Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[Mallette]

Test

[eth2]

Depends on what you mean by "platforms," billybob.  We are 90 percent domestic land.  Our focus is land rigs, and most of that is shale. 

 

Dave

 

SHALE!!!!!

Polluting the ground water, water tables and the Earth! Thank god, New York has banned freeking fracking!!!

[derrickdj1]

The earth has been thru extreme periods of hot and cold climate change.  The earth will be Ok, will you, lol?

[Guest Steven1963]

Here are some #s I came across.  I'm not a math expert and I don't hold these up as accurate, just throwing them out there cuz I have to make my own hot sauce since I don't have access to Dave's:

 

 

 

Normal barometric pressure 14.7 psi

Square inches per square mile 4,014,489,600

Atmospheric mass per square mile 29.5 million tons

Earth’s Total Surface Area 196,935,000 square miles

Earth’s Total Atmospheric Mass 5,809,582,500,000,000 tons

31 billion tons annual greenhouse gases = 0.000005336% of
the total Earth’s Atmospheric Mass

Fact mankind couldn't input enough CO2 to impact the weather cycle for a week much less for one-hundred years.

[Mallette]

SHALE!!!!! Polluting the ground water, water tables and the Earth! Thank god, New York has banned freeking fracking!!!

 

Prefer 4.00 gas, do you?

 

Anyway, we don't frac or pollute the ground water.  That's the producers.  We just poke a hole and move on. 

 

Dave

[Marvel]

One of the areas where my wife and I are planning to retire is on one of the larger islands in the Philippines. Also one of the cleanest areas. They have the 4th largest geothermal power generating facility in the Phils. The folks there get rebates on the power costs. You can live comfortably on $12,000 a year...

 

The government decided (okay... the new president after the revolution) after Chernobyl, to not complete the Bataan Nuclear Plant, which, of course the builders kept charging for all the construction costs. They paid off the debt in 2007, but it cost almost $1,000,000 a year to maintain it, even though it was never commissioned. They are going to turn it into a museum/tourist attraction.

 

Other than the crazies/volcanoes/typhoons, it's looking pretty nice.

 

Bruce

[Mallette]

I thought the fracking hole was a different kind of hole? One that runs horizontal for miles.

 

Directional drilling predates fracking by many decades.  Think "Teapot Dome."  We poke nice, clean holes, clean up our mess, and leave no sign we were there except for a well head. Actually, we don't even care if there is anything down there or not.  We get paid for drilling holes, not for getting anything out of them.

 

In fact, any petroleum coming to the surface while we are there is considered a problem.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

 

it comes down to what Americans are willing to do today to address a problem that will largely affect their grandchildren.

 

Well, not really. How can anyone describe this as a problem for "Americans?" Either individually, or collectively, this is a wild claim. The climate change problem is a result of a global system of organization in place for a thousand years or more. The world is organized as a "for profit resource." That's not a decision of mine or fellow Americans, or the legislators, or the other people around the globe.

 

Americans can do nothing about this. Nor can Germans or Chinese. 7 billion people are involved in profiting from the resource as their reason for being. Oh sure, I'm going to collect cans, turn my thermostat down and change that!

 

Global Warming, or it's cousin Global Cooling, is not so much a scientific discovery as a philosophical one: "Profit is incompatible with sustainable civilization." Think about it. Embedded in the very concept of profit is the contradiction of sustainability. It is self cancelling.

 

But sure, push it down and blame it on the citizens for not making a decision. As I pointed out earlier, 1/3 of the world is food insecure. Well, of course! That's exactly how you extract a profit. You take from the bottom and push it up to the top. Where else would the excess to form a profit come from if not the bottom?

 

This is not a problem for science to solve. It's certainly not a problem for politicians to solve. How do you grab the entire world, shake it, and revise it's goals?

 

 

By being a leader, by setting the example, like we have always done.  We did it on Ozone depletion by being the leader in science, and then one of the first to sign the Montreal Protocol, and now in the monitoring of it.  We have half the population of China but put out twice as much Co2.  The top ten countries put out 70% of the CO2.

 

When it started raining sulphuric acid in the northern states and people's car paint started peeling off and the level of mercury in our kid's tuna fish sandwiches got to a level that people stop buying it we passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and created the EPA despite other countries continuing to burn coal without scrubbers.

 

Then, when we insisted that others follow suit in the way of trade agreements and other means, we could say that "we are doing it, and so should you." 

 

I am guessing we emit way more CO2 than China per capita because they are using more nuclear generation.  It takes 10 or 15 years to get a plant online, I think we need to get 10 up and running and the first one should be in Humboldt Bay (not really, but to say we can lower things with nuclear power is certainly true, but it takes a long time to do it).  Maybe Terrapower and Bill Gates can get things moving faster on that, hopefully so.

 

This plant used to provide Southern California Edison with 20% of its power, emission free.  It is going to take 4 Billion, and twenty years to decommission it.  A nuclear storage facility is in the process of getting the permits from the State to be able to store the 4,000 tons of waste that is currently stored there.

[Mallette]

It takes 10 or 15 years to get a plant online

 

That's much more due to the BS roadblocks and draconian, excessive inspections and multiply redundant "safety" systems than anything else.  If this is an emergency, we should take risks.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?

I don't think I did, did I?

 

I wouldn't think it would have fixed it, it has only been 25 years and I would think it would take a lot longer than that.  I know that the size of the hole has shrunk and that we now monitor it in real time from a NOAA bird.  

 

I have attached a pdf from the Montreal Protocol listing what they SAY it has achieved.  I don't think they say they have fixed it, but they claim that it is first UN treaty to have universal ratification, some 20 years after the US was one of the first signers.  They claim that is has resulted in a reduction of skin cancer and cataracts to a significant degree. 

 

 

I know that Reagan, despite being urged to oppose it, helped negotiate it and, as in many things, the UK followed.  

 

Here is an article from the NY Times about the history of it, I had forgotten that Reagan had skin cancer.  A close aide said he thinks he supported it because he liked the outdoors.   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/the-montreal-protocol-a-little-treaty-that-could.html?_r=0

 

The article has a nice photo of the Gipper walking in cowboy boots  with Maggie at Camp David.  The article concludes by saying:

 

"Durwood Zaelke, who heads a Washington advocacy group called the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development that is pushing for the treaty amendment, told me he drew a simple lesson from all this: Durwood Zaelke, who heads a Washington advocacy group called the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development that is pushing for the treaty amendment, told me he drew a simple lesson from all this: However overwhelming global warming may seem at times, we are not powerless in the face of it.." 

 

Which was my point, it is obviously a world problem (if global warming is real, and if it is a problem).  That doesn't mean that we cannot be the leader in addressing the issue and that others will follow.  The MP apparently has had some impact on global warming, and I believe we adopted the amendment mentioned in the 2013 article.  

 

I remember Molina and Rowland being all over the news about the discovery, they said something had to be done, and had to be done quick.  That was mid 70s when I was in high school and our chemistry teacher was all freaked out by this study.  I remember people switching to spray bottles from aerosols because of "the environment."  I am sure you can appreciate the culture of those times in California.  Twenty years later the MP was a reality and a guy from Mexico City who wanted a PhD from Cal and ends of going to teach at UC Irving and wins the Nobel Prize in chemistry with his mentor.

 

So now the world works on Kyoto and it's outgrowth.  Two administrations ago we were in, the last administration withdrew us, and now we are back in.  We can be a leader, or not.  These world size problems tend to require that everyone acknowledge there is a problem, and then get together to fix it, which I think is the biggest lesson.  The use of common sense approach to phase out the bad, bring in the new, and then to bring on as many as you can works.  It is kind of everyone has to be in, or nobody is in.  Special interests lost in that debate, science won out.  

 

Someone said here earlier, follow the money.  Despite what some people think, university research in the United States is both privately and publicly funded.  It is typically pretty solid.  Look where the money is on the side scientists that say there is a problem, and look on the side where people say it is't a problem.  It was the same with tobacco, it was the same with ozone, and it is true here.  

 

People can wake up on the morning and see what they see, make conclusions from local weather patterns and form an opinion that there is no warming, and it has no consequence.  They are not in the mainstream if that poll in Scientific American is accurate.  Or then can read one of the studies, or the studies on the studies, and make up their own mind instead of watching CNN, Fox, NBC or whatever.  

 

This thread started with a link to an article by a debunked skeptic who doesn't accept asbestos as being in the least bit harmful, evolution, or second hand smoke.  He is what we refer to as a prostitute.  The question was raised, "is the hype over?"  Yes, but not in the sense that Steven meant it.  The hype is over, America has chosen science over politics and propoganda and 70% plus of the entire political spectrum have chosen to believe the science.  We are back in on Kyoto, the EPA is setting standards.  Right now TODAY, coal burning power plants that don't use certain scrubbing pay a carbon tax.  There were 4,000 peer reviewed studies that Dr. Green's peer reviewed study looked and, and over 90 percent of them say there is global warming, and it is man made.

 

Peer review, as you know, means something is science.  It is a big deal.  It is what distinguishes science from opinion based on assumptions.  

 

There is apparently 400 or so peer reviewed studies that say there is no global warming, or not man made, in comparison to the 3,600 out there that say otherwise, but no one will cite or mention one.  

 

The warming doesn't really matter to me.  What I worry about is the ocean, and the CO2 in the ocean.  That is manmade, there is no question about it, and it had dropped the pH of the ocean by 30%.  That has to stop and people don't even understand why.  They need to understand where 50% of our oxygen comes from.  

 

When you see a study that says that sea algae is dying off due to pH it is too late.  It will take 50 years to adjust it back.  

 

T

[Guest Steven1963]

dwi, good stuff. I appreciate your knowledge on the ozone problems from a few decades ago. Most Americans are not privy to the details of the science nor would most understand it. I know I wouldn't. So people like me rely on what we see and hear in the more mainstream formats. For example, high profile individuals such as Al Gore gives a speech and charges money for it. He gets to the speech in a private jet and gas guzzling SUV and then leaves the same way.  It is also fairly common knowledge that he has at least one very large home (mansion?) with a carbon footprint that far exceeds 95% of Americans' homes. I won't even speak about the rumors (because they are rumors) that he is either the owner or major shareholder in some sort of scheme (for lack of a better term) to profit from carbon credits.

 

As far as the scientists that support global warming. I'm torn. As you said, these studies are both privately and publicly funded. A scientists continued research and funding (including salary) in a given subject could be subject to the results of the studies he is commissioned to provide. I want to trust them.  I do. But it seems that the political minds are made up and therefore the science needs to fall in line with it or else.  Scientists aren't dumb (!) and no words are required when certain results are necessary to support the expectations. Therefore, we end up with 3,600 peer reviewed studies that say 'yup, global warming is man made.'

 

You said above that peer review means that something is science. Well 400 of those studies that are peer reviewed deny global warming is man made. So while a minority disagree, it indicates to me that this is still not completely settled. And until it is, I will continue to be skeptical. Probably because I have learned not to trust government. Or those that appear to be in a position to profit from promoting a position.

 

I don't know if you've read the whole thread or skimmed. So I will be brief so as not to repeat myself in case you already read it.  I have nothing against being a good steward of the Earth. I think we have no choice as humans because this is it, it's the only one we have and there isn't another for Trillions of miles, if at all.  So take care of what gives you life. What I am skeptical of is the idea that there are those that would enforce draconian measures on a populace for no other reason but for personal or political gain.  

 

You might say, "well either way someone is going to profit but we still need to do it."  And I suppose I would counter with DO WHAT? Mankind does not have a viable alternative energy source (except maybe nuclear) that we could fall back on without putting us back in the stone age.  And I don't know your political leanings but I can already tell you those on the left would fight tooth and nail against nuclear.

 

So what is the answer? How do we move forward as a species without killing the planet when a powerful segment of the population will not allow us to use the most advanced form of energy we have developed in order to do so? It seems as if we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Jeff Matthews]

As I pointed out earlier, 1/3 of the world is food insecure. Well, of course! That's exactly how you extract a profit. You take from the bottom and push it up to the top. Where else would the excess to form a profit come from if not the bottom?

 

You are correct in pointing out how shortage makes way for profit, but from there, your bias is apparent, causing you to tell only a part of the story.  The only reason the bottom has something to "push to the top" is because they serve the top, and in return, the top "pushes down" wealth.

 

As you can see, this is not really a question of morality and rich vs. poor.  This is simply about supply and demand.  Somebody supplies some good or service to somebody who demands it.  Those who demand can be either rich or poor, so long as they have something to exchange.  Inevitably, the rules of the game are skewed to promote the interests of the rich to stay rich or become even richer; however, the game ends if they extract it all.  So, that is not going to happen.

[oldtimer]

Supply and demand is more than a concept within a game.  It is a pricing mechanism as close to a scientific law as an economic law can be.

Edited February 12, 2015 by oldtimer

[OO1]

 

 

Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to.

 

"If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time. 

 

Dave

 

Exactly. Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain.

 

let's all hope that there will be more of these rich defects around as their money will pay the brains that do all the real work -

[OO1]

One of the areas where my wife and I are planning to retire is on one of the larger islands in the Philippines. Also one of the cleanest areas. They have the 4th largest geothermal power generating facility in the Phils. The folks there get rebates on the power costs. You can live comfortably on $12,000 a year...

 

The government decided (okay... the new president after the revolution) after Chernobyl, to not complete the Bataan Nuclear Plant, which, of course the builders kept charging for all the construction costs. They paid off the debt in 2007, but it cost almost $1,000,000 a year to maintain it, even though it was never commissioned. They are going to turn it into a museum/tourist attraction.

 

Other than the crazies/volcanoes/typhoons, it's looking pretty nice.

 

Bruce

you cant rent a 1 bedroom in NY for 12k a year -

[oldtimer]

 

One of the areas where my wife and I are planning to retire is on one of the larger islands in the Philippines. Also one of the cleanest areas. They have the 4th largest geothermal power generating facility in the Phils. The folks there get rebates on the power costs. You can live comfortably on $12,000 a year...

 

The government decided (okay... the new president after the revolution) after Chernobyl, to not complete the Bataan Nuclear Plant, which, of course the builders kept charging for all the construction costs. They paid off the debt in 2007, but it cost almost $1,000,000 a year to maintain it, even though it was never commissioned. They are going to turn it into a museum/tourist attraction.

 

Other than the crazies/volcanoes/typhoons, it's looking pretty nice.

 

Bruce

you cant rent a 1 bedroom in NY for 12k a year -

 

But you would be in New York and still have to buy food, etc. 

[OO1]

Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?

- yes the real answer was the gradual elimination of the wide use of CFC's , they were the ozone problem and that is now however under control -

[oldtimer]

 

Supply and demand is more than a concept within a game. It is a pricing mechanism as close to a scientific law as an economic law can be.

But, it's only useful in a game where the objective is profit extraction as the organizing principle. In other words "market economics."

I am saying that whole model is destructive.

 

I disagree.  Resources are going to be distributed according to this principle regardless of system.  Barter, etc.  Peacefully speaking of course.  Payment will be made in some form and price will reflect supply and demand.

[oldtimer]

 

 

 

 

Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to.

"If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time.

Dave

Exactly. Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain.

let's all hope that there will be more of these rich defects around as their money will pay the brains that do all the real work -

Historically, most of the great advances were made with no particular money incentive.

 

Such as?

[Jeff Matthews]

And finally, yes it is a question of morality. It is wrong for 1/3 of population to be specifically held in the state of suffering when there is more than enough to go around. I hope that's not in dispute. But, if it is, I can explain the morality in an explicit example. It is wrong to deceive people, and yet, that deception is at the core of the game being played. Since that deception is central to the game, the game must be immoral.

 

Of course, deception is central to the game.  Not just the game of financial transactions, either.  "Do I look fat?" "Ummmm... No."  Everything is a negotiation, and in so many cases, the art of negotiation involves not exposing weakness.  This, naturally, means deception.  Deception is permissible to a limited extent, according to the rules.  There is, for example, a big difference between "puffery" and "fraud." One is legal; the other is not. Once you know and appreciate what "puffery" is, which is most certainly deception, you can have a much greater appreciation for why deception is part of the game.  It is not to be abhorred.  It is to be managed.