Global Frying

[triad]

Now that global warming has been exhausted and every conclusion has been reached with no progression or agreement, let's carry on.

Shall we?


Maybe the Earth is not warming - maybe it is. Chances are we won't know until it is too late or until it no longer matters. The point still is we are not dead, we have not cooked ourselves by depleting the ozone, and the ice caps have not melted leaving you stranded on your homemade raft.


Some of you may say that global warming has been completely confirmed or disproved - you are delusional. We still don't know. We still have no clue... any proof we provide can and will be countered.

The more we argue the more we are confusing ourselves. Global Frying is the melting of our brains in our heads leaving us a bunch of mush-filled bodies that bring up the same thing over and over again.




Obviously no one is going to stop the human population from polluting or emitting some sort of greenhouse gas. However, if we slowed down just a tad, MAYBE the planet would be able to catch up and deal with everything we are pumping into it.


So the new question is, WHAT and HOW MUCH would we have to cutback in order to be consuming the appropriate amount of resources in order to keep both the 'I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING' and the 'I DONTS' happy?


Well... whats your solution - strongly opinionated individual who seeks dialog on the internet?

[Nederluv]

I think the 'I DONTS' will also agree with switching to clean renewable energy regarding the price of oil. Even if they won't agree with it at the moment, they will in the future. The oil price might be on it's way back now, but it will return and go past the 140 dollar since the amount of oil is not endless.

[Spider]

There have been plenty of articles printed by those who believe in global warming and those who don't. You will note that the words "Global Warming" are appearing a lot less on climate documents and have been replaced with the words "Climate Change".

There have been so many charts and graphs printed about the subject that it is very hard to know what to believe.

I am one who believes that the planet could be in the throws of Climate Change which has happened many times before. The question is has man caused it? Not very likely.
It is good that we do everything in our power to keep our planet "clean, green, and tidy" but even if it had been kept this way over the past couple of centuries Climate Change would still occur.
Things to watch for:- The Sun supplies the energy for this planet. It is in a very quiet period at the moment. No sun spots.
The major ocean currents of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. One of the major Atlantic currents is said to be in a "cooing phase".
The mean temperature of the earth in 2007 cooled and is expected to do the same in 2008.
The melting of the North Pole ice sheet. This has happened many times before, the NW Passage could become ice free. Large melting of the South Pole - unlikely.
There is a lot of "unusual" activity within the earths core. This is monitored. Volcanoes bursting into life. Iceland, Chile. Hawaii etc. They put a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere. Adaptation is the best way to survive climate change, preventing it is impossible.

[xyzer]

Agree spider!
and I agree that "climate change" is a recurring cycle in the earths past. and will occur again no matter what we insignificant human inhabitants do.
Which leads to my conclusion ...adapt..using our technology. Isn't that what all the species of earth have done to endure or survive? The revelation that there are other natural forces that have a much greater impact on global climate that anthrpogenic CO2 certainly should suggest that course.

[xyzer]

Nederluv...Problem with switching is not so much the technology as it is a dependence on a world supply and transportation system that is built on and demands oil and coal consumption? What is needed is something like hydrogen power which will satisfy that type system.

I don't think nuclear power will adapt in a truck or auto engine? Ethanol is proving a problem and is driving food prices up. Wind power requires too much space for too little power? Rather than trying to change the size and shape of our existing transportation industry, maybe we should develop sources that will approximate the current oil burning engines...again hydrogen comes to mind?

[Will_00]

How about we do absolutely nothing?

[Deadeye]

Concerning the Frying of the Earth. As we all know it will happen. The big cook off is about 5 billion years away. That's not exactly around the corner when one considers that the universe is about 14 billion years old.

As for this late wrinkle in our temperature, I'm not concerned. It's hot, then it's cold. Sometimes it gets very cold and sometimes the Earth freezes for millions of years. That'd bother me, at least for the first one or two years....which is probably how long it'd take me to freeze. But until that happens it's no biggie.

Oh, BTW: I understand that you can get a real good deal on a new Hummer nowadays. I wonder if I should buy one?

[xyzer]

A fair statement Will!

How about we do absolutely nothing

Because to support your statement, we did nothing but talk and behold it has globally cooled in the last 5 years?
Just think of the money we have avoided spending and the 3d world people that have benefitted from continuing to use the cheapest energy source we have? It turns out that natural influences have done the job and it didn't cost us anything?

I read somewhere we have at least a 30 year supply of untapped oil and several hundred years of coal for power. Doesn't it make sense to use it while we seek alternate sources...nuclear, hydrogen? To me the issue as proposed by Al Gore and the believers is unsupported nonsense? Predictions that were believed but proved to be flawed!

[Will_00]

I read somewhere we have at least a 30 year supply of untapped oil and several hundred years of coal for power. Doesn't it make sense to use it while we seek alternate sources...nuclear, hydrogen?

I completely agree with the use of alternate fuels, except where did you get that we have a 30 year supply? We have much more then that.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Will_00 I completely agree with the use of alternate fuels, except where did you get that we have a 30 year supply? We have much more then that.

We are sitting on huge oil reserves. If we tapped them we'd be better off than we are now and energy would be cheaper which we need for our economy to thrive.

Eventually we'll learn to use nuclear and maybe even solar power for most of our energy needs. Least that's my guess. But until that happens we have plenty of natural gas and oil to burn. If the congress, that is; would just remove the barriers for it's use.

[Will_00]

I agree with you.

[Jack]

We are sitting on huge oil reserves. If we tapped them we'd be better off than we are now and energy would be cheaper which we need for our economy to thrive.

Everything I've read on this topic leads me to agree with this:

But opening up for exploration is not going to do much for prices right now–oh sure, domestic exploration might drop the price of oil and provide some relief from any speculation driving up the price, but it’s not going to change the fundamentals on the ground for over a decade. In other words, oil might drop in the near term, but it won’t drop that much and it will start to go up again. Additionally, drilling for more oil won’t do anything for the price of gas without a concurrent expansion in refinery capacity. So, even if we were to open up all of our offshore and onland sites for oil exploration today, it would be at least a decade, if not longer, before that oil started pumping. Meanwhile, over that decade, subsidized consumption in India and China would continue to rise, OPEC fields would continue to be maxed out, refineries would likely still be running at full capacity, and as a consequence, gas prices would still continue to increase at a decent clip. And the consequences of those gas prices rising–more mass transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, more investment in alternative energy sources–would also likely continue. So after a decade of those trends, how much of a difference are new sources of oil going to make? If it turns out that alt-energy can’t keep the pace yet to make up for oil, then new supplies of oil might not be enough to cover ever-increasing demand. So at best we might just be looking at a slowdown in the pace of oil price increases. If it effects oil prices much at all. Granted, an increase of supply usually causes a decrease in prices, but given that offshore oil and shale oil cost more to extract than sources found in a lot of foreign fields, those costs have to be transmitted into the price. Not to mention the very real danger of demand exceeding supply a decade from now–even with the new oil sources. If that’s the case, our new sources of oil aren’t going to put a dent in the price. So is there really that much of a benefit, here?

Is it Worth Drilling For More Domestic Oil?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer A fair statement Will! Because to support your statement, we did nothing but talk and behold it has globally cooled in the last 5 years? Just think of the money we have avoided spending and the 3d world people that have benefitted from continuing to use the cheapest energy source we have? It turns out that natural influences have done the job and it didn't cost us anything?

The PDO cycle can cause extremes of either end, like the record breaker of 1998 and now it's counteracting the warming of the last few years. So what happens when it swings back to El Nino again? Just stick your fingers in your ears till the next La Nina?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Jack Everything I've read on this topic leads me to agree with this: Is it Worth Drilling For More Domestic Oil?

It seems to me, Jack; that you are listing many ways to provide an excuse for the failure of our government to deal with the energy crisis that we all have known was on the horizon. What we feared has come to pass. It also seems to me that you are providing a reason for us to just surrender to the current crisis and sit back and stew in our own juices.

I'd rather that we be aggressively proactive. I'd rather that we punch holes for oil where ever it is, build refineries, build nuclear power plants, maybe try a few pathetic wind machines (they are all over parts of California and just have worked to slaughter zillions of little birds) and employ clean coal burning technologies and THEN see what happens.

It's kind of like the difference between negociating from a position of strength as opposed to doing so from a position of weakness.

If we drill here, and even if it doesn't reduce the price of oil at least the money we spend would be recirculating within our economy. That alone is reason enough to do it. Sure it'll take some time, and sure it's a big job, but that's what they said about the digging of the Panama Canal and look what happened. So history tells us it can be done.