Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Mule

Not so. If this guy has a scheme to make millions or has fabricated his date, then OK. Untill then, Gore is a fraud.

That's a debate for another thread. I think a more effective path is challenging Gore's platform.

Best,

[Jim Richards]

Kurt, what is the long term trend? What is the total sea ice volume as opposed to the area? What are the sea and air temperatures doing (trends). Who is the mystery author?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Show us facts supporting either of these statements please. Show us the reliable sources that state that we have enough recoverable oil to last a long time, and show us how and where they are burning coal cleanly, and turning it into oil. Show us how these two coal related things are not only happening right now, but are financially feasible options for the US.

Already have & neither you nor these other nimrods have refuted them.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Kurt, what is the long term trend? What is the total sea ice volume as opposed to the area? What are the sea and air temperatures doing (trends). Who is the mystery author?

"Long term trend" is a critical consideration. Unfortunately this is unknown if you accept that "long term" means hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions or billions of years.

edit: I think we have a good grasp on relatively current air and sea temperatures, but what is driving the changes? No consensus and plenty of debate, which is good, IMO.

Volume is of course important; I'm just going by "extent" which is used in Goddard's article and by the NSIDC.

There just isn't enough data to draw meaningful conclusions, IMO.

The basis of this thread seems to be the veracity of Goddard's article, yes?

[kstar]

I'm going out into the atmosphere now; it's sunny and cool here in SoCal thanks to that cold water that flows down from the north.

Have fun guys, and be nice. There is a good debate here if some of you, IMO, would keep the snide remarks out of the discussion and stay on track.

Take care,

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I admit I have no idea who he is! It is very clear what he has stated, though.

My point is we should focus on what is being stated as a basis for the debate.

From the article he wrote, he doesn't seem like the character some are saying he is, IMO. Maybe he is a total fool who teaches monkeys to divine water . . .

Often, folks choose to attack the messenger when they should be attacking the goods delivered.

2¢

this is not about attacking the messenger. it's about who is the expert behind the article.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Mule

Already have & neither you nor these other nimrods have refuted them.

You never have. You paraphrase people (whom you never give credit to) about random things with the word "oil" in them, then claim that "theoretically recoverable" is the same as "known reserves". you have never that I've seen shown any quotes from people (credited or not) about clean burning of coal, and you have never that I've seen shown anything concerning turning coal into oil. Now, please show your work. I want to see who's turning coal into oil, and I want to see how we've been burning clean coal all over for a long time now, and I want to see the known undrilled reserves of oil that will support the US for a long time.

Some of what you're saying is completely false, some is kinda false, and some has a bit of basis in fact. Only by showing us where you get your facts can you clear this up.

[Mule]

Yawn. This tactic was lame the first time you tried it & it's still lame. Hustle up your own data.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

this is not about attacking the messenger. it's about who is the expert behind the article.

He's really simply restating findings and images from what appear to be reliable sources. Mostly any one of us could have put together such an article.

I continue to believe the debate should center around what is being stated, but to each his own.

Now, I need to get some air!

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Mule

Yawn. This tactic was lame the first time you tried it & it's still lame. Hustle up your own data.

I'm not making those claims, you are. I know what the data is going to say, and it is not what you're saying. So, bring some facts to the table that support yourself, or forever be recognized as the guy who straight face lies, and cannot even support his own claims.

Show us the multiple experts that prove that we have known undrilled oil resources that will support the US for "a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data where we have been burning clean coal, all over, "for a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data that shows where we are turning coal to oil and using it as a production fuel.

That's it. I've already let all of your other unsupported lies fall off the table months ago, but these are nice and fresh, so you should have no problem with supporting them with data. This is easy stuff here Mule, they expect the same quality of support in Jr. High.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

I'm not making those claims, you are. I know what the data is going to say, and it is not what you're saying. So, bring some facts to the table that support yourself, or forever be recognized as the guy who straight face lies, and cannot even support his own claims.

Show us the multiple experts that prove that we have known undrilled oil resources that will support the US for "a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data where we have been burning clean coal, all over, "for a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data that shows where we are turning coal to oil and using it as a production fuel.

That's it. I've already let all of your other unsupported lies fall off the table months ago, but these are nice and fresh, so you should have no problem with supporting them with data. This is easy stuff here Mule, they expect the same quality of support in Jr. High.

There's been numerous post on untapped reserves, coal to oil, oil shale and nuclear. You disputed none. Find your own data or continue to look foolish.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Mule

There's been numerous post on untapped reserves, coal to oil, oil shale and nuclear. You disputed none. Find your own data or continue to look foolish.

Oil shale??? Nuclear??? Who mentioned those things??? And you say I'm the one that looks foolish...

You very specifically straight face lied when you said that there was XYZ amount of known oil reserves in the shelf that is under drilling restrictions. That is FALSE, a complete and utter lie. Period, end of story. There is NO known value for the quantity of oil under the shelf, just as there is no known quantity of oil in the currently drillable regions. Simply stating that there is oil there would have been weak but acceptable, but to make claims of known large reserves there...especially hyperbolically large claims of supporting the US for decades to come...that's just false.

Period. you lied, you got caught, and you cannot even back out of it like a man. instead, you throw up nuclear smoke screens and oil shale slicks.

Oh, and as an addendum, coal to oil has NOT been posted about numerous times. it's appeared in PPOT exactly ONCE before this thread. One single post, by you, where you randomly list it off, alongside nuclear and alternative energy. It has not been extensively discussed here. I actually think that you have no CLUE what "coal to oil" actually IS! I think that you assume that any time the words "coal" and "oil" are used in the same general post, that it qualifies as coal to oil.


Lies upon lies to hide lies.

[Mule]

You can play those word games by yourself. You don't need help.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Oil shale??? Nuclear??? Who mentioned those things??? And you say I'm the one that looks foolish...

You very specifically straight face lied when you said that there was XYZ amount of known oil reserves in the shelf that is under drilling restrictions. That is FALSE, a complete and utter lie. Period, end of story. There is NO known value for the quantity of oil under the shelf, just as there is no known quantity of oil in the currently drillable regions. Simply stating that there is oil there would have been weak but acceptable, but to make claims of known large reserves there...especially hyperbolically large claims of supporting the US for decades to come...that's just false.

Period. you lied, you got caught, and you cannot even back out of it like a man. instead, you throw up nuclear smoke screens and oil shale slicks.

Lies upon lies to hide lies.

The US government disagrees with you.
There are lots of estimates that you say don't exist.
While no person can say exactly how many exactly gallons, pints, and ounces of oil are there, they are pretty accurate. They are listed as either proved and producing, proved and non-producing or unproved.
The ones you say don't exist are proved non-producing reserves.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_nprod_a_epc0_r9907_mmbbl_a.htm

I'm well versed in this field, it looks like you are not. Pick your battles carefully.

Nonproducing Reserves
Quantities of proved liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon reserves that have been identified, but which did not produce during the last calendar year regardless of the availability and/or operation of production, gathering or transportation facilities. This includes both proved undeveloped and proved developed non-producing reserves.

Proved Reserves of Crude Oil
Proved reserves of crude oil as of December 31 of the report year are the estimated quantities of all liquids defined as crude oil, which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.

Reservoirs are considered proved if economic producibility is supported by actual production or conclusive formation test (drill stem or wire line), or if economic producibility is supported by core analyses and/or electric or other log interpretations. The area of an oil reservoir considered proved includes: (1) that portion delineated by drilling and defined by gas -- oil and/or gas -- water contacts, if any; and (2) the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons is considered to be the lower proved limit of the reservoir.

Volumes of crude oil placed in underground storage are not to be considered proved reserves.

Reserves of crude oil which can be produced economically through application of improved recovery techniques (such as fluid injection) are included in the "proved" classification when successful testing by a pilot project, or the operation of an installed program in the reservoir, provides support for the engineering analysis on which the project or program was based.

Estimates of proved crude oil reserves do not include the following: (1) oil that may become available from known reservoirs but is reported separately as "indicated additional reserves"; (2) natural gas liquids (including lease condensate); (3) oil, the recovery of which is subject to reasonable doubt because of uncertainty as to geology, reservoir characteristics, or economic factors; (4) oil that may occur in undrilled prospects; and (5) oil that may be recovered from oil shales, coal, gilsonite, and other such sources. It is necessary that production, gathering or transportation facilities be installed or operative for a reservoir to be considered proved

[RWebb]

DOE - that's the Bushie controlled DOE - thinks there is very little oil under the US cont. shelf. Do a search - their report will pop up (amid the flotsam and jetsam of uniformed bloggers).

hey - who s Steven Goddard? Maybe these guys know:
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/category/climate-cranks/steven-goddard/


There is LOTS of oil shale. It is possible to make oil out of it. It is very expensive and requires huge amounts of water (which the process pollutes). Our oil hslae is in the Rockies where water is very scarce & precious.

Remember, no matter what kind of petroleum you burn, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Esxactly what we do NOT want.

Unless you are a holocaust denier.

Ooops, --- well, same thing really.

[Mule]

By Jim Ostroff
Provided by

Think the U.S. is running out of oil? Think again.

What is running low, given soaring demand for energy worldwide, is oil in fields that have already been tapped and are in production -- in other words, the relatively easy-to-get stuff, which oil companies have proven exists and can get at with current technology. Those reserves are clearly being drained. The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels now, down from nearly 29 billion barrels a decade ago and about half the 1970 peak of 39 billion barrels. But...

Untapped Oil Reserves Could Fuel U.S. For 300 Years
The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8481225

[Mule]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Remember, no matter what kind of petroleum you burn, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Esxactly what we do NOT want.

Unless you are a holocaust denier.

Ooops, --- well, same thing really.

Says who? "Edited - language removed, Z-man" manbearpig. co2 climate change is bull"Edited - language removed, Z-man". Show me your proof.

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

...Remember, no matter what kind of petroleum you burn, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. ....

So does breathing.

And no matter what you do, plants and oceans will suck up CO2 to make life.

[sammyg2]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/pdf/tbl10.pdf
The US outer continental shelf (excluding Alaska) contains 59.09 billion barrels of oil.
Of that, 18.17 billion barrels are unavailable for leasing and development (restricted).
California has 9.97 BILLION barrels of restricted oil reserves.
The eastern gulf shelf has an additional 3.98 BILLION barrels of restricted reserve.

59.09 BILLION barrels is not "very little oil".
It is allot of oil.

We are currently producing a total of about 160 million barrels a month in the US, including Alaska.
The oil on our outer continental shelf is equivalent to almost 31 YEARS of production at our current production level.
Just the restricted oil reserves on our outer continental shelf is equal to 9.4 YEARS of production at our current level of productiion. That's allot of oil.

Alaska has a total of about 3.9 billion barrels of crude reserves. The total oil reserves on our outer continental shelf is over 15 times as much oil as we have in Alaska. Were talking a large amount.

Iraq has allot of oil. 112 billion barrels of proved reserves, the 2nd largest proven reserves in the world. The oil on our outer continental shelf is over half as big as all the oil in Iraq. There's quite a bit there.

Now we can't get it all at once, and some of it will be more expensive to get to than the rest, but it's all classified as technically available so it can be reached and pumped.

See, this kind of stuff is my hobby. I've been studying it for decades.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by RWebb

. . .snip . . .

Remember, no matter what kind of petroleum you burn, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Esxactly what we do NOT want.

Unless you are a holocaust denier.

Ooops, --- well, same thing really.

That's a remarkable analogy.

Sorry to see that reason, on both sides, has left this discussion.

Another thread down the drain.