Global warming and financial positioning

[eridanus]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033

I hope NPR isn't too right wing for anyone. they say 800 billion barrels of oil, i've heard of theories that it can be over a trillion.

Right. Now they only have to make it cheap enough. It may also be a question of whether it costs more energy to extract the oil than the oil produces (see further: ethanol). Plus, it'd only be economically fair to add in a "pollution" tax for the strip-mining.

If it works, it'd get the House of Saud off our backs.

 

[al_bundy]

if you read the article toward the bottom it says they think once they reach mass extraction they can produce oil for $20 a barrel. Add profit and SG&A as well as financing expenses and call it selling oil for $40 a barrel.

i predict the greenies will fight tooth and nail and sue anyone they can think of to keep this from going mass production while spouting off the energy independence nonsense

 

[brewer12345]

if you read the article toward the bottom it says they think once they reach mass extraction they can produce oil for $20 a barrel. Add profit and SG&A as well as financing expenses and call it selling oil for $40 a barrel.

Oddly enough, I heard similar things about oilsands, and even though they already knew how to extract the crude (and where it was), it turned out to be more expensive than originally expected, especially when everyone tried extracting it at once. So you will have to pardon me if I am even more skeptical about a supposed reserve that nobody really knows how to extract.

 

[mb]

It is much more difficult to remove oil from shale oil than from tar sands.

Tar sands may be part of a near term solution to peak oil (but not global warming obviously) but if shale oil is part of the picture it is much longer term.

You have to either mine the shale (think strip mining half of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado) and retort it above ground or retort it in situ.

Both are expensive, energy intensive and may have huge environmental consequences.

MB

 

[mb]

funny how 30 years ago the so called enviromentalists were pushing catalytic converters to convert polluting gasses to harmless carbon dioxide and water. now they are calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. and the media only started that last year to get the sheeple used to that idea and make them believe it's true.

if you want to make money off the hysteria look at GE, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Dupont, goldman sachs and a few other companies paying for the hysteria. they stand to make a killing on new products and have a financial interest in making people think global warming is caused by people. and track companies selling carbon offsets. if people are so naive as to buy them, you might as well make money on it

I get the feeling that you have little understanding of either the technology or the politics.

You do realize:

- That CO2 and water are the final end product (and the desired products from both a pollutant and an efficiency stand point) of hydrocarbon combustion

- The tremendous benefits that catalytic converters have provided

- That declaring CO2 a pollutant is a political manuever made necessary by laws passed by the auto companies making it illegal for any entity (e.g. the states) other than the federal government to legislate automobile gas mileage

I thought that in the past conservatives believed in state's rights. Oh, I forgot that's only when the laws that the states want to pass fit their agenda!

MB

 

[al_bundy]

not a conservative but in 25 years in the US i've heard every horror story there is to hear about the world coming to an end. New Ice Age, global warming, etc. and almost always it's by the same people and the solution is for everyone except themselves to drastically reduce their standard of living. and after one alarm dies down, they think of another one. same thing with Peak Oil. people have been predicting it for over 100 years. and many times the same people who swear it's really coming keep postponing their predictions of doom when it doesn't come. and most times they come toward the end of the decade because the price of oil tends to go up as we go through a decade and drops when a new decade starts

the US is the most efficient country in the world in terms of energy usage. even all the idiot kyoto countries have seen their CO2 emissions go up much faster than the US. and while they cripple their economies the US will continue to grow.

the real issue has always been the old european countries being jelous of the US and they are trying to cripple our economy with kyoto and all the other crazy ideas.

i can understand getting rid of nitrous oxides and other pollutants, but CO2 is completely harmless

 

[brewer12345]

the real issue has always been the old european countries being jelous of the US and they are trying to cripple our economy with kyoto and all the other crazy ideas.

Woop, woop! Tinfoil helmet alert!

 

[al_bundy]

if europe was serious about kyoto and CO2 they would have lowered their CO2 growth in the last 10 years since they adopted kyoto. yet they badger the US for not signing kyoto when we have slowed our CO2 growth a lot more than they have. and we have grown our economy a lot faster as well.

 

[brewer12345]

if europe was serious about kyoto and CO2 they would have lowered their CO2 growth in the last 10 years since they adopted kyoto. yet they badger the US for not signing kyoto when we have slowed our CO2 growth a lot more than they have. and we have grown our economy a lot faster as well.

You get that from Rush or Hannity?

 

[al_bundy]

don't pat attention to either one

go search google news

 

[rigel]

this has been an interesting topic for me.

When I post information about Global Warming supporting why it is not man caused and providing supporting facts, I receive fascinating responses.

The first time, instead of addressing my scientific points and statements, someone thought to dismiss and discredit my comments simply be stating that I must be against the theory of evolution, which I had never even mentioned, nor am I even remotely interested in!

The second time, the response to discredit my comments, was that I must be getting my information from Fox News - that was the total response!

For the record, I do not listen to any television news, Fox or otherwise, and haven't for many years. Trying to take my discreditor even a little seriously, since my German is not what it was once, I confess, I did read a summarized article from the BBC News - that right wing, fascist organization from Great Britain, and did not translate the original study in it's whole. Shame on me and I admit that since you imply you did, my hat is off to you.

It is clear to me, that the "believers" simply believe and go long. Any opposing views must be dismissed by attacking the person, not the reasoning.

 

[al_bundy]

thousands of years ago when people didn't understand the world, they made up religion and all kinds of rules people had to do in order to survive, many of which involved making the priests and a few other classes of people rich. not much has changed.

these days instead of buying indulgences from the Catholic Church to build St. Peter's Cathederal you are supposed to buy carbon credits or something similar

 

[brewer12345]

It is clear to me, that the "believers" simply believe and go long. Any opposing views must be dismissed by attacking the person, not the reasoning.

Well then you learned the wrong lesson.

You will frequently see me ridicule purveyors of gloom & doom by calling them piglet sodomizers. Why do I do this? Because the prohets of doom & gloom are utterly convinced they are right and no amount of argument or pointing out facts will change their convictions. Therefore I cannot be bothered t o argue. I simply mock them and get on with life (its fun!).

Global warming tends to generate the same kind of partisans, pro or con. They are convinced that GW is a liberal myth/absolute truth and no amount of rational argument stands a chance of succeeding. So I had fun poking fun at you a couple of times and called it a day.

BTW, does the tinfoil he,lmet tend to slip off when you are "spendding time" with the piglets?

 

[eridanus]

The second time, the response to discredit my comments, was that I must be getting my information from Fox News - that was the total response!

Yep, because it sounded like a talking point from Fox News.

The paper your BBC article likely summarized is, "Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s."

From Solanki, one of the authors,

[Solanki] estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won't do anything to get rid of them. 1

You're using a BBC summary of a study presented at a conference in 2003. If the study's OWN AUTHOR claims that sunspot activity doesn't cause all global warming, then why do you believe it does?

You can also check the September issue of Nature, a peer reviewed scientific magazine. It has a study on sunspot activity.


1 "Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?". New Scientist, Sept 18 2006.


Edit: Wording change, as sunspot activity/sun warming is likely to affect our global warming at least minimally.

 

[eridanus]

Trying to take my discreditor even a little seriously, since my German is not what it was once, I confess, I did read a summarized article from the BBC News - that right wing, fascist organization from Great Britain, and did not translate the original study in it's whole. Shame on me and I admit that since you imply you did, my hat is off to you.

It was published in Physical Review Letters. In English.

Most important is the last sentence,

"To clarify whether this similarity [of sunspot activity and temperature] reflects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar influence on climate."

 

[wabmester]

So, if it turns out that natural causes are responsible for global warming, does that take us off the hook? Or will we still want to re-engineer the world in an heroic attempt to save the polar bears?

Serious question. Where does our guilt end and our can-do attempt at Grand Challenges begin?

 

[eridanus]

So, if it turns out that natural causes are responsible for global warming, does that take us off the hook? Or will we still want to re-engineer the world in an heroic attempt to save the polar bears?

Serious question. Where does our guilt end and our can-do attempt at Grand Challenges begin?

Regardless of whether AGW exists, pollution still sucks. When the highway expands, and takes out valuable central-city property, it affects my taxes. Asthma isn't a Good Thing either.

But what could we do if the climate is changing because of non-human influences? Not much but adapt. It could become like Logan's Run, where we all live in a bubble. 8)

 

[wabmester]

Regardless of whether AGW exists, pollution still sucks. When the highway expands, and takes out valuable central-city property, it affects my taxes. Asthma isn't a Good Thing either.

Are there any human activities that are good for the environment? This whole debate is not about global warming, it's about the developed world's yearning for man to become "zero footprint" now that we have everything we could possibly want.

But what could we do if the climate is changing because of non-human influences? Not much but adapt. It could become like Logan's Run, where we all live in a bubble. 8)

That's what I think. Regardless of the causes of our angst, we'll try to adapt. Personally, I like the *moral* idea behind setting "zero environmental footprint" as a goal for mankind. It'll serve as an outlet for our creative energy for a long time to come.

 

[Texas Proud]

Regardless of whether AGW exists, pollution still sucks. When the highway expands, and takes out valuable central-city property, it affects my taxes. Asthma isn't a Good Thing either.

But what could we do if the climate is changing because of non-human influences? Not much but adapt. It could become like Logan's Run, where we all live in a bubble. 8)

I agree with the pollution angle.... I want clean air and clean water... and the air today is getting worse (not in some cities, but overall)..

What is funny is the TV news magazine talked about France.. which has the CLEANEST AIR in Europe as they get 80% of their electricity by nuclear which is very 'clean' for the air...

I still am amazed that people are stating that the weather has changed since 1970 and claiming global warming caused by man... the weather for the earth changes over a long time... a few decades is a blink in the timeline...

And what is the excuse that is going to be used for this year We had a mild December, but the last few months have been very cold... We almost had a freeze on Easter here in Houston... UT OH... global cooling coming back...

 

[bosco]

I still am amazed that people are stating that the weather has changed since 1970 and claiming global warming caused by man... the weather for the earth changes over a long time... a few decades is a blink in the timeline...

And what is the excuse that is going to be used for this year We had a mild December, but the last few months have been very cold... We almost had a freeze on Easter here in Houston... UT OH... global cooling coming back...

lemme see--on the one hand you discount data since 1970 as being not long enough , and on the other hand you discount global warming based on one winter in Texas Can't have it both ways.

 

[sgeeeee]

lemme see--on the one hand you discount data since 1970 as being not long enough , and on the other hand you discount global warming based on one winter in Texas Can't have it both ways.

I used to think like that too, bosco. But I was in a motel last night that got FOX news, and it turns out that almost anybody knows more about global warming and environmental models than scientists. News commentators, politicians who get contributions from big polluters, posters on internet boards, . . . all know more about global warming than a few thousand scientists. These scientists, it turns out, have done nothing more than devote years of their lives to getting formal training, collecting data, and doing research. Ha. How would that possibly qualify them to make judgements on the subject. We have folks on this board who have solved a nonlinear problem. Others have read an article in the Newspaper. Still others have viewed internet discussions about global warming. Surely they know more about global warming than thousands of scientists.

 

[wabmester]

SG is right. Let the scientists handle it. They've got training and PhD's and stuff. You know, like in predicting the future and saving humanity. Why worry? Why even discuss it? The Real Scientists(TM) will save us.

[And remember, when you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag, all you need to do is Appeal To Authority....]

 

[Texas Proud]

lemme see--on the one hand you discount data since 1970 as being not long enough , and on the other hand you discount global warming based on one winter in Texas Can't have it both ways.

That IS my point.... trying to explain global warming because of a few years of 'hot' is ridiculous... just like trying to use this one year to disprove it...

And... as I have said before, I actually DO believe in global warming... it has been going on for thousand of years (tens of thousands).. the question that I have not come to 'believe' is that man is THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING... I am sure we are a minor cause. we are doing to much to the atmosphere etc not to have some effect... and as the 9-11 showed the airplanes have a major impact on the temps...

And living in the center of a city where there are heat sinks galore... it is warmer than the burbs..

I just don't see the gloom and doom...

 

[kcowan]

So given that the current mania is gaining momentum, I guess alternative fuels like solar, wind and uranium will be good investments in the next 5-10 years.

But what about oil & gas companies?

 

[Texas Proud]

So given that the current mania is gaining momentum, I guess alternative fuels like solar, wind and uranium will be good investments in the next 5-10 years.

But what about oil & gas companies?

It will take decades to have any major impact on the use of oil and gas.... so for the rest of my life I think they are still good to go...

And, a company like Exxon has a LOT of money to invest... and they consider themselves an 'energy' company, so I would think they would be in the thick of things when something percolates to the top that actually looks like it can be a good investment...

What I think the OP wants is those things that will percolate so when Exxon comes a calling with their billions, he gets his piece...