Scientists link harsh winter to dramatic decline in Arctic Sea Ice

[Cobalt_Kid]

Who said they were formed from sedimentary? What is called when rock is weathered, heated and compressed back into rock? What type of sedimentary rock is made of mainly weathered and then cemented igneous rock?

You were associating REEs deposits with the oil sands, it's two different processes that produce two very different kinds of deposits. While there are REEs there, they originally formed as part of igneous deposits. There are all sorts of materials in the tar sands, you don't need that kind of deposit to mine REEs, which is what I was taking from your post.

What makes you think that? There is a massive REE deposit that sits next to the oil sands and under the oil sands, how would it be extracted without hacking down forests and raising toxic dust? Mine the oil first then go after the REEs?

Weathering is a surface process that can result in the production of material that ends up in sedimentary deposits.

When sedimentary rock is heated and it's physical structure is deformed under pressure it becomes metamorphic rock.

Igneous rock is melted at depth and rises through the crust to either erupt on the surface or cool slowly at depth.

 

[petros]

Some black shales contain abundant heavy metals such as molybdenum, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. (AKA REEs)

[6][7][8] The enriched values are of controversial origin, having been alternatively attributed to input from hydrothermal fluids during or after sedimentation or to slow accumulation from sea water over long periods of sedimentation.[7][9][10]


Any questions?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

REEs will end up in low concentrations in sedimentary rock as the igneous rock they were originally deposited in erodes and is deposited. In the case of oil sands, the challenge is to process the relatively low concentrations economically. With a REE deposit in igneous rock they can be mined economically, especially if you utilize the thorium present for power production in nuclear reactors.

Some black shales contain abundant heavy metals such as molybdenum, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. (AKA REEs)

[6][7][8] The enriched values are of controversial origin, having been alternatively attributed to input from hydrothermal fluids during or after sedimentation or to slow accumulation from sea water over long periods of sedimentation.[7][9][10]


Any questions?

I just answered this below.

The issue isn't that REEs are there in oil sands or shales, it's if they're there in commercial concentrations. With a REEs deposit in an igneous formation the elements are concentrated in commercially viable amounts, and if you extract the thorium to produce power then it becomes even more economical.

You don't need oil sands and shales to mine REEs, if fact it's not a profitable deposit for them.

 

[petros]

I just answered this below.

The issue isn't that REEs are there in oil sands or shales, it's if they're there in commercial concentrations. With a REEs deposit in an igneous formation the elements are concentrated in commercially viable amounts, and if you extract the thorium to produce power then it becomes even more economical.

You don't need oil sands and shales to mine REEs, if fact it's not a profitable deposit for them.

You just contradicted yourself. No wonder you're so confused about the myth of AGW.

Name one just one REE mine that is extracting REEs from igneous rock.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

You just contradicted yourself. No wonder you're so confused about the myth of AGW.

How?

REEs are in low concentrations in the oil sands as a result of secondary deposit and leaching from other primary formations.

You don't need oil sands or shales to mine REEs and thorium which is my point. They can be more efficiently and profitably mined from their primary deposits, which are igneous not sedimentary in origin.

So you don't need to remove hundreds of square miles of forest and you certainly don't need to mine major portions of the oil sands to get access to REEs and thorium which seems to be your focus.

 

[petros]

Go back and read what I originally posted before you screw yourself even worse. You posted a link which says the complete opposite of what you are thinking. Go back and read it and LEARN SOMETHING.

 

[Zipperfish]

If he doesn't pick and choose his data he would know all the AWG claims are BS.

BS? How do you know? You're on record as saying temperature records from the past are no good, so you realy don't know either way.

 

[Jonny_C]

I still see the tendency to treat thorium as the magic bullet. I'll say again... it isn't there yet.

 

[Trex]

Yet Russia with more comparable seasonal weather to Canada has a population of what, about 145 million? Is Russia special in that people didn't have warmer countries to choose to live in? I think not. What about Australia? Pretty warm, but they have a lower population than we do. The reason? There's not one, there are many. Choosing weather alone to explain something complex like population is foolish.

Equally foolish is trying to say with such certainty what the future will hold. A good start on what could be expected is found here:
From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate | Earth Sciences

What's really foolish is your rebuttal.

I was talking about the new world which in the whole is somewhat similar in demographic development time frames.

You bring up Russia as your example.
Now that is foolish.
Really foolish.

Russia has one toe in the Mediterranean region, another toe in the Muslim Heartlands, one finger in Europe, another finger in Asia and it's head in the high Arctic.
It's southern regions combined with Iran and Iraq are most probably the cradle of known of civilization.
Russia has been the home of agrarian settlements for over 35,000 years.
Following the original small community developments by wandering pastoral and agrarian tribes, settlements were probable developed to support ancient Asian, Persian and Germanic trade routes.
And then came the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols and the Barbarians.
Followed by Muslims and Christians.
I cannot really think of many countries less comparable to Canada historically.
Granted parts of Russia are in the Arctic and so are parts of Canada.

I was talking about the New World.
If we look at what is now Mexico, USA and Canada the demographic settlement times are roughly similar.
400 odd years.
All three countries were a result of colonial exploitation and all were inhabited by native Indians.
Cod, minerals (silver, gold and some gemstones), lumber (for shipbuilding) and furs were the exploitable resources of the day.
Granted early settlements followed trade routes, food supplies, defendable outposts and harbours (both fresh and salt).
Later development consisted of the descendants of the original settlers breaking the land and forming farming and ranching communities.
Land availability, water and the climate were the most important considerations.
Canada has lots of land and lots of water.
I stand by my claim that in large regions of Canadian climate is unsuitable for multiple crop agriculture.
Canada is far less densely populated than Mexico or the United States.
There are reasons for that.
Mainly the climate.
Given we have the water and land I personally think that a slight warming trend in Canada could be beneficial agriculturally.

You claim it is foolish for me to claim what the future may hold.
But why just me?
What about all the others that claim global warming is a future problem and why are their future predicitions acceptable to you?
Cherry picking your personal beliefs perhaps?
Predicting the future is unknowable.

My prediction is that raising global temperatures a few degrees will not impact Canada in a detrimental way.

Why should Canada foot the bill for a problem that will not affect us?

 

[L Gilbert]

Scroll back....

Yeah, and ....?

And if the temperature dropped to about 4 deg above absolute zero every night, you'd have a point worth debating. :lol:

4 degrees above absolute zero is 4ºK

You've heard of the mesosphere haven't you?

The mesosphere (/The upper boundary of the mesosphere is the mesopause, which can be the coldest naturally occurring place on Earth with temperatures below 130 K (−226 °F; −143 °C).

I have and the mesosphere does not get down to 4ºK.

 

[Zipperfish]

.

My prediction is that raising global temperatures a few degrees will not impact Canada in a detrimental way.

Pine Beetle in BC. Billions of dollars. One of the primary reasons this pine beetle infestation was so catastrophic--warmer winters.

 

[Trex]

Pine Beetle in BC. Billions of dollars. One of the primary reasons this pine beetle infestation was so catastrophic--warmer winters.

Somewhat true.

There have been a several books by fairly well respected botanist/entomologist types published.
The pine beetle is native and thus belongs where ever it chooses to rest it's weary wings in North America.
Yes it's range hs increased.
And the spotted owl and black footed ferret's ranges have decreased.
It is what it is.
The fact that the pine beetle is costing logging corporations a ton of money really does not sway me one way or the other.
Analysts have claimed that California's slow, bureaucratic and hard leftist ,greeny leaning environmentally friendly system of governance failed to curb the beatle in the first place.
Alberta claims British Columbia did a crap job of slowing the spread.
BC blames Washington and Oregon.
Everybody agrees it's probably California's fault.
Whatever.

New trees will replace the affected pines.
Does anyone actually believe no regrowth will take place?
Much of BC is a cool, moist and temperate climate.
A little warmer with a bit more diversity in the forests will not be the end of my world.
Nor will the complaints of a few mono culture logging outfits.
Embrace the diversity.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's not just "somewhat true". It is one of the main reasons for the unprecedented expansion of the mountain pine beetle.

 

[Trex]

That's not just "somewhat true". It is one of the main reasons for the unprecedented expansion of the mountain pine beetle.

Says you.
And how is it you know so much more than others?

I hear that the beetles expansion was perfectly natural.
The only way to slow the beetle naturally was sustained low winter temperatures.
Something like at least two weeks at -20C.
I am running right off the top of my head here, so I advise looking it up for yourself to get the exact figures.

So a couple of warmer than normal winters certainly could explain the beetle's march over the Rockies and into Alberta.

But as for the beetles march from California, through Oregon, then through Washington and then into coastal BC.
Since the temperatures never, ever historically or for that matter recently dropped low enough to block the beetle in ANY of the above regions; how can you say it is not natural?
When, ever did the coastal temperatures of any of those above listed states normally drop below-20C for exteded periods of time?

Blame California for not dealing with the initial rapid expansion of the insect.
Everyone else is.

More hysterical global warming crap to explain perfectly normal biological processes.
We may hate the bug, but it was here long long before we were.
BTW it is not the beetle at blame.
It is the virus it now carries.
Which of course, may or may not have recently increased in virulence or adaptability.

But of course it is all about climate change (notice how I avoided the recently unpopular "global warming" phrase).

Hypothesises are like a$$holes.
I figure mine are as good as some and better than a few.

 

[taxslave]

BS? How do you know? You're on record as saying temperature records from the past are no good, so you realy don't know either way.

I didn't say they were no good but that the equipment available at the time was simply not as accurate as todays. Also the people doing the recording were not trying to prove a point with their observations, only keeping a record. When you are looking at a possible half a degree over a decade or more allowances have to be made for equipment and dedication of observers.
The world has been warming and cooling since it started spinning and will continue to do so. The AWG crowd are mostly trying to use their data and computer projections to enact a massive wealth redistribution scheme from first to third world countries.

 

[L Gilbert]

Says you.

And many people who do research.

And how is it you know so much more than others?

Is that what you think? I do know more than some people, though. I am intelligent, I read, and I observe.

I hear that the beetles expansion was perfectly natural.

Yup. As far as I saw, no-one said the massive infestation wasn't natural.

The only way to slow the beetle naturally was sustained low winter temperatures.
Something like at least two weeks at -20C.

That is one thing that slows their spread if the temperature drops quickly enough. If the temperature drops too slowly the beetles expel water from their bodies.
Wildfire is another. Disease is another.

I am running right off the top of my head here, so I advise looking it up for yourself to get the exact figures.

Don't need to.

So a couple of warmer than normal winters certainly could explain the beetle's march over the Rockies and into Alberta.

A couple?

But as for the beetles march from California, through Oregon, then through Washington and then into coastal BC.
Since the temperatures never, ever historically or for that matter recently dropped low enough to block the beetle in ANY of the above regions; how can you say it is not natural?
When, ever did the coastal temperatures of any of those above listed states normally drop below-20C for exteded periods of time?

Again, no-one I saw mentioned it not being natural. It is atypical, though. When did the northern interior areas of BC ever have such warm, short winters. If you had read about them, they've been around forests for quite a while but winter weather, wildfires, etc. have typically kept them from making such a mess.

Blame California for not dealing with the initial rapid expansion of the insect.
Everyone else is.

Grow up.

More hysterical global warming crap to explain perfectly normal biological processes.

Really? If the climates are warming, the oceans are warming, it pretty much follows that the globe is warming. So of course climate changes affect biological behaviors.
If the climate isn't warming (winters aren't warmer and shorter), then why are the bugs spreading?

We may hate the bug, but it was here long long before we were.

Why hate it because it is just doing what it does?

BTW it is not the beetle at blame.
It is the virus it now carries.
Which of course, may or may not have recently increased in virulence or adaptability.

Ah so now you are saying that this virus is killing millions of acres of forest? Or that this virus is making beetles kill trees? lmao

But of course it is all about climate change (notice how I avoided the recently unpopular "global warming" phrase).

Ok, if the winters aren't warmer, why the big spread?

Hypothesises are like a$$holes.
I figure mine are as good as some and better than a few.

Figure whatever you want.

 

[Zipperfish]

Says you.
And how is it you know so much more than others?

I hear that the beetles expansion was perfectly natural.
The only way to slow the beetle naturally was sustained low winter temperatures.
Something like at least two weeks at -20C.
I am running right off the top of my head here, so I advise looking it up for yourself to get the exact figures.

So a couple of warmer than normal winters certainly could explain the beetle's march over the Rockies and into Alberta.

But as for the beetles march from California, through Oregon, then through Washington and then into coastal BC.
Since the temperatures never, ever historically or for that matter recently dropped low enough to block the beetle in ANY of the above regions; how can you say it is not natural?
When, ever did the coastal temperatures of any of those above listed states normally drop below-20C for exteded periods of time?

Blame California for not dealing with the initial rapid expansion of the insect.
Everyone else is.

More hysterical global warming crap to explain perfectly normal biological processes.
We may hate the bug, but it was here long long before we were.
BTW it is not the beetle at blame.
It is the virus it now carries.
Which of course, may or may not have recently increased in virulence or adaptability.

But of course it is all about climate change (notice how I avoided the recently unpopular "global warming" phrase).

Hypothesises are like a$$holes.
I figure mine are as good as some and better than a few.

Originally you said:

My prediction is that raising global temperatures a few degrees will not impact Canada in a detrimental way.

to which I pointed out that warmer winters have, if not caused, certainly exacerbated the current pine beetle epidemic. So you just drop that position and move on to the next one. That's what's so funny about arguing with the so-called skeptcis. Most of the time, they have no idea what they're talking about and when you systematically deconstruct their case they simply retreat to the next position. Next week you'll be back to your original position again.

So, hypotheses may be like a$$holes, but your, in this case, was more like a steaming pile of crap. The mistake you are making is thinking that your completely uninformed opinion is equal to any other opinion.

The world has been warming and cooling since it started spinning and will continue to do so. The AWG crowd are mostly trying to use their data and computer projections to enact a massive wealth redistribution scheme from first to third world countries.

So you disagree with the science based on some of the proposed policy remedies?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Go back and read what I originally posted before you screw yourself even worse. You posted a link which says the complete opposite of what you are thinking. Go back and read it and LEARN SOMETHING.

Maybe when you figure out it's a discussion not a contest we can have an actual discussion.

This is what you originally posted:

What makes you think that? There is a massive REE deposit that sits next to the oil sands and under the oil sands, how would it be extracted without hacking down forests and raising toxic dust? Mine the oil first then go after the REEs?

There isn't a massive REE deposit next to the oil sands, there is no such thing as massive rare earth's deposits. And thorium also occurs in relatively small amounts, about 100,000 tons in reserve for all of Canada, put that in perspective compared to the oil sands which in 2010 required the mining of over 700,000 tons of sand a day to produce the heavy crude. Over 7 times the weight of all the thorium in reserve in Canada is moved every day in the oil sands projects, REEs and thorium make up a tiny fraction of that mass.

World of Change: Athabasca Oil Sands : Feature Articles

Oil sand mining has a large impact on the environment. Forests must be cleared for both open-pit and in situ mining. Pit mines can grow to more than 80 meters depth, as massive trucks remove up to 720,000 tons of sand every day. As of September 2011, roughly 663 square kilometers (256 square miles) of land had been disturbed for oil sand mining.

What makes thorium so attractive for energy production is you only need tiny amounts to produce huge amounts of power, one small lump of thorium would provide enough energy to meet one person's lifetime energy needs.

The Geology of Rare Earth Elements

The principal concentrations of rare earth elements are associated with uncommon varieties of igneous rocks, namely alkaline rocks and carbonatites. Potentially useful concentrations of REE-bearing minerals are also found in placer deposits, residual deposits formed from deep weathering of igneous rocks, pegmatites, iron-oxide copper-gold deposits, and marine phosphates.

As I've already posted, rare earth's primary concentration is in igneous formations, not sedimentary like the oil sands and oil shales. Those are sedimentary formations that are commonly associated with petrochemicals. So there is no need to clear hundreds of square miles of forest and move massive amounts of material to acquire commercial amounts of REEs and thorium. That's how oil sands are mined to remove the bitumen from sedimentary deposits.

Maybe if you actually read what other people post instead of posting idiotic nonsense about totally irrelevant things(like the breasts of cartoon characters) you'd learn something. But from what I've seen so far it really is just a game for you.

I still see the tendency to treat thorium as the magic bullet. I'll say again... it isn't there yet.

What does that even mean?

We clearly understand the transmutation process that converts fertile thorium into fissile U-233. ORNL had a working Molten Salt Reactor that demonstrated the core of an commercial Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor for five years between 1965 and 1969. They were ready to develop commercial scale LFTRs in the 1970s, it was Nixon and the executives with AEC that nixed that plan and not for technical reason. With material and theoretical advances in science we're in a much better position to develop LFTRs than we were then. Some materials like carbon nanotubes and graphene weren't even known then.

They have already invested over $200 billion in oil sands development which has massive environmental and social impacts, it would probably cost about 2.5% of that to produce an LFTR prototype.

I think that we can assume that as long as funding isn't made available, that thorium powered MSRs won't be ready for power production. But if we hadn't invested massive amounts in the oil sands then they wouldn't be available for exploitation either...which is what this issue is really about.

 

[Trex]

]Ah so now you are saying that this virus is killing millions of acres of forest? Or that this virus is making beetles kill trees? lmao

Fungus actually.
With the possibility of a secondary fungal or viral infestations into the weakened and diseased trees
The beetle is just the local vector.
Read up more.

to which I pointed out that warmer winters have, if not caused, certainly exacerbated the current pine beetle epidemic. So you just drop that position and move on to the next one. That's what's so funny about arguing with the so-called skeptcis. Most of the time, they have no idea what they're talking about and when you systematically deconstruct their case they simply retreat to the next position. Next week you'll be back to your original position again.

So, hypotheses may be like a$$holes, but your, in this case, was more like a steaming pile of crap. The mistake you are making is thinking that your completely uninformed opinion is equal to any other opinion.

Ahh the old personal insult thing springs forth.
I keep it abstract but not you I see.
My opinions are steaming piles of crap and completely uninformed?
Lame lame lame.
Zipperfish meet Cobalt Kid.

I in fact dropped no position and in reality my whole last post was about the beetle.
And yes warmer winters helped the beetle spread to Alberta.
I said that once already.
But why did the fungus spread (explode actually) through California, then Oregon, then Washington, then coastal BC before Alberta when none of those places have sustained -20 winter temperatures?
No answer?
Google will probably dredge something up for you to cut"n"paste.

The fungus is changing the forests of North America.
A monoculture logging industry will indeed suffer.
But in the long haul that does not necessarily mean the nation is worse off.
It simply means that it changes.
Warmer temperatures may offer parts of Canada a chance at multiple annual crop yields and a much more diverse agricultural crop base.
Embrace the change.
What we all know for an absolute fact is that Canada has been far far warmer than it is now many times in the past.
It's very old news.
And in my view Canada will benefit from any slight global warming trends more than any other country that springs to mind.

 

[petros]

Yeah, and ....?

4 degrees above absolute zero is 4ºK

I have and the mesosphere does not get down to 4ºK.

So? If you had of scrolled back you'd notice that I edited during the time you were posting that is why I said read it again.

So there!