1. Come and join our community by registering for free here and start discussing politics! HOP - the political discussion forum

Expensive fantasies

Discussion in 'European Politics' started by Dr.Who, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Some of them do it because they think that getting that energy is unsafe. Though they are perfectly willing to have the Brazilians get that energy and ship it to us. I guess the planet is big enough that oil spills off the coast of Brazil don't bother them.

    It certainly appears that a few people actually want to hurt the US.
  2. clarkatticus New Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    338
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    inland empire, CA
    I am not againsed nat gas, I just want to do something. All forms, wind, solar, drilling for more oil/gas, geothermal, and nuke have to be used. It's not the cost, it's the necessity. Quibbling over the cost will sink us in the short term, bury us in the long. Steel yourself, this ain't gonna be free or cheap.
  3. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    The interesting thing about water vapor is that is is both a cause and an effect of warming. The warmer the planet, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold on average. The more water vapor there is, the warmer the planet. It's a magnifying effect.

    Still, the total amount of warming amounts to less than one degree or so C, out of an average of about 15 degrees. Now, it's tempting to say that one degree out of 15 is 1/15th, or a warming of nearly 7%, but that is not accurate. The Celsius scale starts at the freezing point of water, not at absolute zero, which is a around -271. So, the average temperature of the Earth is about 286 degrees absolute, and that 1 degree difference amounts to 1/286 degrees, or a change of just over three tenths of a percent.

    The change is small, but the effect can be large in certain areas.

    How much is man caused? The jury is still out on that one. Consensus is that some of it is. Your figure of 15% increase in carbon dioxide being anthropogenic could be correct. If so, then humans are only responsible for a very small increase in average global temperatures so far.

    When we start seeing feedback loops, like the water vapor circle I just described, or the thawing of the tundra and resulting release of methane, then it's time to sit up and take notice. Even small changes in average temperature worldwide can set off changes that result in larger increases. Moreover, ocean currents and the jetstream can be affected, which in turn affects local weather long term.

    It's worth more research, don't you think?
  4. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,835
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    [IMG]

    hmm does not show that on this graph...seems it was much cooler then.

    But maybe you can present your finding to the white house, UN, and evry other major group that has studied this and come up with the same thing...
  5. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    It is possible what you said there is right and it is worth more research!

    But what you say does depend on the feedback loops all being positive for that to be true.

    Depending on positive feedback loops is not the same as saying that we have put lots of carbon in the air (though we have put in a small amount) and that it must have an effect. Without those positive feedback loops there is no reason at all that it MUST have an effect.
  6. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Correct. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small, and the percentage that can be attributed to humans is even smaller.

    But, you have those feedback loops to consider, plus the fact that the warming has been very small as well. The thing is, even a small change worldwide can make some large differences locally.

    Meanwhile, you have voices on one side saying that climate change is a crisis and we must do something (even if it's wrong, which it most likely will be), and on the other side trying to deny scientific theory on the basis of flimsy or non existent evidence. What needs to be done is to accept what is known, and then research what is not known, and quit making a political football out of it.

    Not that such a thing is likely to happen, of course.
  7. Pidgey Active Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Message Count:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Had to use the quote function to figure out what your linked image was...

    Oh, yeah... the ol' INfamous "hockey stick" created by splicing proxies together from data that the warmists REFUSED to submit for FOIA requests. Now we're back to the ol' YAD061 data...

    Seriously, Pocket... have you ever even tried to look into the facts behind all of that, or do you just blindly adhere to it, close your eyes, cover your ears and yell "la-la-LA-LA-LA" over and over and over...

    YAD061. Google it.

    And then use Occam's Razor against all of it--you'll find that Peak Oil explains all of the observed behavior as the simplest solution to the entire controversy and, indeed, all of the current stuff going on.

    Incidentally, all the recent data shows that America's CO2 output is falling due to a lessening of energy consumption.
  8. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Which, in turn, is due to the recession.
  9. Pidgey Active Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Message Count:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Which, in turn, is due to Peak Oil.
  10. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Partly due to the increased cost of oil. And around and around it goes.
  11. Pidgey Active Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Message Count:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The increased cost of oil is mostly due to the exponential rise in exploration and production costs.

    That is, right up until the chemical potential energy delivered to market is equal to the chemical energy required to actually produce it (which takes conversion efficiencies into consideration for "getting usable work done"). Once that point is reached, it doesn't matter anymore because you're effectively at zero return on investment. To give you an idea how things have changed, we've gone from a 100-to-1 ROI down to a current average near 10-to-1 ROI. That's bad.

    Most folks can not and will not get into details for many reasons. It IS tiresome, I'll grant you that. But we're not talking here about whether some relatively tiny company can afford to pay its employees a "living wage" due to the greed of its owner--we're talking about the basis of the entire world's economy: energy production.
  12. pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Message Count:
    10,835
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    you forgot about the expensive cost of ..doing nothing but speculating on the market to make a buck...a big driver of oil cost today.
  13. Pidgey Active Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Message Count:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I know. But there wouldn't BE a market if it weren't for speculation. If you have or want any kind of retirement pension or whatever, you're a speculator of sorts.

    What you don't hear unless you run in the right circles is how MUCH it costs to bring oil online these days compared to The Old Days. You have to factor in EVERYTHING including the military security of an oil-producing region. And almost all wells require the oil to be pumped out (or pushed by way of injector wells). That takes an awful lot of energy and it's exponentially increasing with every new oil field that we find. In short, we've already picked all of the low-hanging fruit. It only gets tougher from here. Period. End of story.

    A significant percentage price increase from speculation can ONLY occur due to not enough spare capacity and that, my friend, is solely because the demand curve is greater than the supply curve. Of course, the supply curve of Regular Conventional Oil (RCO) has reached and passed its vertex--we're in terminal decline now and have been fudging the numbers with unconventional oil (heavy, sour, tar sands, NGL's, etc.).

    It's simple: net per capita delivered energy is in decline.
  14. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Which is a rather serious situation for a nation whose entire economy depends on oil. We think in terms of what it costs to fill the gas tank, but there is also the tanks on those trucks that deliver everything from soup to nuts, the tanks on those tractors that produce the ingredients for soup, the fertilizer (petroleum based) to grow the nuts, and so on.

    When OPEC raised the cost of oil back in the '70s, pretty soon the cost of everything else went up to match t he cost of gas.

    Of course, that was entirely the fault of Jimmy Carter, according to Republicans, but then that's an aside.
  15. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Peak oil: the notion that we have already reached the point at which it will always be more expensive to get more oil and that the only thing that will happen from now on is that we will get less of it until it runs out.

    There is no way to know if we have reached the hypothetical place in time where this will happen. Tomorrow could the the day that we improve the technology for drilling oil so that it becomes far easier to get it. And while there will be a day when it will run out we have no way to really know when that day will be without actually knowing how much oil there is. Every time we guess then more is found.
  16. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Speaking of energy consumption and recessions...

    You have heard figures like: "Americans consume 25% of the worlds energy but only consitutes 5% of the population."

    Wake up everyone!! That just means that we are PRODUCING more stuff per person. The amount of energy we use is directly related to the amount of productivity we have.

    Does anyone think we need to be less productive? We could go back to using horses to plow fields and that would use less energy. We could all triple the amount of time spent washing dishes by hand. We could all go home when the sun goes down and turn off the lights.
  17. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Of course all the feedback loops are complete guesses about what might happen. Did you know that in the computer models too many of the feedback loops that are used favor warming. When we take all the possible feedback mechanisms that could be happening and first figure out if they are negative or positive, THEN is the time to plug them into the models.
  18. PLC1 Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Message Count:
    8,345
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Golden State
    What feedback loops favor cooling?

    Yes, there is speculation, and no one really knows what is likely to happen. That something is already happening is not in dispute. The end result is still unknown.
  19. BigRob Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,913
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    Speculating in the oil market does not really have as major impact on the price as you are indicating in my opinion.
  20. Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Message Count:
    6,414
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I think in theory they all could. It is just a question of what numbers are put into the equations.

    Some possible examples:

    How about increased c02 (a minor greenhouse gas) displaces water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) resulting in an atmosphere that in total has a smaller greenhouse effect.

    Warming could increase clouds that would block solar radiation

    Evaporation could cool certain parts of the planet that would result in changes that would cause cooling.

    Increased c02 could cause plants to grow so fast that they would convert more heat energy into stored energy (thats where all the oil came from).

    Increased snowfall could reflect more sunlight.

    I don't really know, but the end result is still unknown. And that is the point. But there is a bias in the computer models where those who design such models tend to create them so that they show a warming effect. Computer models are no more than fancy guessing.

Share This Page