Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

What is it that you wish me to prove? Be careful what you choose for me to prove, because I will probably ask you to prove all that you just blurt out.

High Seas

The 300 million people of the US consume 7.7 billion barrels of oil per year.

The 5.5 billion people of China, Japan, Germany, S.Korea, France, India, Italy, Spain and Taiwan (the 9 next largest consumers) consume 9.1 billion barrels of oil per year.

5.5 billion is about 18 times 300 million so if they consumed at the same rate as US citizens they would use 18 times 9.1 billion barrels per year and you would need radar to get around.

And the trade deficit roughly measures the amount of oil consumed outside the US to supply US consumers.

They get a teaspoonful each in most countries.

ican-- I wasn't discussing GW. I have no idea about that and neither do you.

You could always argue that oil consumption is not related to pollution.

ican wrote-



When would peak oil arrive if they all lived as the US does?

High Seas-- biomass fires come from this year's, or a few recent years, sun's energy. Oil fires come from millions of years of sun's energy. It's similar to living on your wages or on a very large inheritance.

NASA is massaging your guilt.

Does this outbreak of big typescript signify shouting?

While basking in our new-found agreement, I still have a few questions. Just what is the "high efficiency, low carbon" economy that you and so many others insist is ours if we will only escape the shackles of "those who won't face up to reality". The truth here, unfortunately for those who share your point of view, is that the "fat and lazy" among us are fed a naive, smarmy picture of a world populated with windmills and solar cells (that magically operate with much lower cost and higher efficiency that their real counterparts), and happy citizens riding to and fro on their bicycles or taking the tram to the organic food store (which sells only locally produced, non GM foods that equally magically exceed their real counterparts in yield, disease resistance and shelf life), and being served by an electrical power network that sources its power from just what ... they never bother to say. In short I believe your frustrations in this area result not so much from any "fat and lazy" characteristics of those who are not persuaded by your story, but rather from the fact that the story itself is defective and insufficient to persuade those, of some discernment, who are not already converted on an emotional or psychological basis.

While I agree that based on our relatively higher per capita consumption of energy, and our well-known affection for large vehicles and long road trips we may deserve some of the criticisms you and other Europeans repeatedly offer us, the simple fact is that none of the European nations has yet managed to create a nuclear-free, high efficiency, low carbon economy either. Many loudly and solemnly promise to rid themselves of nuclear plants, tout their large investments in wind power generation, and promise to spare no effort to create such a paradise. However, judging, based on the results they have achieved, not much has changed. One must conclude that they don't really mean what they say - with such insistent repetition.

I believe it is folly to ignore the economic realities of the matter, just as it is folly to ignore the physical ones, or the political issues involved. AGW is an interesting possibility, but it has not been established with sufficient confidence to alone justify the draconian measures advocated by its advocates. The potential side effects of the measures advocated, given the other environmental restrictions they also earnestly advocate, are every bit as bad as those that might result from the AGW disaster they predict. Oddly they insist this is not true (not a particularly persuasive posture for them to take). The result, of course, is impasse.

I detect a very strong odor of authoritarianism in the prescriptions so earnestly put forward by AGW zealots, whether ordinary folks such as yourself or men on the make such as Al Gore, or titled academic & bureaucratic luminaries from the UK. I find that a potentially dangerous threat to my freedom. The fact that the prescription you all put forward explicitly rules out nuclear power, but still insists that your vision can be attained without widespread harm and suffering, that extant sources of renewable power are "efficient" when they are not, convinces me that, in your zeal, you are somewhat disconnected from reality, and therefore are not to be trusted.

We seem to be debating separate issues here.

1) Anthropogenic global warming - there are some dedicated religionist who are absolutely convinced that humankind is destroying the planet with GHG emissions and must be reined in to save us all. This is being strenuously questioned by those who are not convinced that AGW is a serious threat to the planet if it exists at all and who resist giving up personal freedoms, wealth, or preferred lifestyles in favor of something that they think is probably unnecessary.

2) The capacity that humans have to damage their planet and the living things on it by irresponsible destructive activities--mowing down rain forests and destroying habitats for instance--and also irresponsible use of pollutants such as heavy metals and substances that contribute to acid rain, etc. We so far seem to be a mixed group here on those who see this as a serious problem that merits immediate action and those who are not uncaring, but this is not foremost in their minds

3) The possibility that we will exhaust critical natural resources and/or cause these to be so prohibitively expensive that the poor will remain poor and the weathier will become significantly poorer. Again the debate ranges from the radical and/or fanatical alarmists to those who are less concerned or who see sensible degrees of responsible behavior. Example: one member says we should all ride bicycles. Another defends the Hummer driver who drives a mile to work as opposed to the Prius driver who commutes 60 miles one way every day.

It is in #3 that oil supplies, generation of more nuclear power, issues of bio fuels, wind, solar, etc., development of new technologies to use plentiful coal, etc. all come into play as recognized by all three groups in various pro or con stances.

I suppose all these things are at least somewhat interrelated when it comes to public policy. But I still want public policy to be decided on good science, real information, and toward the end of the best possible outcome for everybody. I don't think we will do that so long as some insist on there being villains who must be punished before anything important will be accomplished.

I don't think I have said anything which would cause George's correct analysis to apply to me.

The "Greens" are nuts as far as I'm concerned. We, not just the US, are addicted to oil and there's nothing we can do about it except have less babies and spend our time relaxing on the porch. That's the only high efficiency, low carbon economy I can imagine. But-

What about the DOW index?

Like Bob Dylan said- "We're going all the way till the wheels fall off and burn." Let the grandkids shift for themselves and to make up for it tell them how much you love them every hour or so and buy them a load of shite whenever you have an excuse.

Yeah, the news is pretty bleak. It would really suck to live on Jupiter....

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Well, there are certainly some - even here in the USA - outside "public policy", who think that your so-called three points are related.

And in Europe, "public policy" only followed " good science, real information, and toward the end of the best possible outcome for everybody", at least what is thought to be such.

Oh, I must admit that the "best possible outcome for everzone" isn't included. But we don't have any policy, be it public or not, that can give such. Someone is always 'on the wrong side', at least in their opinion.
So it's usually some kind of compromise, unfortunately (not really for us but) for furture generations and the earth we live on.
But that's just my opinion.

So we agree water injection is increasing. Can we agree its depleting? I didnt say it was depleting because they are injecting more water, I said its depleting. And hence they have to inject more water. Is Ghawar depleting? Y/N?

So what percentage of the worlds population does America comprise? And what percentage of global CO2 emissions? 5% and 25% respectively is about right.

I've said many times that nuclear is part of the mix. Trust me.

So what percentage of the worlds population does America comprise? And what percentage of global CO2 emissions? 5% and 25% respectively is about right.[/quote]

Are you suggesting that you have complete knowledge of these subjects, which you allege Spendius knows nothing about? Do you think he is the only purveyor of nonsense on this thread?

You might be interested in checking on those same statistics (% of world population and % of CO2 emissions) for other countries, say Canada and Russia (or even the UK) for example. Moreover, astute scientist that you are, you must clearly know that CO2 emissions are not the best index - even for dedicated AGW cultists - methane emissions are also significant, given that per pound their effect is about 25 times greater than that of CO2.

Are you suggesting that you have complete knowledge of these subjects, which you allege Spendius knows nothing about? Do you think he is the only purveyor of nonsense on this thread?

You might be interested in checking on those same statistics (% of world population and % of CO2 emissions) for other countries, say Canada and Russia (or even the UK) for example. Moreover, astute scientist that you are, you must clearly know that CO2 emissions are not the best index - even for dedicated AGW cultists - methane emissions are also significant, given that per pound their effect is about 25 times greater than that of CO2.[/quote]

WRONG QUOTE GEORGE, THAT WAS FROM HIGH SEAS NOT ME!

You're too goddam fast for me -- I was trying to correct it at the time.

Sorry. :wink:

You gotta keep up with the technology. I just looked at my utility bill, and in New England I'm paying 11.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generation, predominantly, I think, natural gas. HOWEVER, the NREL says that, while wind-generation costs were around 38 cents per KWH in the early '80s, they have now dropped to the 4-5 cent range, and some long-term supply contracts have been signed for as low as 3 cents per KWH.

Germany currently gets around 8% overall of its electricity from wind generation, with its windier northern states getting up to 30%. Which compares with 50% of its electricity from coal, and 16% from natural gas.

There is currently enough installed wind generation capacity worldwide to power all of Scandinavia. And it looks to multiply several times by the end of the decade, according to current world plans.

The runup in oil prices, and new technology, have radically changed the whole dynamic of what's practical and economic and what's not.

I knew a woman once who said something....oh forget it

They always said "can't you hurry up a bit" to me. I have a thing about their eyeballs wobbling.

In the movie He said that in each of the last four interglacial periods it was a delta in CO2 levels that caused changes in temperature.

I think Spendius argument about the % of Americans in world population compared to their % in "pollution" is irrelevant (btw, understating pollution=CO2 is an environmentalists' nonsense, even if it is repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream media).
What matters is GDP, that is wealth output (a better index than GDP would be PPP or parity purchasing power).

Americans emit 25% of world CO2 emissions but produce 30% world's wealth, meaning that they are better at producing wealth from a fixed quantity of energy ( <=> CO2) than the world average. That's a general rule which does not only apply to Americans : the wealthier you are, the more wealth you produce per energy unit.
For example, a Chinese has an energy intensity 5x higher than a Japanese, that is the Chinese uses 5x more energy to produce the same output in $.

So the people who blame Americans for emitting 25% of world CO2 emissions are in fact blaming Americans for being too rich even if they disguise it in the blame of inefficiency.

Interesting you should bring that up, mini. Actually, however, according to the CIA World Factbook 2008, the US produced 21% of the world's GDP-PPP ($13.86 trillion of $65.82T), not 30%. So at 25% of world CO2, we're worse than the world average of GDP versus CO2 production. As maintained.