Anti GW folks, please refute this

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

At our current rate of consumption/successful exploration.

The ROI on our present primary energy source is fading. Humanity is forced to evolve again. Will it?

Yep, I'm betting on Hydrogen since we can now turn trash into a net gain energy process and convert the syngas to hydrogen. The big question is, can oil companies/lobbyists continue to keep their stranglehold on us for the next 40-50 years or will the people demand change? I'm betting on apathy.

Why hydrogen is not the solution

The key to the "killer replacement" is not reinventing the distribution network like you'd have to do with hydrogen, it's to use existing infrastructure. Also, hydrogen isn't a fuel itself as has been stated many times, it's merely a way to transfer energy. It also doesn't really save any more CO2 emissions than Electric cars since you have to release the CO2 when hydrogen is "made". Yes, it recombines after being used but that is only a net 0 if you look AFTER the hydrogen is "made". It still takes power to make it. Thus, it has ZERO benefit over an all electric vehicle - just different energy storage means.

...but that is WAY off topic and I apologize...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong.
Read: In the absence of new discoveries, BP's figures suggest that there are approximately 40 years' worth of "conventional proved oil reserves" remaining at current production levels.

Read the 1 year old study.

I guess the vaccum the study lived in is already incorrect as the Brazilians found a new reserve just recently. How anyone could say we only have 40 years of oil left with a straight face is puzzling to me...unless it's being said to be purposefully misleading.

30 years ago they said we only have X years of oil left... but reality has shown their vaccums don't work.

Why would a major oil company like BP underestimate the world's remaining oil supply? If anything, 40 years is a biased overestimation. Also, what % would these "new" and "undiscovered" finds constitute of the total percentage? Let's say they find 50% "new" or "undiscovered" oil than BP's study on proven reserves. That only extrapolates to 60 years. 50% is not even realistic.

Logically, IF that large of a quantity (50% more undiscovered than current reserves) existed, it would have been tapped by now and said country would be cashing in. The fact of the matter is: these magical, large, undiscovered reserves of oil haven't been tapped because they don't exist. Environmental change will occur in our generation (35 and under) because oil will run out.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
*CONVENTIONAL* *PROVED*. Do you need english reading classes?

1. *CONVENTIONAL* means regular drilled oil wells, not Bakken or Alberta, as I mentioned. *CONVENTIONAL* also probably means non-deep-well drilling, such as deep offshore wells. Simple enough?

2. *PROVED* means you know it's there, you know how much there is, and you can extract it easily. Thus, ANWR is *PROVED*, but the new Brazil finds weren't until recently. I don't think any of the Arctic numbers are *PROVED*.

Combine the two and you get something completely different.

See my response above regarding my theory of even if 50% of current, proven reserves was found that had been previously undiscovered.

PS: When you type in caps, it's hard to take you seriously.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong.
Read: In the absence of new discoveries, BP's figures suggest that there are approximately 40 years' worth of "conventional proved oil reserves" remaining at current production levels.

Read the 1 year old study.

I guess the vaccum the study lived in is already incorrect as the Brazilians found a new reserve just recently. How anyone could say we only have 40 years of oil left with a straight face is puzzling to me...unless it's being said to be purposefully misleading.

30 years ago they said we only have X years of oil left... but reality has shown their vaccums don't work.

Why would a major oil company like BP underestimate the world's remaining oil supply? If anything, 40 years is a biased overestimation. Also, what % would these "new" and "undiscovered" finds constitute of the total percentage? Let's say they find 50% "new" or "undiscovered" oil than BP's study on proven reserves. That only extrapolates to 60 years. 50% is not even realistic.

Logically, IF that large of a quantity (50% more undiscovered than current reserves) existed, it would have been tapped by now and said country would be cashing in. The fact of the matter is: these magical, large, undiscovered reserves of oil haven't been tapped because they don't exist. Environmental change will occur in our generation (35 and under) because oil will run out.

ROFL, they'd underestimate it because they wouldn't want the price to collapse. Are you really that naive?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
*CONVENTIONAL* *PROVED*. Do you need english reading classes?

1. *CONVENTIONAL* means regular drilled oil wells, not Bakken or Alberta, as I mentioned. *CONVENTIONAL* also probably means non-deep-well drilling, such as deep offshore wells. Simple enough?

2. *PROVED* means you know it's there, you know how much there is, and you can extract it easily. Thus, ANWR is *PROVED*, but the new Brazil finds weren't until recently. I don't think any of the Arctic numbers are *PROVED*.

Combine the two and you get something completely different.

See my response above regarding my theory of even if 50% of current, proven reserves was found that had been previously undiscovered.

PS: When you type in caps, it's hard to take you seriously.

Tying in caps was for emphasis of words, so somebody as thick headed as you might actually understand.

Your theory? Fucking great, now your theory becomes gospel when it comes to the world's unproved conventional and unconcentional oil reserves. That's fucking logical.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Why have people ignored the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature? I would like to see someone discuss that.

Because it has been thoroughly and mercilessly debunked, and frankly I'm bored with that particular bogus claim.

Interesting links. You have anything on else sun spot activity? The links you posted argue that the suns temperature changes have not been shown to affect earth's temperature changes. Sunspots are actually cooler regions of the sun but they produce very strong magnetic fields. It is believed that these magnetic fields cause global warming. There is a correlation between sunspot activity increase and temperature increase, despite the fact that sunspots are cooler.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Why would a major oil company like BP underestimate the world's remaining oil supply? If anything, 40 years is a biased overestimation. Also, what % would these "new" and "undiscovered" finds constitute of the total percentage? Let's say they find 50% "new" or "undiscovered" oil than BP's study on proven reserves. That only extrapolates to 60 years. 50% is not even realistic.

Logically, IF that large of a quantity (50% more undiscovered than current reserves) existed, it would have been tapped by now and said country would be cashing in. The fact of the matter is: these magical, large, undiscovered reserves of oil haven't been tapped because they don't exist. Environmental change will occur in our generation (35 and under) because oil will run out.

ROFL, they'd underestimate it because they wouldn't want the price to collapse. Are you really that naive?

It's apparent you didn't read the link. BP's study was in response to: The "peak oil" theory, proposed by some geological experts, states that the world has reached or is close to the point of maximum oil production.

Why would BP even conduct a study to refute peak oil theory if they "didn't want the price to collapse"?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
*CONVENTIONAL* *PROVED*. Do you need english reading classes?

1. *CONVENTIONAL* means regular drilled oil wells, not Bakken or Alberta, as I mentioned. *CONVENTIONAL* also probably means non-deep-well drilling, such as deep offshore wells. Simple enough?

2. *PROVED* means you know it's there, you know how much there is, and you can extract it easily. Thus, ANWR is *PROVED*, but the new Brazil finds weren't until recently. I don't think any of the Arctic numbers are *PROVED*.

Combine the two and you get something completely different.

See my response above regarding my theory of even if 50% of current, proven reserves was found that had been previously undiscovered.

PS: When you type in caps, it's hard to take you seriously.

Tying in caps was for emphasis of words, so somebody as thick headed as you might actually understand.

Your theory? Fucking great, now your theory becomes gospel when it comes to the world's unproved conventional and unconcentional oil reserves. That's fucking logical.

PS: Emo, out of control responses are hard to take seriously as well.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
*CONVENTIONAL* *PROVED*. Do you need english reading classes?

1. *CONVENTIONAL* means regular drilled oil wells, not Bakken or Alberta, as I mentioned. *CONVENTIONAL* also probably means non-deep-well drilling, such as deep offshore wells. Simple enough?

2. *PROVED* means you know it's there, you know how much there is, and you can extract it easily. Thus, ANWR is *PROVED*, but the new Brazil finds weren't until recently. I don't think any of the Arctic numbers are *PROVED*.

Combine the two and you get something completely different.

See my response above regarding my theory of even if 50% of current, proven reserves was found that had been previously undiscovered.

PS: When you type in caps, it's hard to take you seriously.

Tying in caps was for emphasis of words, so somebody as thick headed as you might actually understand.

Your theory? Fucking great, now your theory becomes gospel when it comes to the world's unproved conventional and unconcentional oil reserves. That's fucking logical.

PS: Emo, out of control responses are hard to take seriously as well.

Wow, you can infer emotion from text? Have you taken that to the media and written a book yet? You're the next big thing dude!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Why would a major oil company like BP underestimate the world's remaining oil supply? If anything, 40 years is a biased overestimation. Also, what % would these "new" and "undiscovered" finds constitute of the total percentage? Let's say they find 50% "new" or "undiscovered" oil than BP's study on proven reserves. That only extrapolates to 60 years. 50% is not even realistic.

Logically, IF that large of a quantity (50% more undiscovered than current reserves) existed, it would have been tapped by now and said country would be cashing in. The fact of the matter is: these magical, large, undiscovered reserves of oil haven't been tapped because they don't exist. Environmental change will occur in our generation (35 and under) because oil will run out.

ROFL, they'd underestimate it because they wouldn't want the price to collapse. Are you really that naive?

It's apparent you didn't read the link. BP's study was in response to: The "peak oil" theory, proposed by some geological experts, states that the world has reached or is close to the point of maximum oil production.

Why would BP even conduct a study to refute peak oil theory if they "didn't want the price to collapse"?

Management of expectations? Guess you're not in the corporate world.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Why have people ignored the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature? I would like to see someone discuss that.

Because it has been thoroughly and mercilessly debunked, and frankly I'm bored with that particular bogus claim.

What I find interesting are the comments after your 2nd and 3rd links which pretty much skewer the methodology and conclusions of the authors.

The correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age is at least as strong as the correlation between increased CO2 and the slight warming (.74C) in the last 100 years.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Why have people ignored the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature? I would like to see someone discuss that.

Because it has been thoroughly and mercilessly debunked, and frankly I'm bored with that particular bogus claim.

Interesting links. You have anything on else sun spot activity? The links you posted argue that the suns temperature changes have not been shown to affect earth's temperature changes. Sunspots are actually cooler regions of the sun but they produce very strong magnetic fields. It is believed that these magnetic fields cause global warming. There is a correlation between sunspot activity increase and temperature increase, despite the fact that sunspots are cooler.

There is no correlation between sunspot activity and global warming. Sunspot activity occurs on an 11 year cycle, much too short to be correlated with global warming in a significant way.

 

[ProfJohn]

Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

A 25% decrease in sun light due to Solar Dimming could be the answer.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Nuclear testing from the 50s and 60s.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Nuclear testing from the 50s and 60s.

That's a joke right?

Mount St. Helens erupted with 500 times the force of Hiroshima and yet we saw very little world wide weather change because of it. I highly doubt all the above ground nuclear testing from the 50s and 60s surpassed St. Helens by enough to have a long term effect.

 

[ericlp]

Oh well, I kinda knew as soon as a few members joined in on this as the 'NON' believers. I say wait a few more years, when the sea levels rise and start flooding millions if not billions of homes throughout the world then maybe the light bulb will blink on?

Tho, you'll probably dismiss it as gods way of saying somehow man screwed up and he/she is punishing us.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Maybe because the earth still had a lot of forest you know... the BIG trees, you ever look at the pictures before and after of the amazon rain forest?

You ever look at the pictures before and after of the polar ice caps?

You ever look at the pictures before and after of how many more auto's have been added? How many more Coal Burning plants have been added, how many more air planes have been added? How many more people have been added?

Maybe you'll see a trend? Is it too hard to figure this one out?

You must know that ICE/SNOW reflects the heat, and that huge masses of trees and plant growth that was once there and now are in a big decline due to massive logging, and cutting down all the big trees in the worlds forests is taking a toll on the planet.

The tipping point is skewed and we are in danger of going over the point of no return.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Oh well, I kinda knew as soon as a few members joined in on this as the 'NON' believers. I say wait a few more years, when the sea levels rise and start flooding millions if not billions of homes throughout the world then maybe the light bulb will blink on?

Tho, you'll probably dismiss it as gods way of saying somehow man screwed up and he/she is punishing us.

And in a "few" more years when the sea levels don't rise and the coasts aren't flooded... will you and the other alarmists STFU? ...I won't be holding my breath...

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ericlp
Oh well, I kinda knew as soon as a few members joined in on this as the 'NON' believers. I say wait a few more years, when the sea levels rise and start flooding millions if not billions of homes throughout the world then maybe the light bulb will blink on?

Tho, you'll probably dismiss it as gods way of saying somehow man screwed up and he/she is punishing us.

And in a "few" more years when the sea levels don't rise and the coasts aren't flooded... will you and the other alarmists STFU? ...I won't be holding my breath...

Well, I may have misquoted that... Few as in more then one but more like 10-15 years. Sorry, the seas are only rising a few millimeters a year so it's gonna take a bit longer then 2-3 years.

Well, we could wait for California to burn up, or people in masses dieing from starvation. More Floods and strange weather. I think in a few years that is possible.

I am glad that you are so confident that the world will survive. I hope your right, as I really don't want to see what science is predicting tho, I am not going to ignore it and act like a total idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Because more then one thing effects the environment.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Simple, cleaner emissions. The dirty particulate emissions prior to the 80s had a sun blocking effect known as 'global dimming.' This is a PROVEN scientific phenomenon. While today's emissions are 'clean,' meaning almost entirely CO2. This is why I say things like how global cooling was just as real as global warming is now, and that catalytic converters cause global warming.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Because more then one thing effects the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what caused the temperature decrease in the 1970s?

According to the wiki chart greenhouse gasses shot higher during the 60s and 70s but temps stayed about the same. Why?

Nuclear testing from the 50s and 60s.

That's a joke right?

Mount St. Helens erupted with 500 times the force of Hiroshima and yet we saw very little world wide weather change because of it. I highly doubt all the above ground nuclear testing from the 50s and 60s surpassed St. Helens by enough to have a long term effect.

You're both way off, but this is amusing to watch. Nuclear testing certainly was not the cause of global cooling, but the US in a single test (Castle Bravo) detonated a bomb 1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima. And even that was only a third or so as powerful as the Soviet's 50 megaton Tsar Bomba test. OTOH, Mt. St. Helens erupted with a force of ~400 megatons, or about 27,000 times that of Hiroshima, and it did disrupt global weather patterns in a measurable way for several years.

 

[ProfJohn]

Vic, where did you get the 27,000 times figure?

The only figure I could find was the 500 times one.