GW science is just like sausage making…

User avatar
West Chester
Posts: 4820
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:13 pm

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by West Chester » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:23 pm

Upsetter wrote:
Every oil expert worth his salt knows the reality of oil's temporal existence. The entire industry knows this and has known it for a long time, the hubbert curve has been around since the 70's, and the only dispute is whether peak oil has already happened or will happen in the next 10-20 years. You want evidence, here it is from the horse's mouth:

But, will you even open the links, much less read them?
Yes, experts also predicted the world was to end many times now, that didn't happen.

"experts" have been making predictions about how much oil the world has for years, they keep getting proven wrong.
1980 worldwide proven oil reserves: 645 billion barrels
1985: 670 billion barrels
1990: 1 trillion barrels
1995: 999 billion barrels
2005: 1.28 trillion barrels
2009: 1.42 trillion barrels
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/internationa ... serves.xls

There is a theory that oil wells replenish themselves and it has been proven on Eugene Island 330, but also
occurred in the North Sea, the Niger Delta, the Mahalcan Delta, in Indonesia, the
Trinidad Basin, the Taiwan Basin, and the Alaskan North Slope.

Here is a theory from Thomas Gold, a Cornell
University professor of astronomy, the theory “rejected the contention that oil was
formed from the remains of ancient plant and animal life that died millions of years ago.
Instead, the origin of oil was 'a-biotic'—oil did not come from the once-alive 'biotic'
materials of ancient plants and animals. Instead, Soviet scientists concluded oil should
be seen as a primordial material that the earth forms and exudes on a continual basis.
Oil was then pushed upward toward the earth’s surface by the intense pressures of the
earth’s core and the influence of the centrifugal force that the earth exerted upon the
specific gravity of oil as a fluid substance.”

But maybe he isn't worth his "salt"

If oil is truly running out and your time frame of 10-20 years is true and accurate then why is the price not climbing steady every year? In theory oil is becoming a more scarce commodity and therefore the price should rise steadily??

No, I could care less about the links, I don't have time or motivation to read 1000 page links people put up, take out the excerpts that prove your point and then give me the link, If the excerpt is valid and disproves me then I will go back and read the paper.
If said posting of nude women includes her holding fish AND a large set of antlers (Non-photoshopped), then it can stay. Otherwise, No nudity on the Drake board. Skimpy? OK. Side-boob? Approved. -nemo

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by BigCliff » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 pm

West Chester wrote:
BigCliff wrote:
How about this? We're using fossil fuels at about 100x the rate at which they are able to form. (Hell, maybe I'm off and its 30x) With this being the case, how could we not eventually run out? Since we are guessing at how fast oil is running out vs IF it is still being or not being produced (all guessed on everyones part) Lets guess if the sun is burning out like all stars do. (guess again) What if the sun is already burned out and the light hasn't gotten to us yet? (another guess) How will our solar panels work with no sun?

Does that mean we shouldn't be looking into alternatives and solutions?

Start looking Cliff, if my car was able to have all the performance characteristics that it has currently using only solar power and batteries and cost the same I will be the first one to buy one. Don't you think if it was possible then a car company or inventor would sell the technology to consumers? And plugging your car into the wall of your house is not cheaper or cleaner... its just paying your electric bull with the meter spinning ALL night and a powerplant burning somewhere else.

Here's what I know. My grandad retired as head of Exploration for ExxonReally cool, and knew that I found geology quite interestingIt is. He happily discussed it with me for hours on end but I can't recall him ever once suggesting I go into the fieldI see. Ground water matters were a different story.And did you go into groundwaters?
Seems like yer kinda picking and choosing what science is certain: current fuel reserves are crap and there's tons more out there, and there's no way we can power cars on solar and batteries, because we're not currently.

I didn't go into groundwater's because picking a school that was academically strong and where I could play (not watch) football were my priorities. Being of good but not extraordinary talent, that limited my options to D3. None that I know of have strong geology of any sort.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2247
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by Upsetter » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:04 pm

West Chester wrote:Here is a theory from Thomas Gold, a Cornell
University professor of astronomy, the theory “rejected the contention that oil was
formed from the remains of ancient plant and animal life that died millions of years ago.
Instead, the origin of oil was 'a-biotic'—oil did not come from the once-alive 'biotic'
materials of ancient plants and animals. Instead, Soviet scientists concluded oil should
be seen as a primordial material that the earth forms and exudes on a continual basis.
Oil was then pushed upward toward the earth’s surface by the intense pressures of the
earth’s core and the influence of the centrifugal force that the earth exerted upon the
specific gravity of oil as a fluid substance.”

But maybe he isn't worth his "salt"
I dont know much about him, but it isnt an accepted theory amongst geologists, it remains a hypothesis, and he sure jumped the gun publishing that book. Several claims landed him in hot water cause of unsubstantiated findings that he couldnt produce any hard evidence or corroboration on, and they were pretty key to proving his hypo. Geologists have much to say about Gold's hypothesis, little of it good, but I digress, your questions are much more interesting...
West Chester wrote:If oil is truly running out and your time frame of 10-20 years is true and accurate then why is the price not climbing steady every year? In theory oil is becoming a more scarce commodity and therefore the price should rise steadily??
Yes, why is that? I would start my investigation with why the IEA avoids the question of peak oil altogether when publishing its World Energy Outlook. Hard to find any stance from the IEA about peak oil, just something wishy-washy about the foreseeable future and heavy reliance on sources such as the tar sands in alberta to see us thru to when, they dont say. Since buyers operating in the futures market look to this report as the bible for oil supply outlooks, it is no wonder they are able to keep a lid on pricing hysteria, they largely focus on short term supply capacity and speak concretely about rising demand in the mid-term, but only in vague platitudes about supply.

Price seems tied to shortterm abilities of current supply infrastructure to meet current demand. There seems to be little to no regard for mid- to long-term forecasts. For purposes of maintaining economic security, that is probably wise. And this is also what generates my comment earlier about veering the ship at the last minute and at great societal cost; if they continue to ignore the big picture, the wont see it coming till it blindsides them.

Pricing also seems tied to the availability of cheap, easily extracted oil, such as light, sweet crude, WTI, and Brent Sea oil, not coincidentally, these are the three main price indexes. These are the oil sources we are most immediately concerned about as they supply most of the current supply at $10-30/bbl cost. Even a slight shift in the supply/demand dynamic to those sources causes huge price discrepancies.
In February this year (2009), global oil production / demand hit an interim low of 84.0 million barrels per day (mmbpd) and the average price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) that month was $39.16 / bbl. Since then, demand has recovered to 85.9 mmbpd in November and the average price was $78.08 / bbl. A rise in demand of 2.3% has led to an oil price rise of 99.4%. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6047#more
I dont think there is any other explanation for oil prices other than reactionary price manipulations based on reports the current supply capacity and reserves of easily refined oil meeting current demand and short term forecasts for future demand. Personally, I think the whole pricing scheme is ridiculous and results in repeated profit windfalls for the oil companies every time they forecast a supply shortfall. They dont even have to develop new sources of oil when supply runs short, all they need to do is dip into reserves and ramp up production on existing sources to do that. It really doesnt make any sense to me, but neither does failing to take externalities into account in pricing any number of commodities we make frequent use of.

User avatar
Upsetter
Posts: 2247
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by Upsetter » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:14 pm

Speaking of geologists, here is an interesting GWing anecdote: remember how in the past CO2 increases followed temp increases? Its a common factoid misused against AGW cause temp increases are following CO2 increases this time around. I say misused because to make that argument one has to totally ignore the GHG properties of CO2 and its widely acknowledged magnifying effects on those ancient temp increases.

Well these geologists created a CO2 record 20mil years old using sediment cores and they found the last time CO2 levels were naturally as high as they are now, there was no ice cap on antartica and sea levels were 25-40 meters higher than they are now. How about them apples? Makes you wonder what kind of an effect 400ppm of CO2 will have this time around, dont it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299426.stm

User avatar
befuddled
Posts: 4398
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:01 am
Location: NC

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by befuddled » Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:01 pm

I ain't going back through this to read to GW debate, but I will chime in on the central issue of problems with peer review. My take is that on any new/emerging issue peer reviewed is fucked.

The first people to publish become the "experts" from which every other study is judged. Which means if you have a differing view, you have a very long uphill climb to get even a very well done manuscript published. I can certainly see how this would hamper the GW debate and slant it to one side, namely the side the "environmental" side. Peer review works only when there are a sufficient number of parties. Not the case with GW.

I still am not going to venture a guess about GW, because the science is compelling but the science is largely one-sided unless you suddenly want to count media sources as credible
There are so many dildos out there, you''d think setting their phones to vibrate would come naturally. ---SUAF

greedy capitalist/liberal-elitist/gun-toting profit monger

We'll wake the dead motherfucker. Fuck you. ---- Fallen513

User avatar
Overcast
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:21 am
Location: On the mainland next to an Island

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by Overcast » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:25 pm

befuddled wrote:

I still am not going to venture a guess about GW, because the science is compelling but the science is largely one-sided unless you suddenly want to count media sources as credible
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
The difference between sentiment and being sentimental is the following: Sentiment is when a driver swerves out of the way to avoid hitting a rabbit on the road. Being sentimental is when the same driver, when swerving away from the rabbit, hits a pedestrian.
~Frank Herbert~

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by BigCliff » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:26 am

Overcast wrote:
befuddled wrote:

I still am not going to venture a guess about GW, because the science is compelling but the science is largely one-sided unless you suddenly want to count media sources as credible
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
For some reason, I think Bill Nye might be a little more informed on the issue than Glenn Beck- (Nye comes in at 5:45 if you'd like to skip Maddow's intro)

But that's just me.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Overcast
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:21 am
Location: On the mainland next to an Island

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by Overcast » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:31 pm

BigCliff wrote:
Overcast wrote:
befuddled wrote:

I still am not going to venture a guess about GW, because the science is compelling but the science is largely one-sided unless you suddenly want to count media sources as credible
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XMWfDEPT2W4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
For some reason, I think Bill Nye might be a little more informed on the issue than Glenn Beck- (Nye comes in at 5:45 if you'd like to skip Maddow's intro)

But that's just me.

Now you've drawn the line in the sand, Big Cliff. Bill Nye, really, he was one of my personal favorites growing up and watching Bill Nye the Science Guy and Almost live in Seattle. Funny man, too bad Rachel Maddow, couldn't find someone who is an actual climatologist or climate scientist but they seem to be all hiding, or buried in a snow drift unless of course there in Vancouver B.C. or Southeast, Alaska.

Bill Nye's, education:
Nye started in Washington, D.C. as a fourth-generation Washingtonian on his father's side. After attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, he was accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School on a partial scholarship, graduating in 1973. He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University's Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1977. You two have something in common, engineer correct.

Go Cornell University :cheer

42.1 °F
Overcast
The difference between sentiment and being sentimental is the following: Sentiment is when a driver swerves out of the way to avoid hitting a rabbit on the road. Being sentimental is when the same driver, when swerving away from the rabbit, hits a pedestrian.
~Frank Herbert~

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by BigCliff » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:01 pm

Overcast wrote:You two have something in common, engineer correct.
Me? Hah! I'm a sales rep.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
West Chester
Posts: 4820
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:13 pm

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by West Chester » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:15 pm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._in_49_states/
Forget red and blue - color America white. There was snow on the ground in 49 states yesterday. Hawaii was the holdout.

It was the United States of Snow, thanks to an unusual combination of weather patterns that dusted the country, including the skyscrapers of Dallas, the peach trees of Atlanta, and the Florida Panhandle, where hurricanes are more common than snowflakes.

More than two-thirds of the nation’s land mass had snow on the ground when the day dawned, and then it snowed ever so slightly in Florida to make it 49 states out of 50.

Snow paralyzed and fascinated the Deep South yesterday. Snowball fights broke out at Southern Mississippi University, snow delayed flights at the busy Atlanta airport, and Louisiana hardware stores ran out of snow supplies. Andalusia, Ala., shut down its streets because of snow.

Weather geeks turned their eyes to Hawaii. In that tropical paradise observers were looking closely at the islands’ mountain peaks to see whether they could find a trace of white to make it a rare 50-for-50 states with snow
__________________
If said posting of nude women includes her holding fish AND a large set of antlers (Non-photoshopped), then it can stay. Otherwise, No nudity on the Drake board. Skimpy? OK. Side-boob? Approved. -nemo

User avatar
SLSS
Posts: 7001
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Home
Contact:

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by SLSS » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:27 pm

This will probably piss off everyone down here at some point, but listen to the whole thing. Gives a fairly good idea of what I think is wrong with the whole debate, politicians and corporate interests looking for the angle they can best use, rather than using science to determine the actual problem and solution, pronto.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xO_1ma9qG2M&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xO_1ma9qG2M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
It's lime the battles between sperm whales and giant squid half a mile below the surface of the ocean. Only it happens in the palm I your hand.- thndr

when I fall, I am still cold and wet, but much more stylishly dressed. as my hat disappears in the riffle- flybug.pa


"Sugar? No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough."

User avatar
West Chester
Posts: 4820
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:13 pm

Re: GW science is just like sausage making…

Post by West Chester » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:18 pm

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
If said posting of nude women includes her holding fish AND a large set of antlers (Non-photoshopped), then it can stay. Otherwise, No nudity on the Drake board. Skimpy? OK. Side-boob? Approved. -nemo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests