Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (8824)	1/5/2007 3:05:18 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36917

So it's more El Wino/Nino/Nina/Kina. Thanks for the link. No wonder I have thought it cold for decades, it has been getting colder. My perception was correct: <Despite 20 years of cooling from the 1970s through the early 1990s - due to longer and stronger El Ni?o events affecting the regional ocean temperatures - New Zealand?s ocean temperature increase over the 20th century is consistent with the global average upward trend. Sea level along the country?s shoreline has been rising accordingly by an average of 0.04-0.08 inches (1-2 mm) per year. > After 100 years of serious effort in warming the place up, all we have achieved is 1 deg Celsius. About. Almost. On average. The sea level rise we have achieved is 1mm a year. After 1000 years, we will [if it doesn't stop] achieve 1 metre. We are getting better results in Iraq and rolling back the Islamic Jihad tide. With the world's human population about to plunge, and the easy oil gradually being depleted, and new technologies constantly replacing the need for oil, we are going to have trouble keeping our CO2 production up to the necessary levels to prevent global cooling into another glaciation, which has been due and was about to bury Europe and north America and northern China under mountains of snow and ice. We might yet fail to hold the ice off, even at our current CO2 levels because there is a LOT more to the warm/cold business than CO2. That's just one small factor. Look at the size of deserts for example. Egypt used to be lush. The Sahara green. Green absorbs light. Now the desert reflects light instead of absorbing it. 1 metre sea level rise in 1000 years isn't much. We get that much every year just from tsunamis. We can get 10 metre tsunamis and they happen in a couple of minutes, not a couple of centuries. Tsunamis are the only sea level rise anyone needs to worry about. We can walk away from any warming sea-level rise. We have 1000 years to walk away from the first metre rise. We could start walking 100 years from now and not have to hurry. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (8824)	1/6/2007 7:21:09 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 36917

Economist Michael Lynch[93] claims that the theory behind the Hubbert curve Peak Oil is overly simplistic, and that in his opinion available evidence contradicts some of the more specific predictions.[94] He points to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by 2000, but has now been pushed back to 2010, and note that Campbell's predictions for world oil production are strongly biased towards underestimates[95]. Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged. Finally in his April 2004 Newsletter, Campbell relented and shifted the peak to 2010. Later this was brought forward to 2007 but in October 2005, was shifted back to 2010. Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, claim that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995[96], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of the estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significiant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003.[15] These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. However, Maugeri feels that encouraging more exploration will require relatively high oil prices [97]. Edward Luttwak argues that peak oil is a myth. He claims that unrest in countries such as Russia, Iran and Iraq has lead to a massive underestimate of oil reserves. [16] The ASPO response to Luttwak's article is here[98]. Cambridge Energy Research Associates sells a report[99] that is critical of Hubbert influenced predictions: Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production. His approach does not work in all cases-including on the United States itself-and cannot reliably model a global production outlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it is, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66 percent higher than Hubbert projected. en.wikipedia.org