Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Doom and gloom (was Re: Puzzle - Enlightenment)
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 16, 2012, 1:13:49 AM11/16/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:16:18 +0100, Julian said in usenet message <k82bti$r8k$1...@dont-email.me>:
> Have you ever heard of Charles Manson?
>
> SG is speaking from the same Bookist script and such beliefs
> can and do lead to grief and not just for the believer.
>
> OK, maybe you can suggest that Sharon Tate and cronies were
> themselves to blame for hanging loose with druggies,
> paedos and the Satanic fringe but that was not case for
> Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.
Well, even if SG seems a bit unhinged right now, he doesn't appear to be
an evil or vicious kind of person. I doubt he is going to kill or hurt
anybody. What would be the point, if he thinks we're all going to die
anyway?
SG is trying to warn people of a coming disaster, as is of course the
duty of everyone who thinks he knows disaster is coming. Nothing wrong
with that. But I think he is mistaken about the date and the suddenness
of the cataclysm. Also, even if it should all be true, despite not being
supported by any kind of science, his warning comes a bit too late for
anyone to be able to heed it in one way or another.
I actually do the same thing as SG, in principle, when I warn everybody
about the misery the world will suffer some 20 to 60 years from now,
when there will be a severe and worsening lack of fossil fuels and
phosphates, causing mass starvation due to the impossibility of
mechanized, artificially fertilized and insecticide- and herbicide-heavy
agriculture without input of large amounts of energy. Bad weather,
flooding of the coasts and the drying up of the rivers that run from the
dwindling glaciers
http://www.glacierworks.org/the-rivers/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alps#Glaciers
won't do anything to improve the situation, nor will the increased cost
of transport by land, air or shipping sustain today's level of
globalizition.
Forty years from now, if we survive at all (there's always the risk that
some idiot starts the third world war as tensions grow because of
competition for resources), there will be no more than 3 billion people
alive, since the Earth can't feed more than that number when fossil
fuels become more or less unavailable, and 50 years from now there will
probably be no more than 2 billion of us. It's been estimated that
without the help of fossil fuels etc., around 2-3 billion of people is
the maximum that can eke out a living on the earth. I think the lower
number, 2 billion, would allow for sustainable existence, perhaps even
some comfort, and if humanity survives, that may be the number Earth's
population will tend to in the long run, maybe even less than 2 billion,
but probably more than 1 billion.
To me, the only difference between me and SG is that I think my warnings
do serve a purpose, since I think politicians and decision makers all
over the world can be awakened to the facts and start to plan for these
things, and even though it is now too late to prevent mass starvation,
perhaps it's still possible to avoid a total breakdown of society or the
worst-case scenario, the extinction of all of mankind and many other
species, maybe as a result of an ecological catastrophe caused by the
extermination of such species as we can eat or use for fuel.
To leave on a somewhat positive note: I think it's very hard to kill ALL
of us. So called primitive societies exist in remote and hard-to-access
locations, like te people of Sentinel Island,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
and such societies won't be so easily destroyed by the lack of fossil
fuels since they never learned to depend on them in the first place.
I wonder if people in the distant future, when they look back on our
era, will believe the stories about how billions of us wallowed in
incredible luxury with air-conditioning, refrigeration, jumbo jets,
cars, lights and stoves turned on by the touch of a button, enormous
ships made of steel, terrible weapons with overkill capacity and so on,
or if they will think these stories are just silly fairy tales about
some lost golden age, the oil age.
Disclaimer: The time intervals above are only rough estimates; they may
may be more or less off, depending on how quickly the world's leaders
will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, and what ways
they chose to deal with the problems. My advice is to build facilities
for harvesting wind power and nuclear power now, while there still is
enough fossil fuels left to allow doing so on a large scale. In fact, I
think every feasible method for harvesting energy should be adopted as
soon as possible.
S.
> Have you ever heard of Charles Manson?
>
> SG is speaking from the same Bookist script and such beliefs
> can and do lead to grief and not just for the believer.
>
> OK, maybe you can suggest that Sharon Tate and cronies were
> themselves to blame for hanging loose with druggies,
> paedos and the Satanic fringe but that was not case for
> Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.
Well, even if SG seems a bit unhinged right now, he doesn't appear to be
an evil or vicious kind of person. I doubt he is going to kill or hurt
anybody. What would be the point, if he thinks we're all going to die
anyway?
SG is trying to warn people of a coming disaster, as is of course the
duty of everyone who thinks he knows disaster is coming. Nothing wrong
with that. But I think he is mistaken about the date and the suddenness
of the cataclysm. Also, even if it should all be true, despite not being
supported by any kind of science, his warning comes a bit too late for
anyone to be able to heed it in one way or another.
I actually do the same thing as SG, in principle, when I warn everybody
about the misery the world will suffer some 20 to 60 years from now,
when there will be a severe and worsening lack of fossil fuels and
phosphates, causing mass starvation due to the impossibility of
mechanized, artificially fertilized and insecticide- and herbicide-heavy
agriculture without input of large amounts of energy. Bad weather,
flooding of the coasts and the drying up of the rivers that run from the
dwindling glaciers
http://www.glacierworks.org/the-rivers/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alps#Glaciers
won't do anything to improve the situation, nor will the increased cost
of transport by land, air or shipping sustain today's level of
globalizition.
Forty years from now, if we survive at all (there's always the risk that
some idiot starts the third world war as tensions grow because of
competition for resources), there will be no more than 3 billion people
alive, since the Earth can't feed more than that number when fossil
fuels become more or less unavailable, and 50 years from now there will
probably be no more than 2 billion of us. It's been estimated that
without the help of fossil fuels etc., around 2-3 billion of people is
the maximum that can eke out a living on the earth. I think the lower
number, 2 billion, would allow for sustainable existence, perhaps even
some comfort, and if humanity survives, that may be the number Earth's
population will tend to in the long run, maybe even less than 2 billion,
but probably more than 1 billion.
To me, the only difference between me and SG is that I think my warnings
do serve a purpose, since I think politicians and decision makers all
over the world can be awakened to the facts and start to plan for these
things, and even though it is now too late to prevent mass starvation,
perhaps it's still possible to avoid a total breakdown of society or the
worst-case scenario, the extinction of all of mankind and many other
species, maybe as a result of an ecological catastrophe caused by the
extermination of such species as we can eat or use for fuel.
To leave on a somewhat positive note: I think it's very hard to kill ALL
of us. So called primitive societies exist in remote and hard-to-access
locations, like te people of Sentinel Island,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
and such societies won't be so easily destroyed by the lack of fossil
fuels since they never learned to depend on them in the first place.
I wonder if people in the distant future, when they look back on our
era, will believe the stories about how billions of us wallowed in
incredible luxury with air-conditioning, refrigeration, jumbo jets,
cars, lights and stoves turned on by the touch of a button, enormous
ships made of steel, terrible weapons with overkill capacity and so on,
or if they will think these stories are just silly fairy tales about
some lost golden age, the oil age.
Disclaimer: The time intervals above are only rough estimates; they may
may be more or less off, depending on how quickly the world's leaders
will be able to grasp the seriousness of the situation, and what ways
they chose to deal with the problems. My advice is to build facilities
for harvesting wind power and nuclear power now, while there still is
enough fossil fuels left to allow doing so on a large scale. In fact, I
think every feasible method for harvesting energy should be adopted as
soon as possible.
S.
mortx
Nov 16, 2012, 2:45:49 AM11/16/12
to
Wilson
Nov 16, 2012, 8:14:07 AM11/16/12
to
ship across the ocean nor will it fly an airplane. Neither will solar.
But you will see the beneficiaries of the money dump that these
economically unsustainable energy projects require will continue to push
hard. It's in their financial interest.
What you will see as petroleum grows more expensive is new ways to get
previously unreachable sources. Like fracking today has brought to
market so much natural gas that its price in the US is currently below
what it costs. And then there's coal which can be turned into other
products if the need is great enough. There are hundreds of years (at
current rates of use) of known coal reserves in the world.
It's all a scam. Pollution is the only real issue and if you others do
not focus on that, you are wasting your efforts.
--
Wilson
Julian
Nov 16, 2012, 11:45:46 AM11/16/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 16, 2012, 11:46:35 AM11/16/12
to
sea transport at all. Rather the opposite.
> But you will see the beneficiaries of the money dump that these
> economically unsustainable energy projects require will continue to push
> hard. It's in their financial interest.
by selling wind generated electricity from their own windmills to the
net. Germany, too, has lots of windpower.
> What you will see as petroleum grows more expensive is new ways to get
> previously unreachable sources.
> Like fracking today has brought to
> market so much natural gas that its price in the US is currently below
> what it costs. And then there's coal which can be turned into other
> products if the need is great enough. There are hundreds of years (at
> current rates of use) of known coal reserves in the world.
>
> It's all a scam. Pollution is the only real issue and if you others do
> not focus on that, you are wasting your efforts.
known coal reserves, you say? You have been taken in, dear Wilson,
someone has made a fool out of you, simply because of your ignorance of
numbers and facts and fundamental physics. Well, I guess you don't know
what I did last summer. What I did was discussing that very thing, coal
reserves, over at sci.energy, and I'll quote one post from back then for
your education.
It's rather long, but here it is. I hope you'll read it until you
understand it. Make sure that you check all the numbers and calculations
too.
==================================================================
Quote starts here:
Sevenhundred Elves
2011-07-15
removetheseandaddmatthe end wrote:
>
> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ivn0jt$hcr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > removetheseandaddmatthe end wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:ivllgs$f21$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> > removetheseandaddmatthe end wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ivkvmh$3bp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> >> > removetheseandaddmatthe end wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We have hundreds of years worth of Gas and Coal left!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's an astonishing statement. Sources?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Years of production left in the ground with the current proved
> >> >> reserves
> >> >> and
> >> >> flows above
> >> >> a.. Coal: 148 years
> >> >> b.. Oil: 43 years
> >> >> c.. Natural gas: 61 years
> >> >> Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic proved
> >> >> reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)[citation needed]
> >> >>
> >> >> a.. Coal: 417 years
> >> >> b.. Oil: 43 years
> >> >> c.. Natural gas: 167 years"
> >> >> Guess what the Cult of AGW has used its propaganda on you. And these
> >> >> figures
> >> >> were the same before the Shale Gas thing really got big.
> >> >
> >> > Those numbers don't spell out hundreds of years except to the most
> >> > confused optimist. I managed to find the Wikipedia article you're
> >> > quoting,
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
> >> >
> >> > and I noticed that you conveniently left out something quite important.
> >> > Immediately after the part you quoted above, it says:
> >> >
> >> > "The calculation above assumes that the product could be produced at a
> >> > constant level for that number of years and that all of the proved
> >> > reserves could be recovered. In reality, consumption of all three
> >> > resources has been increasing."
> >> >
> >> > That is quite important to keep in mind, and also that if you propose
> >> > to
> >> > substitute gas and coal for petroleum, as petroleum production dwindles
> >> > to nothing in 43 years, you will have to increase the production of
> >> > coal
> >> > and gas, and that means the coal and gas will run out much faster than
> >> > the numbers you quote. We're definitely not talking hundreds of years
> >> > here.
> >>
> >>
> >> 417 years is not hundreds of years? As I also said regards gas this was
> >> before the Shale Gas Boom.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas#Economics
> >
> > 417 years is absurd; it must come from a miscalculation. When talking
> > about topics like this, we should be careful to use verified and actual
> > numbers from only the best sources, since there are so many spin
> > doctors, shills and deluded persons who try to spread false facts
> > around.
> >
> > The most authoritative numbers I've been able to find are those compiled
> > by the World Energy Council (WEC).
> >
> > The World Energy Council, in its report Survey of Energy Resources 2010,
> > http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
> >
> > says the following about the amounts of coal used:
> >
> > "Around 5.8 billion tonnes of hard coal and 953
> > million tonnes of brown coal were used worldwide
> > in 2008. Since 2000, global coal consumption has
> > grown faster than any other fuel at 4.9% per
> > year. The five largest coal users - China, USA,
> > India, Japan and Russia - account for around 72%
> > of total global coal use."
> >
> > Add up both kinds of coal, and what you get 6.753 billion tonnes.
> >
> > And here's what the WEC says, in the same report, about global coal
> > reserves:
> >
> > "Coal: proved recoverable reserves at end-2008 (million tonnes) 860 938"
> >
> > Now I urge you to take out your calculator and do the division:
> >
> > 860.938 billion tonnes / 6.753 billion tonnes per year = 127.5 years
> >
> > That's not hundreds of years, far from it.
> >
>
> Someone has got their figures wrong.
I'm glad that we agree on that, as long as you don't think it's me :)
The numbers are the official numbers from WEC's latest report. Read it
yourself:
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
I can't see why the WEC should tell lies about this, when nations and
international business depend on them for correct numbers. Read more
about the World Energy Council here:
http://www.worldenergy.org/
> > The next step, so often omitted in calculations like this, is to see how
> > these reserves will fare when the consumption is growing at 4.9 percent
> > annually. We'll use the formula provided by Professor Bartlett at
> > http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_appendix.html
> >
> > The formula is
> >
> > Te=(1/k)*ln(k*R/r0+1)
>
> 5% rule of 72, 14.4 years at 5% leads to 100% or a doubling if compounded.
Yes, that's right, after about 14.4 years, the annual coal production
doubles, if we assume an annual growth rate of 5%. But I take what you
say here to mean that you have some doubt about the validity or method
of my calculation. So let's see if we get the same number of years using
the more traditional accounting method of putting down the annual
numbers in a table, one row per year. Please check that each amount of
coal taken away every year really is 4.9% greater than the preceding
year, no more, no less, so you see for yourself that I'm not trying to
trick you. (I produced the table with a spreadsheet program, I didn't
calculate it manually, so it should check out just fine.)
Year Amount Amount left
taken in reserves
away
0 860.938
1 6.753 854.185
2 7.084 847.101
3 7.431 839.670
4 7.795 831.875
5 8.177 823.698
6 8.578 815.120
7 8.998 806.122
8 9.439 796.683
9 9.901 786.782
10 10.387 776.395
11 10.896 765.499
12 11.429 754.070
13 11.990 742.080
14 12.577 729.503
15 13.193 716.310
16 13.840 702.470
17 14.518 687.952
18 15.229 672.723
19 15.976 656.747
20 16.758 639.989
21 17.579 622.410
22 18.441 603.969
23 19.344 584.624
24 20.292 564.332
25 21.287 543.045
26 22.330 520.715
27 23.424 497.291
28 24.572 472.720
29 25.776 446.944
30 27.039 419.905
31 28.364 391.542
32 29.753 361.788
33 31.211 330.577
34 32.741 297.836
35 34.345 263.491
36 36.028 227.463
37 37.793 189.670
38 39.645 150.025
39 41.588 108.437
40 43.626 64.812
41 45.763 19.049
Again it seems that after a little more than 40 years, all the coal will
be used up. Do you find this easy-to-read table convincing enough? This
is what will happen to the global coal reserves in forty years,
asssuming the current annual growth in coal production (4.9%) will
remain steady, and not increase (as I'm afraid it will once oil runs
out).
> > where:
> >
> > Te is the time in years before expiry
> > k is the fractional growth per year
> > r0 is the amount of consumption at the beginning
> > R is the amount of the resource
> > ln is the natural logarithm of what's inside the following parenthesis
> >
> > Stick the WEC numbers into that equation, and you get
> >
> > Te=(1/0.049)*ln(0.049*860.938/6.753+1) = 40.4 years
> >
> > Forty years of coal left. I know it sounds surprisingly little, but such
> > is the power of calculations with compound interest. You can ask any one
> > of your banker friends (or a scientist friend, of course) about the
> > validity of the formula and he will not be able to find a flaw with it.
> >
> > I'm sorry to say that your "hundreds of years" was a long way off the
> > mark. I mean, I am really very, very sorry about this whole miserable
> > situation with the fossil fuels. I would have loved it if you were
> > right.
>
> You don't believe your own figures. You really think that wiki is so far out
> 400years, no 40 years!!!?? Come on!
I do believe that the calculated figures are reasonably accurate, but
not that they will predict the future exactly. Much may happen in forty
years.
And yes, the Wikipedia (in that paragraph) is wrong by an order of
magnitude, which is why I called that number absurd. I also noticed that
the particular paragraph in Wikipedia was marked with "[citation
needed]". Also, you do realize that anyone may write anything in the
Wikipedia, don't you? This means that Wikipedia is often a good starting
point for further research, but it's not reliable enough to be used as
source material in a serious discussion about controversial subjects.
=============================================================
Quote ends here
I trust you will find my sources and my calculations impeccable. The
table I made is particularly hard to refute, I think. There's more of
the same discussion to be found on Google Groups (but surely a word is
sufficient for the wise):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/Why$20do$20some$20Greens$20support$20nuclear?/alt.global-warming/t1ku9j5SOX8/XMKxMUz6-m4J
S.
brian mitchell
Nov 16, 2012, 1:10:57 PM11/16/12
to
Wilson wrote:
> Wind energy will not move a ship across the ocean...
Where to start with this assertion...? For hundreds, possibly thousands, of years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper
> Wind energy will not move a ship across the ocean...
Where to start with this assertion...? For hundreds, possibly thousands, of years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 16, 2012, 2:02:06 PM11/16/12
to
S.
Julian
Nov 16, 2012, 2:32:37 PM11/16/12
to
"when I warn everybody about the misery the world
And then MEGO.
I guess I don't subscribe to your religion or something.
Message has been deleted
Wilson
Nov 16, 2012, 5:01:27 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/2012 11:46 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
US it is heavily subsidized because it's not financially viable without
subsidies. It does not pay for itself because oil is still far more
economical than either solar or wind.
>
>> What you will see as petroleum grows more expensive is new ways to get
>> previously unreachable sources.
>
> Forever? There's no end to it?
There's hundreds of years worth, and that's what we know about. What
gets talked about is "proved reserves" and that's far less than what's
theoretically available. Known proved reserves is a technical term with
a specific meaning: It's the amount of a resource that is economically
viable to produce. At current prices of around $100 a barrel there are
lots of new things coming on-line that were not viable when oil was $50
a barrel. Like Canadian shale oil for instance. The US has lots of that
too. The problem with shale is it tends to be dirtier to produce, but
that may change as technology improves.
Oh yeah, that's the other thing that will change the curve.
Technological advancements will also increase what we are able to get
out of the ground. It's tough to say right now what that technology
will be, but advances tend to come to light when they are needed.
>>>>>> reserve estimates (Oil& Gas Journal, World Oil)[citation needed]
There's some seriously fallacious reasoning going on there. First off,
just because coal consumption has grown at 4.9% annually doesn't mean it
will continue to increase at 4.9 percent. It might increase more or
less, we don't know. But we can look at what has cause the increase and
make an educated guess. In this case it's almost exclusively China.
China has been on an industrial expansion boom the last 20 years.
It's virtually certain that coal use in China will not continue to
increase as it has in the recent past and will level off very soon. The
reason is, that rate of increase simply can't be continued for both
economic and logistical reasons. And when you take into account that the
US is phasing out it's coal power plants because of new air pollution
standards, we're potentially back to hundreds of years of coal.
As an example of how these kinds of trends can be misleading, US crude
oil proved reserves increased from 21 billion barrels in 2008 to 25
billion barrels in 2010. That's a 19% increase in just two years. If
that trend were to continue (it won't) we'd literally all be drowning in
the stuff in a few years!
Wait, did you catch that? Proved reserves of oil actually *increased*
in the US. Again, it was because the increased price of oil made more
of the stuff in the ground economically recoverable, and because new
technology made it easier to get.
A good website that I googled up explains a lot of this in pretty clear
language: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/
Check out the chart showing the increase in "wet" natural gas. US total
proved reserves have increased from roughly 175 trillion cubic feet in
1998 to 320 in 2010. That's an 82% increase in 12 years. We are
finding gas much faster than we can use it and now have more proved
reserves since pretty much ever.
No, it won't last forever but we are nowhere near running out. Now all
we have to do is find a way to use it cleanly.
--
Wilson
> Wilson said:
>>
>> You are almost certainly completely wrong. Wind energy will not move a
>> ship across the ocean nor will it fly an airplane. Neither will solar.
>
> I don't think I said there would be energy enough to allow much air or
> sea transport at all. Rather the opposite.
>
>> But you will see the beneficiaries of the money dump that these
>> economically unsustainable energy projects require will continue to push
>> hard. It's in their financial interest.
>
> I've no idea what you're talking about. Danish farmers make good profit
> by selling wind generated electricity from their own windmills to the
> net. Germany, too, has lots of windpower.
Check it out and see if it's subsidized by the government. Here in the
>>
>> You are almost certainly completely wrong. Wind energy will not move a
>> ship across the ocean nor will it fly an airplane. Neither will solar.
>
> I don't think I said there would be energy enough to allow much air or
> sea transport at all. Rather the opposite.
>
>> But you will see the beneficiaries of the money dump that these
>> economically unsustainable energy projects require will continue to push
>> hard. It's in their financial interest.
>
> I've no idea what you're talking about. Danish farmers make good profit
> by selling wind generated electricity from their own windmills to the
> net. Germany, too, has lots of windpower.
US it is heavily subsidized because it's not financially viable without
subsidies. It does not pay for itself because oil is still far more
economical than either solar or wind.
>
>> What you will see as petroleum grows more expensive is new ways to get
>> previously unreachable sources.
>
> Forever? There's no end to it?
gets talked about is "proved reserves" and that's far less than what's
theoretically available. Known proved reserves is a technical term with
a specific meaning: It's the amount of a resource that is economically
viable to produce. At current prices of around $100 a barrel there are
lots of new things coming on-line that were not viable when oil was $50
a barrel. Like Canadian shale oil for instance. The US has lots of that
too. The problem with shale is it tends to be dirtier to produce, but
that may change as technology improves.
Oh yeah, that's the other thing that will change the curve.
Technological advancements will also increase what we are able to get
out of the ground. It's tough to say right now what that technology
will be, but advances tend to come to light when they are needed.
just because coal consumption has grown at 4.9% annually doesn't mean it
will continue to increase at 4.9 percent. It might increase more or
less, we don't know. But we can look at what has cause the increase and
make an educated guess. In this case it's almost exclusively China.
China has been on an industrial expansion boom the last 20 years.
It's virtually certain that coal use in China will not continue to
increase as it has in the recent past and will level off very soon. The
reason is, that rate of increase simply can't be continued for both
economic and logistical reasons. And when you take into account that the
US is phasing out it's coal power plants because of new air pollution
standards, we're potentially back to hundreds of years of coal.
As an example of how these kinds of trends can be misleading, US crude
oil proved reserves increased from 21 billion barrels in 2008 to 25
billion barrels in 2010. That's a 19% increase in just two years. If
that trend were to continue (it won't) we'd literally all be drowning in
the stuff in a few years!
Wait, did you catch that? Proved reserves of oil actually *increased*
in the US. Again, it was because the increased price of oil made more
of the stuff in the ground economically recoverable, and because new
technology made it easier to get.
A good website that I googled up explains a lot of this in pretty clear
language: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/
Check out the chart showing the increase in "wet" natural gas. US total
proved reserves have increased from roughly 175 trillion cubic feet in
1998 to 320 in 2010. That's an 82% increase in 12 years. We are
finding gas much faster than we can use it and now have more proved
reserves since pretty much ever.
No, it won't last forever but we are nowhere near running out. Now all
we have to do is find a way to use it cleanly.
--
Wilson
Wilson
Nov 16, 2012, 7:44:54 PM11/16/12
to
ships that we use today.
--
Wilson
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 16, 2012, 9:01:50 PM11/16/12
to
topic in any way, feel free to emulate Wilson who at least is trying to
come up with some facts and numbers to contradict me. Facts are what it
takes, and it will cost me some effort (and some time, sorry about that
Wilson, no immediate answer now) to check his facts, and if all he says
is true I'll have to change my opinion. Compared to Wilson, you have no
argument, and your skepticism, if that's what it is, doesn't seem to be
of the scientific kind.
S.
Love
Nov 16, 2012, 10:47:09 PM11/16/12
to
In article <N8OdneAObtcqKjvN...@supernews.com>,
Wil...@nowhere.net says...
Calling that reasoning (which is quite good) "seriously
fallacious" is way over the rhetorical top, Wilson, but
the rest of your response has me eager to see where
this thread goes so I hope you won't be too distracted
by the big guy in a skirt with a vuvuzela.
--
Love
"If you would know a man, observe how he treats a cat."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Wil...@nowhere.net says...
fallacious" is way over the rhetorical top, Wilson, but
the rest of your response has me eager to see where
this thread goes so I hope you won't be too distracted
by the big guy in a skirt with a vuvuzela.
--
Love
"If you would know a man, observe how he treats a cat."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Love
Nov 16, 2012, 10:49:38 PM11/16/12
to
In article <Rv6dnWAs0JWeQzvN...@supernews.com>, Wil...@nowhere.net
says...
Psst, just give up on that one, 'cause next some prick
will point out that submarines were the original hybrid
vehicles....oh shit, I am that prick!
says...
will point out that submarines were the original hybrid
vehicles....oh shit, I am that prick!
Julian
Nov 17, 2012, 12:37:22 AM11/17/12
to
There are a number of competing technologies, eg, metal sails,
on trial or in the pipeline but none will completely negate
the use of engines which will always be needed particularly
for manouvering in and out of port and, of course, windless
days.
Mind you, even in ideal conditions, only upto 35%
energy is expected to be saveable.
Julian
Nov 17, 2012, 12:45:49 AM11/17/12
to
On 17/11/2012 03:01, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> Julian said:
>
>> On 16/11/2012 20:02, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>>> Julian said:
>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2012 14:14, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You are almost certainly completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I thought so too but couldn't get beyond paragraph 5.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> I get to something like...
>>
>> "when I warn everybody about the misery the world
>> will suffer some 20 to 60 years from now..."
>>
>> And then MEGO.
>> I guess I don't subscribe to your religion or something.
>
> Instead of ad hominems about my religion, which has no bearings on this
> topic in any way, feel free to emulate Wilson who at least is trying to
> come up with some facts and numbers to contradict me.
You're in a very sorry state when you confuse someone admiting
> Julian said:
>
>> On 16/11/2012 20:02, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>>> Julian said:
>>>
>>>> On 16/11/2012 14:14, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You are almost certainly completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I thought so too but couldn't get beyond paragraph 5.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> I get to something like...
>>
>> "when I warn everybody about the misery the world
>> will suffer some 20 to 60 years from now..."
>>
>> And then MEGO.
>> I guess I don't subscribe to your religion or something.
>
> Instead of ad hominems about my religion, which has no bearings on this
> topic in any way, feel free to emulate Wilson who at least is trying to
> come up with some facts and numbers to contradict me.
to not subscribing to your religion as an ad hominem attack.
Julian
Nov 17, 2012, 1:06:37 AM11/17/12
to
the door merchants such as Jehovah's Witnesses to no avail so now
I simply kick the foot away and close the door and return to bed
or resume my breakfast depending on how uncivilised the hour.
mortx
Nov 17, 2012, 1:22:02 AM11/17/12
to
Love
Nov 17, 2012, 9:35:27 AM11/17/12
to
In article <s5adnV8aWKWWsDrN...@giganews.com>, m...@x.org says...
Cool. Pictures of hallucinations a tricky
to get.
to get.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 17, 2012, 11:25:48 AM11/17/12
to
isn't very much.
And as I'm sure you know, or have the capacity to reason out, with a
doubling rate (of oil pumping) of 14 years, the known reserves will need
to increase not 19%, but 100% just to last 14 years longer.
There is no point in denying that there is a trend of exponentional
outtake from the fossil reserves. The trend has been fairly steady, too,
over many years, if I remember it right. I'll see if I can find some
uncontroversial source for that later on, as I don't remember right now
where I first got it. It can't go on for ever, of course. When the
resources start to get depleted, there will be no exponentional increase
in yearly production, but rather the opposite.
> Wait, did you catch that? Proved reserves of oil actually *increased*
> in the US. Again, it was because the increased price of oil made more
> of the stuff in the ground economically recoverable, and because new
> technology made it easier to get.
>
> A good website that I googled up explains a lot of this in pretty clear
> language: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/
that website. Odd, because I know it's there; I've studied it before.
Well. I'll read it when I can.
>
> Check out the chart showing the increase in "wet" natural gas. US total
> proved reserves have increased from roughly 175 trillion cubic feet in
> 1998 to 320 in 2010. That's an 82% increase in 12 years. We are
> finding gas much faster than we can use it and now have more proved
> reserves since pretty much ever.
>
> No, it won't last forever but we are nowhere near running out. Now all
> we have to do is find a way to use it cleanly.
the fossil fuels last more than 60 years, wouldn't it be a wise thing to
start planning for the end of the oil-age as soon as possible? In Europe
many countries have adopted policies to get rid of oil dependency. Sure,
the reason may well be that the Europeans don't have any oil of their
own (the oil fields in the North Sea have peaked already), but Americans
don't have much left either.
S.
brian mitchell
Nov 17, 2012, 1:52:26 PM11/17/12
to
of how large reserves are or aren't becomes moot.
<quote>
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that a global temperature rise of 2°C would have
"catastrophic" consequences for the future of humanity --not to mention all the other animals. For
temperatures to rise this high, the world will need to release 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere.
Right now, fossil fuel companies have 2,795 gigatons of carbon dioxide in their fuel reserves. Their
business model depends on that fuel being sold and burned. And at current rates of consumption, the
world will have burned up the 565 gigatons in 16 years. That means we're out of options in 2028.
</quote>
http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/11/the-end-of-the-world-2028-says-bill-mckibben/
Carbon capture technology is well advanced, though not yet widely used. This is because capturing
the carbon hugely reduces the efficiency of fossil fuels due to the energy needs of the technology
itself. Logically, we would have to burn more fossil fuel to keep up with current demand, meaning
that the reserves would be used up all the more quickly.
Carbon capture is only really feasible where emissions are concentrated, such as at power stations.
For it to address the greenhouse gases issue, all ground transport and domestic energy use would
have to be electric, and that would have to be *legally mandated* at once, not when the market got
around to it. Can we see that happening? And that still leaves air and sea transport pumping CO2
into the atmosphere.
However, there's yet another question:
<quote>
Two years ago, two people from the World Bank wrote a paper saying that more than half of all
greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed directly to cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, goats,
buffalo and camels.
The two writers, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, are not radical vegans from a fringe animal rights
group; Goodland is a former World Bank Group environmental advisor, and Anhang is an environmental
specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation.
These two experts reviewed a United Nations report (Livestock’s Long Shadow) which said that annual
emissions from these domestic animals account for 18 percent of greenhouse gases. But Goodland and
Anhang concluded that the UN’s figures were way too low, and that the true number is at least 51
percent:
<inset quote of the World Bank paper>
"Whenever the causes of climate change are discussed, fossil fuels top the list. Oil, natural gas,
and especially coal are indeed major sources of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
"But we believe that the life cycle and supply chain of domesticated animals raised for food have
been vastly underestimated as a source of GHGs, and in fact account for at least half of all
human-caused GHGs.
"If this argument is right, it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives
would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. In fact, this approach would have far more
rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations – and thus on the rate the
climate is warming – than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
"Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG emissions. “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, the
widely-cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates
that 7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), or 18 percent of annual worldwide
GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry.
That amount would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the search for ways to address
climate change.
"But our analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564
million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions."
<end inset quote>
</quote>
[ibid]
It would be a technical challenge to place carbon capture equipment on the rear end of every cow,
sheep, pig, chicken, horse, goat, buffalo and camel in the world, and that doesn't deal with all the
methane producers in the wild. All of this means that the release of 565 gigatons of CO2 into the
atmosphere could occur well before 2028.
Wilson
Nov 17, 2012, 2:20:19 PM11/17/12
to
technical but fairly easy to read.
As I noted above, "proved reserves" change and have increased. Here's
another explanation of "proved" versus "total availability" or
"recoverable":
"An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource
availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the
current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years.
However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on
known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total
resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional
projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves.
Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase
as new technologies are developed."
That can be found at http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=38&t=6
___
And then there's an industry information web site from:
http://www.energyforamerica.org/inventory/
"The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress released
a report showing that the United States’ combined recoverable oil,
natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.
"The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States
is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located
offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain
West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total
recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.
"That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was
drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in
context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved
reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in
North America could fuel the present needs in the United states of seven
billion barrels per year for around 250 years.
"The “reserves” estimates are constantly in flux. For example, in 1980,
the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980
through 2010, we produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other
words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 percent of our 1980
proved reserves". (And Wilson notes, we have not come close to running
out).
Natural Gas
"Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout
North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural
gas is even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States
has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The
total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is
approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.
Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet
per, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United
States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.
Coal
"With respect to total recoverable resources, however, North America’s
combined coal supplies are even more staggering. The United States,
Canada, and Mexico have over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal,
or nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second
largest reserves. North America’s recoverable coal resources are bigger
than the five largest non-North American countries’ reserves combined
(Russia, China, Australia, India, Ukraine)."
___
Is the rate of use in the US increasing exponentially? I don't think so.
Again from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
"How much oil does the United States consume per year?"
"The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83
million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million
barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010."
If you like charts, there's one showing US usage from 1980 to 2010 at:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS1&f=A
Usage in the US ranged from a low of 5,559,364 thousand barrels in 1983
to a high of 7,592,789 in 2005, then dropping to 6,916,552 in 2011.
___
Would it be a wise thing to start planning for the end of the oil-age as
soon as possible?
Sure, but do we know how much oil we will have available in 60 years?
Nope. As recent history shows, proved reserves are only a small part of
the total available. And what we know of as the total available has
increased recently as well.
Do we know what sort of energy production technology will be available
in 60 years? Nope. Technology continues to advance.
You are wasting your time and personal energy worrying about running out
of oil. Peak oil is a myth. A very good explanation why that is so can
be found here:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/econ-101-peak-oil-is-peak-idiocy.html
According to the GAO (US Government Accountability Office) one new
discovery alone in the Green River Formation has total available
resources of hundreds of years:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river.html
So does it make sense to spend money on current technology to hedge our
bets against possibly running out of oil at some future date? Not
really. Cutting petroleum use only makes sense if pollution reduction
and biodiversity and wildlife habitat protection is the reason.
--
Wilson
Love
Nov 18, 2012, 1:24:11 AM11/18/12
to
In article <3skfa89lugmp6a60g...@4ax.com>, brai...@fishing.net says...
We need to let the free market respond to this. We
can support that with research grants supporting the
development of low-GHG livestock (LGHGL). If this
cannot be done by breeding then genetically modified
livestock (GMLGHGL) should be promoted. If this
program isn't showing results by 2027 then we will
need a crash program to convert all existing
livestock into net carbon sinks by using GM
technology to make them chlorophyl-bearing (GMCBLGHGL).
can support that with research grants supporting the
development of low-GHG livestock (LGHGL). If this
cannot be done by breeding then genetically modified
livestock (GMLGHGL) should be promoted. If this
program isn't showing results by 2027 then we will
need a crash program to convert all existing
livestock into net carbon sinks by using GM
technology to make them chlorophyl-bearing (GMCBLGHGL).
Wilson
Nov 18, 2012, 10:09:00 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/18/2012 1:24 AM, Love wrote:
> In article<3skfa89lugmp6a60g...@4ax.com>, brai...@fishing.net says...
>>
> In article<3skfa89lugmp6a60g...@4ax.com>, brai...@fishing.net says...
>>
head off that sort of thinking. We simply can't allow folks and their
critters to wander around farting and stuff.
But in my more lucid moments I find myself wondering how it is that none
of our climate models have been able to accurately predict world
temperatures. None of them have forecast we would end up where we are
now. The honest truth is we do not know if 565 gigatons of carbon will
increase temps by 2°C. Saying that it will as if it were a proven fact
strikes me as simple ignorance or blind ideology. When they get the
models right, that's when I'll start paying attention to statements like
that.
The second prediction that such a rise would have "catastrophic"
consequences is also bogus. It wouldn't be good and it would cause
species to change their range and probably some extinctions. But it's
been much warmer than that on the Earth in the past and life thrived so
it's not the end. That sort of emotional appeal by crisis doomsaying is
dishonest.
Reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But the hysterics that have been
used are a discredit to science and the environmental ethic in the
public's eye. Pretty much none of them have come true yet.
--
Wilson
brian mitchell
Nov 18, 2012, 3:16:59 PM11/18/12
to
Wilson wrote:
>But in my more lucid moments I find myself wondering how it is that none
>of our climate models have been able to accurately predict world
>temperatures...
>But in my more lucid moments I find myself wondering how it is that none
>of our climate models have been able to accurately predict world
Given the difficulties in modelling such a large and complex system that may be asking too much. The
models might be correct in their large-scale trend predictions without being able to settle on fine
specifics. There is also ongoing debate about the significance of varying data. You possibly assume
that the debate is over because the last thing you read accorded with your preferences in the
matter.
>None of them have forecast we would end up where we are
>now. The honest truth is we do not know if 565 gigatons of carbon will
>increase temps by 2°C. Saying that it will as if it were a proven fact
I had no idea where that figure came from so I did a little tracking. The main source for settling
on a "safe" ppm rate seems to be this:
________________
A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461, 472-475 (24
September 2009); doi:10.1038/461472a; Published online 23 September 2009
Hansen, James, et al. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Submitted April 7, 2008.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen's paper about the 350ppm target.
Hansen, James, et al. Target Atmospheric CO2: Supporting Material. Submitted April 7, 2008.
_______________
(On the website these came from they were links to Cornell University Library, but the linkage
didn't survive copying)
One source (suggested as the main one) for the gigaton amounts that give particular rises in
temperature is this:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/pubs/Meinshausen_etal_2009_Nature/Meinshausen_etal_2009_GHGTargets2C_Nature.pdf
The above is all one link but may be affected by line breaks. It can be reconstructed in notepad or
something if you're interested enough to follow it. Apparently the significant information is in
table 1, first row. I looked at it but I'm not able to take anything from it as I'm so
mathematically challenged I can count my own fingers and come up with a wrong result. If you are
interested enough to follow these links, I doubt you would then be able to dismiss the figures as
being either "simple ignorance or blind ideology." They are science, which you believe in.
>The second prediction that such a rise would have "catastrophic"
>consequences is also bogus. It wouldn't be good and it would cause
I'm amused at how blithely you wave away likely consequences of a 2 degree mean temp rise. I can
just see "species" packing their suitcases and catching the train to a new range, easy as that. A
few extinctions along the way but what the hell, we've got enough.
>But it's
>been much warmer than that on the Earth in the past and life thrived so
Can you provide a cite for this which *doesn't* come from a denialist website like
"whatsupwiththis", i.e., an actual scientific study?
>That sort of emotional appeal by crisis doomsaying is
>dishonest.
"catastrophic" is used in a particularly anthropocentric way as being catastrophic for our current
civilisations, not for life in general. It might be over-egging the pudding a bit, but no more than
publicists from your side of the aisle engage in. After all, this is an information war we're
engaged in. Don't pretend that you represent some sort of commonsense middle ground --that would be
dishonest.
>Reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But the hysterics that have been
>used are a discredit to science and the environmental ethic in the
>public's eye. Pretty much none of them have come true yet.
Speaking of climate models, while I was crawling around the web (I have a very slow connection) I
>Reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But the hysterics that have been
>used are a discredit to science and the environmental ethic in the
>public's eye. Pretty much none of them have come true yet.
came across this:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-352
" . . . The researchers found the climate models that most accurately captured these complex
moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also
the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere.
"There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key
areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide," said Fasullo. "Given
how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate, our findings indicate
that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections."
But I suppose NASA, for obscure reasons of its own, is in on the Great AGW Hoax, along with the
World Bank and the IPCC, of course.
SG
Nov 18, 2012, 7:07:52 PM11/18/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fEAI26zEk
liaM
Nov 18, 2012, 9:38:26 PM11/18/12
to
Julian
Nov 19, 2012, 2:04:59 AM11/19/12
to
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/dwd_2012_report.pdf
liaM
Nov 19, 2012, 7:16:30 AM11/19/12
to
Le 11/19/2012 8:04 AM, Julian a �crit :
>>>>> specialist at the World Bank Group�s International Finance
>>>>> Corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>> These two experts reviewed a United Nations report (Livestock�s Long
>>>>> Long Shadow�, the
>>> increase temps by 2�C. Saying that it will as if it were a proven fact
> On 19/11/2012 03:38, liaM wrote:
>> Le 11/18/2012 4:09 PM, Wilson a �crit :
>>> On 11/18/2012 1:24 AM, Love wrote:
>>>> In article<3skfa89lugmp6a60g...@4ax.com>,
>>>> brai...@fishing.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that a global temperature
>>>>> rise of 2�C
>>>> In article<3skfa89lugmp6a60g...@4ax.com>,
>>>> brai...@fishing.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that a global temperature
>>>>> Corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>> These two experts reviewed a United Nations report (Livestock�s Long
>>>>> Shadow)
>>>>> which said that annual
>>>>> emissions from these domestic animals account for 18 percent of
>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>> gases. But Goodland and
>>>>> Anhang concluded that the UN�s figures were way too low, and that the
>>>>> which said that annual
>>>>> emissions from these domestic animals account for 18 percent of
>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>> gases. But Goodland and
>>>>> true
>>>>> number is at least 51
>>>>> percent:
>>>>>
>>>>> <inset quote of the World Bank paper>
>>>>> "Whenever the causes of climate change are discussed, fossil fuels
>>>>> top the list.
>>>>> Oil, natural gas,
>>>>> and especially coal are indeed major sources of human-caused
>>>>> emissions of carbon
>>>>> dioxide (CO2) and
>>>>> other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
>>>>>
>>>>> "But we believe that the life cycle and supply chain of domesticated
>>>>> animals
>>>>> raised for food have
>>>>> been vastly underestimated as a source of GHGs, and in fact account
>>>>> for at least
>>>>> half of all
>>>>> human-caused GHGs.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If this argument is right, it implies that replacing livestock
>>>>> products with
>>>>> better alternatives
>>>>> would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. In fact,
>>>>> this approach
>>>>> would have far more
>>>>> rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations �
>>>>> number is at least 51
>>>>> percent:
>>>>>
>>>>> <inset quote of the World Bank paper>
>>>>> "Whenever the causes of climate change are discussed, fossil fuels
>>>>> top the list.
>>>>> Oil, natural gas,
>>>>> and especially coal are indeed major sources of human-caused
>>>>> emissions of carbon
>>>>> dioxide (CO2) and
>>>>> other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
>>>>>
>>>>> "But we believe that the life cycle and supply chain of domesticated
>>>>> animals
>>>>> raised for food have
>>>>> been vastly underestimated as a source of GHGs, and in fact account
>>>>> for at least
>>>>> half of all
>>>>> human-caused GHGs.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If this argument is right, it implies that replacing livestock
>>>>> products with
>>>>> better alternatives
>>>>> would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. In fact,
>>>>> this approach
>>>>> would have far more
>>>>> and thus
>>>>> on the rate the
>>>>> climate is warming � than actions to replace fossil fuels with
>>>>> on the rate the
>>>>> renewable energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG emissions.
>>>>> �Livestock�s
>>>>>
>>>>> "Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG emissions.
>>>>> Long Shadow�, the
>>> strikes me as simple ignorance or blind ideology. When they get the
>>> models right, that's when I'll start paying attention to statements like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> The second prediction that such a rise would have "catastrophic"
>>> consequences is also bogus. It wouldn't be good and it would cause
>>> species to change their range and probably some extinctions. But it's
>>> been much warmer than that on the Earth in the past and life thrived so
>>> it's not the end. That sort of emotional appeal by crisis doomsaying is
>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>> Reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But the hysterics that have been
>>> used are a discredit to science and the environmental ethic in the
>>> public's eye. Pretty much none of them have come true yet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/
>>
>
> That may be true for a European who slept right through Feb 2012.
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/dwd_2012_report.pdf
>
Or one who lived through 7 windy winters in Chicago :)
>>> models right, that's when I'll start paying attention to statements like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> The second prediction that such a rise would have "catastrophic"
>>> consequences is also bogus. It wouldn't be good and it would cause
>>> species to change their range and probably some extinctions. But it's
>>> been much warmer than that on the Earth in the past and life thrived so
>>> it's not the end. That sort of emotional appeal by crisis doomsaying is
>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>> Reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But the hysterics that have been
>>> used are a discredit to science and the environmental ethic in the
>>> public's eye. Pretty much none of them have come true yet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/
>>
>
> That may be true for a European who slept right through Feb 2012.
> http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/dwd_2012_report.pdf
>
Wilson
Nov 19, 2012, 12:31:50 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/18/2012 3:16 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> Wilson wrote:
>
> Wilson wrote:
>
> One source (suggested as the main one) for the gigaton amounts that give particular rises in
> temperature is this:
>
> http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/pubs/Meinshausen_etal_2009_Nature/Meinshausen_etal_2009_GHGTargets2C_Nature.pdf
>
> The above is all one link but may be affected by line breaks. It can be reconstructed in notepad or
> something if you're interested enough to follow it. Apparently the significant information is in
> table 1, first row. I looked at it but I'm not able to take anything from it as I'm so
> mathematically challenged I can count my own fingers and come up with a wrong result. If you are
> interested enough to follow these links, I doubt you would then be able to dismiss the figures as
> being either "simple ignorance or blind ideology." They are science, which you believe in.
My reason for saying that it's ignorance or ideology is the fact that
> temperature is this:
>
> http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/pubs/Meinshausen_etal_2009_Nature/Meinshausen_etal_2009_GHGTargets2C_Nature.pdf
>
> The above is all one link but may be affected by line breaks. It can be reconstructed in notepad or
> something if you're interested enough to follow it. Apparently the significant information is in
> table 1, first row. I looked at it but I'm not able to take anything from it as I'm so
> mathematically challenged I can count my own fingers and come up with a wrong result. If you are
> interested enough to follow these links, I doubt you would then be able to dismiss the figures as
> being either "simple ignorance or blind ideology." They are science, which you believe in.
the forecasts of climate models in the past have not come reasonably
close to matching what we have the real world today. They have not
worked:
"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's
climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead
author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we
have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the
climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
>
>
>> The second prediction that such a rise would have "catastrophic"
>> consequences is also bogus. It wouldn't be good and it would cause
>> species to change their range and probably some extinctions...
>
> I'm amused at how blithely you wave away likely consequences of a 2 degree mean temp rise. I can
> just see "species" packing their suitcases and catching the train to a new range, easy as that. A
> few extinctions along the way but what the hell, we've got enough.
counterpoint to the doom and gloom you posted. I did the best I could
at the time :-)
>> But it's
>> been much warmer than that on the Earth in the past and life thrived so
>> it's not the end...
>
> Can you provide a cite for this which *doesn't* come from a denialist website like
> "whatsupwiththis", i.e., an actual scientific study?
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.htmlEarth's Climatic
History
"Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct
a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found
that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were
probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion
years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial
periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before
present.
"The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as
the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets
covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of
time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not
static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated
(interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of
colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice
Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius
colder than they are today.
"The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal
period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and
subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The
warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the
Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 - 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this
cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped
behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release
altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with
the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC
average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the
Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.
Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the
Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began
and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present
volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.
"From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused
large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and
coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming
trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder
conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice
growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop
of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.
"The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures,
however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of
Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about
900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and
the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
"The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum.
It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During
this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and
Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above
current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the
Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest
occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great
droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.
"From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since
the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little
Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of
the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today.
During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced
one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold
weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to
die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling
1816 the year without a summer.
___
I love this stuff. Should have been a geologist.
--
Wilson
daletx
Nov 19, 2012, 5:42:09 PM11/19/12
to
DT
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 20, 2012, 8:49:46 PM11/20/12
to
Wilson said:
>
> All I have to do is Google and I get a wealth of information. It's
> technical but fairly easy to read.
>
> As I noted above, "proved reserves" change and have increased. Here's
> another explanation of "proved" versus "total availability" or
> "recoverable":
>
> "An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource
> availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the
> current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years.
> However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on
> known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total
> resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional
> projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves.
> Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase
> as new technologies are developed."
>
> That can be found at http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=38&t=6
> ___
>
> And then there's an industry information web site from:
> http://www.energyforamerica.org/inventory/
>
> Natural Gas
>
> All I have to do is Google and I get a wealth of information. It's
> technical but fairly easy to read.
>
> As I noted above, "proved reserves" change and have increased. Here's
> another explanation of "proved" versus "total availability" or
> "recoverable":
>
> "An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource
> availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the
> current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years.
> However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on
> known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total
> resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional
> projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves.
> Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase
> as new technologies are developed."
>
> That can be found at http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=38&t=6
> ___
>
> And then there's an industry information web site from:
> http://www.energyforamerica.org/inventory/
>
>
>
> Coal
>
> ___
>
> Is the rate of use in the US increasing exponentially? I don't think so.
>
> Again from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
>
> "How much oil does the United States consume per year?"
>
> "The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83
> million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million
> barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010."
>
> If you like charts, there's one showing US usage from 1980 to 2010 at:
> http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS1&f=A
>
> Usage in the US ranged from a low of 5,559,364 thousand barrels in 1983
> to a high of 7,592,789 in 2005, then dropping to 6,916,552 in 2011.
> ___
>
> ___
>
> Is the rate of use in the US increasing exponentially? I don't think so.
>
> Again from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
>
> "How much oil does the United States consume per year?"
>
> "The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83
> million barrels per day) in 2011 and 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million
> barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010."
>
> If you like charts, there's one showing US usage from 1980 to 2010 at:
> http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS1&f=A
>
> Usage in the US ranged from a low of 5,559,364 thousand barrels in 1983
> to a high of 7,592,789 in 2005, then dropping to 6,916,552 in 2011.
> ___
>
> Do we know what sort of energy production technology will be available
> in 60 years? Nope. Technology continues to advance.
>
> You are wasting your time and personal energy worrying about running out
> of oil. Peak oil is a myth. A very good explanation why that is so can
> be found here:
>
> http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/econ-101-peak-oil-is-peak-idiocy.html
>
> http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/200-year-supply-of-oil-in-green-river.html
> in 60 years? Nope. Technology continues to advance.
>
> You are wasting your time and personal energy worrying about running out
> of oil. Peak oil is a myth. A very good explanation why that is so can
> be found here:
>
> http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/econ-101-peak-oil-is-peak-idiocy.html
>
Sorry for not answering sooner. I haven't given up the argument, I've
just been too busy to take the time to read your links and research an
answer in reply to your post. I'll be back, hopefully to contradict you
with non-controversial facts. I snipped a lot of the above post, just
leaving enough for me to remember what to double-check when I get back
to this thread.
S.
Lee Rudolph
Nov 20, 2012, 9:21:58 PM11/20/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenh...@elves.invalid> writes:
>Sorry for not answering sooner. I haven't given up the argument, I've
>just been too busy to take the time to read your links and research an
>answer in reply to your post. I'll be back, hopefully to contradict you
>with non-controversial facts.
Or, if you prefer, controvert him with non-contradictory facts.
>Sorry for not answering sooner. I haven't given up the argument, I've
>just been too busy to take the time to read your links and research an
>answer in reply to your post. I'll be back, hopefully to contradict you
>with non-controversial facts.
Lee Rudolph
Wilson
Nov 20, 2012, 9:58:18 PM11/20/12
to
--
Wilson
Love
Nov 21, 2012, 12:36:27 AM11/21/12
to
In article <IbmdnVHz_tPe3jHN...@supernews.com>,
Wil...@nowhere.net says...
An offshoot. Nicaraguan preverts.
Wil...@nowhere.net says...
0 new messages