PDA

View Full Version : peak oil apocalypse kill off global warmers agenda



sdowney717
11-05-2007, 09:18 AM
global warming wont matter much as an issue, if there is no oil.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/apocalypse.htm

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Milo Christensen
11-05-2007, 09:36 AM
Even if we don't reach peak oil soon, it doesn't matter. China/India et al will buy and burn every drop of oil the global warming enthusiasts force us to save while further ruining our internal economy.

Tylerdurden
11-05-2007, 09:42 AM
Looks like Jimmy Carter was right on track. That should piss off some people.

CK 17
11-05-2007, 09:46 AM
China/India et al will buy and burn every drop of oil the global warming enthusiasts force us to save while further ruining our internal economy.

So what are you suggesting? We do nothing? We burn it before they can? Are all these wind mills springing up everywhere the cause of this little downturn were having/not having.

I guess I'm slow. Maybe you could spell out how being green--even if china and india aren't--is going to be our ruin.

sdowney717
11-05-2007, 10:00 AM
prepare for the post-oil world

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=10940

Milo Christensen
11-05-2007, 10:01 AM
So what are you suggesting? We do nothing? . . .

What part of this phrase do you have trouble understanding: it doesn't matter? From a global warming or from a peak oil perspective, it simply doesn't matter what the west does about either problem.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
11-05-2007, 10:09 AM
What part of this phrase do you have trouble understanding: it doesn't matter? From a global warming or from a peak oil perspective, it simply doesn't matter what the west does about either problem.

See, the answer kinda depends on your age...

As the man said "Apres moi....".

People under 30 may thing differently - or not.

Milo Christensen
11-05-2007, 10:20 AM
Interesting tidbit in the news today. (http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-05-voa12.cfm)

LeeG
11-05-2007, 10:35 AM
Come on guys, just because there are two topics involving global issues and projected limits doesn't immediately require apolcalyptic models.

I know you can do it. Weigh degrees of possibility/probability without spinning out into arguments no one is making.

Global warming is one topic.

The peaking of crude oil production is another thing.

That oil production will peak and decline will not mean CO2 production will decline as it'll be offset with coal and other fuels with higher CO2 output than light oil such as oil sands.

Declining oil production with increased oil consumption does not mean NO oil, it means higher cost oil.

Higher cost oil does not mean the second coming of Jesus and Armegeddon.

Milo Christensen
11-05-2007, 11:11 AM
Remember the Hindenburg!

CK 17
11-05-2007, 03:00 PM
What part of this phrase do you have trouble understanding: it doesn't matter? From a global warming or from a peak oil perspective, it simply doesn't matter what the west does about either problem.

I disagree, it does matter what we do. You cling to your Hummer/Ford expedition model of what we should be driving. I, in the mean time, I will be envisioning windmills and solar as a way of reducing the impact of peak oil apocalypse.

brad9798
11-05-2007, 03:03 PM
I posted this at leas three years ago ... glad it is getting more 'play' now!

Yep, Carter was right ... for ONE TOEM AND ONE TIME ONLY, I agree with Tylerdurden! :)

PeterSibley
11-05-2007, 04:37 PM
Oil is one thing ...coal is something else ..and much bigger !

George Roberts
11-05-2007, 04:51 PM
Indeed - Coal is a real problem. Much more coal than oil. Much more CO2 from coal than from oil.

L.W. Baxter
11-05-2007, 05:41 PM
One side benefit to the developing nations burning more coal will be more particulate pollution. More particulate pollution will offset the warming effect of CO2. Enough smog, and we can bring the earth's temperature back down to the "natural" condition as pre-determined by Al Gore, and fact-checked by ljb5.

So China and India can save us from our clear blue, ever warming skies after all.

See if you can spot the part where I'm not being serious.;)

sdowney717
11-05-2007, 05:48 PM
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp

actually, I suppose you could argue that coal burning is a major problem if you think that C02 is rising and you also think that anyone can do anything at all about it. See there are massive coal fires burning spewing quite a bit into the air and humans will have absolutely ZERO control over this, except of course to stop lighting them off.

"A global environmental catastrophe" is how geologist Glenn B. Stracher described the situation.

sdowney717
11-05-2007, 05:51 PM
See coal fires just dont go out until all the coal is burned up. This presents IMO, a huge dilema to those who actually think they can stop CO2 levels from rising. If you are in the global warming disaster camp, you should be absolutely terrified when you finally realize, there aint a damn thing you can do to change anuything at all. Unless of course it makes you feel good trying.



He estimated that the Chinese fires alone consume 120 million tons of coal annually. That's almost as much as the annual coal production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois combined.
The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.

Dan McCosh
11-05-2007, 05:59 PM
Heck, the Chinese exhale over 700 million tons of CO2 annually, just by breathing.

johnw
11-05-2007, 06:44 PM
Of course, although aerosols do blocks some sunlight, they tend to make the ocean more acetic. The oceans are already acetic enough that the little creatures that turn carbon dioxide in the ocean into calcium carbonate are having their shells eaten away. This could interrupt the carbon cycle, and if that happens, Earth will look pretty much like Venus. So I'd say no, that doesn't solve the problem.

Milo Christensen
11-05-2007, 07:05 PM
Let's keep track, shall we? Today is Monday, somewhere in China or India a new coal fired power plant went into operation. Another new one will spew forth on Wednesday, adding insult to injury, another new one will belch out on Friday. I get paid every other Friday, so payday will mean two new highly unregulated coal burners will begin emitting monstrous amounts of greenhouse gases. Keep this up for the next five years and you get 1,000 new coal burning power plants -- that's just what's on order now.

We, of course, can't build any new coal burning power plants, so while we're converting from nice cheap coal to really expensive gas, the Europeans are buying our $47 a ton coal and converting from cleaner burning oil and gas back to coal. Meanwhile China, the world's largest producer of coal, has begun importing even more coal.

Can you hug a tree and keep the lights on? Or do you just get a warm and fuzzy feeling all over?

sdowney717
11-05-2007, 07:26 PM
http://www.oilscenarios.info/

so which oil scenario do you truly think is happening?

Pollyanna (http://www.oilscenarios.info/pollyana.htm)
Optimistic (http://www.oilscenarios.info/andygriffith.htm)
Plateau (http://www.oilscenarios.info/plateau.htm)
Pessimistic (http://www.oilscenarios.info/barnyfife.htm)
Head for the hills (http://www.oilscenarios.info/crisis.htm)

personally I think Pessimistic, even though in some parts of this world, it is Head for the hills.
I believe US govt is aware of peak oil scenarios playing out and they think it is just a matter of time till we get to the worst situation.

sdowney717
11-05-2007, 07:38 PM
I love reading this stuff, but is it so preposterous or is this the end?


Journalist Jonathan Gatehouse summarized the conclusions of Oxford trained geologist Jeremy Leggett, author of The Empty Tank: Oil, Gas, Hot Air, and the Coming Financial Catastrophe, in a 2006 Macleans article as follows, (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060213_121197_121197) emphasis added:



. . when the truth can no longer be obscured, the price will spike, the economy nosedive, and the underpinnings of our civilization will start tumbling like dominos. "The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth -- little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with the confidence about the future high among traders -- will shrivel." There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed. "Once affluent cities with street cafés will have queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars. The crime rate will soar. The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox."

By 2010, predicts Leggett, democracy will be on the run. . . . economic hardship will bring out the worst in people. Fascists will rise, feeding on the anger of the newly poor and whipping up support. These new rulers will find the tools of repression -- emergency laws, prison camps, a relaxed attitude toward torture -- already in place, courtesy of the war on terror. And if that scenario isn't nightmarish enough, Leggett predicts that "Big Oversight Number One" -- climate change -- will be simultaneously making its presence felt "with a vengeance." On the heels of their rapid financial ruin, people "will now watch aghast as their food and water supplies dwindle in the face of a climate seemingly going awry." Prolonged droughts will spread, decimating harvests

brad9798
11-05-2007, 07:40 PM
So anyway, I posted this issue YEARS ago!!!

bwah, ha, ha, ha ... (tm by JCSOH)

:D

sdowney717
11-06-2007, 07:15 AM
there are some people who actually think oil is cheap.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2310

Oil Prices Rise to Near $95 a Barrel
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071106/oil_prices.html

Analysts think some traders and investors will try to push oil prices to the psychologically important US$100 level this week. Crude prices are within the range of inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on the how the adjustment is calculated, US$38 a barrel then would be worth US$96 to US$103 or more today.

New doubts about Saudi oil reserves
http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm

keelbolts
11-06-2007, 01:57 PM
I remember reading a reprint of a late 1800s newspaper article dealing with the upcoming man-made disaster: by 1950 New York City was projected to be under 40 feet of horse crap. It seems there were lots of horses in NY and it was only going to get worse.

Things change. Our needs change. Technology progresses. I wouldn't ignore our energy problems and I wouldn't count on technology to always save us, but I was in NY not long ago and I don't think I saw a bit of horse crap. As they say there, go figure.

I'm just not sure the sky is falling. Right now, I'm hoping I can get the diesel in my Westerly running this winter.

High C
11-06-2007, 02:09 PM
I remember reading a reprint of a late 1800s newspaper article dealing with the upcoming man-made disaster: by 1950 New York City was projected to be under 40 feet of horse crap....

That was completely wrong. Turns out it was Washington DC, not New York. :D