Global warming

[rpg.314]

Also, people like you were saying we've reached peak oil in the 70s as well, but new deposits keep being discovered.

Dunno where you heard that. The estimates of peak oil that I have seen are 2005 or later.

Also "peak oil" is not the same as "no new oil field discoveries".

 

[rpg.314]

Yes it's not as efficient, but still profitable. Not to mention that it can be made more efficient if there'sn't any easier place to get oil left. It's not like the costs of extracting are higher than the value yet, that's some ways off.

There are ALWAYS some deposits of oil which are more costly to extract from than the market price. When you start extracting oil from sources that were previously considered uneconomic, that IS a sign of peak oil.

 

[corduroygt]

I still don't see how five minutes can make a difference. The engine will still be warmer than its typical summer starting temperatures by the time you get back. And if you're leaving it for, say, 20 minutes, then that's just a waste.

All the motor oil would have gone down to the crankcase, causing metal-on-metal friction on startup. Not to mention wearing out the starter and the poor battery in cold conditions. I don't idle for more than 5 minutes, ever. I try to go as many miles as I can before shutting off the engine.

When oil becomes a real problem, I'm hoping to pump hydrogen back into my fuel cells using an electric pump, where the electricity is generated by a nuclear plant. Or when it finally gets warm enough, we'll plant crops for diesel.

 

[gamervivek]

Oh, and the biggest change so far is that 40% of all plankton has died since 1950. Plankton, by the way, produces about half of the world's oxygen. See here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ton-population

http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/has-climate-change-cut-planktons-oxygen-production/

“Around 90% of the plankton production is respired in the surface ocean and a small fraction moves into the deep ocean,” he notes. He also points out that there is a massive amount of oxygen in the atmosphere – around a billion, billion (1015) tonnes. By contrast total annual primary production of oxygen is around 300 billion (3 x 1011) tonnes. If there were a 20% fall in this figure, and consumption stayed the same, it would take nearly 5,000 years to use up the Earth’s supply of oxygen.

man, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna die so soon.

edit: why not talk of things that have been said since 60s, and yet there isn't any widespread movement to correct it:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nlspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_ecDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6627,799943&dq=robert-topp+and+schools+are+unfair+to+boys&hl=en

 

[KimB]

http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/has-climate-change-cut-planktons-oxygen-production/

Yes, there's no question that the 40% drop in phytoplankton is a subtle issue, that you can't dumbly take 40% * 50% = 20% drop in oxygen production. But there's also no question that that is a huge change in the ocean's ecosystem. We don't yet know what all of the impacts will be. And that should scare people.

man, I don't know about you, but I don't wanna die so soon.

edit: why not talk of things that have been said since 60s, and yet there isn't any widespread movement to correct it:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nlspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_ecDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6627,799943&dq=robert-topp+and+schools+are+unfair+to+boys&hl=en

The primary difficulty with reduced supply of oxygen wouldn't be a drop in oxygen levels, but rather a drop in the conversion of CO2 to oxygen. A 20% drop in the uptake of CO2 would be positively massive.

 

[WhiningKhan]

All the motor oil would have gone down to the crankcase, causing metal-on-metal friction on startup.

In the couple of minutes that you have the engine not running? Riiiight.

 

[Squilliam]

In the couple of minutes that you have the engine not running? Riiiight.

Thats why car companies use shutdown/restart to save gas at lights. I mean with them offering over 60,000 mile engine warranties they would be foolish to overlook the possible lucrative servicing and parts from excessive wear 150,000 miles down the track or longer.

 

[corduroygt]

Thats why car companies use shutdown/restart to save gas at lights. I mean with them offering over 60,000 mile engine warranties they would be foolish to overlook the possible lucrative servicing and parts from excessive wear 150,000 miles down the track or longer.

They're not that bad, BMW auto stop/start won't engage unless the engine temp is 350C and outside temperature is >3C. I won't turn off my engine under those conditions either if I've just stopped at the ATM which is a minute away from me, before heading off to work.

I'm sure people like Chalnoth would rather have me walk 5 minutes to the ATM in the freezing cold and then walk another 5 minutes back to my place before starting my car to drive to work. Guess what, no one will do that, and neither will I. I do walk when it's warm outside though, I don't mind the 90F degree heat in the summer. It's much better than 30F degree winter, for sure.

 

[Squilliam]

They're not that bad, BMW auto stop/start won't engage unless the engine temp is 350C and outside temperature is >3C. I won't turn off my engine under those conditions either if I've just stopped at the ATM which is a minute away from me, before heading off to work.

I'm sure people like Chalnoth would rather have me walk 5 minutes to the ATM in the freezing cold and then walk another 5 minutes back to my place before starting my car to drive to work. Guess what, no one will do that, and neither will I. I do walk when it's warm outside though, I don't mind the 90F degree heat in the summer. It's much better than 30F degree winter, for sure.

Oh sorry, so there are conditions which the stop/start has to be it and that goes beyond engine temperature? I see!

Anyway if Chalnoth has his way that'll be 40F in winter, hes the cause of global climate change afterall.

 

[KimB]

I'm sure people like Chalnoth would rather have me walk 5 minutes to the ATM in the freezing cold and then walk another 5 minutes back to my place before starting my car to drive to work. Guess what, no one will do that, and neither will I. I do walk when it's warm outside though, I don't mind the 90F degree heat in the summer. It's much better than 30F degree winter, for sure.

It's not my fault you're too lazy to walk for 5 minutes.

 

[KimB]

Anyway if Chalnoth has his way that'll be 40F in winter, hes the cause of global climate change afterall.

What are you talking about? It's morons who are allowing themselves to be misled by oil/coal conglomerates that are the cause of climate change.

And by the way, even with climate change, there are still always going to be cold days. They won't be as common, but they will still exist. The current climate change is only about one degree Fahrenheit, which is far too small a change to notice in the daily weather.

 

[corduroygt]

It's not my fault you're too lazy to walk for 5 minutes.

Thank you for not disappointing me. I don't like being cold outside when it's below freezing and windy, so I guess that makes me lazy huh?
You've shown your true face, people like you would rather have us not wash our clothes, not eat meat, not drive, even when it's really cold, because it's more important to save polar bears, right?

More CO2 = More energy = More prosperity.
Find an energy source and an energy storage solution that won't cost more, and I'll bite. Because I sure as hell am not decreasing my energy use any more than what I usually do, which is pretty reasonable.

 

[corduroygt]

Oh sorry, so there are conditions which the stop/start has to be it and that goes beyond engine temperature? I see!

Anyway if Chalnoth has his way that'll be 40F in winter, hes the cause of global climate change afterall.

A 40F winter is much more preferable to 30F winter. I'll take it any day.

 

[WhiningKhan]

Thats why car companies use shutdown/restart to save gas at lights. I mean with them offering over 60,000 mile engine warranties they would be foolish to overlook the possible lucrative servicing and parts from excessive wear 150,000 miles down the track or longer.

Get real. My current car has 320kkm on it. Its predecessor got over 400k. The current daily routine is 'cold start, drive 1.5km to kindergarten #1, stop the engine, start the engine after 5 minutes, drive 3km to kindergarten #2, stop the engine, start the engine after 5 minutes, drive 20km to work, cold start after 8 hours'. Yesterday it was -27 on the frigging Celsius scale here.

People should start using real engine oil instead of deep frying leftovers if they are so afraid of shutting down the engine. It's goddamn machines we are talking about, not sentient beings.

 

[KimB]

Thank you for not disappointing me. I don't like being cold outside when it's below freezing and windy, so I guess that makes me lazy huh?

Well, it's something I've done on a number of occasions. So yes, basically. Now, if you were talking about snowing, there might be an excuse. But then, if the snow is bad enough that it's difficult to walk in, it's also bad enough to be dangerous to drive in.

In the end, you should just have warm enough clothes that it's not an imposition. A bicycle can also help tremendously, and is even more convenient than a car for many short trips (as long as you're not in a hilly area).

But I'm willing to bet that you'll drive rather than walk five minutes even if it's very pleasant out.

because it's more important to save polar bears, right?

Rather, because it's more important that we leave our children and grandchildren a livable world.

More CO2 = More energy = More prosperity.
Find an energy source and an energy storage solution that won't cost more, and I'll bite. Because I sure as hell am not decreasing my energy use any more than what I usually do, which is pretty reasonable.

Except there are certainly a lot of things you could do to decrease your energy usage that would save you money without significantly inconveniencing you. You could make sure your car tires are inflated, for instance. You could take care not to accelerate or brake hard whenever possible. You could replace your lights with fluorescent lights. You could be careful to keep them turned off when not in use. If you still have an old CRT TV, you could replace it with a flat panel. If you have any old appliances, you could save a lot of energy by replacing them with newer ones.

See, the thing is, as far as your personal actions are concerned, nearly everything you did to save energy would also save you money. And saving money would mean more prosperity, not less.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Thank you for not disappointing me. I don't like being cold outside when it's below freezing and windy, so I guess that makes me lazy huh?
You've shown your true face, people like you would rather have us not wash our clothes, not eat meat, not drive, even when it's really cold, because it's more important to save polar bears, right?

More CO2 = More energy = More prosperity.
Find an energy source and an energy storage solution that won't cost more, and I'll bite. Because I sure as hell am not decreasing my energy use any more than what I usually do, which is pretty reasonable.

Yes!, precisely, this is why emitting less CO2 isn't attempted, and why the whole affair is a kind of class struggle.
you're in the top 10% richest people of Earth and want to stay it that way.

BTW I eat meat about twice a week and still use a bicycle. (lol, winter is a bitch compared to summer but how come some people manage to live either on the street or in Finland or in northern northern america?)

While I'm in the top 20% of countries, I know that even here the top 20% of that top 20% just hoards most of the wealth thus a tiny majority is responsible in the end for most of the CO2.
And so much of the "necessary" stuff is imposed on "lesser" people by television, advertising and social pressure it's not even funny. Guess what I don't need the crap.

I actually don't want a smartphone per year, nor do I want a car, a television set or red meat twice a day. the alternatives are all simpler or healthier and less expensive anyway.

 

[KimB]

A 40F winter is much more preferable to 30F winter. I'll take it any day.

Short sighted and stupid. The primary effects of climate change are not the typical daily temperature, but instead the secondary effects of that temperature change.

 

[Frank]

If you accepted AGW and still didn't want to do anything about it because the only negative impacts you see are those that don't affect you, then that would make you a sociopath.

If you just think AGW is wrong, then that just makes you either ignorant or an idiot.

Skepticism, by the way, does not equate to thinking everything is wrong.

LOL

 

[Frank]

The difference is the frequency of strong hurricanes. Strong hurricanes are getting more and more frequent (though the overall number of tropical cyclones shows no trend). So while AGW almost certainly didn't cause Katrina, it probably made it worse. Without global warming, more dikes would probably have survived, and the damage would have been much, much less.

In the future, rising sea levels will make this problem even worse, as the same-strength hurricane with higher sea levels will make for dramatically more flooding.

There will also be more floods in some inland areas (due to more rainfall being concentrated in storms), more droughts in other areas (due to higher temperatures). Some areas may even get both more droughts and more floods.

Interesting. This theory has become accepted less than 2 years ago. How do you want to predict climate, if you change theories as often as the weather?

Oh, and the biggest change so far is that 40% of all plankton has died since 1950. Plankton, by the way, produces about half of the world's oxygen. See here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population

Cool. If you want any more predictions, ask me. I'm cheap, and I can prove anything you like. And I'll make sure it's linked a lot.

That makes it Truth, right?

housands of years? Only if we make the transition to breeder reactors. Though I support that transition, it seems to hardly be happening at all.

Agreed. There's lots of radioactives, but they have to compete with oil economically. And nuclear plants are expensive. So it depends on where you live and what your media and neighbours proclaim, for most people.

That was the peak oil for US production. And it's correct. Oil production in the US has continued to fall since the 70's. But crude oil production has been flat or falling since 2005, despite rising prices. This is a clear indication that peak oil has been reached.

The logistical challenges of obtaining this oil ensures that it's never as efficient, so that oil production falls regardless of the increase in demand.

Nah, science promises us they can find more new oil than we can harvest. And don't forget that most countries significantly increased their paper reserves, so the amount newly found each year is much more significant than the alarmists proclaim.

Science is cool, they can fix it.

Why would you do this? It's just a stupid waste. Unless you're routinely driving around Antarctica, your engine will remain warm for a little while after you've turned it off.

It's subjective. Like most of your reasoning and arguments in this.

 

[Frank]

Really? How do you know about the frequency of strong hurricanes 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 100000 years ago? Do you think it was always the same? Maybe the earth's climate changes on its own even without any human input?


Maybe we settled in the wrong place since we did not have climate and sea level information for the past 10000 years, and it used to be flooded back then? Maybe that's just how the Earth's climate rolls and we're to powerless to change it anyways? Why not look into proven methods of barriers and relocation instead?

I live in the Netherlands. The Low Countries. We know for sure it was mostly flooded until we encased it and pumped the water out.

I have to laugh when Californians or Floridians complain that the (light, wooden) summer house they build at the beach might flood in 50 years. Or that major US coastal cities have barely any protection against flooding. Are they stupid, or what?