What's gonna be worse for us? Global warming or Peak oil?

Nearly all true wars (not to be confused with skirmishes in the so-called "eratic retaliator strategy") are over resources of some sort.

Go read Genesis again and look at it from an agriculturist and pastoralist standpoint with Cain being the agriculturist and Abel being the pastoralist. Cain ran out of resources (land) when his population outgrew their food production and needed more land to plant more crops (totilitarian agriculture). He expanded his land holdings until he ran into Abel. He then tried to get Abel to understand that Abel's way of life (herding) was wrong and that Cain's way of life (totilitarian agriculture) was right and if Abel didn't join with Cain then Abel will be pushed off the land or die so that Cain could use the land the way it was supposed to be used accoding to Cain's beliefs. Abel resisted and Cain killed Abel and took his land.

How's that for an interpretation? LMAO!

Now compare that to what happened when Europeans came to the Americas. What did they do to the indigineous people and why?

 

What about the european theater of wwII? Was Hitler's main motivation resources? Not in my estimation. Eventually he needed resources to carry out some of his plans(oil), but I just don't think resources was his motivation. I don't think either the Korean or Vietnam wars were a result of battles over resources either, unless you could somehow make a case that the entire cold war was a battle over resources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 28 2007, 07:35 AM) [snapback]413493[/snapback]</div>

Why is it so hard to fathom? We emit millions of tons of CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is way higher now than it was before the industrial revolution. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Why do you find it hard to connect the dots? You don't think 2000 climate experts are lying do you?

Certainly there are other things that can warm up a planet, but so what. It's obvious that our emissions are doing it now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 29 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]414457[/snapback]</div>

I don't profess to be a scientist or know a lot about global warming pro or con. If you are correct, why did temperatures fall from the 1940's through about 1970? Certainly CO2 output was not falling during this time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 29 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]414115[/snapback]</div>

I agree well said.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 29 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]414460[/snapback]</div>

What temperatures? Where? Who recorded them? Then I'll go see what I can find.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 29 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]414466[/snapback]</div>

Drat!, those goofy guys and gals at the National Weather Service. I wish they would write the temps down and keep records... Now we have no data to see if GW is occurring.

I have a great idea. Maybe you could give them a little spreadsheet so they will start to record and archive temperatures throughout the nation...

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Mar 29 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]414466[/snapback]</div>

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

have at it!

 

Okay I used this one: (first one I picked .. longest recording history)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...num_neighbors=1

Shows me that the lowest temperatures recorded are trending upward, note that in the last 100 years the temperatures never returned to the lowest point recording. To be Fair I don't see the highest temp being reached in the last 80 years either, but things are getting close in the last years. Not so with reaching the lowest temperatures.

So <shrug> I still think we are exasperating a naturally cyclical trend, our blame or not, we owe it to human kind to maintain our planet to the best of our abilities, unfortunately there is no *sick* money to be made in the short term , thus motivation is thin.

 

Post-war cooling was due to increases in air-borne aerosol pollution outweighing the increases in CO2; the CO2 is now increasing faster than the pollution.

If you're really interested, malorn, there are far better places to learn about this than FHOP... Try http://www.realclimate.org/ - that also has sections covering most of the disinformation put out by deniers. (look under "Index" at the top).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 29 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]414519[/snapback]</div>

wait that is great angle for FAUX News: if we keep increasing CO2, pollution becomes less and less! Clean air at last !!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 29 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]414492[/snapback]</div>

No need to blow a fuse on your sarcasm machine. I just wanted to know what temp. data he is referring to in particular. Good thing I asked (see below).

I don't see where I can get a set of global mean temperatures from this site. Doesn't it only have yearly averages from individual stations? Is that the data you used to determine that the global average temp fell from the 40s to the 70s. If you are not talking about global average temperatures then we aren't talking about global warming. But I clicked on a few stations anyway and saw that the hottest years were in the last decade, not that that proves anything cause it could be just a regional variation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Mar 29 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]414460[/snapback]</div>

A lot of that is attributed to aerosol accumulation due to increased emissions and post-war industrial productions. The same "global cooling" effects were measured from the 80's up to about the mid 90's. A rather large expedition was carried out in the Maldives, dubbed INDOEX, in the late 90s. The data showed cooling effects in areas subject to heavy aerosol accumulation which countered much of the predicted global warming that some climate models anticipated but didn't use aerosol forcings in the calculations. While some consider them a small effect, contrails from air traffic can have significant regional cooling effects (reduced solar insolation) or simply reduce photon energy which is a main contributer to evaporation. This would allow temps to increase yet stiffle evaporation which is the usual way for heat to be absorbed and tranfered somewhere else.

As for WWII and resources being the cause. I cannot answer that right away. I'd rather admit not having a connection than trying to press my point and not have my facts correct.

 

Just go to an authentic scientific website/blog... www.realclimate.org... and in the search box type in global cooling.

 

"Uncertainty Haunts GAO Peak Oil Report"
'Paucity of data, conflicting methodologies and lack of coherent government policy is a cocktail for future energy crisis'

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1218

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 28 2007, 03:55 AM) [snapback]413434[/snapback]</div>

Point is, as supply goes down, it becomes more & more crucial to SAVE what we have, for the exact THING you mentioned. Fertilizer, plastics, circuit board, insulation, asphalt, etc. VIRTUALLY everything. Biomass? Where'd you hear that you can make styrofoam, gel mousepads, paint, etc from biomas?!? We need the fossil fuel NOT for converting into CO2 ... we need to save it so our grandkid's grandkids will have something to make all the stuff out of. Or, we can all stick our heads in the sand as GM corporate does, saying, "don't worry ... when we reach critical mass, THEN we'll switch over" ~ which only means, "Corporate quarterlies always come first ... screw tomorrow".

 

Related thread on GreenHybrid.com. Much discussion on Peak Oil and the role of alternative sources of energy.

In a World Without Fossil Fuels

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Mar 29 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]414619[/snapback]</div>

Pyrolysis. You can turn biomass INTO oil. There's nothing magical about it. The German's pioneered techniques to convert coal into synthetic oil. The process is call Fischer-Tropsch (after the blokes who developed it). Coal is nothing but biomass. Biomass to Liquids (BTL) and Biogas from agricultural residue and forestry waste are already happening on a limited scale. Biogas is getting big in Europe because countries there are looking for a way to get out from under Gazprom's thumb.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 29 2007, 11:40 PM) [snapback]414663[/snapback]</div>

Key words: limited scale ... proposed methods, etc. These are great for when you run BONE dry of the cheep oil. The idea is NOT to have to get that far ... that despirate! Come on! Think about it! Where do you get your bio mass? "oh! we get it's energy by using bio mass for energy ... to refine the bio mass, and that bio mass comes from the 'other pile' of bio mass. I smell a ponzi scheme. Sure it IS a source of energy, but you don't get anything for free after the cheep stuff runs out. THAT's the rub. Right now we are running our gas guzzlin Tahoe's on virtually free energy.

 

I never said anything about replacing oil with these technologies assuming that we continue to waste it in massive quantities. Cellulosic ethanol could potentially replace 20-30% of our current gasoline consumption. Were does that ethanol come from? Biomass. Metric shite-loads of it. I agree that we can't displace our current oil consumption with it, but we're not going to be able to continue doing what we're doing anyway. Oil will be replaced by other (better) technologies as the price of it moves inexorably upward. So, my point is, we don't need to replace all of our consumption. We can (today) use electricity to power vehicles. We can use oil more efficiently to reduce our consumption. We can do a lot of things to reduce our consumption but we'll need substitutes for some things, like plastic. We can also reduce the amount of plastic we use quite easily. So much of our plastic is useless packaging. We can recycle more. We can FT biomass and make plastic out of the synthetic oil.

Anyway you cut it we'll run out of cheap oil (we probably already have). We won't run out of oil all together because it will no longer be used when it gets too expensive. We can also FT coal to make fuel and plastic but never on the scale that we burn through oil. The EROI is much worse. We'll have to adapt and we will.

From Wiki:

The agricultural waste is pyrolyzed at a temperature of 450 to 550 ºC. There are 3 pyrolysis products:

1. A combustible gas that is burned to generate the heat required for the endothermic pyrolysis reaction. No extra heat or fuel source is required.

Of course there's no free energy but you're a bit off the mark there. Gasoline has, after all, a negative energy balance and we seem to do pretty well using it.

 

Check this out. Greenhouse gas effect consistent over 420 million years

Again, we've increased the CO2 in the atmosphere a great deal, so why wouldn't the Earth get warmer?