RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
MY f&&%ING NAME IS PRINTED ALL OVER THIS f&&%ING THREAD. SPELL MY f&&%ING NAME RIGHT.
Only Cappadocious,
When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd,
To leaf through lengthy threads like this to correctly name the nerd,A little spontaneity keeps conversation keen,
(I'm just joking now; I don't mean to be mean...)
Supercalifragilistic-expert-cappadocius
If you spell it incorrectly
He'll use words quite atrocius
Ensemble:
Supercalifragilistic-expert-cappadocius
Um-diddle-diddle-um-diddleye
Um-diddle-diddle-um-diddleye
Such nonsense. Cappadocious is the adjective that means "having to do with Cappadocius, Cappadocius-like." So while these could be spelling problems, they could also be syntactical. What would you people do without me?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Such nonsense. Cappadocious is the adjective that means "having to do with Cappadocius, Cappadocius-like." So while these could be spelling problems, they could also be syntactical. What would you people do without me?
What are you doin' in this thread, leaf-face. Have you no shame. Trees cause global warming!
MY f~&&ING NAME IS PRINTED ALL OVER THIS f~&&ING THREAD. SPELL MY f~&&ING NAME RIGHT.
Only Cappadocious,The problem is, there isn't any consensus as to the appropriate spelling of your name. There may be scientists specializing in spelling that use an alternate spelling. As such, can we really say with any certainty that your name is spelled wrong?
Your assertions as to the appropriate spelling of your name invalidate everything you've ever said on this thread, every other thread, in your personal life, and that you may say in the future.
In the future, please format any arguments the proper spelling of your name in the approved format for disagreements with the esteemed posters on this board.
ROFL!
Such nonsense. Cappadocious is the adjective that means "having to do with Cappadocius, Cappadocius-like." So while these could be spelling problems, they could also be syntactical. What would you people do without me?What are you doin' in this thread, leaf-face. Have you no shame. Trees cause global warming!
I was afraid this would happen. Becoming ever more like me, assuming my avatar has actually created a freak reaction in which you have become the Anti-Mairkurion. Holds up mirror.
In the future, please format any arguments the proper spelling of your name in the approved format for disagreements with the esteemed posters on this board.ROFL!
+1
|
|
The name change is more to do with the misunderstanding of the word 'global' by the press to mean 'everywhere' rather than 'averaged over the globe'.
[snippety]
Prudence dictates that we do what we can to reduce the effects that we have on the environment - at the very least until we better understand what they are.
Now THAT is a rational, scientifically "compliant" statement, with an appended social recommendation.
Thank you.
While I dissent, I acknowledge the presentation.
I'm intrigued; dissent as to which part:
1) That there is a statistically significant upward trend in averaged global temperatures in the data for the previous century
2) That the above is due to mankinds actions
3) That given the above two statements, my suggestion is prudent
|
I'm intrigued; dissent as to which part:
1) That there is a statistically significant upward trend in averaged global temperatures in the data for the previous century
2) That the above is due to mankinds actions
3) That given the above two statements, my suggestion is prudent
On 1, the rest following naturally.
I do not believe the upward trend is statistically significant based on all of the available factors, and certain flaws revealed in the data gathering methods.
As such, that pre-empts whether any trend exists that has been caused by the actions of mankind.
And thus the need to take action becomes superfluous. We would be "fixing" a non-problem.
Further, and more significant, I do not believe the proposed methods would significantly effect the elements actions by mankind has actually caused. (Just because the trend is not human caused, or the humand induced effects are not statistically significant, does not mean they do not exist.)
|
Whether it relates to a global increase in temperatures or not, would you consider it significant that the North West Passage is apparently opening up to shipping for the first time in decades?
It's obviously the lack of sun spots causing it, and the lack of sun spots is obviously because man grows too many strawberries, it is universally agreed that man now harvests more strawberries now than ever before in the history of the universe. The sun has been slowly less active since the strawberry production increased, the ice cap melted at the same time the sun had less spots. Therefor everyone agrees that the only solution is to raise more strawberry eating alpacas to counteract our harmful effects on the world.
|
I'm intrigued; dissent as to which part:
1) That there is a statistically significant upward trend in averaged global temperatures in the data for the previous century
2) That the above is due to mankinds actions
3) That given the above two statements, my suggestion is prudent
Just for the record, I accept statement 1, but I'm not convinced of statement 2. After all, the geologic record does show that the Earth has gone through periods like this prior to human evolution.
It's obviously the lack of sun spots causing it, and the lack of sun spots is obviously because man grows too many strawberries, it is universally agreed that man now harvests more strawberries now than ever before in the history of the universe. The
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist." (Begins frantically manipulating steel balls)
|
|
It's obviously the lack of sun spots causing it, and the lack of sun spots is obviously because man grows too many strawberries, it is universally agreed that man now harvests more strawberries now than ever before in the history of the universe. The"Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist." (Begins frantically manipulating steel balls)
Why does every argument devolve into manipulating balls Kirth?
|
|
Why does every argument devolve into manipulating balls Kirth?It's obviously the lack of sun spots causing it, and the lack of sun spots is obviously because man grows too many strawberries, it is universally agreed that man now harvests more strawberries now than ever before in the history of the universe. The"Ah, but the strawberries! That's, that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist." (Begins frantically manipulating steel balls)
Yeah, you should leave that to the poodles. Rumor has it they are experts.
Why does every argument devolve into manipulating balls Kirth?
TMI! :)
I like chocolate milk!
Splooooorrrrrtch
|
|
Samuel, I know you tend to get wordy and sometimes abrasive when playing devil's advocate. I often appreciate your point of view, and this thread is no exception.
I believe what you want to get across in the simplest terms is the following: the world's climate is always changing hotter/colder, etc. and humans have not been studying climate long enough to learn enough of its quirks to justify taxes/green laws/hysteria over it.
As for myself, I keep my perspective tempered with the information that when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the average surface temperature of the shallow oceans was in the low 80's; that's the estimation by some climatologists, anyway.
|
|
Whether it relates to a global increase in temperatures or not, would you consider it significant that the North West Passage is apparently opening up to shipping for the first time in decades?
significant =/= statistically significant =/= proof of anthropogenic influence
Or, more universally:
correlation =/= causation
And to focus on why I dissent with the prescription:
How do you know that the change in ice cover was caused by increased CO2 emissions, and not increased runoff of industrialization in arctic waters, or some other effect?
Or, more generally:
It is undeniable that there are changes caused by people. Clearing forests for fields, dredging a harbor, putting up a building, all clearly, and without any dispute, cause a local change.
Further, it is equally undeniable that some of these changes have a long term effect on the underlying ecosystem, and indeed some of those effects are catastrophic. Paving the L.A. river anyone?
Even if we accept the worst possible assertions of these affects, how exactly are we to correct it?
We know, with a very strong general consensus, that New Orleans is destroying the Mississippi Delta, and that the only way to restore it is to give up on rebuilding New Orleans the way it is. We must let the river choose its own course, as it did for centuries before the city was built, and which we can actually prove, even if it means leaving the city high and dry as a result.
Do you think the political will exists for that?
We know, with a very strong general consensus, that the St. Lawrence Seaway is destroying the Great Lakes ecosystem by allowed stowaway species to invade the lakes. Despite all the attempts to cleanse the lakes, the only way to really be sure is to close the canals forever.
Again, do you think the political will exists for that?
Then consider:
The Aswan High Damn is destroying the Nile Delta, as well as degrading the Eastern Mediterranean.
Even worse for the Eastern Mediterranean are invasive species from the Red Sea coming in through the Suze Canal.
Do you think there is even snowball's chance in . . . the Egyptian desert of either of those being shut down?
The Chinese dam projects have already results in the extinction of Chinese river dolphins, they are degrading the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers beyond that, and the artificial lakes caused may well be the primary cause of the increased earthquakes in China.
While these issues have been raised repeatedly, how likely do you think the Chinese are to end these projects?
So let us assume the hypothesis of climate change.
Let us assume the theory of anthopogenic effect.
Let us even assume a statistical relevance for just a moment.
How much is it even possible to address any more?
Will de-industrializing the West and shipping all of those factories to Third World Nations change the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted?
How will the loss of economic potential, and thus R&D dollars, in the West negatively affect research into alternative energy sources?
Or, leaving the hypotheses as hypotheses, is there really no room to treat the preliminary predictions of catastrophic or just merely detrimental anthropogenic climate change as just another variant Malthusian prediction, and not leap to radical economic transfer and implosion, but perhaps give other scientific fields and general social progress a bit of time to resolve pending issues as they develop?
|
|
Samuel, I know you tend to get wordy and sometimes abrasive when playing devil's advocate. I often appreciate your point of view, and this thread is no exception.
I believe what you want to get across in the simplest terms is the following: the world's climate is always changing hotter/colder, etc. and humans have not been studying climate long enough to learn enough of its quirks to justify taxes/green laws/hysteria over it.
As for myself, I keep my perspective tempered with the information that when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the average surface temperature of the shallow oceans was in the low 80's; that's the estimation by some climatologists, anyway.
There is a bit more, some of which I touched on in my previous post. To wit:
1. There are obviously effects of humans on the environment. There is a big "D'UH" for that.
2. What those effects are cannot be precisely defined yet. Many effects can be, but the full scope is far from delineated just yet.
3. What the natural effects are is equally imprecise. As a subset of that appeals to "knowing" the full scope of history are, simply, absurd, and deserve no real recognition of legitimacy.
4. Even more, the full synergistic effects of everything we know and do not know of 2 and 3 are far from even casually understood, never mind thoroughly understood. (Let's face it, if we really knew that much we would have weather control machines.)
5. Taken together, indeed any prescription right now approaches Malthusian chicken-littling. This is especially true if we apply the "lie down with pseudo-science dogs, get up with fear-mongering fleas" standard, and immediately indict and dismiss anyone and everyone involved with Al "By 'Invoncenient Truth' I really meant 'Convenient Misrepresentation', but you will get my Nobel back when your pry it from stiff, living hands" Gore. Harsh, but that is a standard others are insisting on.
And indeed, I keep that last estimation in mind as well.
Using the quick and dirty Wikireference:
Arctic Ocean]
"Climate has varied significantly in the past; as recently as 55 million years ago, during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum the region reached an average annual temperature of 10-20 °C (50-68 °F);[11] the surface waters of the northernmost[12] Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms[13] requiring surface temperatures of over 22 °C (72 °F).[14]"
Or, going all BSG:
"This has all happened before; this will all happen again."
|
|
So climate change may well be real and may well be man made, but since we can’t prove it beyond a doubt … and since doing anything about it would be really hard … and it’s hard to even know where to start … and all those foreign countries aren’t doing their part …
We should just ignore the problem! ‘Cause that normally works out well. Or let the scientists figure it out. They’re smart guys (and girls), I’m sure they’ll think of something.
Now, back to that quiet sun thing.
Maybe aliens are mining it? Or building a Dyson Sphere? (I don’t know what a Dyson Sphere is, but building one sounds like something aliens would do). Damn aliens.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The hypothesis of prions contradicted the "central dogma of molecular biology" for years.
Then came reverse transcription.
Now prions really are "universally accepted" as existing, although specific sub-theories continue to exist.
Reverse transcription was discovered in the early 70s. It's a key element in how RNA retroviruses (I'm sure we've all heard of HIV) infect. Prions do not replicate by transcription, but rather by a process reminescent of ice-9 where they spread their anomolous folding to other proteins - basically, they are catalytic proteins, causing like proteins to fold into a shape that's too stable to break down within the cell. Those new misfolded proteins themselves catalyze further misfolding, continue the process I'm guessing you weren't trying to link the two mechanisms of replication, but I'm stating the lack of direct relation to clear up potential confusion.
As far as the central dogma - it's a model (Camelot!). "Dogma" is just a catchy way of saying "Can't be proven". Prions could be called an example the "unknown to occur" protein-to-protein form of information transfer, but it's generally regarded to not violate it, since no change in the protein sequence occurs. Note that RNA -> DNA reverse transcription falls into the "special case" part of the dogma (as reformulated in 1970).
Like most scientific theories, it has been reformulated as information occurs, and wasn't really ever a "sacred cow" that couldn't be violated. So I don't think it holds up as a "the majority was wrong" example - the biological community was certainly willing to accept good evidence to the contrary.
Which brings us back around to: Simply shrieking "WRONG!" at climate change theories isn't productive. And expecting the theories to be perfect first wash isn't productive either. Science was right about mankind causing ozone depletion, but they didn't get the mechanism or the impact perfectly right on the first try. The model did eventually account well for what seemed anomolous. I'm comfortable with the consensus that our current climate changes are caused in large part by human activity - and I suspect we'll see that model change more before we really have it nailed down.
I'm not attributing the "WRONG!" point of view to anyone in particular in this thread - haven't read it closely enough to be sure who's a skeptic and who's not. But that's my take on climate change skeptics: offer up a better model, and the science behind it.
|
|
Will de-industrializing the West and shipping all of those factories to Third World Nations change the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted?
How will the loss of economic potential, and thus R&D dollars, in the West negatively affect research into alternative energy sources?
Some very interesting points above. I'm just going to address the quoted one, since it is a topic of particular interest to me.
The above is indeed one way of reducing our impact upon the climate. The other is further use of our technology. We have the capability to produce all of our necessary base load electricity via safe clean nuclear generation - we just don't have the necessary political balls to ride out the cries of a public grossly misled on the dangers of nuclear. We have the capability to generate our peak load electricity through pumped hydro-electric storage and properly scrubbed coal/gas/oil generators - again, we lack the will to renew our infrastructure.
I think the way out is forwards, not backwards.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Will de-industrializing the West and shipping all of those factories to Third World Nations change the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted?
How will the loss of economic potential, and thus R&D dollars, in the West negatively affect research into alternative energy sources?Some very interesting points above. I'm just going to address the quoted one, since it is a topic of particular interest to me.
The above is indeed one way of reducing our impact upon the climate. The other is further use of our technology. We have the capability to produce all of our necessary base load electricity via safe clean nuclear generation - we just don't have the necessary political balls to ride out the cries of a public grossly misled on the dangers of nuclear. We have the capability to generate our peak load electricity through pumped hydro-electric storage and properly scrubbed coal/gas/oil generators - again, we lack the will to renew our infrastructure.
I think the way out is forwards, not backwards.
I have to agree here. The answer to technologicaly created 'global warming' (which I still disagree with, how does it explain the little iceage, or the pleisticene(sp) era) is more technology. Malthus is dead. Let his ghost stay in Golarion. Give me pebble reactors, drilling in ANWAR, and more refineries. Thank you.
A-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ww!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wanted to throw some more linkage fuel in the file. (and produce more CO2, got to get the tomato plants fed)
Those dreaded rising ocean levels... not so much
Another view of the data here
NW passage thawing? Maybe the ice went south for the winter
[H/T Planet Gore]
|
|
Wanted to throw some more linkage fuel in the file. (and produce more CO2, got to get the tomato plants fed)
Those dreaded rising ocean levels... not so much
Another view of the data here
NW passage thawing? Maybe the ice went south for the winter
[H/T Planet Gore]
I linked to the UAF climatology site earlier--the gist for those who didn't read it: despite the attempt by many to use Alaska as an example of Global Warming, temperature variations and anomalies over the last 100 years are negligible (less than half a degree), and after a two year spike in the mid 70s, temperatures have not gotten warmer. Neither are temperatures any warmer now than they were as recorded 100 years ago. In fact, the graph is pretty even for the duration.
We have the capability to produce all of our necessary base load electricity via safe clean nuclear generation - we just don't have the necessary political balls to ride out the cries of a public grossly misled on the dangers of nuclear. We have the capability to generate our peak load electricity through pumped hydro-electric storage and properly scrubbed coal/gas/oil generators - again, we lack the will to renew our infrastructure. I think the way out is forwards, not backwards.
Thank you! I find the whole climate change debate to be a red herring -- focusing our attention away from the fact that nuclear power, hydrogen cells for cars, expanded solar capabilities are big, potentially hugely profitable future industries just waiting to be put into expanded use... and we're still sitting here whining and crying about what to do when we keep burning oil. Knowing full well that oil, unlike the others cited, is a finite resource that will run out sooner or later -- ANWAR or no. Keeping it in use for another 200 years by additional drilling does nothing but give the rest of the world a 200-year head start on us, in terms of the inevitably necessary future energy technologies. By seizing these opportunities for America, and American industry, we'd do more for our economy than all the Detroit bailouts in the world, and render the whole carbon capping issue moot.
Can humans cause the climate to warm by burning carbon-based fuels? Is cap-and-trade a fair policy? What about carbon sequestration? Will carbon caps cost too much? Is it all just doom-and-gloom nonsense? If we had half a brain, the answer to all those questions would be "not applicable."
|
|
Or, as an alternative: (Edit: to the Alaska data above)
"the continuing warmth of the late 20th century is the most widespread and longest temperature anomaly of any kind since the 9th century A.D." Science 10 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5762, p. 737
The issue in general has become very clouded in the media by proponents from both sides publishing studies that show they are unequivocally right, glossing over the limited temporal, spatial or statistical relevance of their dataset.
|
Knowing full well that oil, unlike the others cited, is a finite resource that will run out sooner or later -- ANWAR or no.
How do we know this? Latest research I have heard on the subject suggest oil may be being constantly produced in the crust - it may in point of fact not be a true bio-fuel but the results of some planetary chemical process we don't yet understand. Its all theoritical but as far as I can tell the question of where oil comes from/came from is far from being resolved.
edit: Just to clarify, I think its moronic we haven't switched our electrical production in the US over to nuclear.
|
|
I think the way out is forwards, not backwards.Thank you!
You're welcome.
... does nothing but give the rest of the world a 200-year head start on us ... By seizing these opportunities for America, and American industry, we'd do more for our economy than all the Detroit bailouts in the world, and render the whole carbon capping issue moot.
Or we could work on them together... me being British and everything :)
|
|
How well will solar power work if the sun continues it's reduced output? This is a serious question since I'm not sure how solar panels work.
Their output is proportional to the luminosity of the sun.
VARIATIONS IN SOLAR LUMINOSITY Gordon Newkirk, Jr. : Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1983.21, puts the variations at 0.2%.
So, probably nothing to worry about.
If it does change by more than that we have bigger things to worry about :)
|
|
So climate change may well be real and may well be man made, but since we can’t prove it beyond a doubt … and since doing anything about it would be really hard … and it’s hard to even know where to start … and all those foreign countries aren’t doing their part …
Then again there's the very real issue that anything we try to do to fix the problem that we know so much about has just as much a chance of causing unexpected deleterious problems as we estimate the current processes to be doing. Remember we used to spray cancer causing insect killers on children from trucks because we "knew" it was good to kill the bugs
What's it called? the law of unintended consequence or something like that?
For the record I actually believe in man caused climate change, I just also believe that we are collectively idiots when it comes to knowing the results of our actions. For all we know, the earth is adapting and adjusting to the "disasterous levels of carbon emissions" and in 40 years when we've put a serious dent in those emisions that the planet has adapted to we'll have caused just as much of an environmental disaster as we had tried to avoid. That's not to say do nothing, I just think that we don't know what we do is going to result in.
|
|
For all we know, the earth is adapting and adjusting to the "disasterous levels of carbon emissions" and in 40 years when we've put a serious dent in those emisions that the planet has adapted to we'll have caused just as much of an environmental disaster as we had tried to avoid.
If you model the climate, the response to small changes from a stable state are linear i.e. if we dump some CO2 into the atmosphere and then stop doing it then the climate returns to its original state.
For larger changes the result can be non-linear: we dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and the climate gets into a new dynamic state where a previously inactive process starts forcing us towards a radically different stable state. This could be desert up to 60N or ice down to 40N - hard to tell, but enough to direct me towards prudence.
Or we could work on them together... me being British and everything :)
Well, naturally, seeing as you're one of our colonies now! Good for the goose, good for the gander, and all that.
Latest research I have heard on the subject suggest oil may be being constantly produced in the crust - it may in point of fact not be a true bio-fuel but the results of some planetary chemical process we don't yet understand. Its all theoritical but as far as I can tell the question of where oil comes from/came from is far from being resolved.
Re: oil production -- as a geologist, I feel safe in asserting that the process of petroleum formation, for all its remaining uncertainties, takes many orders of magnitude longer than drilling & use. If we only needed a new oilfield every hundred million years or so, then maybe it could be considered "renewable." In geologic time, "very fast" is long enough to see all of human civilization come and go. "Constant" is also relative to time scale -- the Atlantic is constantly spreading -- at the incredible rate of 2.5 cm/year (try walking that slowly if you want a visual!).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For all we know, the earth is adapting and adjusting to the "disasterous levels of carbon emissions" and in 40 years when we've put a serious dent in those emisions that the planet has adapted to we'll have caused just as much of an environmental disaster as we had tried to avoid.If you model the climate, the response to small changes from a stable state are linear i.e. if we dump some CO2 into the atmosphere and then stop doing it then the climate returns to its original state.
For larger changes the result can be non-linear: we dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and the climate gets into a new dynamic state where a previously inactive process starts forcing us towards a radically different stable state. This could be desert up to 60N or ice down to 40N - hard to tell, but enough to direct me towards prudence.
Just curious, are those models you refer to the ones that can't predict past results?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How well will solar power work if the sun continues it's reduced output? This is a serious question since I'm not sure how solar panels work.
I think that a reduction in solar energy output sufficient to make solar panels work less well would also be sufficient to make the world in general cool down dramatically.
Does anyone else remember back in elementary school being taught that our modern times existed in a period between ice ages? I vaguely recall learning that fact, with the implication being that eventually the world would cool down again and we would return to an ice age. Assuming my memory is accurate (always a questionable assumption), I find it funny that global cooling was the climate threat de jure such a short time ago.
In a similar vein of childhood doomsday scenarios, isn't there always the option of a nuclear war to cool down the earth? Nuclear winter was the other big scare I remember from youth.
And don't give me that "cure is worse than the disease argument." We could nuke Detroit. No one would miss it.
And don't give me that "cure is worse than the disease argument." We could nuke Detroit. No one would miss it.
Hey!!!!!!!
(As someone who lives not that far from detroit I find that idea rather objectionable.)|
|
Re: oil production -- as a geologist, I feel safe in asserting that the process of petroleum formation, for all its remaining uncertainties, takes many orders of magnitude longer than drilling & use. If we only needed a new oilfield every hundred million years or so, then maybe it could be considered "renewable." In geologic time, "very fast" is long enough to see all of human civilization come and go. "Constant" is also relative to time scale -- the Atlantic is constantly spreading -- at the incredible rate of 2.5 cm/year (try walking that slowly if you want a visual!).
And yet the oil fields continue to refill.
If one does not know how the process occurs then how can one assume the speed by which it occurs?
|
|
Just curious, are those models you refer to the ones that can't predict past results?For all we know, the earth is adapting and adjusting to the "disasterous levels of carbon emissions" and in 40 years when we've put a serious dent in those emisions that the planet has adapted to we'll have caused just as much of an environmental disaster as we had tried to avoid.If you model the climate, the response to small changes from a stable state are linear i.e. if we dump some CO2 into the atmosphere and then stop doing it then the climate returns to its original state.
For larger changes the result can be non-linear: we dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and the climate gets into a new dynamic state where a previously inactive process starts forcing us towards a radically different stable state. This could be desert up to 60N or ice down to 40N - hard to tell, but enough to direct me towards prudence.
Yes. They aren't that great. However, they are better at predicting past events, and future ones, than any model so far produced that doesn't include anthropogenic climate change. So you have a choice of predictors: bad (ACC) or worse (no-ACC). Which ones would you use while trying to find the good ones?
And yet the oil fields continue to refill.
With oil that already exists seeping in from outside the reserve space... never mind.
[sarcasm]Hell, I'm so clueless I still think the earth is over 6,000 years old. I haven't figured out yet that all of the geologic evidence I've seen to the contrary was planted there by the devil to test my faith.[/sarcasm]Sorry for going off like that -- it's not you, personally, Wicht -- I just can't get used to this new idea that I should be telling my plumber how to do his job, and that my CPA automatically knows more about geology than I do because he has no field experience in it.
|
|
Re: oil production -- as a geologist, I feel safe in asserting that the process of petroleum formation, for all its remaining uncertainties, takes many orders of magnitude longer than drilling & use. If we only needed a new oilfield every hundred million years or so, then maybe it could be considered "renewable." In geologic time, "very fast" is long enough to see all of human civilization come and go. "Constant" is also relative to time scale -- the Atlantic is constantly spreading -- at the incredible rate of 2.5 cm/year (try walking that slowly if you want a visual!).And yet the oil fields continue to refill.
If one does not know how the process occurs then how can one assume the speed by which it occurs?
They do? Can't say that's been the case with the North Sea. More likely people are extracting oil that wasn't calculated owing to the uncertainties Kirth points out, or the lower pressure has pulled more oil from surrounding rock, or some such simple explanation that doesn't create new chemistry/geology that no one's seen any evidence for.