Page 2 of 76
Posted on May 9 at 12:13 p.m.
March 2015 was the warmest March since 1880. The first quarter of 2015 was the warmest first quarter on record in 136 years. 2014 was the warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years in the past 136 years have occurred in the past 17 years. These conclusions were not derived from a model but rather represent data from direct measurement. We know that the polar ice is melting because we can measure it. We know how much CO2 and methane are in the atmosphere because we can directly measure the concentrations of those gasses. We know that that CO2 and methane act as greenhouse gasses because that fact has been proven by scientific process. Models are a useful tool, used by scientists to attempt to predict outcomes based on certain assumed conditions. The reality of climate change is not based on modeling. It is based on real measureable and observable data. You can deny it’s happening Nativegeo, but nature really does not care about your opinion.
On 7 Dogs for 7 Sisters
Posted on May 8 at 9:34 p.m.
The really great thing about science, is that it is not subject to opinions from the peanut gallery. It is based on facts that have been derived from rigorous research and analysis; and when the new research shows new facts then the scientific consensus changes. However, on the internet, every idiot's opinion is equal to scientific research. Consequently, if someone tells you that jumping off a 15 story building will be fatal, there are hundreds of arguments telling you that maybe you will not die. There are folks (none of them serious scientists) who will tell you that Darwin's theory of natural selection is bunk. There are folks that firmly assert that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Climate change is a real thing and it is caused by an accumulation of greenhouses gasses, which include CO2 and methane, and it is going to get worse before we are able to collectively assemble the political will to do something about it. It is one thing to be ignorant due to the fact that you just never had the opportunity to be informed. There is no excuse for intentional ignorance. On the other hand, according to Darwin, over time, the intentionally ignorant will be sorted out of the gene pool. Unfortunately that won't happen soon enough to protect those of us living with them today from their ignorance.
Posted on May 7 at 12:35 p.m.
Globally, nationally, and locally, there is not sufficient collective political will to enact any substantive public policies necessary to mitigate the aspects of global climate change that have been caused by human activities. As a community of humans, we are not going to respond soon enough to prevent a fairly disastrous outcome. Being humans however, as the climate changes and begins to put real pressure on larger populations, we will do a very effective job at adapting to the changes in our environment. Such adaptations will not be pretty or cheap and the benefits of the adaptations will not be equitably distributed, which will lead to economic disruption and political unrest throughout the world. Same old story with us humans. Someday we'll go extinct, but not this time I believe. Many millions will die and many coastal and island communities will be inundated. The wealthy nations will muddle through in grumbling discomfort and the poor nations will suffer miserably. The Katie Davises of the world will get "I-told-you-so" rights and the Andy Caldwells of the world will blame it all on government. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "so it goes."
Posted on May 5 at 1:24 p.m.
Loon is correct. In California, a fishing license is not required for fishing from any pier. I don't know the history of how this regulatory exemption came about, but it is a fact.
On Goleta Pier Reopens After Repairs
Posted on May 1 at 7:56 p.m.
I don't understand all the umbrage Jarvis. The Capps ad reported exactly the sentiment that Mitchum intended (i.e., there are bigger issues in federal government than bringing home the pork to the 24th District). Personally, I vote for Senators to handle the national policy issues and I vote for House of Representative members to look after the implications of national policy on local issues. Does that mean bringing home some federal tax dollars to repair our roads and build ball parks? You bet it does. I don't speak with a forked tongue Jarvis. I'm a loud and proud liberal. I believe that the fact that government spending represents 35% or our entire economy is what keeps our economy afloat. If you asked me, I would say that Obamacare did not go far enough. Mitchum lost because most people in the 24th District are liberals. It's simple math.
On Judge Tosses Mitchum Defamation Suit Against Capps
Posted on May 1 at 5:38 p.m.
Geck's ruling gets this exactly right. The advertisement did not change the meaning of Mitchum's statement one bit. He intended to say that he was not going to go to Washington to serve the parochial interests of the people of the 24th district (e.g., ensuing as much federal tax dollars as possible get sent back here for local projects and jobs). Rather he was going to Washington to fight the battle against the liberal income redistribution schemes that have been installed in this Country since the 1930s. It turns out that the majority of voters happen to like Social Security and Medicare (and, as it turns out, Raytheon, Vandenberg Air Force Base, highway construction projects, UCSB, schools in general, and the rest of tax funded economic activity that makes up 35% of our economy). So he lost and Lois won. Great news for the conservatives is that they get another chance in 2016. I recommend that they be smarter this time an present a candidate that can get elected.
Posted on April 29 at 8:45 p.m.
This is at least the second construction worker that has been killed on a Chumash project. What is up with that? Are they practicing third world safety procedures in order to save money? Come on Chumash, you have more money than God. Pull it together and get your safety program in order.
On Construction Worker Dead from Fall at Chumash Casino
Posted on April 25 at 9:39 p.m.
I agree with you Nativegeo that producing in fields that have a higher gas to oil ratio makes the steaming option less expensive. However, even so, isn't the ability to make money on such projects dependent on the oil selling for somewhere in $70 - $80 per barrel range (in 2015 dollars)? It seems to me that $43/barrel is pretty far off that mark. I am open to correction if I am wrong about this. I didn't call you a liar. I just thought that you were being a little disingenuous by not acknowledging certain facts about the reality of the quality of the oil in Cat Canyon and cost and energy inputs necessary to extract it. I'm not anti-petroleum (I drive a car and play on surfboards, etc.). However, it seems to me to be weird to spend far more Btu inputs to extract the oil than it would ever pay out in Btu energy outputs as refined fuel. Making asphalt to spread on roadways is another calculus, but still the energy inputs to produce that asphalt should be considered. You are correct though that if Area wants to bet the farm on higher oil prices that is their economic affair and not mine. However, chasing an $80/barrel profit point with $43/barrel oil seems a bit silly to me.
On Oil Company Proposes 296 New Wells
Posted on April 24 at 9:44 p.m.
Nativegeo, you have not contradicted or presented any facts to counter anything that I have posted on this string. I agree with you (as I must because those are the facts) that there is a great deal of residual oil left in Cat Canyon. However, the quality of that oil is poor (far less than 20 gravity), the emulsion is mostly water (in some cases exceeding 90%), and it costs a lot of energy and money to extract it. I am not making a judgment as to whether or not we should extract it. I am just musing as to whether or not it is worth it in terms of safety and economics. I wish I could live up to your label "greenie," but, alas, I spend much to much time on the deck of plank of polyurethane foam that is encased in fiberglass and resin to be able to get up on the "greenie' high horse. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Posted on April 24 at 7:51 p.m.
Come on Nativegeo, you know better than that if you were around in the 70s and 80s. Steam enhancement only became cost effective after the Arab oil embargo increased the price of crude. Some of the early steaming projects actually used the produced crude as fuel for the steam generators. Some fields produced enough gas to use that as fuel (often high sulfur gas as that). When the price of natural gas dropped it made the practice even more profitable because environmental regulations were cheaper to comply with. All the time the price of crude continued to increase (with some dips and jumps here and there), which made steaming even more profitable. Now that oil is back down to around $50/barrel (and who knows what that Cat Canyon goo is worth per barrel ($7? $10? even as much as $20?), steaming just does not make sense unless the product is specialized (like asphalt) or Saudi Arabia blinks and cuts production and the price goes back up. I am not offended by your bias Nativegeo, but I am rather put off when you are not honest.