Future Suffering for the Airline Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Suffering for the Airline Industry
The following is a slightly annotated summary of a presentation (Army Energy Strategy for the End of Cheap Oil) at the 25th Army Science Conference, Orlando, Florida, November 27-30, 2006, by three scholars of the US Military Academy at West Point. The authors are Colonel Kip P. Nygren, head of Department of Civil & Mechanical Engineering, Lit. Colonel Darrell D. Massie, assoc. professor in the same department, and Paul J. Kern, a retired four star general. Note that Kern was commanding general of US Army Material Command.
Of interest their report states,"The era of cheap, available oil is coming rapidly to an end,” argue the authors. “We are either at or very near the era when the demand for oil will outstrip the ability of the earth to supply the needs of the global society,” driving the price of liquid fuels to rise steeply over the next decade. “Without ready alternatives to replace ever more costly and scarce oil, we are entering an age of uncertainty and insecurity unlike any other that could include economic stagnation or even reversal.
"The one sector of the transportation industry that will probably suffer the most is the airline industry. There are no timely replacements for jet fuel or gas turbine engines currently on the horizon".
They define the subject very well: the production peak of global oil. And warn that it “does not mean that all oil wells will run dry. Oil will still be plentiful after the peak. In fact, about one-half the total recoverable oil buried in the earth will still be in the ground waiting to be extracted. The problem will be that production will no longer be able to keep pace with the exponential demand for oil, and that is a situation which society has never before had to confront” [emphasis in original].
Meanwhile, to observe that global oil discoveries which peaked in 1960s have not kept pace with the consumption since 1980 is “another way to understand oil peaking.” As this situation continues we approach the peak with wide fluctuations in the price of oil. They point out the Oil Shockwave simulation in which a supply decrease of only 4% resulted in a price increase of 177%. They argue that “we may be seeing the beginning of this phenomenon over the past year.” What would be the response? “An obvious response to a decreasing production of cheap oil for transportation is to move to other fossil fuels and to non-conventional oil sources, such as tar sands and shale oil, and an abundance of oil exists in these sources, it is just not cheap oil.” But they correctly warn that “The extraction of oil from these sources requires a significant input of energy, so the net energy obtained in considerably less than that of crude oil pumped directly from the ground.” High oil prices will make non-conventional oil competitive, but “it is uncertain whether this production rate will be able to keep pace with even a reduced demand without a major transformation in our energy sources for transportation.”
Implications? They list “economic recession and decreased quality of life especially in developing countries,” and “political unrest as the quality of life is diminished” as significant potential consequences resulting from inadequate oil supply and rising prices. Moreover, “difficult societal and cultural changes that occur as priorities are reordered will further exacerbate a growing dissatisfaction with government.”
Options? They see four broad options for coping with the high cost of energy for transportation.
Conservation: by using energy more efficiently.
Life-Style Change: by living close to one’s job location, by telecommuting and teleconferencing will become the generally accepted means of locating your residence and doing business.
Substitution: by using solar heating, wind turbine as well as alternative fuels for transportation, such as “intermediate substitution and eventual substitution.” Renewable energy sources as important contributors to an overall strategy for energy production are also mentioned.
Deprivation – some things we may just have to do without: such as no air-conditioning in the summer, no second car.
The authors clearly understand what they are talking about - Peak Oil, its implications, options, EROEI, as well as the distinction between Peak Oil and running out of oil. The full paper can be read at http://www.asc2006.com/posters/HP-18.pdf
In addition, on November 7th, 2006, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its World Energy Outlook 2006. At a press conference announcing the new report, the agency's Executive Director was quoted as follows:
"The key word is urgency," IEA director Claude Mandil told a press conference in London following release of the study. "Urgency for immediate policies and measures to promote energy efficiency and facilitate technology development. On current trends, we are on course for an expensive and dirty energy system that will go from crisis to crisis. It can mean more supply disruptions, meteorological disasters or both. This energy future is not only unsustainable, but it is doomed to failure. Governments can either accept such a future, or they can decide to come together to change course."
Now read that again. The IEA, a government agency, and by extension, a political organization that normally would temper its commentary, is resorting to words such as “crisis”, “doomed”, “failure” and “unsustainable” to describe the world’s energy delivery system. The IEA, along with the U.S. EIA, are the 2 government-sponsored repositories of reserve, production, and distribution data for world energy supply and demand.
There are no coincidences in all of this. Systems are not independent of one another. Keeping your eye on the ball is really going to pay off. http://mentatt.********.com/2006/11/oil-food-u.html
Of interest their report states,"The era of cheap, available oil is coming rapidly to an end,” argue the authors. “We are either at or very near the era when the demand for oil will outstrip the ability of the earth to supply the needs of the global society,” driving the price of liquid fuels to rise steeply over the next decade. “Without ready alternatives to replace ever more costly and scarce oil, we are entering an age of uncertainty and insecurity unlike any other that could include economic stagnation or even reversal.
"The one sector of the transportation industry that will probably suffer the most is the airline industry. There are no timely replacements for jet fuel or gas turbine engines currently on the horizon".
They define the subject very well: the production peak of global oil. And warn that it “does not mean that all oil wells will run dry. Oil will still be plentiful after the peak. In fact, about one-half the total recoverable oil buried in the earth will still be in the ground waiting to be extracted. The problem will be that production will no longer be able to keep pace with the exponential demand for oil, and that is a situation which society has never before had to confront” [emphasis in original].
Meanwhile, to observe that global oil discoveries which peaked in 1960s have not kept pace with the consumption since 1980 is “another way to understand oil peaking.” As this situation continues we approach the peak with wide fluctuations in the price of oil. They point out the Oil Shockwave simulation in which a supply decrease of only 4% resulted in a price increase of 177%. They argue that “we may be seeing the beginning of this phenomenon over the past year.” What would be the response? “An obvious response to a decreasing production of cheap oil for transportation is to move to other fossil fuels and to non-conventional oil sources, such as tar sands and shale oil, and an abundance of oil exists in these sources, it is just not cheap oil.” But they correctly warn that “The extraction of oil from these sources requires a significant input of energy, so the net energy obtained in considerably less than that of crude oil pumped directly from the ground.” High oil prices will make non-conventional oil competitive, but “it is uncertain whether this production rate will be able to keep pace with even a reduced demand without a major transformation in our energy sources for transportation.”
Implications? They list “economic recession and decreased quality of life especially in developing countries,” and “political unrest as the quality of life is diminished” as significant potential consequences resulting from inadequate oil supply and rising prices. Moreover, “difficult societal and cultural changes that occur as priorities are reordered will further exacerbate a growing dissatisfaction with government.”
Options? They see four broad options for coping with the high cost of energy for transportation.
Conservation: by using energy more efficiently.
Life-Style Change: by living close to one’s job location, by telecommuting and teleconferencing will become the generally accepted means of locating your residence and doing business.
Substitution: by using solar heating, wind turbine as well as alternative fuels for transportation, such as “intermediate substitution and eventual substitution.” Renewable energy sources as important contributors to an overall strategy for energy production are also mentioned.
Deprivation – some things we may just have to do without: such as no air-conditioning in the summer, no second car.
The authors clearly understand what they are talking about - Peak Oil, its implications, options, EROEI, as well as the distinction between Peak Oil and running out of oil. The full paper can be read at http://www.asc2006.com/posters/HP-18.pdf
In addition, on November 7th, 2006, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its World Energy Outlook 2006. At a press conference announcing the new report, the agency's Executive Director was quoted as follows:
"The key word is urgency," IEA director Claude Mandil told a press conference in London following release of the study. "Urgency for immediate policies and measures to promote energy efficiency and facilitate technology development. On current trends, we are on course for an expensive and dirty energy system that will go from crisis to crisis. It can mean more supply disruptions, meteorological disasters or both. This energy future is not only unsustainable, but it is doomed to failure. Governments can either accept such a future, or they can decide to come together to change course."
Now read that again. The IEA, a government agency, and by extension, a political organization that normally would temper its commentary, is resorting to words such as “crisis”, “doomed”, “failure” and “unsustainable” to describe the world’s energy delivery system. The IEA, along with the U.S. EIA, are the 2 government-sponsored repositories of reserve, production, and distribution data for world energy supply and demand.
There are no coincidences in all of this. Systems are not independent of one another. Keeping your eye on the ball is really going to pay off. http://mentatt.********.com/2006/11/oil-food-u.html
Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
are you seriously suggesting that oil and gas deposits are created by some inorganic process, or you winding me up?
I confess I did not read the entire link you posted (so I might be on the wrong track here) but that nonsense overwhlemed after the first paragraph.
The fact that oil production will decline in the near future should be a serious consideration for Aviation.
are you seriously suggesting that oil and gas deposits are created by some inorganic process, or you winding me up?
I confess I did not read the entire link you posted (so I might be on the wrong track here) but that nonsense overwhlemed after the first paragraph.
The fact that oil production will decline in the near future should be a serious consideration for Aviation.
Grandpa Aerotart
I am not suggesting anything...there are plenty of scientists that suggest just that though...read it all and then declare it all bs...but read with an open mind rather than one that suggests what you were told at primary school is unassailable fact that should never be revisited based on better science than they had 150+ years ago.
Do you really think all oil and gas came from rotting animals and vegetation?
All those trillions of barrels of oil, including those that sit deep under the bottom of the deep ocean..10 of 1000's of feet down?
That is a **** load of dead things...even ignoring that most of the dead things got eaten by living things before they had a chance to become part of the deap earth and be exposed to all that voodoo that, apparently, turned them into oil/gas.
I gotta say I find that a little harder to accept than the theory that says it comes from chemical reactions deeper in the earth and bubbles up towards the surface.
Doesn't it just peak your logic sensors a tad?
The whole Peak oil theory is based on oil/gas being made from dead dinosaurs and therefore being very finite...when have they conclusively proved that to be the case?
Abiotic oil might be BS and it might not be BS...convince me it is rather than just getting all worked up and quoting the Peak Oil/Global warming doomsayers
I personally find it hard to take seriously any group that espouse depopulation (mass euthanasia) as a desired course of action post the world running out of dead dinosaurs and amoeba.
Do you really think all oil and gas came from rotting animals and vegetation?
All those trillions of barrels of oil, including those that sit deep under the bottom of the deep ocean..10 of 1000's of feet down?
That is a **** load of dead things...even ignoring that most of the dead things got eaten by living things before they had a chance to become part of the deap earth and be exposed to all that voodoo that, apparently, turned them into oil/gas.
I gotta say I find that a little harder to accept than the theory that says it comes from chemical reactions deeper in the earth and bubbles up towards the surface.
Doesn't it just peak your logic sensors a tad?
The whole Peak oil theory is based on oil/gas being made from dead dinosaurs and therefore being very finite...when have they conclusively proved that to be the case?
Abiotic oil might be BS and it might not be BS...convince me it is rather than just getting all worked up and quoting the Peak Oil/Global warming doomsayers
I personally find it hard to take seriously any group that espouse depopulation (mass euthanasia) as a desired course of action post the world running out of dead dinosaurs and amoeba.
Grandpa Aerotart
I commend everyone to click on 'speeches' above and read the words of a genuine thinker.
You need to also understand that the people who scream from the rooftops about Global warming and peak oil are the same people.
You need to also understand that the people who scream from the rooftops about Global warming and peak oil are the same people.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think all oil and gas came from rotting animals and vegetation?
All those trillions of barrels of oil, including those that sit deep under the bottom of the deep ocean..10 of 1000's of feet down?
All those trillions of barrels of oil, including those that sit deep under the bottom of the deep ocean..10 of 1000's of feet down?
Grandpa Aerotart
But is all the coal made from natural matter or did the coal form taking some natural matter with it?
Imagine how thick the detritus of a forest has to be to end up compressed into 100' thick coal...thousands of feet?
Certainly the jury is still out on abiotic oil...but it makes just as much, if not more, sense as a theory as dead things forming oil, gas etc...especially when hydrocarbons exist on sundry planets and moons within the solar system...non of which are likely to have housed dinosaurs or oceans full of plankton.
What really ****s me about the peak oil doomsayers is they conveniantly forget to mention the huge oil finds of recent times...as they have always done. Huge finds in iran as an example...and one I have been reading about lately in the western US...or the one they are talking about in NZ at the moment...in deep water off the bottom of the south Island.
They characterise the upward estimates of URR as pure fantasy on the part of the oil companies while ignoring that recoverable reserves are based on how much it will cost to recover...when oil is $10/bbl oil that costs $20/bbl to recover does not necesarily make it into the reserves column of the ledger...let alone oil that might cost $30-$40/bbl.
People like CaptR never seem to quote the huge amounts of coal in the world...Australia being one of the countries blessed in abundance...technology exists that can liquify coal and turn it into diesel/JetA and we have 300+ years of it in the ground. We have several hundred years worth of natural gas. We have a emerging nuclear debate in Australia that is being captured, as we speak, by the NIMBY/Green sector of society while ignoring the very real benefits and increased safety of that technology that flows from 60+ years of technological advancement. Howard is not talking about building a Chernobal...and even Chernobal was not the disaster it was portrayed as.
Nuclear energy can replace coal fired and oil fired power stations and is the only way to economically desalinate sea water in the amounts needed to ensure Australia has sufficient fresh water.
And then we have the oil being found as we speak
Huge areas have been off limits to oil search thanks to the green movement..what is under the Antartic? If oil is biomass there should be ****loads because the south pole used to be rain forest. And the Antartic is just one example of areas that have never been search because until just a few years ago oil was cheap as chips and it really was not deemed worthwhile to spend money searching for more because we had, and still have, heaps.
The oil companies really did stop looking...it is not fantasy...I was working in PNG from the mid 80s until late 99 and we watched as work in oil search boomed (in the years post the last oil scare) and then died completely as the price of oil plummetted in the late 80s/90s...it was the same the world over.
And lets not forget that peak oil is NOT a new theory, and it is only a theory...people have been trotting it out every 10-15 years going back over 100 yrs. The theory has never proven to be correct before and nothing indicates it is now. Given the current prices oil companies are madly searching and finding ****loads...the world is heading for an econmic downturn (even China growth is slowing) at a time when oil is being found in all sorts of places and you can bet the price of oil will go back down again and CaptR will fade away for a few more years.
There is no doubt oil companies have artificially constrained supply in a era of increasing demand by closing down, and not building new refineries. While it easy to understand why they don't build new ones (NIMBY/Green politics) it is hard to understand why they would close down refineries unless it was to artificially boost prices...Enron anyone?
It is not like globalisation/capitalism is about increasing competition is it? It is about M&A, the current corporate mania worldwide, that seeks to create monopoly mega corporations that can artificially control prices...it is just the 80s 'greed is good' mentality dressed up a bit. The corporate world is awash with scandals and maximising the return for 'the shareholder' is all powerfull..read short termism is running riot. Govts should be stepping in on behalf of society but Govt economic advisers are completely captured by the market and economic theory as taught to them in University...so no respite there then
Global warming/peak oil is baseless speculation...well actually that aint true...it is based on fantasy...the fantasy that the world will return to some eutopian time where a small population lives in harmony with nature and the devil worshippers are taught a salutory lesson.
That never existed!!!
The world has never been a better place to live in than the last 60 years from all sorts of perspectives...because of oil. Yes we have had wars etc...mankind has been having those a while now...long before they had oil to blame for wars they had religion..human nature really is a quite fecked unit.
Read 'The impossibility of Prediction' in the Crichton link above...it says it all. As I said the last time CaptR poked his head up...if it wasn't for oil we'd be waste deep in horse**** and dieing at 40 from lungs clogged with coal dust.
The world is the clean place it is today because of technology...in this case oil. With the technology currently in place and the natural resources we know we have now there is just no energy problems for hundreds of years...let alone the next 15
look at what mankinds ingenuity has bought us in the last 100...what will happen in the next 100yrs.
Imagine how thick the detritus of a forest has to be to end up compressed into 100' thick coal...thousands of feet?
Certainly the jury is still out on abiotic oil...but it makes just as much, if not more, sense as a theory as dead things forming oil, gas etc...especially when hydrocarbons exist on sundry planets and moons within the solar system...non of which are likely to have housed dinosaurs or oceans full of plankton.
What really ****s me about the peak oil doomsayers is they conveniantly forget to mention the huge oil finds of recent times...as they have always done. Huge finds in iran as an example...and one I have been reading about lately in the western US...or the one they are talking about in NZ at the moment...in deep water off the bottom of the south Island.
They characterise the upward estimates of URR as pure fantasy on the part of the oil companies while ignoring that recoverable reserves are based on how much it will cost to recover...when oil is $10/bbl oil that costs $20/bbl to recover does not necesarily make it into the reserves column of the ledger...let alone oil that might cost $30-$40/bbl.
People like CaptR never seem to quote the huge amounts of coal in the world...Australia being one of the countries blessed in abundance...technology exists that can liquify coal and turn it into diesel/JetA and we have 300+ years of it in the ground. We have several hundred years worth of natural gas. We have a emerging nuclear debate in Australia that is being captured, as we speak, by the NIMBY/Green sector of society while ignoring the very real benefits and increased safety of that technology that flows from 60+ years of technological advancement. Howard is not talking about building a Chernobal...and even Chernobal was not the disaster it was portrayed as.
Nuclear energy can replace coal fired and oil fired power stations and is the only way to economically desalinate sea water in the amounts needed to ensure Australia has sufficient fresh water.
And then we have the oil being found as we speak
Huge areas have been off limits to oil search thanks to the green movement..what is under the Antartic? If oil is biomass there should be ****loads because the south pole used to be rain forest. And the Antartic is just one example of areas that have never been search because until just a few years ago oil was cheap as chips and it really was not deemed worthwhile to spend money searching for more because we had, and still have, heaps.
The oil companies really did stop looking...it is not fantasy...I was working in PNG from the mid 80s until late 99 and we watched as work in oil search boomed (in the years post the last oil scare) and then died completely as the price of oil plummetted in the late 80s/90s...it was the same the world over.
And lets not forget that peak oil is NOT a new theory, and it is only a theory...people have been trotting it out every 10-15 years going back over 100 yrs. The theory has never proven to be correct before and nothing indicates it is now. Given the current prices oil companies are madly searching and finding ****loads...the world is heading for an econmic downturn (even China growth is slowing) at a time when oil is being found in all sorts of places and you can bet the price of oil will go back down again and CaptR will fade away for a few more years.
There is no doubt oil companies have artificially constrained supply in a era of increasing demand by closing down, and not building new refineries. While it easy to understand why they don't build new ones (NIMBY/Green politics) it is hard to understand why they would close down refineries unless it was to artificially boost prices...Enron anyone?
It is not like globalisation/capitalism is about increasing competition is it? It is about M&A, the current corporate mania worldwide, that seeks to create monopoly mega corporations that can artificially control prices...it is just the 80s 'greed is good' mentality dressed up a bit. The corporate world is awash with scandals and maximising the return for 'the shareholder' is all powerfull..read short termism is running riot. Govts should be stepping in on behalf of society but Govt economic advisers are completely captured by the market and economic theory as taught to them in University...so no respite there then
Global warming/peak oil is baseless speculation...well actually that aint true...it is based on fantasy...the fantasy that the world will return to some eutopian time where a small population lives in harmony with nature and the devil worshippers are taught a salutory lesson.
That never existed!!!
The world has never been a better place to live in than the last 60 years from all sorts of perspectives...because of oil. Yes we have had wars etc...mankind has been having those a while now...long before they had oil to blame for wars they had religion..human nature really is a quite fecked unit.
Read 'The impossibility of Prediction' in the Crichton link above...it says it all. As I said the last time CaptR poked his head up...if it wasn't for oil we'd be waste deep in horse**** and dieing at 40 from lungs clogged with coal dust.
The world is the clean place it is today because of technology...in this case oil. With the technology currently in place and the natural resources we know we have now there is just no energy problems for hundreds of years...let alone the next 15
look at what mankinds ingenuity has bought us in the last 100...what will happen in the next 100yrs.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 1st Dec 2006 at 03:44.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting item at http://www.borderlands.com/archives/arch/endfos.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 1st Dec 2006 at 09:03.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what some experts have said about State Of Fear,
"The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park!"
Professor William Schlesinger, Duke University.
"Filled with laugh-out-loud errors."
Professor Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University.
Formulating an opinion on global warming based on a novel by Michael Crichton in lunacy.
“. . .as environmentalism is now a multi-billion dollar business in its own right”
The natural conclusion to draw from this comment is that the “business” of protecting the environment is winning a PR campaign against the business of harming the environment because the tree huggers are worth billions.
How much do you think the opponents are worth, namely the transnational oil companies, motor manufacturers and airlines etc?
Chimbu, what exactly have you been smoking.
"The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park!"
Professor William Schlesinger, Duke University.
"Filled with laugh-out-loud errors."
Professor Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University.
Formulating an opinion on global warming based on a novel by Michael Crichton in lunacy.
“. . .as environmentalism is now a multi-billion dollar business in its own right”
The natural conclusion to draw from this comment is that the “business” of protecting the environment is winning a PR campaign against the business of harming the environment because the tree huggers are worth billions.
How much do you think the opponents are worth, namely the transnational oil companies, motor manufacturers and airlines etc?
Chimbu, what exactly have you been smoking.
Grandpa Aerotart
oicur I am not commenting on his fictional writing...I refer to those of his speeches I have read which are not based on fiction...indeed he defends fictional writing in one of them as just that FICTION made to entertain.
My point with reference to this thread is that, on balance, I don't believe the peak oil theory and I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
Yes the world might be getting a little warmer...and then it will get a little cooler...and it has been doing so since year dot...nothing we can do about that.
As Crichton very correctly says, that doesn't mean we can pollute to our hearts content...but that is a different issue to global warming.
When industry is motivated to go out and look for oil they find it. Ok not as easily as the 1950s but that is not the point.
Peak Oil is continually presented, on this website, by CaptR as the death of our industry within a very near term time frame. Where is the evidence to support that?
Even if oil supplies were as limited as he suggests the optons for running ground transport and power generation on viable immediate alternatives abound. If the world was motivated by a true, long term, oil shortage we could run cars on electricty, liquified coal diesel, natural gas, hybrids etc..Nuclear could reduce power generation using coal to a tiny fraction of current practice while also solving our water problems.
Ground transport and power generation use an enormous % of the oil we find...convert even half those systems to alternatives and oil, assuming it's as limited as the PO doomsayers suggest, would last 100s of more years.
We have at least several hundreds of years of coal and gas. We have an abundance of nuclear fuel and places we can safely store the bi-products.
The PO doomsayers suggest they know exactly how much oil is left...an impossibility.
The GW doomsayers suggest they know how warm the planet will be in 100 yrs...based on computer models that can't predict next week? It has only been 30 yrs since I was a teenager being bombarded with doomsayer predictions about the next ice age being imminent based on the convictions of the scientific community of the day and books written by the same sort of dickheads that write now about global warming and peak oil.
The PO brigade were out in strength in the 70s...when the only reason for sky rocketting fuel prices was the tap was turned off. By the mid 80s oil prices had plummetted.
History is littered with predictions that didn't come true...we see them all around us on a daily basis and, in my view, they are a major contributor to the stress levels the western population lives under...for absolutely no good reason.
Constant media speculation about global warming, peak oil, devastating mega storms, mass species extinction from meteors, tsunamis 300' high caused by an island subsiding into the atlantic wiping out the entire east coast of the US and another island that could do the same thing to the east coast of Australia...all dressed up as an absolute fait accompli...might not happen for 5000 yrs but then again...it might happen tomorrow
Every year they predict, read speculate, that this storm season could be 'the one' and it never happens. This fire season is going to be 'the one' and it ends up being just another summer no worse than the last 60.
It's a wonder we haven't all slashed our wrists by now.
My point with reference to this thread is that, on balance, I don't believe the peak oil theory and I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
Yes the world might be getting a little warmer...and then it will get a little cooler...and it has been doing so since year dot...nothing we can do about that.
As Crichton very correctly says, that doesn't mean we can pollute to our hearts content...but that is a different issue to global warming.
When industry is motivated to go out and look for oil they find it. Ok not as easily as the 1950s but that is not the point.
Peak Oil is continually presented, on this website, by CaptR as the death of our industry within a very near term time frame. Where is the evidence to support that?
Even if oil supplies were as limited as he suggests the optons for running ground transport and power generation on viable immediate alternatives abound. If the world was motivated by a true, long term, oil shortage we could run cars on electricty, liquified coal diesel, natural gas, hybrids etc..Nuclear could reduce power generation using coal to a tiny fraction of current practice while also solving our water problems.
Ground transport and power generation use an enormous % of the oil we find...convert even half those systems to alternatives and oil, assuming it's as limited as the PO doomsayers suggest, would last 100s of more years.
We have at least several hundreds of years of coal and gas. We have an abundance of nuclear fuel and places we can safely store the bi-products.
The PO doomsayers suggest they know exactly how much oil is left...an impossibility.
The GW doomsayers suggest they know how warm the planet will be in 100 yrs...based on computer models that can't predict next week? It has only been 30 yrs since I was a teenager being bombarded with doomsayer predictions about the next ice age being imminent based on the convictions of the scientific community of the day and books written by the same sort of dickheads that write now about global warming and peak oil.
The PO brigade were out in strength in the 70s...when the only reason for sky rocketting fuel prices was the tap was turned off. By the mid 80s oil prices had plummetted.
History is littered with predictions that didn't come true...we see them all around us on a daily basis and, in my view, they are a major contributor to the stress levels the western population lives under...for absolutely no good reason.
Constant media speculation about global warming, peak oil, devastating mega storms, mass species extinction from meteors, tsunamis 300' high caused by an island subsiding into the atlantic wiping out the entire east coast of the US and another island that could do the same thing to the east coast of Australia...all dressed up as an absolute fait accompli...might not happen for 5000 yrs but then again...it might happen tomorrow
Every year they predict, read speculate, that this storm season could be 'the one' and it never happens. This fire season is going to be 'the one' and it ends up being just another summer no worse than the last 60.
It's a wonder we haven't all slashed our wrists by now.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 2nd Dec 2006 at 06:21.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 101 Likes
on
59 Posts
I will never forget what happened on my first day in December 1981 with a Seismic Survey Crew in Central Australia.
We flew out into the GAFA and upon landing were met by the Seismic Crew Boss who before taking us newbies to the camp site made a detour to ''show you something interesting''
This turned out to be a capped gas well almost hidden by regrown bush which was drilled sometime back in the early 1960s, but what really startled was the comment that there was enough gas in that well to service a city the size of Melbourne for many years!
The last I heard was that it still is not being used.
We flew out into the GAFA and upon landing were met by the Seismic Crew Boss who before taking us newbies to the camp site made a detour to ''show you something interesting''
This turned out to be a capped gas well almost hidden by regrown bush which was drilled sometime back in the early 1960s, but what really startled was the comment that there was enough gas in that well to service a city the size of Melbourne for many years!
The last I heard was that it still is not being used.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
“Yes the world might be getting a little warmer...and then it will get a little cooler...and it has been doing so since year dot...nothing we can do about that.”
The earth has seen a half dozen or so ice ages over the last 500,000 years. We cannot alter the natural variation in temperature that causes the melting and freezing of the glaciers and ice sheets. The dramatic rise in temperature in the past 50 years or so however, is literally off the scale when compared to the last 5000 centuries. It is no coincidence for example, that the highest temperatures recorded have occured in the last 10 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change includes members from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme. The official conclusion reached by the IPCC is that “human activities are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
The US National Academy of Sciences has stated that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise".
The American Meteorological Society has drawn a similar conclusion.
Every single major science organization in the climate field in the US agrees with the findings of the IPCC.
The lion’s share of debate has been manufactured by western governments and their allies in big business that finance “think tanks” to mine data that support a politically motivated result. As former EPA administrator in the US Russell Train stated after retirement “I can state categorically that there never was such white house intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure” as there was when drawing conclusions about climate change.
“Yes the world might be getting a little warmer...and then it will get a little cooler...and it has been doing so since year dot...nothing we can do about that.”
The earth has seen a half dozen or so ice ages over the last 500,000 years. We cannot alter the natural variation in temperature that causes the melting and freezing of the glaciers and ice sheets. The dramatic rise in temperature in the past 50 years or so however, is literally off the scale when compared to the last 5000 centuries. It is no coincidence for example, that the highest temperatures recorded have occured in the last 10 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change includes members from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme. The official conclusion reached by the IPCC is that “human activities are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
The US National Academy of Sciences has stated that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise".
The American Meteorological Society has drawn a similar conclusion.
Every single major science organization in the climate field in the US agrees with the findings of the IPCC.
The lion’s share of debate has been manufactured by western governments and their allies in big business that finance “think tanks” to mine data that support a politically motivated result. As former EPA administrator in the US Russell Train stated after retirement “I can state categorically that there never was such white house intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure” as there was when drawing conclusions about climate change.
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A work of fiction?
oicur12:
Talking about works of fiction. You call a rise in temperature of a fraction of one degree over fifty years a "dramatic rise" and "literally off the scale"? (Something wrong with your scale there!)
5000 centuries? Accurate weather records have only been kept for what? 150 years? Truly scientifically accurate records for what 50 years? I see those type of comments as just a global scale wind up that is mass media friendly and gains momentum because the general public doesn't bother to challenge it.
CO2 is the main green house gas right? When CO2 levels rise plant vigor rises with it and keeps it under control. (Plants need CO2 to grow right? & produce O2 as a result? Win-win if you ask me.) History is filled with large rises in carbon dioxide levels, heck hundreds of years ago bushfires raged across this country unchecked for months at a time and produced massive amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Pollution and global warming are different topics, the former needs attention, the latter monitoring at most.
The dramatic rise in temperature in the past 50 years or so however, is literally off the scale when compared to the last 5000 centuries. It is no coincidence for example, that the highest temperatures recorded have occured in the last 10 years.
5000 centuries? Accurate weather records have only been kept for what? 150 years? Truly scientifically accurate records for what 50 years? I see those type of comments as just a global scale wind up that is mass media friendly and gains momentum because the general public doesn't bother to challenge it.
CO2 is the main green house gas right? When CO2 levels rise plant vigor rises with it and keeps it under control. (Plants need CO2 to grow right? & produce O2 as a result? Win-win if you ask me.) History is filled with large rises in carbon dioxide levels, heck hundreds of years ago bushfires raged across this country unchecked for months at a time and produced massive amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Pollution and global warming are different topics, the former needs attention, the latter monitoring at most.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wee thread drift, but relevant
Chuck, I agree in principle with your synopsis of Peak Oil and the commercial/political nuances that surround it.
.
The fact that Oil Supplied rather than Oil reserves available are touted as being linked, it is quite clear supply and its resulting price driven by demand are more a result of big business/cartels and political tax implications … as you have rightly mentioned in previous discussions, Tax take increases with pump price, not withstanding world oil price!
.
That said, I do take issue with
Below are some links to data from sources that really cannot be described as tree hugging feckwits .. I have included some quotes from said links .. the bulk of scientific opinion is at one on the CO2 issue/s .. the implications of which are becoming more apparent as time goes on .. we may be experiencing very early climatic results from the CO2 rises … I am sure we all realise, it is not necessarily that Humans contribute about 3% of the annual CO2 production by burning fossil fuels that is singularly at issue .. it is the fact that the planets systems that convert (balance) the CO2 are being affected by our other activities such as deforestation as well.
.
It seems to this reader that the largest problem we face is controlling/maintaining/increasing the absorption of CO2, as the CO2 increases are already detrimentally affecting the ability of the oceans and land surface plant and soil conversion systems by the increase in surface temperatures already in place.
.
Sure the planet has cyclic variations due to orbit, solar maximum and minimum events, however all of these have been included (as far as I can see) in the calculation of the science available today.
.
The first link to New Scientist is … well … indicative IMHO
.
.. so add me to your list of tree hugging feckwits, as I believe the science, and also believe we must initiate alternatives ASAP .. does that mean I think the world should stop and revert to some sort of medieval horse draw society … no, but I do believe we (globally) must pay the MAXIMUM we can to reduce fossil fuel emissions, replace emissions in industries where the technology already exists (wind, solar, tidal even nuclear power generation etc).
.
I do not give weight to the argument that if we go clean then others like China will continue to pollute in our place … maybe they and emerging nations will, but does that give us (and the developed world) the licence to pollute in any case?
.
In principle, I think the global carbon emissions trading scheme is unavoidable … as it will be the only mechanism that will economically force polluting companies/nations to want to clean up their act!
.
It is an interesting counterbalance that whilst high oil prices hurt us all in most of what we do, it may be providing some brake to the climate issues by reducing fossil fuel emissions!
.
Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever
.
New Scientist
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
.
Carbon Dioxide Wikipedia
Variation in the past
Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa
.
Mauna Loa
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
An Overview of GFDL Climate Model Results
.
Climate Impact of Quadrupling Atmospheric CO2
.
.. in the end, the increasing cost of burning fossil fuels (pollution tax driven by damaging effects to climate, ecology and businesses codependant) may be the nail in the coffin rather than fossil fuel supply!
.
Interesting discussion though
.
Cheers
.
Dog
My point with reference to this thread is that, on balance, I don't believe the peak oil theory and I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
.
The fact that Oil Supplied rather than Oil reserves available are touted as being linked, it is quite clear supply and its resulting price driven by demand are more a result of big business/cartels and political tax implications … as you have rightly mentioned in previous discussions, Tax take increases with pump price, not withstanding world oil price!
.
That said, I do take issue with
I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
.
It seems to this reader that the largest problem we face is controlling/maintaining/increasing the absorption of CO2, as the CO2 increases are already detrimentally affecting the ability of the oceans and land surface plant and soil conversion systems by the increase in surface temperatures already in place.
.
Sure the planet has cyclic variations due to orbit, solar maximum and minimum events, however all of these have been included (as far as I can see) in the calculation of the science available today.
.
The first link to New Scientist is … well … indicative IMHO
.
.. so add me to your list of tree hugging feckwits, as I believe the science, and also believe we must initiate alternatives ASAP .. does that mean I think the world should stop and revert to some sort of medieval horse draw society … no, but I do believe we (globally) must pay the MAXIMUM we can to reduce fossil fuel emissions, replace emissions in industries where the technology already exists (wind, solar, tidal even nuclear power generation etc).
.
I do not give weight to the argument that if we go clean then others like China will continue to pollute in our place … maybe they and emerging nations will, but does that give us (and the developed world) the licence to pollute in any case?
.
In principle, I think the global carbon emissions trading scheme is unavoidable … as it will be the only mechanism that will economically force polluting companies/nations to want to clean up their act!
.
It is an interesting counterbalance that whilst high oil prices hurt us all in most of what we do, it may be providing some brake to the climate issues by reducing fossil fuel emissions!
.
Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever
.
New Scientist
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Nińo years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Nińo year of 1998.
.
Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.
.
Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.
.
Carbon Dioxide Wikipedia
The latest data, as of March 2006, shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[4] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements.
.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[4] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements.
The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280µL/L immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.
.
Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years [10] and at the same time lower than at any time in history if we look at time scales longer than 50 million years. NOAA research estimates that 97% of atmospheric CO2 created each year is from natural sources and approximately 3% is from human activities.
.
Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years [10] and at the same time lower than at any time in history if we look at time scales longer than 50 million years. NOAA research estimates that 97% of atmospheric CO2 created each year is from natural sources and approximately 3% is from human activities.
.
Mauna Loa
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.
Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean.
.
Climate Impact of Quadrupling Atmospheric CO2
.
.. in the end, the increasing cost of burning fossil fuels (pollution tax driven by damaging effects to climate, ecology and businesses codependant) may be the nail in the coffin rather than fossil fuel supply!
.
Interesting discussion though
.
Cheers
.
Dog
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABX,
“Talking about works of fiction. You call a rise in temperature of a fraction of one degree over fifty years a "dramatic rise" and "literally off the scale"? (Something wrong with your scale there!)”
The actual change in temperature is greater than a fraction, a couple of degrees maybe. Although this appears to represent a minor increase in temperature, what is cause for concern is the global mean surface temperature anomaly for the past 2000 years. What has occurred since the turn of the 20th century is alarming and in terms of temp anomaly, it is ALMOST off the scale.
“Accurate weather records have only been kept for what? 150 years?”
Clearly you have done little research into global warming. Weather records have little to do with providing historical data about atmospheric temperature. Try glacial ice cores, moraines, stalagmites, coral rings or ocean sediments.
Global warming may well turn out to be total nonsense, although I doubt it. But at this very early stage of learning with such huge consequences at stake, shouldn’t we be exhausting every opportunity to research more instead of beating our chests and accusing those concerned as being simply “tree hugging feckwits.”
“Talking about works of fiction. You call a rise in temperature of a fraction of one degree over fifty years a "dramatic rise" and "literally off the scale"? (Something wrong with your scale there!)”
The actual change in temperature is greater than a fraction, a couple of degrees maybe. Although this appears to represent a minor increase in temperature, what is cause for concern is the global mean surface temperature anomaly for the past 2000 years. What has occurred since the turn of the 20th century is alarming and in terms of temp anomaly, it is ALMOST off the scale.
“Accurate weather records have only been kept for what? 150 years?”
Clearly you have done little research into global warming. Weather records have little to do with providing historical data about atmospheric temperature. Try glacial ice cores, moraines, stalagmites, coral rings or ocean sediments.
Global warming may well turn out to be total nonsense, although I doubt it. But at this very early stage of learning with such huge consequences at stake, shouldn’t we be exhausting every opportunity to research more instead of beating our chests and accusing those concerned as being simply “tree hugging feckwits.”
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct Anywhere,
Most data available from organizations such as the IPCC and the USNAS predicts that average global temperatures by 2050 will have increased by “a couple of degrees” or about 1.8. Actual average temperatures have increased by about 1.3 in the past 100 years. This represents about a 3 fold increase compared to the past 1000 years.
Urban heat bias has nothing at all to do with the shrinking of the arctic perennial ice caps that have receded the greatest amount since the introduction of satellite imagery (according to NASA).
“In short, no-one really knows what is going to happen or how bad it is going to be if anything does happen.”
You are correct. No one knows for sure what will happen. But most scientists agree that the proven increase in average temperature globally will have a profound impact on such things as drinking water, sea levels, desert area’s and weather patterns and yes, it is predicted that the Antarctic ice sheets will increase in size as a result of warming.
Most data available from organizations such as the IPCC and the USNAS predicts that average global temperatures by 2050 will have increased by “a couple of degrees” or about 1.8. Actual average temperatures have increased by about 1.3 in the past 100 years. This represents about a 3 fold increase compared to the past 1000 years.
Urban heat bias has nothing at all to do with the shrinking of the arctic perennial ice caps that have receded the greatest amount since the introduction of satellite imagery (according to NASA).
“In short, no-one really knows what is going to happen or how bad it is going to be if anything does happen.”
You are correct. No one knows for sure what will happen. But most scientists agree that the proven increase in average temperature globally will have a profound impact on such things as drinking water, sea levels, desert area’s and weather patterns and yes, it is predicted that the Antarctic ice sheets will increase in size as a result of warming.
Grandpa Aerotart
Check out this website.
Note the data is BOM,NASA, Greenland Ice cores etc etc.
http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
There is tons of data in this link.
There is no doubt the world's weather is changing...that man is causing it (anthropogenic) is greenie speculation...that man can impact that change is greenie fantasy.
Note that NASA are saying now, (or recently anyway) that the ozone hole is closing and will be gone by 2068 or thereabouts.
I am sure the greenies are claiming that the banning of CFCs is the reason...but lets face facts. The southern hemisphere is nearly all water with a few sparsely populated continents. I am certain that S Africa and S America did **** all about there CFCs and left Australia as the only nation who did anything.
Are we expected to believe that such a miniscule reduction of CFCs has had this effect when the massive populations in the northern hemisphere and all their CFC emissions were not able to create a similar hole in the north pole?
This a nonsense statement...satellites have only been up there recording such stuff for what 35 yrs...if that?
Read the Russian data from their explorations in the 20s and 30s...there was less ice there then than now.
Read the greenland ice cores data and see that the world was 3.5 degrees warmer, or at least greenland was, 3500 yrs ago...what happened? Well not a lot actually. Note the data came from ice cores...so clearly +3.5 degrees aint enough to melt them. Think about the logical impact of the ice caps being +3.5 degrees. The summers will be a little longer and a little more benign...and in the winters it will only get to -37 instead of -40
What caused the world to warm up then?...wasn't us. What caused the last 6 ice ages and later warming...weren't us either.
There have been periods thousands of years ago when the weather has warmed up several degrees in a few decades...what caused that?
What about the Vikings who used to farm Greenland...when it was green...farmed land that is now 'permafrost'...in my view they named it 'Green'land for a reason.
In my view it would be the incredibly stupid to do anything like sign up to Kyoto when there is no evidence that we can do anything about it...or are even causing it.
Read the article about computer modelling in the above link.
For god sake they start out with the answer they believe is right and then try and prove it by manipulating the inputs...most of which, by their own admission, they don't understand.
Anthropogenic GW has become a political assumption. The assumption being it is fact when it is clearly not proven.
GW and PO have been captured by vested interests. The last several hundred years is liberally scattered with doomsayer predictions based on a host of reasons and not one...NOT ONE has ever come true.
Note the data is BOM,NASA, Greenland Ice cores etc etc.
http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
There is tons of data in this link.
There is no doubt the world's weather is changing...that man is causing it (anthropogenic) is greenie speculation...that man can impact that change is greenie fantasy.
Note that NASA are saying now, (or recently anyway) that the ozone hole is closing and will be gone by 2068 or thereabouts.
I am sure the greenies are claiming that the banning of CFCs is the reason...but lets face facts. The southern hemisphere is nearly all water with a few sparsely populated continents. I am certain that S Africa and S America did **** all about there CFCs and left Australia as the only nation who did anything.
Are we expected to believe that such a miniscule reduction of CFCs has had this effect when the massive populations in the northern hemisphere and all their CFC emissions were not able to create a similar hole in the north pole?
ice caps that have receded the greatest amount since the introduction of satellite imagery (according to NASA).
Read the Russian data from their explorations in the 20s and 30s...there was less ice there then than now.
Read the greenland ice cores data and see that the world was 3.5 degrees warmer, or at least greenland was, 3500 yrs ago...what happened? Well not a lot actually. Note the data came from ice cores...so clearly +3.5 degrees aint enough to melt them. Think about the logical impact of the ice caps being +3.5 degrees. The summers will be a little longer and a little more benign...and in the winters it will only get to -37 instead of -40
What caused the world to warm up then?...wasn't us. What caused the last 6 ice ages and later warming...weren't us either.
There have been periods thousands of years ago when the weather has warmed up several degrees in a few decades...what caused that?
What about the Vikings who used to farm Greenland...when it was green...farmed land that is now 'permafrost'...in my view they named it 'Green'land for a reason.
In my view it would be the incredibly stupid to do anything like sign up to Kyoto when there is no evidence that we can do anything about it...or are even causing it.
Read the article about computer modelling in the above link.
For god sake they start out with the answer they believe is right and then try and prove it by manipulating the inputs...most of which, by their own admission, they don't understand.
Anthropogenic GW has become a political assumption. The assumption being it is fact when it is clearly not proven.
GW and PO have been captured by vested interests. The last several hundred years is liberally scattered with doomsayer predictions based on a host of reasons and not one...NOT ONE has ever come true.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if anyone will ever be able to answer the question with any degree of certainty. Seems far too complex a subject to this layman, particularly after reading this and its possible contribution, however small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"GW and PO have been captured by vested interests."
Of course they have. All issues are hijacked for political gain.
However, debunking GW and PO have been captured by much larger, more powerfull and well financed vested interests.
How long did it take scientisits to convince the sceptics that smoking was actually harmfull against enormous vested interest in powerfull tobacco companies.
Of course they have. All issues are hijacked for political gain.
However, debunking GW and PO have been captured by much larger, more powerfull and well financed vested interests.
How long did it take scientisits to convince the sceptics that smoking was actually harmfull against enormous vested interest in powerfull tobacco companies.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Townsville Qld
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about an alternative ?
Coal and oil - supplies are finite, takes a lot of effort to "gather", and finishes up filling the atmosphere with CO2, carbon etc etc
Solar - clean but very limited.
Nuclear - no CO2, but a helluva problem with the waste.
Why is nobody pushing Geo-thermal power generation ?
Drill the hole; push water down it, and get super-heated steam back up the pipe, and the only by-product is pure water !!! Unlimited energy and no crap for the atmosphere.
Oh how selfish of me. Just think how many coal and oil industry workers that would be put out of work !!!
Solar - clean but very limited.
Nuclear - no CO2, but a helluva problem with the waste.
Why is nobody pushing Geo-thermal power generation ?
Drill the hole; push water down it, and get super-heated steam back up the pipe, and the only by-product is pure water !!! Unlimited energy and no crap for the atmosphere.
Oh how selfish of me. Just think how many coal and oil industry workers that would be put out of work !!!