The oil could be run by a nationalized company (like Iran), as opposed to existing private ones. Of course the French and Russians are excluded, they had the oil concessions to begin with, and opposed the US invasion. Don't forget our adminstration is full of oil men with a history of personal vendetta. Pertaining to abiotic oil, I acknowledge that it's theoretically possible. However, the Russian paper gives no indication of rates of replenishment, which is the important factor. I don't have to be a chemist to see that. My original statements still hold up. 1. If abiotic oil is a reality, then we can assume it started accumulating very early in Earth's history, and the present day easy to extract sources took millions or billions of years to form. This means that replenishment rates are either very slow, or at best unknown. The reality is that oil fields are depleting at a rate that supports the peak oil theory. 50 nations have already reached production peaks, indicated by uncontroversial data from the oil companies themselves. 2. Oil companies have a vested interest in exaggerating the size of their reserves. The end of cheap oil means the end of those corporations, unless they start doing something else. Our economy is based on the perception of growth. The reality of an oil peak would be economically devastating. A good analogy is that of aquifers full of fossil water (water that accumulated in an underground area over a long period). These do replenish themselves, given enough time, but that fact is moot to those towns that require water at a rate that far exceeds replenishment.
Everyone I know of in that crowd has spent their professional lives studying, among other things, the effects of solar flux on weather and climate. Who exactly are you talking about, climatologists who ignore or overlook solar flux? Got a name? Anyone? Hey, you learn something new every day - the isotope distribution in the Carbon and Oxygen varies by source. Google up! Nothing to explain. All that means is that most warming trends in the past were not instigated by rising CO2 concentrations. So?
The explanation for this curve is here: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle (cut and paste into a browser, as newbies cannot link). Here you will see a very scientific discussion about how CO2 is a result of global warming, not a cause of global warming. I'm a scientist and I am convinced. Andrew A. Gray
all these CO2 data is random as heaven and hell (if those did exist). Basically it all goes through cycles. Just judging from some ice in Antarctica and not the whole Earth is foolish (which of course is impossible task to accomplish)
The video linked above has several serious holes in its logic and assertions. The one relevant here is that it assumes CO2 does not instigate warming becasue it did not instigate the warming trends of the past, but rather lagged. But that is irrelevant. We have astronomical observations and explanations for the instigation of warming in the past, and not the instigation but the level of warming is what the CO2 affected, as far as we know. The warming increased CO2,which in turn increased the warming, with diminishing returns and eventually stability, then reversal of the astronomical influences and reversal of the feedback effect. But that does not contradict predictions from an anthropogenic boost in CO2 now. The question is not whether CO2 instigated in the past, but whether it's instigating now. This warming is not like the past warmings. And so we notice that the level of CO2 is already much higher than in past warmings (it is not lagging now), the levels it is at introduce the possibility of amplifying, rather than diminishing, returns, and the projections include some fairly dramatic possibilities. CO2 will trap heat energy now, according to its level, regardless of the past. This artificial boost in levels will have effects not seen before, in the records of the past. It is a forcing signal in a complex system.
People, focus. This thread is not about debating global warming, but about peak oil and its much bigger and faster coming effect on us compared to global warming. And the fact that most people still haven'theard of it and the government still denying it.
What about new technology that allows previously depleted wells pump fresh oil? There are companies right now that are buying up old US oil wells, pumping in Co2 and extracting oil again. Not to mention new computer technology that allows companies to map oil deposits like never before. What about the massive fields in the gulf? What about Oil shale. I believe the US has something like 1 trillion equivalent barrels of oil shale in the Rocky mountains. What about the ridiculous amount of coal in the states as well?
The new technology is allowing us to deplete the remaining oil at an even faster rate. The oil recovered is of lower quality, meaning it contains less energy. Despite advances, the discovery rate is diminishing. Oil shale and coal liquification demand high investments in energy to produce, resulting in less net energy. These things will not prevent peak oil.
Too little, too late. The thirst is massive too. Saudi Arabia would be sucked dry in 2 years, if the world would get its oil just from there... We might go back to steammachines. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is actually such a thing as peak coal, about to happen around 2030. In the USA energy-wise peak coal happened in 1998, although not by absolute volume. Those things help, but they won't stop eventually running out of oil...
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I started to read it but it is REALLY bad, at least in the beginning. Bunch of morons not knowing anything about the topic and arguing illogically. (for example one mentioned the burning kuwaiti oilfileds. That was 14 or so years earlier, completely different times) But I will keep reading. After reading more, an interesting pattern emerges, just like in threads of today. The ones who are concerned with peak oil actually know the facts, and the unconcerned are pretty much clueless and just repeating big oil's or the media's talking points. Post #36 is very good, summarizing the whole issue...
For those who are checking out that old thread,Golgo13 is right on every matter and Godless is so badly wrong,that it is pathetic. Of course it was 2005, so today we have the advantage of additional 2 years of data. It is still interesting to read what predictions they are making and see if that came to pass. Also interesting that lately Godless isn't participating in similar threads, although he is still a frequent poster. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! P.S.: I have finished that thread. As I expected, I didn't find any good argument against peak oil, or anyting that should be addressed but hasn't been dealt with...
All of Golgo13's posts in that thread were quite good. And very sobering. Peak oil won't be the end of the world. But neither was the great depression. I don't want to have to live through an economic shock that might be the modern day equal of the great depression. I'm reminded of this dialog from the film Pulp Fiction. I'd like some reassurance that our government is well aware of this, and has strategies planned to allow for a soft landing once it is clear we are post peak. All I'm aware of coming from our government amounts to not acknowledging the reality in hopes it will go away, or will be fixed by the magical technology fairy. A segment on last night's 60 Minutes about France and nuclear energy showed me that they are in a much better position for a post peak world than we are.
The fact that capital investment is being made in extracting resources not previously worth extracting are also symptoms that the days of wine and roses are over.
Well, there are quite a few differences. This is the loss of supply in a major energysource. Also you might want to check out the Olduvai theory>>namely we use oil for more than just energy. There are other factors like overpopulation that wasn't a problem in 1929... The government is WELL aware of the problem, thus the energy wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that they choose the wrong approach to the problem. This oilgrab is not working and it would have just given us more time, but eventually the same things (switching) needs to be done....
Times Are A Changing: Global Warming Impacts Appearing Around the Globe "The glaciers that [people in Pakistan] depend upon are predicted to disappear in 35 years or so. This is not that far off," An additional one degree Celsius of warming—all but certain due to greenhouse gases already emitted—would make water scarce for an additional 1.2 billion people in Asia .... ..... ..... So, just at the time we run out of oil / free energy the world will be faced with sever water shortages and god knows what other disasters (ex: acidic oceans). Not to mention many of the poorest countries in and around the middle east and Asia are having population explosions.... I think that population correction is just around the corner. MII
Peak Oil is a hoax and a myth. It's laughable and based upon religious politics, not scientific at all.
