Gentlemen, and any ladies who may have participated and/or looked on, I have enjoyed this thread for the most part. It has had its moments, some enlightening, if for no other reason than they pointed out how serious this topic can/should be.
The fact is, it has pretty much run its course, has gotten repetitive, and is well off topic. So, the indulgence has come to an end.
-Crandell
For those of you who claim that the Arctic ice sheet will disappear this summer, here's a real time satellite image:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2008181/crefl1_143.A2008181053500-2008181053959.4km.jpg
As of today, July 2, the middle of summer, the ice sheet is overwhelming with no discernable break ups. Let's check back in a month and see if things have changed appreciably. I'll wager against those who think it'll melt away just because some AGW disciple claims so on CNN or one of the other leftist news orgs.
DennisHeld wrote: Norman Saxon wrote:I assume you mean over a few millenium, because as of this date there is no "current warming", only current cooling. But you are correct in that such things are cyclical - not how your phrased it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Problem is, since this current warming/cooling trend fits nicely into the long term historical record of cyclicalism, what gives you or anyone else any reason to claim that there is an "imbalance"? Or are you clinging to the now 100% discredited Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph?Whatever you do, don't read the 2nd paragraph of the summary:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Norman Saxon wrote:I assume you mean over a few millenium, because as of this date there is no "current warming", only current cooling. But you are correct in that such things are cyclical - not how your phrased it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Problem is, since this current warming/cooling trend fits nicely into the long term historical record of cyclicalism, what gives you or anyone else any reason to claim that there is an "imbalance"? Or are you clinging to the now 100% discredited Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph?
Problem is, since this current warming/cooling trend fits nicely into the long term historical record of cyclicalism, what gives you or anyone else any reason to claim that there is an "imbalance"? Or are you clinging to the now 100% discredited Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph?
Better yet, let's all read a critical audit of James Hansen et al at NASA's GISS:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
It's amazing to find that all the major global temperature recording organizations, except James Hansen's GISS bunch, show both a cooling trend and no out of balance variation over the years!
Anyone else here agree that James Hansen will be spending his twilight years in federal prison?
TRAINCATS wrote: What are all the elected official's we voted for doing? I don't hear a word on what they will be doing about this. The Pres just says it is a bump in the economy. My pocket can not handle anymore bumps. I am sure that the Rail Roads are just throwing their hands up in what the cost of fuel and oil will be next year. How do you tell a Rail Road customer what his or her's cost will be?
What are all the elected official's we voted for doing? I don't hear a word on what they will be doing about this.
The Pres just says it is a bump in the economy. My pocket can not handle anymore bumps. I am sure that the Rail Roads are just throwing their hands up in what the cost of fuel and oil will be next year. How do you tell a Rail Road customer what his or her's cost will be?
Well, you gotta' pay more attention.
They're doin' plenty, and what they're doing is pretty much calculated to keep fuel prices high. It ain't "The Pres" and I don't think he ever said no such thing. It's the "other guys" who are blocking increased supply, which is the only way to control the prices.
inch53 wrote: Would one of you [with lots a times to push buttons] please tell me what this global warming [or cooling] argument has to do with the original subject of $170 per barrel oil? I sure can't seem to find the connection to it. Hey just had a thought, maybe if we take care of global warming, my hemorrhoids will quit bothering me. it seems to be the main reason for all the other problems in the worldinch
Would one of you [with lots a times to push buttons] please tell me what this global warming [or cooling] argument has to do with the original subject of $170 per barrel oil? I sure can't seem to find the connection to it.
Hey just had a thought, maybe if we take care of global warming, my hemorrhoids will quit bothering me. it seems to be the main reason for all the other problems in the world
inch
Well actually the theory of manmade global warming has not had much effect on fuel prices yet because the cap and trade remedy for it has not yet been institutionalized into law. However, when it is, it will make this current little flap over inconvenient gas prices seem like a walk in the woods.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
...I've vented my passion enough. Just one little thought. Oil was selling below 5 dollars a bbl some time in the past and I don't remember of it being a liability to a company to be in the oil business.
Some portion of society is making a mockery out of the rest of us {importers}, and we seem to be acting like {less than}, a paper tiger.
Quentin
A fellow club member sent this to me.Opec sells oil at $136.00 per barrel.Opec buys U S grain at $7.00 per bushel.Solution, sell Opec grain for $136.00 per bushelIf they can't affoed it, tough. let them eat thier oil !!!DickTexas Chief
A fellow club member sent this to me.
Opec sells oil at $136.00 per barrel.
Opec buys U S grain at $7.00 per bushel.
Solution, sell Opec grain for $136.00 per bushel
If they can't affoed it, tough. let them eat thier oil !!!
Dick
Texas Chief
What on earth are you thinking? The Saudis have been our long-time business partners and supplied America with oil for generations. That's no way to treat them now in the present situation... sell them the grain for $150 bucks a bushel!
Modelcar wrote: ....sfcouple:Yes I do....to answer your question "working together"....There certainly is something OPEC countries have a serious need for that "importing countries produce".....So, bring out the bargining chips...!On the "What do I mean get real".....For starters, give the slogans a rest and tell the American people the truth, it that's possible and let us know what really can be done.....The back and forth between this one half and that one half of authorities leaves us right where we've been for some time. Agree what really we can do to fight this problem, tell the American people....and let everyone know what they possibly can do too.....and let's start doing it.If it would just have been throwing slogans around back when we were trying to gear up to fight WWII...our efforts would have fallen short. The whole country pulled together and bingo....we got it done. Everyone pitched in and the rest is history.I was a teen ager but we as Boy scouts were let out of school to work full days on paper drives....scrap metal round ups...and so on....The whole country geared up to run the mills and factorys with people whom never worked in them before....women, and so on....Everybody had something that could put forth the effort....!
....sfcouple:
Yes I do....to answer your question "working together"....There certainly is something OPEC countries have a serious need for that "importing countries produce".....So, bring out the bargining chips...!
On the "What do I mean get real".....For starters, give the slogans a rest and tell the American people the truth, it that's possible and let us know what really can be done.....The back and forth between this one half and that one half of authorities leaves us right where we've been for some time. Agree what really we can do to fight this problem, tell the American people....and let everyone know what they possibly can do too.....and let's start doing it.
If it would just have been throwing slogans around back when we were trying to gear up to fight WWII...our efforts would have fallen short. The whole country pulled together and bingo....we got it done. Everyone pitched in and the rest is history.
I was a teen ager but we as Boy scouts were let out of school to work full days on paper drives....scrap metal round ups...and so on....The whole country geared up to run the mills and factorys with people whom never worked in them before....women, and so on....Everybody had something that could put forth the effort....!
I am not sure what you mean by slogans, but the reason there is a back and forth is that there is a big difference of opinion on what to do about this issue. If you are distressed about high gas prices, it is probably easy to believe everybody else feels the same way, so we should all pull together and do something about it. But I would guess that at least 25% of the population of this county and at least half of our political leadership could not be happier about the high gas prices. Their only answer is that we need to use less gas even if we have to give up our cars, move back into the city, and use public transportation when we need to go somewhere. Apparently that is not a satisfactory solution to the other 75% of the people. I agree that if we were this divided over fighting WWII, we would have lost. But divided we are today over this energy issue, so it seems to me that the only way it will end is for one side to prevail.
I was a teenager but we as Boy scouts were let out of school to work full days on paper drives....scrap metal round ups...and so on....The whole country geared up to run the mills and factorys with people whom never worked in them before....women, and so on....Everybody had something that could put forth the effort....!
Modelcar wrote:..."Other countries are feeling the price increases too".....Agree, but their economies {as reported}, are still expanding greatly....! We all know what is happening here.Please....lets try to keep politics out of it....We still have the back and forth...."The oil co's have thousands and thousands of acres already under lease to drill in"................and "Open up the east and west coast and ANWR"..........It just never ends....the same slogans back and forth. Can't we do better than that....?? Something REAL...!!
..."Other countries are feeling the price increases too".....Agree, but their economies {as reported}, are still expanding greatly....! We all know what is happening here.
Please....lets try to keep politics out of it....We still have the back and forth...."The oil co's have thousands and thousands of acres already under lease to drill in"................and "Open up the east and west coast and ANWR"..........It just never ends....the same slogans back and forth. Can't we do better than that....?? Something REAL...!!
Do you think it would be productive or practical for the oil importing countries to work together in a similar manner to the actions of oil exporting countries forming OPEC? I'm thinking that collectively maybe we could do something??
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
Modelcar wrote: ..."Other countries are feeling the price increases too".....Agree, but their economies {as reported}, are still expanding greatly....! We all know what is happening here.Please....lets try to keep politics out of it....We still have the back and forth...."The oil co's have thousands and thousands of acres already under lease to drill in"................and "Open up the east and west coast and ANWR"..........It just never ends....the same slogans back and forth. Can't we do better than that....?? Something REAL...!!
What do you mean by, "Something REAL"?
Some reading related to the original topic...
Tough U.S. election talk on oil imports may slow OPEC investment plans-http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080701.ROPEC01/TPStory/?query=opec
Saudi project key to boosting oil output-http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080630.woilfield0701/BNStory/energy/
Iraq opens bidding on oil, gas fields-http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080701.RIRAQ01/TPStory/?query=iraq
Modelcar wrote: ....Runaway oil prices......No simple answer....and it will take a bit of time for it to somehow be figured out and solved.If it is hurting our people in this country to the point of reducing useage and spending....The Chinese and people of India will sooner or later have to be doing the same thing.Everyone else can't be having a free ride while we're the only ones suffering....!
....Runaway oil prices......No simple answer....and it will take a bit of time for it to somehow be figured out and solved.
If it is hurting our people in this country to the point of reducing useage and spending....The Chinese and people of India will sooner or later have to be doing the same thing.
Everyone else can't be having a free ride while we're the only ones suffering....!
Other countries are feeling the price increases too. Many more than we are.
But there is a simple answer. It's just not emotionally satisfying. Demand went up, supply didn't keep pace, that means the price has to go up.
So..Drill Here, Drill Now. Increasing the supply will control the price. Nothing else will.
Some government nuts block the development of US resources because they don't want us using carbon. (or nuclear)
Again, here's one of those guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI
Well, until they figure out a way to economically move people and freight without using carbon or nuclear, we've got to use the only available solution. Drill Here, Drill Now. As they're doing on private land in North Dakota.
DennisHeld wrote:The Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum were both caused by unusual solar activity. Solar activity that is currently not happening. Also, the ocean absorbs CO2 largely. And the CO2 levels in the ocean are larger than usual at depths that are unusual. I'd be happy to buy the warmth causes CO2, but I don't know the the warming mechanism. Except for CO2.
There is a connection regarding the bolded comments.
The oceans control the atmosphere, not the other way around. The oceans absorb and store 1,000 times more solar energy than the atmosphere. Global warming, as we have measured it through atmospheric measurements, is not particularly relevant or predictive to CO2 content or to the source of the heating or cooling.
The capacity of the oceans to absorb or release CO2 is relevant to the heat content received from the Sun, or the Earth's internal heating.
When the oceans cool, they absorb CO2. When they heat, they release CO2.
When solar radiation declines, the oceans absorb CO2. When solar radiation increases, they release CO2. This is consistent with your observation, and its no accident. The effect on CO2 content is far greater in either direction than the total contribution of man-caused CO2, and limiting, or expanding, man-caused CO2 emissions will have a temperature effect to the right of the decimal place, since the 1000-fold effect of solar radiation on ocean temperatures and CO2 content renders the effect of Anthropogenic CO2 content statistically irrelevant.
Increased atmospheric CO2 is a result of global warming, not a cause of it.
Or this:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
The footnotes therein underscore that much of the Global Warming debate is driven by American -- and international -- politics, and when you get into scientific literature from other countries, the scientific community isn't quite as convinced as the current crop of newsmagazines suggests ... yes, the same newsmagazines that ....
DennisHeld wrote: Bucyrus wrote:[ I don't know what would be causing a natural warming period, but they have happened in the past in instances such as the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum. It seems reasonable to believe that a natural warming period would warm the oceans to some extent. And if it did, it would release more CO2, and some might believe the extra CO2 is man's contribution rather than a natural contribution of the oceans. Moreover, they might conclude that the extra CO2 is causing the warming when actually the warming might be a natural phenomenon that is causing the extra CO2 to be released from the oceans.The Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum were both caused by unusual solar activity. Solar activity that is currently not happening. Also, the ocean absorbs CO2 largely. And the CO2 levels in the ocean are larger than usual at depths that are unusual. I'd be happy to buy the warmth causes CO2, but I don't know the the warming mechanism. Except for CO2.
Bucyrus wrote:[ I don't know what would be causing a natural warming period, but they have happened in the past in instances such as the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum. It seems reasonable to believe that a natural warming period would warm the oceans to some extent. And if it did, it would release more CO2, and some might believe the extra CO2 is man's contribution rather than a natural contribution of the oceans. Moreover, they might conclude that the extra CO2 is causing the warming when actually the warming might be a natural phenomenon that is causing the extra CO2 to be released from the oceans.
I don't know what would be causing a natural warming period, but they have happened in the past in instances such as the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum. It seems reasonable to believe that a natural warming period would warm the oceans to some extent. And if it did, it would release more CO2, and some might believe the extra CO2 is man's contribution rather than a natural contribution of the oceans. Moreover, they might conclude that the extra CO2 is causing the warming when actually the warming might be a natural phenomenon that is causing the extra CO2 to be released from the oceans.
Would you then conclude that it is possible that we are experiencing a naturally caused warming trend even though we don't know the cause?
MichaelSol wrote:I didn't ask for sourcing. You did. I provided it. And it wasn't enough, so I provided more. And that wasn't enough, so I provided more again. Now you change the subject ....I also provided a thorough source for both sides of the debate:I think you've demonstrated that "both sides" is not what you are interested in. Believe me, I've met you people before. Same debate, different era, same people, same magazines predicting our ultimate doom. And you people were just as fervent arguing on the other side.
I didn't ask for sourcing. You did. I provided it. And it wasn't enough, so I provided more. And that wasn't enough, so I provided more again. Now you change the subject ....
I also provided a thorough source for both sides of the debate:
I think you've demonstrated that "both sides" is not what you are interested in. Believe me, I've met you people before. Same debate, different era, same people, same magazines predicting our ultimate doom. And you people were just as fervent arguing on the other side.
Norman Saxon wrote:I assume you mean over a few millenium, because as of this date there is no "current warming", only current cooling. But you are correct in that such things are cyclical - not how your phrased it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Problem is, since this current warming/cooling trend fits nicely into the long term historical record of cyclicalism, what gives you or anyone else any reason to claim that there is an "imbalance"? Or are you clinging to the now 100% discredited Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph?
DennisHeld wrote:Since Michael asked for sourcing, I'll provide a few that he'll not believe:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Bucyrus wrote:[I don't know what would be causing a natural warming period, but they have happened in the past in instances such as the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum. It seems reasonable to believe that a natural warming period would warm the oceans to some extent. And if it did, it would release more CO2, and some might believe the extra CO2 is man's contribution rather than a natural contribution of the oceans. Moreover, they might conclude that the extra CO2 is causing the warming when actually the warming might be a natural phenomenon that is causing the extra CO2 to be released from the oceans.
DMUinCT wrote: Don't worry about $7 a gallon Gas. People are running out of money. It won't be a Recession, we will be in the Second Great Depression by then. Look what happened to the Railroads and Car Companies in the 1930s. I do believe in Capitalism, it has built this Country. But, both your and my towns have but ONE Cable system (they sell TV, Phone, and Internet), ONE Phone Company (they sell Phone, Internet, and TV). I have Cox Cable and AT&T. Can't get Verizon, can't get Comcast, it's Regulated and awarded by the City or State as vital service to the public. Same with Electric, CL&P, and the Gas company, Yankeegas. Rates approved by the State. Now, do youall really believe the Oil Companies COMPETE with each other? The price is always within a few cents for all companies in town, go to the next town, all are a few cents (more or less) within that area????? If you abuse the "Pricing Privilege" of Capitalism, then it's time for action. In Capitalism, if a Shortage of product builds, Companies increase production to make more money and fill the short fall. If you hold or cut production while increasing Price, what's that called. I am reminded when the price of SILVER was pumped to 4 times True Market Value 25 years ago.
Don't worry about $7 a gallon Gas.
People are running out of money. It won't be a Recession, we will be in the Second Great Depression by then. Look what happened to the Railroads and Car Companies in the 1930s.
I do believe in Capitalism, it has built this Country. But, both your and my towns have but ONE Cable system (they sell TV, Phone, and Internet), ONE Phone Company (they sell Phone, Internet, and TV). I have Cox Cable and AT&T. Can't get Verizon, can't get Comcast, it's Regulated and awarded by the City or State as vital service to the public. Same with Electric, CL&P, and the Gas company, Yankeegas. Rates approved by the State.
Now, do youall really believe the Oil Companies COMPETE with each other? The price is always within a few cents for all companies in town, go to the next town, all are a few cents (more or less) within that area?????
If you abuse the "Pricing Privilege" of Capitalism, then it's time for action. In Capitalism, if a Shortage of product builds, Companies increase production to make more money and fill the short fall. If you hold or cut production while increasing Price, what's that called.
I am reminded when the price of SILVER was pumped to 4 times True Market Value 25 years ago.
You seem to be suggesting that there is some type of collusion or price fixing on the part of the oil companies that is happening. I would think that there are plenty of watchdogs that would blow the whistle if that were the case. Demand is soaring. Look at China. How many million new motorists are created there every day? And their government subsidizes the fuel price so those new drivers can afford it. Their government can afford to provide the subsidy because we buy all our consumer goods from them.
I don't think the price run-up is the result of capitalism getting out or control. If anything I think the scarcity that is causing the price rise is being caused by the thwarting of capitalism by the anti-capitalist factions of our government. Otherwise, as you say, companies would increase their production to take advantage of the high price, and the price would come down.
But they can't do that if our government will not let them.
DennisHeld wrote: Bucyrus wrote: DennisHeld wrote:[That means that either CO2 levels cause temperature changes or temperature changes cause CO2 levels to change. They are strongly linked. But is it the chicken or the egg?Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not. Is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising because CO2 is being released from the oceans because they are being warmed by a natural atmospheric warming period?What would be causing the 'natural atmospheric warming period'? Even if it's natural, there's a cause.
Bucyrus wrote: DennisHeld wrote:[That means that either CO2 levels cause temperature changes or temperature changes cause CO2 levels to change. They are strongly linked. But is it the chicken or the egg?Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not. Is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising because CO2 is being released from the oceans because they are being warmed by a natural atmospheric warming period?
DennisHeld wrote:[That means that either CO2 levels cause temperature changes or temperature changes cause CO2 levels to change. They are strongly linked. But is it the chicken or the egg?Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not.
Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not.
Is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising because CO2 is being released from the oceans because they are being warmed by a natural atmospheric warming period?
DMUinCT wrote: DON"T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV!!! Shortage??? You can buy all the gas you want at there price!!! No Gas Station lines, no Stations "Out Of Gas", no 10 Gallon limits, no odd/ even buying days, many of you remember the 1970s. You have a hole in the ground, pump out the oil, load it in a tanker, deliver it to New York, add a Profit, and sell it for $36 a Barrel. That's the way it was 3 years ago. Now add a 33% drop in the value of the Dollar, add 7% inflation in 3 years, fair market value $69 a Barrel. Right now, this morning, $142.20, that's $73 extra profit someone is making. You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now. No one can predict how much oil will come online that far in the future. Oil is here today, figure 5 to 12 years to develope new technologies that will do the same work for the same price as oil. Also, it will take 16 years to retire all the cars that on the road today, dependent if the general public has the money to buy new, energy efficint, cars
DON"T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV!!!
Shortage??? You can buy all the gas you want at there price!!!
No Gas Station lines, no Stations "Out Of Gas", no 10 Gallon limits, no odd/ even buying days, many of you remember the 1970s.
You have a hole in the ground, pump out the oil, load it in a tanker, deliver it to New York, add a Profit, and sell it for $36 a Barrel. That's the way it was 3 years ago. Now add a 33% drop in the value of the Dollar, add 7% inflation in 3 years, fair market value $69 a Barrel.
Right now, this morning, $142.20, that's $73 extra profit someone is making. You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now. No one can predict how much oil will come online that far in the future.
Oil is here today, figure 5 to 12 years to develope new technologies that will do the same work for the same price as oil. Also, it will take 16 years to retire all the cars that on the road today, dependent if the general public has the money to buy new, energy efficint, cars
Thomas Sowell (a PhD economist and author), had a great article about this type of thinking.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/05/13/too_complex
Basically, what has happened is "The Fair Market Price" of oil has changed with increasing demand from rapidly growing economies such as India and China. It's a "simple" supply and demand thing.
But that's not emotionally satisfying. So people create a villain (or villains) to blame. They create a melodrama to explain supply and demand. It's emotionally satisfying to rant and blame somebody for the price increase, but it is a denial of reality.
The only real solution to at least holding oil prices down, if not actually decreasing them, in face of the increased demand is to produce more oil. This is being done where the oil companies are allowed to drill and pump oil.
This is a great story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374243,00.html
I only wish the couple would have come into the money earlier in their lives, but they don't seem to be the types who spent their lives chassing a lot of money.
The oil companies are allowed to drill and pump in North Dakota because the oil is on private land instead of public land. And those companies are pumping and drilling at a rapid pace. Certain elements of our government haven't figured out a way to deny us the privately held resources of our country, yet. They've sure done a good job locking up the resources on public land.
If you absolutely need a villain, check this guy out:
DennisHeld wrote: I suspect that man's percentage is between 20% and 80%. CO2 data seems to indicate the larger percentage.
Again I ask. Are you pulling these numbers out of thin air, or can you provide some reference so that we can audit your claims?
You're gonna hate this:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
"UN IPCC MAN-MADE EMISSIONS GROSSLY OVERSTATED
Reports by the US Dept of Energy (DOE) indicate that 97% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions come from Nature itself. The report also indicates that more than 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed again by Nature. It means that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 103ppmv are 97% due to Nature itself, that is to say that only about 3ppmv of that increase is due to man-made emissions."
Ouch! That's gotta hurt all you AGW disciples!
The current warming appears to be long term. But that doesn't mean it'll continue. The real problem may not be the warming, but the imbalance.
By "long term" I assume you mean over a few millenium, because as of this date there is no "current warming", only current cooling. But you are correct in that such things are cyclical - not how your phrased it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
sfcouple wrote: Michael,Your ad hominem attack is amusing. However, at the end of the day we are still left with a mountain of evidence that the natural variability of climate change has finally been punctuated by human activity. Wayne
Michael,
Your ad hominem attack is amusing. However, at the end of the day we are still left with a mountain of evidence that the natural variability of climate change has finally been punctuated by human activity.
Wayne
I think the attitude is ridiculous, and particularly the supposition of a "mountain of evidence." There was "little doubt" then, and there is "little doubt" now, even though the positions have reversed. My point on this thread is to point out that I met you people when I was working on my PhD in Biochemistry in the 1970s, working for the US Government in R&D, an associate member of the National Academy of Sciences and a member of the American Chemical Society, and you were all walking confidently in one direction with the attitude that everyone that disagreed was wrong. And not just wrong, but morally impaired because we refused to see. And for the problem of Global Cooling, that the Government needed to step in and fix it, even if we really didn't know what the problem was ... or if there was a problem ... or if it was man-caused.
You are the same people, walking in the opposite direction today, fully loaded with the same moralistic, patronizing attitudes. And for the problem of Global Warming, that the Government needs to step in and fix it, even if we really don't know what the problem is ... or if there is a problem ... or if it is man-caused.
My attitude then is the same as now, and the same as I hold for any press release from a railroad: skepticism. Not disbelief. Skepticism.
DennisHeld wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.You got me there. Now I remember! There was rioting in the streets. Panic on the stock market. Don't know how I could have forgotten that. Once again, the focus of 70's environmentalism was water and air pollution, pesticides and chemical waste. Some global warming/cooling hypothesis' were offered, but little attention was paid to them. The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine. I was heavily in the scientific community at the time. I completely missed the global cooling frenzy.
MichaelSol wrote: Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Once again, the focus of 70's environmentalism was water and air pollution, pesticides and chemical waste. Some global warming/cooling hypothesis' were offered, but little attention was paid to them. The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine. I was heavily in the scientific community at the time. I completely missed the global cooling frenzy.
I had a feeling that Newsweek, Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Washington Post wouldn't be enough either.
OK, add this one: Time, "Another Ice Age?" June. 24, 1974.
How about these:
Washington Post January 11, 1970 Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age
International Wildlife July-August 1975 In the Grip of a New Ice Age?
National Geographic November 1976 What's Happening to Our Climate?
Christian Science Monitor August 27, 1974 Major Crop Failures Foreseen
Fortune, February, 1974. Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed."
New York Times August 8, 1974 Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output
New York Times December 29, 1974 Forecast for Forecasting: Cloudy
New York Times January 19, 1975 Climate Changes Called Ominous: "There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate."
New York Times May 21, 1975 Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead.
Science News Nov 15, 1969 Earth's Cooling Climate
Science News March 1, 1975 Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities
Time November 11, 1974 Weather Change: Poorer Harvests
Lowell Ponte, The Cooling (1974): "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations."
U.S. News & World Report May 31, 1976 Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend
It was even lamented in popular music: "The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming inEngines stop running, the wheat is growing thin, A nuclear era, but I have no fear'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river. -- The Clash, "London Calling," released in 1979
If there were widespread hysteria over 'Global Cooling' in the 70's, why is it that you can only produce one magazine article on the subject?
The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine.
And how were you "heavily in the scientific community at the time"?
sfcouple wrote:Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?
The quotation was from an abstract. Abstracts generally don't indulge in speculation unrelated to the content of the article.
And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth.
Pretty tough language. Your focus on Uranus misses the the point of the compilation was to be suggestive that, at the same time that Earth is allegedly warming, several planets in the solar system are doing likewise. Coincidence? Possibly, but many arguments suggesting that Global Warming on Earth is man-caused are likewise subject to coincidence with a variety of causation factors. The interesting part of the articles, as a whole, was the inability to offer much explanation of why several planets/moons seem to be undergoing wide-scale warming at the same time. Context, context.
You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus.
Wow, you are really trying to pick a fight, aren't you? I will point out again, the citation is to an abstract, not an article. In my relatively lengthy experience in professional academic publications, abstracts rarely just speculate idly about something unrelated to the specific contents of the article.
I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue.
Whew! You aren't coming to this discussion without any preconceived notions, are you?
How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond.
Lots of attitude. But, why? Taken together, the articles suggest exactly what I intended: a series of global warming events throughout the solar system, mostly with "well, we really don't know why ...".
Here's one plausible explanation:
'In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
"The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
"The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
""This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
"In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era."
MichaelSol wrote:Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
DennisHeld wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.If there were widespread hysteria over 'Global Cooling' in the 70's, why is it that you can only produce one magazine article on the subject?
MichaelSol wrote: The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
Here's some more.
The Washington Post: U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming, 'The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that ..." July 9, 1971. "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."
S.I. Rasool and S.H. Schneider, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science 9 July 1971: Vol. 173. no. 3992, pp. 138 - 141 [S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider, Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025]: "Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
The Impact Team, The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (New York: Ballantine, 1977)
U. S. National Academy of Sciences. The US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report on Climate Change (1975): "there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline [nb: colder temperatures is automatically a decline? any change is a decline? WMC] could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".
MichaelSol wrote:The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
MichaelSol wrote:Greenhouse gases are 95% water vapor. The remaining 5% is mostly Carbon Dioxide. Of that, less than 2% is man-generated -- approximately 3/10ths of 1% of all greenhouse gases are man caused. If "Greenhouse Gases" are the driver of climate change in a direct ratio, Man could double the output of CO2 and raise temperatures by 1/10 of a degree, F.Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial.
Greenhouse gases are 95% water vapor. The remaining 5% is mostly Carbon Dioxide. Of that, less than 2% is man-generated -- approximately 3/10ths of 1% of all greenhouse gases are man caused. If "Greenhouse Gases" are the driver of climate change in a direct ratio, Man could double the output of CO2 and raise temperatures by 1/10 of a degree, F.
Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial.
DennisHeld wrote: Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth. You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue. How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond. I don't think that I could have said it any better. Except the planet in question was Neptune. I would add a point. Why would Neptune brighten? Did the Sun brighten? No? The light we see is merely the reflected light of the Sun. And, if the Sun didn't brighten, but the light from Neptune did, that would mean that Neptune was not absorbing as much light and, therefore, must be cooling. But the argument is moot. One cannot calculate the average global temperature of the gas giants. All we see are clouds. All there is is clouds. Besides that, the Sun is not the primary source of heat for any of the gas giants. Their interior is. The article referenced earlier that Jupiter may be warming because of a new red spot shows a remarkable lack of understanding of Jupiter or the gas giants. The storms (red spot(s), white spots, and bands) are all generated from the planet's interior. The Sun is no factorwhatsoever.
Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth. You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue. How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond.
Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?
You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue.
Dennis,
Oops, sorry about getting my planets confused. Thanks for pointing that out to me, and for your reasoned and educated statement of facts.
MichaelSol wrote: sfcouple wrote:Perhaps you and Mr. Sol should review your own sources before listing them. Once again, I took one at random, the first one, and here is what it says: "correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant" This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature. You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible. Oddly enough, the reason for the citation was the remainder of the abstract:"Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly-and between Neptune and two models of solar variability-are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment. "Now, why would you have left that part out?It is the cautionary nature of many of the current studies that many seem to not just disregard, but maliciously misrepresent, as the post confirms: a misrepresentation of the full contents of the abstract while ignoring the remaining citations entirely. A debater's game-playing at the sacrifice of understanding important issues.The problem for those old enough to know better is that these movements inevitably have political tailwinds -- indeed, the movements often arise from political movements -- that often are so forceful as to completely obscure both contrary data and legitimate discussion.The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.See: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmFor a remarkable representation of the aggregative power of the internet, there is a useful site that compiles references to both sides of the debate:http://climatedebatedaily.com/
sfcouple wrote:Perhaps you and Mr. Sol should review your own sources before listing them. Once again, I took one at random, the first one, and here is what it says: "correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant" This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature. You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible.
"correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant"
This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature.
You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible.
Oddly enough, the reason for the citation was the remainder of the abstract:
"Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly-and between Neptune and two models of solar variability-are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment. "
Now, why would you have left that part out?
It is the cautionary nature of many of the current studies that many seem to not just disregard, but maliciously misrepresent, as the post confirms: a misrepresentation of the full contents of the abstract while ignoring the remaining citations entirely. A debater's game-playing at the sacrifice of understanding important issues.
The problem for those old enough to know better is that these movements inevitably have political tailwinds -- indeed, the movements often arise from political movements -- that often are so forceful as to completely obscure both contrary data and legitimate discussion.
See: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
For a remarkable representation of the aggregative power of the internet, there is a useful site that compiles references to both sides of the debate:
I was getting at your idea that the price will drop if we drill there. Geologist have said once we start to peak running after the oil thats harder to get at and more expencive to pull up wont do any good. Same goes for trying to increase production to get the price to drop. Its a sad reality thats not going away. All the signs are there, people just dont want to think its happening or some how we'll pull our way out soon. Just aint gonna happen, there is no way out.
$7.00 a gallon for gas in two years.... id guess it's gonna be more then that. If things keep the way they are now it might be that low, but as oil keeps moving and demand rises which it's doing, its gonna keep jumping up higher and faster in later years.
DennisHeld wrote: I suspect that man's percentage is between 20% and 80%. CO2 data seems to indicate the larger percentage. The current warming appears to be long term. But that doesn't mean it'll continue. The real problem may not be the warming, but the imbalance.
Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial," Paleoceanography, 20. 2005.
UPRR engineer wrote: Bucyrus wrote: They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time. 2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.3) There is not much oil to find anyway.4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have. Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.Hey buddy, mind if i ask you a question. I take it you believe the CO2 warning coming from climate scientists..... but you dont seem to want to eat what the petroleum geologist are dishing out? If they go after that oil its not gonna be cheap to pull out, its only gonna make it worse in the future, its probibly not gonna be the same high quality sweet crude we get from the middle east.
Bucyrus wrote: They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time. 2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.3) There is not much oil to find anyway.4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have. Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.
They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:
1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time.
2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.
3) There is not much oil to find anyway.
4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have.
Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.
Hey buddy, mind if i ask you a question. I take it you believe the CO2 warning coming from climate scientists..... but you dont seem to want to eat what the petroleum geologist are dishing out? If they go after that oil its not gonna be cheap to pull out, its only gonna make it worse in the future, its probibly not gonna be the same high quality sweet crude we get from the middle east.
You misunderstand me, but I am not exactly sure how the misunderstanding came about. The four items I listed above are what is being said by people who want high oil price, want oil scarcity, and believe we are destroying the planet by creating global warming. When I referred to "their" agenda being transparent, I meant the agenda of those who say the four items; the agenda of those wanting high oil prices. I was not referring to oil companies (in item #4) as having an agenda by my use of the words, "their agenda..."
Oooh, a big Dob...or medium size dob.
My little 90mm was often made fun of (by friends) for it's small size, but I could set up on my patio table within 5 minutes, and if the atmosphere was stable would be viewing. The portability of the scope was amazing. I would grab the scope and eyepiece case, plus my star charts, notebook and pencil and turn out the lights and be focused in no time.
My buddy with a 10" dob who made fun of me ended up with a 125mm Mack and really likes it. Dobs are great light buckets, but unfortunately the light pollution is tougher on them. It has been about 8 years since I did some serious observing and I should get back outside.
20% to 80% estimates for man's effect. On the high end that is more than I would have thought. But then again...how would I know?
ed
MP173 wrote:Dennis:In addition to your degree in astronomy, are you an amatuer astronomer, or better yet, an observing astronomer? For several years I spent probably 40 -50 evenings a year in my back yard with a 90mm Meade ETX until the light pollution pushed me indoors. Great times. I appreciate your discussion on this. You mentioned that GW is due to man and other factors. Is that a common conclusion among people of science these days? Are there any estimates as to what percentage is caused by man? Most of what I read is that it is 100% man.What other factors are causing the earth to warm? Is the warming a long term or short term trend.Dennis, probably the best thing you could do for me is direct me to a source to read which would be a my level of comprehension (typical layman science).It does appear most of Big Oil has jumped onto the GW platform. As I see it tho, controlling India and China and other developing industrial economies will be very difficult.thanks, ed
Dennis:In addition to your degree in astronomy, are you an amatuer astronomer, or better yet, an observing astronomer?
For several years I spent probably 40 -50 evenings a year in my back yard with a 90mm Meade ETX until the light pollution pushed me indoors. Great times.
I appreciate your discussion on this. You mentioned that GW is due to man and other factors. Is that a common conclusion among people of science these days? Are there any estimates as to what percentage is caused by man? Most of what I read is that it is 100% man.
What other factors are causing the earth to warm? Is the warming a long term or short term trend.
Dennis, probably the best thing you could do for me is direct me to a source to read which would be a my level of comprehension (typical layman science).
It does appear most of Big Oil has jumped onto the GW platform. As I see it tho, controlling India and China and other developing industrial economies will be very difficult.
thanks,
DMUinCT wrote: You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now.
Who should determine what price is allowed? How would they prevent sellers from selling at a price that is higher than what is allowed?
I think they used to call eliminating or controlling profit in alignment with cost a stategy akin to the poisons of socialism. Profit makes the hungry capitalist world go round although it may be the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg ,meaning you and I in economic terms as the whole current situation is perhaps a pyramid scheme that would eventually will and has collapsed back on itself. If you and I cant make it economically the whole schmere collapses...when we have literally nothing left to invest except our worn pantaloons...and Im not giving up mine for no get rich quick scenario ...ever again...so say those who didnt jump off ledges in 1929....This country has a rich history of hucksterism and boondoggling....flim flam and inflated over heated diatribes....
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Monday June 30) had an excellent (IMO) editorial entitled Obama's Dry Hole which discussed the 68 million acres of Federal land which has been leased to oil companies. I strongly recommend it's reading. Key points made:
"the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources".
"The U.S. Minerals Management Services notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, its one of five."
"In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under th sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014."
Further, the WSJ had a complete 4th section on Energy, discussing at length the pros and cons of nuclear, wind, solar, nat gas, and the boom times that Midland Tx is experiencing.
I highly recommend the reading the of editorial and the section.
alphas wrote: MP173:Forgive me Dennis, but it seems to me that you are one of the many on this forum that makes claims without sourcing in order to appear authoritative. Please provide some citations for your credibility's sake.As to dismissal of scientific claims due to fractional statistical variation, why claim that a solar flux variance of 1/1000 of 1% is proof of non-solar influence over Earth's climatic events, yet rally around the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is a primary causal effect of climate change when it amounts to less than 1/1000 of 1% of the Earth's atmosphere?
As to dismissal of scientific claims due to fractional statistical variation, why claim that a solar flux variance of 1/1000 of 1% is proof of non-solar influence over Earth's climatic events, yet rally around the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is a primary causal effect of climate change when it amounts to less than 1/1000 of 1% of the Earth's atmosphere?
To supplement my statment about Neptune, a little research was just conducted and it was discovered that Neptune's orbit is 165 years long. So we earthlings haven't even studied this planet's possible temperature fluctation for one single orbit around the sun, at least since the advent of sensitive detector systems.
Norman Saxon wrote: DennisHeld wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually, there no evidence that other planets are warming (or cooling). I've heard of a Mars warming theory based on 3 seasons of northern ice cap melt. NASA has since shown no ice melt, but dust obscuring the white cap. We've had, a total of 5 thermometers on Mars with only a short history of readings. Logical evidence shows that Mars is cooling. Liquid water can no longer flow where is once did. It's too cold. Statements that other planets are warming are also baseless. Really?Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml Triton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml Jupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA Mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html(Thank you Michael Sol)Total solar flux hasn't changed one one thousandth of a percent since we've been able to measure it. Solar magnetic activity has varied. The largest peak was 1959. Each subsequent peak has been lower. Forgive me Dennis, but it seems to me that you are one of the many on this forum that makes claims without sourcing in order to appear authoritative. Please provide some citations for your credibility's sake.As to dismissal of scientific claims due to fractional statistical variation, why claim that a solar flux variance of 1/1000 of 1% is proof of non-solar influence over Earth's climatic events, yet rally around the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is a primary causal effect of climate change when it amounts to less than 1/1000 of 1% of the Earth's atmosphere?
DennisHeld wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually, there no evidence that other planets are warming (or cooling). I've heard of a Mars warming theory based on 3 seasons of northern ice cap melt. NASA has since shown no ice melt, but dust obscuring the white cap. We've had, a total of 5 thermometers on Mars with only a short history of readings. Logical evidence shows that Mars is cooling. Liquid water can no longer flow where is once did. It's too cold. Statements that other planets are warming are also baseless.
alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
MP173:
To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
Really?
Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
Triton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
Jupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
(Thank you Michael Sol)
Total solar flux hasn't changed one one thousandth of a percent since we've been able to measure it. Solar magnetic activity has varied. The largest peak was 1959. Each subsequent peak has been lower.
Forgive me Dennis, but it seems to me that you are one of the many on this forum that makes claims without sourcing in order to appear authoritative. Please provide some citations for your credibility's sake.
Perhaps you and Mr. Sol should review your own sources before listing them. Once again, I took one at random, the first one, and here is what it says:
The green / environmental lobby has long sought to reduce our use of fossil fuels in order to reduce air pollution. But even though great strides have been made reducing air pollution, the environmentalists have now raised the bar exponentially by adding CO2 to what is considered to be air pollution.
This unending pressure to use less fossil fuel has motivated many in congress to prefer scarcity and high price of fossil fuel in order to discourage its use. If they can't get us to use less oil by asking us, they can see to it that we can't afford to use it. They always point to Europe and lecture us about how we have it too good because our fuel prices are so low compared to Europe. They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:
MP173 wrote:My guess is that the leases had either unproven reserves or the cost of production precluded the drilling until recently. Just because you have a lease doesnt mean you are going to find oil, or enough oil to make the investment a sound one. Sort of like having a date with a desireable person...doesnt mean you are going to like that person or enter into a long term relationship with them. ed
My guess is that the leases had either unproven reserves or the cost of production precluded the drilling until recently. Just because you have a lease doesnt mean you are going to find oil, or enough oil to make the investment a sound one. Sort of like having a date with a desireable person...doesnt mean you are going to like that person or enter into a long term relationship with them.
Bucyrus' link provides some insight, some would say it is controlled by Big Oil, but...it sure makes sense that at these prices, if you had oil in your sights you would go after it.
jgreen wrote: The oil companies already have leases on 41 million acres of land. They are paying the lease for the right to drill on it, so it must have oil or they wouldn't be paying for the lease. So, why are they not drilling on the land they already lease? Might it be that they don't really want to drill on it because then supply would be increased and prices would decline? Perhaps it makes more sense to blame others, to involve the Arctic refuge issue and the sensitive offshore issues as false fronts to cover the fact that they just don't want to drill and increase supply. Notice that our president visited Saudi Arabia last month, sat down with his allies and asked them to increase production. They said - NO. George came home and started talking about drilling in the Arctic, knowing that it was a nonstarter in the Congress. Why didn't he and Dick Cheney encourage their friends in the oil industry to drill on land they already lease? Maybe it's because their personal fortunes are in oil, and if supply increases, the value of their personal fortunes declines. Don't be misled by all of the political pandering and the half-truths that come from the White House. Go to the facts. The acreage is under lease, much of it in the Gulf of Mexico, it can be drilled just as soon as the company holding the lease decides to do so. And, current environmental regs, the same ones that govern the drilling that is now in progress, will govern the drilling. The oil is there folks, it already is in the control of the oil companies, there is no reason other than greed that keeps them from drilling for it and placing it on the market. There's the real problem - changing the market so as to lower prices.Jgren
The oil companies already have leases on 41 million acres of land. They are paying the lease for the right to drill on it, so it must have oil or they wouldn't be paying for the lease. So, why are they not drilling on the land they already lease? Might it be that they don't really want to drill on it because then supply would be increased and prices would decline? Perhaps it makes more sense to blame others, to involve the Arctic refuge issue and the sensitive offshore issues as false fronts to cover the fact that they just don't want to drill and increase supply. Notice that our president visited Saudi Arabia last month, sat down with his allies and asked them to increase production. They said - NO. George came home and started talking about drilling in the Arctic, knowing that it was a nonstarter in the Congress. Why didn't he and Dick Cheney encourage their friends in the oil industry to drill on land they already lease? Maybe it's because their personal fortunes are in oil, and if supply increases, the value of their personal fortunes declines. Don't be misled by all of the political pandering and the half-truths that come from the White House. Go to the facts. The acreage is under lease, much of it in the Gulf of Mexico, it can be drilled just as soon as the company holding the lease decides to do so. And, current environmental regs, the same ones that govern the drilling that is now in progress, will govern the drilling. The oil is there folks, it already is in the control of the oil companies, there is no reason other than greed that keeps them from drilling for it and placing it on the market. There's the real problem - changing the market so as to lower prices.
Jgren
That charge has been made a lot lately. But if the reason oil companies don't want to drill on existing leases is that they want supply scarcity and the resulting high price, then why would they want to drill in ANWR? That would increase supply and drive down their price.
Another thing to consider is the fact that oil companies might make less money at a higher price than they would at a lower price.
Here is an article about the subject which answers the charge that oil companies are asking to drill in new areas while not drilling on leases they already have:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
From the above link:
Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.
"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."
But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.
Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.
"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."
Gheit agrees that it's unlikely that hoarding is going on.
With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.
Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.
....Yes, the above data does seem to be a mystery. I know there must be two sides to this subject, but if in fact the above is fact.....what really is the reason they are not moving to get the drilling started.....other than the money issue.
Somehow the real truth needs to be hashed out so we {US population}, all can understand just what the true situation is. All we hear is the bickering back and forth as a daily routine of politics.
erikem wrote: passengerfan wrote:I laugh at all of these people who commute 30 miles per day to their jobs while I walk 3 blocks. And when I took this job it was for an increase in salary and have been there eleven years now. I do a great deal of my work from home as my home computer is tied to the company system. I go into the office for no more than three hours per day and do the rest from home. I am now semi-retired and would have it no other way. Popular Science's website hide a "slide-show" of things we could do to "help" the environment. One was for people to move away from the suburbs back into the city, so there would be less need for 40 mile per day commutes.For grins, I decided to estimate how much roof area on a suburban home would be needed to provide the electrical energy for a 40 mile commute. Figured that a Prius gets 40 miles per gallon, so we have 1 gallon per day. I then figured that the specific fuel consumption was 0.375 lbm/hp-hr, which equates to 0.5 lbm/kw-hr. One gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds, 6lbs/0.5lb/kw-hr equals 12 kw-hr. Peak insolation in the southern part of the US is about 1 kw/sq-meter or about 100 watts per square foot. Figure that we may reliably get 4 hours equivalent of peak insolation, so that's 400 w-hrs/sq-ft. Also figure that photovoltaics are about 20% efficient (e.g. Cypress silicon solar cells), so that gives us 80 w-hrs/sq-ft per day. 12,000 w-hrs divided by 80 gives us 150 square feet of roof area for technology available right now.There's a whole bunch of "if's, and's and but's" that may vary the actual required roof square footage for providing energy for commuting. There are also a bunch of other factors that determine the relative sustainability of suburban vs urban residences. The biggie is that I haven't discussed the relative economics (oil is still cheaper at $140/bbl). This exercise does point out that the relative sustainability of urban and suburban living isn't as clear cut as many would think.On other point is that the limited range for electric cars may encourage more long distance travel by "auto-trains".
passengerfan wrote:I laugh at all of these people who commute 30 miles per day to their jobs while I walk 3 blocks. And when I took this job it was for an increase in salary and have been there eleven years now. I do a great deal of my work from home as my home computer is tied to the company system. I go into the office for no more than three hours per day and do the rest from home. I am now semi-retired and would have it no other way.
I laugh at all of these people who commute 30 miles per day to their jobs while I walk 3 blocks. And when I took this job it was for an increase in salary and have been there eleven years now. I do a great deal of my work from home as my home computer is tied to the company system. I go into the office for no more than three hours per day and do the rest from home. I am now semi-retired and would have it no other way.
Popular Science's website hide a "slide-show" of things we could do to "help" the environment. One was for people to move away from the suburbs back into the city, so there would be less need for 40 mile per day commutes.
For grins, I decided to estimate how much roof area on a suburban home would be needed to provide the electrical energy for a 40 mile commute. Figured that a Prius gets 40 miles per gallon, so we have 1 gallon per day. I then figured that the specific fuel consumption was 0.375 lbm/hp-hr, which equates to 0.5 lbm/kw-hr. One gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds, 6lbs/0.5lb/kw-hr equals 12 kw-hr. Peak insolation in the southern part of the US is about 1 kw/sq-meter or about 100 watts per square foot. Figure that we may reliably get 4 hours equivalent of peak insolation, so that's 400 w-hrs/sq-ft. Also figure that photovoltaics are about 20% efficient (e.g. Cypress silicon solar cells), so that gives us 80 w-hrs/sq-ft per day. 12,000 w-hrs divided by 80 gives us 150 square feet of roof area for technology available right now.
There's a whole bunch of "if's, and's and but's" that may vary the actual required roof square footage for providing energy for commuting. There are also a bunch of other factors that determine the relative sustainability of suburban vs urban residences. The biggie is that I haven't discussed the relative economics (oil is still cheaper at $140/bbl). This exercise does point out that the relative sustainability of urban and suburban living isn't as clear cut as many would think.
On other point is that the limited range for electric cars may encourage more long distance travel by "auto-trains".
I recently read about an engineer in New Jersey who was able to remove his home from the power grid by using solar and hydrogen fuel cells. He even has an elaborate energy storage system that provides electricity all year, even during the winter months. The only downside: his system cost something like $500,000. IIRC this guy even generates hydrogen that he stores in used "propane" tanks to power his cars. Now, if this could only be downsized and made a little less expensive!
erikem wrote: sfcouple wrote:Do you know if Saudi Arabia is facing problems with salt water intrusion into their oil fields? I've always wondered if all their oil drilling and pumping effects their desalination plants and meager water supplies.I ran across an intersting interview with T Boone Pickens on why he was investing in wind energy. He heard that that some Saudi wells were producing 6 barrels of water for every barrel of oil - and he took that as evidence that their fields had probably peaked.
sfcouple wrote:Do you know if Saudi Arabia is facing problems with salt water intrusion into their oil fields? I've always wondered if all their oil drilling and pumping effects their desalination plants and meager water supplies.
Do you know if Saudi Arabia is facing problems with salt water intrusion into their oil fields? I've always wondered if all their oil drilling and pumping effects their desalination plants and meager water supplies.
I ran across an intersting interview with T Boone Pickens on why he was investing in wind energy. He heard that that some Saudi wells were producing 6 barrels of water for every barrel of oil - and he took that as evidence that their fields had probably peaked.
Interesting...wonder how much this might add to the cost of crude? Thanks for the info.
DennisHeld wrote:I am often amused, often not, on the amount of misinformation floating around regarding the 'science' of global warming. On both sides. Regardless, high oil prices may finally make us more energy efficient. Energy efficiency is the ONLY short term solution. Railroads are energy efficient. Trucks are not. If people think that drilling in ANWR or in the prohibited offshore areas is the solution. It may help in 10-25 years. But people should ask the oil companies why they are NOT drilling in 70% of the offshore areas with proven oil that they already have leases on. There is a movement in Congress to force the oil companies to 'use it or lose it' with the leases they already are not using. But oil platforms lake years to build.Many believe that the Saudi's reluctance to increase their production is because they really can't. They don't let anyone audit their oil industry. They are likely past their peak production.
Bucyrus wrote:It is not surprising that energy producers are going to look favorably upon someone who questions the science of AGW. But I don't see that connection as being sufficient to discredit somebody like Singer. After all, this is the field of science, and it is not nearly as easy to blow smoke in that field as it is say in the field of politics or marketing, for instance. The theory of AGW is a direct threat to the economic interest of energy companies, and it is easy to see their agenda in finding flaws in the science that advances the theory. What is apparently not so obvious to most people is the financial agenda that is advancing the theory of AGW. By fiat, unutterable sums of money are going to be transferred from individuals and businesses to governments in the name of fighting AGW once enough people are made into believers. And we all know that governments have an insatiable appetite for revenue, and they spend it on many things other than what it was intended for. And, incidentally, some of that money will go to scientists who support the theory of AGW. If ordinary citizens realized what this is going to cost them, they would have an agenda to question the science just like the oil companies do. Certainly the railroads or any other industry that produces CO2 ought to have an agenda to question the science because the science requires that we stop emitting CO2 within a very short time. I suspect that most people who do not question the science behind AGW have no idea what this zero CO2 goal will mean to their lifestyle.
It is not surprising that energy producers are going to look favorably upon someone who questions the science of AGW. But I don't see that connection as being sufficient to discredit somebody like Singer. After all, this is the field of science, and it is not nearly as easy to blow smoke in that field as it is say in the field of politics or marketing, for instance.
The theory of AGW is a direct threat to the economic interest of energy companies, and it is easy to see their agenda in finding flaws in the science that advances the theory. What is apparently not so obvious to most people is the financial agenda that is advancing the theory of AGW. By fiat, unutterable sums of money are going to be transferred from individuals and businesses to governments in the name of fighting AGW once enough people are made into believers. And we all know that governments have an insatiable appetite for revenue, and they spend it on many things other than what it was intended for. And, incidentally, some of that money will go to scientists who support the theory of AGW.
If ordinary citizens realized what this is going to cost them, they would have an agenda to question the science just like the oil companies do. Certainly the railroads or any other industry that produces CO2 ought to have an agenda to question the science because the science requires that we stop emitting CO2 within a very short time. I suspect that most people who do not question the science behind AGW have no idea what this zero CO2 goal will mean to their lifestyle.
You make some excellent points that I totally agree with. Your comments about science and scientists are very true and accurate.
Your comments about CO2 emissions are valid and the financial issues you mentioned is cause for concern. In addition, even if the United States made a dramatic decrease in CO2 emissions today, we would still have to contend with the rest of the world, notably India and China.
Quite frankly, I don't know what the answer is but I do believe that we have a problem that should be addressed today instead of putting off until tomorrow. This isn't my idea, but someone here suggested we should start a "Manhattan" type project on alternate energy supplies. Not a bad idea from my viewpoint.
Bucyrus, I don't want anyone to loose their job, companies to loose money, and we certainly don't need any more government intrusion and or higher taxes. I am just convinced that we are facing a real problem, and in the long term it will be easier and cheaper to start fixing the problem today rather than waiting and hoping that global warming was all hype.
This whole issue is as frustrating for me as anyone else, primarily because of my limited expertise in evaluating all the conflicting information. And more importantly, I don't have any answers to the problems we may be facing. It will take people a lot more talented than me to resolve these complex issues.
Thank you again,
Bucyrus wrote: DennisHeld wrote: Energy efficiency is the ONLY short term solution. Railroads are energy efficient. Trucks are not. So then how do we make trucks more energy efficient?
DennisHeld wrote: Energy efficiency is the ONLY short term solution. Railroads are energy efficient. Trucks are not.
So then how do we make trucks more energy efficient?
Bucyrus,
You make a valid point, I don't know what he wrote unless time is spent reading his work and then evaluating his comments.
While I haven't read anything from Singer, I have read many papers debunking global warming and have found some to be authored by researchers directly or indirectly funded by large oil companies. This has been admitted by Exxon on Jan 12, 2007, when they announced that it has stopped their practice of sponsoring groups that are skeptical of global warming. On March 23, 2008 Singer publically acknowledged receiving a $10,000 "gift" from Exxon. It is because of this type of influence that I have become cautious about what authors can be considered reliable sources of information on this volatile subject.
The following quote was made by the Chief Executive of BP (British Petroleum), John Browne, at a speech on May 19, 1997 at Stanford University: "the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."
I know we'll have to agree to disagree but I do appreciate the opportunity of having a reasoned discussion on this subject.
alphas wrote:MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne Wayne,Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around. This is an excellent thread and there is no need to have it locked. Therefore my only comment will be: I generally research authors prior to reading any of thier publications. So I researched Singer, and his financial backers, and then decided not to read his book. Wayne
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne Wayne,Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around.
sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne
Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue.
Wayne,
Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.
It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around.
This is an excellent thread and there is no need to have it locked. Therefore my only comment will be: I generally research authors prior to reading any of thier publications. So I researched Singer, and his financial backers, and then decided not to read his book.
Why not just read what authors say and let their science stand on its own? Would that not be the scientific approach? How do you know that what you researched about Singer was not written by somebody who does not want you to hear Singer's ideas?
sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue.
There you go again.....
Real Climate (sic) is a propaganda group dedicated to fommenting and promoting the notion of anthropogenically-induced climate changes. No amount of factual logic that counters their belief system will get in the way of their BS.
Let's take a logical look at what Wayne just printed above. His answer to observed solar-induced temperature increases on other planets in our solar system over the last few decades is that it can't be because RealClimate says it can't. Yet that doesn't answer the logical fallacy of there being no possible anthropogenic causes of warming on other planets, does it? A reasonable person would conclude that, since Earth is in the same solar system as Mars et al, what ever was causing concurrent warming on those other planets was also the prime culprit of warming on earth between 1940 and 1998, right?
So why the absentminded deferment to organizations like RealClimate without a basic analysis of what they claim? In fact, they're still in denial of the recent cooling trend observed over the last decade.
So what we have here is a perfect correlation, e.g. an absolute direct correlation between solar activity and Earth's climate trends, and zero correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's climate trends. Remember these two graphs below from the locked thread:
My advice to you, if you are sincere in getting to the basic truth of climate and man's supposed influence over climate, is to read through Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit page:
These guys are on neither side of the debate, rather they are dedicated to analyzing all the claims made about climate and any anthropogenic influences.
Railway Man wrote: selector wrote: And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -CrandellAlong with your hobby of beach-combing for right feet in tennis shoes ...Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
selector wrote: And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -Crandell
And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -Crandell
Along with your hobby of beach-combing for right feet in tennis shoes ...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
I haven't seen any yet. I wonder if their counterparts are going to show up sometime soon.
Ghoulish, no?
Edit- whoops, I see I have forgotten how to spell strait...previous post of mine above.
....Crandell:
It's an interesting story. Our elevation way inland here is 937' at our airport and my home area over in Pennsylvania is {at the top of town} about 2200'. If something like a 200' rise in water would ever happen....Our country {of dry land}, would be reduced by a major amount. Believe that would take care of Florida all but a small area in the Pan Handle.
Quentin, I feel you have nearly answered your own question at the last. Much of the south polar ice is elevated and supported well above sea level. This is unlike your glass of water.
I have recently seen estimates that mean ocean levels will rise between 150-200'....!!!!! That represents a huge volume of water, no matter what its state. And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight Strait of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. I am a mere 100' above sea level, with a nice path down to the beach. Currently my property terminates at the high water mark, about where a lot of the beach logs are deposited during the winter storms.
....I have seen the images from space of the polar ice cap and the comparison to another time and it was shocking the amount of difference.
Wally.....You mention the Panama Canal and {I assume you refer to higher water levels}....If the polar ice cap does melt and I'm assuming it's floating on the Artic ocean...{I really don't know that for sure}.....even if it melts, it shouldn't raise the water level any if it's already floating in the sea.....Example: A glass full of water and ice...remains the same level even after the ice melts.
Of course if part of the artic ice cap is resting on land, than that's a different story.
Modelcar wrote:.....Could burn oil shale in a firebox with grates.......?? Does the shale turn into "ashes".....?
.....Could burn oil shale in a firebox with grates.......?? Does the shale turn into "ashes".....?
wallyworld wrote:It is expected there is a 50% chance for the cap to completely melt this year...we'll see..I wonder if there are unexplored oil reserves under it? Santa Claus is looking at launching from an oil platform next year...
It is expected there is a 50% chance for the cap to completely melt this year...we'll see..I wonder if there are unexplored oil reserves under it? Santa Claus is looking at launching from an oil platform next year...
It is very likely that there are some large oil reserves under the Arctic Ocean - that's why the Russians have been making noises about the underwater ridge extending towards the North Pole.
nanaimo73 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.The weak dollar is caused by the $500B budget and $900B trade deficits.
Bucyrus wrote: The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.
The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.
The weak dollar is caused by the $500B budget and $900B trade deficits.
So if I were a speculator, I would speculate that it will only get weaker.
Bucyrus wrote: MP173 wrote: Several points:1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option. 3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?ed The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.That is the one silver lining of high oil. That is, that it spurs development of alternatives. Indeed OPEC might be very nervous about the market. Although high prices redound to their benefit right now, they may lead to a serious demand falloff if there is a worldwide backlash expressed in the form of conservation, or if there is a breakthrough in alternative fuel, -or- if U.S. politics allows more U.S. production. In regard to this being an "energy election," I suspect that nobody is paying more attention to it than OPEC. Any candidate that stepped up and declared that we will ramp up domestic production, and become energy independent within ten years would cut the world price of oil in half the minute the words left his mouth. Regarding the North Pole, there is always ice melting somewhere, and the image can be broadcast to the masses. But it is a big leap to attach the conclusion that the entire North Pole will melt within a couple years, resulting in the extinction of the polar bears.
MP173 wrote: Several points:1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option. 3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?ed
Several points:
1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.
2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option.
3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?
4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.
I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.
Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?
That is the one silver lining of high oil. That is, that it spurs development of alternatives. Indeed OPEC might be very nervous about the market. Although high prices redound to their benefit right now, they may lead to a serious demand falloff if there is a worldwide backlash expressed in the form of conservation, or if there is a breakthrough in alternative fuel, -or- if U.S. politics allows more U.S. production.
In regard to this being an "energy election," I suspect that nobody is paying more attention to it than OPEC. Any candidate that stepped up and declared that we will ramp up domestic production, and become energy independent within ten years would cut the world price of oil in half the minute the words left his mouth.
Regarding the North Pole, there is always ice melting somewhere, and the image can be broadcast to the masses. But it is a big leap to attach the conclusion that the entire North Pole will melt within a couple years, resulting in the extinction of the polar bears.
Norman Saxon wrote: wallyworld wrote: What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule." The "polar ice cap melt" is just another baseless scare thrown into the election mix by the Chicken Little Flat Earth Global Warming Society. Arctic sea ice is actually 50% thicker now than at this time last year, and the Antarctic ice cap is growing by leaps and bounds.
wallyworld wrote: What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule."
What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule."
The "polar ice cap melt" is just another baseless scare thrown into the election mix by the Chicken Little Flat Earth Global Warming Society. Arctic sea ice is actually 50% thicker now than at this time last year, and the Antarctic ice cap is growing by leaps and bounds.
I suggest you view the images of the cap taken from space ...relative thickness is not the same as measuring area...there are advantages to this, the opening of the long sought Northwest Passage....it is what it is....ice is ice...its the politicians that applies politics to saltwater. One wonders what will happen to the Panama Canal?The level of CO2 will enhance crop production....it all depends on your subjective point of view...as it applies to a valuation.
Bucyrus wrote:But telecommuting will have to undergo some serious evolution to upgrade accountability from employees that are out of eyeshot of the employer. I have seen polls in which 25% of telecommuters state that they only perform one hour of work for the company while being paid for an eight-hour-day. You can't just take conventional employees who are used to the personal empowerment they achieve by working onsite, and expect them to take responsibility for their work like independent contractors when you let them work at home.
But telecommuting will have to undergo some serious evolution to upgrade accountability from employees that are out of eyeshot of the employer. I have seen polls in which 25% of telecommuters state that they only perform one hour of work for the company while being paid for an eight-hour-day. You can't just take conventional employees who are used to the personal empowerment they achieve by working onsite, and expect them to take responsibility for their work like independent contractors when you let them work at home.
What makes you think that they were performing eight hours of work a day at the office? If the pay was the same, the work output the same, and they save how much time and fuel by staying home, it might be better all around.
Did you get the memo about the TPS reports?
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
MP173 wrote: Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?
"Fire under the ice: International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php
wallyworld wrote: eolafan wrote: The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me. In urban areas versus suburban enclaves, the general trend has been a decrease in valuation for the outlying areas and and increase in urban areas where long car dependant commutes are not required.....the plowing under in Chicago and elsewhere of entire neighborhoods to pave them over as roadways....the vanishing of Insull's roads....is this about to reverse itself?...Los Angeles is a good example...rebuilding the Pacific Electric...maybe high gas has benefits if it forces planners to look at balancing transportation needs realistically. When I was growing up in Chicago we walked or took the L.....now I am seriously thinking of leaving the suburbs in a full circle....having to drive everywhere is a pain in the _ss ....as surban roads are so congested it takes forever to do a simple errand....
eolafan wrote: The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.
Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.
We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
In urban areas versus suburban enclaves, the general trend has been a decrease in valuation for the outlying areas and and increase in urban areas where long car dependant commutes are not required.....the plowing under in Chicago and elsewhere of entire neighborhoods to pave them over as roadways....the vanishing of Insull's roads....is this about to reverse itself?...Los Angeles is a good example...rebuilding the Pacific Electric...maybe high gas has benefits if it forces planners to look at balancing transportation needs realistically. When I was growing up in Chicago we walked or took the L.....now I am seriously thinking of leaving the suburbs in a full circle....having to drive everywhere is a pain in the _ss ....as surban roads are so congested it takes forever to do a simple errand....
Besides moving into high density living in the inner cities, suburbanites can escape the high fuel costs by telecommuting. You can be sure there will be an explosion of demand for this work format as a result of the gas crisis.
What will have to happen is for workers to become independent contactors as one-person service companies. They will have to compete with each other and be highly accountable for their time and task progress. With this sea change, coupled with on-going improvements to communication and software, employers will discover that they have not only solved the energy crisis for much of their workforce, but they have also acquired a workforce that is several times more cost effective than their previous onsite direct employees.
This will cause a distinct division of labor between those performing tasks that can be done offsite, and those performing tasks such as hands-on manufacturing that must be done on the company's site. Therefore companies will tend to migrate their manufacturing centers toward the central cities, where it is possible for the workforce to transport themselves to the worksite. Meanwhile, the people doing the offsite tasks will tend to migrate to the suburbs or even to more remote and pristine areas where they can make a living while avoiding the congestion and discomfort of the extra-high-density urban areas.
eolafan wrote:The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
......And the "40's and 50"s" changes mentioned by Jim much influenced by actions caused by rebuilding and renewing after WWII.
diningcar wrote: I shall weigh in on the futures market 'scapegoat' which our congresspeople are now looking at to get the heat off of themselves.
I shall weigh in on the futures market 'scapegoat' which our congresspeople are now looking at to get the heat off of themselves.
Yes the speculators are the most reddish of red herrings. But if congress says speculation is what is driving oil prices up, it should be easy for them to outlaw speculation. How long can that take? End of problem. I'm glad it was so easy to fix.
Futures markets are here to stay. To regulate them by congressional action will serve no purpose other than to distract voters until after the election.
If futures markets are substantially regulated in the USA the trading will be done in: Tokyo, Hong Kong, London or wherever and we shall actually weaken our influence in the market.
To the extent that high fuel prices can cause a tipping point, I think it will do so first with the airlines. What would be the cost of business flight if that were the only kind of flight occurring? And at that cost, how much would business flight decrease? And then what would be the cost of that greatly reduced business flight?
The second most likely transportation business to experience a tipping point would be trucking because it carries a lot of product that consumers can forego. I agree that railroads would be less likely to experience a tipping point because a smaller percentage of what they carry is sensitive to consumer consumption cutback. The way the energy crisis will affect the railroads will likely be through their general business relationship to the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Where a tipping point will most dramatically occur is where we are tipped out of our cars and dumped into public transportation.
Last Chance wrote:We need to allow electric cars all around right away. Basically render oil irrevelant except for necessary things unrelated to motor transport, railroad or cars. The Ethanol is a big scam and a robbery of the food basket. We need those crops to eat.Im hardheaded and see 200+ dollar oil within a few years. That works out about 8 dollar or more per gallon. We can withstand 12 or so before we have to stop driving. Sometimes one is in a important job and when the entire net pay is burned up just for the monday-friday commute... well... we would have to take on a second or third job dont we?No. Enough is enough. I intend to ride this one all the way to about 12 dollars a gallon. I fear that many folks will be in open revolt long before we reach that high. I already parked one vehicle and the other gives me very good performance mileage wise. If we had to at 12 dollars, we would quit our jobs and move to another just down the road at minimum wage and walking distance and keep going with both vehicles parked and just worry about the house utilities every month.I tell you this. If the railroad brought back steam with good King Coal, thier fuel bills will settle down overnight, to be replaced by large manpower and infrastructure costs. Another thought is to take a page from the PRR's GG1 and electrify it all hooked up to the brand new power plants that the Pols are hawking these days.
We need to allow electric cars all around right away. Basically render oil irrevelant except for necessary things unrelated to motor transport, railroad or cars. The Ethanol is a big scam and a robbery of the food basket. We need those crops to eat.
Im hardheaded and see 200+ dollar oil within a few years. That works out about 8 dollar or more per gallon. We can withstand 12 or so before we have to stop driving. Sometimes one is in a important job and when the entire net pay is burned up just for the monday-friday commute... well... we would have to take on a second or third job dont we?
No. Enough is enough. I intend to ride this one all the way to about 12 dollars a gallon. I fear that many folks will be in open revolt long before we reach that high. I already parked one vehicle and the other gives me very good performance mileage wise. If we had to at 12 dollars, we would quit our jobs and move to another just down the road at minimum wage and walking distance and keep going with both vehicles parked and just worry about the house utilities every month.
I tell you this. If the railroad brought back steam with good King Coal, thier fuel bills will settle down overnight, to be replaced by large manpower and infrastructure costs. Another thought is to take a page from the PRR's GG1 and electrify it all hooked up to the brand new power plants that the Pols are hawking these days.
What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule." The problem I see is lead - lag time as well...things that should have been done decades ago, well, would be done by now...whether it is offshore drilling...electric cars....nuclear power...even the resurrection of steam all require fairly significant lead time before any results are seen. Within this oil changes price on a per barrel basis... on a dime...daily....I just am amazed how rudderless we are in this...not to get political..whatever the party its all hot air which if we could harness would solve this problem overnight....Ill leave it at that...I found the quote and it was from Ross Rowland who said it would take $150.00 per barrel oil to have the roads look at alternative fuels...its at $140.00 as of yesterday....its only June....fasten your seatbelts.....
Good for you that this works. The fact is alot of people live in small towns where there are no jobs. They have to drive 30 miles to a bigger city for work. There's nothing funny about that in my book.
passengerfan wrote: I laugh at all of these people who commute 30 miles per day to their jobs while I walk 3 blocks. And when I took this job it was for an increase in salary and have been there eleven years now. I do a great deal of my work from home as my home computer is tied to the company system. I go into the office for no more than three hours per day and do the rest from home. I am now semi-retired and would have it no other way. I don't even own a car, instead I rent one as I need it once or twice a month to do all of my shopping and go to the occasional Casino. The car rental companies are offering all kinds of deals. I don't have to have insurance worry about licensing a vehicle or wear and tear. When I go on vacation I take the train where possible and rent a car to get around. On several occasions I have rented cars to go to Las Vegas but found it is better to rent a car when I get there even though a good part of the trip is on the Amtrak bus from Bakersfield to Las Vegas. I have no complaints about this life style whatsoever.Al - in - Stockton
I don't even own a car, instead I rent one as I need it once or twice a month to do all of my shopping and go to the occasional Casino. The car rental companies are offering all kinds of deals. I don't have to have insurance worry about licensing a vehicle or wear and tear.
When I go on vacation I take the train where possible and rent a car to get around. On several occasions I have rented cars to go to Las Vegas but found it is better to rent a car when I get there even though a good part of the trip is on the Amtrak bus from Bakersfield to Las Vegas.
I have no complaints about this life style whatsoever.
Al - in - Stockton
wallyworld wrote: Railway Man wrote: wallyworld wrote: Where they have to absorb the increase. Varies considerably by shipper, lane, and commodity. And more important, it depends on how efficiently the rail shipper can pass on the rail-transportation cost increase to the consumer of whatever it is that is being shipped by rail. Probably we'll never know because the point where the rail-transportation cost can no longer be passed onto the consumer is well after the point at which the cost increase in gasoline, diesel fuel, and utilities is so high that the consumer has no money left to purchase anything other than food, gasoline to drive to work, and utilities. Coal demand is pretty inelastic; people will give up a lot of things before they give up electricity. So is wheat. Autos, building materials, consumer electronics, clothes, tires -- those are very elastic. Corn is too, because mostly it goes into animal feed, ethanol, and corn sweeteners, and when consumers are pressured for money, meat consumption, soda pop consumption, and gasoline consumption declines.RWM RWM Thanks for the answer and by the answer I infer that container traffic would possibly impacted by decreased demand for consumer goods, which makes sense. It sounds like some shake out may occur indirectly...the stronger lines tied to steady traffic generators that are not dependant on consumer demand for imports will have it somewhat easier. Any predictions or who is in a stronger position traffic wise- to weather this "perfect storm"?
Railway Man wrote: wallyworld wrote: Where they have to absorb the increase. Varies considerably by shipper, lane, and commodity. And more important, it depends on how efficiently the rail shipper can pass on the rail-transportation cost increase to the consumer of whatever it is that is being shipped by rail. Probably we'll never know because the point where the rail-transportation cost can no longer be passed onto the consumer is well after the point at which the cost increase in gasoline, diesel fuel, and utilities is so high that the consumer has no money left to purchase anything other than food, gasoline to drive to work, and utilities. Coal demand is pretty inelastic; people will give up a lot of things before they give up electricity. So is wheat. Autos, building materials, consumer electronics, clothes, tires -- those are very elastic. Corn is too, because mostly it goes into animal feed, ethanol, and corn sweeteners, and when consumers are pressured for money, meat consumption, soda pop consumption, and gasoline consumption declines.RWM
wallyworld wrote: Where they have to absorb the increase.
Where they have to absorb the increase.
Varies considerably by shipper, lane, and commodity. And more important, it depends on how efficiently the rail shipper can pass on the rail-transportation cost increase to the consumer of whatever it is that is being shipped by rail. Probably we'll never know because the point where the rail-transportation cost can no longer be passed onto the consumer is well after the point at which the cost increase in gasoline, diesel fuel, and utilities is so high that the consumer has no money left to purchase anything other than food, gasoline to drive to work, and utilities.
Coal demand is pretty inelastic; people will give up a lot of things before they give up electricity. So is wheat. Autos, building materials, consumer electronics, clothes, tires -- those are very elastic. Corn is too, because mostly it goes into animal feed, ethanol, and corn sweeteners, and when consumers are pressured for money, meat consumption, soda pop consumption, and gasoline consumption declines.
RWM
Thanks for the answer and by the answer I infer that container traffic would possibly impacted by decreased demand for consumer goods, which makes sense. It sounds like some shake out may occur indirectly...the stronger lines tied to steady traffic generators that are not dependant on consumer demand for imports will have it somewhat easier. Any predictions or who is in a stronger position traffic wise- to weather this "perfect storm"?
At the moment, commodities are holding up but finidhed goods are tanking.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
....I don't know what changes....but drastic changes if gasoline reaches 12 bucks a gallon here.
Real trouble.....!
Don't see our way out of this one yet, but somehow we {everyone} with authority better start now and get something moving. We need to get plan "B" up and running soon.....
National security.....our way of life.....major auto companies.....all kinds of transportation.....and the problem filtering thru most industries of food and other necessary products would be crippled. And of course, our economic structure....Really, most everything.
Somehow we need to get moving...Soon.
Edit:
I remember many of the depression years albeit as a rather young fellow, but with vivid details and memories. This event we're facing now as a country is beginning to seem even more scary.
Modelcar wrote: .....Could burn oil shale in a firebox with grates.......?? Does the shale turn into "ashes".....?
No. It's mostly rock and a little bit oil, kind of like coal in reverse.
benburch wrote:You know, I know of a prime mover that does not need liquid fuels, and can operate of scrap wood, peat, any type of coal, will burn oil shale without messy and expensive conversion, and has a 200 year operational history on the railroads...
Is there any manufacturer in this country capable of building such a device?
Well said.
Not perhaps well known is that Saudi Arabia is going to construct two of the largest refineries in the world, to supply Gasoline, diesel, and heating oil, to us. Sounds good, until you consider that means that more money will go over there since they will now be processing it too, and it will lock us in since I don't think they will process another countries oil for us.
BTW - Tim Colton says the idea of Aframax product tankers coming into US ports scares him a whole lot more than the LNG tankers. In case you are wondering who Tim Colton is, see his website here;
Maritime Business Strategies
This is also of interest
CIBC Reports
Railway Man wrote: wallyworld wrote: This was the cost projected as the high end by the Saudi's which they are saying could be reached sometime this year, this projection was mentioned shortly after announncing they would increase production. My question is one that occurred to me after hearing this story...Is there a threshold or tipping point where the cost of oil becomes problematic ( I know it already is to some extent) for Class Ones? Someone whom I cant recall said $150.00..per barrel? Is this correct?An interesting extension of this situation is pending re-regulation. What do you mean by "problematic"? Do you mean "beyond what point is the increase in the price of oil so high it cannot be absorbed by the shipper, and the railroad has to absorb it to retain the shippers' business?" Or, do you mean, "beyond what point is the increase in the price of oil so high that the shippers go out of business for general reasons, and rail traffic declines anyway"?Railroads are the least vulnerable of transportation modes for commodities that are not alreadly moving by pipeline, as their sensitivity to the price of oil is 1/2 that of ocean shipping, 1/10 that of trucking, and 1/800 that of airfreight.RWM
wallyworld wrote: This was the cost projected as the high end by the Saudi's which they are saying could be reached sometime this year, this projection was mentioned shortly after announncing they would increase production. My question is one that occurred to me after hearing this story...Is there a threshold or tipping point where the cost of oil becomes problematic ( I know it already is to some extent) for Class Ones? Someone whom I cant recall said $150.00..per barrel? Is this correct?An interesting extension of this situation is pending re-regulation.
This was the cost projected as the high end by the Saudi's which they are saying could be reached sometime this year, this projection was mentioned shortly after announncing they would increase production. My question is one that occurred to me after hearing this story...Is there a threshold or tipping point where the cost of oil becomes problematic ( I know it already is to some extent) for Class Ones? Someone whom I cant recall said $150.00..per barrel? Is this correct?
An interesting extension of this situation is pending re-regulation.
What do you mean by "problematic"? Do you mean "beyond what point is the increase in the price of oil so high it cannot be absorbed by the shipper, and the railroad has to absorb it to retain the shippers' business?" Or, do you mean, "beyond what point is the increase in the price of oil so high that the shippers go out of business for general reasons, and rail traffic declines anyway"?
Railroads are the least vulnerable of transportation modes for commodities that are not alreadly moving by pipeline, as their sensitivity to the price of oil is 1/2 that of ocean shipping, 1/10 that of trucking, and 1/800 that of airfreight.
The Ethanol thing is in effect an export tariff on food... great amounts of US corn are being directed to ethanol instead of food, and the world is feeling the effects of it. And we can somewhat plausibly feign that we've been forced into this redirection of corn... if OPEC gave us more oil at lower cost, we'd not need to make ethanol. So the political line is: It's not OUR fault that there's a corn shortage, it's OPEC's fault. (nevermind that we all know that's BS... it's a bargaining point for the US gov't).
Also, on a related topic, Saudi Arabia has reached "peak water" - they consume every last drop of fresh water they produce (mostly by desalination). And as their urban uses increase, less is going toward food production. So the Saudis are actually becoming more dependant on food imports.
We should stop exporting food, they can stop exporting oil, and let's see who flinches first :)
csmith9474 wrote:I recall seeing somewhere that the class 1s (or at least a couple of them), purchased their fuel at protected price before the current spike in fuel costs. I guess it is sort of the same concept as what Southwest Airlines did. I could be way off on this, but is sounds right to me. Of course those contracts will eventually expire, and then time to deal with the reality.
Thanks, Im sure the contractural price protections are proprietary as you rightfully suggest, have a definite shelf life. What is interesting in the transportation field is that railroads have the best record of bring down fuel costs which I heard was as high a reduction as 85% over a relatively short term. I suppose as my mother once said, you cant squeeze blood out out of a turnip.It would seem if the oil shale fields in Canada become economically profitable perhaps there is a new commodity to move via rail...in addition to coal.
TimChgo9 wrote: 170.00 a barrel for oil? Pure panic-mongering.
170.00 a barrel for oil? Pure panic-mongering.
No doubt two years ago if somebody told you crude would reach $140/barrel you would have said the same thing...now look at what the reality is today!
Modelcar wrote:.....The stock market drops {as it did yesterday}, on various reasons in the ecomomic world now...Not just a prediction of $170 oil. It's probably already factured more increases in price of oil in.....And on which "party" might be saying this or that about what to do over the "oil" situation, I'd like to bring all the blame games to a stop and have our system of government start {really}, start working together on this really grave problem of energy for our economy....! Perhaps on a "Manhattan Type Project" on alternative energy....What direction to go....Make up their mind just what to do and start doing it......!!
.....The stock market drops {as it did yesterday}, on various reasons in the ecomomic world now...Not just a prediction of $170 oil. It's probably already factured more increases in price of oil in.....
And on which "party" might be saying this or that about what to do over the "oil" situation, I'd like to bring all the blame games to a stop and have our system of government start {really}, start working together on this really grave problem of energy for our economy....! Perhaps on a "Manhattan Type Project" on alternative energy....What direction to go....Make up their mind just what to do and start doing it......!!
I second your motion.
.....The stock market drops {as it did yesterday}, on various reasons in the ecomomic world now...Not just a prediction of $170 oil. It's probably already factored more increases in price of oil in.....
I go along with the above suggestion of equal price for grain to the OPEC countries as they are selling oil to the free world. Oh, if we could only get all the grain producing countries together on something like that. There must be some important products the free world countries make that the OPEC folks need.....We need leverage against them....and the sooner the better.
170.00 a barrel for oil? Pure panic-mongering. Look what happened to the stock market yesterday, ostensibly after that prediction was announced. The market recorded a 350 point drop, fueled by (no pun intended) the above mentioned prediction.
The Market moves not only on facts, and figures, but also on rumors and predictions. Since I don't work right now, I don't really drive anywhere unless I have to, and I can stretch a tank of gas out to 2 weeks, however, my wife has to drive for a living, and her company right now, only reimburses about 25-30% of her fuel expenditures. Our economy, yes, to some extent, our way of life is being changed, and influenced by outside forces, and yet, we have the resources to bring back some of that control, but the people we put in office to look out for our welfare, and the good of the country, are falling down on the job, and assisting in the mess that is being created.
The most galling thing about this, is the catch phrase going around "we can't drill our way out of this." Do these people not understand market forces and supply and demand? Do they not understand about planning for, and taking care of future needs? I know it will take a few years before any new oil that is drilled for to make it to the pump.. BUT, according to what I have heard and read, the mere fact that we would do something to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, would effect the market, and the price. In my life time, I have never seen such stupidity out of those we have elected to act as stewards of our country and economy.
Texas Chief wrote: A fellow club member sent this to me.Opec sells oil at $136.00 per barrel.Opec buys U S grain at $7.00 per bushel.Solution, sell Opec grain for $136.00 per bushelIf they can't affoed it, tough. let them eat thier oil !!!DickTexas Chief
I LOVE THE THOUGHT PROCESS!
Modelcar wrote:....In my opinion....the price of oil is getting a bit scarry. If we continue on as we {the world market and world leaders}, have been....it is beginning to see how we'll get to that range of price. And not too far in the future.Of course a price like that {and possibly before}, will be causing plenty of trouble in the Free World's economies.....Believe we're seeing trouble in our daily routines right now at each of our locations.Someone else will have to answer the railroad's issues on it.....Look at the major automakers in this country.....They already are in real trouble...!
....In my opinion....the price of oil is getting a bit scarry. If we continue on as we {the world market and world leaders}, have been....it is beginning to see how we'll get to that range of price. And not too far in the future.
Of course a price like that {and possibly before}, will be causing plenty of trouble in the Free World's economies.....Believe we're seeing trouble in our daily routines right now at each of our locations.
Someone else will have to answer the railroad's issues on it.....
Look at the major automakers in this country.....They already are in real trouble...!
I was thinking that among other things the disapearance of the interurban industry that was caused by the arrival of the automobile....are we about to revisit the 19th century? I read an industry report in regards to national security...and the inevitable increase on a reliance upon coal to fuel a conversion to a use of electrical power versus oil....Truth is becoming stranger than fiction. I cannot help but think that re regulation is now out the window and the stringing of wire is going to become a quasi WPA project...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.