@HenryCase

Quote:

You are a fool.

Calling name now: not an argument.

Quote:

.../...

Some random words tentatively sorted to create(?) a trivially low level uninteresting and off topic idea in between.

Quote:

Wake up f**ktard.

Again name: your lack of arguments does not improve.

You have at least imagination in name calling.

Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium
Seneca

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
Alright, the name calling was out of order. Apologies.

Now back to the matter at hand. Do you understand that we are using up natural resources at a faster rate than we are producing them, yes or no?

@HenryCase

Apologies accepted.

Quote:

Do you understand that we are using up natural resources at a faster rate than we are producing them, yes or no?

I understand why you believe that. My response is nevertheless no and below is why:

1/ we are using natural resource because we *need/know* how to use them: this means there exists other natural resources we currently do not use because we don't *need/know* currently how to use them. This was/is true for all previous/current resources we use/d. Why will it be untrue for future resources?
2/ we are not strictly producing natural resource, rather we use them until/while we *need/know* to use better (suited) resources (we produce essentially energy from these natural resources);
3/ therefore resources, natural or whatever you define as natural or unnatural, exists only because we *need/know* how use them. Without us resources are just inert matter;
4/ I agree we in the past and currently use/d rather simple natural resources which are possibly limited per se spatially and/or temporally. I am not saying resources transition will occur without problems and/or in time (this is the job of politicians to resolve such problems). But you can not infer from that that future resources will be either simple or 'natural' or limited in time and/or space;
5/ consequently, resources existed/exist/will exist because humans found/find/will find a *need for/how to* use them.
6/ as a conclusion, the only limit to resources is human intelligence: resources are as infinite as human imagination.

Possibilities are prodigious.

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".

@HenryCase
Quote:

@TMTisFree --as a conclusion, the only limit to resources is human intelligence: resources are as infinite as human imagination.

There are other answers -- mining the moon would produce lots of boxite and possibly H3 for power generation. We could drag asteroids into orbit around our planet.

Clearly there is more material in the galaxy than we'd use up. We just need tractor beams.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You also forgot to quote Bolt: Quote: Professor Ian Plimer

Assuming this quote is honest it doesn't excuse the dishonestness he used quoting others. I've already demonstrated some of the incorrect quotes. Perhaps someone can do the rest of the piece. There was enough lies in the point #1 to turn off a knowledgeable reader.

Quote:

the supposed bleaching appears to be reversible;

Directly my 'nitpick' is true so I'm glad you agree.

As for (2) and your claim that I modified my mask I did no such thing. Instead what we are seeing is more oversimplifications to the point of untruthfulness by the anti-gw crowd. No one claimed that GW was the only cause to coral bleaching. But instead it is one of the causes and will be an increasing factor as GW increases. Your claim (2) was rejected because you failed to have a good grasp of the definition here. Your claim still is rejected and reflected more correct with my modification.

Quote:

Until demonstrated otherwise, the problem was neither temperature or coral but "soil run off from farming and [un]controlling fishing".

I think it's fair to say we know cleaner water had a positive impact. The problem here is Bolt assigns this as a disproof of GW. It is neither a proof or disproof. The problem here isn't GW understanding. It's coral's life understanding that was the problem.

It'd be interesting to see the experiments scientists did on coral. If they used clean water and saw negative impacts with temp and acid level then certainly the GW predictions and issues still are having and will have an impact on coral life.

@TMTisFree
So the point you are making is that in the future we should be able to make energy out of currently under-utilised resources, correct? Whilst this is correct in a sense, you are missing one point, which is the timescale that these new resources become available.

Take the peak oil issue for example. Our current understanding indicates peak oil production has either already happened or will happen in the next ten years or so. It is estimated that in approximately 50 years after the peak that production levels will be at about half. So just to maintain the quality of life the world has now energy sources have to be found within that timeframe to compensate for the loss of energy from oil.

Plus, that is only if the demand stays even. Population growth and increased standard of living for developing nations indicate the demand for energy will grow in that time. The damage to the stability of human culture is likely to be dramatic if the new energy we come up with isn't enough to plug the gap.

So what I'm saying is this. Yes we should be able to harness new energy sources within time, but we will not give ourselves the time to implement these changes unless we take care of problems like overpopulation and reliance on fossil fuels now. Or in another way of putting it, we need to buy the scientists, politicians and engineers more time to implement energy production changes by making necessary steps elsewhere now.

@HenryCase

Quote:

Take the peak oil issue for example. Our current understanding indicates peak oil production has either already happened or will happen in the next ten years or so. It is estimated that in approximately 50 years after the peak that production levels will be at about half. So just to maintain the quality of life the world has now energy sources have to be found within that timeframe to compensate for the loss of energy from oil.

"We are running out of oil" has been around since the last turn of the century. I think we were supposed to have run out of oil somewhere in the late 1910's. The it got pushed into the 1950s, then it got pushed backed, then pushed back, and you get the picture. Now bear in mind, I'm all for getting off the oil habit with hydrogen fuel cells since the production of hydrogen can be dropped down to about $4K in mass production with some of these new spiffy polymers. That is economical enough for individuals to buy and operate for their own hydrogen production, atlest for the suburbs or rural folks.

_________________
Dammy

@HenryCase

Quote:

Take the peak oil issue for example. Our current understanding indicates peak oil production has either already happened or will happen in the next ten years or so. It is estimated that in approximately 50 years after the peak that production levels will be at about half. So just to maintain the quality of life the world has now energy sources have to be found within that timeframe to compensate for the loss of energy from oil.

I looked up the "peak oil" issue some time ago. From what I can tell its only a story to drive up the price of crude oil. Many oil rigs have been shut down in fact since the Oil price drop, and also the needs for oil have slowed, this will not last however.

btw: I am of the opinion that this whole downturn was caused by the large Oil price and not the real estate market as many think. The real problem has not been fixed and it will return again.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @HenryCase Quote: @TMTisFree --as a conclusion, the only limit to resources is human intelligence: resources are as infinite as human imagination. There are other answers -- mining the moon would produce lots of boxite and possibly H3 for power generation. We could drag asteroids into orbit around our planet. Clearly there is more material in the galaxy than we'd use up. We just need tractor beams.

How much energy would it cost to harvest this energy? I am not sure it would be worth it.

@Dandy

Quote:

The report I just cited in my last posting had a graph showing that from the mid seventies the two curves were diverging - while the (average) sunspot curve is declining since then, the temperature curve is increasing. And we're talking about a period of 35-40 years.

I see that. Definite factors are keeping the earth warmer when the sun is cooling and colder.

One might guess if the sun says dormant long enough then perhaps it will override CO2 causes. Of course that allows more pollution and less worry and if it's another 100 year lull well our offspring's offspring may well be in a much worse off situation when the lull goes away.

Perhaps we'll have to make a nuclear bomb the size of the moon and drive it into the sun.


As for Heim... I'm going to have to stick to others translations. Meine deutsche sind sehr schlect.

@Tomas

Quote:

@BriankQuote: There are other answers -- mining the moon would produce lots of boxite and possibly H3 for power generation. We could drag asteroids into orbit around our planet. Clearly there is more material in the galaxy than we'd use up. We just need tractor beams. How much energy would it cost to harvest this energy? I am not sure it would be worth it.

This was sort of tongue-in-cheeck. HenryCase is on the right direction here. The only limit is human intelligence is true to a point. We have to give people the opportunity to identify the problem so they can work to resolve.

Certainly if we could mine an asteroid or the moon for raw materials that could be used on earth it may be a benefit. It would, obviously, have to be cost justified. Say we found a nice asteriod with lots of heavy hydrogen. We could make heavy water reactors and use uranium without having to expend the energy to enhance uranium, such as in our light water reactors. Jupiter might be a nice source but I'd imagine the costs are cost prohibitive to capture and bring it back to earth.

Now off to build that Dyson Sphere....

@HenryCase

Quote:

So the point you are making is that in the future we should be able to make energy out of currently under-utilised resources, correct?

No, not under-utilized resources but not known resources. We use/will used known resource until we need or know how to use new, wider, efficient resource. What I mean is there are no resource, existing and available, as long as we don't have the knowledge to use it. Wood was just wood until we understood it can be used as a resource. Coal was just inert matter before some understood how to used it. Idem for every other used resources (oil, uranium). Resource is a 'product' of human knowledge.

Quote:

Take the peak oil issue for example. Our current understanding indicates peak oil production has either already happened or will happen in the next ten years or so. It is estimated that in approximately 50 years after the peak that production levels will be at about half. So just to maintain the quality of life the world has now energy sources have to be found within that timeframe to compensate for the loss of energy from oil.

Already discussed in the previous thread: still waiting for a demonstration of the Peak Oil theory versus the Deep Abiotic Oil theory. Anyway this does not contradict that matter is not resource until humans get the knowledge to decide so.

Quote:

Plus, that is only if the demand stays even. Population growth and increased standard of living for developing nations indicate the demand for energy will grow in that time. The damage to the stability of human culture is likely to be dramatic if the new energy we come up with isn't enough to plug the gap.

The only effect of population growth is to push faster to the switch or transition to know how to use new resource(s). Again, does not contradict the above.

Quote:

So what I'm saying is this. Yes we should be able to harness new energy sources within time, but we will not give ourselves the time to implement these changes unless we take care of problems like overpopulation and reliance on fossil fuels now. Or in another way of putting it, we need to buy the scientists, politicians and engineers more time to implement energy production changes by making necessary steps elsewhere now.

The population 'problem' will resolve itself if we give poorer the same living standard we have. And I agree that we must search for how to used new resources sooner than later: some already exist (fast reactors) but were dropped because of political ideologies (IFR).

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".

Found this interesting: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Some quotes: Quote:

Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt. The decline rate for the month of April was the third slowest on record. The Arctic lost sea ice cover at a rate of 27,300 square kilometers per day (10,500 square miles), compared to an average of 41,600 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day for 1979 to 2000. Ice extent was well above normal in the Bering Sea, but below normal in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.

@Tomas

Quote:

How much energy would it cost to harvest this energy? I am not sure it would be worth it.

It seems so to you because we currently are in the middle of a transition phase. If you take a wider perspective and return back in time, say 40-50 years ago, there is no resource problematic. Pioneering new resource is costly at start because the know how is not widespread and technology is at the beginning. When knowledge improves, processes are refined, larger scale operations are possible and prices drop until we need/know to use a new resource and this again ad vitam aeternam: this has occurred for all resources we have used.

Edit: corrected some typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 04:02 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".

@Interesting

Quote:

I looked up the "peak oil" issue some time ago. From what I can tell its only a story to drive up the price of crude oil. Many oil rigs have been shut down in fact since the Oil price drop, and also the needs for oil have slowed, this will not last however. btw: I am of the opinion that this whole downturn was caused by the large Oil price and not the real estate market as many think. The real problem has not been fixed and it will return again.

You have sum up the 'oil problem' quite correctly.

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".

@damocles

Quote:

"We are running out of oil" has been around since the last turn of the century. I think we were supposed to have run out of oil somewhere in the late 1910's. The it got pushed into the 1950s, then it got pushed backed, then pushed back, and you get the picture.

Actually, we have had a fairly accurate estimate of oil reserves (both known and undiscovered) and growth for demand since 1956, and the trends we have experienced since match these estimates fairly closely. The research work was done by M. King Hubbert. You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Already discussed in the previous thread: still waiting for a demonstration of the Peak Oil theory versus the Deep Abiotic Oil theory. Anyway this does not contradict that matter is not resource until humans get the knowledge to decide so.

I tell you what TMTisFree, I'll do you a deal. If you promise to watch this series of videos (well worth doing in my opinion), I will promise to research deep abiotic oil theory and take it seriously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Deal?

Last edited by HenryCase on 05-May-2009 at 12:43 PM.

@HenryCase

Abiotic or "fossil" oil does it really matter? We know for a fact that fossil oil exists. Abiotic might. Either way I think the questions are the same when it comes to the concept of "Peak Oil". What is the globe's rate of production of oil? What is our rate of extraction? How is the cost influenced by ever more expensive extraction mechanisms? Will this have an impact to the world economy? Should people be reaching out and considering other fuels?

Russia claims to have abiotic oil. But, clearly their reserves are not limitless. Oil is one of the largest factors in their economy. If they really had limitless cheap oil then they are doing themselves a severe disservice by not cornering the marketplace. Instead we see them shutting down oil lines to Europe because they needed the oil for their own uses. Abiotic or not the idea that Russian oil is plentiful and cheap is clearly not being pursued in that manner.

Will the abiotic give us more oil than the fossil concept? Let's say both are true. We still don't know if abiotic sources, considering our esclating rate of oil usage worldwide, will add centuries to the fossil oil or a few years...

@HenryCase

Quote:

Actually, we have had a fairly accurate estimate of oil reserves (both known and undiscovered) and growth for demand since 1956, and the trends we have experienced since match these estimates fairly closely. The research work was done by M. King Hubbert. You can read more here:

If we had the foggiest clue on how much oil is out there since 1956, why even bother worrying about peak oil for another 100+ years instead constantly fear propaganda since I was born in the early 1960's that we are going to run out of oil? It's all about raising the dollar per barrel of crude.

_________________
Dammy

@BrianK
If TMTisFree takes me up on my offer I'll take into consideration what you are saying but I'll also investigate other possibilities it could provide. So TMTisFree, are you up for this information exchange?

@damocles
Quote:

If we had the foggiest clue on how much oil is out there since 1956, why even bother worrying about peak oil for another 100+ years instead constantly fear propaganda since I was born in the early 1960's that we are going to run out of oil? It's all about raising the dollar per barrel of crude.

Scientists have their opinions on peak oil, economists have their opinions on peak oil. Sometimes these views match, but if you treat them as equally valid then you're not doing yourself a favour. In other words, are you taking economists seriously when it comes to scientific matters? FYI M. King Hubbert was a geologist.

Last edited by HenryCase on 05-May-2009 at 02:10 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Directly my 'nitpick' is true so I'm glad you agree.

Sure. My 1/ still stand because supposed bleaching is not irreversible (broadly speaking).

Quote:

As for (2) and your claim that I modified my mask I did no such thing.

Of course you did. You said supposed recovery not due by Global Cooling but by other factors: supposed bleaching can not be caused by AGW then. So adding AGW in the equation just for the sake of it (that is pointing finger) has to be rejected due to lack of proof. My 2/ thus is valid so is my conclusion and myth 8 of Bolt.

Quote:

No one claimed that GW was the only cause to coral bleaching.

More correctly you claimed supposed bleaching/recovery was caused by events not related to AGW.

Quote:

I think it's fair to say we know cleaner water had a positive impact.

If I would like to nitpick like BrianK I would say "I think it's fair to say we know polluted water had a negative impact." (ie clean water has null impact because it is the normal state of water...).

Quote:

The problem here is Bolt assigns this as a disproof of GW. It is neither a proof or disproof. The problem here isn't GW understanding. It's coral's life understanding that was the problem.

Not disproof per se, just lack of proof, the null hypothesis. It remains to be proved AGW has any negative effect on coral. Past history shows that coral has developed rapidly when CO² levels were far higher they are today.

Quote:

It'd be interesting to see the experiments scientists did on coral. If they used clean water and saw negative impacts with temp and acid level then certainly the GW predictions and issues still are having and will have an impact on coral life.

What about reading the few existing scientific papers instead to get responses? I suggest:

Vézina, A.F. and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2008. Effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 373: 199-201: Quote:

"Without an understanding of how such a slow and continuous decline in pH is likely to affect ocean ecosystems, we may miss important aspects of this global ocean pH change. [T]o compound this uncertainty, recent research reveals counter-intuitive, positive/neutral effects of acidification on some organisms and processes."

Lough, J.M. 2008. Coral calcification from skeletal records revisited. Marine Ecology Progress Series 373: 257-264: Quote:

"Average linear extension and calcification rates in Indo-Pacific Porites are linearly [and positively] related to average water temperatures through 23 to 30°C."

It is true that there exists many speculative studies but very few in situ real world experiments.

Quote:

One of the long-recognized potential consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO² content is CO²-induced global warming, which has been predicted to pose a number of problems for both natural and managed ecosystems in the years ahead. Of newer concern, in this regard, are the effects that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO² content may have on coral reefs. It has been suggested, for example, that CO²-induced global warming will do great damage to corals by magnifying the intensity, frequency, and duration of a number of environmental stresses to which they are exposed. The predicted consequences of such phenomena include ever more cases of coral disease, bleaching, and death. Increases in the atmosphere's CO² content have also been postulated to possess the potential to harm coral reefs directly. By inducing changes in ocean water chemistry that can lead to reductions in the calcium carbonate saturation state of seawater, it has been predicted that elevated levels of atmospheric CO² may reduce rates of coral calcification, possibly leading to slower-growing – and, therefore, weaker – coral skeletons, and in some cases, death. Because of these many concerns, and the logical desire of individuals and governments to do something about what they perceive to be bona fide threats to the well-being of the biosphere, it is important to have a correct understanding of the scientific basis for the potential problems that have been predicted. Hence, in the following pages we review the scientific literature on CO², global warming and coral reefs, in an effort to determine if the ongoing rise in the air’s CO² content does indeed pose a threat to these incomparable underwater ecosystems. The key findings of this review are as follows: o There is no simple linkage between high temperatures and coral bleaching. o As living entities, corals are not only acted upon by the various elements of their environment, they also react or respond to them. And when changes in environmental factors pose a challenge to their continued existence, they sometimes take major defensive or adaptive actions to insure their survival. o A particularly ingenious way by which almost any adaptive response to any type of environmental stress may be enhanced in the face of the occurrence of that stress would be to replace the zooxanthellae expelled by the coral host during a stress-induced bleaching episode by one or more varieties of zooxanthellae that are more tolerant of the stress that caused the bleaching. o The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO² concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment. Thus, the recent die-off of many corals cannot be due solely, or even mostly, to global warming or the modest rise in atmospheric CO² concentration over the course of the Industrial Revolution. o The 18- to 59-cm warming-induced sea level rise that is predicted for the coming century by the IPCC – which could be greatly exaggerated if predictions of CO²-induced global warming are wrong – falls well within the range (2 to 6 mm per year) of typical coral vertical extension rates, which exhibited a modal value of 7 to 8 mm per year during the Holocene and can be more than double that value in certain branching corals. Rising sea levels should therefore present no difficulties for coral reefs. In fact, rising sea levels may actually have a positive effect on reefs, permitting increased coral growth in areas that have already reached the upward limit imposed by current sea levels. o The rising CO² content of the atmosphere may induce changes in ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO² enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon. o Theoretical predictions indicate that coral calcification rates should decline as a result of increasing atmospheric CO² concentrations by as much as 40% by 2100. However, real-world observations indicate that elevated CO² and elevated temperatures are having just the opposite effect. In light of the above observations, and in conjunction with all of the material presented in this review, it is clear that climate-alarmist claims of impending marine species extinctions due to increases in both temperature and atmospheric CO² concentration are not only not supported by real-world evidence, they are actually refuted by it.

Edit: added Pr Pilmer's quote
Edit2: removed the quote because slightly off topic
Edit3: added summary of new book of Dr Craig Idso available here
Edit4: corrected the link to get the book

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 07:39 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 07:34 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 07:01 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 05-May-2009 at 05:59 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".