Global warming is Halted, but it's hotter where you're going

[infidel]

'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.' -Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ecord.html

[WWJD]

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.' -Kevin Trenberth

[chunkstyle]

Lack of warming? What's he talking about? Been to Russia lately?

[Heffay]

It's important to get off of fossil fuels for national security reasons, not for global warming reasons.

[infidel]

It's important to get off of fossil fuels for national security reasons, not for global warming reasons.

To solve the national security issue, we could stop the largest transfer of wealth in human history and mine our own resources. We have the worlds largest supply of hydrocarbons.

[Heffay]

It's important to get off of fossil fuels for national security reasons, not for global warming reasons.

To solve the national security issue, we could stop the largest transfer of wealth in human history and mine our own resources. We have the worlds largest supply of hydrocarbons.

It's a finite amount. It's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it. Think long term. It's also a natural resource that can be used for profit if the rest of the world still needs it.

By hydrocarbons, do you mean coal and natural gas? I don't think we have the worlds largest supply of crude, but if you show me a source that says otherwise, I'll rephrase that.

[tman]

... It's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it. Think long term.

BS. We have it. We need it NOW. We aren't "allowed" to extract it.

When will it be a good time to tap into those reserves...how about BEFORE we're sucking fumes in our gas tanks when Iran nukes the middle east.

[Heffay]

... It's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it. Think long term.

BS. We have it. We need it NOW. We aren't "allowed" to extract it.

When will it be a good time to tap into those reserves...how about BEFORE we're sucking fumes in our gas tanks when Iran nukes the middle east.

It's cheaper to use their oil. There are benefits to globalization. Let's take advantage of them. When their oil also costs over $150/barrel to extract, *we'll* be the BMOC.

[Ramoel]

I guess that's one way to look at it.When their oil is gone, we'll still have ours. In reality, mankind generally doesn't invent a new resource until the old one is obsolete, exhausted or too expensive.

[PhilaBOR]

... It's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it. Think long term.

BS. We have it. We need it NOW. We aren't "allowed" to extract it.

When will it be a good time to tap into those reserves...how about BEFORE we're sucking fumes in our gas tanks when Iran nukes the middle east.

It's cheaper to use their oil. There are benefits to globalization. Let's take advantage of them. When their oil also costs over $150/barrel to extract, *we'll* be the BMOC.

What he said! Save our hydrocarbons for a rainy day...for our grandkids.

As for global warming, lets assume for a minute that AGW really exists. What fools think it will make any difference in a century or two if we cut back our emissions by 10, 20, 80% now? Humans will extract and burn every gram of carbon they can get out of the earth's crust. Maybe slower, maybe faster.

[infidel]

Power is what drives economies. We need access to our resources, so our energy dollars stay here. We have hydrocarbons to last many decades (methane,oil, oil shale, tar sands, coal). Hydrocarbons and nuke plants are the transitional fuels. Besides, haven't you heard, its water vapour in the atmosphere that is gonna kill us now, not hydrocarbons.....

[infidel]

... It's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it. Think long term.

BS. We have it. We need it NOW. We aren't "allowed" to extract it.

When will it be a good time to tap into those reserves...how about BEFORE we're sucking fumes in our gas tanks when Iran nukes the middle east.

It's cheaper to use their oil. There are benefits to globalization. Let's take advantage of them. When their oil also costs over $150/barrel to extract, *we'll* be the BMOC.

It is not cheaper to use their oil. They have to ship it, and we have all heard of the Exxon Valdez. The minute restrictions were lifted on U.S. domestic drilling, the price of oil would drop. Profitable oil extraction can be had here at $30.00/bbl and there are lots of companies that would do it for that, hell they might employ people too. Why let $150/bbl oil X 100,000/bbl per day leave our economy, never to return? You want to "save" our oil when we need it now. If tomorrow I invent cold fusion, how much will your oil be worth?

ETA Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_ ... ted_States : U.S. oil consumption is approximately 21,000,000 barrels per day (3,300,000 m3/d), yet domestic production is only 6 million barrels per day (950,000 m3/d). Hence, the majority of oil consumed in the United States must be imported. The cost to import oil is approximately $410 billion dollars a year (at $75/barrel).

[Heffay]

It is not cheaper to use their oil. They have to ship it, and we have all heard of the Exxon Valdez.

Weird. It's as if it's not cheaper to grow a tomato in Chile and ship it to the states than to grow it ourselves. This whole globalization thing must be a myth, right?

And we have all heard of British Petroleum.

[1911fan]

It is not cheaper to use their oil. They have to ship it, and we have all heard of the Exxon Valdez.

Weird. It's as if it's not cheaper to grow a tomato in Chile and ship it to the states than to grow it ourselves. This whole globalization thing must be a myth, right?

And we have all heard of British Petroleum.

Its tomato's vs potato's in that argument. Its always cheaper to buy local grown tomato's, except when its january here, then they come from Chile. Thats a seasonal thing.

Oil, and energy in general, are plentiful. The problems arise out of political aims and customer expectations. I have posted a lot on this before, but its simple, 50% of US oil use is wasted. give or take a few points.

We have building codes that encourage waste on a monumental level. We have failed to create policys that urge people and business to function better with what they have. This ain't no hippie talk either, but solid economics based on years in the construction business. There are much better ways to build, that use less energy, and once done, pay it off for years to come.

The solution to the Energy problem is not the supply side, its the demand side.

Gov't does many things to obstruct "clean" and "frugal" buying, by not seeing that long term, those technologies are far better for the country overall. For example, if the gov't really wanted to induce people to buy very energy efficient cars, they could manipulate sales, license, and fuel taxes for those who buy them. Get a car that gets 50 mpg, without plugins, then pay no sales tax, or no tabs tax, or half price fuel tax when you fill up.

Likewise, there can be large savings in the fuel use of larger vehicles many need for work. There are diesel vehicles available that will do everything the average work truck will do, and get 150% better fuel mileage. case in point, Ford F350 box van, average mileage, 8 to 10. Dodge Sprinter van, (Mercedes design) will get close to 28 mpg. Ford has a european spec diesel van that they sell there, but can not get EPA approval for here, (because the EPA limits how many diesels it will allow to be imported) that gets close to the same mileage. fuel savings make up the price difference in one year.

[Heffay]

The solution to the Energy problem is not the supply side, its the demand side.

While I agree with basically everything you said, this statement isn't quite accurate. There are solutions on both sides of the equation. Some are low hanging fruit, some are pie in the sky. The real "solution" is to use the most effective versions on both sides of the equation to get the maximum benefit for the minimum cost.

But of course, that would step on a lot of toes from entrenched business interests who own a politician or two, so will never happen. But as long as I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony.