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:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.