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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3378)	11/21/2013 10:14:28 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

follow the money Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming. The G77 and China bloc led 132 poor countries in a walk out during talks about “loss and damage” compensation for the consequences of global warming that countries cannot adapt to, like Typhoon Haiyan. The countries that left claim to have the support of other coalitions of poor nations, including the Least Developed Countries, the Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group. Poor countries have demanded that the developed world give them $100 billion annually by 2020 to prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as heat waves and droughts. Brazil even put forward a proposal last week that would have made rich countries pay for historical greenhouse gas emissions. http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/20/epic-fail-un-climate-talks-fall-apart-as-132-countries-storm-out/#ixzz2lHhX1Pi9Yet Yet I thought China was the richest of all countries.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3378)	11/21/2013 1:44:34 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Recommended By Id_Jit Sweet Ol Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

Jorj, thanks for the post...I did think that the gushers that come from oil drilling were the result of a pool underground under pressure and it still seems to my mind that the sudden eruption of oil at drilling site must come from a pool of oil. I think the oil slate explorations of ND are getting oil from oil saturated rock not pools of oil... maybe similar to fracking for NG from NG "saturated?" rocks. Once you get more than 100' or so underground, the overburden.....the layers of rock and dirt above, exert a tremendous amount of pressure on the lower layers. I imagine that there can be occasional temporary voids that are created at depth by earth movement, but they won't last long and they will never be very large. Oil collects in permeable sedimentary layers that have a non-permeable layer above. When the non-permeable layer is breached by the drill, the pressure differential between the surface (low) and the oil reservoir (high) causes the oil to rapidly migrate out of the permeable layer and up the bore hole....which of course, is the gusher that you refer to. It turns out that I have a big chunk of oil shale on my desk. It is from a trona mine in the green river valley that I was in a couple of years ago. There are a couple of major layers of both trona and oil shale in the green river valley. The oil shale layer is directly below the trona layer. Shale oil is very different than regular petroleum, but to give you an idea of how much oil can be trapped in a permeable layer, the higher grades of oil shale can hold up to 100 gallons of shale oil per ton (that is at the extreme high end). Thanks again for your post...appreciated but your climate change position is not changing mine as you might expect. I know :) Did you ever see the documentary of the scientist who placed all those cameras to time lapse glacier changes? What is causing them to recede so rapidly? Glaciers recede and advance for a variety of reasons. Temperature is one factor, precipitation is another and ablation is yet another. Current observed advances and retreats of glaciers are often due to weather/climate conditions from many years before. Glaciers can retreat even when the entire glacier is in sub-freezing conditions. Glaciers can also advance during times where the whole glacier is in above freezing conditions. When you understand why this is true, then you will understand why receding glaciers are not a convincing argument for global warming. BTW: if you want to see the effects of ablation, put tray of water in your freezer. Let it freeze. You'll have a nice sheet of ice. Now..leave the tray in the freezer for 6 months. You'll notice that there is less ice in the tray. And the greater the surface area and the greater the flow of air over that surface, the more ablation will occur. In other words, even when it is freezing, if it is windy and precipitation is low, the glacier will lose more ice mass than it gains and will therefore recede. Though the observed recession will likely be years after the windy low precip conditions existed. And those several major cities in China with air nearly unfit for their residents to breathe...what is causing that? Must be a scarcity of CO2...They need to increase their fossil fuel use quickly so they can breath fresh air again There is a difference between particle pollution and CO2. They are completely different topics. But for the sake of argument, particle pollution will have a general cooling effect by blocking energy from the sun. However, the particle pollution is obviously a health hazard and is also easily controlled. Yes Virginia, there is clean coal (more accurately, emissions from dirty coal are easily scrubbed to eliminate particulate pollution). A couple of days ago, Stephen Colbert did a little schtick making fun of a conservative politician who said that CO2 wasn't a dangerous gas. To demonstrate the absurdity of the conservative politician's statement, Colbert put a plastic bag over his head and took a few breaths. The audience erupted in laughter....I, of course, didn't catch the humor. All that Colbert' stunt demonstrated was that the lack of oxygen is mortally harmful to humans. Breathing CO2 is not harmful to humans. We do it all of the time. Anybody who understands basic biology wouldn't see the humor in Colbert's joke. Nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmospheric gases....it is not toxic to humans. However it could be a harmful gas if the quantities of N2 increased enough to significantly reduce the amount of oxygen available for us to breathe. Oxygen is about 21% of the atmospheric gases. Argon is almost 1%. Of course, that equals 100% which leaves no room for any other gases, like CO2. The key is in my use of "almost". It turns out that all other gases combined (excluding N2, O2 and AR) make up a whopping 0.038% of the atmospheric gases. CO2 is at about 0.035%. In other words, you could double the CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 would still be less than 7/100ths of a percent of the atmosphere. The only time that CO2 kills is when it displaces the available O2 as is the case with the Lake Nyos event in 1986 that killed 1700 people. en.wikipedia.org. it wasn't the CO2 that killed them, it was the lack of O2 when the CO2 cloud displaced the oxygen bearing air. The people weren't poisoned by the Lake Nyos CO2, they were suffocated. If you want to talk toxic pollution, that is a completely different topic than CO2 and climate change. And one where we might actually have some agreement.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3378)	11/21/2013 11:13:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Gushers like Spindletop and BP/Transocean Macondo disaster are because the reservoir is under pressure. Many fields have gas in them as well as liquids. Some of the liquids are in liquid form in the reservoirs but when the pressure is off, they turn to gas [such as propane and butane are liquids in a tank but turn to gas when released to the atmosphere]. Those volatile liquids act as excellent propellants to force liquids to the surface and into the sky. The compressed methane also acts as a propellant as the energy of compression is released. Oil reservoirs are by definition porous so the liquid can flow, often very quickly, to any low pressure area such as the well hole. Fracking is needed when the reservoir material is not impermeable, so that the liquids can flow along the cracks that are made. Glaciers in NZ were down at sea level a couple of centuries ago during the Little Ice Age. The subsequent warming has seen them retreat for several kilometres all through the 19th century and 20th century, starting from before any significant CO2 production by people. Mqurice

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3378)	11/22/2013 5:23:13 AM
From: golfer72	Respond to of 4326

If global warming is a done deal how come data that conflicted with the accepted theory was suppressed ie Climategate? Please explain that to me.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3378)	11/22/2013 2:41:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Poor editing: <Fracking is needed when the reservoir material is not impermeable,> Had to shut down and go suddenly. That should of course be "when the reservoir material is impermeable". Your point was about the earthquakes and displacements as oil and gas are removed. The proportion of material removed is minuscule compared with the material above and around the empty oil field, so there isn't much volume to be refilled. In a place like NZ, there is constant earthquake activity. Such tiny little changes would be insignificant if the void did fill with a bang of displaced ground. In places with no earthquakes, such as London, England, there are trains and buses bumping along which create more shaking than would a collapsing oil field way down underground. Where mines are close to the surface, such as in Waihi, New Zealand, where gold and silver are dug out, there have been serious localized collapses of old mine workings. nzherald.co.nz I guess there are extensive coal fields which have been excavated and could collapse causing damaging surface displacement downwards in a hurry too. Fracking to release entrained oil and gas doesn't cause such extensive holes as does excavation of all material as in gold and coal mining. So it's hard to see how collapse could occur. Mqurice