This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
well, the wells pumped dry thing....couldn't that be from hydrostatic pressure and gravity from the surrounding oil that was at least in the begining unminable?

you see, an oil well isn't a big pool pf oil, that when pumped dry is a big pocket oif empty air. oil is pumped from a very pourous material, much like the aquifers, their is lots of rocks, and as such only a certain percentage of oil is tappable. the rest is two small to feasably bother with.....

however, why wouldn't those smaller ones eventualy filter back down into the larger ones? just a theory...

this website is obvously biased. lol. they say that russia found a huge well of oil that will last until the turn of the century. lolololol

is that with our current consumption, which is growing at a three percent rate?(used to be 7) hmmmm, oh and is that the total oil present? or does that only include the viable oil??? i would have researched it, but as soo nas i click the article, it brings me to adverts......so yup.......

lol...Lookk a chicken!

oh and i would just like to point out that if u go on conspiracy theory websites their is also "vast amounts of evidence" to support the claims.....just saying....
 
ctenophors rule.

I asked not to: "ding me because of the quick Google source "

I know it is not a definitive source, but I found plenty of interesting links there despite the ads...

Here is a quote from the Titan article:

"Saturn's orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth"

Do you not agree that there are mechanisms other than life that can create hydrocarbons?


All I was pointing out ( not trying to shift the focus of the thread ) was that the are mechanisms active on earth, that affect climate, that we do not fully understand.

Including NON-life mechanisms, as well as "undocumented life" that can sequester CO2 as well as O2...

Again...

However I am still interested in the question:

"DO the standard Climate models account for the life that exists within the earth BIO system?"

Stu
 
i asked not to be dinged as well, and was told dinging is part of debate....but hey...i am with u and i appologise!

"do you agree that there are mechanisms other than life that can create hydrocarbons?" well...who said hat their was no life on titan? is it not possible that titan has been around for a long enough period of time to have eubacteria and archaeabacteria manifest? oh and i do believe that both of those kingdoms havbe been found on meteorites....which spawned the theory that the earth was "seeded", much like a sand bed, by aliens....

not that i believe in the theory perse, just aware....
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15447138#post15447138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
Do you not agree that there are mechanisms other than life that can create hydrocarbons?

"DO the standard Climate models account for the life that exists within the earth BIO system?"

Well, the hydrocarbons on Titan were created long before titan was even a moon. It isn't as if those hydrocarbons were created in some sort of geological process.

I haven't gone through the source code yet (I have downloaded the source code for one of the GISS models), but I have a feeling they address biological processes rather loosely. It probably involves a lot of assumptions and approximations. I wonder if they include biological systems in such a way that they can act as feedback mechanisms.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15447447#post15447447 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule

"do you agree that there are mechanisms other than life that can create hydrocarbons?" well...who said hat their was no life on titan? is it not possible that titan has been around for a long enough period of time to have eubacteria and archaeabacteria manifest? oh and i do believe that both of those kingdoms havbe been found on meteorites....which spawned the theory that the earth was "seeded", much like a sand bed, by aliens....

not that i believe in the theory perse, just aware....

As far as I know, they once found a fossilized thing on a martian meteorite that they thought MIGHT be a bacteria, but I find the evidence rather dubious. First, the meteorite had been on Earth in the arctic (or antarctica?) for a really long time. It seems entirely possible that it was the result of Earthly contamination. Second, they never actually demonstrated that what they found was actually of biological origin.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15448317#post15448317 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
As far as I know, they once found a fossilized thing on a martian meteorite that they thought MIGHT be a bacteria, but I find the evidence rather dubious. First, the meteorite had been on Earth in the arctic (or antarctica?) for a really long time. It seems entirely possible that it was the result of Earthly contamination. Second, they never actually demonstrated that what they found was actually of biological origin.

Scott

i just got served. lol. the whole antartice thing makes the deception point book by dan brown loose its pow factor for me...he doesn't come uo with his stories, he just adds on to reality.....oh well....
 
Awesome articles. I've just been sitting back and learning the last few days. I've always known about the mystery of oil and natural gas. The fact that Titan is teaming with hydrocarbons is a sign right there that oil might not have come from dinosaurs. Peak oil is a myth and just might be a renewable resource, we just don't know for sure.

Anyways, I came across this article today and thought I'd throw it out there as food for thought. It explains how the three largest energy firms in China produce more carbon than all of Britain! Are we really going to make any difference with all the proposed cuts and caps when there are countries like China and India who have bigger problems on their plates and could care less about AGW?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/28/china-greenhouse-gas-emissions-greenpeace
 
peak oil is a myth? perpetuated by whom might i ask? is this a plot by the governments environmental activist to turn the world into a greener place, by buying off scientist, and burning evidence....maybe in their own secret giant oil saposatory!
 
Once again Ctenophor, you have shown me that you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. If you had just asked me about peak oil, I would've loved to explain my views on it. But, to my dismay, your mind is still shut as tight as a zoa that was just disturbed.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15452276#post15452276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
Once again Ctenophor, you have shown me that you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. If you had just asked me about peak oil, I would've loved to explain my views on it. But, to my dismay, your mind is still shut as tight as a zoa that was just disturbed.

lol....i was wondering who would be perpetuating this myth....that is the only thing that i could come up with as a viable(?) possibility...but...what is your idea of who is doing the perpetuating, and why it is occuring?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15452290#post15452290 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
lol....i was wondering who would be perpetuating this myth....that is the only thing that i could come up with as a viable(?) possibility...but...what is your idea of who is doing the perpetuating, and why it is occuring?

oh and i feel this maye be taken wrong, i mean this in a non sarcastic or forced way....i want to know....just have heard this before many tmes, and if you do a google search, many of the listings are near, or total, conspiracy theorist websites....and the majority of them have a poore work cited page, with very little evidence....i don't know how they expect peak oil to be a myth...i mean, if u have x amount of oil, and u consume it at rate of y and it is created at rate of g and y>g, doesn't that mean peak oil is a real thing?

so shouldn't the debate be about wheather we have reached it yet, and then how does one decide when it has been reached? do we do the responsible thing and aknowledge it before it is too late to safely begin using other fuel methods....or do we simply say, we can use oil till august forth 2100, and then on that day we go into dark ages?
 
Not going to happen jdhuyvetter!

Well, I will go into more detail when I get home. But to start with, Peak oil literally means when the production of oil "peaks" and then starts to decline. It was first concieved and predicted in the 1950's. Since then, many dates have been put forth as to when this will happen, but the dates keep getting pushed back for several reasons.

Sometimes it's used as a scare tactic for political reasons. Other times it's been used to screw with the price of oil. The theory is based on the pressumption that all known oil has been found and that all methods for extracting it have been invented. That's why the date keeps changing, we keep finding new reserves and developing new technologies.
 
ok.... i will wait until u get home and explain furthur until i reply formaly...i just see an ethical issue that may be needed to be discussed...

and jdhuvvetter, what does IBTL mean? ohh found it on google....

i may be stupid...or ignorant...or whetever else i am, but i am not dumb enough to bring politics into this discussion. lolbut if u feel that way...i will just sit and watch....i would rather learn from u than comment and get this thread shut down....arvoir...


p.s. the ethical issue, had to do with maiming the earth, and with when it is decided to stop using oil....and why time is being spent into puching the date back, instead f funding other renewable energy solutions....have fun wit it!
 
The ethical issues have nothing to do with peak oil. It might be a driving force behind proponents of the theory though. Oil is going to be the dominant force, for better or worse, of energy until something else comes along that is as cheap and efficient enough to take it's place, which is not going to happen for a looong time. (still stuck at work, damn late delivery drivers)
 
I had a look at the GISS models website:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Schmidt_etal_1.html

There are plenty of statements like:

"This version is a complete rewrite of previous models incorporating numerous improvements in basic physics, the stratospheric circulation and forcing fields."

Meaning "We just rewrote the model".

And:

"Notable changes include the following: the model top is now above the stratopause, the number of vertical layers has increased, a new cloud microphysical scheme is used, vegetation biophysics now incorporates a sensitivity to humidity, atmospheric turbulence is calculated over the whole column, and new land snow and lake schemes are introduced."

I read the above to mean "We have a whole lot of new data"

And:

"Overall, significant improvements over previous models are seen, particularly in upper atmosphere temperatures and winds, cloud heights, precipitation, and sea level pressure."


This is exactly what I was talking about in the first thread.

THe NEW satellite data gives us calibrated continuous measurements of things that we DID NOT HAVE BEFORE.

The satellites that give us this data is (in some cases) just 10 years old (quickscat, cloudsat, icesat, SRTM, SeaWIFS, TERRA , Aqua) or 20 years old (ERBS, RADARSAT, etc. ) AND did NOT provide data for the generation of these models that are used as the standard even today.

I still cannot understand how some of us cannot grasp how much the global data repository has changed over the last few years and what this means for the validity of the older models.....

Stu
 
I will just throw this out there, in the past 10 years there have been over 1000 scientific journal articles published on the issue of global warming . All, repeat ALL, are in agreement that the Earth has been in an excelerated warming trend. In the same amount of time, there have been a little over 600 popular media articles with the about half in belief and half against the idea. Hmm, scientists with results in peer reviewed scientific journals, or people in newspapers and magazines who want to get both sides of an arguement. Not saying that having both sides is wrong, but sometimes they really reach when they quote people without any shred of credibility.
 
That's not the issue here. The issue is how much, if any, effect are we having on that warming trend. Along with how those conclusions were reached.
 
thecichlidpleco,

" All, repeat ALL, are in agreement"

Sorry, but that statement just CANNOT be true.
Please give us some specifics/references.

We all agree here that the earth is warming.
What is in debate is how much have humans caused an acceleration to the warming.

I will repeat again: The Earth is at a COLD POINT, Antarctica used to be a rainforest...... what a surprise that it is warming.

Who can say definitively: We are near a local maxima OR we have another 10 degrees to go?

Stu
 
I'm going to give you a list of major institutions or concur with the IPCC. Then I'd you to list all the major institutions that dont concur with them.

Here we go.

Statements by concurring organizations

[edit] Academies of Science

[edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind's future. [10]

[edit] InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14]

[edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

[edit] Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[16]
2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[17], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

2007-In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[18] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and reaffirming "œthat climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems." Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "œ(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour."[19] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.


2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[20] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top