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.
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.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
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?
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.
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.
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,
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.
Dennis,
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.
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.
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.
Interesting...wonder how much this might add to the cost of crude? Thanks for the info.
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".
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".
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!
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
....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.
Quentin
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
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.
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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,
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.
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 U. TCA 73-5735
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
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.
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?
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:
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.