@damocles

Try this one "Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study"

Quote:

Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

link to story

So there is no going back with this study. Nothing, we can do....time to move on?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

They use the technology(ies) available to them. Do you attempt to refuse them the right to create and use low cost energy? While the Occident kills its economy with taxes/cap&trades on carbon emissions (Kyoto costs in 2005: 50 billions $, 75 billions $ projected in 2008), China moves on and increases its economy.

Sorry I don't understand this.

China doesn't respect Copyright, Trademark or IP rights. If some tech was good they take it and use it.

Read recently that their "one child per family" program is going to be used to get cash under this cap and trade program. It's sick I tell you!

IMHO if people are reduced to a cost or carbon price, whatever, we all are in trouble.
It won't be long before some GW nutcase makes the case for removal. We saw what this kind of thinking did in WWII !

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

Sorry I don't understand this. China doesn't respect Copyright, Trademark or IP rights. If some tech was good they take it and use it.

I fail to see where this is related to energy. Coal is not a modern technology.

Quote:

MHO if people are reduced to a cost or carbon price, whatever, we all are in trouble. It won't be long before some GW nutcase makes the case for removal. We saw what this kind of thinking did in WWII !

You mean a global compulsory sterilization program? Many 'modern' countries developed such eugenic programs before the WWII including USA, Canada, Japan, etc.

More recently:
1/ National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,” says:
“Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that “depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries … Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.”
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called ‘Global 2000′ which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

2/ At the Rio 1992 Earth Summit Conference, where he was the Secretary-General of and where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid, Maurice Strong (Wikipedia lists Strong as one of the main partners in the global warming plot, together with Kofi Annan, Al Gore, George Soros, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jacques Chirac, United Nations, Bildergerg Group, Club of Rome, and ecological movements (Wikipedia, 2008)) stated:
“We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Population must be stabilized, and rapidly”.

3/ One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:
“The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer….”"…This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

Nothing new, but that gives a better perspective.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Jan-2009 at 08:04 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Jan-2009 at 08:03 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You are right to not take my view for granted. Let me quote what some scientists, amongst other, think about this study:

Still the same problem. All claims no proof. All are good as a starting point none establish a good scientific conclusion w/o more work.

Side note seems like the Trenberth quote was cut to make it look more favorable in your opinion. "This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical...It is hard to make data where none exist.”" More complete is a bit more enlightening, IMO.

@BrianK

If you want proof, I suggest you take a course in Statistical Analysis, and/or (try to) follow those who are capable enough to demonstrate where the flaws are.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

If you want proof, I suggest you take a course in Statistical Analysis, and/or (try to) follow those who are capable enough to demonstrate where the flaws are.

I guess I'm the rare bird that demands the GW and the anti-GW claims both to provide proof of their claims. If we're going to discard or accept Steig's work then we need someone to do actual science to get us there. The one line claimed of friends and foes just don't cut it in the realm of validity.

@TMTisFree

IFR would be interesting to see. The basework seems to be done. But, how it performs and if it can be competitive in the marketplace needs at least 1 install to help figure out the actual working issues. We've heard claims of 'fool-proof' designs in the past. In the real world one has never existed.


As for abiotic fuel, certainly the lab has proven one can squeeze rocks and get methane. As for fossil fuels, amazingly yes they are built on decayed matter. Using the decayed matter theory of oil we've certainly been able to make some good discoveries for the last 50 years.

Though could both not be true? Certainly squeezing the right rocks at high temp and high pressure produce methane and we know decayed plants produce ethanes. No matter the source doesn't the question become what is our rate of use and the planet's rate of generation. Certainly we're using oil faster than we are discovering it a problem that needs fixing.

The next question is cost : Today about 2 miles down is the oil. If memory serves the farthest down is 7 miles. Getting to 7 miles makes the endeavor expensive and more risky. Certainly methane is predicted about 75 miles down. But how expensive will it be to extract it? Likely other forms of energy are lower cost and a better option than having to reach down 75 miles.

@BrianK

Why not begin with good old physic related to climate then? I did that, even if coming from soft science, I got rapidly lost by the math. You will be surprised to discover that the greenhouse effect promoted by the AGW fear-mongers is a misnomer and has no physical basis.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

As for abiotic fuel, certainly the lab has proven one can squeeze rocks and get methane.

Russia produce abiotic oil since more than 50 years (Russia was in 1946 a relatively petroleum-poor country but today is one of the greatest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world) and Russian oil compagnies are able to drill up to 15km deep while the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5km. The emergence of Russia (and former USSR) as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of this theory in practice.

Quote:

Certainly we're using oil faster than we are discovering it a problem that needs fixing.

This is the fallacious theory of "Peak oil" itself based on the fossil oil theory. The "Peak oil" was initially theorized by a Texas geologist in 1956 (Marion King Hubbert who was working for Shell Oil) and then propagated by Western Big Oils for obvious reasons: it was built to create the illusion that the world was/is rapidly running out of oil and is based on the assumption that oil production follows a bell curve, and once the “peak” was/is hit, inevitable decline followed. We are now in 2009, oil consumption and production have both risen very fast, still no bell curve at the horizon. According to one of the few Western scientist that worked with Russian people, the "oil that the [Russian] Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) predicts world oil and natural gas liquids capacity could increase as much as 25% by 2015. Robert W. Esser, a director of CERA, says: "Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we're concerned." Source Plenty of Oil—Just Drill Deeper

According to an insider:Quote:

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the abiotic techniques of deep drilling. Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

It seems that this Russian science is a closed door for American...

PS could you put your numbers in SI, please?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting
They need headlines that scare people or media will lose interest which in turn will mean less funding.

I think the human made global warming hysteria is mainly about money.
There are more and more scientists who believe that the warming is mainly natural, which sounds more logical to me if you look at the climate over the last thousands of years or so.

I honestly believe we will see a small ice age within the next thousand years or sooner.
Things like milankovitch cycles + solar output has a great affect on our climate and if this is right then we are currently heading towards a ice age.
Alot of interesting info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


This kinda looks like a natural cycle to me:


Also notice the sharp drop in temperatures shortly after the peaks "climatic optimum"
The problem with todays climate models is that they are only based on a very short timespan.

Last edited by Tomas on 28-Jan-2009 at 03:25 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 28-Jan-2009 at 03:23 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 28-Jan-2009 at 03:21 PM.

@All

The last one is very funny:

Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews!]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Read the rest on

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Jan-2009 at 04:00 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Jan-2009 at 03:41 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

To support Dr. John S. Theon's view on the use of climate models, below is reproduced what one can found in the review done by 2 physicists and named:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO² Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics:

The core of a climate model must be a set of equations describing the equations of fluid
flow, namely the Navier-Stokes equations. The Navier-Stokes equations are non-linear
partial differential equations, which, in general, are impossible to solve analytically. In
very special cases numerical methods lead to useful results, but there is no systematics
for the general case. In addition, the Navier-Stokes approach has to be extended to multi-
component problems, which does not simplify the analysis.

Climate modelers often do not accept that "climate models are too complex and
uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change". Rather, they claim that
"current models enable [them] to attribute the causes of past climate change and
predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence".
Evidently, this claim (not specifying the observables subject to the prediction) contradicts
to what is well-known from theoretical meteorology, namely that the predictability of the
weather forecast models is (and must be) rather limited (i.e. limited to a few days).

The non-solvability of Navier-Stokes-type equations is related (but not restricted) to the
chaotic character of turbulence. But this is not the only reason why the climate modeling
cannot be built on a solid ground. Equally importantly, even the full set of equations
providing a proper model of the atmospheric system (not to say atmospheric-
oceanographic system) are not known (and never will) to a full extent. All models used
for "simulation" are (and have to be) oversimplified. However, in general a set of
oversimplified nonlinear partial differential equations exhibits a totally different behavior
than a more realistic, more complex system.

Because there exist no strategy for a stepwise refinement within the spirit of the
renormalization (semi-)group, one cannot make any useful predictions. The real world is
too complex to be represented properly by a feasable system of equations ready for
processing. The only safe statement that can be made is that the dynamics of the
weather is probably governed by a generalized Navier-Stokes-type dynamics.
Evidently, the electromagnetic interactions have to be included, leading straightly to the
discipline of Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). This may be regarded as a set of
equations expressing all the essential physics of a fluid, gas and/or plasma.

The equations discussed above comprise a system of one-fluid equations only. One can
(and must) write down many-fluid equations and, in addition, the averaged equations
describing the turbulence. To get a realistic model of the real world, the above equations
must be generalized to take into account:
1/ the dependency of all relevant coefficients on space and time;
2/ the presence and coexistence of various species of fluids and gases;
3/ the inhomogenities of the media, the mixture and separation of phases.
In principle such a generalization will be feasable, if one cuts the domains of definition
into pieces and treats the equations by a method of patches. Thus the final degree of
complexity may be much larger than originally expected arriving at a system of
thousands of phenomenological equations defining non-linear three-dimensional
dynamics and heat transfer.

It cannot be overemphasized that even if these equations are simplified considerably, one
cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small
time intervals. This situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of
progress made in computer hardware. Therefore, global climatologists may continue to
write updated research grant proposals demanding next-generation supercomputers ad
infinitum. As the extremely simplified one-fluid equations are unsolvable, the many-
fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the averaged
equations describing the turbulence would be still more unsolvable, if "unsolvable" had a
comparative.
Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the
backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature.
But even this is not true: In computer simulations heat conduction and friction are
completely neglected, since they are mathematically described by second order partial
derivatives that cannot be represented on grids with wide meshes. Hence, the computer
simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws.

The same holds for the speculations about the influence of carbon dioxide:
1/ Although the electromagnetic field is included in the MHD-type global climatologic
equations, there are no terms that correspond to the absorption of electromagnetic
radiation.
2/ It is hard if not impossible to find the point in the MHD-type global climatologic
equations, where the concentration of carbon dioxide enters the game.
3/ It is impossible to include the radiative transfer equation (59) into the MHD-type
climatologic equations.
4/ Apparently, there is no reference in the literature, where the carbon dioxide
concentration is implemented in the MHD-type climatologic equations.

Hence, one is left with the possibility to include a hypothetical warming by radiation by
hand in terms of artificial heat densities. But this would be equivalent to
imposing the "political correctly" requested anthropogenic rise of the temperature even
from the beginning just saving an additional trivial calculation.
In case of partial differential equations more than the equations themselves the boundary
conditions determine the solutions. There are so many different transfer phenomena,
radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer,
etc. and many types of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases,
plasmas, etc. for which there does not exist an applicable theory, such that one even
cannot write down the boundary conditions In the "approximated" discretized equations
artificial unphysical boundary conditions are introduced, in order to prevent running the
system into unphysical states. Such a "calculation", which yields an arbitrary result, is
no calculation in the sense of physics, and hence, in the sense of science. There is no
reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific
facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policy-makers, global climatologists claim
that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climates.

Full PDF here. Warning: hard physical science and math herein, not for the faint-hearted.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Jan-2009 at 05:19 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Jan-2009 at 05:16 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

It concludes:

Thus there is simply no physical foundation of global climate computer models, for which
still the chaos paradigma holds: even in the case of a well-known deterministic dynamics
nothing is predictable. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical
basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the
logistic differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the
discrete ones. Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact
with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model.

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying
models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot
detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO²
greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity
and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations
leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods,
flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes
today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse
inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and
physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.

In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO² induced anthropogenic global
warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

The physical basis discussion is:

A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of
theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass
houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant
physical phenomena. The terms "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases" are
deliberate misnomers.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

The frequently mentioned difference of 33°C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the
determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values
of the absolute temperature's fourth power.

5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their
average values.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the
actual heat flow without mechanical work.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a
perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by
setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical
assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average
fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.

8. After Schack 1972, water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the
infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation,
which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and
does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply "backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the
temperature of the illuminated surface.

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is
assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all
gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the
low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for
properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high
tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local
climate, cannot be taken into account.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic
systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact
sciences, in particular theoretical physics.

13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate
dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is
nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann
once said to his young collaborators: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a
mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you
allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will...fly."

14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids
with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models
is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented
on grids with wide meshes.

15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by
non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ
from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements
of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these
computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.

16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter fly phenomenon
as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: already the natural
greenhouse effect is a myth.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Try this one "Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study"

Amazing, their models are crap, can't even predict 1000 hours of El Nino. Oh I know, it's that time of year, it's time to put on a make believe dog and pony show for YF2010 budget! Gotta love PlayStation Climatology, models you can deceive in!

_________________
Dammy

@TMTisFree

Previous posts can be practically summed up with the following:

In his criticism of global warming studies by means of computer models the eminent
theoretical physicist Freeman J. Dyson stated:

"The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job
of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very
poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields
and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live
in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet
understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building
and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is
really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate
model experts end up believing in their own models."

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Russia produce abiotic oil since more than 50 years (Russia was in 1946 a relatively petroleum-poor country but today is one of the greatest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world)

The growth in oil came from using fossil based theories not from abiotic.

Quote:

Russian oil compagnies are able to drill up to 15km deep while the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5km.

As you said we know very little of Russia compared to the rest of the west. Certainly some made this claim. However, the vast majority of oil comes from well known large fields such as Samotlor which are known to be of conventional depth and fossil related.

I highly doubt your 15km claim. The deepest depth recorded appears to be around 12km deep. Do note I didn't say deep drilling was impossible. I did say that getting there and extracting the oil is very expensive. A 15km depth is estimated to be around 300C in temperature. You need to make materials to sustain those temps and high pressures for the well to operate. Clearly this is going to be an expensive endeavor.

Quote:

The emergence of Russia (and former USSR) as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of this theory in practice

You seem to have 2 claims conflicting here. The first is that the west knows little of Russian science and 2nd that this Russian science you know enough about to claim it's the major use.

What we know is oil production decreased in Russia as the economy collapsed. If you have bottomless oil then the answer is sell more oil and keep production high and make money. We know that recently they turned off the oil pipes to Western society. They still need money. If you have bottomless oil then the answer is to sell more oil and make more money and improve your status. IF they have bottomless abiotic oil why do they continue to make decisions that are so strongly against supporting their own economic profitability?

Quote:

This is the fallacious theory of "Peak oil" itself based on the fossil oil theory.

Okay but we have 1 planet. If the abiotic production is true then we need to understand the rate of production of oil for the planet. Then we need to subtract our rate of usage in order to understand if we are using oil faster than the planet can regenerate.

For example, Lake Superior by me cleans itself. However, it takes roughly 50 years to cycle. If we pollute the lake at a rate faster then it's regeneration rate the net result will be an overly polluted body of water. Wouldn't the same apply to oil? If the planet generates it are we using it at a rate less, equal, or greater than it's rate of generation? Certainly having to drill deeper and deeper for oil seems to say we're using up the oil close to the surface faster than the planet regenerates oil to that level within the structure.

Quote:

According to one of the few Western scientist that worked with Russian people,...In short, an absurdity.

You mean Dr. J. F. Kenney ? What a stupid statement for a smart guy to associate dinosaur poop which clearly is not the majority of organic material. Oil has been proven to be from biological sources. Now yes not every single barrel or well has been tested to determine source. But, there's a well documented number of tests on oil that show it's biological content. Remember oil is a complex mix of chemicals and those chemicals have been shown to come from the degradation of plants and leave biological markers. IF abiotic oil exists I think it need not be to the exclusion of 'fossil' based oil.

Quote:

Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) predicts world oil and natural gas liquids capacity could increase as much as 25% by 2015

My statement was "we're using oil faster than we are discovering it a problem that needs fixing".. Take your claim, combine it with the EIA that claims usage will increase by 50% by 2015 and you will see my statement is easily supported. We are increasing production by 25% and increasing use by 50% clearly 'we're using oil faster than we are discovering it. '

@TMTisFree

Quote:

In his criticism of global warming studies by means of computer models

Clearly we've had incidents of worse conditions than the 18 computer models of the IPCC predict. So they're not perfect. Perhaps that's why they have a range of probability in their predictions?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I fail to see where this is related to energy. Coal is not a modern technology.

Well many of the US coal plants are cleaner operating than the Junk China is building. Why doesn't China take some of their cash on hand and buy scrubber equipment being mfg in the USA?

Quote:

China doesn't respect Copyright, Trademark or IP rights. If some tech was good they take it and use it.

you missed the point on this. If this new nuke plant design was so great I'm sure one way legal or Illegal, China would grab it.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@damocles

Quote:

Oh I know, it's that time of year, it's time to put on a make believe dog and pony show for YF2010 budget! Gotta love PlayStation Climatology, models you can deceive in!

nah, they just got another quick 400 million dollars to study climate change. It's in the so called "Stimulus". Wonder how many of the new 4 million jobs this will create?

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker