Gas/Oil

[Spiderman]

But sensationalism and alarmism isn't necessarily going to help us.

I don't think they're either. But frankly, given the apathy of the population in general, the causes *need* a bit of sensationalism and alarmism, just to get attention at this point.

 

[DarthFerret]

Gonna try to respond to everyone, however, it is quite a lot to try and keep up with, so if I miss something, well...sorry about that....

First off, Rokapoke, and the others that chimed in too, the statement of Energy and matter being neither created nor destroyed was my attempt at sarcasm. I know that does not translate across a message board, but hey, I tried...

Spidey, The temerature spans of 20 years within the past 2 groups of centuries could be deviant pending on which 20 years you choose to look at. Since I have not seen a set of hard data on this (although I bet it exists somewhere), I cannot say that I believe in it. If I saw the numbers from some meterological study, then I would be inclined to trust that source. Expecially as it could be verified by looking at other sources.

If you find any data on the discovery of fields with new technology, please let me know. I am way too lazy to try seraching for it myself

I have no idea on how long it takes to for oil to be produced. I would probably go with some range if it was from a reputable source. The most convincing numbers would be from a company that is using such measures to discover oil fields, such as DCG Veritas or some such entity.

As for water, I was talking H2O. We have advanced enough in our water treatment facilities that we can generally filter out just about everything (Even seawater, although from what I understand that is a very expensive process that is generally conserved for offshore drilling rigs and the like.).

Moose was not trying to bring in any religious substance at all. I just have a hard time thinking of an inanimate object actively creating something. It is mainly just my lack of vocabulary to find the right word to use.

Bigblue when I say "renewable" it does not neccessarily mean instantaneously. I mean that if you take it away, wait a period of time (length depending on what it is you are taking away) and go back and look (not neccessarily in the same exact spot) you will find that it is availible again. Oil will do this as it is made from organic material. Trees, animals, plants, humans, all will eventually be compacted down, compressed and thus oil is generated. Once again, not sure of the timeframe, and may have missed a few steps, but that is the gist of it as I understand it. Never heard of the "Magma" claim, so cannot speak intelligently about that.

Oversoul Dont know anything about icecore data. Maybe you could educate me a bit here. My point was that we mere humans, short of anything super drastic, have about as much an effect on the climate as I do about the course of a river when I spit in it. It is much larger than anything we have done so far.

The water pulled from a well is changed however, just as oil is changed. Maybe not in the same way, but it happens. It also just so happens that water will renew itself in a much faster fashion (through rain, seepage, etc...). I actually know a bit about water wells and the sand filters that occur naturally. One of my good friends is in the water business and has taken me to several wells and pump stations, treatment facilities, and even sewage treatment plants. It is amazing some of the stuff that people do not know (and probably do not want to, it is pretty gross).

As for the 2005 claim I mentioned, I have to appologize that I do not remember when it was said exactly or who said it. I am also way to lazy to look this up also. I just know that I heard it from the mainstream media (that is the liberal media guys...just to let ya know), that oil was gonna dry up completely in 10 years. It was around 1995 or so when I heard it. As for "peak oil", also do not have much of a frame of reference on that either.

So you are saying that If I heard from one person that they had evidence that Coca~Cola was bad for you, and another person said they had evidence that it was good for you, that it is not evidence? Kinda have me confused here. Is it merely because I do not list an actual source or exactly what was said, or is it because we come at things from radically different viewpoints? 5 years ago, it was said that eggs were bad for you. 10 years ago they were good for you (I think the slogan was "the incredible edible egg"). I recently heard that they are not as bad for your cholesterol as was orignally thought and it was ok to eat them again. I am sure there is eveidence on both sides of the argument. The question is, which do you believe/trust.

Of the carbon dioxide thing: I am pretty sure I remember this right from biology, though it was long ago. Plants convert CO2 into O2. Most animals (humans included) convert O2 into CO2. How is a build up in Carbon Dioxide a climate changing factor? More trees, grass and algea grows? We are unable to breath because there is no breathable oxygen left? I am kinda lost on the downside of creating a substance that is used by our natural world.

BigBlue and Oversoul I agree with you Oversoul that the theory of gravity was probably not the best example to use, as it is a force (one of the weakest) and the theory is how it works exactly. However, I think I got the gist of what Bigblue was really after. What do I believe in, when it comes to scientific theories. Well, I do not believe in the whole environmentalist "Golbal Warming" fiasco. I do not believe that we should drive 55 mph to help save the climate by reducing emmissions. I do not believe that we can predict, much less dictate what nature does on any global scale. I do believe that each person has a right to thier own opinions and has the right to voice them. I do not believe in "Big Government" telling me that I work too hard, make too much money, and am holding the "little man" (that does not want to work and does want to mooch off society) down. I do not believe in paying for everyone else's medical costs because they refuse to get off thier lazy arse and apply themselves. The list is way to long to put it all down here. Ask speciifically, and I will let ya know if I believe in a thing or not.

As for drilling now not being an acceptable solution because it takes 4-7 years to see results: then do not go to college. You will not see instant results. Do not build up your 401K for 30 years, because you will not see instant results. Heck, lets not even look at alternative fuels, because you will definatly not see results within the next 5-10 years from that. It is pretty simple. Econimics can be simple when looked at on a large scale. Supply and demand. Increase supply, cost goes down. Increase demand, cost goes up. I learned that in Economics 101. (It was actually 301, but you know what I mean)

 

[Spiderman]

The temerature spans of 20 years within the past 2 groups of centuries could be deviant pending on which 20 years you choose to look at. Since I have not seen a set of hard data on this (although I bet it exists somewhere), I cannot say that I believe in it. If I saw the numbers from some meterological study, then I would be inclined to trust that source. Expecially as it could be verified by looking at other sources.

But if you look at 20 year blocks in order from the start of recorded time, deviancy shouldn't matter as it equals out. If the temperature remains steady within a certain range for 100 years even within 20 year blocks and then all of a sudden is another temperature or even rises in the next 100 years (divided into 20 years blocks), then surely something is going on that has to explain the rise in temperature.

If you find any data on the discovery of fields with new technology, please let me know. I am way too lazy to try seraching for it myself

Heh, I'm lazy too. You're the one who postulated that new fields were being found so I'll let you bear the burden

I have no idea on how long it takes to for oil to be produced/

Wow, so no idea even whether it takes 10 years vs 1000 years? If I remember, I'll see if I can find something.

As for water, I was talking H2O. We have advanced enough in our water treatment facilities that we can generally filter out just about everything (Even seawater, although from what I understand that is a very expensive process that is generally conserved for offshore drilling rigs and the like.).

Water however is broken up into freshwater, which most humans and animals can drink, and sewater, whose uses are much more limited. I was talking about freshwater. Seawater, I too understand to be a very expensive process that isn't feasible right now for everyday use.

Increase supply, cost goes down. Increase demand, cost goes up. I learned that in Economics 101.

The fallacy here is that it appears you assume that demand will remain steady at current levels in the future, so that incrased supply will bring down costs. I think demand will increase to keep pace with, if not outstrip, any supply increases, so there will not be any decreases in cost when the future oil comes onto the market.

I don't think people are saying (or at least I'm not) that drilling for the future isn't *a* solution, but it's not going to *be* the solution either.

As a side note, you *can* see instant results: college grads on average make more money than a high school grad.

 

[BigBlue]

DF - I agree with you on a lot of what you say...

However I have to disagree that there is not enough evidence to support a theory that since the Industrial age we have seen an increase in global warming.

In fact, global warming has been kept somewhat in check due to pollution by a process known as Global Dimming - the particulate in the air blocks and refracts a degree of uv rays. Farmers have long recorded history of the amount of evaporation using pans of water. Because of some factor (most likely airborne particulate), most of the planet has actually seen a decrease in the amount of water evaporated daily in these pans. Wikipedia Article There was a BBC special and a PBS program on this topic as well.

I don't know what "Big Government" is supposed to mean... it's a term conservatives love to throw around a lot... Describe "Little Government" and what services it provides - and for the services "Big Government" provides today - who's going to provide them in "Little Government"? Things like Education, Roads, Police, Fire Departments... Will those who are barely making it in the world of Big Government (You know about 1/4 to 1/3 of the population) all of the sudden be able to pay for these services on their own? Or will they simply have to go without these services and hope they don't have children, they Drive a vehicle capable of driving off-road, they Live in a city free of crime, and live in a flame-resistant building. Or will those thankful rich folks who get richer because they don't pay taxes any more start providing the "little" folks with services directly? Yes there is a lot of sarcasm here... And my tongue is somewhat in my cheek... but whenever I hear people start rambling about how liberals want "Big Government", I have to wonder what they really mean...

 

[DarthFerret]

Big Government to me really has nothing to do with the State and Federally funded services that are provided for maintaining Public Works. It is basically this: Government mandates against smoking, Federal Speed Limits (I know..new topic, but on my mind at the moment), Government run health care system (does not work in any country of a large-scale population), Government control of companies and thier income (big oil for example), and given time I can get more examples. The government and the people we elect have forgotten a very important point. They are supposed to be public servants. Not in it for the money, power, etc...although some of that will naturally come to those in office. Government should not tell me that I cannot have a gun, and cannot hunt on property that I own (thankfully they have not gone that far yet...). What I meant by "Little Government" was exactly what you described. They take care of Public Works, Transportation, Education (at least up to High School), and the Military. Hopefully that was a bit more clear....will clarify specific points if you ask..

But if you look at 20 year blocks in order from the start of recorded time, deviancy shouldn't matter as it equals out. If the temperature remains steady within a certain range for 100 years even within 20 year blocks and then all of a sudden is another temperature or even rises in the next 100 years (divided into 20 years blocks), then surely something is going on that has to explain the rise in temperature.

Have not seen any of the data, so do not know what is out there.

Water however is broken up into freshwater, which most humans and animals can drink, and sewater, whose uses are much more limited. I was talking about freshwater. Seawater, I too understand to be a very expensive process that isn't feasible right now for everyday use.

If you define water as such, then I would say that I really do not think there is a permanent shortage or loss on a global scale. I have no evidence to back that up, but have not noticed it on any news stories that I can recall.

The fallacy here is that it appears you assume that demand will remain steady at current levels in the future, so that incrased supply will bring down costs. I think demand will increase to keep pace with, if not outstrip, any supply increases, so there will not be any decreases in cost when the future oil comes onto the market.

I don't think people are saying (or at least I'm not) that drilling for the future isn't *a* solution, but it's not going to *be* the solution either.

If demand is going to increase, then the only solution to match that increase is to drill now. Of course there will eventually be other technologies that come out. There is something now that is in the test stages using a hydrogen producing component to help you burn your fuel leaner. If it works, I will definately install one on my car.

As a side note, you *can* see instant results: college grads on average make more money than a high school grad.

Takes 4 years at a minimum. That is not "instant" results. If it takes 4 years to see a result in the price of gas from drilling now, then I guess it would be worth the wait right? (You may not have seen where I was going with that from earlier...sorry about not being clear...been kinda rushed when on here today...)

BtW...trying to do a bit of research on this and came across this which appears to be pretty credible.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583

 

[BigBlue]

The government has the right - and the responsibility to pass legislation. While it's debatable whether or not Smoking or Seat Belts are moral issues (you know, like Abortion) and should have legislation in order to mandate one thing or another does not seem to be "Big Government". I always thought they meant Big Government in terms of spending...

Speeding is a public safety issue to me... And if that's what it takes to help fund the police, great... (I've gotten 3 speeding tickets in my life... but none over $75)

Public Health Care... Too late, we already have it, it's called Medicare and Medicaid. The problem in our country is not health care, it's affordable health care... I have good insurance where I work - and it's even... cough, cough... reasonable at around 4K a year for my family. (I know that's pretty cheap... but considering my family doesn't nearly spend that much a year on health costs, it's ridiculous). I'm not against the government researching the problems in healthcare... It depends on what their conclusions will be as to whether I agree with any "solution".

 

[Mooseman]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583

Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back. According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year. The maximum snow cover is in March or April — about 20 to 50 centimeters over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal constants, never was.

I know it's a bit of nitpicking, but this piece just has something wrong with it......
Also it has a lot of anecdotal facts.... colder in some place then in years..... some artic ice is thicker in some places..... Record cold temps in some places..... not vey scientific..... kind of like going outside in May and it being 40 degrees and saying... "What global warming?"......
There are record high temps in some places.... does that prove global warming..... just seems cheesy to me.
As an aside, I couldn't find any info on the funding for this site, I always try to find out about the sites I read and any agenda they may have from their funding...... There is no way they are doing this all through donations....

 

[DarthFerret]

I think they were trying to refer to the fact that polar bears were placed on the endangered species list due to the loss of the Arctic Ice supposedly from global warming. That is probably why this article concentrated on the Arctic Circle. However, I did not write it, so I cannot say for sure.

You do bring up a good point though. The temperatures that are being used to support global warming are from what regions? Or is it a complete compilation of multiple temperatures from across the globe? If the latter, how many places did they use the temperatures from, and was it the same time of year, same locations, time of day, etc... Never really thought about how many factors would go into figuring out the earths "global" temperature before. Could be really difficult to find an answer that is consistant.

 

[Oversoul]

I have no idea on how long it takes to for oil to be produced. I would probably go with some range if it was from a reputable source. The most convincing numbers would be from a company that is using such measures to discover oil fields, such as DCG Veritas or some such entity.

We can't really even be sure that new oil is being produced anywhere. It seems that the organisms producing it were aquatic plants and plankton, probably not all that different from the ones we have today. And it also seems that the conditions under which the oil was produced are still around today, but beyond that? I don't think anyone can say at this point.

As for water, I was talking H2O. We have advanced enough in our water treatment facilities that we can generally filter out just about everything (Even seawater, although from what I understand that is a very expensive process that is generally conserved for offshore drilling rigs and the like.).

Yes, but like I already said, the substances are not comparable. When we "use" water for whatever, it mostly stays the same substance. Very little chemical change (or none, for simplicity's sake) going on there. When we use oil, it's not oil anymore. It's carbon dioxide and water (and traces of other compounds, depending on the composition of the oil, the completeness of the combustion, etc.). The only way it might become oil again is if the carbon dioxide is converted into biomolecules by algae or whatever, then the algae dies and the debris sinks to a spot where the conditions are conducive to the formation of oil and nothing disturbs it for a few million years (or however long it takes, I'm not sure about that point).

Moose was not trying to bring in any religious substance at all. I just have a hard time thinking of an inanimate object actively creating something. It is mainly just my lack of vocabulary to find the right word to use.

Really? It happens all the time. Out here, Mt. St. Helens once created a whole lot of ash.

Bigblue when I say "renewable" it does not neccessarily mean instantaneously. I mean that if you take it away, wait a period of time (length depending on what it is you are taking away) and go back and look (not neccessarily in the same exact spot) you will find that it is availible again. Oil will do this as it is made from organic material. Trees, animals, plants, humans, all will eventually be compacted down, compressed and thus oil is generated.

You'd probably get coal, not oil.

Once again, not sure of the timeframe, and may have missed a few steps, but that is the gist of it as I understand it. Never heard of the "Magma" claim, so cannot speak intelligently about that.

It used to be more popular, back when no one had any solid evidence either way.

Dont know anything about icecore data. Maybe you could educate me a bit here. My point was that we mere humans, short of anything super drastic, have about as much an effect on the climate as I do about the course of a river when I spit in it. It is much larger than anything we have done so far.

I like your analogy, seeing that flaming rivers have already been mentioned in this thread.

Ice core analysis shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature have followed similar cycles. And the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is higher nowadays than it's ever been as far back as we can see (more than 400,000 years back in 2004 and I think they've drilled some cores now that go back much more). The extra carbon dioxide is from us. By itself, that doesn't mean the temperature will be affected, but there's other data (such as a marked rise in the rate of temperature increase in recent decades) suggesting that this is the case.

The water pulled from a well is changed however, just as oil is changed. Maybe not in the same way, but it happens. It also just so happens that water will renew itself in a much faster fashion (through rain, seepage, etc...). I actually know a bit about water wells and the sand filters that occur naturally. One of my good friends is in the water business and has taken me to several wells and pump stations, treatment facilities, and even sewage treatment plants. It is amazing some of the stuff that people do not know (and probably do not want to, it is pretty gross).

Chemical change and saturation of unwanted materials are completely different animals. The problem with sewage isn't that the water is gone. All of the water (more or less) is still in there. It's just that there's other stuff in there that's annoying to get out. Annoying, but relatively inexpensive. When oil is burned, the oil is GONE. It's not that there are adulterants in there that you can't get out. It's not oil anymore. It's now carbon dioxide and water.

As for the 2005 claim I mentioned, I have to appologize that I do not remember when it was said exactly or who said it. I am also way to lazy to look this up also. I just know that I heard it from the mainstream media (that is the liberal media guys...just to let ya know), that oil was gonna dry up completely in 10 years. It was around 1995 or so when I heard it. As for "peak oil", also do not have much of a frame of reference on that either.

I understand that you can't remember every little detail about everything you've heard in the last 13 years. I know I can't. But you see the problem here, right? If you had the source, we could look it up and find out if the journalist actually said what you remember. And we could find the journalist's source and find out why such a baseless prediction was printed.

All we have now is you saying, "Some liberal media dude said 13 years ago that there wouldn't be any more oil in 10 years." Even if it's exactly as you remember it, we don't know what went wrong for that to get printed. Personally, it doesn't seem that extraordinary. I tend to have a low opinion of contemporary journalists, especially when ones that know nothing about science are reporting on it. They get their facts wrong all the time and twist statements scientists make in order to make everything seem more big, impressive, dangerous, scary, and bizarre. They also seem to have no compunction against going to known cranks in order to get a story. I sometimes read science blogs and several times I've seen scientists complain about something blatantly false appearing in the popular press.

But it doesn't mean that every prediction about when we'll run out of oil is going to be wrong. I haven't actually encountered a solid estimate on how long we'd have at current rates. But unless we bring consumption down, we will eventually run out. And we don't need to completely run out in order to feel the economic consequences. Those will come long before we run out and are arguably already being felt. See "peak oil."

So you are saying that If I heard from one person that they had evidence that Coca~Cola was bad for you, and another person said they had evidence that it was good for you, that it is not evidence?

Exactly! Saying you have evidence is not the same as actually having evidence. And it depends on WHAT the evidence actually is. If the first person is referring to a study on chemical X, let's say showing that it damages the nervous system, and Coca-Cola has chemical X, then we might have something. But what if the dosage of chemical X in this study was orders of magnitude larger than the amount found in Coca-Cola?

Conversely, what if the second person is referring to the fact that Coca-Cola has water, and water is good for you? Really, there are countless ways for either person's evidence to be suspect or even compromised. Until we actually examine the evidence, we won't know.

The evidence climatologists present is complex. It relies on several fields of science and responsible scientists have waited for more evidence (I remember reading about one climatologist who in 2002 remained neutral about the subject, but after working on the Volstok ice core in 2003-2004 decided he finally had enough data to show that humans were making a significant contribution to global warming). Yeah, unfortunately there have been those with political interests using this for their own ends. Sure.

On the other hand, the evidence cranks use when disputing the anthropogenicity of global warming is usually either nonexistent or full of lies and manipulations. I don't care for lying corporate shills (like Steve Milloy) anymore than I care for the fearmongering journalists.

Kinda have me confused here. Is it merely because I do not list an actual source or exactly what was said, or is it because we come at things from radically different viewpoints? 5 years ago, it was said that eggs were bad for you. 10 years ago they were good for you (I think the slogan was "the incredible edible egg"). I recently heard that they are not as bad for your cholesterol as was orignally thought and it was ok to eat them again. I am sure there is eveidence on both sides of the argument. The question is, which do you believe/trust.

I haven't researched the egg thing much. But I doubt that the actual scientific evidence has changed much or been reinterpreted by scientists much. My hunch is that it has more to do with a power struggle between batty bureaucrats who think they know everything about nutrition and people who have eggs to sell.

By the way, eggs are neither really, really good for you nor particularly bad for you. Unless you're on a low-cholesterol diet, allergic, or eating far too many eggs, they're a pretty good food. But just because the truth here seems to lie midway between the two extreme claims doesn't mean that must always be the case. It's also possible for one party to be dead-wrong.

Of the carbon dioxide thing: I am pretty sure I remember this right from biology, though it was long ago. Plants convert CO2 into O2. Most animals (humans included) convert O2 into CO2. How is a build up in Carbon Dioxide a climate changing factor? More trees, grass and algea grows? We are unable to breath because there is no breathable oxygen left? I am kinda lost on the downside of creating a substance that is used by our natural world.

Grass and algae can't sequester carbon very well. More carbon dioxide helps them get more carbon for building up, but then when they die it goes right back. Trees can sequester carbon dioxide, and for a while that was what some scientists thought might happen, but there are some complications to this. One is that warmer temperatures (which we're getting) cause increased cavitation in the xylem of trees, which stunts their growth, and if they're not growing, they're not sequestering much. Another is that the amount of carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere is too much for just trees to sequester, and like I said, the other plants don't really get the job done.

I do not believe that we should drive 55 mph to help save the climate by reducing emmissions. I do not believe that we can predict, much less dictate what nature does on any global scale.

No, that's silly. Reducing emissions that way simply won't solve the problem, although driving slower is, you know, safer. And, depending on the conditions, typically cheaper. But then it also takes more time. Everyone has to weigh those considerations for themselves.

But WHY don't you believe we can predict what will happen with global climate. Granted, it's very, very difficult. And climatologists recognize this more than anyone else. But there are some rough predictions that are backed by evidence. You can't just brush them off because you "don't believe."

I do believe that each person has a right to thier own opinions and has the right to voice them. I do not believe in "Big Government" telling me that I work too hard, make too much money, and am holding the "little man" (that does not want to work and does want to mooch off society) down. I do not believe in paying for everyone else's medical costs because they refuse to get off thier lazy arse and apply themselves. The list is way to long to put it all down here. Ask speciifically, and I will let ya know if I believe in a thing or not.

Do you believe global warming, and I mean actual global warming--not the politics that have become entangled in the subject, has anything to do with these things? Facts are facts and don't go away just because you work hard.

As for drilling now not being an acceptable solution because it takes 4-7 years to see results: then do not go to college. You will not see instant results. Do not build up your 401K for 30 years, because you will not see instant results. Heck, lets not even look at alternative fuels, because you will definatly not see results within the next 5-10 years from that. It is pretty simple. Econimics can be simple when looked at on a large scale. Supply and demand. Increase supply, cost goes down. Increase demand, cost goes up. I learned that in Economics 101. (It was actually 301, but you know what I mean)

Well, of course we need to drill, but like I already said at some point in one of these threads, we need alternative fuel sources. That's a much better long-term investment than drilling more oil wells. It's like I said in post #27. We rely on petroleum for so many materials, it's mind-boggling. If we just keep sucking it out of the ground and burning it up, aside from global warming, we'll massively increase the cost, not just of transportation, but of practically everything...

"...all of the neat solvents and resins and adhesives and disinfectants and detergents and lubricants and pesticides and explosives and dyes and preservatives and waxes and propellants and paints and surfactants and thickening agents and polymers and carbon composites we've become accustomed to are made from oil. Oh, and we use coke in making electrodes and important catalysts for purifying metals too. We need kerosene to store reactive materials. Then there's tar and asphalt. And a little thing called plastics we've been using a lot of. Let's not forget MEDICINE. Yeah, most drugs are synthesized from petroleum."

 

[Spiderman]

Have not seen any of the data, so do not know what is out there.

I'll see if I can find something if I have the time.

If you define water as such, then I would say that I really do not think there is a permanent shortage or loss on a global scale. I have no evidence to back that up, but have not noticed it on any news stories that I can recall.

Oh, there's stories out there. Again, I'll see if I can find some if I get a chance.

If demand is going to increase, then the only solution to match that increase is to drill now.

Well, I wouldn't call it the "only" solution; like you say, other technologies might be viable.

But what seems to be the reasoning behind "drilling now" is that people think it's going to lower oil prices in the future because they reason that it will increase supply and they neglect to look what the demand is going to be like at that time. So all I'm saying is that it's not really a solution because demand will probably keep pace or outstrip the supply - it's more a stopgap measure in keeping prices either the same or slightly more as opposed to a lot more if there wasn't drilling. But it's not going to lower prices.

Takes 4 years at a minimum. That is not "instant" results. If it takes 4 years to see a result in the price of gas from drilling now, then I guess it would be worth the wait right? (You may not have seen where I was going with that from earlier...sorry about not being clear...been kinda rushed when on here today...)

Yeah, I didn't get what you were trying to say - it sounded like even though you were taking four years, you'd still have to wait more to see results. I see what you're saying now.

I think the article is interesting. One thing that seems weird to me is that they're using one year's temperature compared to 100 years average, instead of a similiar time frame. So though this year could be -.03 degrees cooler than the last hundred years, it's only one year. What was the temperature average in the last 7 years, from 2001-2007? When you add in the -.03 from 2008, what's the average for the 8 years? It seems like an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[DarthFerret]

Wow, after all of that there was not a lot there for me to address (unless, as usual, I missed something). Let me try to address the few points that were asked.

Oversoul, as for the inability to predict weather, I am going to offer some theories on that. The most common one out there is Chaos theory. Without going into some of the wierd stuff on that, it basically boils down to this. Complex systems cannot be accurately predicted for any real length of time because of the small variances, that when added together, radically skew the total outcome. Basically saying, that one little detail that is unpredictable, adds to the other little details that are unpredictable, and affects the system as a whole. We may be able to forecast whether or not it will rain tommorrow, but how about the 16th of October? We cannot and will never be able to predict that far. And even the predictions of tommorrow are not generally very accurate. Therefore, I do not believe that we can predict the weather in any acurate or global fashion.

As for the grass and algae thing, I am trying to dredge up my horticulture class from college. I dimly recall the proffessor stating that algae actually makes up a high percentage of the CO2 to O2 conversion, simply because there is so much more of it than most other plants. It could be he was wrong, or that further research has shown this to be false, but my college learning is where I get a lot of basis for my opinions.

Do I believe in Global Warming? Well...yes, in a fashion. I also believe in Global Cooling. I believe that the climate changes year to year, century to century, era to era. I also do not believe we can predict climate change, however by looking at a set time-frame, we can have a general idea of where it may be headed. For example, look at a single day, and measure out your temperatures across every hour and place them on a graph. Then look at a single year, measure out the temperatures 2 times a month, (same time for each reading), graph it out. I bet the graphs would have a similar shape and design. This is acording to fractal theory. As you expand out in time, the graph will remain, on the whole, very similar. Thus we cannot predict a climate, but we can see trends and make some general assumptions based on that data.

i see your point Spiderman about the drilling now. And I will concede that to you. Most people probably do think it would lower fuel costs. I do not think it will, but also think we will be in for a serious fuel cost shock if we do not. One of my main points in this is to "ignore the environmentalist wackos that are telling us to not drill in ANWAR or offshore, because frankly it is done in a pretty safe and clean opperation nowadays, that conforms to environmental standards." If we do not start looking into tapping our offshore reserves soon, Venezuala, Nigeria, and others will do it and get the rights or whatever before we get there.

 

[Spiderman]

Do I believe in Global Warming? Well...yes, in a fashion. I also believe in Global Cooling

But I think this whole line of discussion started with the premise that mankind can accelerate global warming faster than it occurs naturally.

Another thought about oil is to maximize output from existing wells and limit waste (pipeline ruptures, ships running aground - well, that doesn't happen too often but it does happen), etc.

 

[DarthFerret]

But I think this whole line of discussion started with the premise that mankind can accelerate global warming faster than it occurs naturally.

Another thought about oil is to maximize output from existing wells and limit waste (pipeline ruptures, ships running aground - well, that doesn't happen too often but it does happen), etc.

True, and in that case I do not believe that mankind has accelerated global warming thus far. I do believe we have it in us to do so, but I think that the "Global Warming Scare" is just a political tactic to cow Americans into doing things a certain way and giving government officals more power.

Yes, limiting waste would be a good thing, however, I really do not see any oil company or drilling company or pipeline service trying to cause waste. They do not plan for thier pipelines to rupture, and I am positive that no captain of any ship wants it to run aground. Accidents will happen, and as long as we learn from them and take steps to prevent it again, we are going down the correct course. I am pretty sure that after every industrial accident, measures are taken to prevent that occurance from happening again.

 

[Spiderman]

What more power do government officials get from a "global warming scare"?

I guess I am thinking more of "outside" forces intentionally causing breaks in pipelines and such, like bombings, and getting the infrastructures up to speed. Ships, aside from piracy or hijackings, are generally safe, I agree, and usually unintentional.

 

[Mooseman]

Oversoul, as for the inability to predict weather, I am going to offer some theories on that. The most common one out there is Chaos theory. Without going into some of the wierd stuff on that, it basically boils down to this. Complex systems cannot be accurately predicted for any real length of time because of the small variances, that when added together, radically skew the total outcome. Basically saying, that one little detail that is unpredictable, adds to the other little details that are unpredictable, and affects the system as a whole. We may be able to forecast whether or not it will rain tommorrow, but how about the 16th of October? We cannot and will never be able to predict that far. And even the predictions of tommorrow are not generally very accurate. Therefore, I do not believe that we can predict the weather in any acurate or global fashion.

I don't think so..... It's the initial factors of a predictive model of a system that are most important..... Not unpredictable....
slight changes in the initial factors have a disproportionate effect on the model.
The butterfly in Brazil that causes a tornado in the US is a good example..... if the butterfly doesn't flap it's wings, the tragedy doesn't happen..... "This is the region of the "butterfly effect" when the initial conditions (e.g., the fluttering of a butterfly's wings somewhere in Latin America) are seen to influence the specific progression of atmospheric flow."

"Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder."

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm
is a fairly interesting site from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Which is managed by Univ of Tenn-Battelle for the Dept of Energy
Seems very interested in getting the science correct, than nay political agenda

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul, as for the inability to predict weather, I am going to offer some theories on that. The most common one out there is Chaos theory. Without going into some of the wierd stuff on that, it basically boils down to this. Complex systems cannot be accurately predicted for any real length of time because of the small variances, that when added together, radically skew the total outcome. Basically saying, that one little detail that is unpredictable, adds to the other little details that are unpredictable, and affects the system as a whole. We may be able to forecast whether or not it will rain tommorrow, but how about the 16th of October? We cannot and will never be able to predict that far. And even the predictions of tommorrow are not generally very accurate. Therefore, I do not believe that we can predict the weather in any acurate or global fashion.

Predicting weather is not the same as predicting climate. Predicting climate deals with statistical trends. It's still difficult to do, but it's not saying that on a certain day in the future it will be exactly this hot. It's saying that over a long period of time, the mean global temperature will increase.

As for the grass and algae thing, I am trying to dredge up my horticulture class from college. I dimly recall the proffessor stating that algae actually makes up a high percentage of the CO2 to O2 conversion, simply because there is so much more of it than most other plants. It could be he was wrong, or that further research has shown this to be false, but my college learning is where I get a lot of basis for my opinions.

Yes, algae does a great bulk of the photosynthesis in the world. But the carbon it sequesters soon re-enters the atmosphere. Trees are different. All that dead wood in their trunks stays there. And it has a lot of carbon. So that carbon won't be oxidized into atmospheric carbon dioxide for a long time.

Do I believe in Global Warming? Well...yes, in a fashion. I also believe in Global Cooling. I believe that the climate changes year to year, century to century, era to era. I also do not believe we can predict climate change, however by looking at a set time-frame, we can have a general idea of where it may be headed. For example, look at a single day, and measure out your temperatures across every hour and place them on a graph. Then look at a single year, measure out the temperatures 2 times a month, (same time for each reading), graph it out. I bet the graphs would have a similar shape and design. This is acording to fractal theory. As you expand out in time, the graph will remain, on the whole, very similar. Thus we cannot predict a climate, but we can see trends and make some general assumptions based on that data.

Wait, are you trying to use fractals to demonstrate that climate cannot be predicted? Seriously?

 

[DarthFerret]

Predicting weather is not the same as predicting climate. Predicting climate deals with statistical trends. It's still difficult to do, but it's not saying that on a certain day in the future it will be exactly this hot. It's saying that over a long period of time, the mean global temperature will increase.

That is where I disagree at this time. A lot of hard evidence (the actual numbers) would probably convince me otherwise, however, maybe not as I probably could not understand the data without someone there that could explain how to read it.

Yes, algae does a great bulk of the photosynthesis in the world. But the carbon it sequesters soon re-enters the atmosphere. Trees are different. All that dead wood in their trunks stays there. And it has a lot of carbon. So that carbon won't be oxidized into atmospheric carbon dioxide for a long time.

Ok, now I feel a little better about my prior knowledge. Was not aware of carbon sequestering, but hey, I was a farm boy...(that is why I took horticulture in college).

Wait, are you trying to use fractals to demonstrate that climate cannot be predicted? Seriously?

Hmm..I guess I kinda did, although that was not my original intention. Fractals are more for geometric shapes then for timelines...not sure how I got off on this tangent.

 

[EricBess]

What more power do government officials get from a "global warming scare"?

They get votes. I've given this some thought and come to the conclusion that a good number of politicians are in the business of "selling fear" or at least "selling empathy".

If they can convince a group of people that what they are saying is true and get them to empathize for a "plight", then if the opponent steps forward and says "that's a bunch of hogwash", it makes the opponent look bad. In fact, if the opponent doesn't take a hard stand on things as well, they risk coming across as unsympathetic.

Global warming is particularly appealing because there really isn't any hard evidence one way or another that cannot be refuted with another explaination, but it's easy for people to feel an emotional attachment.

 

[Mooseman]

I've given this some thought and come to the conclusion that a good number of politicians are in the business of "selling fear" or at least "selling empathy".

Fear is a big motivator.... look at the Shrub and his cronies and their use of fear (9/11) to get whatever they wanted..... It works on the cattle (voters), just like bad advertising........

Global warming is particularly appealing because there really isn't any hard evidence one way or another that cannot be refuted with another explaination, but it's easy for people to feel an emotional attachment.

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year. "From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

That this is happening is strong evidence that something is changing in our climate..... but of course it's just a trend that the world goes through every so often... right????? It's happened before.... at least I think it has..... so no big worry....... Keep your head down and all will be right......

Said the Dinosaurs........

 

[Oversoul]

That is where I disagree at this time. A lot of hard evidence (the actual numbers) would probably convince me otherwise, however, maybe not as I probably could not understand the data without someone there that could explain how to read it.

Not that I don't sympathize, but I think you'll find that a little patience, literacy, understanding of the scientific method, and grasp of basic chemistry/physics/statistics (with research on some of the specific details in this case, as with any other case if you really want to understand things without having someone else interpret data for you) is enough. Sure, you might not be a professional climatologist or anything, but you can look at ice core analyses like the Volstok one and understand how temperature from millenia ago could be calculated.

And of course, not everyone has time to do all that research on their own. But one thing I think you should NOT do is, after not doing any of the research to understand the data, say, "Oh well, some people say one thing and other people say another thing, so I guess I don't have to worry about it." I think in some cases, it really is hard to tell, very, very hard. But in other cases, one of the parties claiming to have evidence for their claims is simply lying or insane.

They get votes. I've given this some thought and come to the conclusion that a good number of politicians are in the business of "selling fear" or at least "selling empathy".

If they can convince a group of people that what they are saying is true and get them to empathize for a "plight", then if the opponent steps forward and says "that's a bunch of hogwash", it makes the opponent look bad. In fact, if the opponent doesn't take a hard stand on things as well, they risk coming across as unsympathetic.

Global warming is particularly appealing because there really isn't any hard evidence one way or another that cannot be refuted with another explaination, but it's easy for people to feel an emotional attachment.

I completely agree with the first two paragraphs and disagree with the third. There is evidence that a significant portion of global warming is anthropogenic. And it can't really be refuted. There are people like Steven Milloy who will pretend to refute it by picking and choosing which evidence to talk about and using various half-truths or less-than-half-truths to construct arguments that seem sensible to those who don't know better. I don't know about you, but I don't consider that refutation. I consider it manipulation.