waitforufo

I see nothing weak about my argument. Perhaps you missed my edit with additional simple spreadsheet numbers I added to my last post. Consider my posts as ridicule if you like but I am simply trying to point out how silly Carter's prediction was. Even at the time everyone new it was silly. I remember it clearly. The world will continue to use oil for many more decades, even with the introduction of alternative sources.

Are your really defending this horribly ill-informed prediction? “All the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” First, the data you provide in your link is for the US only. The quote is for the entire world. Second , if you compound a 5% increase every year from 1977 to 1990 you get slightly less than a doubling in the use of oil over that period (1.89). Third, It’s now 2013. So to the current date the time elapse is (2013-1977)/(1990-1977)=2.76 longer than the period of the prediction. So we should have seen a significant dent in world oll reserves by now. Nope. I thought I would have a bit more spreadsheet fun. If you consider world oil consumption in 1977 as a standard unit of consumption and then compound that consumption every year by 5% then oil consumption in 1990 would have been 1.885 times higher than a 1977 standard unit. The sum of all oil consumption from 1977 to 1990 would have consumed 19.6 standard units over that period. Now if oil consumption would have remained constant every year from 1977 to the present, 2013, we would have consumed 37 standard units of oil over that longer period. Almost twice as much oil consumed. How do we have any oil left?

I really do think we should all get back to the topic at hand which is future sources of energy. I do however have to comment on the above post regarding Bison in the US. Bison were intentionally exterminated in the US as a deliberate act of genocide against Native Americans. It had nothing to do with climate, or energy production. It was not accidental or an unintended consequence of some other human action.

Your link about the Tuvalu Islands says nothing about decreasing land area of the Tuvalu Islands. The Tuvalu Islands are not in danger unless their land area is decreasing. Your first link on crop yields states "winners and losers largely balanced out". Also this paper relies to much on models and not enough on data. Your second link on crop yields states "warming temperatures have already diminished the rate of production growth". So it starts out admitting the production is growing. Your third link on crop yields states "possible effects of climate change on global agricultural yield potential, on cereal production, food prices and the implications for changes in the number of hungry people." Again these "possible effects" are based on models or simulations. Again, how about some data. Your fourth paper starts with "A regional climate change model (PRECIS) for China, developed by the UK's Hadley Centre, was used to simulate China's climate and to develop climate change scenarios for the country." Models and simulations. How about some data? Mankind has a long and impressive history of improving crop yields over time. I have no doubt this trend will continue. We will adapt as we always have. In fact this topic is about adapting our energy production. Botanists and geneticist will find ways to continue improving crop yields as they always have, so there is no need worry. Isn't this topic suposed to be about alternative energy.? I did provide my opinion about this topic. Again my post about Jimmy Carter was simply a response to a question from others.

Can you provide data showing that the land area of the Tuvalu Islands is decreasing? Can you show data that crop production is decreasing? I'm not against renewable energy. If renewable energy can compete with other sources of energy it will be used. If renewable energy relies on government subsidies then we are choosing poverty over prosperity. Why make that choice?

Peak Oil is another one of those topics that has been talked to death in Science Forums. Do we really need to have it again? As technology improves we will continue to find more oil and natural gas. Fracking and methane hydrate extraction are just recent examples. The Earth has a plenty of oil and natural gas left. With regard to my Jimmy Carter quote, I was simply answering swansont question. It was the president of the United States that said the oil would run out by the end of the 80’s. Quibble about the word “proven” all you want but Carter’s message was clear. Oil would run out soon. Twenty years after his predicted end date for oil and our known oil reserves are still good for many decades with technology improving extraction methods. There is no worry that we will run out of oil soon. I remember hearing Carter’s words as a teenager. They were intended to create fear of the future. Immediately afterword oil experts were on all the TV news shows saying that Carter was ill informed. Those oil experts were and still are correct. That does not mean that we shouldn’t be looking for alternative energy methods. Energy equals prosperity so it would be irresponsible not to look for new methods. Cellulosic ethanol is a good example. We could then convert farm waste products into fuel and stop the nonsense of converting food in to fuel. It will likely take some bioengineering to crack that nut. Too bad people are afraid of bioengineering. Perhaps thorium reactors will pan out. Fusion still seems like the pipe dream to me, but I do think we should be studying it. The Tuvalu Islands are not shrinking and will not slip beneath the waves. They are just looking for money from suckers.

Obviously we will continue to find more. I wouldn't count oil out for the foreseeable future.

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/ Since this speach was delivered in 1977, the end of the next decade would have been December 31, 1989.

Why pick on me. Do you not find anything faguely insulting about post # 42 in this topic? Do the rules not apply to iNow?

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein

That is a political decision not a science decision. At the present time science would say wait and study more. Perhaps this topic should be moved to politics. iNow, I watched your vid on reinventing fire. I thought all solutions for global warming/climate change/climate disruption were going to be taken care of with free enterprise. No government involvement needed. Why worry?

Correlation is not causation.

Agreed. Our contribution may make life on this planet better. I have no problem with finding out, but until we do we should study not act.

Climate changes. It always has. It always will. Pulling a human cause from the noise has not been done. Perhaps someday a human cause will be found but until that is done why kill the economy? There is enough human suffering now.

So what you are trying to tell me is that after hundreds of years of successful climate science study, and the launch of the first weather climate satellite, the world celebrated by creating the following. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1302&bih=644&q=1960+muscle+cars&oq=1960+muscle&gs_l=img.3.0.0l2j0i24l3.1771.15660.0.19696.23.11.9.3.5.0.159.764.10j1.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.14.img.YeDzu5ownhg How did climate science go so wrong after April 1, 1960?

Meteorology is primarily the science of predicting weather. They are fairly good at predicting weather out 5 days. Anything beyond that is a crap shoot. I believe all meteorologists will tell you that. Weather satellites, particularly the early ones, were designed to look at weather in the pursuit of improving weather prediction. That is why they are called weather satellites not climate satellites. As Swansont says, weather is not climate. Equating them is a denialist tactic. But somehow extreme weather is climate. Go figure. But let me remind you that extreme weather is not increasing as CO2 is increasing. If I understood iNow’s post #7 he said “climate science has been progressing for a few hundred years now. My argument is that Meteorology has been progressing for a few hundred years. The best meteorology has been able to come up with is reasonably accurate weather predictions that extend out 5 days. I think the butterfly effect was coined to explain that it would never get any better than that. Climate science is claiming 100+ year predictions. They do this even though they don’t understand how clouds impact climate or if water vapor produces positive or negative feedback. Yet climate science is trying to dictate political policy. The precautionary principal is not science it is politics.

I didn't say that climate science wasn't science. I said it was still a young science with little knowledge. Someday maybe.

Swansont, I don't have the time to look through the gigantic volume of climate change debate in Science Forums looking for all the instances where the alarmists smacked down skeptical contributors with the old “weather isn’t climate” line but it was frequent. Now that the climate hasn’t warmed in over a decade while CO2 continues to increase suddenly the alarmists move on to extreme weather events even though extreme weather has existed forever and is not increasing. So now weather is climate. If my statement is a straw man now, why wasn’t it a straw man when it was used by alarmists?

Come on people, there is no there there. For example look at this story from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023 Clouds? Are you kidding me. They should be told to go away until they figure out clouds.

The first weather satellite was launched on April 1, 1960. This may seem like ancient history to some, but 53 years of satellite data, regardless of the volume, is a puny amount when trying to determine anthropological climate change. Yes, man has been studying meteorology for some time but this has mostly been for weather forecasting not climate forecasting. I appreciate that weather is not climate unless it supports alarmist claims, but why don’t we just be honest and say it is not. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Meteorology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere. Studies in the field stretch back millennia, though significant progress in meteorology did not occur until the 18th century. The 19th century saw breakthroughs occur after observing networks developed across several countries. After the development of the computer in the latter half of the 20th century, breakthroughs in weather forecasting were achieved. So no real progress in meteorology until the 19th century. Again not that long ago and only tangentially aligned to climate. Also, many of the most notable climate change skeptics are Meteorologist.

At this point anthropological global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the proper term we are supposed to use today is nothing more than a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This is not surprising since it is such a young science it has barely gotten its footing. Maybe one day in the future scientists will get an understanding of climate but all we have right now is isolated laboratory experiments and goofy computer models that can't hindcast for forecast with any accuracy. All the hubbub is nothing more than a political movement overwrought exploiting the precautionary principal. "If we don't act now we will all die" loses its political persuasion quickly. This is particularly true when the solutions provided require significant reduction in standards of living if not crippling the economy. Also, ultimately the proposed solutions will all fail to meet the requirements of environmentalists. Just today there was another story about windmills killing protected birds such as golden eagles and whooping cranes in my local paper. So at this point the only acceptable proposed solution is radical population decline and moving back to the shire. Yes iNow I watched your reinventing fire video. It started out well saying that free enterprise would solve climate change without government intervention because ROI was so high for moving to renewable power sources. Too bad he then quickly abandoned all for that with concepts like fee sharing and other similar nonsense.

This is true, but they did not define what "reasonable regulations" were either. That is up to them to decide.

SCOUTS = Supreme Court of the United States. Each of the nine members of the court has a lifetime appointment. What they decide the constitution says, it says. Well, at least until they change their mind.

Do you also believe that the ACLU supports terrorism? They go out of their way to make sure that people with mental health problems are roaming the streets. Do you feel the same way about the media? They glorify violence and make heroes out of criminals in their story lines.

Education? Here you go. http://home.nra.org/directory/list/education-and-training-category