Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The ' I NEED TO SCREAM' thread.


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

S.F., try and not be too hard on Laserguy eh?

We know that there are untapped reserves on Antarctica but are all signed up to protect the continent so will we 'exploit' these reserves?

The growing body of evidence laying the main cause of GW at our fossil fuel 'binge' must surely have to be considered in line with our continued reliance upon it. As such is it wise to exploit, and drain every last barrel/m3/lump of it, before we seriously curtail our dependence upon it? First we try and make it 'cleaner' for the consumer to salve his CO2 guilt with but come the increase in 'effects' that can be laid directly at the door of G.G. proliferation the consumer will demand even more of the 'less' fossil fuel use.

I may not see things panning out in the way Laserguy does but I won't be deluded into thinking that we, as a planet, will not fully embrace our part in the changes we are undergoing and as such seriously amend our oil/gas/coal use......either that or we, as a society, will not be around in the kind of numbers that demand such continued use. Either way we will not strip the planet of all it's 'usable' reserves of fossil fuels and so where do your figures fit in 'reality'?

As soon as sea levels start to jump upwards and the millions that this will globally affect (from all nations/classes/abilities) clamour for changes (however late/pointless these may be) industry/business will make it's token moves towards appeasement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire

Yep,oil usage is accelerating far faster than it's being discovered,not even factoring in the coming demand by the burgeoning industries of India and China to name just two. On the subject of mashall law being imposed in America when financial and social breakdown comes,you have to look at our government's fondness for the imposition of compulsory I.D cards...

It's all very well saying oil has decades to run,Stratos,but that's being optimistic before the squeeze really starts,and anyway what's a couple of decades,really? It's no time at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

According to the last US Energy outlook paper I read (wow, was that a page-turner), best estimates for reserves as of 2006 were: Oil (not including shales but including expected new finds; 43 years. Gas; about 50 years (less certain), coal, about 150 years. I don't think China and India had been anticipated to increase their demand quite as quickly as they now appear to be doing, though. If anyone wants to look, I bet there's a new report out somewhere (BP, or the EIA, or somewhere).

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the last US Energy outlook paper I read (wow, was that a page-turner), best estimates for reserves as of 2006 were: Oil (not including shales but including expected new finds; 43 years. Gas; about 50 years (less certain), coal, about 150 years. I don't think China and India had been anticipated to increase their demand quite as quickly as they now appear to be doing, though. If anyone wants to look, I bet there's a new report out somewhere (BP, or the EIA, or somewhere).

:)P

It doesn't work like that though. We won't have ever increasing amounts for oil until 43 years time, after which it's all gone overnight. Production rises slowly, reaches a peak when around half of all the oil is used, and then slowly declines. Considering we have used about 1 trillion barrels of oil and there is about a trillion left by all scientific estimates, peak is not far away at all, and may have already happened.

This is important to understand when looking at future projections of climate as the climate models ignore reality and have ever continuing CO2 emissions way off into the future. This won't be the case. Unless we start using coal to make oil, in which case we are really doomed. Not that it's very practical for widespread cheap oil anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast

Actually conventional crude oil peaked in May 2005, and total liquids reached a maximum production rate of 86 million barrels per day in July 2006. With the decline of the easy oil, the production plateau is now being maintained by more heavy crudes, deep water sources and the oil shale and tar sands.

For an up to date analysis see Oilwatch monthly - August 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
It doesn't work like that though. We won't have ever increasing amounts for oil until 43 years time, after which it's all gone overnight. Production rises slowly, reaches a peak when around half of all the oil is used, and then slowly declines. Considering we have used about 1 trillion barrels of oil and there is about a trillion left by all scientific estimates, peak is not far away at all, and may have already happened.

This is important to understand when looking at future projections of climate as the climate models ignore reality and have ever continuing CO2 emissions way off into the future. This won't be the case. Unless we start using coal to make oil, in which case we are really doomed. Not that it's very practical for widespread cheap oil anyway.

The emissions also take into account coal fired power. Given that coal is expected to last for a while yet, if the peak oil idea is correct, then more and more energy production turns to coal or some alternative. This is what is currently being legislated for in the USA, along with the nonsense 'liquid coal' proposals. Coal is even worse than oil (for CO2).

The peak oil argument is commonly used to claim that we don't have to worry about emissions. This is wrong. Burn another trillion tons of oil in the next 30 years; how much more CO2 does that leave in the atmosphere? Add the emissions from the coal which has been put in to replace the oil (because it's cheaper than nuclear), how much more CO2 does that put into the atmosphere? Continue bruning coal (and cutting down forests): what is the sum CO2 content? Over 550ppm by 2050; ie, enough to warm us by about 3C.

Do you really believe that the people who produce climate models are so stupid as to make such a fundamental miscalculation?

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast
  • Location: Lincolnshire coast

Coal will ‘last for a while yet’ but it is a widely held misconception that there is a great deal left. Peak Coal will follow hard on the heals of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. Perhaps more important than total recoverable resources is the rate of production possible. Coal to liquid will certainly not meet the oil shortfall.

Of course climate modellers are not stupid but the IPPC scenarios that assume Business as Usual do not take into account the realities of fossil fuel production rates. We will not have BAU.

I don’t hear the ‘Peak Oil is soon so we don’t have to worry about emissions’ argument amongst the more serious peak oilers. What is apparent is that that the likelihood of beating the oil depletion curve is remote. Thus one person’s noble act to deny himself air travel will have no effect on climate change – the oil saved will be used elsewhere in the global economy.

All the oil will be used just as fast as it can be sucked out of the ground. If we are to limit CO2 emissions we must concentrate on reducing electricity demand and hence avoid the need for coal, most coal being used for electricity generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
Do you really believe that the people who produce climate models are so stupid as to make such a fundamental miscalculation?

:)P

Change stupid to devious :lol: Just kidding P

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone else getting fed up to the back teeth of politicians like Cameron lecturing us on green issues? Now he's got the cheek to want to ban old TVs, inefficient kettles and washing machines, tax short-haul flights and gas-guzzling cars, legislate against standby on electrical goods, and some idiotic plan for green houses that seems to benefit the purchaser rather than the seller thus neatly removing the incentive in the first place.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who go galavanting around the globe (the Arctic and Rwanda for instance), driving in 4x4's or, worse, cycling to look green whilst being tailed by a chauffeur-driven car, turning on the heating in their empty constituency home whilst they're in London and generally belching out hot air on the subject ... especially when they are toffs who've never had to do an honest day's work in their lives.

Do I sound angry? Yes. I'm bloody sick of the stupid guff on environmental issues.

OK ... and here's another one. We genuinely strive to be green in our household, but within sensible limits. So we have a huge debate for 4 months about the merits of disposable nappies vs reusable. The green lobby tell us in plain terms that disposables are appalling because they fill up landfill sites and don't degrade for 1000 years, so they're very bad for the environment. Fine. But what they don't tell you is that reusables also require the running of that thing called a washing machine and, in Devon in winter, most likely the tumble drier. Those appliances (which I can't afford to replace with a Notting Hill model) run on a thing called electricity which isn't free for the environment. We have in fact gone for the reusables, despite the fact that they make little WIB look bulbous. But I wish idiots like Cameron would cut the silly crap out on this and a host of other issues. In fact I'd like to take one of the reusables and ram it down his throat right now. Grrrr ....

Meanwhile, China pours fumes into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. The whole thing is bloody bonkers.

(Note ... lack of sleep may have affected my ability not to sound particularly grumpy :lol: !)

Edited by West is Best
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire
Global Warming's a business not a concern.

Careful,Optimus,you'll get into trouble for even suggesting such a thing.

You do sound a little worked up WIB,almost as much as me! How fun it would be if this was one of those forums where we could lose the restraint and really go for it! You made a good point though,seems we can't do right for doing wrong while our 'masters' do whatever the hell they please. By all accounts the guru of AGW, Al Gore is the worst of the lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Is anyone else getting fed up to the back teeth of politicians like Cameron lecturing us on green issues? Now he's got the cheek to want to ban old TVs, inefficient kettles and washing machines, tax short-haul flights and gas-guzzling cars, legislate against standby on electrical goods, and some idiotic plan for green houses that seems to benefit the purchaser rather than the seller thus neatly removing the incentive in the first place.

I'm no Conservative, but it seems to me he is just setting out a stall?

I'm sick and tired of politicians who go galavanting around the globe (the Arctic and Rwanda for instance), driving in 4x4's or, worse, cycling to look green whilst being tailed by a chauffeur-driven car, turning on the heating in their empty constituency home whilst they're in London and generally belching out hot air on the subject ... especially when they are toffs who've never had to do an honest day's work in their lives.

Ahh, the old 'you're a hypocrite and thus wrong' argument. A sixty a day smoker tells you smoking will most likely damage your health, he's obviously a hypocrite, but is he, as a hypocrite, necessarily wrong? No he isn't. But, sadly, if you can make the label 'hypocrite' stick on someone you usually weaken if not wreck their argument.

Do I sound angry? Yes. I'm bloody sick of the stupid guff on environmental issues.

OK ... and here's another one. We genuinely strive to be green in our household, but within sensible limits. So we have a huge debate for 4 months about the merits of disposable nappies vs reusable. The green lobby tell us in plain terms that disposables are appalling because they fill up landfill sites and don't degrade for 1000 years, so they're very bad for the environment. Fine. But what they don't tell you is that reusables also require the running of that thing called a washing machine and, in Devon in winter, most likely the tumble drier. Those appliances (which I can't afford to replace with a Notting Hill model) run on a thing called electricity which isn't free for the environment. We have in fact gone for the reusables, despite the fact that they make little WIB look bulbous. But I wish idiots like Cameron would cut the silly crap out on this and a host of other issues. In fact I'd like to take one of the reusables and ram it down his throat right now. Grrrr ....

Meanwhile, China pours fumes into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. The whole thing is bloody bonkers.

(Note ... lack of sleep may have affected my ability not to sound particularly grumpy :lol: !)

Again, problems elsewhere doesn't mean they go away. Just because people work for nothing elsewhere, does that mean we must?

Global Warming's a business not a concern.

Good to see the open minded posting here :D

Careful,Optimus,you'll get into trouble for even suggesting such a thing.

You do sound a little worked up WIB,almost as much as me! How fun it would be if this was one of those forums where we could lose the restraint and really go for it! You made a good point though,seems we can't do right for doing wrong while our 'masters' do whatever the hell they please. By all accounts the guru of AGW, Al Gore is the worst of the lot!

You can tell quite a lot by how much people put down AL Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emissions also take into account coal fired power. Given that coal is expected to last for a while yet, if the peak oil idea is correct, then more and more energy production turns to coal or some alternative. This is what is currently being legislated for in the USA, along with the nonsense 'liquid coal' proposals. Coal is even worse than oil (for CO2).

The peak oil argument is commonly used to claim that we don't have to worry about emissions. This is wrong. Burn another trillion tons of oil in the next 30 years; how much more CO2 does that leave in the atmosphere? Add the emissions from the coal which has been put in to replace the oil (because it's cheaper than nuclear), how much more CO2 does that put into the atmosphere? Continue bruning coal (and cutting down forests): what is the sum CO2 content? Over 550ppm by 2050; ie, enough to warm us by about 3C.

:)P

Well, if peak oil is indeed correct, I would imagine that there will be a recession due to the elevated prices. This would curb economic activity globally, perhaps leading to a forced reduction of emissions worldwide. There would be a whole knock on effect from an oil shock, as every rapid rise in the price of oil in the past has produced a global recession. I don't think we should turn to liquid coal if we had any sense. It's expensive, inefficient and horrendously polluting.

Do you really believe that the people who produce climate models are so stupid as to make such a fundamental miscalculation?

The climate scientists job is to model the climate, they aren't experts in the oil industry. They just use the standard belief of oil increasing and increasing until it's all gone, but this idea is utter nonsense as oil production doesn't behave in this way.

Edited by Magpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Well, if peak oil is indeed correct, I would imagine that there will be a recession due to the elevated prices. This would curb economic activity globally, perhaps leading to a forced reduction of emissions worldwide. There would be a whole knock on effect from an oil shock, as every rapid rise in the price of oil in the past has produced a global recession. I don't think we should turn to liquid coal if we had any sense. It's expensive, inefficient and horrendously polluting.

So perhaps we should look at developing alternatives energy sources? And find ways of reducing consumptions? Oh, but no we can't do that because that'd mean we believe that carbon emissions will melt Greenland by 2050 and in 2100 we'll have to emigrate to Antarctica :lol:

As has been pointed out time and time and time again there are many good reasons for reducing carbon emissions. The only reasons for not doing so are if you own a Russian Gas Field, run an Iranian oil company, or have so much money that you literally do burn it for heating every night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, problems elsewhere doesn't mean they go away. Just because people work for nothing elsewhere, does that mean we must?

I'm not really sure that's the point. What the heck is the point of do-goodygooding here to save 0.0000000000000000000001% of global emissions and doing bugger all about the real causes? It's all just stupid middle class posturing if you ask me - utterly pointless to make the Notting Hillybillies feel better about themselves and try and secure some conscience-pricked votes.

Your point about hypocrisy is fairly bizarre. Yes it does matter. If someone lectures me about the evils of smoking and is a 90-a-day man I'm not going to pay any attention.

I'm getting fed up with a lot of the GW stuff. The media come out with so much tosh it almost makes me wish we had a repeat of 1947 winter to shut them up. But I bet you now that if we did have that, they'd still blame it on AGW. The only palliative to me at the moment is Terry Wogan's deliciously sardonic comments on it everytime we get a cool or wet spell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure that's the point. What the heck is the point of do-goodygooding here to save 0.0000000000000000000001% of global emissions and doing bugger all about the real causes? It's all just stupid middle class posturing if you ask me - utterly pointless to make the Notting Hillybillies feel better about themselves and try and secure some conscience-pricked votes.

Your point about hypocrisy is fairly bizarre. Yes it does matter. If someone lectures me about the evils of smoking and is a 90-a-day man I'm not going to pay any attention.

I'm getting fed up with a lot of the GW stuff. The media come out with so much tosh it almost makes me wish we had a repeat of 1947 winter to shut them up. But I bet you now that if we did have that, they'd still blame it on AGW. The only palliative to me at the moment is Terry Wogan's deliciously sardonic comments on it everytime we get a cool or wet spell.

I am also quite fed up with the hype over going "green". I do think it's mostly about people who don't really care about the environment, it's just the fashion. They want to flaunt their green credentials to show how great they are. Now, there are some people who are genuinely concerned about the environment, and I respect them, but if anybody lowers their impact on the environment for whatever reason, that can only be a good thing? But yes, many of these fake green people are make me nauseous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I'm not really sure that's the point. What the heck is the point of do-goodygooding here to save 0.0000000000000000000001% of global emissions and doing bugger all about the real causes? It's all just stupid middle class posturing if you ask me - utterly pointless to make the Notting Hillybillies feel better about themselves and try and secure some conscience-pricked votes.

Eek, I really have touched a raw nerve. Look you do nothing if you like, and I'll continue to try and get people, any people I can, to stop pumping so much filth into the sky. OK?

Your point about hypocrisy is fairly bizarre. Yes it does matter. If someone lectures me about the evils of smoking and is a 90-a-day man I'm not going to pay any attention.

Well, I think what matters is if he's right or not. But, hey, if you think 90 a day isn't bad for you because the person saying it's bad for you smokes 90 a day then well...

I'm getting fed up with a lot of the GW stuff. The media come out with so much tosh it almost makes me wish we had a repeat of 1947 winter to shut them up. But I bet you now that if we did have that, they'd still blame it on AGW. The only palliative to me at the moment is Terry Wogan's deliciously sardonic comments on it everytime we get a cool or wet spell.

But, the frequency of cold winter has declined a lot - that's the reality. If it hadn't, well it wouldn't have, but it has...

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
I really have touched a raw nerve.

Tell WiB that the NHS is a pile of pants and see what happens ....

I have to agree, somewhat, with WiB on this issue. The notion that every single human being on the planet is eventually going to become AGW enlightened, to me, seems somewhat 'misdirected'

The solution, IMHO, is to legislate. Not against human beings but against manufacturers. Ban the inefficient lightbulbs, ban the standby switch, force car manufacturers to make more efficient cars (and use tax to price out the inefficient ones), change planning laws to force the construction of efficient homes.

The EU (not just the UK) could certainly make a huge difference with only relatively minor changes, in my opinion - but, it seems, there's no stomach for 'the most serious issue to affect humankind ever'

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I'm getting fed up with a lot of the GW stuff. The only palliative to me at the moment is Terry Wogan's deliciously sardonic comments on it everytime we get a cool or wet spell.

Welcome to my world WIB, so glad it's not just me.

Edited by jethro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
...This is incorrect. Oil doesn't "run out", we won't be pumping more and more oil until suddenly overnight it's all gone. Oil production rises, reaches a peak, and then declines, and all evidence points to the fact that oil production is about to peak anytime now. ...

Magpie, I don't disagree with any of that, but then you're not arguing against what I actually said with reference to Laserguy's post. Laserguy was talking as if we were about to run out of oil and gas very soon - we are not. I'm also well aware of the bell curve for oil, but the fact remains that when I was at uni the predicted date for oil extinction was only around 2010. North Sea Oil was predicted to have been exhausted before the turn of the millenium. "Run out" meant just that.

Even the bell curve for production is, however, too simplistic. On the downcurve prices will climb and supress demand, whilst making currently uneconomic reserves more economic, and potentially opening up new areas of exploration (e.g. off shelf deep waters). In no way should we expect the profile of production, or even net depletion, to be a normal shaped curve.

I'm getting fed up with a lot of the GW stuff. The only palliative to me at the moment is Terry Wogan's deliciously sardonic comments on it everytime we get a cool or wet spell.

Welcome to my world WIB, so glad it's not just me.

Which, amusing though it is, goes to show how little he actually understands about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, amusing though it is, goes to show how little he actually understands about the subject.

Oh I dunno Stratos. People like Wogan are needed to keep the more serious-minded, but poorly argued, in check. The case for the excessive effects of AGW have been so lavishly presented, largely without any grounding in science, as to leave a wide open goal for the sceptics to score. I do think climate change is a bitter reality, but some of the things appearing in the media have been risible, and they deserve to get a damned good ribbing. I mean, it was only last summer that we were all told to plant olive trees, vineyards and palms because the long dry barren summers are here to stay. Wogan read out a statement to that effect from a senior metereologist on the radio the other day. Now we're told we can expect diluvian summers like this one. Anything and everything is blamed on Global Warming these days from the long hot wet summer to the perfomance of England's cricketers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...