...once you learn about peak oil. Now finally the government's agency acknowledging it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17860269/ "The report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the U.S. has no plans in place to address "peak oil," the future point in history of maximum oil production, which would be followed by irreversible declines in oil fields around the world. "While the consequences of a peak would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be particularly vulnerable," the GAO report said." I actually disagree. The government did have plans for it, it was called attacking Iraq and later Iran...
I agree...somewhat yes we need to switch to hydrogen or electric or whatever not soon but NOW! I do however think that we will not be forgetting about global warming because we areputting out 70 million tons of CO2 a day and well, thats a lot. Global warming could happen in the next 20-50 years and definetleywithin the nevet 70 if nothing happens. SOON
You do realize that compared to what volcanos put out in a day 70 million tons of CO2 is hardly worth mentioning right? Global warming and Global Cooling are a cyclic event we have extremely little influence on. They are going to happen no matter what we do. We're warming up becuase we are approaching the half way point between Ice Ages.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72 It looks like some people want to believe lies that are obviously stupid. psik
By the way, this thread is not really about global warming itself, but its predominance in the news. I am sure it is a lot, but it will be LESS, because of peak oil. If you have nothing to burn, you can't put CO2 into the air. In 5 years peak oil will be OBVIOUS to everyone, just like global warming is obvious NOW, but not 5 years ago. Since we already have wars for oil, but not because of global warming (although those can come too) the effects of peak oil are much more serious and faster coming than global warming's.
iceaura You do realize that Scientifically provable citation is needed? and there is a spike at the site of the eruption, and it is traceable around the world as it is carried by the winds aloft, and the jet streams. http://www.geotimes.org/aug04/NN_methane.html News Notes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Climate The missing methane link Methane is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere nine to 15 years and is 21 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Although scientists have been able to track methane entering the atmosphere from a variety of sources, both natural and anthropogenic, they have recognized that something was missing: There was more methane being added into the atmosphere annually than could be attributed to a known source. Now, researchers working in Azerbaijan have quantified one of the missing methane emitters — mud volcanoes. Giuseppe Etiope and Alexei Milkov measure the methane escaping from an “everlasting fire” at a mud volcano in eastern Azerbaijan. Mud volcanoes emit upwards of 6 to 10 million metric tons of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) per year into the atmosphere. Image courtesy Giuseppe Etiope. Around the world, these conical-shaped piles of mud and rock formed by the ejection of methane are emitting up to one-fourth of the geologic methane flux yearly, says Giuseppe Etiope, a geologist at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Rome. Etiope estimates that geologic sources introduce 40 to 50 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year, and that mud volcanoes produce at the very least 6 to 10 million metric tons of the total, as he and colleagues report in the June Geology. This contribution could have enormous implications for climate change models, which do not adequately take into account geologic emissions of methane, Etiope says. More than 900 mud volcanoes have been counted in 26 countries, with 300 more on shallow ocean shelves and countless others deep in the ocean. Azerbaijan hosts the world’s largest mud volcanoes and the densest mud volcano population, with more than 200 onshore and an additional 160 immediately offshore in the Caspian Sea, according to the Geology Institute of Azerbaijan. The volcanoes — which range in height, from less than a meter to 700 meters, and in width, from less than a meter to several kilometers — pass gas through bubbling water pools, gas-mud vents and occasional eruptions. The gas is more than 90 percent methane and less than 10 percent carbon dioxide.----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Considering Etiope’s team’s evidence, Nisbet says, the source contributions of methane should be studied more and separated out in climate models. Currently, most climate change compilations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the Kyoto Protocol, Why geologic sources of methane have not been included in the foremost climate change models is “basically a lack of multidisciplinary climate studies,” Etiope says. He and Milkov both hope that if nothing else, their research will lead to more interdisciplinary studies on methane sources.
We need to switch to hempseed oil now. We have millions of engines that can work on hempseed oil with either minor or no modifications to the engines or the oil, and these engines are the ones used by the delivery system and the agricultural sector. We can start producing enough oil for this purpose very nearly immediately. The time to start using better alternatives is when we still have a lot of petroleum to go around. This gives us a lot more options here and now.
magical means? nuclear energy transferred into electrical energy carried by high voltage wires over to the hydrogen making facilities right on the spot, hydrogen is made by electrolysis from water. magical means? California: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35063/newsDate/13-Feb-2006/story.htm Michigan: http://www.hydrogenforecast.com/ and many other states have already the hydrogen refueling stations. This isn't the future...this is now.
draqon, have you ever heard of infrastructure? plant that have to be built to produce hydrogen, not a simple problem, the ability to transport the product to the market, the ability to store the Hydrogen, the adaptation of the engines of production to use the hydrogen, and the problem of what to do about the increase in water vapors which act as green house gasses in global warming, and trap heat in the atmosphere? Just because we replace CO2's with H2O doesn't mean that we slow global warming down, as if we could, it is still the sun that drives the warming and cooling cycles, and we are still coming out of the last stages of the last Ice Age. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Buffalo Roam, as I said earlier...it has been done already. There are hydrogen plants in Michigan all over and in California. Hydrogen can be produced right on the spot, the only thing that needs to be carried to is: water. And the plant needs to be powered by electricity obviously. Does this needs infrastructure to implement it all wide the USA? Yes, obviously. The question is, is it doible? YES it is. Replacing with hydrogen oil will have 2 benefits: 1) power for future (oil will run dry in the next 100 years) 2) lower greenhouse effect
draqon You doubt your own Russian Science? Introduction to Modern Russian Petroleum Science The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an ... Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil ... http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm Not according to http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html,
The peaking of oil combustion will not have that much effect on CO2 increases, if the Chinese don't switch from coal. And the oil combustion peak won't happen until many years after the discovery and exploitation peak, because humans don't have the political savvy or institutional structure to handle the obvious at that scale.
Hypothesis, and let's leave it like that. By the way for the FACT of peak oil, it is rather irrelevant what kind the origin of oil is. The bottomline, we will run out quite soon of it...
Correct, unfortunatelly the discoveries of new oilfields already peaked. Right now we are burning 4 barrels for every new barrel discovered....
There isn't a possible solution yet, and there might not be one at all. I like the idea in a way and in other ways it scares the shit out of me. Hydrogen production isn't viable just now. Even if we had lots of nuclear powerplants across the world, we'd probably be better off using the electricity generated rather than use it to break hydrogen atoms. I could be wrong, but that's my thought. The biggest problem we'll face is that all our methods for producing everything involve oil. I'm no expert, but thinking about the different levels of manufacture that need oil, it soon becomes apparent that it's not as easy as 'switching to hydrogen/electricity/whatever else'. Even without transportation, I can think of a few problems. Petrochemicals for agriculture - the main one. Naturally growing food doesn't work as well as fertilising and pouring hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the soil. If we didn't use petrochemicals, a lot of land probably wouldn't be any good for growing food. If the land was good enough, naturally, then all kinds of bugs would destroy our crops fairly regularly. Not enough food = people starve. The world won't be able to support anywhere near 6 billion people. Lubrication in machinery. Plastic manufacture - even if somebody says we can make it from plants, think of the fertilisation of those plants (currently petrochemicals to get a decent yield) and think of the machinery involved. Cooling & Quenching - heat treated metal is sometimes quenched in oil. Cooling of machinery.
I doubt myself as well. So don't use my origins to pick my already scorched with time skin. What exactly don't you agree with? that using hydrogen fuel cells instead of oil will not mean that less carbon dioxide will be released? Is that what you don't agree with? Yes water is a major player in contributing to greenhouse effect, but the important thing here to remember is that one molecule of water contributes to greenhouse effect much less than one molecule of carbon dioxide. So replacing carbon dioxide with volume of water as a result of using hydrogen technology, will indead decrease greenhouse effect.
How about Methane? it is a naturally produced GHG that has 63 time the potential of CO2 as a GHG, and by far the biggest producer of CH4, the more I read the more I seem to find that mother nature is by far the biggest factor in global warming, and it all stuff thet we can't control, Water Vapor is 95% of the GHG's, CH4 is 20 times more potent than CO2, the Suns sunspot activity and out put of energy is what drives our warming and cooling cycles, and the cycle from Ice Age to Tropical Age, just keeps rolling along, and we don't have any control over that, so tell me exactly what we can do to stop the next warming cycle, It is a natural occurrence is it not? and we are suppose to stop it, I think that the Global warming crowd believes that they are King Canute, that they can command the tide to stop and the world to cool, and we can't even get to the moon permanently, let alone to the Sun to set the thermostat, and they want to stop global warming? Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential. ... Other sources include mud volcanoes which are connected with deep ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane Methane concentrations graph Computer models showing the amount of methane (parts per million by volume) at the surface (top) and in the stratosphere (bottom).Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 23 over a 100 year period. This means that a 1 tonne methane emission will have 23 times the impact on temperature of a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 63. The methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750 and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.[6] WHOI : Oceanus : When Seafloor Meets Ocean, the Chemistry Is Amazing Methane is a greenhouse gas that traps heat about 20 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. If methane deposits and seeps prove to be ubiquitous in the ... http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2441 Geotimes — November 2004 — Methane Hydrate and Abrupt Climate Change Because methane is about 10 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, ... Although seismic profiles have documented numerous mud volcanoes, ... http://www.geotimes.org/nov04/feature_climate.html
