Scientists link harsh winter to dramatic decline in Arctic Sea Ice

[Zipperfish]

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.




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 called your hypothesis a stemaing pile of crap, not you. I called your opinion uninformed. Which they are. As is the rest of your post. Your just wandering round the ring punch drunk at this point. You said raising the temerature of Canada wouldn't have a detrimental effect. I pointed out pine beetle, you begrudgingly admitted as much, and now you're trying to back track and just making a mess and muddle of it.

 

[petros]

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

DNI Metals Inc.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/massive-mine-in-canada/1783

Kiss 2700sq km of boreal forest good bye if you want Canadian sourced Th.

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

In 1972 they said we'd be living on the moon by now and driving around in flying hover cars.

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.

Read what you posted. It gives a great explanation of the weathering of igneous rock in solution into what is known as clastics which settle out of slow moving water and are turned back into rock by a process called compaction and that is how the REEs (Th included) were deposited and concentrated in shales.

You can learn all about it here: Google

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.

Why would I do more than glance over malarkey posted by an ignorant, clueless, brainwashed moron who posts links that contradict what he is saying?

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.

We? Social impacts of oil sands? There is no funding because it's not practical to develope.

Any questions numb nuts?

P.S. Don't be blue, all you have to do is grow up and you won't be kid anymore and no longer blue.

 

[Jonny_C]

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.

I get the impression you think there's some kind of a conspiracy against thorium.

I think it's more reasonable to assume that thorium simply isn't the fantastic solution that some people make it out to be.

 

[petros]

I get the impression you think there's some kind of a conspiracy against thorium.

I think it's more reasonable to assume that thorium simply isn't the fantastic solution that some people make it out to be.

He watches too much Sci Fi on TV. No more Space channel for him! He needs to grow up and watch Spice instead of Space.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

I get the impression you think there's some kind of a conspiracy against thorium.

I think it's more reasonable to assume that thorium simply isn't the fantastic solution that some people make it out to be.

No, I think there's a huge amount of resources that go into making sure the petrochemical industry thrives worldwide.

How is it reasonable to assume that an energy source that has about 4 million times the energy content of coal by weight isn't a viable and very positive alternative to what we're already doing.

We can continue to mine billions of tons of material every year to burn billions of tons of fossil fuels with significant negative impacts, or begin switching to a technology that allows the consumption of a tiny fraction of that to produce the same amount of usable energy.

As I stated, one average sized rare earth's mine can produce enough thorium in a year to meet the global energy demand if burned in LFTRs. And it doesn't need to be mined in massive amounts as some are dishonestly trying to claim because of it's vast energy density compared to chemically based fuels. There's far more energy available in the energy that binds atomic nuclei together than there is in chemical bonds found in fossil fuels. And molten salt reactors utilizing thorium as fuel source will allow us to to take advantage of that potential in a safe and efficient way.

 

[Jonny_C]

No, I think there's a huge amount of resources that go into making sure the petrochemical industry thrives worldwide.

How is it reasonable to assume that an energy source that has about 4 million times the energy content of coal by weight isn't a viable and very positive alternative to what we're already doing.

Like uranium for nuclear reactors? ;-)

 

[petros]

Hey Little Boy Blue, how is India's thorium program coming along?

Are they going to use Canadian thorium that is found in AB and SK under and beside the oil sands or use China's deposits of poly metallic black shales for the source?

Since we are cutting down forests and mining oil, why not do the same for the REE and PGE minerals?

It might cause social problems?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Like uranium for nuclear reactors? ;-)

It's is eventually uranium being consumed in nuclear reactors with LFTRs.

Th-232 after neutron bombardment- converted to Th-233- decaying to Pa-233- decaying to U-233.

The U-233 is placed in solution in a molten salt and burned to completion in an MSR to produce more power and much less waste while avoiding most of the hazards of PWRs.

In comparison if you start with enriched U-238 fuel you'd need a fast spectrum MSR to breed the U-238 to Pu-239 to power the reactor and FS-MSRs are a much greater design challenge. We're far closer to developing thermal spectrum MSRs utilizing the thorium fuel cycle than we are MSRs utilizing the uranium cycle.

And as thorium is a byproduct of elements that are already in demand for high tech applications and is treated as a radioactive hazard waste in REEs mining then it makes far more sense to develop reactors to use it to produce electricity.

 

[Tonington]

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.

Ahh, now you're adding more variables. So obviously, it's not a situation where there is the reason. So let's leave out the older established regions. Australia isn't exactly old world is it? Yet Canada, again has more people.

You claim it is foolish for me to claim what the future may hold.
But why just me?

Why do you think the comment only applies to you? I never said you're foolish, I said it's foolish to be so certain about what the future holds. That doesn't apply to you only, and I certainly never said that, implicitly, or explicitly.

What about all the others that claim global warming is a future problem and why are their future predicitions acceptable to you?

Anyone who claims global warming is a future problem is also foolish. It's having impacts right now. If you read carefully, which you obviously don't, I posted a document and clearly said could, as in what could happen, not what will happen. I even typed it in bold font...

Projections on the other hand, which are what is acceptable to me for a case like this, is examining the evolution of a system under a set of conditions. If those conditions change then the projection is no longer valid. While a prediction is estimating what will happen, not what could happen.

Cherry picking your personal beliefs perhaps?
Predicting the future is unknowable.

Yet that's exactly what you did. There's a big difference between you saying what will happen, and me posting a link detailing what could happen.

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

Hmmm, I thought you just said predicting the future is unknowable, yet here you are again saying something will not happen.

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

Yet again, you're starting from a prediction that you say is unknowable.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

uhuh It isn't the fungus that kills the trees, it's the beetle, the fungus just weakens the natural defenses of the trees. Read up on it yourself. Genome of blue stain fungus evolved to bypass tree defense in mountain pine beetle epidemic: UBC research « UBC Public Affairs

to which I pointed out that warmer winters have,

You said a couple warmer winters.

if not caused, certainly exacerbated the current pine beetle epidemic. So you just drop that position and move on to the next one.

Because I agree that warmer winters have enabled the spread of the beetle.

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.

Your position is that the beetle spread has little effect on Canada. Specifically, Zipper said, "Pine Beetle in BC. Billions of dollars. One of the primary reasons this pine beetle infestation was so catastrophic--warmer winters." to which you replied "Somewhat true". You were wrong, it is totally true, and I showed why warmer winters enables this spread past any in history and it has caused a lot of damage to the economy. Now if you don't think so, I guess that means that you think the economy means very little. Sure trees grow back but they take decades to do so, and in the meantime many many people have had to seek other ways of making their livings. That's a dent in the economy.
You said that people here said beetle spread is not natural. I challenge you to find where someone said that.
You said cold winters was the only way the spread could be stopped. Specifically, "The only way to slow the beetle naturally was sustained low winter temperatures.
Something like at least two weeks at -20C." That's flatout BS so I mentioned a few other things that have stopped their spread in the past.
You mentioned a few States and coastal BC have always had the beetle. That means d|ck, because without the warmer winters, they would not have spread inland which is where the bulk of the problem lies.
etc. etc. etc.
I get that you know winters are warmer. But with the southern hemisphere warming and the northern hemisphere warming, oceans included, I don't get how you can say that global warming is crap.
My position is clear, yours in untenable.

 

[petros]

The beetles are nothing new, are cyclical and are crucial to keeping the forest healthy. This was something I gleaned from Skuzuki on the Nature of Things.

Without those dead trees the soil would be depleted and wouldn't support a healthy forest.

 

[Zipperfish]

The U-233 is placed in solution in a molten salt and burned to completion.
.

Then, pound out uranium to a consistent, flaky thickness and place in oven at 425 F. Cool on rack and sprinkle confectionary plutonium on top to taste.

 

[L Gilbert]

The beetles are nothing new, are cyclical and are crucial to keeping the forest healthy. This was something I gleaned from Skuzuki on the Nature of Things.

Without those dead trees the soil would be depleted and wouldn't support a healthy forest.

Forest fires return nutrients to the soil too. Trees die, bushes die, other plantlife dies without disease, infestation, fire, etc. too. So what?

 

[petros]

Forest fires return nutrients to the soil too. Trees die, bushes die, other plantlife dies without disease, infestation, fire, etc. too. So what?

So it's a moot point not related to Global Warming. That's what.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Then, pound out uranium to a consistent, flaky thickness and place in oven at 425 F. Cool on rack and sprinkle confectionary plutonium on top to taste.

yum....

 

[petros]

With poly metallic black shale for dessert.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

So it's a moot point not related to Global Warming. That's what.

Of course as usual you only give part of the story.

Cold weather is the primary control on the Western Pine Beetle and as we no longer get the kind of winters that kill off large numbers of beetles their numbers have reached epidemic proportions.

It's not part of the natural cycle when a species is present in such numbers as it virtually wipes out other species that it depends on for food and shelter.

Anyone who's spent time in BC over the last 40 years understands how climate change has affected the balance of pine beetles and forests and pine beetles are clearly out of control.

Anyone who says that's what going on with the pine beetle is part of natural cycle is being dishonest.

Mountain Pine Beetle - Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations - Province of British Columbia

Infestation Information

The B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations estimates that the mountain pine beetle has now killed a cumulative total of 710 million cubic metres of timber since the current infestation began.
The cumulative area of B.C. affected to some degree (red-attack and grey-attack) is estimated at 18.1 million hectares.

18.1 million hectares is more than five times the size of Vancouver Island.

Newly attacked lodgepole pine trees turn red about one year after infestation. Trees can stay in the red-attack stage for two to four years before turning grey as they lose their needles.

On a provincial level, the infestation peaked in terms of volume killed annually in 2005 and has slowed considerably since then.

In terms of area, 4.6 million hectares of red-attack were surveyed in 2011. This is compared to 7.8 million hectares and 6.3 million hectares in the two preceding years.

The amount of habitat available to the beetle has begun to diminish as the beetle has already attacked most of the mature lodgepole pine in the Central Plateau region.

The rate of spread in other areas of the Interior has been somewhat slowed by more diverse terrain and forests with a greater diversity of timber species.

In many areas the infestation has ended because there's no pine left to infest, that's not a natural cycle, it's the end of a type of habitat.

Beetles and Cold Weather

Cold weather kills the mountain pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle eggs, pupae and young larvae are the most susceptible to freezing temperatures.

In the winter, temperatures must consistently be below -35 Celsius or -40 Celsius for several straight days to kill off large portions of mountain pine beetle populations.

In the early fall or late spring, sustained temperatures of -25 Celsius can freeze mountain pine beetle populations to death.

A sudden cold snap is more lethal in the fall, before the mountain pine beetles are able to build up their natural anti-freeze (glycerol) levels.

Cold weather is also more effective before it snows. A deep layer of snow on the ground can help insulate mountain pine beetles in the lower part of the tree against outside temperatures.

Wind chill affects mountain pine beetles, but is usually not sustained long enough to significantly increase winter mortality.

 

[petros]

That's the way it works bub.

Forest grows old and weak, gets diseased, the soil gets depleted along come the beetle kills the tree, rejuvenates the soil through fires and rot and the trees thrive for another 300 years in nutrient rich soils.

Fire alone isn't enough and for the past 100 years we've been controlling the fire.

The trees get weak and can't fight off a beetle infestation because they don't have the nutrients to out grow the damage of the beetle.

No matter how hard you try, you'll never get a tree to grow in soil that doesn't have the nutrients to support it.

Natures has it's ways of taking care of itself without humans getting their panties in a bunch.

People are the same way. If you are malnourished good luck at having your immune system fight off disease.

 

[L Gilbert]

So it's a moot point not related to Global Warming. That's what.

Warmer winters is related, though.

Fire alone isn't enough and for the past 100 years we've been controlling the fire.

Fire alone can be enough to limit spread.

The trees get weak and can't fight off a beetle infestation because they don't have the nutrients to out grow the damage of the beetle.

Partially; they also get weak because of the fungus.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

According to the people actually out studying the spread of pine beetles, climate change is a major factor in allowing the beetle to expand their range.

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/26601.pdf

The current latitudinal and elevational range of mountain pine beetle (MPB) is not
limited by available hosts. Instead, its potential to expand north and east has been
restricted by climatic conditions unfavorable for brood development. We combined a
model of the impact of climatic conditions on the establishment and persistence of MPB
populations with a spatially explicit, climate-driven simulation tool. Historic weather
records were used to produce maps of the distribution of past climatically suitable
habitats for MPB in British Columbia. Overlays of annual MPB occurrence on these
maps were used to determine if the beetle has expanded its range in recent years due to
changing climate. An examination of the distribution of climatically suitable habitats in
10-year increments derived from climate normals (1921-1950 to 1971-2000) clearly
shows an increase in the range of benign habitats. Furthermore, an increase (at an
increasing rate) in the number of infestations since 1970 in formerly climatically
unsuitable habitats indicates that MPB populations have expanded into these new areas.

The potential for additional range expansion by MPB under continued global warming
was assessed from projections derived from the CGCM1 global circulation model and a
conservative forcing scenario equivalent to a doubling of CO2 (relative to the 1980s) by
approximately 2050. Predicted weather conditions were combined with the climatic
suitability model to examine the distribution of benign habitats from 1981-2010 to 1941-
2070 for all of Canada. The area of climatically suitable habitats is anticipated to
continue to increase within the historic range of MPB. Moreover, much of the boreal
forest will become climatically available to the beetle in the near future. Since jack pine
is a viable host for MPB and a major component of the boreal forest, continued eastward
expansion by MPB is probable.