Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

It's all about the long term trends tigerboi, not the spurious outliers. Not unlike the market.

tigerboi said:

Global warming?? dribble..the UK just had its coldest winter since 1966,42 years,aslong as ive been alive..the ice in greenland is the biggest in 15 years.this is a UN run campaign through Al Gore.failed politician looking for a stage to sprout his rubbish.i find it amazing so called smart people believe an ex politician on science,pseudo at the best.wake up to this mesmerising "religion" for what it is.utter dribble that 50% of scientists disagree with...tb.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html
even this guy knows its all fake!

Click to expand...

Yep, Global Warming is just an excuse to create a tax for an essential gas for life on the planet.

What they should be doing is taxing pollution, but the priority seems to be destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

Turns out Sunspot activity has decreased dramatically and apparently the sun is 15-20% dimmer. I'm not sure if the the dimness measurement is a space based measurement or earth based. If it is earth based, I'd be blaming these guys for spraying whatever crap they are spraying into the air, apparently a combination of Aluminium and Barium and a host of other nasty's from Rain based analysis etc









There are a stack more pictures here ==> http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies?z=3&c=4&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=14

Strange lines in the sky over Esperance before the bird die off. They forgot to mention all the bird die off hundreds of km's away from any lead mines or transportation at the same time.



And one laid over Perth in December



By the way these things aren't contrails because contrails don't hang around for 1 - 2 hours and then dissipate into a smoggy cirrus type cloud.

Anyway, my prediction for winter in the southern hemisphere is that we are going too have a FREEZING COLD, wet winter, and I'm even predicting Perth may get snowed on this winter. If it was good enough for Saudi Arabia to get the first snow in recorded history during their last winter, I reckon it's good enough for little old Perth to get some snow this winter...

Kimosabi said:

They forgot to mention all the bird die off hundreds of km's away from any lead mines or transportation at the same time.

Click to expand...

Birds do fly...

2020hindsight said:

well m8, the day will come we'll all work from home - in our pyjamas or whatever - shoes off, toes enjoying glorious feedom -
and it won't even matter if we have a shower or not.

(In exactly the same way that you can bet on the stock exchange like this - in your dressing gown if you wish - much more convenient than having to meet the dress code at the casino )

Click to expand...

Just one problem. Productive work, as opposed to speculation and administration, can't generally be done sitting at home. The economy's headed to hell in a handbasket if that happens in which case public concern over climate change will likely disappear in a flash.

IMO peak oil will in 5 or maybe 10 years time be the mainstream issue that climate change is today with climate change itself very much in the back seat.

Just another perspective which mainstream never mentions.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

It puts a different slant on things.

A major aspect of GW that is man made is the fuel inefficiency of our motor vehicles. We still have the same fuel consumption as we did when vehicles first hit the road just about. We sent men to the moon, developed the Atomic bomb and we still do 30mpg for the same weight to power ratio just about! Who is being conned here?

The second group that doesn't want fuel efficiency is who?

Governments. They would lose too much in taxes.

Who is being conned here?

Roadskolar

Smurf1976 said:

Just one problem. Productive work, as opposed to speculation and administration, can't generally be done sitting at home. The economy's headed to hell in a handbasket if that happens in which case public concern over climate change will likely disappear in a flash.

IMO peak oil will in 5 or maybe 10 years time be the mainstream issue that climate change is today with climate change itself very much in the back seat.

Click to expand...

Peak Oil is another scam, in ONE oil field in Alaska, it has enough Oil/Gas to supply the United States for 200 years.

They apparently have these huge pumps that pump the Natural Gas back into the ground and the existing Alaskan Oil Fields were meant to have run out 10 years ago, but the fields are still pumping out oil/gas at the same pressure they did 30 years ago.

The Russians are apparently world leaders in finding abiotic oil, basically the Russians are now finding oil in areas where there shouldn't be any oil.

When they analyse the hydrocarbons that are coming out of the deep sea vents, they have the same carbon signature as supposed Fossil Fuels.

And then we have a look at all of the people who have been bought out or have had 'accidents' who have developed alternatives to fossil fuel based energy systems, you have to wonder, what is the agenda here.

Now must be time for a quote from Henry A. Kissinger, "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people."

hhhmmm, where have I seen articles about food shortages caused by using food crops as hydrocarbon fuel alternatives...

A new poll has found that 7 per cent of Australians still oppose Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's act to ratify the Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Click to expand...

there's that magic figure 7% again.
And I notice Johnny Howard still saying (speeches in US) that we shouldn't have signed Kyoto. -

so both Johnny and Brendan can claim to have something in common with 7% of Aussies.

Kimosabi said:

Peak Oil is another scam, in ONE oil field in Alaska, it has enough Oil/Gas to supply the United States for 200 years.

They apparently have these huge pumps that pump the Natural Gas back into the ground and the existing Alaskan Oil Fields were meant to have run out 10 years ago, but the fields are still pumping out oil/gas at the same pressure they did 30 years ago.

The Russians are apparently world leaders in finding abiotic oil, basically the Russians are now finding oil in areas where there shouldn't be any oil.

When they analyse the hydrocarbons that are coming out of the deep sea vents, they have the same carbon signature as supposed Fossil Fuels.

And then we have a look at all of the people who have been bought out or have had 'accidents' who have developed alternatives to fossil fuel based energy systems, you have to wonder, what is the agenda here.

Now must be time for a quote from Henry A. Kissinger, "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people."

hhhmmm, where have I seen articles about food shortages caused by using food crops as hydrocarbon fuel alternatives...

Click to expand...

1. A scam maybe. But one that has played out to the letter in Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, Mexico, UK...

2. Which field in Alaska is that? Surely not Prudhoe Bay where production peaked in 1989 and has since steadily declined just as expected?

3. Natural gas reinjection is nothing new. Inject bascially anything into an oil field and you'll maintain pressure and production. Until, that is, it very suddenly collapses as occurred in (for example) Oman and now Mexico. Much like how an aerosol can keeps spraying until it's empty then it's all over in an instant.

4. Abiotic oil. Nice theory but I wonder why it is that in the real world oil the oil fields we have are NOT refilling according to the theory. Far too many have already stopped flowing or flow nothing but water. It might well happen in 1000 or 1 million years but that's no real use to us now. Oil under the ocean is again nothing new - problem is how to get it out.

5. Agreed though about people being bought out. The auto and oil industries make an outright fortune from keeping the status quo going as long as possible. They have every incentive to keep spreading the word that there's plenty of oil, climate change doesn't exist and so on. The geologists, scientists etc are no match for such a mighty force as far as convincing the public and governments is concerned.

Who do you believe? A group of geologists that have spent their life finding oil and say it's getting scarce? Or major corporations where the CEO's next bonus depends on maintaining the status quo? I know who my money's on and they've thus far been right in more than half of all major oil producing countries.

WHY is it over $100 a barrel, just as the geologists etc expected, and not the $20 or less that the multinationals, oil barrons and others were so confidently predicting earlier this decade?

All that doesn't matter too much though. If it keeps doubling in price every year or two then the usefullness of oil to the ordinary person has peaked regardless of the cause. If the world does get to 100 million barrels per day of production capacity then it won't help one bit if the price is $1000 per barrel - Joe Public won't be using it either way and for practical purposes oil consumption will be well past peak for the majority of people.

Take a look at what happened in Bass Strait, North Sea, Texas, Alaska, US or just about anywhere else that has oil fields that have been in production for decades. Now tell me why that happened if peak oil isn't real...:

I note that world production has remained essentially flat (bumping up and down) since 2005, nicely defying the economists and other optimistic types despite a frenzy of drilling. It's exactly the plateau in the face of increasing effort predicted by the peakers before the decline. Theory is one thing, but actual events thus far aren't going as the optimists keep forecasting.

Kimosabi said:

Turns out Sunspot activity has decreased dramatically and apparently the sun is 15-20% dimmer. I'm not sure if the the dimness measurement is a space based measurement or earth based. If it is earth based, I'd be blaming these guys for spraying whatever crap they are spraying into the air, apparently a combination of Aluminium and Barium and a host of other nasty's from Rain based analysis etc

Click to expand...

The decrease in sunspot activity is due to the sun being in between major sunspot cycles. There has been talk that the next cycle is overdue and we may be heading into a new Maunder Minimum however the next cycle has recently shown signs of commencing and if so has appeared on time as predicted.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080104_sunspot.html

I'm pretty sure the brightness variation between solar maximum and minimum is much less than 1%. The amount of solar wind and cosmic radiation ejected during a solar maximum is much more than during a minimum however.

How do you relate the vapour trails to the dimming? Surely if this is responsible for a 15-20% dimming they would be a common occurrence over much of the globe.

derty said:

How do you relate the vapour trails to the dimming? Surely if this is responsible for a 15-20% dimming they would be a common occurrence over much of the globe.

Click to expand...

Because if they spray enough crap in the air, it's going to block the amount of sunlight reaching the planet...

Roadskolar said:

Just another perspective which mainstream never mentions.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

It puts a different slant on things.

A major aspect of GW that is man made is the fuel inefficiency of our motor vehicles. We still have the same fuel consumption as we did when vehicles first hit the road just about. We sent men to the moon, developed the Atomic bomb and we still do 30mpg for the same weight to power ratio just about! Who is being conned here?

The second group that doesn't want fuel efficiency is who?

Governments. They would lose too much in taxes.

Who is being conned here?

Roadskolar

Click to expand...

It's known as the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate:

Khazzoom-Brookes postulate

The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, first put forward by the US economist Harry Saunders in 1992, says that energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel than in the absence of such improvements. It argues against the views of conservationists - those promoting energy efficiency as a means of reducing energy consumption- that one can identify every little benefit from each individual act of energy efficiency and then aggregate them all to produce a macroeconomic total. In essence it adopts a macroeconomic (top down) approach rather than the microeconomic (bottom up) approach used by conservationists.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm

Click to expand...

Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.

Smurf1976 said:

3. Natural gas reinjection is nothing new. Inject bascially anything into an oil field and you'll maintain pressure and production. Until, that is, it very suddenly collapses as occurred in (for example) Oman and now Mexico. Much like how an aerosol can keeps spraying until it's empty then it's all over in an instant.

Click to expand...

Christ you come up with some crack pot arguments Kimo. Most people don't realise that gas production has a completely different production profile to oil. It's production is constant, until the end, without warning, it virtually becomes zero very quickly.

I don't believe the US would have given up its economic advantage in the 70s, with oil, if there were all these magical sources out there. Such a counter-intuitive argument anyway you want to look at it.

Kimosabi said:

Because if they spray enough crap in the air, it's going to block the amount of sunlight reaching the planet...

Click to expand...

Right... so they are putting it into the gravitational field, rather than into the atmosphere like your photos and arguments explain?

chops_a_must said:

Christ you come up with some crack pot arguments Kimo.

Click to expand...

From you Chops, I'll take that as a compliment.

I'd be interested to see how you explain away the following videos, that is of course, if you can actually be bothered to watch them...

Oil is not a Fossil Fuel



Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (short)



Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (Full Video) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

President of Shell, Plenty of Oil?



Abiotic Oil



Ignorance isn't going to be bliss...

chops_a_must said:

Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.

Click to expand...

Roadskolar said:

.. fuel inefficiency of our motor vehicles. We still have the same fuel consumption as we did when vehicles first hit the road just about. We sent men to the moon, developed the Atomic bomb and we still do 30mpg for the same weight to power ratio just about! Who is being conned here?

Click to expand...

roadskolar and chops and smurf
I agree
In the 70's there was an oil crisis - sudden increase in petrol price - and US went to smaller cars.
Since then, we've been conned into bigger cars again it seems.
And we'll have to learn the same old lesson over again.
Trouble is the price of petrol is going up gradually, and the message loses its dramatic effect.
But give it a few years

In the meantime, Users must be made to pay - bigtime.
Pushing a 6 or 8 cylinder car around when a 4 cylinder would suffice - is just blatantly stealing from the grandkids.

PS I notice Chaney is in Saudi "encouraging them" to increase production so that the price of oil comes down. They could care less about long term planning (oil reserves, or pollution, or GW etc). Just as long as the sun keeps going round the earth each day

Kimosabi said:

From you Chops, I'll take that as a compliment.

I'd be interested to see how you explain away the following videos, that is of course, if you can actually be bothered to watch them...

Oil is not a Fossil Fuel



Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (short)



Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (Full Video) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

President of Shell, Plenty of Oil?



Abiotic Oil



Ignorance isn't going to be bliss...

Click to expand...

I don't have any speakers hooked up to the computer at present but I will watch the videos when I do.

Just one thing though. We ALREADY have an oil problem - it's at $108 per barrel, well beyond the point at which it is an economic fuel for anything other than transport. The debate is thus not about whether or not we have a problem, but how serious it is, how long it will last and what to do about it.

It's like debating whether or not a building will ever catch fire. Argue for years if you like but the debate ends the moment the alarm sounds and smoke appears. From that point on it's a question of what to do and how effective will that be at saving the building. If $108 per barrel, fuel shortages in various countries etc isn't smoke in this context then I don't know what is.

Quote:
Khazzoom-Brookes postulate

The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, first put forward by the US economist Harry Saunders in 1992, says that energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel than in the absence of such improvements. It argues against the views of conservationists - those promoting energy efficiency as a means of reducing energy consumption- that one can identify every little benefit from each individual act of energy efficiency and then aggregate them all to produce a macroeconomic total. In essence it adopts a macroeconomic (top down) approach rather than the microeconomic (bottom up) approach used by conservationists.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/st...ace/kbpotl.htm
Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.


The above reasoning(?) misses a couple of important points. The primary one being time.

Most folk do not want to travel longer distances. The only occasion generally, folk are interested in travelling longer distances is when they are on holiday. Other occasions, folk are too busy, as it's time inefficient. How many folk would like to live in beautiful surrounds, very cheap to buy and only five hours from their work, shops and medical facilities?

Some may be able with their V16, 12ltr "**ckitMobil". But then they either love paying speeding fines, or are on some delusional substance fed by mainstream marketing.

History is replete with examples of how to manipulate folk. The common denominators are, fear creation, then offer a solution. It never stops working, it's true perpetual motion. And yes, more than money is being made out of it.

So, back to the original question. Who is being conned by the lack of fuel efficiency?

Roadskolar

I would certainly agree that greater efficiency in production pushes up consumption of the end product. That's economics 101.

Three classic examples of greater efficiency raising consumption.

Airlines. Rather than pocket the saving from cheaper fares, people now fly a LOT more than they did a decade or two ago. 20 years ago it was common to find teenagers who had never been on a commercial airline flight. Now it's unusual to find anyone who hasn't flown somewhere quite recently or is planning to.

Even Hobart airport now has plenty of activity. A decade ago it was a few flights a day, nearly all of them to Melbourne. But now demand has increased so much that it's direct flights to most other capitals and there's enough demand to justify 2 or 3 to the same destination within an hour.

Massive growh there fuelled almost entirely by cheap fares that enable a trip to Melbourne or Brisbane not just to watch sport or a concert but simply for the sake of it. Heck, even I'm contemplating the fact that I haven't flown anywhere for 9 months...

Computers. For those who get a new office computer every 3 or so years, have you noticed ANY significant difference in its performance since the year 2000? For most the answer would be no - all the increase in the computer's performance has been eaten up by less efficient use of it via the software.

Windows can't even start up on what 15 years ago would have been a massively powerful computer that could do just about everything a modern one can. The more computing power we cram into the box, the less efficiently we use it.

And lighting. Have you ever seen a space illuminated with ordinary bulbs to the same level that is taken for granted with fluorescent lighting? Almost certainly you haven't. As lighting became more efficient we simply used more of it to the point that the average fluoro lit room uses as much or more power than room of the same size lit with a bulb. Even a small office is typically 400 watts or more of fluoros - but you would never have installed the 2000 watts of incandescents needed to provide the same level of illumination. You'd have gone to 200 or 300 W at the most.

Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight

All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
"the Earth isn't warming", and
"there were no polar bears in jeopardy - a mischievous use of a couple of photos etc"
" only 4 have died "
... they should be dragged out into the city square in chains and made to publicly apologise - and spend 10 years in "polar-bear-community-service".

Numbers down (at least) 16% in 20 years and rapidly declining as the iceflows melt. - constantly coming into town in Alaska etc looking for food. When shot they are found to be skinny etc .

One prediction is that the iceshelf up there could have melted in 50 years (the way it is going)

2020hindsight said:

Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight

All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
"the Earth isn't warming", and
"there were no polar bears in jeopardy - a mischievous use of a couple of photos etc"
" only 4 have died "
... they should be dragged out into the city square in chains and made to publicly apologise - and spend 10 years in "polar-bear-community-service".

Numbers down (at least) 16% in 20 years and rapidly declining as the iceflows melt. - constantly coming into town in Alaska etc looking for food. When shot they are found to be skinny etc .

One prediction is that the iceshelf up there could have melted in 50 years (the way it is going)

Click to expand...

Apparently there is a teeny-weeny possibility that the US financial markets could melt within the next 50 months (the way it is going) thus taking the rest of the world down with 'em. If that happens, environmental & ecological considerations will go right out the back door - the PB's will have even less hope .... along with a few other species....

*sigh*

I need to take a McHappy pill methinks.... all this gloom is becoming a tad overwhelming.
AJ

2020hindsight said:

Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight

All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
"the Earth isn't warming", and
"there were no polar bears in jeopardy - a mischievous use of a couple of photos etc"
" only 4 have died "
... they should be dragged out into the city square in chains and made to publicly apologise - and spend 10 years in "polar-bear-community-service".

Numbers down (at least) 16% in 20 years and rapidly declining as the iceflows melt. - constantly coming into town in Alaska etc looking for food. When shot they are found to be skinny etc .

One prediction is that the iceshelf up there could have melted in 50 years (the way it is going)

Click to expand...

They're wh ores because they disagree with the AGW religion?

Can you substantiate the PB plight with science rather than here-say?

I seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)