Gullobal Warming Nails Britain

[red states rule]

I wonder if any global warming speechs have had to be postponed, or any enviro wackos are stuck at the airports?





Snow travel chaos set to continue


Delays and cancellations at a host of UK airports continued to hit thousands of passengers, while plummeting overnight temperatures left almost the entire road network caked in treacherous black ice.

After shutting on Saturday, Heathrow said it would not be letting any flights land on Sunday, with only a "handful" of departures taking place, pouring misery on hundreds of stranded people who were forced to spend the night in terminals.

Gatwick Airport reopened after planes were grounded for large periods on Saturday, but widespread disruption was expected with officials advising passengers to check with their airline before travelling.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20101219/tuk-snow-travel-chaos-set-to-continue-dba1618.html

[Noir]

I'm sure you're aware the whole drive behind the climate change campaign is that there will be more and more uncertain and extreme weather. The level of snow here now is nothing like I or my parents have seen. My granda remembers a bad snow back in the late 50s, but that was one winter, this is now our third in a row with snow like this.

At the very least that's worthy of a note and a raised eyebrow, not some 'but if the world is getting warmer WHY SO COLD! harharharhar' nonsense >,>

[red states rule]

I'm sure you're aware the whole drive behind the climate change campaign is that there will be more and more uncertain and extreme weather. The level of snow here now is nothing like I or my parents have seen. My granda remembers a bad snow back in the late 50s, but that was one winter, this is now our third in a row with snow like this.

At the very least that's worthy of a note and a raised eyebrow, not some 'but if the world is getting warmer WHY SO COLD! harharharhar' nonsense >,>

First it was global cooling - the next Ice Age was coming

Then it was global wrming - the Earth is going to burn up

Now it is climate change so ANY kind of weather can be used to advance the enviro wacko agenda

We keep hearing how the Polar Ice Caps are warming but we keep getting hit with these "Acrtic blasts"

More liberal logic Noir?

[Noir]

First it was global cooling - the next Ice Age was coming

Then it was global wrming - the Earth is going to burn up

Now it is climate change so ANY kind of weather can be used to advance the enviro wacko agenda

We keep hearing how the Polar Ice Caps are warming but we keep getting hit with these "Acrtic blasts"

More liberal logic Noir?

I am in no way qualified to make sound scientific judgements, my understandig of planet wide weather systems is probably about as basic as every other Joe Bloggs on the street. But if you have some insider knowledge please do tell me,

Say we have a very dry winter in Africa this year, how will this dry winter in Africa affect Europe? and how will Europe then affect Asia? and how will that then knock on to the Americas? Please be as detailed as possible.

[red states rule]

I am in no way qualified to make sound scientific judgements, my understandig of planet wide weather systems is probably about as basic as every other Joe Bloggs on the street. But if you have some insider knowledge please do tell me,

Say we have a very dry winter in Africa this year, how will this dry winter in Africa affect Europe? and how will Europe then affect Asia? and how will that then knock on to the Americas? Please be as detailed as possible.

Given the blatant fraud that has been exposed with the global warming crowd Noir is bad enough - but the amount of money (which the reason agenda) being demanded is staggering

You are not alone Nori as you freeze




is forecast to experience its coldest seasonal temperatures for over 100 years this week as winter weather takes hold of the country, according to the Swedish Meteorological Institute (SMHI).


•Bitter winter on the way: expert (25 Nov 10)
•Swedish military called in to battle winter storm (24 Nov 10)
•Transport agency calls for caution after snow (23 Nov 10)
Temperatures across the country are expected to drop to record lows for the first week of December, with the exception of the far north, with averages coming in 7-10 degrees Celsius below normal.

Stockholm registered -11 degrees Celsius at the weekend, the coldest November temperature since 1965 and the mercury is set to plunge further on Wednesday and Thursday, dropping as low as -15.

"It is far below average temperatures, which usually oscillate around zero at this time of the year," said Alexandra Ohlsson, a meteorologist with SMHI.

Dalarna and Jämtland in northern Sweden will also be hit with the harsh weather. The Storsjön lake in the heart of Jämtland's main city Östersund has already frozen over in most parts.

SMHI forecasted that in southern and central areas the cold will ease off somewhat come Friday. Northern Norrland will however drop to minus 14-17 degrees Celsius in the middle of the day.

http://www.thelocal.se/30516/20101130/

[red states rule]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/width336/cartoons/payn101213_02_cmyk.jpg

[logroller]

I've come to accept the counter-culture movement inherent with AGW advocates and I don't see how it is entirely bad: increased energy efficiency being the desired result. We can argue about the causes and effects; whether or not any data supports IPCC reports; but the energy use among developed countries is staggering. Not to say this is bad thing but if we were able to do with less, given the US energy resources available -- we could outlast most all other countries. Coal, specifically, which is so villified by carbon-counters, exists in vast quantities in the US. The challenge with coal, though, is it is most efficiently used for industrial purposes. I know it can processed but the net energy gain is diminished through such actions. Transitioning our country to become less dependant on oil is a difficult task, as we have 60 year infatuation with suburbia and the personal transportation which allows it to function. I've had to accept our war in the middle east exists, primarily, to secure oil futures; but I don't wish to continue the policy of world police indefinitely. If it takes a scare tactic to further investment into energy efficiency-- what's the big deal?

[Gaffer]

AGW is all about forcing energy prices up, that's it, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with saving the planet.

[Noir]

AGW is all about forcing energy prices up, that's it, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with saving the planet.

In any odds, that's a good thing, same with OPEC and raising oil prices, we are running out of this stuff fast, anything that can slow without being too devastating is a price worth paying.

[Gaffer]

In any odds, that's a good thing, same with OPEC and raising oil prices, we are running out of this stuff fast, anything that can slow without being too devastating is a price worth paying.

We are not running out of anything. There's plenty of coal and oil. The shortages are purely man made. restrictions on drilling are what cause the shortages, not a lack of oil. And AGW is all about restrictions to drive up the price. They're pissing down your leg and telling you its raining.

[Noir]

We are not running out of anything. There's plenty of coal and oil. The shortages are purely man made. restrictions on drilling are what cause the shortages, not a lack of oil. And AGW is all about restrictions to drive up the price. They're pissing down your leg and telling you its raining.

Yes we are, we are hitting peak oil, and the only reason we have 'so much coal' is because we use so little of it. Once you key in the numbers for coal with growth of use you find we havent got much of it left at all.

And as an aside. DONT let the media do your maths for you, do it yourself. The numbers are very easy but the media gets them very wrong, or when it does get the maths right it completely misrepresents the context, that's why so many people believe things like 'coal will last us another 500 years' Media Fail.

[Psychoblues]

Yes we are, we are hitting peak oil, and the only reason we have 'so much coal' is because we use so little of it. Once you key in the numbers for coal with growth of use you find we havent got much of it left at all.

And as an aside. DONT let the media do your maths for you, do it yourself. The numbers are very easy but the media gets them very wrong, or when it does get the maths right it completely misrepresents the context, that's why so many people believe things like 'coal will last us another 500 years' Media Fail.

Great catch, Noir. You've made several very good comments and observations in this thread only to be ridiculed by a few of those whose intentions are more juvenile than anything else.

Climate change due to Average Global Warming is real, observable and measurable. To deny this ends any conversation I might have with anyone about the subject. I prefer a more informed and intelligent banter, don't you?

Psychoblues

[Nukeman]

Great catch, Noir. You've made several very good comments and observations in this thread only to be ridiculed by a few of those whose intentions are more juvenile than anything else.

Climate change due to Average Global Warming is real, observable and measurable. To deny this ends any conversation I might have with anyone about the subject. I prefer a more informed and intelligent banter, don't you?

PsychobluesAGW means "anthropomorphic global warming" not average.... Anyone who does not know of what he speaks ends any conversation I might have had.... I prefer a more INFORMED and INTELLIGENT, person to banter with!!!!!

The jury is still out as to the actual cause of the changes. /be they cyclic, anthropomorphic, or solar related.

In a nut shell WE have not studied enough to make a INFORMED complete decision.

Now don't get me wrong I am all for furthering alternative energy sources. I personally believe part of the solution is self contained nuclear reactor..

These are a serious step in the right direction... ZERO carbon emissions except on install and later refuel, unless you use electric powered heavy equipment!?!?!!?

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/


Hyperion Power Generation, a startup building compact nuclear power reactor units that are “about the size of a typical backyard hot tub”, says commercial deployments could start as early as 2013. The release quotes the company’s CEO John “Grizz” Deal, who says the Santa Fe, New Mexico-based startup has advanced development of its device enough to be able to reach that goal (of course the nuclear exec has such a great

The company says it initially plans to make 4,000 units — each being able to generate 70 megawatts of heat energy, or 27 megawatts of electricity from a steam turbine. That’s the equivalent power for 20,000 homes. There’s also the possibility of linking devices that could produce more power.

[MtnBiker]

AGW means "anthropomorphic global warming" not average.... Anyone who does not know of what he speaks ends any conversation I might have had.... I prefer a more INFORMED and INTELLIGENT, person to banter with!!!!!



One of the best replies I have ever read! :laugh:

[Gaffer]

Yes we are, we are hitting peak oil, and the only reason we have 'so much coal' is because we use so little of it. Once you key in the numbers for coal with growth of use you find we havent got much of it left at all.

And as an aside. DONT let the media do your maths for you, do it yourself. The numbers are very easy but the media gets them very wrong, or when it does get the maths right it completely misrepresents the context, that's why so many people believe things like 'coal will last us another 500 years' Media Fail.

I don't believe anything the media has to say about anything. There is no shortage of oil that can't be corrected by new drilling. 20 years ago they were saying the mideast would run out of oil in 10 to 20 years. Guess what?

Nukeman's right nuclear energy is the way to go.

[Psychoblues]

AGW means "anthropomorphic global warming" not average.... Anyone who does not know of what he speaks ends any conversation I might have had.... I prefer a more INFORMED and INTELLIGENT, person to banter with!!!!!

The jury is still out as to the actual cause of the changes. /be they cyclic, anthropomorphic, or solar related.

In a nut shell WE have not studied enough to make a INFORMED complete decision.

Now don't get me wrong I am all for furthering alternative energy sources. I personally believe part of the solution is self contained nuclear reactor..

These are a serious step in the right direction... ZERO carbon emissions except on install and later refuel, unless you use electric powered heavy equipment!?!?!!?

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/

Nm, please relax. I didn't mean "anthropomorphic global warming" nor did I use your AGW acronym. I meant what I wrote as it is more commonly used in present day conversations even amongst scientists to describe in a more broad brush way the circumstance of climate change.

Admittedly, climate change is not one of my greater interests but I do have an honest concern for it.

btw, Nm, in case I didn't already tell you, seriously I can't remember, The Nuclear Medicine department at my VA is not manned 24/7. I must have been thinking about the CT Scan department which is just around the hallway from NM.

Psychoblues

[Nukeman]

Nm, please relax. I didn't mean "anthropomorphic global warming" nor did I use your AGW acronym. I meant what I wrote as it is more commonly used in present day conversations even amongst scientists to describe in a more broad brush way the circumstance of climate change.

Admittedly, climate change is not one of my greater interests but I do have an honest concern for it.

btw, Nm, in case I didn't already tell you, seriously I can't remember, The Nuclear Medicine department at my VA is not manned 24/7. I must have been thinking about the CT Scan department which is just around the hallway from NM.

PsychobluesNo reason for me to "relax" I'm NOT uptight.. I feel that the whole "global warming" thing has not had enough REAL investigative work done to determine what course of action we should take. I am damn sure that TAXING companies is NOT the answer. Why don't we reward instead of penalize. IF we were to give incentives to companies and individuals for utilizing alternative sources for energy maybe we could accomplish much more.

All the taxes are going to do is drive industry to underdeveloped countries which is exactly what some companies would like to do in order to pay less wages and be able to bypass the "carbon taxes" of the industrialized countries.

YOU can't tax companies for doing business and expect them to remain in your country!!!!!!

as for the last part of your post, I kind of figured, even though they staff x ray 24/7 CT is usually covered by a radiology tech at night so they pull double duty!! Nuc Med in most hospitals is a Mon-Fri and call at night and weekends...

[red states rule]

In any odds, that's a good thing, same with OPEC and raising oil prices, we are running out of this stuff fast, anything that can slow without being too devastating is a price worth paying.

So we are running out of oil eh?




British energy producer BP on Wednesday reported a "giant" oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that's likely to spur more excitement about the region's potential.
The well, 250 miles southeast of Houston, was discovered after BP drilled one of the world's deepest exploration wells. It went down 35,000 feet, a distance on par with the cruising altitude of many domestic flights.

BP hasn't released specifics on the size of the field. But if it turns out to be truly "giant," it'll contain more than 500 million barrels of recoverable oil, according to definitions by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The last giant discovered in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico was Thunder Horse in 1999. It's also operated by BP.

The new find — which will produce for the domestic U.S. market — is among 18 oil discoveries since 2000 in ultra-deep water off the coast of Texas and Louisiana, says Leta Smith, a director of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

One of those included another massive find nearby by BP in the so-called Kaskida field in 2006. That two big fields were discovered in the same region, along with others, signals the potential for more in the deep water. Development of the new find will be closely watched by others "to see how it plays out," Smith says.

The new discoveries will also drive an increase in domestic oil production for the first time in decades, she says. BP won't say when its new finds will start producing oil. Thunder Horse took nine years to come online.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-09-02-bp-giant-oil-discovery-in-gulf-of-mexico_N.htm




The fact is, we are sitting on massive amounts of oil. If the government would allow oil companies do what they do best - find, drill, pump, and rfine oil - we would not be dependent on foreign oil.

And the price would be much cheaper

But that is something the left does not want to happen

[Noir]

Wow! You're right RSR

"BP hasn't released specifics on the size of the field. But if it turns out to be truly "giant," it'll contain more than 500 million barrels of recoverable oil,"

MORE THAN 500 MILLION BARRELS! that's looooooads.

Now let's run the maths.

More than 500 million...let's call that 600 million.

During 2007 the USA consumed 20 million barrels a day.

At the 2007 rate, this entire oil find would fuel America for a full 30 days.
That's it.
One month.
Doesn't seem so big now, does it?

[red states rule]

Wow! You're right RSR

"BP hasn't released specifics on the size of the field. But if it turns out to be truly "giant," it'll contain more than 500 million barrels of recoverable oil,"

MORE THAN 500 MILLION BARRELS! that's looooooads.

Now let's run the maths.

More than 500 million...let's call that 600 million.

During 2007 the USA consumed 20 million barrels a day.

At the 2007 rate, this entire oil find would fuel America for a full 30 days.
That's it.
One month.
Doesn't seem so big now, does it?

Point is we are not "running out"

And look at the oil that is off limits to appease the enviro wackos





U.S. Policies Put Most U.S. Oil Off-Limits to Drilling
(by Pete Winn, CNSNews.com) - Huge basins of untapped oil can be found on federal lands throughout the United States, according to a new report from the federal government. But much of it cannot -- and may never be -- recovered, because it lies under national parks and national monuments, or it is subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.

The report, which was produced at the request of Congress by the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), said there are 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially could be extracted.

More than half of it is totally off-limits to drillers.

"The total onshore resource is 31 billion barrels," said BLM's lead scientist Richard Watson, who authored the report. "Of that, 19 billion barrels are currently inaccessible or 62 percent. A little over 2 billion barrels, or 8 percent, is accessible under what we call standard lease terms."

If you add in the 85.9 billion barrels of oil that lie offshore, as determined by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, there are 117 billion barrels of oil on lands owned or managed by the U.S. government.


http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/us-policies-put-most-us-oil-off-limits-to-drilling/




and we have Obama's oil drilling ban which is keeping the price of oil higher and thousands of people out of work

[Noir]

Point is we are not "running out"

And look at the oil that is off limits to appease the enviro wackos

and we have Obama's oil drilling ban which is keeping the price of oil higher and thousands of people out of work

Point is what seems amazing with the media spin ('Giant find', 'More than 500 million barrels' etc) becomes very mundane when you apply the maths.

What you also need understand is that consumption of oil is exponential, exponential growth against a finite resourse. Ie. More oil was used in the 50's that in all of human history then in the 60's more oil was used that in all of human history, the same again in the 70s 80s and 90s and 2000s.

This is REALLY important, and if you don't understand it you must make it a priority that you do understand it.

[red states rule]

Point is what seems amazing with the media spin ('Giant find', 'More than 500 million barrels' etc) becomes very mundane when you apply the maths.

What you also need understand is that consumption of oil is exponential, exponential growth against a finite resourse. Ie. More oil was used in the 50's that in all of human history then in the 60's more oil was used that in all of human history, the same again in the 70s 80s and 90s and 2000s.

This is REALLY important, and if you don't understand it you must make it a priority that you do understand it.

What is really important for liberals to understand is , as our technology grows we are able to drill deeper and tap oil that we could not access previously

The lefts answer to the US energy problem is no oil drilling, no nukes, and no coal. "Green" is the answer regardless of the cost

BTW we have this




Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.

The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.


http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

[Noir]

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report...

This article was written on February 13, 2008.

For some reason i've heard nothing about this ten-fold increase, have you?

I'd of thought it would be pretty mainstream news, two and a half years after the reports.

---------------------------

This is demonstrate exponetail growth against a finite resourse.

Imagne ther is a bacteria living in a test tube.
The bacteria spilts into two bacterium every minute (i.e doubles every minute)
After one hour (say 11:00 to 12:00) the test tube is full.

Here is a record of the last 5 minutes in the tube.

11:55 Tube 3.125% Full
11:56 Tube 6.25% Full
11:57 Tube 12.5% full
11:58 Tube 25% Full
11:59 Tube 50% Full
12:00 Tube 100% Full

At what time would you of realized there was a problem? Having lived for 55 minutes and with 96.275% of the test tube still empty would you of realized you're minties from disaster?

BUT WAIT

Only seconds before 12:00 advancements in technology have lead to 3 new test tubes being found. Three new tubes! Thats three times more resource that any bacteria has ever known of! They are saved...

...time runs on...

12:01 Test tube 1 & 2 full
12:02 Test Tube 1, 2, 3 & 4 Full.
The end.

Understanding exponential growth is vital. If someone turns to you and says 'don't worry, theres 5 times as much oil in the earth as has ever been used by humans in all of human history' be very worried, you are only a few metaphorical minutes from disaster.

[logroller]

The oil as yet unrecovered/ unrecoverable by current means remains a function of the energy required to bring it to market. Initial oil booms generated something like 10or20 to1; meaning that for every 10/20 barrels produced, one was consumed. Now ratios are approaching 1:1. Market forces would dictate that as ratios invert, meaning more energy is required than we gain, resources will be diminished at increasing rates. End of the world, no; cause for concern and investment in alternative energy supplies, ABSOLUTELY!

So far as nuke power, its great, but the cost of delivering energy remains a challenge. Currently, energy markets are relatively localized. As of yet, nuclear power plants exists on a much larger scale than would feasably service small town Americans. The easier investment is in reduction of demand; to which we have made significant gains (in reduction that is) since the global warming movement has gained traction. I'm not sure how this is a tax upon business in general, many businesses have flourished through implementation of energy-wise improvements: solar, insulation, energy efficient lighting etc. Many of these technologies actually pay for themselves in savings, others garner tax credits, some have become standards for new and improved properties. Though, government standards and subsidies may be seen as unnecessary by some, I would argue government has done a bang up job of subsidizing oil profits and keeping gas prices lower than international markets, while oil profits remain astoundingly high; so we must be wary of casting stones or we might become a target, ie kyoto ratification.

[red states rule]

This article was written on February 13, 2008.

For some reason i've heard nothing about this ten-fold increase, have you?

I'd of thought it would be pretty mainstream news, two and a half years after the reports.

---------------------------

This is demonstrate exponetail growth against a finite resourse.

Imagne ther is a bacteria living in a test tube.
The bacteria spilts into two bacterium every minute (i.e doubles every minute)
After one hour (say 11:00 to 12:00) the test tube is full.

Here is a record of the last 5 minutes in the tube.

11:55 Tube 3.125% Full
11:56 Tube 6.25% Full
11:57 Tube 12.5% full
11:58 Tube 25% Full
11:59 Tube 50% Full
12:00 Tube 100% Full

At what time would you of realized there was a problem? Having lived for 55 minutes and with 96.275% of the test tube still empty would you of realized you're minties from disaster?

BUT WAIT

Only seconds before 12:00 advancements in technology have lead to 3 new test tubes being found. Three new tubes! Thats three times more resource that any bacteria has ever known of! They are saved...

...time runs on...

12:01 Test tube 1 & 2 full
12:02 Test Tube 1, 2, 3 & 4 Full.
The end.

Understanding exponential growth is vital. If someone turns to you and says 'don't worry, theres 5 times as much oil in the earth as has ever been used by humans in all of human history' be very worried, you are only a few metaphorical minutes from disaster.

You have not heard much about it since Dems put the area off limits soon after it was found. You know why Noir - "to protect the enviroment"

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/fladj11/Economy/DemsOilPlan.gif

[logroller]

AGW is all about forcing energy prices up, that's it, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with saving the planet.

Gaffer, as a self-described "Enemy of the state" I would think that you would recognize how the US government has conspired to manipulate energy resource availability with the intention of keeping prices lower than free-market forces would dictate. Energy prices should go up; based on economic response to better information on real costs and benefits, not doomsday fears; but alas, rhetoric is far more persuasive than reason.

AGW is about industrial processes being detrimental to global ecosystems and how these systems impact the climate. Whether or not this is true and to what extent, only time will tell. Besides, it's not really about CO2, or global temps; that's a moot point when there exists a social paradigm that rejects the fundamental principle of resource scarcity-- favoring instead a bounty of oil exists within the earth like that of the creamy center of a fine chocolate.

It's foolish to villify the pursuit of a sustainable social practices when forces have, and will again, fail to account for the collateral effects upon society. I'm not saying "everybody ride your bike to work", but I wouldn't advise buying a 1-ton diesel truck for an office commute either -- but I'm sure oil companies would try to convince us otherwise. It's not about rejecting the freedom to do as we please, but choosing to conserve our resources; if you chose to heat your house by burning US bills, you'd be wise to use ones, not hundreds. What I seek to understand of the issue is how, and more importantly with what systems, can we maximize the efficient allocation of our resources when imperfect information persists.

[Noir]

You have not heard much about it since Dems put the area off limits soon after it was found. You know why Noir - "to protect the enviroment"

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/fladj11/Economy/DemsOilPlan.gif

Did the dems also censure this '200 Billion Barrel' find from any and all reports on worldwide oil reserves?

200,000 million barrels of oil.
20 million a day.
10,000 days
30 years.

That's before you plug in growth. Historicly oil growth has been around 7% per year, that means it has a doubling time of 10 years. ie where you needed 20 million barrels a day in 2007 you'd need 40 million a day in 2017. So even if this oil is discovered, and totally extractable, your looking at less than 20 years worth of oil. That may sound like allot, but it really really isn't.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer, as a self-described "Enemy of the state" I would think that you would recognize how the US government has conspired to manipulate energy resource availability with the intention of keeping prices lower than free-market forces would dictate. Energy prices should go up; based on economic response to better information on real costs and benefits, not doomsday fears; but alas, rhetoric is far more persuasive than reason.

AGW is about industrial processes being detrimental to global ecosystems and how these systems impact the climate. Whether or not this is true and to what extent, only time will tell. Besides, it's not really about CO2, or global temps; that's a moot point when there exists a social paradigm that rejects the fundamental principle of resource scarcity-- favoring instead a bounty of oil exists within the earth like that of the creamy center of a fine chocolate.

It's foolish to villify the pursuit of a sustainable social practices when forces have, and will again, fail to account for the collateral effects upon society. I'm not saying "everybody ride your bike to work", but I wouldn't advise buying a 1-ton diesel truck for an office commute either -- but I'm sure oil companies would try to convince us otherwise. It's not about rejecting the freedom to do as we please, but choosing to conserve our resources; if you chose to heat your house by burning US bills, you'd be wise to use ones, not hundreds. What I seek to understand of the issue is how, and more importantly with what systems, can we maximize the efficient allocation of our resources when imperfect information persists.

DHS declared me an enemy of the state. Being a conservative and a veteran. So I wear the title proudly. :salute:

There's plenty of oil out there. And getting alternate energy should be a priority, but you don't restrict oil exploration or consumption when you don't have the alternate energy source. You end up with everyone on bicycles and a third world economy. Which is what this administration is aiming for. The AGW crowd is a bunch of rich people manipulating markets to make themselves richer at the expense of the little guy, nothing more than that.

[Gaffer]

Did the dems also censure this '200 Billion Barrel' find from any and all reports on worldwide oil reserves?

200,000 million barrels of oil.
20 million a day.
10,000 days
30 years.

That's before you plug in growth. Historicly oil growth has been around 7% per year, that means it has a doubling time of 10 years. ie where you needed 20 million barrels a day in 2007 you'd need 40 million a day in 2017. So even if this oil is discovered, and totally extractable, your looking at less than 20 years worth of oil. That may sound like allot, but it really really isn't.

Yes they did. The media never reports anything contrary to what the dems want reported. A large oil find will not make the news if it goes against their global warming agenda. The media is just a tool of the DNC in this country.

[Noir]

Yes they did. The media never reports anything contrary to what the dems want reported. A large oil find will not make the news if it goes against their global warming agenda. The media is just a tool of the DNC in this country.

Okay, so all oil companies and global oil reserve bodies chose to ignore the 200 billion barrel find, just for the American Democrat party...

Also, I even conceeded the oil was there, and did the maths. Aren't you in any way worried by the maths?

[Gaffer]

Okay, so all oil companies and global oil reserve bodies chose to ignore the 200 billion barrel find, just for the American Democrat party...

Also, I even conceeded the oil was there, and did the maths. Aren't you in any way worried by the maths?

Most oil finds are measured in billions of gallons not millions. A 100 million gallon find will be put on the reserve list.

The oil companies are not ignoring the finds, the media is. There are untapped billions in oil fields in the gulf, Alaska, off both coasts and even in the arctic. Doing the math only counts with what is currently being used. If you don't open new sources, then you will eventually run out. New processing plants are needed. Can't build those either. So increased extraction won't help if you can't process it.

[Noir]

Most oil finds are measured in billions of gallons not millions. A 100 million gallon find will be put on the reserve list.

The oil companies are not ignoring the finds, the media is. There are untapped billions in oil fields in the gulf, Alaska, off both coasts and even in the arctic. Doing the math only counts with what is currently being used. If you don't open new sources, then you will eventually run out. New processing plants are needed. Can't build those either. So increased extraction won't help if you can't process it.

No! The math I did was projected untapped oil against current use. And even when I accepted that the US had 10 times more reserve oil than it officially has, there would still not be enough to get us to the end of 2030.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm sure you're aware the whole drive behind the climate change campaign is that there will be more and more uncertain and extreme weather.

Like there was ever a time when it was certain, or not extreme somewhere.

It's a hoot watching these leftist fanatics twist and turn, shuck and jive, and tie themselves into knots trying to justify their nonsense, especially after they've been caught and revealed as the snake oil salesmen they are. They STILL believe they can find someone who will believe their man-caused-climate-change baloney.

[red states rule]

Like there was ever a time when it was certain, or not extreme somewhere.

It's a hoot watching these leftist fanatics twist and turn, shuck and jive, and tie themselves into knots trying to justify their nonsense, especially after they've been caught and revealed as the snake oil salesmen they are. They STILL believe they can find someone who will believe their man-caused-climate-change baloney.

They have turned global warming into a cash cow with OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!!




British newspaper the Telegraph reports that former Vice President Al Gore is on track to becoming the world’s first ‘green’ billionaire.

Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

It took us Europeans a while, but we’re finally waking up to the fact that Gore and other climate change cultists may not have had our interests in mind, when they advocated we should use “green energy.” Experts like the British Lord Monckton and the Dutchman Hans Labohm have tried to educate the Old Continent about this matter for years; it appears as if they are finally making some progress.

The above doesn’t mean that the majority of Europeans have become global warming critics. European media and most politicians continue to pretend that this is the main challenge facing “our generation.” They have become experts in scaremongering and their efforts to scare voters into agreeing to policies that are harmful to them, continue to pay off. Still, the more headlines my fellow Europeans read about how Gore et al. are enriching themselves, the likelier it is they’ll become just as cynical as Americans. And that should give us all hope, because has historically been Europe that pushes for global warming treaties that’ll ruin Western economies.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/04/al-gore-to-be-worlds-first-green-billionaire/

[logroller]

They have turned global warming into a cash cow with OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!!

They have turned to a tried and true tactic of the military-industrial complex learned from the petroleum industry. Next the green industry is going to utilize the military to combat environmental terrorism and weapons of mass carbon emission! :laugh:

Truth is, profits drive our economy and, thus, tax revenues. The oil revenues will become increasingly strained as oil recovery costs increase. Oil sands in Canada, deep water drilling, Alaska's famed reserves; all more difficult and costly to extract, and therefor less profitable. Here, I could go into how difficult extraction increases social and environmental costs (BP deepstar6, or was that a movie, whatever, I know my BP stock took a big hit); but that's a side note. The cheap energy enjoyed in the 20th century is fleeting. Deny it if you wish, throw all the distracting poltical spin on the facts, but I've done the research: Oil isn't as easy to produce as it once was, all the big/easy finds have been utilized; we're down to the "hard to get" oil. Not to say there isn't alot more, but its just not as easy to get; it will take more and more energy to yield the same barrels to market as it has previously. All this bickering cracks me up; but by all means, keep the blame game going, it'll make it easier for me to get in the room where real players make the calls; instead of monday morning fantasy trades!:lol:

[red states rule]

They have turned to a tried and true tactic of the military-industrial complex learned from the petroleum industry. Next the green industry is going to utilize the military to combat environmental terrorism and weapons of mass carbon emission! :laugh:

Truth is, profits drive our economy and, thus, tax revenues. The oil revenues will become increasingly strained as oil recovery costs increase. Oil sands in Canada, deep water drilling, Alaska's famed reserves; all more difficult and costly to extract, and therefor less profitable. Here, I could go into how difficult extraction increases social and environmental costs (BP deepstar6, or was that a movie, whatever, I know my BP stock took a big hit); but that's a side note. The cheap energy enjoyed in the 20th century is fleeting. Deny it if you wish, throw all the distracting poltical spin on the facts, but I've done the research: Oil isn't as easy to produce as it once was, all the big/easy finds have been utilized; we're down to the "hard to get" oil. Not to say there isn't alot more, but its just not as easy to get; it will take more and more energy to yield the same barrels to market as it has previously. All this bickering cracks me up; but by all means, keep the blame game going, it'll make it easier for me to get in the room where real players make the calls; instead of monday morning fantasy trades!:lol:

and while the government makes more in taxes off the sale of a gallon of gas then the oil companies do - liberals do their best to keep as much oil in the ground as possible

I remember well how the liberal media would report daily the increasing price of gas at the pump when Bush was President. Now we hear very little

As oil nears $90/bbl this morning, libs continue to everything in thier power to keep the supply of oil down thus keeping the price high

And those libs who puch the "green" agenda could not care less about the working people who need gas for their car and trucks to go to work, or the oil to heat their homes

The "greenies" are doing just fine. Just look at al "Mr Green" Gore's modest home

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91230_large.jpg?1293095687419

Yes, Al sure does follow the message of conservation that he tells us to live :laugh2:

[Noir]

*woooooooosh*

The greatest pitfall of humanity is the inability to understand the exponential function.

But hey, whi cares about the mathematics, quick someone *insert al gore joke here* >,>

[logroller]

The "greenies" are doing just fine. Just look at al "Mr Green" Gore's modest home

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6880/slide_6880_91230_large.jpg?1293095687419

Yes, Al sure does follow the message of conservation that he tells us to live :laugh2:

I should add a caption--

Above: Al Gore's estate is the quintescential green building- The walls are made from compressed cow dung, roofing tiles and hardscaping are formed from deposits from glacial retreat. The home's energy demands (20 times that of the average american home) are provided via hydroelectric system powered by the thrust of hopeless polar bears. Energy demands during winter are satisfied through geothermal wells, conveniently located near an abandoned coal mine which houses an organic wine collection. Transportation about the palacial estate is satisfied by the latest generation of hybrid golf carts, running on locally farmed peanut oil, which also heats the house. When asked about future green ideas for energy independence Gore remarked "I have been investing heavily in a system which recycles all the hot air being emitted in politics; oh wait -- media already does that!"

disclaimer: the above is fictional!!!

[Noir]

And so life duly imitates satire. >,>

[logroller]

And so life duly imitates satire. >,>

At a certain point in a discussion, reason fails to engage spirited debate. At this point, I become amused by the tomfoolery which justifies the behaviors of partisan politics. If I can't bring others to understand the idiocy of partisan attack, then I'll amuse myself through equally moronic affirmations-- if I don't, I have succumbed to the madness of repetition with an anticipated difference in result.

[Psychoblues]

At a certain point in a discussion, reason fails to engage spirited debate. At this point, I become amused by the tomfoolery which justifies the behaviors of partisan politics. If I can't bring others to understand the idiocy of partisan attack, then I'll amuse myself through equally moronic affirmations-- if I don't, I have succumbed to the madness of repetition with an anticipated difference in result.

You are enormously correct in your thinking, logger. As you might discern, I, too, am a joker!!!!!!!!

:laugh2:

Psychoblues

[KarlMarx]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but here's my two cents....

Thirty some years ago as a college student, we were hit with record snowfalls and cold winters. One winter was so bad that Watertown, a town at the north end of Interstate 81, was snowed in for a week. Newsweek and Time had declared the beginning of a new ice age. Well, it didn't happen.

I also remember, as a child, hearing how we were running out of oil and gas, and that we would be living in huts if something weren't done about it... it never happened.

Today, we have the climate change crowd telling us that we are once again in the midst of some horrible climate change. One result of this hysteria is that 40% of the corn crop grown in this country goes into the production of ethanol for cars. The result is that our grocery bills are higher and so is the price of gasoline. Not only this, but the blood suckers that make public policy are using climate change as an excuse to expand government intrusion into our lives and raise our taxes.

Meanwhile, Syracuse, a city 70 miles north of me has had a record breaking month in snowfall....

Whether there is global warming or not is beside the point... the point is that the Middle Class is being squeezed because of a theory. A theory that can't be proven or disproven....

People are without jobs, being taxed into poverty, they must make the choice between eating or paying the gas bill..

While Rome burns, the scientific community is deadlocked in a debate that is tantamount to how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Climate change is a theory, the decline and impoverishment of the Middle Class in this country is a fact.

I live in a part of the country that sits on top of the Marcellus Shale.. one of the biggest known source of natural gas in the country... it's estimated that the Marcellus Shale could produce enough gas to run the entire country for decades, if that were the only source of energy. My vote is to use that resource and the other resources available to us and forget the chicken little rhetoric that will surely put us all in the poor house...

In thirty years another bunch of people will be arguing whether global warming is real... and they will be in the midst of a mini ice age, just like we are now.

[Kathianne]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but here's my two cents....

Thirty some years ago as a college student, we were hit with record snowfalls and cold winters. One winter was so bad that Watertown, a town at the north end of Interstate 81, was snowed in for a week. Newsweek and Time had declared the beginning of a new ice age. Well, it didn't happen.

I also remember, as a child, hearing how we were running out of oil and gas, and that we would be living in huts if something weren't done about it... it never happened.

Today, we have the climate change crowd telling us that we are once again in the midst of some horrible climate change. One result of this hysteria is that 40% of the corn crop grown in this country goes into the production of ethanol for cars. The result is that our grocery bills are higher and so is the price of gasoline. Not only this, but the blood suckers that make public policy are using climate change as an excuse to expand government intrusion into our lives and raise our taxes.

Meanwhile, Syracuse, a city 70 miles north of me has had a record breaking month in snowfall....

Whether there is global warming or not is beside the point... the point is that the Middle Class is being squeezed because of a theory. A theory that can't be proven or disproven....

People are without jobs, being taxed into poverty, they must make the choice between eating or paying the gas bill..

While Rome burns, the scientific community is deadlocked in a debate that is tantamount to how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Climate change is a theory, the decline and impoverishment of the Middle Class in this country is a fact.

I live in a part of the country that sits on top of the Marcellus Shale.. one of the biggest known source of natural gas in the country... it's estimated that the Marcellus Shale could produce enough gas to run the entire country for decades, if that were the only source of energy. My vote is to use that resource and the other resources available to us and forget the chicken little rhetoric that will surely put us all in the poor house...

In thirty years another bunch of people will be arguing whether global warming is real... and they will be in the midst of a mini ice age, just like we are now.

I remember Paul Ehrlich's, Population Bomb and Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring. Both gave me nightmares and many arguments with my mom when I was in jr. high and high school. For the most part, my mom was right. Carson's book holds up better and she deserves some credit on helping with pollution and overuse of pesticides. On the other hand, her influence regarding DDT has killed literally thousands in areas plagued by mosquitoes. It's only in the past 3-5 years that they've started using it again, in much diluted forms.

[red states rule]

*woooooooosh*

The greatest pitfall of humanity is the inability to understand the exponential function.

But hey, whi cares about the mathematics, quick someone *insert al gore joke here* >,>

We do not have to insert al Al Gore joke Noir - Al is a joke. Yet so many people actually believe the crap he says and they hand over their money to him thinking they will make a difference

And they do make a difference

In Al's bank account

[red states rule]

I remember Paul Ehrlich's, Population Bomb and Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring. Both gave me nightmares and many arguments with my mom when I was in jr. high and high school. For the most part, my mom was right. Carson's book holds up better and she deserves some credit on helping with pollution and overuse of pesticides. On the other hand, her influence regarding DDT has killed literally thousands in areas plagued by mosquitoes. It's only in the past 3-5 years that they've started using it again, in much diluted forms.

Speaking of Paul Ehrlich - here are some of his statements regarding the Earth's future. Reminds me what Al Gore has been saying for the few years




--In 1972, he said that 1973 smog disasters in Los Angeles and New York would leave 200,000 dead. He painted a picture of hundreds of people dying without medical help in hospitals, while others watched on their television screens. It would be announced, he said, that Americans born since 1946 (when DDT came into wide use) had a life expectancy of 49 years. Neither event has happened, though smog and DDT remain real dangers.


--In 1972, he said that by 1973 even industrialists from companies like Union Oil would be concerned over the reduction in bird populations because of DDT. Insects and rodents would increase in number at frightening rates. In actual fact, the Environmental Protection Agency announced an almost complete ban on the use of DDT, which became effective on December 31, 1972.


--In 1972, he predicted that water rationing would occur in nearly 2,000 municipalities in 1974 and that hepatitis and epidemic dysentery rates would go up 500%. Neither event took place.


--In 1972, he said that, because of a shift of the jet stream caused by air pollution, a permanent drought would occur in the Midwest, turning it into a desert. In reaction, the economy would start to fail. This has not happened.


--In 1972, he said that Congress would pass a Population Control Bill which would authorize an increase in money spent for family planning and would stipulate that all American aid to overpopulated countries would be required to consist partly of assistance in birth control. As a result, underdeveloped countries would try to get the UN to condemn the U.S. as a "genetic aggressor." An Indian Ambassador to the UN would point out that the U.S., with 6% of the people in the world, consumes 50% of its raw materials and that the average American family dog gets fed more animal protein in a week than the average Indian gets in a month. Such a bill has not passed.


Right Somewhat--In 1972, he said that the whaling industry would be close to failure in 1973. In truth, the whaling industry isn't dead, but there is real concern that overkill will indeed cause extinction of certain species of whale.


http://www.trivia-library.com/a/past-predictions-by-famous-scientist-dr-paul-ehrlich.htm

[logroller]

Speaking of Paul Ehrlich - here are some of his statements regarding the Earth's future. Reminds me what Al Gore has been saying for the few years

I think I get it; you don't like al gore- u can stop playing the same song. Have you ever considered that some of the predictions have been averted due to corrective actions being taken in response to such warnings? Or is that all greeny-liberal hocus pocus too?

I don't accept everything al gore says with his inconvenient message any more than I accept all your presentations, but you both present information which I balance in consideration. I have included an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell address, I encourage everyone to (re)read it; as it helped me to check my own tendency to become overbearing in defensive debate!

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

...Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."-Dwight D Eisenhower, 1961:salute:

[red states rule]

I think I get it; you don't like al gore- u can stop playing the same song. Have you ever considered that some of the predictions have been averted due to corrective actions being taken in response to such warnings? Or is that all greeny-liberal hocus pocus too?

I don't accept everything al gore says with his inconvenient message any more than I accept all your presentations, but you both present information which I balance in consideration. I have included an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell address, I encourage everyone to (re)read it; as it helped me to check my own tendency to become overbearing in defensive debate!

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

...Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."-Dwight D Eisenhower, 1961:salute:

I do not like scams or those who operate them. Al Gore made himself the face of "global warming" and is ripping off US taxpayers to finance his scam

Libs lost the fight to ram thru "Cap and Tax" which would have cost millions of jobs and driven up the cost of all sources of energy

The science is NOT clear on global warming yet the left demands we pay trillions to fix a problem we do not know even exists

If posting the hypocrisy of Al Gore or the statements made from him - well do not read the posts

BTW, what "corrective actions" were taken to stop the doom and gloom predictions of Mr Ehrlich?

Perhaps he was full of Co2 and hot air in the first place?

[red states rule]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but here's my two cents....

Thirty some years ago as a college student, we were hit with record snowfalls and cold winters. One winter was so bad that Watertown, a town at the north end of Interstate 81, was snowed in for a week. Newsweek and Time had declared the beginning of a new ice age. Well, it didn't happen.

I also remember, as a child, hearing how we were running out of oil and gas, and that we would be living in huts if something weren't done about it... it never happened.

Today, we have the climate change crowd telling us that we are once again in the midst of some horrible climate change. One result of this hysteria is that 40% of the corn crop grown in this country goes into the production of ethanol for cars. The result is that our grocery bills are higher and so is the price of gasoline. Not only this, but the blood suckers that make public policy are using climate change as an excuse to expand government intrusion into our lives and raise our taxes.

Meanwhile, Syracuse, a city 70 miles north of me has had a record breaking month in snowfall....

Whether there is global warming or not is beside the point... the point is that the Middle Class is being squeezed because of a theory. A theory that can't be proven or disproven....

People are without jobs, being taxed into poverty, they must make the choice between eating or paying the gas bill..

While Rome burns, the scientific community is deadlocked in a debate that is tantamount to how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

Climate change is a theory, the decline and impoverishment of the Middle Class in this country is a fact.

I live in a part of the country that sits on top of the Marcellus Shale.. one of the biggest known source of natural gas in the country... it's estimated that the Marcellus Shale could produce enough gas to run the entire country for decades, if that were the only source of energy. My vote is to use that resource and the other resources available to us and forget the chicken little rhetoric that will surely put us all in the poor house...

In thirty years another bunch of people will be arguing whether global warming is real... and they will be in the midst of a mini ice age, just like we are now.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E42mIvjzRw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E42mIvjzRw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Noir]

This is a key point


I also remember, as a child, hearing how we were running out of oil and gas, and that we would be living in huts if something weren't done about it... it never happened.

That was because in the past we stated the lifetime of fossil fuels asaginst their current known quantity and current rate of use. Thus when they found a new oil reserve the textbook needed to be redrawn.

However, nowaday we predict fossil fuels lifetime against what we expect to find. Ofcourse the numbers are not set, and can very by tens...even hundreds of billions. But the general concencus is that there is about 4000 billion barrels of oil in the earth, now I've seen *ultra-optimistic* calculations done, saying 'what if we're out by 50% and there is really 6000 billion barreles?' and even that used at current rates wont last til then end of my lifetime - aslong as I dont get hit by a bus next week etc.

As I've said people just need to do the math, when you hear 'one billion barrel oil field found in the gulf' don't think 'wow! A billion that's loads!' think '20 million into a billion is 50, that whole oil field will fuel the USA for 50 whole days.'

And as a side note, if you ever hear someone saying 'but we've got loads of coal, over 500 years worth!' slap them for me and tell them to go do the math themselves and don't let the media (or more importantly) 'experts' do the math for them.

[Psychoblues]

I think I get it; you don't like al gore- u can stop playing the same song. Have you ever considered that some of the predictions have been averted due to corrective actions being taken in response to such warnings? Or is that all greeny-liberal hocus pocus too?

I don't accept everything al gore says with his inconvenient message any more than I accept all your presentations, but you both present information which I balance in consideration. I have included an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell address, I encourage everyone to (re)read it; as it helped me to check my own tendency to become overbearing in defensive debate!

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

...Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."-Dwight D Eisenhower, 1961:salute:

Thanks for that quote from the greatest General and one of the greatest Presidents to ever live, logger. Clearly, Eisenhower the man was a genius.

:salute:Dwight D. Eisenhower:salute:

Psychoblues

[logroller]

I do not like scams or those who operate them. Al Gore made himself the face of "global warming" and is ripping off US taxpayers to finance his scam

Libs lost the fight to ram thru "Cap and Tax" which would have cost millions of jobs and driven up the cost of all sources of energy

The science is NOT clear on global warming yet the left demands we pay trillions to fix a problem we do not know even exists

If posting the hypocrisy of Al Gore or the statements made from him - well do not read the posts

BTW, what "corrective actions" were taken to stop the doom and gloom predictions of Mr Ehrlich?

Perhaps he was full of Co2 and hot air in the first place?

You say its a scam, I say its a strategy. Did you attack the conservatives that said WMD in Iraq warrants an invasion; when in reality, the occupation force exists primarily to secure oil resources in the region. I've said it time and time again-- the AGW theory doesn't purpose a doom and gloom solution, that's just political rhetoric. It's really about increasing our efficiency to extend the available resources beyond the time it would last without such modifcations. Does this mean we'll have less productivity in the here and now, of course; but in the interest of long term productivity. The deadweight losses are frustrating, but long term interest should be considered.

i've read Silent Spring, but i'm not familiar with Ehrlich's work. Off the top of my head, I'd say fleet fuel standards would be a corrective action taken by government. I Have read TheLong Emergency...by Kunster. It discusses the impended crisis of fossil fuel depletion, its a slow read but interesting; lots of facts and historical references on fossil fuels, comparisons of alternative fuels, their capabilities and shortcomings. It discusses things not in a doom and gloom scenario but an increasingly hectic struggle for energy as fuel recovery becomes more and more inefficient about the production peaks of various sources, both historical and current.

Rather or not globalwarming exists doesn't matter, the need for more efficient production does!

[red states rule]

You say its a scam, I say its a strategy. Did you attack the conservatives that said WMD in Iraq warrants an invasion; when in reality, the occupation force exists primarily to secure oil resources in the region. I've said it time and time again-- the AGW theory doesn't purpose a doom and gloom solution, that's just political rhetoric. It's really about increasing our efficiency to extend the available resources beyond the time it would last without such modifcations. Does this mean we'll have less productivity in the here and now, of course; but in the interest of long term productivity. The deadweight losses are frustrating, but long term interest should be considered.

i've read Silent Spring, but i'm not familiar with Ehrlich's work. Off the top of my head, I'd say fleet fuel standards would be a corrective action taken by government. I Have read TheLong Emergency...by Kunster. It discusses the impended crisis of fossil fuel depletion, its a slow read but interesting; lots of facts and historical references on fossil fuels, comparisons of alternative fuels, their capabilities and shortcomings. It discusses things not in a doom and gloom scenario but an increasingly hectic struggle for energy as fuel recovery becomes more and more inefficient about the production peaks of various sources, both historical and current.

Rather or not globalwarming exists doesn't matter, the need for more efficient production does!

The bottom line is, global warming has been exposed as a fraud, The global warming computer programs have a "fudge factor"

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

and the libs went after Fox News for NOT reporting the debate is over regarding global warming





The latest Fox "scandal": DC bureau chief Bill Sammon told staff to refrain from pronouncing one side of the climate change debate unequivocally correct. That's right, Sammon's insistence that Fox not make definitive judgments on contentious political issues is a sign of Fox's unethical journalistic practices, the Fox haters bizarrely claim.

The occasion for the latest bout of anti-FNC bloviating was the leak of an email from Sammon, sent during the height of the so-called Climategate scandal. It read:

Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

So Sammon instructed staff to incorporate the most basic tenets of science and journalism - skepticism and political neutrality, respectively - into their reporting on contentious scientific issues with tremendous political implications. And this is a problem?

Politico, which reported on the leak, focused on the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the belief in antrhopogenic global warming. But fortunately for mankind, science is not democracy, and as long as there are still multitudes of credible and accomplished scientists casting serious doubts about climate change, the issue is not settled.

And there are plenty of such scientists dissenting from the so-called consensus on AGW, as detailed in a report by Climate Depot's Marc Morano:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

"We're not scientifically there yet," Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, told Morano. "Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/15/far-left-attacks-fnc-telling-reporters-not-take-sides-climate-covera#ixzz19DV5gRlf




And where I live we are expecting 6 inches of global warming today after global warming nailed the South with a white global warming Christmas

And of course the ONLY way to "stop" global warming is guess what? More money from the US taxpayer

Trillions are needed to "save" Mother Earth

[logroller]

The bottom line is, global warming has been exposed as a fraud, The global warming computer programs have a "fudge factor"

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdaGkUIrDk" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

and the libs went after Fox News for NOT reporting the debate is over regarding global warming




And where I live we are expecting 6 inches of global warming today after global warming nailed the South with a white global warming Christmas

And of course the ONLY way to "stop" global warming is guess what? More money from the US taxpayer

Trillions are needed to "save" Mother Earth

You are saying the taxpayers are expected to pay for it, not me! I'm saying we need to conserve our resources for the future. The existence of global warming, when/ if it is proven or disproven will be too late to make any changes; so the debate upon proof seems untimely, if not fool-hearted. The immediate effects of the strategy, from an individual standpoint, is to reduce demand; that's it. Those who prefer criticism of AGW evidence ,I suspect, do so for selfish motives for immediate profit, rather than scientific concern; to wit data and contradictory evidence is utilized to excuse oneself from having to consider their collateral effects upon the central premise of man's activities being of significance upon global provisions. The cause for doubt, I surmise, is rooted in short-sighted benefits, being far more tangible than long-range projections and, therefore, being solely considered for current decisions, both individual and collective. There is a place for this I understand, but market forces are traditionally weighted in immediacy, a marginal approach; AGW strategies seek to even the balance.
Concerning supply side policies, there has been a coordinated effort to consume foreign energy before our own. That's why we don't want to drill close to home, we want to save these sources as long as possible. Carbon credits are a tool for marketization of supplies, as opposed to the current oligopoly control with military protection, which is far more costly upon the taxpayer.
Let's say in 50 years AGW becomes irrefutable, true or false, but due to our rampant consumption of cheap energy resources, we (or our childrens' children) are left with far too little cheap energy to facilitate a transition to alternative fuels; I and many others are concerned by the mere possibility of this occurring and, as such, are willing to accept AGW to facilitate change. Even if the changes exist to do little more than extend energy resources; the long term productivity, cumulatively, will have been greater than without such changes.

Market-wise; invest in resources: habit-wise; reduce consumption. Show me where in AGW this isn't the underlying motive?

[Kathianne]

LR, tell me where the next energy source is? What is to take the place of fossil fuels. Something obviously plentiful and therefore cheap. Since it won't be from 'the earth', must be man created and replenishable. So what is it?

[Noir]

LR, tell me where the next energy source is? What is to take the place of fossil fuels. Something obviously plentiful and therefore cheap. Since it won't be from 'the earth', must be man created and replenishable. So what is it?

Not to answer a question that wasn't directed at me, but I'd say the hydrogen fuel cell.

[fj1200]

Not to answer a question that wasn't directed at me, but I'd say the hydrogen fuel cell.

Where does one mine hydrogen for the fuel cell?

[red states rule]

You are saying the taxpayers are expected to pay for it, not me! I'm saying we need to conserve our resources for the future. The existence of global warming, when/ if it is proven or disproven will be too late to make any changes; so the debate upon proof seems untimely, if not fool-hearted. The immediate effects of the strategy, from an individual standpoint, is to reduce demand; that's it. Those who prefer criticism of AGW evidence ,I suspect, do so for selfish motives for immediate profit, rather than scientific concern; to wit data and contradictory evidence is utilized to excuse oneself from having to consider their collateral effects upon the central premise of man's activities being of significance upon global provisions. The cause for doubt, I surmise, is rooted in short-sighted benefits, being far more tangible than long-range projections and, therefore, being solely considered for current decisions, both individual and collective. There is a place for this I understand, but market forces are traditionally weighted in immediacy, a marginal approach; AGW strategies seek to even the balance.
Concerning supply side policies, there has been a coordinated effort to consume foreign energy before our own. That's why we don't want to drill close to home, we want to save these sources as long as possible. Carbon credits are a tool for marketization of supplies, as opposed to the current oligopoly control with military protection, which is far more costly upon the taxpayer.
Let's say in 50 years AGW becomes irrefutable, true or false, but due to our rampant consumption of cheap energy resources, we (or our childrens' children) are left with far too little cheap energy to facilitate a transition to alternative fuels; I and many others are concerned by the mere possibility of this occurring and, as such, are willing to accept AGW to facilitate change. Even if the changes exist to do little more than extend energy resources; the long term productivity, cumulatively, will have been greater than without such changes.

Market-wise; invest in resources: habit-wise; reduce consumption. Show me where in AGW this isn't the underlying motive?

I am not saying the taxpayers are expected to pay to "fix" global warming - the libs and envoro wackos do

Pres Obama wants to write a check equal to 1.5% of America's GDP and hand it over to "under developed" nations

I.E more wealth transfers

The same people who said my area would get 5 inches of snow last night (we got a dusting at best) are also telling us the polar ice caps are melting and in what - 50 years - the coastal cities will be underwater

They do not fill me with confidence in their credibility - but they want me to fill their wallets and bank accounts

[Noir]

Where does one mine hydrogen for the fuel cell?

Hydrogen is everywhere, one of the most abundant elements on earth, and the process itself is electro-chemical, meaning the emissions are clean and natural (the main one being water)

[darin]

Hydrogen is everywhere, one of the most abundant elements on earth, and the process itself is electro-chemical, meaning the emissions are clean and natural (the main one being water)

...and water vapor, being the largest and most abundant greenhouse gas, doesn't worry you?

[fj1200]

Hydrogen is everywhere, one of the most abundant elements on earth, and the process itself is electro-chemical, meaning the emissions are clean and natural (the main one being water)

That didn't answer my question. Perhaps I should post it this way:

Where does one "mine" hydrogen for the fuel cell?

[fj1200]

...and water vapor, being the largest and most abundant greenhouse gas, doesn't worry you?

It not only powers your car it produces a refreshing beverage; win, win.

[Noir]

...and water vapor, being the largest and most abundant greenhouse gas, doesn't worry you?

Nit at all, it's remarkably easy to store, non-toxic and has plently of uses.


That didn't answer my question. Perhaps I should post it this way:

Where does one "mine" hydrogen for the fuel cell?

Just about anywhere with a water supply could 'mine' hydrogen.

[darin]

Nit at all, it's remarkably easy to store, non-toxic and has plently of uses.



...and one-such use: Primary Greenhouse Gas. What, 90% of all 'greenhouse effect' is due to water vapor in the atmosphere...but...since people cant tax 'water vapor' they pick a stupid gas to try to control...(sigh).

Follow the money.

[fj1200]

Just about anywhere with a water supply could 'mine' hydrogen.

And what would be the cost or energy consumption per unit of energy consumption?

[logroller]

And what would be the cost or energy consumption per unit of energy consumption?

As hydrogen is actually an energy carrier, not a source, it's efficiency depends upon the source. Hydrogen can be produced from complex hydrocarbons like fossil fuels(about 95% of current production) or from water through hydrolysis; both require significant energy inputs. These inputs vary with the efficiency of the energy source, but fossil fuels enjoy the economy of scale. What makes hydrogen promising is the universality of sources from which hydrogen can be produced. The oft overlooked aspect of energy costs is that of delivery to end user. The number of tankers which must deliver fuel to the point of service filling stations is massive; I mean whats the point in delivering hydrogen if its energy density is so low that it would take twice as many trucks to fulfill our current demands. Pursuit of better supplies is great and all, but until we reduce our demands for personal transport, its all an exercise in futility. Fuel cells are promising because they are a more efficient end use mechanism, but alas the density of traditional fuels are more efficiently delivered, so hydrogen continues to be more promising for research than is practical. Investment in cultural changes regarding personal transportation in favor of mass transit continues to be the most promising solution to a sustainable energy future.

[fj1200]

As hydrogen is actually an energy carrier, not a source, it's efficiency depends upon the source.

That was my point, even though I didn't know it. :laugh:


Investment in cultural changes regarding personal transportation in favor of mass transit continues to be the most promising solution to a sustainable energy future.

Your previous post...


There is a place for this I understand, but market forces are traditionally weighted in immediacy, a marginal approach; AGW strategies seek to even the balance.
Concerning supply side policies, there has been a coordinated effort to consume foreign energy before our own. That's why we don't want to drill close to home, we want to save these sources as long as possible. Carbon credits are a tool for marketization of supplies, as opposed to the current oligopoly control with military protection, which is far more costly upon the taxpayer.
Let's say in 50 years AGW becomes irrefutable, true or false, but due to our rampant consumption of cheap energy resources, we (or our childrens' children) are left with far too little cheap energy to facilitate a transition to alternative fuels; I and many others are concerned by the mere possibility of this occurring and, as such, are willing to accept AGW to facilitate change. Even if the changes exist to do little more than extend energy resources; the long term productivity, cumulatively, will have been greater than without such changes.

Market-wise; invest in resources: habit-wise; reduce consumption. Show me where in AGW this isn't the underlying motive?

...also talks about the motive, among other things, behind AGW but to be honest I'm not seeing it. I think I disagree with your economics based assumptions but the basic issue beyond whether it's real or not is what is the best way to be ready for it. "Cheap energy" is also a current term, oil may fit that definition today but it might not in 10?/20? years. As it becomes more scarce, harder to find, whatever, the price will begin to reflect that.

[logroller]

...and one-such use: Primary Greenhouse Gas. What, 90% of all 'greenhouse effect' is due to water vapor in the atmosphere...but...since people cant tax 'water vapor' they pick a stupid gas to try to control...(sigh).

Follow the money.

Water vapor is considered a climate feedback, not a forcing gas. The exception is water vapor that is released into the upper atomosphere by jets, which is one the fastest growing pollution sectors. So far as taxation, it is almost always applied to highly elastic products, or those things which don't react as rapidly to price changes; ie gasoline, heating oil, nat gas and electricity. I think subsidies play a far more damaging role on consumers because most aren't as aware of the behind the scenes costs imposed upon them as they are of end-use taxes.

[logroller]

...also talks about the motive, among other things, behind AGW but to be honest I'm not seeing it. I think I disagree with your economics based assumptions but the basic issue beyond whether it's real or not is what is the best way to be ready for it. "Cheap energy" is also a current term, oil may fit that definition today but it might not in 10?/20? years. As it becomes more scarce, harder to find, whatever, the price will begin to reflect that.

Hey fj, you have an excellent understanding of economics and monetary mechanisms.(I suspect better than my own, which I believe is better than average) Regarding the price reactivity, with respect to market interference; the information I wish to enlighten the general public with is how the price has been held down through subsidies for a long time, as I evidenced through our involvement in the middle east, an area which presented the greatest "cheap energy" source as yet discovered. I do believe the market can make its own decisions, but these decisions don't necessarily consider things that may be pertinant to the welfare of a nation and, given the global economy which has developed through the turn of the 21st century, will continue to circumvent government regs and policy in the markets' interests. Accepting this as reality, I still subordinate to our societal and government interests, but seek to share my own personal policies through my own actions to reduce personal waste and inefficiency in the hopes that others might adopt similar policies, or better yet improve upon them. I don't do a perfect job, but I'll continue to improve; what really bothers me is when someone dismisses a good idea because its shared by something or someone with whom they disagree. We all do it from time to time, but I hope people will discern a good idea independant from their prejudice.

[red states rule]

Global warming, global cooling, or climate change - take your pick

But the man who did say the UK would be buried under snow last year - and was mocked - now has the last word

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TkzNmWlCig8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TkzNmWlCig8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[fj1200]

Hey fj, you have an excellent understanding of economics and monetary mechanisms.(I suspect better than my own, which I believe is better than average) Regarding the price reactivity, with respect to market interference; the information I wish to enlighten the general public with is how the price has been held down through subsidies for a long time, as I evidenced through our involvement in the middle east, an area which presented the greatest "cheap energy" source as yet discovered. I do believe the market can make its own decisions, but these decisions don't necessarily consider things that may be pertinant to the welfare of a nation and, given the global economy which has developed through the turn of the 21st century, will continue to circumvent government regs and policy in the markets' interests. Accepting this as reality, I still subordinate to our societal and government interests, but seek to share my own personal policies through my own actions to reduce personal waste and inefficiency in the hopes that others might adopt similar policies, or better yet improve upon them. I don't do a perfect job, but I'll continue to improve; what really bothers me is when someone dismisses a good idea because its shared by something or someone with whom they disagree. We all do it from time to time, but I hope people will discern a good idea independant from their prejudice.

Agreed.

I don't necessarily agree with your "subsidy" claim regarding ME oil; they have the cheapest source to tap and it doesn't make it a subsidy to utilize it but I may have missed something in your earlier posts.

I do think you may not be taking into account the other policies that may be leading to higher energy usage, for example, the interstate system encouraged the car culture and basically subsidized the suburban model that predominates. If we had built up the rail system to the detriment of the interstate system we'd be looking at something very different. I'm sure I could come up with a better example but I've not been through my coffee yet.

[logroller]

Agreed.

I don't necessarily agree with your "subsidy" claim regarding ME oil; they have the cheapest source to tap and it doesn't make it a subsidy to utilize it but I may have missed something in your earlier posts.

I do think you may not be taking into account the other policies that may be leading to higher energy usage, for example, the interstate system encouraged the car culture and basically subsidized the suburban model that predominates. If we had built up the rail system to the detriment of the interstate system we'd be looking at something very different. I'm sure I could come up with a better example but I've not been through my coffee yet.

Perhaps subsidy is metaphorical in application, but the result is the same; a government funded military presence in the ME, wherein the predominant benefit is the security of oil resources. I don't disagree with this mind you, merely opining that the cost/benefit indicators are overwhelming. Your totally right on Eisenhower's lasting public work, the interstate highway system; it certainly presented a mutually beneficial relationship between government funded public roads and the economic interests of the auto industry. (I think suburban development was more resultant from the boom in automobiles than causal.) Consideration of planning was heavily influenced by the Army's consideration for the interstate system for national defense; to which Eisenhower's experience as Commander of Allied Forces was certainly a factor, especially the German Autobahn. Fun fact: the statutory height clearance of bridges on the interstate is 16 ft, or 192 inches, the exact height of the m60 battle tank on a flatbed trailer.

[fj1200]

Perhaps subsidy is metaphorical in application, but the result is the same; a government funded military presence in the ME, wherein the predominant benefit is the security of oil resources. I don't disagree with this mind you, merely opining that the cost/benefit indicators are overwhelming.

So stipulated but we do bear the costs of that military presence, it's just not a cost directly tied to the use of oil.


Your totally right on Eisenhower's lasting public work, the interstate highway system; it certainly presented a mutually beneficial relationship between government funded public roads and the economic interests of the auto industry. (I think suburban development was more resultant from the boom in automobiles than causal.)

That's what I said. :)


Consideration of planning was heavily influenced by the Army's consideration for the interstate system for national defense; to which Eisenhower's experience as Commander of Allied Forces was certainly a factor, especially the German Autobahn. Fun fact: the statutory height clearance of bridges on the interstate is 16 ft, or 192 inches, the exact height of the m60 battle tank on a flatbed trailer.

I doubt the Army would need much more than 1 lane in each direction but the excess does make it easy to take a vacation and get to work doesn't it? :laugh:

I think one of the better ideas is to increase the gas tax to make the cost of energy higher to reflect the externalities. I think the use of those funds would need to be highly specific and not suctioned off for other governmental purposes but it's the best way to reflect all the costs of energy. Not that the idea would go anywhere in Congress.

[red states rule]

Now TIME says the blizzard that hit the Northeast is because of - gasp - global warming


http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2010/December/Hoax.jpg





Holiday Blizzard: More Signs of Global Warming


It's become as much a winter tradition as eggnog at Christmas and champagne on New Year's Eve — the first major snowstorm of the year bringing out the climate-change skeptics. And the bona fide blizzard that has frozen much of the Northeast just a few days after winter officially began definitely qualifies as major. But while piles of snow blocking your driveway hardly conjure images of a dangerously warming world, it doesn't mean that climate change is a myth. The World Meteorological Organization recently reported that 2010 is almost certainly going to be one of the three warmest years on record, while 2001 to 2010 is already the hottest decade in recorded history. Indeed, according to some scientists, all of these events may actually be connected.

One theory is that a warmer Arctic may actually lead to colder and snowier winters in the northern mid-latitudes. Even as countries like Britain — suffering through the coldest December on record — deal with low temperatures and unusual snow, the Arctic has kept on warming, with Greenland and Arctic Canada experiencing the hottest year on record. Temperatures in that region have been 5.4°F to 7.2°F (3°C to 4°C) above normal in 2010. As a result, the Arctic sea-ice cover has continued to shrink; this September, the minimum summer sea-ice extent was more than 770,000 sq. mi. (2 million sq km) below the long-term average, and the third-smallest on record. Snow may be piling up in midtown Manhattan, but the Arctic is continuing its long-term meltdown.

The loss of Arctic sea ice helps accelerate the warming of the atmosphere in the far north, thanks to what's known as the albedo effect. White ice reflects sunlight into space, cooling the air, but when ice melts and is replaced with dark ocean water, the effect is reversed and more of the sun's heat is absorbed. As the Arctic air warms, it raises the altitude of discrete areas of high pressure, which can then alter wind patterns. This, in turn, can weaken the jet stream, allowing more cold air to seep out of the Arctic and into Europe and the eastern U.S. As the authors of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's recent "Arctic Report Card" put it, "There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009-2010 showed a new connectivity between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic; the so-called Warm Arctic–Cold Continents pattern."



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2039777,00.html#ixzz19Xc1BKuZ

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz123010dAPR20101230034533.jpg