Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted
simple_...@yahoo.com
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=13
Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=12
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
On Jan 24, 6:03 pm, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"
<simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio2006...
>
> Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio2006..
Yeah? So? What's the downside?.
Captain Compassion
<simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which happened last around 125,000 years.
http://i14.tinypic.com/48z9h1s.gif
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Roger Dewhurst
<simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169690595.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
When that happens there will be some greenfield real estate in Greenland.
R
>
Harold Burton
"simple_...@yahoo.com" <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You make those sound like they're bad things.
Waffler
news:287gr2pcj3le20k4h...@4ax.com:
> On 24 Jan 2007 18:03:15 -0800, "simple_...@yahoo.com"
> <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:
>>http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612
>>?slide=13
>>
>>Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:
>>http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612
>>?slide=12
>
> Which happened last around 125,000 years.
> http://i14.tinypic.com/48z9h1s.gif
>
>
They had skyscrapers and such that long ago?
Anthony Matonak
> "simple_...@yahoo.com" <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:
> You make those sound like they're bad things.
Indeed. This is the investment opportunity of the millennium.
Find out what will be waterfront property after the ice melt
and buy it all up now when it's cheap. You may have to hold
on to it for a couple of hundred years though.
Anthony
Arnold Walker
"Anthony Matonak" <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45b836a7$0$4875$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Circle.
Snow removal is reaching crisis level at this time.
Maybe we should recheck Greenland weather.
For that manner maybe we should check Manhattan weather.
Understand it is not warm enorgh for the water to rise at the moment.
Was hearing nieghbors getting electrical outages from icestorms and
-43F.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Bill Habr
I think the Manhattan picture is what it would look like if the Antarctic
melted completely.
Arnold Walker
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8b7uh.13075$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Might find why Gore didn't mention all of Antarctic in his promo clips.
Joe Fischer
<arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>> I think the Manhattan picture is what it would look like if the Antarctic
>> melted completely.
>You check Antarctic icemelting, lately.
>Might find why Gore didn't mention all of Antarctic in his promo clips.
How can ice melt when it is -50C?
Joe Fischer
Bill Habr
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1169752...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> "Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8b7uh.13075$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169690595.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:
> >>
> >
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=13
> >>
> >> Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:
> >>
> >
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=12
> >>
> >
> > I think the Manhattan picture is what it would look like if the
Antarctic
> > melted completely.
> You check Antarctic icemelting, lately.
Yes, some of the areas are growing and some are shrinking - I was only
thinking of the difference in mass of the 2 ice sheets if the Antarctic
sheet were to melt completely. I may come back in 3007 to say surf's up ;)
Eeyore
Bill Habr wrote:
> <simple_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:
> >
> http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=13
> >
> > Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:
> >
> http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio200612?slide=12
> >
>
> I think the Manhattan picture is what it would look like if the Antarctic
> melted completely.
Yes.
If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m ( 23'
7" ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
More of the usual scaremongering.
Graham
Eeyore
Joe Fischer wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
> >> I think the Manhattan picture is what it would look like if the Antarctic
> >> melted completely.
> >You check Antarctic icemelting, lately.
> >Might find why Gore didn't mention all of Antarctic in his promo clips.
>
> How can ice melt when it is -50C?
Here's another interesting comment....
On the other hand, a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport
more moisture to Antarctica so the ice sheet would in fact grow and somewhat
counteract rising sea levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Graham
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise
>only 7.2m ( 23' 7" ).
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
>
>More of the usual scaremongering.
Nothing to worry about there :-)
Nick
Joe Fischer
I would like to know how long it would take all
the present ice on Greenland to melt if the temperature
there was + 5 degrees C constantly.
And I would like to guess about 1000 years.
Joe Fischer
Lloyd Parker
Somehow, I doubt New Yorkers are comforted by a 23-foot rise in sea level.
(And remember, you're going to get that amount again from the expansion of
water as it warms.)
Arnold Walker
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:epb668$all$7...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
When 6 of the 10 worse sites are in USSR, including every anti-nuke's
favorite cite city.
Eeyore
Joe Fischer wrote:
About 2000 years according to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenland_ice_sheet_melt_figure.gif
With a 3C rise you'd get a less than a 1 metre rise in sea level in 1000 yrs.
Graham
simple_...@yahoo.com
> With a 3C rise you'd get a less than a 1 metre rise in sea level in 1000 yrs.
Correction: A quick temperature of rise 3 degrees Celsius would quickly
raise the ocean levels. Contribution from Greenland would be about 1
meter. Contribution from other sources would be at least 3 meters.
Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Joe Fischer
>Somehow, I doubt New Yorkers are comforted by a 23-foot rise in sea level.
By then all the fossil fuel may have been used up, the
environmentalists may have prevented nuclear plants from
being built, everybody in New York may have moved to Africa
or South America rather than freeze to death.
>(And remember, you're going to get that amount again from the expansion of
>water as it warms.)
The melting of ice would absorb heat from the water
it flows into, and it is unlikely the oceans would warm more
than in few meters deep if the air were to warm.
Are there any scientists that think anything dire
will result within a hundred years or so?
And that leaves only the decision to launch
hundreds of rockets to intercept the 2029 asteroid
to steer it out of an Earth collision trajectory in 2036.
Gee, the only thing more scary is if socialists
were to have taken over the world by then.
Joe Fischer
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck
On Jan 25, 11:15 am, Joe Fischer <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
> How can ice melt when it is -50C?
Increase the pressure. Glaciers slide on melted ice caused by their
weight crushing the bottom layer.
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
> If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m.
Only?
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
> On the other hand, a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport
> more moisture to Antarctica so the ice sheet would in fact grow and somewhat
> counteract rising sea levels.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Nice research. You are becoming a 'antabee'....
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> I would like to know how long it would take all
> the present ice on Greenland to melt if the temperature
> there was + 5 degrees C constantly.
Then do some research and get back to those who have not plonked you.......
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
Funny. I didn't see any pear reviewed references.......
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Thu, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>
>>Somehow, I doubt New Yorkers are comforted by a 23-foot rise in sea level.
>
>
> By then all the fossil fuel may have been used up.....
Of course, you have numbers to back this up.......
Idiot....
Joe Fischer
Yes, but read the whole sentence and try to understand
what he said, with the assumption that it cannot melt "completely",
at least not in 5000 years or so.
I will be glad to help out with any reading comprehension
problems, if I can.
Maybe it isn't obvious, but the ice sheet must melt at
the edges and the bottom, it likely is an essentially circular
or oval glacier, flowing outward in all directions, with the
mass of new snow in the center melting and refreezing.
This makes the observation of melting at the edges
obviously natural and necessary, else it would get thicker
and thicker, ice melts from compression at certain pressures,
just as the ice under the wheels of a car melt and refreeze
just as soon as the pressure is removed.
While it may not be possible to deny long term
global warming, there is a good likelihood that many of
the concepts thought to be caused by man are just
natural processes, many of which are self controlling,
just like upper atmosphere ozone is created constantly
by sunlight, moreso closer to the equator.
Joe Fischer
Dan Bloomquist
kT wrote:
> In 1000 years all the ice will be gone, the arctic, greenland, the
> antarctic, all of it, gone, guaranteed....
And only a meter? Not what I've crunched in the past.....
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m.
>>
>>Only?
>
>
> Yes...
But no link. And what does that do to the world? What of all the other
ice above sea level? It doesn't melt?
You are still an idiot believer.
Joe Fischer
>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Funny. I didn't see any pear reviewed references.......
>
>In 1000 years all the ice will be gone, the arctic, greenland, the
>antarctic, all of it, gone, guaranteed. We're headed to 2000 ppm.
And that would not be as big a catastrophe as the socialist
regimes of Hitler or Stalin, the loss of life in the 2004 tsunami, or
the plagues, or the floods in China.
If something big to worry about comes along, let us know.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
Worrying about something that can't happen for
thousands if years is idiotic, and thinking man can do
things to prevent them is moronic egotism.
I am too busy trying to keep warm and keep pipes
from freezing to worry about ice melting.
Joe Freezing
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>>If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m.
>>>
>>>Only?
>>
>> Yes...
>
>But no link.
There is a search engine called Google, but.....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandicemelt_2.html
Old news, did you miss it?
Joe Fischer
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
I agree it's an unusual use of the word perhaps but it wouldn't drown NY as depicted
in those links.
According to the Wikipedia article on the subject it also wouldn't get to that stage
for 1000 yrs. That gives us a bit of time to consider the issues.
Graham
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Joe Fischer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m.
> >>
> >>Only?
> >
> >
> > Yes...
>
> But no link. And what does that do to the world? What of all the other
> ice above sea level?
Mainly in the Antarctic.
> It doesn't melt?
It's colder there.
Graham
Eeyore
kT wrote:
> In 1000 years all the ice will be gone, the arctic, greenland, the
> antarctic, all of it, gone, guaranteed. We're headed to 2000 ppm.
Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
Are you sure there's enough fossil fuels around to get to 2000 ppm ?
Graham
Eeyore
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >If the Greenland ice sheet melted *completely* sea level would rise only 7.2m
> >( 23' 7" ).
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
> >
> >More of the usual scaremongering.
> >
> >Graham
>
>
> Somehow, I doubt New Yorkers are comforted by a 23-foot rise in sea level.
> (And remember, you're going to get that amount again from the expansion of
> water as it warms.)
No, expansion will not be 'as much again'.
Graham
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Tell us about peak oil Dan.
Graham
Roger Coppock
> How can ice melt when it is -50C?
Ice loss at -50C could happen many ways.
Sunlight causing radiative heating of the surface
giving -50C air temperature, and above 0C surface
temperature.
Warm water currents giving -50C air temperature,
and above 0C subsurface temperature.
Nor do you need to melt the ice to lose it,
the ice could directly evaporate by sublimation.
paulus
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1169804185.3...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Roger, your mechanisms for ice loss are no doubt quite feasible.
However, as you know these are not the mechanisms that will destroy the
Greenland Ice Sheet.
We are sold global warming as an increase in sea and air temperature.
Well the Greenland ice sheet is not so very exposed to warm currents. Unless
you are saying that it will collapse because it is being nibbled at the
coastal fringes.
Radiative heating is surely ever present. always has been always will be.
But as you say AGW is not caused by solar variance. So this effect, in terms
of global warming, is surely neutral.
Same case for sublimation.
We have been told that GW will produce more precipitation in general. So
most likely Greenland will receive much more Ice by way of fresh snowfall
than it loses through sublimation or radiative heating.
Like others here I struggle to see how such a cold ice sheet is in danger
from a fraction of a degree temperature rise.
Paulus
Lloyd Parker
"Some scientists believe that global warming may be about to push the ice
sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few
hundred years. If the entire 2.85 million km3 of ice were to melt, it would
lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft.)[IPCC, 2001]. This would
inundate most coastal cities in the world and remove several small island
countries from the face of Earth, since island nations such as Tuvalu and
Maldives have a maximum altitude below or just above this number."
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
Joe Fischer <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote:
>On Thu, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>Somehow, I doubt New Yorkers are comforted by a 23-foot rise in sea level.
>
> By then all the fossil fuel may have been used up, the
>environmentalists may have prevented nuclear plants from
>being built, everybody in New York may have moved to Africa
>or South America rather than freeze to death.
>
>>(And remember, you're going to get that amount again from the expansion of
>>water as it warms.)
>
> The melting of ice would absorb heat from the water
>it flows into, and it is unlikely the oceans would warm more
>than in few meters deep if the air were to warm.
No. If the earth warms, the oceans warm too, and half the predicted rise in
sea level is from the water expanding.
>
> Are there any scientists that think anything dire
>will result within a hundred years or so?
>
No, but there are some who think we may be near a tipping point where it's
irreversible.
> And that leaves only the decision to launch
>hundreds of rockets to intercept the 2029 asteroid
>to steer it out of an Earth collision trajectory in 2036.
>
> Gee, the only thing more scary is if socialists
>were to have taken over the world by then.
>
>Joe Fischer
>
Gee, the world would be so nice if you fascists had prevailed in 1945.
Lloyd Parker
there on Mars.
Lloyd Parker
Dan Bloomquist
Does that mean a future problem is not ours? How much melting before the
atlantic heat conveyor shuts down? Is it Europe's and not mine?
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
It is not melting?
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
> Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
Ahh, the instant argument! So, do you still think peak oil is a non event?
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
I don't think anyone knows.
> Is it Europe's and not mine?
Sort of I suppose.
Graham
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
I have but you run with your fingers in your ears yelling, 'La, La, la!'
Let me know when you are ready for an intelligent discussion. Start with
those jatropha numbers I posted and you never addressed.
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Not the ice cap itself AFAIK. The ice shelves melting is not so important ( doesn't
affect sea level ).
Graham
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
When's it going to happen ?
Graham
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>Mainly in the Antarctic.
>>>
>>>>It doesn't melt?
>>>
>>>It's colder there.
>>
>>It is not melting?
>
> Not the ice cap itself AFAIK. The ice shelves melting is not so important...
It doesn't affect the flow of glaciers?
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
Do you want to explore the impact on economies? If you did, you would
have participated in the past when I had covered the issue. So, I have a
feeling your question is rhetorical.
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
I'm curious as whether it'll be 'some time soon'. It's been 'some time soon' for
a few decades hasn't it ?
Graham
Joe Fischer
>Eeyore wrote:
>> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
>>>
>>>Ahh, the instant argument! So, do you still think peak oil is a non event?
>>
>> When's it going to happen ?
>
>Do you want to explore the impact on economies?
There are too many being improved by the
constant finding of new oil fields.
And the large increase in Saudi production
and refining capacities will surely help their economy.
> If you did, you would
>have participated in the past when I had covered the issue. So, I have a
>feeling your question is rhetorical.
You haven't covered the issue, you only say
"the world demands 94 quads, as if that means
anything related to the new discoveries of oil.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>No. If the earth warms, the oceans warm too, and half the predicted rise in
>sea level is from the water expanding.
Scientists do not write generalities like that in
formal papers, there are so many politicos like Al Gore
confusing the issue.
When ice melts, it cools whatever made it melt,
at least stick to basic physics with the horror stories.
>> Are there any scientists that think anything dire
>>will result within a hundred years or so?
>
>No, but there are some who think we may be near a tipping point where it's
>irreversible.
I have news for you, if man made CO2 and/or
additional water vapor or heat is causing global warming,
there isn't anything anybody can do without killing many
people.
>> And that leaves only the decision to launch
>>hundreds of rockets to intercept the 2029 asteroid
>>to steer it out of an Earth collision trajectory in 2036.
>>
>> Gee, the only thing more scary is if socialists
>>were to have taken over the world by then.
>>Joe Fischer
>
>Gee, the world would be so nice if you fascists had prevailed in 1945.
I don't know what fascists means, but if it means
anti-socialist or anti-communist, I R one.
Perhaps the best chance of reducing the possibility
of either global warming or vanishing fossil fuels is to build
nuclear plants by the hundred, and start growing sugar
crops and building ethanol plants, because there are no
other major answers, solar is too dependent on location
(so is wind and geothermal).
There could be a breakthrough, like being able
to drill 5000 foot deep geothermal wells for $2000 with
lasers, or inertial containment fusion power plants,
but we can only hope and pray.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
>Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but the line for idiots and denialists is over
>there on Mars.
Why don't you set your system clock correctly.
Joe Fischer
Eeyore
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> >Gee, the world would be so nice if you fascists had prevailed in 1945.
>
> I don't know what fascists means, but if it means
> anti-socialist or anti-communist, I R one.
I believe he's calling you a Kraut. Possibly because of the spelling of your
name.
Graham
Bill Habr
"Joe Fischer" <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote in message
news:cqvkr2t695feqcjsj...@4ax.com...
The fascists were socialists who were typical of "progressive" thought,
faced with such competition other socialist groups and the communists
started calling them "right wing". They were, in fact, slightly to the right
of Stalin. Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany or Minh in Vietnam would be
examples.
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
Not that I've ever heard of. Where did you hear this? What do you think
of the present numbers?
Dave Head
>No, but there are some who think we may be near a tipping point where it's
>irreversible.
There is no such thing as "irreversable". We should, in the next 20 - 40
years, achieve the ability to place something between us and the sun in the L1
position to shield the earth from the sun's heat. With that technique, we can
cool the earth all the way to an ice age if we decide to. That is why there is
no dire "tipping point" beyond which there is no way to fix global warming.
There is - as soon as we get a cheap way into orbit. It will probably be the
space elevator, but might be a railgun. Who knows... Just keep improving the
technology, and pretty much anything is possible.
Dave Head
Joe Fischer
Actually, my name is Stackpole, maybe you know
if the city was named after the family or the family was
named after the town. :-)
Joe Fischer
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
>>>>
>>>>Ahh, the instant argument! So, do you still think peak oil is a non event?
>>>
>>>When's it going to happen ?
>>
>>Do you want to explore the impact on economies?
>
>
> There are too many being improved by the
> constant finding of new oil fields.
You should do your homework. New discoveries are running a third of
current production and still declining.
> And the large increase in Saudi production
> and refining capacities will surely help their economy.
You are changing the subject. But, what large increase in Saudi
production? What happens when the water cut at Ghawar gets out of control?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
>>If you did, you would
>>have participated in the past when I had covered the issue. So, I have a
>>feeling your question is rhetorical.
>
> You haven't covered the issue...
I certainly have.
>, you only say
> "the world demands 94 quads...
Pay attention, the world demands 175 quad of liquids.
>, as if that means
> anything related to the new discoveries of oil.
What new discoveries?
Eeyore
Bill Habr wrote:
> The fascists were socialists......
The Nazis were socialist in name only.
Graham
Bill Habr
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45BAAF81...@hotmail.com...
So was Stalin
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
>>>>>
>>>>>Ahh, the instant argument! So, do you still think peak oil is a non event?
>>>>
>>>>When's it going to happen ?
>>>
>>>Do you want to explore the impact on economies?
>>
>>
>> There are too many being improved by the
>> constant finding of new oil fields.
>
>You should do your homework. New discoveries are running a third of
>current production and still declining.
And you are an expert on oil reserves?
>> And the large increase in Saudi production
>> and refining capacities will surely help their economy.
>
>You are changing the subject. But, what large increase in Saudi
>production? What happens when the water cut at Ghawar gets out of control?
>
>http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
I am only going by what the Saudi plan today,
not what some DIY analyst wrote 2 years ago.
>>>If you did, you would
>>>have participated in the past when I had covered the issue. So, I have a
>>>feeling your question is rhetorical.
>>
>> You haven't covered the issue...
>
>I certainly have.
I have seen almost no discussion by you,
just mostly one liners.
>>, you only say
>> "the world demands 94 quads...
>
>Pay attention, the world demands 175 quad of liquids.
So when the gas station is out of gas, that
is when I need to worry, I really don't think either
of us can do anything except try to conserve.
>>, as if that means
>> anything related to the new discoveries of oil.
>
>What new discoveries?
Gee, put new oil discoveries in google and
keep track of dates.
And chances are there are ten times as many
as you can read because of the large number of hits
that are not current or related.
China is the one asking for more, but they are
doing everything possible to find oil there.
With two or more reasons to develop alternate
and renewable fuels (CO2 and peak oil plus economics
and possibility of political interruptions), ethanol is most
obviously the most promising, but you talk it down.
Try to relate in words what it is you suggest,
what you are against or have no hope about is of
no interest to anybody.
Joe Fischer
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ahh.... A doom and gloomer !
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ahh, the instant argument! So, do you still think peak oil is a non event?
>>>>>
>>>>>When's it going to happen ?
>>>>
>>>>Do you want to explore the impact on economies?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are too many being improved by the
>>>constant finding of new oil fields.
>>
>>You should do your homework. New discoveries are running a third of
>>current production and still declining.
>
>
> And you are an expert on oil reserves?
Why don't you do your homework?
>>> And the large increase in Saudi production
>>>and refining capacities will surely help their economy.
>>
>>You are changing the subject. But, what large increase in Saudi
>>production? What happens when the water cut at Ghawar gets out of control?
>>
>>http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
>
>
> I am only going by what the Saudi plan today,
> not what some DIY analyst wrote 2 years ago.
I can claim anything, that doesn't make it true. Why don't you do your
homework?
>>>>If you did, you would
>>>>have participated in the past when I had covered the issue. So, I have a
>>>>feeling your question is rhetorical.
>>>
>>> You haven't covered the issue...
>>
>>I certainly have.
> I have seen almost no discussion by you,
> just mostly one liners.
Then, of course, you are an idiot. Try again.
>>>, you only say
>>>"the world demands 94 quads...
>>
>>Pay attention, the world demands 175 quad of liquids.
>
> So when the gas station is out of gas, that
> is when I need to worry...
Sure, for you. You're kids are fucked, of course......
>>>, as if that means
>>>anything related to the new discoveries of oil.
>>
>>What new discoveries?
>
> Gee, put new oil discoveries in google and
> keep track of dates.
Show your homework, you idiot.
> And chances are...
No chances, just numbers. But then, you are an idiot.
> China is the one asking for more, but they are
> doing everything possible to find oil there.
Cite? I didn't think so......
> With two or more reasons to develop alternate
There you go again. An 'alternative' without a cite for the energy
source....
> Try to relate in words what it is you suggest...
I've been very clear. It is your problem that you are an idiot......
Joe Fischer
>> And you are an expert on oil reserves?
>
>Why don't you do your homework?
I will need help, 291 million hits on "new oil",
even though there is no doubt there is a problem,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288769/site/newsweek/
presents a little more optimistic view than you
paint.
Check out the numbers on exploratory wells in
the US and Canada relative to the mideast.
Just that one find in the gulf last year could
increase US reserves by half (if listed reserves were
correct, which obviously they are not).
From my homework it is obvious that there
is probably about 10 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth
that are or will be recoverable within 100 years, and
that is sure to make the CO2 problem really great.
So look for peak oil to be about 2100 or 2200,
with maybe a bumpy road due to political interruptions.
Cheer up, there is lots of fuel to help global
warming.
Joe Fischer
Arnold Walker
> On Fri, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but the line for idiots and denialists is
>>over
>>there on Mars.
polictical activists.
Don't know that we have had global warming as recent as 1000AD .
And this is not the first time in history that the globe has warmed.
The Norseman didn;t melt greenland when they planted vineyards at about that
time.
And this was balanced by a mini ice age in about 1300AD .
And don;t think Robin Hood had much to do with global cooling.either.
Hell,your remark about Mars,reflects that you didn't even know they are
going thru a warming trend as well.
Science folks might question why that is so .....political folks will deny
anything that does not fix thier template.
ectly.
>
> Joe Fischer
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> And you are an expert on oil reserves?
>>
>>Why don't you do your homework?
>
>
> I will need help, 291 million hits on "new oil",
> even though there is no doubt there is a problem,
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288769/site/newsweek/
What a bunch of misleading crap. Peak oil is a about a production/demand
disparity. They didn't even define it. Biofuels are meaningless. There
reserve numbers were USGS fluff.
http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
Kerogen has yet to show a positive EROEI. Sand oil production may see
another million barrels a day in a decade but where do we get our
natural gas?
New production is barely keeping up with declines and there are no major
projects scheduled beyond 2010. The EIA says the world will demand hit
100mb/d in a couple of decades. Where will that production come from?
> presents a little more optimistic view than you
> paint.
Numbers paint the picture, not fluffy articles.
> Check out the numbers on exploratory wells in
> the US and Canada relative to the mideast.
Show me a link.
> Just that one find in the gulf last year could
> increase US reserves by half (if listed reserves were
> correct, which obviously they are not).
What are you talking about? What will production be?
> From my homework it is obvious that there
> is probably about 10 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth...
You are bonkers. You provide no references.
> So look for peak oil to be about 2100 or 2200,
> with maybe a bumpy road due to political interruptions.
Earth to Joe!
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>Why don't you do your homework?
>>
>> I will need help, 291 million hits on "new oil",
>> even though there is no doubt there is a problem,
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288769/site/newsweek/
>
>What a bunch of misleading crap. Peak oil is a about a production/demand
>disparity.
That may be your definition, I am not sure what
the technical interpretation is.
I consider "peak oil" to mean full production peak.
>They didn't even define it.
This should;
[Quote]
"Hubbert's peak can refer to the peaking of production of a particular
area, which has now been observed for many fields and regions. "Peak
Oil" as a proper noun, or Hubbert's peak applied more generally, refers
to a singular event in history: the peak of the entire planet's oil
production. After Peak Oil, according to the Hubbert Peak Theory, the
rate of oil production on Earth will enter a terminal decline. "
[Unquote]
From;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Your definition includes demand, which would seem
to always be equal to production, but the opposite is true,
production is determined by demand, although it may
take a year or so to get equipment in place and increase
production to meet demand.
We won't know if your interpretation is relevant
until a year or so after demand exceeds production and
production can't be increased.
>Biofuels are meaningless.
Says you, for people out of gas, any ethanol
at all will be very meaningful.
>There reserve numbers were USGS fluff.
>http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
Reserves are not defined the same for all
countries, there has not been hardly any exploration
in several of the bigger OPEC producing countries,
simply because the present fields have satisfied
demand.
While this graphic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
shows that all non-OPEC countries have peaked,
notice that the US swath does not include Alaska, and if
included, the US had almost the same production from
the sixties until about 1990.
>Kerogen has yet to show a positive EROEI. Sand oil production may see
>another million barrels a day in a decade but where do we get our
>natural gas?
Natural gas is not supposed to peak until after oil,
but will supposedly decline faster when it happens.
>New production is barely keeping up with declines and there are no major
>projects scheduled beyond 2010. The EIA says the world will demand hit
>100mb/d in a couple of decades. Where will that production come from?
If all auto companies would go to all XEV production,
even a poor compromise like the Prius, demand could be
cut in half, not counting increases in car ownership.
>> presents a little more optimistic view than you
>> paint.
>
>Numbers paint the picture, not fluffy articles.
And you are reactionary, oil and gas companies
do not do exploration on knee jerk reactions, they drill
and cap normally until needed.
The present price spike is bad because it will
cause over-exploration, but is good if it gets more
biofuels and other liquids into production.
>> Check out the numbers on exploratory wells in
>> the US and Canada relative to the mideast.
>
>Show me a link.
Take my word for it, less than 200 test wells have
been drilled in Saudi Arabia, when production starts to
drop, more will be drilled.
>> Just that one find in the gulf last year could
>> increase US reserves by half (if listed reserves were
>> correct, which obviously they are not).
>
>What are you talking about? What will production be?
Pretty good for a small single field, it takes a lot
of fields to make a lot of production.
It sounds like you have a problem with summing.
>> From my homework it is obvious that there
>> is probably about 10 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth...
>
>You are bonkers. You provide no references.
Official estimates put it at 5 Trillion, but they
don't project demand being more than production
causing greatly increased exploration.
>> So look for peak oil to be about 2100 or 2200,
>> with maybe a bumpy road due to political interruptions.
>
>Earth to Joe!
Stick around and find out. Maybe as things
get bad there will be lots of people moving to where
they don't need to drive far to work or shop.
If I didn't live in the house my grandfather built,
I would be outa here, even to be closer to a Mc Donald's. :-)
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
<arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>"Joe Fischer" <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote in message
>news:si0lr2lf2sltcqe7c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>>Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but the line for idiots and denialists is
>>>over
>>>there on Mars.
>It is interesting that you that talk about idiots when most global warming
>polictical activists.
You deleted everything wrote, but left my name
there, but I forgive. :-)
Joe Fischer
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why don't you do your homework?
>>>
>>> I will need help, 291 million hits on "new oil",
>>>even though there is no doubt there is a problem,
>>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16288769/site/newsweek/
>>
>>What a bunch of misleading crap. Peak oil is a about a production/demand
>>disparity.
>
>
> That may be your definition, I am not sure what
> the technical interpretation is.
So?
> I consider "peak oil" to mean full production peak.
Look it up dumb shit.
>>They didn't even define it.
>
> This should;
>
> [Quote]
> "Hubbert's peak can refer to the peaking of production of a particular
> area, which has now been observed for many fields and regions. "Peak
> Oil" as a proper noun, or Hubbert's peak applied more generally, refers
> to a singular event in history: the peak of the entire planet's oil
> production. After Peak Oil, according to the Hubbert Peak Theory, the
> rate of oil production on Earth will enter a terminal decline. "
> [Unquote]
> From;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
And you have a problem with that?
> Your definition includes demand
Not my definition dumb shit.
>, which would seem
> to always be equal to production, but the opposite is true,
> production is determined by demand...
That is dumb, dumb shit.
>, although it may
> take a year or so to get equipment in place and increase
> production to meet demand.
Cite, dumb shit.
\> We won't know if your interpretation...
Not my interpretation dumb shit, numbers.....
> is relevant
> until a year or so after demand exceeds production and
> production can't be increased.
Too late, dumb shit.
>>Biofuels are meaningless.
>
> Says you, for people out of gas, any ethanol
> at all will be very meaningful.
No numbers from the dumb shit.
>>There reserve numbers were USGS fluff.
>>http://lakeweb.com/money/OPEC_hist.gif
>
> Reserves are not defined the same for all
> countries, there has not been hardly any exploration
> in several of the bigger OPEC producing countries,
> simply because the present fields have satisfied
> demand.
Babble........
> While this graphic
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hubbert_world_2004.png
>
> shows that all non-OPEC countries have peaked,
> notice that the US swath does not include Alaska...
You are a dumb shit.
>, and if
> included, the US had almost the same production from
> the sixties until about 1990.
Gads, you are dumb.
>>Kerogen has yet to show a positive EROEI. Sand oil production may see
>>another million barrels a day in a decade but where do we get our
>>natural gas?
>
> Natural gas is not supposed to peak until after oil,
> but will supposedly decline faster when it happens.
\
Cite, dumb shit.
>>New production is barely keeping up with declines and there are no major
>>projects scheduled beyond 2010. The EIA says the world will demand hit
>>100mb/d in a couple of decades. Where will that production come from?
>
> If all auto companies would go...
Impact of new technology, around ten percent in twenty years. Cite you
dumb shit claims, dumb shit.
> to all XEV production,
> even a poor compromise like the Prius, demand could be
> cut in half, not counting increases in car ownership.
Cite.
>>> presents a little more optimistic view than you
>>>paint.
>>
>>Numbers paint the picture, not fluffy articles.
>
> And you are reactionary...
And you have no numbers..........
>>> Check out the numbers on exploratory wells in
>>>the US and Canada relative to the mideast.
>>
>>Show me a link.
>
> Take my word for it
Thanks for no link>>>>>>>>
>>> Just that one find in the gulf last year could
>>>increase US reserves by half (if listed reserves were
>>>correct, which obviously they are not).
>>
>>What are you talking about? What will production be?
>
> Pretty good for a small single field...
Thanks for no numbers........
>>> From my homework it is obvious that there
>>>is probably about 10 trillion barrels of oil in the Earth...
>>
>>You are bonkers. You provide no references.
>
> Official estimates...\
Still no references.......
>>> So look for peak oil to be about 2100 or 2200,
>>>with maybe a bumpy road due to political interruptions.
>>
>>Earth to Joe!
>
> Stick around and find out.
Cause you say so? Dumb shit..........
Dan Bloomquist
Joe Fischer wrote:
> You deleted everything wrote...
Probably the smart thing to do.........
Paul E. Lehmann
No exactly true.
They do not drill and cap until needed. This
would be an extremely piss poor way of managing
cash flow. Drilling is EXTREMELY expensive.
They often DO drill and cap until they prove up
sufficient reserves to justify the additional
cost of laying a pipeline and or build production
facilities.
Also be advised that there is NO requirement for
companies to develop proven reserves. Reservoir
delineation wells can and often are drilled and
produced and the bulk of the reserves or
remaining reserves are left in the ground until
needed or until prices are right for future
development drilling and development of that
particular field.
I worked as an Exploration and Development
Geologist for most of my professional career.
Several years ago while I was visiting in Alaska I
talked to a development Geologist with BP. He
stated that BP has a lot of undeveloped reserves
in fields in which there is no current
development drilling taking place.
Some companies like BP would rather drill in
places in ANWR and prove up additional reserves
without taking proven "Cash out of the ground"
from already discovered and booked reserves.
Please note that "Proven Reserves" can be used to
borrow money, used in computing the value of a
company etc. Sometimes it is better economically
for companies to "Prove up" a field and wait
until economics are favorable than to fully
develop a field immediately. Large companies can
afford to do this. Many smaller independent
companies can not. They do not have a "Proven"
reserves base to fall back on. They need their
money now or in the near future.
There also does NOT exist regulations that require
companies to properly develop fields and extract
as much oil and gas as possible through enhanced
recovery techniques etc. Sometimes they choose
to do exploratory drilling instead of spending
cash on secondary or enhanced recover of fields
already discovered.
Bill Ward
<Big snip>
> I worked as an Exploration and Development Geologist for most of my
> professional career. Several years ago while I was visiting in Alaska I
> talked to a development Geologist with BP. He stated that BP has a lot
> of undeveloped reserves in fields in which there is no current
> development drilling taking place.
>
Paul, you apparently have considerable hands-on experience in the field.
Would you mind sharing your thoughts and reasoning about the abiotic oil
hypothesis that Gold and others have proposed? Do you know of any
evidence that would conclusively rule it out, or strongly support it?
What do you think of the experimental holes in Sweden? How about the
claims that Russian companies have successfully applied the principle?
The subject has come up several times in the group, and I think there
might be a number of folks here that would be interested in your
perspective.
Thanks.
Bill Ward
kT
> Would you mind sharing your thoughts and reasoning about the abiotic oil
> hypothesis that Gold and others have proposed?
Crackpot.
> The subject has come up several times in the group, and I think there
> might be a number of folks here that would be interested in your
> perspective.
The crackpots like you will be thrilled.
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
Paul E. Lehmann
> abiotic oi
Bill, I have only been monitoring this newsgroup
for a few days now so I have not seen these
threads. In my opinion, oil is of organic
origin.
I remember back when I was working in the
industry, 1970 to 1990, the Russians were
testing the inorganic theroy. They drilled some
VERY deep wells in nice big Granite structures
and guess what they found - more Granite.
Back years ago, I remember from one of my courses
in Petroleum Geology that there are certain
compounds in oil that have a "Handness" if that
is the correct word - organic chemists help me
out please - .In short it had to do with the
similiarities of the compounds in oil having the
same characteric as other organic compounds and
NOT inorganic compounds.
The thing that may throw some people who believe
in the inorganic origin of oil is that oil and
gas have been produced from igneous rocks -
primarily from sedimentary rocks composed of
weathered fragments of granite or from fractured
igneous rocks. In Oklahoma, for example, there
is a particular reservoir called "Granite Wash".
It is important to note, however, that these
reservoirs are in juxtaposition to sedimentary
rocks (shales) with a high organic content. In
other words, the oil migrated out of the organic
source beds into the fractured igneous rocks but
did not originate IN the igneous rocks.
There have been MANY geologic structures that
should have been productive of oil or gas but the
problem many times is that there are / were not
sourcebeds that generated hydrocarbons and
therefore are / were not trapped in the
structures.
Most of the time the source beds are organic rich
shale. As the shales compact after deposition,
the fluids, including oil and gas, will be forced
out and eventually trapped in rocks of better
porosity and permeability. Of course there has
to be a trapping mechanism and these can be
varied; such as anticlines, fault blocks,
stratigraphic pinchouts etc.
Hope this helps
raylopez99
But FYI, the latest latest thinking on this issue (it might be in
prepub papers still) is that the Gold/ Russian guy (two people came up
with it, the RU first) theory on abiotic oil is not quite dead and
buried yet. I saw this about six months ago.
I forget the reasoning, but methane gas was mentioned I think.
RL
On Jan 28, 11:57 am, "Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > abiotic oiBill, I have only been monitoring this newsgroup
Paul E. Lehmann
> This is the wrong forum for abiotic oil.
>
> But FYI, the latest latest thinking on this
> issue (it might be in prepub papers still) is
> that the Gold/ Russian guy (two people came up
> with it, the RU first) theory on abiotic oil is
> not quite dead and
> buried yet. I saw this about six months ago.
>
> I forget the reasoning, but methane gas was
> mentioned I think.
>
> RL
Sure, you can go out into space and find methane
and you can find frozen methane hydrate in the
deep ocean but .......
If I were you, I would not invest in a well(s)
that tested the inorganic origin of oil theory.
bw
On Jan 28, 4:08 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> > RLSure, you can go out into space and find methane
> and you can find frozen methane hydrate in the
> deep ocean but .......
Abiotic methane is not just "in space" , it is found in large amounts.
There are likely oceans of it on many planets. It's just a matter of
time before longer chain hydrocarbons are also found. The mechanism is
simple. See
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~yly/
> If I were you, I would not invest in a well(s)
> that tested the inorganic origin of oil theory.
A pragmatic and true statement, the amounts of hydrocarbons are the
same weather or not they are biotic or abiotic.
bw
On Jan 28, 3:30 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the wrong forum for abiotic oil.
False. There is an obvious tie between hydrocarbons and atmospheric
chemistry.
bw
On Jan 28, 1:16 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The subject has come up several times in the group, and I think there
> might be a number of folks here that would be interested in your
> perspective.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill Ward
The issue is very interesting. See
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~yly/
The direct observation of oceans of abiotic methane on Titan ties in
directly to its atmospheric chemistry, and that extrapolates to any
rocky planets including earth. However, knowledge of abiotic
hydrocarbons on other planets does not reveal the quantity on any
specific planet.
Vendicar Decarian
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote
> Which happened last around 125,000 years.
> http://i14.tinypic.com/48z9h1s.gif
I think it's great that AmeriKKKans want to lose all of their coastal
cities and spend their summers in 105'F average temperatures.
Vendicar Decarian
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote
> When that happens there will be some greenfield real estate in Greenland.
Absolutely. Other nations will benefit from the Eradication of all of
AmeriKKKa's coastal cities.
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> You check Antarctic icemelting, lately.
> Might find why Gore didn't mention all of Antarctic in his promo clips.
Oh, Antarctic melting accounts for about 12% of the observed ocean level
rise.
Mass Loss from the Antarctic glaciers is well documented by satellite
observation.
Stupid... Stupid... Arnold Walker.
Vendicar Decarian
What makes you think that it is -50'C all the way down a mile to the bottom
of the antarctic glaciers? And what makes you think that Ice doesn't flow
at a pressure of 50 lb/in**2?
Stupid... Fucking Stupid... AmeriKKKan.
Vendicar Decarian
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On the other hand, a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would
> transport
> more moisture to Antarctica so the ice sheet would in fact grow and
> somewhat
> counteract rising sea levels.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
An interesting speculation that the satellite measurements dispell.
"Our assessment confirms that just one type of glacier in Antarctica is
retreating today - those that are seated in deep submarine basins and flow
directly into the oceans," says Shepherd. "These glaciers are vulnerable to
small changes in ocean temperature, such as those that have occurred over
the 20th century and those predicted for the 21st century. A rise of less
than 0.5 °C could have triggered the present imbalance."
Vendicar Decarian
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> More of the usual scaremongering.
More of the same old GW Denialism by the Scientifically Illiterate Loser.
Vendicar Decarian
"Arnold Walker" <arnold...@consolidated.net> wrote
> Somehow I think it is as likely
What a Scientifically Illiterate Loser such as yourself thinks is of no
concern to the rest of humanity, and has no impact on reality.
Vendicar Decarian
Not possible you Pathetic Moron. More Coal exists than can be burned.
"Joe Fischer" <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote in message
> the environmentalists may have prevented nuclear plants from
> being built
I take it that Joe Fischer is in favior of Iran and North Korea each
building 400 nuclear power reactors to fulfill the energy needs of their
nation.
Ahahahahahahahahah..... Stupid... Fucking Stupid... AmeriKKKan Dung Eater.
"Joe Fischer" <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote in message
> everybody in New York may have moved to Africa
> or South America rather than freeze to death.
Ah, so the earth is cooling in your Scientifically Illiterate view of
things.
No one is surprised.
Vendicar Decarian
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> No. If the earth warms, the oceans warm too, and half the predicted rise
> in
> sea level is from the water expanding.
At least half. Probably closer to 80%, and that makes the warming of the
ocean greater than previously thought.
alanm...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > More of the usual scaremongering.
>
> More of the same old GW Denialism by the Scientifically Illiterate Loser.
What are YOU complainining about. You yourself admitted on a March
9, 2007 post that the figures used to compute average daily
temperatures were
"...not the Average, (mean), it's not the Mode, nor is it the
Median. "
So you're getting all hysterical over what you say were meaningless
computations- A. McIntire
Vendicar Decarian
"Joe Fischer" <j...@westpointracing.com> wrote
> I have news for you, if man made CO2 and/or
> additional water vapor or heat is causing global warming,
> there isn't anything anybody can do without killing many
> people.
We may have to start by killing a few of those who make the claim that you
have just made.
In fact, I'm sure of it.
Jerry Kraus
<simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Manhattan after Greenland ice sheet melted:http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio2006...
>
> Washington, D.C. after Greenland ice sheet melted completely:http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2006/12/yearinphotos_portfolio2006...
Do you realize, that if this happened it would open up 1 million
square miles of land for farming and real estate development that are
currently covered by ice? Screw Manhattan!! Screw Washington D.C.!!
Most unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that this is
anywhere near happening.
Vendicar Decarian
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> The fascists were socialists who were typical of "progressive" thought,
> faced with such competition other socialist groups and the communists
> started calling them "right wing". They were, in fact, slightly to the
> right
> of Stalin. Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany or Minh in Vietnam would
> be
> examples.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger
of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to
supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist
regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in
Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the
Nazi regime. . . Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with
bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended
aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep
it there."
-- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937. See: Shadow of the
Swastika.