Deadlier Avalanches? Blame Global Warming

[Puck it]

I don't blame him for going with his political party and the corporations that fund it..
he really has no choice but to follow that path or be branded something different from what he is.

Just the way it is...

You still have no clue.

 

[Scruffy]

You guys fight and argue too much :sad: Bummer.

 

[Puck it]

You guys fight and argue too much :sad: Bummer.

I really love the hairy lil fella.

 

[fbrissette]

The bulk of people realize it's safe.

We don't care what the bulk of people think. Same with climate change. We care about what the professionally educated think about. In this case we should listen to the hydrogeologists. Well, guess what ? Most hydrogeologists think that fracking cannot be done on a large scale without jeopardizing the sustainability of the groundwater ressource.

T Problems to h2o tables have been ridiculously few given the amount of fracking currently going on all over the planet. And AFAIK the relatively few documented problems have mostly been because someone did something wrong or drilled too shallow, and was not a systemic problem with the technology. In any event, it's certainly much safer than the global oil and petroleum trade or nuclear energy, and it's far more "clean" than oil and gas or coal or nuclear or all-the-other-energy-sources-econuts-also-hate.

You are right about the fact that the number of reported problems is not large. However, there is little external monitoring that has been done simply because it is so very expensive. The EPA and the USGS are walking on very thin ice, since fracking is so important to the economy. So basically, the only thing to do is to monitor existing wells for potential contamination. However, dozens of year may pass before contamination shows up. There is a slowly growing body of evidence as to the potential dangers. Problems have, of course, shown up first in the shallower fracking wells. As to whether it is safer or not than other energy sources, well, it is debatable, I will definitely take fracking over tar sands. I am not against fracking per se (this may surprise you). I am against unbridled fracking with lax regulation and monitoring as is the case presently, which is very different. Leaving the industry regulate itself while conveniently ignoring the potential risk is exactly what should not be done.

We definitely read some of the same stuff, the difference is that I read "stuff" from various viewpoints, whereas its become clear you only read stuff that support your conformational bias if you believe there's no debate over AGM.

I get my information from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Not just as a hobby, but as part of my work. Guess what, among the scientists that do research in AGM, the only debate is about the magnitude and uncertainty of the projected increase. I don't care about what the bulk of people think. Among the people who have dedicated part of their lives on the study of the climatic system, there is an incredibly large consensus. This consensus is not represented in the internet because scientists very seldom go on the public place. The eco-nuts and loose canons like Al Gore end up alone in the battle against the petrol lobby which is incredible well-funded and well organized and specialists at disinformation.

Where do you get your information ? Show me the peer-reviewed papers that are against climate change ? There are a few. But for each one, I'll show you five hundred arguing the other side (yes, that much). You have no idea how easy it would be to get research money if I could produce research results demonstrating that climate change isn't happening or that it is part of a natural cycle. So frickin easy. So why isn't this research out there ? You are obviously a bright guy, think about it.

 

[dmc]

Climate change or no climate change...
Be careful and use your knowledge and tools to test the pack..

 

[fbrissette]

...and science is not always truthful either.

Wow.... Science sometimes goes in strange ways, but the truth always comes out in the end. Darwin was ridiculed at first. Wegener was laughed at when he first brought up continental drift. Science is the best thing we have. Science and innovation brought the US to world prominence. It ain't perfect but it's what separates us from the religious fanatics. But who knows, may be we were really walking the earth with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

I'm signing off this one. Not going to get suckered in another science debate in here.

 

[dmc]

So dinosaurs didn't die off because Noah wouldn't let them on the ark?

 

[Puck it]

Wow.... Science sometimes goes in strange ways, but the truth always comes out in the end. Darwin was ridiculed at first. Wegener was laughed at when he first brought up continental drift. Science is the best thing we have. Science and innovation brought the US to world prominence. It ain't perfect but it's what separates us from the religious fanatics. But who knows, may be we were really walking the earth with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

I'm signing off this one. Not going to get suckered in another science debate in here.

Your statements above are very correct, but when money is involved it can get very fuzzy. It happens in industry everyday and has gotten worse thru my years. I have been told to lie about data from upper levels and these were scientists. I have ethics. Call me jaded. Believe it or not. I am done too.

 

[witch hobble]

The bulk of people realize it's safe.

The bulk of people don't know squat about fracking. Too busy with the Kardashians and the super bowl. And many who are vaguely aware of it don't wish to know of any potential downside because they like how the result will help their wallet. So , eff those hillbillies in the Alleghenies. North Dakota? Where's that? Right?

 

[dmc]

What we really need to know is how fracking affects geology...
And what is actually used in the liquid pumped into the earth...

there are no regulations to revel this info... If it was just saline - then we could see how just saline affects the geology and water supply.. But they are not mandated to disclose what they use and that's not cool... The could(and are) pumping poison into out water supply..

And - btw - I've NEVER seen Gassland..

 

[Puck it]

What we really need to know is how fracking affects geology...
And what is actually used in the liquid pumped into the earth...

there are no regulations to revel this info... If it was just saline - then we could see how just saline affects the geology and water supply.. But they are not mandated to disclose what they use and that's not cool... The could(and are) pumping poison into out water supply..
And - btw - I've NEVER seen Gassland..

Geothermal has issues too!
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...plant-triggers-earthquake-in-switzerland.html

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate...thermal-power-project-could-cause-quakes.html


And causes cancer in lab rats!!!!!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Well, guess what ? Most hydrogeologists think that fracking cannot be done on a large scale without jeopardizing the sustainability of the groundwater ressource.

This is absolute horsecrap and major part of the eco-nut propaganda. Fracking does use a lot of water, but it actually uses LESS h2o than many other industries/workflow that are being attacked for "wasting water"*.

Again, while no energy is without risk, fracking is as safe or safer than any other major energy source on the planet. That is what the available data shows, regardless of your false "consensus" nonsense.

*Hydrogeologist David Yoxtheimer - Of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in PA, natural gas development consumes 1.9M gallons a day, livestock 62M; mining 96M; and industry 770M.

You are right about the fact that the number of reported problems is not large.

Yes; I know. Even though about a MILLION wells have been drilled, the number of reported problems in not large. The eco-nuts dont have an energy solution, they'd have us all living in caves rubbing sticks.

There is a slowly growing body of evidence as to the potential dangers. Problems have, of course, shown up first in the shallower fracking wells.

Again, nothing that cant be solved or that wasn't the result of human error, which exists will all forms of energy.

As for the "shallow" wells, even that's an unknown right now, but it's quite possible that it could be a problem and they might need to put restrictions on depth. I'm 100% okay with this. God knows the EPA has been hot on the industries tail, setting up camp in that one Wyoming town where there may in fact be a problem, and try, try, try, as they may, even the EPA hasn't been able to find much fault with fracking. Neither has England, far more liberal and eco-cautious than America, which also allows fracking. You focus on speculation, not science.

I am not against fracking per se (this may surprise you). I am against unbridled fracking with lax regulation and monitoring

And I'm against putting radioactive plutonium in baby food. But neither are something that need be worried about.

 

[BenedictGomez]

My friends in Ohio say that fracking is causing earthquakes..

What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors? What do you think should be done/happen?

 

[Puck it]

What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors? What do you think should be done/happen?

Off with their heads?

Seriously though, everything has risks and need to managed. The geothermal plant outside of San Fran has been proven to have increased the quakes in the area. Hayward fault being the worst fault in the area.

 

[dmc]

What if it can be definitely proven that fracking can in fact lead to very (which is what these are) small tremors? What do you think should be done/happen?

It should stop... immediately..

 

[BenedictGomez]

It should stop... immediately..

Not sure if you're serious?

But if you are serious, why?

 

[snoseek]

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress...ood-for-the-economy-then-fuck-the-economy.jpg

 

[dmc]

Not sure if you're serious?

But if you are serious, why?

Because - Earthquakes are not a good thing..
And we need to investigate why they are happening and what problems it may be causing to our water table..

shouldn't be an issue to most considering lots of people say we need 1000 years of data to explaining global warming..
So we should start looking at how this affects the environment now...

 

[Puck it]

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress...ood-for-the-economy-then-fuck-the-economy.jpg

Is that Jersey? Then it is okay!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Because - Earthquakes are not a good thing..And we need to investigate why they are happening and what problems it may be causing

True, but these fracking tremors arent a "bad thing" either.

Here's a link to a real-time map of every 2.5+ tremor on the planet over the last 7 days. There were over 30 in the United States alone.

Quakes happen all the time, and 2.5 btw, is MUCH larger (even though 2.5 is no big deal) than the bulk of the recorded fracking incidents.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/


Also, by your logic, all other human activities proven to cause MUCH BIGGER earthquakes recorded on the Richter scale should be banned too.

That will be a shame to have to tear down all those dams all over the planet.

And of course, most large man-made reservoirs will have to be drained, to bad for your Catskills, I think Ashokan is pretty.

Then there's going to be a problem the oil industry too since its been proven to cause some tremors.