Climate change - an oil based question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^And taking something completely out of context runs rampant, also! I even explained it...


Steve, that wasn't aimed towards your analogy. The analogy actually works when measuring geo/ecological impact severity. In any event, my original remarks weren't intended to provoke a line by line dissection and debate. They were simply bringing up a geological point of view and were also misquoted. That's why I usually stay out of these topics as they usually degrade into rather pointless activities.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: buster
We need to move beyond fossil fules and we wil in time. It's going to be a long process to get there. Global warming is not the only reason to get off of fossil fuels.


I don't think it will ever happen unless we can get cheaper energy than digging up the easy access part of the ground.

Cheap oil may be gone, but cheap coal will be around for a long time.


As long as these oil fields are re-filling themselves, I don't think cheap oil is going away on its own. It will take taxing to make it expensive.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/938

They are trying to keep this farce alive with life support but the jig is up, the sleeping masses woke up.

Read this..
Quote:
Drawing from 11,944 climate science abstracts from scientific journals between 1991 and 2011, the team found 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no opinion,32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected it and 0.3 percent expressed uncertainty on the cause of global warming.


Where is the 97%? It seems 66% voiced no opinion.

Quote:
Then the authors invited a subset of these papers’ authors to place their own papers into the same categories that Cook and his collaborators had used. These authors overwhelmingly endorsed the statement that most of the past century’s warming was caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.


Whats that all about? I smell doctored data much like Jones and his cronies with the hockey stick graph.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: buster
We need to move beyond fossil fules and we wil in time. It's going to be a long process to get there. Global warming is not the only reason to get off of fossil fuels.


I don't think it will ever happen unless we can get cheaper energy than digging up the easy access part of the ground.

Cheap oil may be gone, but cheap coal will be around for a long time.


As long as these oil fields are re-filling themselves, I don't think cheap oil is going away on its own. It will take taxing to make it expensive.


Most oil companies do not believe that oil fields are refilling themselves, in any meaningful amount, that they rely on that as their income sources.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Most oil companies do not believe that oil fields are refilling themselves, in any meaningful amount, that they rely on that as their income sources.


They may not "believe" or feel that way, but they are. Texas A&M and other universities have published studies showing it is happening and at a much more rapid pace than originally believed.
 
It will take taxing??? Will take??

Originally Posted By: badtlc
I don't think cheap oil is going away on its own. It will take taxing to make it expensive.
 
The only reason cheap oil is gone is because it has been made politically expensive, not because it is scarce. We have a lot of oil.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Cheap oil may be gone, but cheap coal will be around for a long time.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Most oil companies do not believe that oil fields are refilling themselves, in any meaningful amount, that they rely on that as their income sources.


They may not "believe" or feel that way, but they are. Texas A&M and other universities have published studies showing it is happening and at a much more rapid pace than originally believed.


So, what does it means when originally believe is nothing and the current "research" from a paid to say so "research" from an oil producing state is trying to lure the oil companies back that said "it is much more than original believe"?

100 barrel a day? 1000 barrel a day? vs 10 barrel a day of original believe?

Hint: if the oil companies are not putting it on their financial statement, it is not significant, and I would agree with the oil companies on this.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The only reason cheap oil is gone is because it has been made politically expensive, not because it is scarce. We have a lot of oil.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Cheap oil may be gone, but cheap coal will be around for a long time.


We do have a lot of oil, that takes exotic method to extract (i.e. deep sea floating platform), and that's why they are expensive.

http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2012/03/05/___and_cheap_oil_isnt_coming_back.html

The $20 a barrel oil is gone for sure, because ME are not desperate to sell oil exceeding their own quotas to fund war (i.e. Iran Iraq war).

Yes, we can go to the gulf and pump out deep sea oil, but it is going to cost them $50+ a barrel, so why would they sell it for less than that?

Believe in what you "want" to believe, but savvy investors betting their money where they can profit is more reliable than some urban legend sources with political agenda and an axe to grind.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/938

You mean the people that get paid to study AGW think AGW is real? Amazing!

NO warming in at least 17 years and 97% of "climate scientists" think AGW is real. If that one thing doesn't show people that AGW and the people pushing it are a farce, I don't know what will.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Most oil companies do not believe that oil fields are refilling themselves, in any meaningful amount, that they rely on that as their income sources.


They may not "believe" or feel that way, but they are. Texas A&M and other universities have published studies showing it is happening and at a much more rapid pace than originally believed.


If you take a wet car wash sponge, and squeeze one end nearly dry, let it sit, and the dry end becomes wet again...do you "believe" that more water was created from nothing, refilling the dry end, or do you "understand" that water migrated from the wet end to the dry end, and the total of water left in the sponge is that which you started with LESS what you extracted previously...in spite of the fact that you can squeeze the dry end again.
 
I received this in an email the other day, it's credited to Professor Ian Plimer:

"
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice daybs2ehl!"

Previously I had received this link to an article on the same subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

Heck! I don't know who it right and who is wrong!
All I know is, SOMEONE HAS AN AGENDA.
 
The arrogance of many on here that are not scientists and that have not studied the subject or data is quite comical. I notice it's the same people that were predicting hyperinflation 5 years ago. Clowns.
crackmeup2.gif
 
Buster,

I think the problem is very clearly a political one. Or perhaps even more so an economic one.

I can find studies that are diametrically opposed based on who funded it. Two completely different conclusions. What this tells me is that there is clearly obfuscation involved, and whenever people are polarized over an issue there are studies produced by either side to support their view.

The data is at least subject to interpretation no matter your personal feelings...
 
^ Honestly, I'm not 100% convinced either way. My mind is still open on the subject. Scientists are still learning more about it, especially impacts from space (solar etc.) so I can see why there is some skepticism.

However, a particular group in this country has waged war on data and it's alarming.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
^ Honestly, I'm not 100% convinced either way. My mind is still open on the subject. Scientists are still learning more about it, especially impacts from space (solar etc.) so I can see why there is some skepticism.

However, a particular group in this country has waged war on data and it's alarming.


I'm not willing to eliminate any "group" from my distrust. IMO they all skew the facts to suit their bias.

One thing is for certain, the world is warming and we will have to deal with it, period. This will happen no matter which "group" is running the show!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
NO warming in at least 17 years and 97% of "climate scientists" think AGW is real.


And if the weather is unusually cool for 17 days in July, can you conclude that the summer is over and fall is here? Your point is?

Seriously, 17 years is a pulse of noise when you look at hundreds of years. And, most importantly, regardless of whether you believe in global warming or climate change or what not, the method of analysis must be checked against external influence. You can say the atmosphere is retaining or reflecting more heat by comparing against how much heat is coming from the sun to the earth, but if you ignore how much sun is coming down on us and conclude that all the effect is in the atmosphere (or the lack of), your opinion would not be worth much.

I like the football field argument, the majority of the influence in the temperature of the earth surface is the activities of the sun, then the ocean water, then the nitrogen, oxygen, etc. CO2 is much much smaller than the rest, in particular to the non volcanic eruption based on.
 
Quote:
Seriously, 17 years is a pulse of noise when you look at hundreds of years.

Of course it is, but not according to the AGW people. One of the fundamental problems of the AGW movement is the tiny amount of time that they look at regarding warming. A mere handful of decades and we are supposed to realign the global economy based on high limited and flawed computer models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top