More on fracking being great for the environment

September 14th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

From the Daily Telegraph:

Geologists have known for decades about gas trapped in shale and other rock formations, but only in the past 20 years has technology existed that allows it to be captured. In America, hydraulic fracturing, or “”, has transformed the energy supply. Shale now provides a third of its gas, up from 2 per cent a decade ago. British companies now pay four times as much for gas as their American counterparts – not something that global chemical companies can ignore when deciding where to build a new factory. Docks built to import gas into America are now exporting it.

This has been nothing short of an energy revolution, and it could well happen here. When 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas deposits were discovered in Lancashire last year – enough to power Britain for 65 years – it was without doubt the biggest energy find since North Sea oil in the Sixties. It says much about the hysterical nature of the British climate change debate, however, that this was almost entirely ignored.

Shale emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal, and is far cheaper to produce. The biggest deposits are in China, so passing fracking technology on to the Chinese could do more to reduce global carbon emissions than any airport runway ban. Yet the environmentalists have greeted shale with either complete silence, or outright hostility.

Instead of it being “Drill, baby, drill” we should be saying “Frack, baby, frack”!

Fracking is also helping people out of poverty in India.

In just one year the price of guar has surged tenfold, from about 30 rupees (about 50 U.S. cents) to around 300 rupees for each kilogram of the precious seed.

Behind the phenomenal price rise is a surge in demand.

Oil and gas companies in the United States have developed a massive appetite for guar gum powder — a key ingredient in a process called fracking, which is used to extract natural and shale gas from beneath the Earth’s surface.

Guar gum powder has unique binding, thickening and emulsifying qualities which make it ideal for fracking, explains B.D. Agarwal, the founder and managing director of Vikas WSP, an Indian company that specializes in producing the product.

So far, oil companies have not been able to find a suitable substitute, he says.

Since 90% of the world’s guar is grown in the desert belt of northwest India, local farmers in this poor area are enjoying the benefit of the guar rush. …

In May this year, Vikas gave 15 kilograms of guar seeds to 200,000 farmers and guaranteed them returns.

“Everyone in the village is now growing guar,” Kumar’s wife, Dayawanti, says. “No one talks of anything else. It’s changed the village. If you came here two years ago, you wouldn’t see joy on anyone’s face.”

Her neighbors’ house is bursting with joy. Musicians beat traditional drums to welcome guests as the community gets together to celebrate a marriage.

The bridegroom — also a guar farmer — says he would never have been able to afford this pomp if it wasn’t for guar.

So fracking is good for the environment, good for energy and good for helping people out of poverty.

So why are the Greens trying to get it banned?

 

Tags:

60 Responses to “More on fracking being great for the environment”

  1. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Hey cuzz, more money for we cuzzy bros :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    The greens are not green they are socialists that dream of a khmer rouge solution to the worlds problems

    hori I hope DPF demerits you away for unmitigated trolling and attempting to incite racial hatred

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (9,106 comments) says:

    The Watermelons represented by Gareth Hughes are touring the country telling lies about fraccing.

    Trying to represent the problems of the coals seam gas industry in Queensland as representative of the petroleum industry in NZ.

    Completely dishonest scaremongering that if they had even the slightest integrity they would be deeply ashamed of.

    The Watermelons always put the truth second.

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/05/17/taranaki-heckler-exposes-watermelon-gareth-hughes-as-fraud-and-charlatan/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    The point to remember DPF is that fracking is *better* for the environment than other sources such as oil and coal. The US has significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions by exploiting shale gas rather than coal.

    The really interesting part is the impact of fracking on earthquake risk … and is this a risk worth taking in the shaky isles?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    So why are the Greens trying to get it banned?

    I would like to think it is because fracking makes Gaia cry, but I think the real reason is that if people have access to cheaper energy they will use it and more will be lifted out of misery and poverty, which socialists hate. People being happy and prosperous is anathema to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    It hurts Gaia, hence it must be banned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Brian: Close…I think it is also because it puts their holy grail of “peak oil” back about 200 years….and because oil and gas usage supposedly cause climate change, 200 years more supply is very bad news for them…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    david garrett
    probably correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >Oil and gas companies in the United States have developed a massive appetite for guar gum powder — a key ingredient in a process called fracking

    So fracking is organic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    The Greens won’t be happy until everybody is living in equal misery.

    Fracking is one of the great technologies of our age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    >So why are the Greens trying to get it banned?

    I can’t speak for the Greens, but have you ever noticed that when you hear of something that has a long list of positives and no negatives, it normally turns out to be either corporate propaganda and spin, or Government propaganda and spin…? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Than (475 comments) says:

    RRM; Agreed, but fracking does have negatives. It can produce small earthquakes, and it can produce detectable chemical byproducts in the surrounding area. Both these need to be monitored, and precautions taken. Individual projects may even need to be forbidden if the risks are too great.

    But the Greens do not want this sort of rational risk anaylsis. They just want an absolute ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Griff is right on it. The Gweens have to rant and rave about anything regarding energy because people relate energy to the environment which is the Gweens smoke screen for being Maori loving Marxists. Please read hj’s excellent post on – A VIEW I WILL NEVER SUPPORT. This is undeniable evidence the Gweens are a second Maori Party mixed with commies dressed in Green rather than their traditional Red. Every New Zealander should be aware of this document and I have emailed to everyone I know. It again reflects just how dangerous they are beating the “gween is great” drum whilst giving knob to the Maori activists.
    Thanks hj.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    It hurts Gaia, hence it must be banned.

    The Gaia concept was popularised by James Lovelock, who is often described as the Godfather of Global Warming.
    In recent years he has been harshly critical of the radical green movement and its anti-science approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pongo (372 comments) says:

    Simple reason they want it banned, if it’s cheap, low carbon, good for the economy, abundant etc. one of the main planks for having a green party/movement disappears.
    This is about sustainability of relevance and existence for the green party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    … but have you ever noticed that when you hear of something that has a long list of negatives and no positive, it normally turns out to be Greeny propaganda and spin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Mostly the problem with the Greens is they’re never in power so they have no need to have a coherent strategy. They can have people who don’t like dams alongside people who don’t like windmills alongside no fossil fuels alongside no nukes. None of those individual people want to live in a country with no energy supply, but in aggregate that’s their platform.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    Can someone give me the evidence that earthquakes have increased in the USA in the last 10 years ( when all the extra drilling gas has taken place) ?? They have been using fracking technology since the 1950’s and suddenly we have this earthquake argument — its rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Yes Ross12, and that’s the problem. Any careful examination requires acknowledging that fracking can cause earthquakes. Really really small ones that nobody notices. But then people get all excited. So the alternatives are:

    1. The careful and thorough analysis. Fracking can cause really small earthquakes, they have no material impact, there’s no issue.

    2. The high level overview. Earthquakes aren’t an issue with fracking.

    3. The crazy green view. Fracking can cause really small earthquakes. OMG, earthquakes. Caused by fracking. Which is evil anyway because it involves fossil fuels. And did you know Chch had some earthquakes. And NZ is very susceptible to earthquakes. In fact, on the precautionary principle we should ban fracking because of earthquakes. Even though we’ve been drilling in NZ for years and all that drilling also causes earthquakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    The greens are pissed about fraking so lets burn all our lovely low grade ignite instead. The fws have no clue they twiiter on about electric cars without considering were all the electricity to run the things is going to come from,dream of a ban on dairy farming so the country goes broke, and will give the moari whats left. How green was the stone age?

    Ps any one want to buy a coastal property should be good for around fifty years at the present rise per year in sea level @ 4mm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    The really interesting part is the impact of fracking on earthquake risk … and is this a risk worth taking in the shaky isles?

    loonybonkersmad,

    We’ve been fracking in NZ for 20-odd years. The experiential evidence is that there is no significant risk

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I would have thought a wise course of action on the fracking front is to hold fire until Jan Wright delivers her report. I’m pleased she has taken up this issue and my honest opinion is that it won’t get the same treatment as lignite ie leave it in the ground, but these are the three main issues, as I understand it:

    1. If climate change is to be tackled seriously, CO2 emissions must be scaled back dramatically in the rich world and allowed to rise temporarily in the developing world before falling. This allows them time to get decarboned and takes into account that the problem, as of now, is caused by the rich world. Also, James Hansen points out that even the agreed target of 2C global average temperature rise will dramatically affect the lives and environment all of us. For example, about 600 milllion people live within 1m of sea level, and most recent estimates are that the 1m rise will be reached by or before the end of this century. Sure, we can build sea walls for a while, but the cost is enormous and the respite only temporary. James Hansen writes, in a peer reviewed paper, that although we can use all conventional sources of hydrocarbons and probably not hit catastrophe, if we go after all the unconventional or previously unexploitable sources (eg the Arctic Circle as the ice melts) then we are beqeathing future generations an uncertain future after 10,000 years of relative stability.

    2. There are serious issues of water use and contamination which generally only arise, so far as I can make out to date, if fracking is badly done. We don’t appear to have that problem in New Zealand, which is great, although the huge quanities of water required may prove to be unsustainable in the long term.

    3. Some areas of the US and Britain have suspended fracking because of the earthquakes. While they are small, we simply have insuficient knowledge to say that we are not lighting a fuse for future, more severe, earthquakes. I’ll be interested to see what Jan Wright has to say about it.

    And although the CO2 emissions may be less than oil or coal when everything, including methane release, is accounted for, the oil and coal, if things remain as they are, will still be burnt so any fracking is adding to the total carbon eventually released back into the atomsphere, regardless. China will happily take whatever oil and coal the US won’t.

    DPF appears to want a foot in both camps. On the one hand he says he accepts the science, then he dog whistles the deniers and feeds them misleading junk factoids like that from the Daily Telegraph. All in a day’s work, I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    Relevant: U.S. Energy Agency Projects A 2.8 Percent Increase In 2013 Carbon Emissions From Fossil Fuels
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/13/842441/us-energy-agency-projects-a-28-percent-increase-in-2013-carbon-emissions-from-fossil-fuels-in-the-power-sector/

    If you’re proposing we stop using all other fossil fuel sources except gas, your emissions argument is at least coherent. I don’t think you are – I think you’re proposing business as usual.

    But even allowing for that, if the object is to actually avoid warming significantly more than 2 degrees I’m afraid substituting gas simply isn’t enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Luc, Did you atually read what you have written.
    Paragraph 1 – rising water levels will be the death of us if we live above a meter of current water levels and the levels rising.

    Paragraph 2 – One of the problems with Fracking is the serious amount of water it uses – i repeat SERIOUS.

    You’ve solved your own problem as Fracking will clearly save the world.

    Message – frack to your hearts content (with the gweenies wacking in concert) and pour all the surplus water into the fracked voids – world gets its needed energy source and it solves the rising water level problem.

    Luc talk to your mate Wussell over dinner tonight about it.

    You gweens all beat on about rising water levels and yet admit one of the biggest problems facing us is lack of fresh water – and yet desalination plants will solve both problems – Google Australias solution in Melborne for an education on the biggest plant in the world. To make this joke even more obvious I am one of those ellitists that belong to a golf club which has a spring feed creek going through it. We are at the end, before it meets the sea. It always has water in it but the idiot council won’t let us take more than 1 quarter of what we need. We could easily be lowering the sea level whilst growing grass in a beautiful green area. One only needs to multiply this by thousands to make a farce of your rising sea level hystria.

    Heaven help you if you think Jan is the solution – I gaurantee she dines with Wussell as well. Very nutral. This idiot country at the arse end of the world embraces the ETS scheme while the real offenders laugh at it. Jans stance is our big income earners aren’t doing enough and should pay millions thereby prices themselves out of world markets. That will really help NZ’s economy. Is she really just another vocal liberal gween dreamer helping to destroy this country?

    Not sure you should be throwing spears at DFP about junk factoids when they clearly are you main diet!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Steve (North Shore) (4,565 comments) says:

    I have posted this before when the ‘fracking’ monster rears it’s head. It come from a friend in Colorado who does this fracking.

    Hi Robert,
    Lately here in NZ there has been a lot of talk about ‘Fracking’
    While I know the Internet is there for info, the seems to be a lot of mis-information with the media here.
    I think you do this ‘fracking’ would you like to give me the simple rundown from your perspective please.

    Sure, Steve – what would you like to know? There are several different types of fracking jobs. Slickwater, CO2, Nitrogen, and Gel fracks are the most common. Sllickwater is the basic frac job – A stage usually takes about 150,000 to 200,000 gallons of water, and around 150,0000 lbs of sand. (of course, this can vary due to the depth of the gas formation – very deep wells will use more water). A well has multiple stages – 12, 15, 20 – depends on the formation they want to get the gas from. Around here, we’re usually pumping at 6000psi to get the water and sand into the formation, and pumping the stage takes around 2 hours. The chemicals used in slickwater, co2, and nitrogen jobs are very safe to work with. Co2 and Nitrogen jobs are a little bit more dangerous than slickwater fracs due to the explosive expansion capabilities of liquid co2 and nitrogen – but dangerous to the frac hands, not the public.
    Gel jobs are a bit of a different bird – The chemicals are a bit nastier. We’re not using a lot of chemicals on the job, tho – think in terms of 1/4 or 1/2 gallon of chemical per 1000 gallons of water pumped. THink of it like this – no one will survive drinking a gallon of bleach. Dump a gallon of bleach into a swimming pool, and you can drink it all day long…
    The only chance for gas and gas byproducts to migrate is if the well and casing are compromised. The formations we are pumping into are a mile or two under ground, and theres an impermeable barrier of bedrock between the formation and any water table. If the well and casing get ruptured, tho, gas can seep up the line and contaminate water tables, so the company will pull the string and re-run the line and casing. Failures in the casing/well are pretty rare, but all wells are monitored for just this eventuality. In my 5 years of working, I’ve only seen one well in which we couldn’t frac because the pressure readings indicated a problem with the casing.

    Thanks for that Robert. Some of the weird Greenies here think fracking caused the earthquakes in Christchurch

    No problem – and they’re talking about injection wells. After a frack, they flow back the well. Basically,after the frack, the pressure of the gas in the formation pushes the water that they fracked with back out of the well and into tanks or storage ponds. Some of the water is “pressed”, or filtered and used again. If you need to get rid of a ridiculous amount of water, you drill an injection well and pump it down a mile or two underground. There is a veeery tenous connection between injection wells and mild earthquakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    lyndon

    I take it you are replying to me.

    The end goal must be to cease virtually all emissions of carbon that cannot be effectively and securely sequestered, which, by definition, will only ever be a tiny fraction of what we are currently emitting.

    I am most certainly not proposing business as usual.

    The term for the approach I favor is ‘contraction and convergence’. That is, rich nations (dramatically) reduce emissions as those from poor nations increase, but eventually all will fall to virtually zero. The luddites who inhabit the asylum here will all scream blue murder, but that is what must happen if we wish to avoid long term catastrophe – although in the climate change field, long term is increasing occurring in the short term! It’s not cost free, but the benefits are huge, including quieter, healthier environment for humans to continue to flourish.

    wfunz, in your eagerness to rush into reductio ad absurdum you conflate entirely separate issues. Just research what New York is looking at right now to protect itself from storm surges in the short term. Many areas in the US no longer allow building on low lying land near the sea as insurance companies are refusing to insure them. Meantime, many other states are suffering severe, long term, water shortages.

    And I’m sure you nodded your head approvingly when Jan Wright said 1080 was effective and benign when used to kill possums (except for the possums, of course).

    Steve, that’s pretty much what the industry has been saying for a long time, but sometimes humans still don’t like the idea of being all shook up even if the shaking can only be felt in one’s imagination. I think the inquiry here will show that the earthquake risk is insignificant, and for that reason alone it’s a good enquiry to have. Even wfunz above might grudgingly allow a little respect to the work of some of our best scientists when the report is issued.

    The trick will be not to cherry pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    Luc

    Do you support nuclear power ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Ross

    I’m happy to live in a country where that option need not be considered.

    But James Hansen says we should be going full steam ahead with modern, safer nuclear plants but the problem is, with the time delay from decision to commission, it may be too little too late. Solar, wind, wave and tidal technologies are better short term bets, from what have read so far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Going to love that answer Ross.

    Luc- The areas you talk about are built below sea level and have always flooded. And again you talk about water shortages – which is it? We are at different ends of the spectrum on this issue Luc and only time will tell. I’m more than happy to sit in the sceptics camp at the moment and all our property is a meter above Sea level. You keep killing New Zealand with your hysteria though. We are a super successful country that can aford all sorts of dreams just look at where we sit on the OECD table.
    A special thanks for taking us there to you and your followers. Gween on!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    The end goal must be to cease virtually all emissions of carbon that cannot be effectively and securely sequestered

    This is the real problem of course, the Greens and their equivalent of The Jewish Question: a cynically manufactured hysteria specifically intended to further their political objectives and deliver power into their bloody hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    wfunz

    Sea level around New York has risen about one foot in the last hundred years,thus storm surges are more damaging. You need to open your mind to true facts, not right wing pap.

    I don’t do research, I just read the results and take note. If you wandered through the latest papers e.g. http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/pdf/climate.2010.29.pdf and you will be rather better informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “I don’t do research” = Too dumb! :)

    “I just read the results and take note.”

    Always had you figured as a sort of secretary sheila Luc.

    What length you wearing your skirts this year? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Ah, James Hansen. Let’s see what else this global warming expert predicted from his computer models:

    Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.” (from 1986)

    “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.‘ (also 1986)

    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/

    “James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

    Hansen is laughing all the way to the bank (his scaremongering has earned him well in excess of a million dollars) while earnest-but-useful idiots like Luc swallow his bullshit and ask for more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Sea level around New York has risen about one foot in the last hundred years,thus storm surges are more damaging. You need to open your mind to true facts, not right wing pap.

    That’s hysterical. Do you think the sea level was constant before around 1850? Do you Luc? Because that’s the implication of statement.

    For your information, the sea level has always been changing and trending one way or the other. Therefore the statement “Sea level around New York has risen about one foot in the last hundred years” has no significance whatsoever, apart from the displaying your complete credulousness.

    And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years. Not what the alarmists promised us, eh Luc? Where is the rapidly increasing sea level we were promised?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Luc,
    So water levels around NZ have also risen by 1ft. And around the rest of the world?
    And you can find no sites that say nature.com are a bunch of green nutters?

    Look forward to hearing from you – meanwhile I’ll hit Google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    No answer Luc.
    Sadly I find your site full of contradictions and withdrawals. Read below:-

    Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

    The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

    It was wrong!!!!!!

    Your most recent source Rhamstorf is a complete nutter given a cease and desist order for his public assault on a female journalist brave enough to challenge his rubbish. German with a PHd from Victoria Uni is a worry. Another weally good mate of Wussells I suspect. Just what the world needs – another crazy German indoctrinated by NZ’s gweens/commies – excellent.

    Let me know if the water is lapping at your toes in the morning however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    @wtfunz

    Nature is arguably the greatest scientific research journal in the modern age. It has got nothing to do with green nutters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    Wat wat telling bullshit again with out even backing up his statement
    “And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years. Not what the alarmists promised us, eh Luc? Where is the rapidly increasing sea level we were promised?”

    You note Watwat that two links one to wiki that has the source of data and one to a government research unit No unexplained graphs with no source for the data
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
    High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century.

    Ad hommes on a respected scientist from A Watts are pathetic.The guys just upset that his effort to get his 1st paper published was found to have a basic and stupid mistake. Shite even a kid knows that the temperature rises during the day I guess A Watts just plum forgot. :lol:

    And linking to a site that has no information about who or what it is a fail hauntingthelibrary is a collection of newspaper and magazine pieces to refute it only takes “the journalist is a cock” the site proves nothing but MSM sucks at science reporting

    No more rubbish wat wat it wastes time and effort to find out wat the fuck you are linking to University’s or research units and Government and science journals or similar quality science Or you are just wanking denial…… have a nice day Wat wat

    Ps you paid up that booktoken yet its dumb to promise a prize and renege in public budy just proves your level of shite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Ah Griff,

    I’m going to let you in on a little secret. When you confidently cite scientific papers which in fact completely contradict your argument and actually confirm the sceptical case, all the bluster and lies in the World won’t stop you looking like a tit.

    And when you choose to completely ignore the evidence which you yourself cited, you just confirm yourself as totally dishonest. A liar. Okay?

    So just stop digging, mate. You seem to desperately imagine that an aggressive attitude will make people forget your humiliation and lies. It doesn’t. It just draws attention to them.

    Time to grow up a little, son. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to others.

    Now, where is the accelerating sea level rise we were promised?

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262

    As can be seen, the recent rate is at most no different to all the decades that have gone before it. This is why Hansen’s other notoriously wrong predictions – about devastating flooding – have proved to be as hilariously wrong as his ones about extreme temperature increases:

    I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in [40] years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

    Who here thinks this is going to happen to New York in the next 20 years?

    So let’s recap: Hansen – a scientist at the very heart of the global warming scare – has made predictions about extreme temperature and sea-level trends, all of which are completely and hopelessly wrong. Recent temperatures have been flat, and the sea level trend is unchanged.
    Bizarrely, even when the warming predictions have all failed spectacularly and incontrovertibly, desperate alarmists cling to their religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    Watwatwat
    we are discussing your post of
    wat dabney (1,930) Says:
    September 14th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    “And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years”
    This is a totally unsupported fabrication Ie what we normally call a lie
    I much prefer to call it Bullshite from the nutters

    Then after being pulled up for bullshiting you post a graph of two decades of rise and state
    at most no different to ALL the decades that have gone before it
    That can not be deduced from only two decades of information FAIL I have posted the required information to disprove your original statement you are now adding bullshite on top of your already proven pile of bullshite

    The rest of your post is pathetic personal smears aimed at one man. Not worth the effort to even read let alone discus

    Come on WatWAtWAt caught out again for bullshit sea levels have increased by 50% MORE IN THE LAST THREE DECADES when you said they had declined

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    “And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years”
    This is a totally unsupported fabrication Ie what we normally call a lie
    I much prefer to call it Bullshite from the nutters

    Let’s see who NASA agrees with, shall we?

    While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it’s been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.” [2011]

    http://climate.nasa.gov/news/?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=570

    So NASA confirms that sea level actually fell by quarter of an inch and goes to far as to call this a “pothole” in the trend.

    There is absolutely no hint of the increasing rate of change that the alarmists promised. Once again the evidence supports the sceptical position.

    The rest of your post is pathetic personal smears aimed at one man. Not worth the effort to even read let alone discus

    No, it isn’t a smear. In science, predictions are an essential means of testing a hypothesis.

    Hansen made a serious of such predictions, based on his claims for how the atmosphere works (based on totally unproven and mistaken beliefs about supposed positive feedback mechanisms.)

    Years later we have a chance to examine his predictions and to test the validity of his hypothesis.

    And guess what? He was spectacularly wrong. Again and again he is spectacularly wrong.

    If he had been correct then I’m sure you would not consider it a “smear” to revisit his predictions. You would (correctly) take them as good evidence for the theory.

    Your problem, of course, is that he has been proven completely wrong and therefore his global warming theory is effectively disproven. So in your dishonesty you try to adopt the laughable position that it is a “smear” to examine his predictions.

    If you stop lying to yourself, Griff, then perhaps you will stop lying to us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Mixing two things together in stories/ More on fracking being great for the environment

    Same person different thought mode.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    wat wat wat I have dis proven you post of
    September 14th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    “And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years”

    Now you are digger even deeper into your pile of shite your latest graph pre dates the previous one that showed the rise after the short fall
    A pot hole on a sloping road does not change the slope of the road
    A one year blip in the rise in sea level does not prove that sea level rise is declining over years
    A graph showing only two decades does not prove the trend over many decades

    As for attacking Hansen , Mann or any other scientist and not the published science. I am not the least bit interested in such pathetic bullshite it has no relevance to the climate debate Its not about the personality’s its about science.

    This is why I end up just :lol: at you nutters proven wrong and still trying to bullshite the same lie

    have you paid up yet for offering a book token for finding a temperature series that shows a rise from a graph you posted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Can some one help out with this question? As a keen beach goer I have had long term interaction with 3 beaches – Foxton, Sandspit and Whangamata. Over 50 years I don’t see any evidence of “significant” rising sea levels if any at all. We then have Luc suggesting a foot rise in the US. My question – Is this even possible? Won’t water levels rise evenly around the globe? Or is it accumulating only around the middle section like beer does to me? Maybe the answer is that the water around the US is getting fat like the yanks!!! Seriously – does anyone here have a specific beach that shows real evidence of rising sea levels?

    PS. We also regularly visit Hawkes Bay, Muriwai, Thames. Tidelines on the rocks and beaches remain the same. Even when fishing the Hauraki there is no evidence of this. I haven’t had to put an extra foot on the fishing line or dive deeper for the crays. The Rangitoto Light House doesn’t appear to be sinking!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Griff,

    What don’t you understand when NASA says “the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time.”

    Seriously. What don’t you understand about that simple statement of facts?

    The alarmism of Hansen and others was based on a significant increase over and above the natural rate of rise. This hasn’t happened. And in fact the most notable event has been a “pothole” in the chart where sea level actually declined.

    Longer term data is here. Again, absolutely no sign of an increasing rate of change:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

    Once again the predictions of the alarmists are proven false by hard evidence.

    As for attacking Hansen , Mann or any other scientist and not the published science. I am not the least bit interested in such pathetic bullshite it has no relevance to the climate debate Its not about the personality’s its about science.

    I repeat: it is Hansen’s scientific predictions being discussed here, because they are a crucial part of validating or falsifying the theory.

    As it turned out the theory has been falsified, since all of his predictions were wildly wrong.

    You know this, but you pathetically and dishonestly try make out that an assessment of his failed scientific predictions is an ad hominem attack on Hansen himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    I doubt very much the actual rise is discernible to a casual observer There are more cases of storm surge effecting the coast
    I spent a few hours at oraki rescuing trailer boats from the major storm last year the owners thought they were well at of reach of the surge
    Mangere bridge has storm surge flooding that is getting worse every major storm as is the flooding along the north western motorway and the waterfront at mission bay The pamure boating club building is now lapped by water on large tides this was not the case when it was first built
    Incremental changes are hard to see but we expect roads and buildings to last generations over this time frame we have a discernible and developing problem

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Since constant natural changes in sea level are the norm, such anecdotes are evidence of nothing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff, you suggest we should listen to the scientists. The fact is all their predictions have been wrong. Not just by a little, but by allot. That is not an opinion, but a simple observation of fact. You can go back and check the predictions made with brief Google search. Now go have a look outside and see for yourself.

    In any other area of science we would be calling into question the ability and knowledge of the scientists. Why do we not do this with so called climate science?

    Given that this whole AGW thing has freed up billions of dollars for research, and enabled science to finally get some funding, would you not be questioning the integrity and motivation of these people? Any scientist who questions AGW is putting at risk all those billions. It is really just common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    fuck read your statement aloud to your self
    “And if anything the rate of change has been declining in recent years”.
    Then go to the website you just posted
    over the ground based tide gage record 1870 to 2000 1.7mm per year
    over the later satellite based records 1993 tonow 3.1mm per year
    fucken math is not your strong point is it
    # 3.1 is greater than 1.7 this shows an increase in the rate of sea level change for the last two decades
    I posted long ago the graph including tide gage and satellite records from 1870 to present fuck off with the bullshit of your refusal to actually admit your mistake
    Wat you are trying to attack published science with news stories and opinion
    To disprove the science you need to publish not insult
    Mann and Hansen are two of thousands working in the field of climate science
    You are trying to attack many by attacking just one
    in refuting the climate denial business this method works because there are only a few nutters in main stream science it doesn’t because there are thousands of scientists
    you have totally lost it today good to see

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff is right. How could I be so thick. I should listen to the “science”

    Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

    “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” (ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free).

    Come on Griff, how come Welly is not under water, it snows there and the Arctic is full of snow and ice.? Please explain…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    “constant natural changes in sea level are the norm”
    So now the decline as stated by you is a constant change and not the actual increase ?
    fuck thats right watwat dont let the actual reality get in the way of a story

    kea
    google and the net is awash with bias and all sorts of spin to look at the scientists spin on the early models and the present temperature read
    http://www.realclimate.org/
    To many times the information from those that are sceptical of global warming is proven false or deliberately misleading as my argument with wat proves
    interesting that you say the scientists are wrong they were massively wrong about the extent of Arctic ice melt this year the melt was way more then the models have predicted
    wat models not newspaper reports and spin from denial sites you know the science not your opinions and stories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Ok lets put that aside for a moment. You have outlined the problem, now what is the solution?

    The causes most often give for AGW are:

    1) Capitalism.
    2) The United States of America.
    3) George W Bush.
    4) White People.

    I sounds more like politics than climate science to me buddy.

    We are told that the world will end, unless we renounce capitalism and become a global village of organic farming communist vegans with a one world government.

    Pol Pot tried this in real life.

    What do you think Griff?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Griff (7,810 comments) says:

    Its on this post if you scroll back to the start
    put your head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye
    I do not see any political solution to the problem developing Just because I support science does not mean I support the greens or the un on this
    It would be better if we concentrated on the effects of a warmer world and long term planing for the new world then destroy western society to try to stop the use of co2 We are one of the few nations that could benefit more than suffer small lumpy islands middle of nowhere and maritime climate
    The scientists are not motivated by greed or socialism they are doing the geek thing not the political thing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. MH (762 comments) says:

    GRACE is the first Earth-monitoring mission in the history of space flight whose key measurement is not derived from electromagnetic waves either reflected off, emitted by, or transmitted through Earth’s surface and/or atmosphere. Instead, the mission uses a microwave ranging system to accurately measure changes in the speed and distance between two identical spacecraft flying in a polar orbit about 220 kilometers (140 mi) apart, 500 kilometers (310 mi) above Earth. The ranging system is sensitive enough to detect separation changes as small as 10 micrometres (approximately one-tenth the width of a human hair) over a distance of 220 kilometers.

    As the twin GRACE satellites circle the globe 15 times a day, they sense minute variations in Earth’s gravitational pull. When the first satellite passes over a region of slightly stronger gravity, a gravity anomaly, it is pulled slightly ahead of the trailing satellite. This causes the distance between the satellites to increase. The first spacecraft then passes the anomaly, and slows down again; meanwhile the following spacecraft accelerates, then decelerates over the same point.

    By measuring the constantly changing distance between the two satellites and combining that data with precise positioning measurements from Global Positioning System (GPS) instruments, scientists can construct a detailed map of Earth’s gravity.

    The two satellites (nicknamed “Tom” and “Jerry”) constantly maintain a two-way microwave-ranging link between them. Fine distance measurements are made by comparing frequency shifts of the link. As a cross-check, the vehicles measure their own movements using accelerometers. All of this information is then downloaded to ground stations. To establish baseline positions and fulfill housekeeping functions, the satellites also use star cameras, magnetometers, and GPS receivers. The GRACE vehicles also have optical corner reflectors to enable laser ranging from ground stations, bridging the range between spacecraft positions and Doppler ranges.

    Just in case some were wondering how they measure rises and falls in sea levels,the oceans are not an even levelled surface.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. wat dabney (3,776 comments) says:

    Sea Ice Area Sets New Record High

    The amount of sea ice around Antarctica is the greatest ever for the date, and the thirteenth highest daily value ever measured. Most of the world’s sea ice is located around Antarctica, and it has been steadily increasing for at least 30 years.

    Hansen predicted peak sea ice loss around Antarctica,

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/record-high-sea-ice-area/

    Ooh those “denier sites”. Always posting damned evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    The Greens only believe evidence when it suits them:

    2008 Comrade Locke:
    The Green Party policy is not based on prejudice, but an objective analysis of what level of migration is compatible with a sustainable New Zealand.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy
    ————————–

    For example Lowe (1997) analysed the availability of good quality soils and the average person’s resource use, and came to the conclusion that 4

    million was the optimal population, a figure that has now been passed.
    http://kauri.aut.ac.nz:8080/dspace/bitstream/…/clydesdale.GrowingPains.pd…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    The main focus of New Zealand immigration policy has been on attracting human capital.
    However other arguments have been proposed for attracting immigrants including the desire
    to reach an ‘optimum population’. For example, Lowe (1997) analysed the availability of
    good quality soils and the average person’s resource use, and came to the conclusion that 4
    million was the optimal population, a figure that has now been passed.
    http://kauri.aut.ac.nz:8080/dspace/bitstream/…/clydesdale.GrowingPains.pd…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I think it’s a white middle class thing. Africans dying of smoke inhalation for want of available electricity from a nuclear or coal-fired , or water – powered generator or Indians living in poverty don;t really affect white middle class people in the ‘developed world’. We can buy our ‘Khatmandhu’ t-shirts for about a 1000 times what the poor sucker who made it gets paid, and justify our SUV’s because it’s ‘safer for the kids’, but essentially such things, along with with luxury to ‘choose Green’ is all built on the sweat toil, disease and suffering of other unfortunates in the ‘developing’ world. So NIMBYism looms large here, I feel.

    This white middle class thing has even impacted on our our property values – you can’t build in many parts of Auckland because of people claiming to do so would jeopardise the ‘ecosystem’, when what they really mean is ‘spoil my views, affect the investment I’ve put into my equity, and allow the hoi-polloi into the neighbourhood.’

    Green supporters are genuine people, They really do believe in their cause, but I wonder how many, if offered a stark choice ie a free state-funded bike for their kids if they promised to use it to get to school, or signing a pledge not to use their car unless it was car-pooled, would take it? We can’t even get our Green Ministers to lobby for hybrids, or abandon their travel expenses so they can enjoy that extra glass of (from often non-native modified crops) wine at a conference. . . The movement can afford to put a satellite into space to measure the thickness of Arctic ice, but can’t put a single glass of clean drinking water, cheap cataract operation, contraceptive or innoculation in front of an ‘average’ African. In short it appears to care more about polar bears than people.

    It’s a crying shame because these are literate and useful potential advocates who have been misguided IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Philonz (88 comments) says:

    Sometimes I’m astounded by the apparent hatred of science from both the right and the left. Firstly the shale gas isn’t going anywhere so surely there’s no rush to get to it. It’s value is only going to rise, particularly as Japan will soon start getting rid of nuclear power and replacing some of that generation with gas. as there is no rush why not take the time to get the science right? When the commissioner for the Environment releases her report we should take some time to discuss it then set some sensible policies and controls. It’s obvious that if we rush in without proper policy then we’ll end up with contaminated water tables and an environmental mess but if we take the time to choose sites carefully, use the right technologies, enforce proper monitoring and controls then we should be ok. Love the science people – evidence based decisions rule.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Very well said, Lee C.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote