then what is worth protecting.

1960's Peak oil, and then we were going to be out of oil.

1970's New ice age coming.

1980's Acid rain. Was going to affect agriculture all over the world.

1990's Ozone layer, No one will be able to get out in the sun.

2000's Y2K Computers all over the world will be shutting down,

Even the youngsters have seen what has been predicted since 2000.

Thing is none of them came true, but gov expanded to "handle" the crisis.

Latest crisis is back to the Ozone layer. The eruption in Indonesia threw so much sea water into the air that the clorine in the sea water is going to kill the ozone layer.

Excuse me if I am just a little sceptical.

Terry

"The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” Clauser said. “In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”

Whether trying to actually change the climate or a more realistic goal of adapting to it, big problems are solved by people who are free and prosperous. Less freedom and higher taxes isn't the answer.

Science is a great thing. Some of it is reputable and established. And, some of it will never be. The never be’s seem to garner more grant and fund raising. No one gives grants, tax breaks as incentives, or fundraiser to study the certain known. Only the uncertain. Because once that’s settled scientifically, there are no more grants, fund raising, or tax incentives giving by governments to that cause. At least substantially.

When all that goes, a lot of people start losing money. And, nobody likes to loose money. So, at all cost, the fund raising, government grants and tax breaks must continue. You do that by ensuring they continue.

It would take an absolute showcase of arrogance to put one ounce of belief in anything that indicates humans have any idea, with certainty, about the minuscule temperate changes the earth has experienced.

Science says a lot of things. People pick the “facts” that are relevant. And, all the hundreds of billions that’s invested in the funding of the people choice, goes to people who gain from those picks.

Is the earth changing? Every single day. Just like every single day since God created. And every single day from now until God destroys it with fire. It’s changing. And, we will never stop it from doing so. And we have no idea if we are increasing or decreasing those changes.

The only thing we certainly know about the climate besides it changes, it a lot of people have/are getting rich on the alarmist approach that’s been used to brow beat us with it.

That’s the science of human nature. That hasn’t changed since “In the Beginning”. And, it won’t change until the end. Guaranteed Fact.

Great point. A free innovative society can solve problems.

It's hard to say if ESG investment firms aren't driving these hires.

Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old . Homo Sapiens appeared about 160,000 years ago .

Who recorded history before man appeared? I understand samples can be analyzed and predictions and theories can be made but they are just predictions and theories.

The earliest records that have ever been found were from 3200 years ago and I bet there wasn’t any climate data in that.

There’s some vague temperature readings from the 1600s but any meaningful climate data didn’t start being recorded until late 1800s and they weren’t doing any computer analysis back then.

So, we have about 140 years of data out of 4.5 billion years worth of history. I think the scientists would call that statistically insignificant.

I would expect a doubter to be open minded about the subject at the least. It baffles me .

i guess in a round about way, both actually are caused by man...its called "social contagion.

might just as well…everyone else is.

restroom deniers…

I’m sorry which nonsense are we debunking? The non-sense about how we got here, or the non-sense of how the planet is in a death spiral?

No offense. Forgive me if I misunderstood your point.

In certain I sound like a dingbat when I speak on the subject

What was the norm living in nc & va in my youth,,,,compared to present day is a """""HUGE"""" difference. But that's only changes over a 60 year span compared to millions......is it changing & quickly & more severely........damn straight & hell yes, absolutely,,,,, are we gonna do anything to change it ,,,,, NO,,,,,

I don’t support that.

“damn straight & hell yes, absolutely,,,,, are we gonna do anything to change it ,,,,, NO,,,,,”

So…What should be done about it?

Then explain how it does...

We know plenty about the world that took place before man arrived. Just because someone wasn’t present to observe and record something doesn’t mean there isn’t a track record of what happened. This includes global temperatures and CO2 levels.

Well, it had to start from something. I guess I should ask you how it started from nothing?

politicians asked for money saying they could stop the shift , and the taxpayers learned not to trust politicians.

Just the Name climate change alone is laughable. They should’ve picked a better slogan.

It’s like picking a slogan ice/cold Sun/hot

even if the most aggressive models are used...from what ive seen the estimates are the temps have risen less than 2 degrees over the last 150 years.

assuming thats accurate, do you really think that the temp rise attributed to the last 50 or 60 years could possibly be responsible for what you describe?

sounds to me like you might be confusing cyclical change in weather patterns with "climate change."

I found one, looks like it was over 900 degrees for a while

Don't know, not that smart...

Quit school 9th grade, installed carpet until I was 40 & have driven trucks since then,,,,neither job requires much smarts, learned skills you bet, but smarts, no.......

El ninyo,,,LA ninja,,,spelling ? Changing Jetstream currents, the earth's distance from the sun, the ozone layer, atmosphere, etc, etc, etc.

All those things way above my pay grade...........

What I do know is back in my 20s & 30s in Jan & feb We kept the beer in a cooler to stop it from being frozen at the end of the day,,,

And these days we buy ice so the beer is cold at the end of the day.

We used to have to worry about deer hung outside freezing solid,,,,,

And these days I have to worry about how those pesky bot flies get inside my deer hanging cooler.

Had a couple days in the 30s last week & again in the 30s now,,,,,,,but predicted to be close to 70 by next weekend

Does our use of fossil fuel affect the planet,,,,sure,,,,,,but so did all those mega volcanic eruptions millions of years ago & were still here.

It didn't and couldn't. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said?.

…and nothing but single celled organisms lived here and the Earth was covered entirely by water. What’s your point?

And as you said they were “estimates” because there is no recorded history and what history that is recorded is statistically insignificant compared to earths age

Yeah, I think we got a couple of wires crossed during the conversation. I wasn’t trying to be rude or combative. I’ll step out now so I don’t continue to look like a fool.

seems to me that unless you are suggesting that minneapolis is experiencing 5 times the temp increase over the same time period as the rest of the planet...youre looking at a change in weather pattern.

either that or you guys fart a whole hell of a lot over there. :)

So just because the Earth was once an inhospitable hellhole we shouldn’t worry about the fact that we’re accelerating the rate at which we make it so again? This logic makes no sense to me.

And yes, I’m being extreme for effect and don’t think we’ll make it a hellhole in the near future and I also think the some of the worst alarmists suffer from “chicken little syndrome.” Regardless, pointing to conditions billions of years ago when the earth was a much different place as a means to justify apathy or ignorance is ludicrous IMO. It shows a woeful lack of understanding of the science.

so what was your point then?

where i live in michigan its 20 degrees warmer today than it was 3 days ago...and 3 days ago it was 30 degrees colder than it was 5 days before that. those are also facts. facts that mean absolutely nothing in terms of climate change...global warming...or whatever the catch phrase happens to bee this week.

Why are you mindlessly blabbering about your 3 day temperature change?

(I'm done.. I don't do this nonsensical crap often )

because its just as mindless as a 6 degree temp change in one city over 50 years having anything to do with global warming.

Quite the opposite. One is weather, one is climate.

so are you suggesting that the fact that minneapolis is experiencing 5 times the temp increase over the same time period as the rest of the planet...it is due to global warming and not a change in weather patterns?

I’ve posted this here in the last. Be forewarned there is strong language. Turn it down if your not in an appropriate place for swearing

Now I'm done ...

Do humans have an obligation to be good stewards? Yep.

Weather is what happens day to day, climate is what happens over longer periods of time. Regardless, I didn’t see bluedog post anything about average yearly temperatures which seems to be the comparison you’re making. And yes, the climate changes in certain areas of the world can be different than the worldly averages.

So bigeasy the earth was once an inhospitable hellhole with no inhabitants and if it changes back to that it's all man's fault?

Not even close to what I said.

Do you drive a hybrid?

No.