Climate Change you can't deny...

[RandomGuy]

Research in Pacific shows ocean trouble
Acidity rises, oxygen drops, scientists find

By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER

Research fresh off a boat that docked Thursday in Alaska reveals some frightening changes taking place in the Pacific Ocean.

As humans are pumping out more carbon dioxide that is helping to warm the planet, the ocean has been doing yeoman's work to lessen the effects -- but it's taking a toll.

Christopher Sabine, NOAA
Scientists lower 36 bottles used for water sampling from the deck of the Thomas G. Thompson while doing research near the equator.

Over time, the changes could have an impact that ripples through the food chain, from microscopic plants that can't grow right to salmon and whales unable to find enough to eat.

The Pacific is getting warmer and more acidic, while the amount of oxygen and the building blocks for coral and some kinds of plankton are decreasing, according to initial results from scientists with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, the University of Washington and elsewhere.

"There are big changes," said Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for one leg of the research trip, which ultimately traveled from Antarctica to Alaska.

Many of the most interesting results are tied to the ocean becoming increasingly acidic because of its absorption of carbon dioxide.

"You don't have to believe in climate change to believe that this is happening," said Joanie Kleypas, an oceanographer with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a non-profit organization based in Boulder, Colo. "It's pretty much simple thermodynamics."

And it's alarming.

"Acidification is more frightening than a lot of the climate change issues," Kleypas said. That's in part because the process is hard to alter.

"It's a slow-moving ship, and we're all trying to row with toothpicks," she said.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Over the past 200 years, the ocean has absorbed about half of what's been released into the atmosphere.

Sabine and the other researchers found that in the past 15 years, there's been a detectable decline in the ocean's pH, which is a measure of acidity ranging from zero to 14, with zero being most acidic (water is neutral, or pH 7, while seawater is about pH 8).

The pH of the saltwater has dropped 0.025 units since the early 1990s. The number seems unremarkable, but the pH scale is exponential, so a one-unit drop is a 10-fold decrease. The new measurement also puts the ocean on track for a dramatic decline by the end of the century.

Plankton -- tiny plants and animals that live in the ocean -- are among the creatures that could be harmed by the change. In addition to the water becoming more acidic, the extra carbon dioxide reduces the amount of chemical compounds used to construct coral and the shells of plankton.

"That's a major issue," said John Guinotte, a marine scientist with the Bellevue-based Marine Conservation Biology Institute who studies deep sea corals.

"You're likely looking at serious effects through out the marine food web across the board," he said.

The pole-spanning trip that ended Thursday is part of the Repeat Hydrography project. The most recent trip was aboard the Thomas G. Thompson, a UW-operated vessel, and lasted about three months. Thirty-five scientists from about a dozen universities and government labs participated.

The plan is to survey 19 routes crisscrossing all the world's oceans, then repeat those trips every 10 years to detect trends in ocean conditions. Ocean measurements were taken every 60 miles from the surface to the bottom of the sea.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060331/ocean.gif

Researchers from California State University-San Marcos and the University of South Florida towed nets behind the vessel to catch plankton, which they then subjected to acidic conditions on par with what might be experienced in the future.

"They're seeing that the shells of these organisms start to dissolve even while the organism is still living," said Sabine, an oceanographer with NOAA's Seattle lab.

Some of the creatures tested are little snails that are "a major food source for salmon and whales and these larger things and they make a shell that is very susceptible to a decrease in pH," he said.

Other experiments show that microscopic plants at the base of the food chain that build protective plates out of calcium carbonate don't grow properly in the acidic water.

"We don't expect to go out and find living organisms with dissolving shells," Sabine said. "We expect to find perhaps a change in where these organisms are thriving or perhaps fewer of them over time."

The ocean scientists expressed an urgency over reducing carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible.

"Anything we can do to slow that rate of change will slow the rate of response in the oceans as well," said Kleypas. "It buys us some time."

Article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html)

For the dumbasses who poo poo all the data on global warming:

Here is some very undeniable effects of burning all those fossil fuels. You might dispute the causality of global warming, but can't dispute the amount of carbon we are putting out and that it increases acidity.

[RandomGuy]

Gee, where are the anti-environmental idiots on this one?

I guess silence is better than admitting the greenies MIGHT have a point?

[MannyIsGod]

Theres a lot of validity to this but do you want to know why its completely ignored? Because it doesn't sell newspapers. So, the people who are out there ranting and raving about bigger hurricanes and droughts just ignore it.

Yeah, theres plenty of silence on the subject but not in the place you're looking.

[RandomGuy]

It presages a collapse in the aquatic food chain, with some scary consequenses. I will be dead before most of them come to pass, but I will have to apologize to my grandchildren for things like this. Perhaps my great-grandchildren will be able to fix the things we are ignoring. (sighs)

[xrayzebra]

Gee, where are the anti-environmental idiots on this one?

I guess silence is better than admitting the greenies MIGHT have a point?

Right RG, the greenies have a "point" it is called the top of their head,
where it comes to a point.

[RandomGuy]

Right RG, the greenies have a "point" it is called the top of their head,
where it comes to a point.

Heh, that's what I am talkin' about. Thanks. :lol

I was beginning to feel lonely.

Seriously though, ya gotta admit this is something to be a bit concerned about, right?

[Vashner]

Yea but then again the ice has melted totally 4 times before in earths history. Before car's and powerplants.

With all the rest of the world now buying cars it really won't matter if Amerikka stop's burning stuff. I still don't know a single democrat that will give up there car?

[Guru of Nothing]

In case there is confusion - Pick your poison, or pick your enemy.

Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment? Greed? Environment?

[Sec24Row7]

It matters little in the Grand scheme of things.

Overfishing of the worlds fisheries is of much greater concern than this minor increase.

It's something to be monitored, but it's not going to destroy earth.

[MannyIsGod]

It matters little in the Grand scheme of things.

Overfishing of the worlds fisheries is of much greater concern than this minor increase.

It's something to be monitored, but it's not going to destroy earth.Overfishing is not more of a concern than the ocean become a huge pool of unlivable acid. A minor increase is all it takes to cause mass extinctions. It matters a lot, but it is definetly being ignored.

[travis2]

The problem I have is that this is a single study, yet they've extrapolated the data over a 250-year range.

[MannyIsGod]

I've read a few more dealing with the rising PH levels Travis. I'm too lazy to go find them, but the news has been out there for some time now. I think if peoplewould focus on this aspect of things they'd get somewhere, but everyone wants to proove a damn "Day After Tomorrow" scenario because thats where all the hype is.

[RandomGuy]

Yea but then again the ice has melted totally 4 times before in earths history. Before car's and powerplants.

With all the rest of the world now buying cars it really won't matter if Amerikka stop's burning stuff. I still don't know a single democrat that will give up there car?


This says nothing about temperature. It is all about acidity.

[RandomGuy]

I've read a few more dealing with the rising PH levels Travis. I'm too lazy to go find them, but the news has been out there for some time now. I think if peoplewould focus on this aspect of things they'd get somewhere, but everyone wants to proove a damn "Day After Tomorrow" scenario because thats where all the hype is.


Nah, this isn't quite a doomsday scenario.

BUT

What is going on is that this is climate change at an extremely fast (in geologic terms). Life and ecosystems adjust and adapt, but this pace may be faster than can be adjusted to without a major collapse first.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we will see the base of the aquatic food chain severely strained and that will cause worldwide fish stocks to fall.

[sickdsm]

30 years ago it was supposed to be an ice age and then its global warming.

Why don't alot of us believe this?

The same reason i have reservations about most science speculation. Eggs are bad, no, there good, well they have glucose-amino type 3 phosphate so there bad now, but wait, the tyro-hydroxagte in the yolk counteracts it so there good.


I'm still waiting on my god-damned SARS epidemic.

[RandomGuy]

As I keep saying, this thread isn't about warming, where there is some debate as to the cause.

This is about changes in oceanic acidity, which is quite easily traced to human activity. We are changing the oceans faster than life there seems to be adapting.

We ARE changing environments world-wide, and most of those changes are generally harmful.

What is wrong with trying to limit our environmental impact until we know a LITTLE more about what we are doing to it?

The chance that we end up seriously harming our ability to feed ourselves is an unknown, but the consequences of this happening are severe.

We accept slightly lower disposable incomes so that we can pay for fire and disaster insurance. Why then should we not pay for the equivilant of "extinction" insurance?

[RandomGuy]

As for pandemics, it is a question of when, not if.

It is a bit like earthquakes, in that they are unavoidable. I say we do some prudent preparation for both...

As long as "good job" Brownie isn't in charge of the response...

[RandomGuy]

Random BUMP.

[RandomGuy]

I find it funny that the first thing Bush and Co. think about when trying to figure out how to solve problems is to relax environmental standards, and by funny I mean sad.

Here is yet another short-sighted policy that so aptly demonstrates the sheer incompetance of this administration.

The administration wants to increase pollution that will inevitably cause some damage to health of citizens.

Q: What segment of this country has the least health insurance?
A: The poor

Q: What segment of the country does this administration think it is helping by relaxing pollution standards to presumedly lower the price of gasoline?
A: The poor

Either this is incompetant, or it is yet another rank give-away to Bush's buddies.

Probably a bit of both. GRRRRRR.....

[Yonivore]

30 years ago it was supposed to be an ice age and then its global warming.

Why don't alot of us believe this?

The same reason i have reservations about most science speculation. Eggs are bad, no, there good, well they have glucose-amino type 3 phosphate so there bad now, but wait, the tyro-hydroxagte in the yolk counteracts it so there good.


I'm still waiting on my god-damned SARS epidemic.
^^Rack That!^^ :lmao

[xrayzebra]

I find it funny that the first thing Bush and Co. think about when trying to figure out how to solve problems is to relax environmental standards, and by funny I mean sad.

Here is yet another short-sighted policy that so aptly demonstrates the sheer incompetance of this administration.

The administration wants to increase pollution that will inevitably cause some damage to health of citizens.

Q: What segment of this country has the least health insurance?
A: The poor

Q: What segment of the country does this administration think it is helping by relaxing pollution standards to presumedly lower the price of gasoline?
A: The poor

Either this is incompetant, or it is yet another rank give-away to Bush's buddies.

Probably a bit of both. GRRRRRR.....

You know RG, you need to take trip overseas to Europe or
Middle East. You want pollution, there you have it in spades.
And these are the same people who preach to us about
cleaning up the environment. They had no pollution controls
on there vehicles until just a few years ago. London did
forbid the use of coal burning in homes some years ago,
because of the smog problem and it did help clear the air
of smog. But will you at least admit some of the problems
we have with energy supplies does rest with those who
have prevented companies drilling for oil off our coast and
building refineries in the US. Oil companies have done a
very good job of controlling their pollution problems and
have more stuff in the pipeline. But the environmentalist
have this thing about ruining the world by letting someone
do anything with any of our resources. And yet they will
be the first to bitch about have to pay through the nose
for gasoline. I am sure an alternative fuel will be developed
one of these days. But it is going to take a major
undertaking to build infracture to handle any of it and
some major breakthroughs to find a plentiful, cheap source
for the fuel. Hydrogen would be the ideal solution, but it
takes more energy to produce than it gives back and
we have no way to handle it to deliver to the consumer.
Some think that fuel cells are the wave of the future,
maybe. But what are they talking about right now, using
oil as the source of energy for the fuel cells. Go figure.

[Sec24Row7]

I find it funny that the first thing Bush and Co. think about when trying to figure out how to solve problems is to relax environmental standards, and by funny I mean sad.

Here is yet another short-sighted policy that so aptly demonstrates the sheer incompetance of this administration.

The administration wants to increase pollution that will inevitably cause some damage to health of citizens.

Q: What segment of this country has the least health insurance?
A: The poor

Q: What segment of the country does this administration think it is helping by relaxing pollution standards to presumedly lower the price of gasoline?
A: The poor

Either this is incompetant, or it is yet another rank give-away to Bush's buddies.

Probably a bit of both. GRRRRRR.....

You want to bitch about Gasoline prices, then bitch about Bush lowering standards so more refineries can be built and existing refineries can refine oil into gasoline that couldn't before.

What a fucking trip you are.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Random Guy... these guys dont care... I never thought that conservatives simply didnt care before this forum. Now i have an inside perspecitve into the minds of those nuckle dragging, red neck, conservatives i have always heard about but never seen. Vashner has tought me so much about how stupid most americans really are.

[RandomGuy]

You want to bitch about Gasoline prices, then bitch about Bush lowering standards so more refineries can be built and existing refineries can refine oil into gasoline that couldn't before.

What a fucking trip you are.

I never bitch about gasoline prices. I bitch about dumb policies that are more political manuevering than effective. Look and you will not find any post where I complain that gasoline is too expensive. It is what it is, and I understand enough economics to know why.

The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.

Lastly:

New refineries are a bad idea, in the US or anywhere. Any short-term economic benefit you might get out of reducing the cost of gasoline, is more than out-weighed by the extremely toxic pollution that results from even the clean refineries in the US.

If you want more refineries, then you need to start drinking the groundwater downstream from them. The long term costs of these ecological monstrosities is not to be underestimated in terms of damage to the only national resource that matters in the long run: people.

I will make you a deal.

On my next trip to houston, I will randomly (heh) sample some well water from nearby refineries, and fill up 100 large water containers of 5 gallons each with this water. I will drop these containers off at your house, and if you drink all 500 gallons at one glass per meal, I will then advocate the relaxation of environmental standards to enable new refineries being built.

I may be a "fucking trip", but I *know* that you will not take me up on this, because we both know how polluting they are.

I am reminded of a former friend with epilepsy. He is (SURPISE!) from a small town downstream from some sort of refining facility. He has epilepsy, as so a freakishly large percentage of his high-school classmates. The rest of the town also has an abnormally high percentage of people with brain cancers.

This is simple anecdotal evidence with no scientific support, but I don't need to spend millions of dollars to know that I would never take the above challenge.

I am 100% serious about my offer of getting the water for you. Let me know where to drop it off, and I will spend my weekends getting the water to poison you. :D

When you decline my offer be sure to add the word "hypocrite" to your siggy.

[ChumpDumper]

Go pollution!
http://my.core.com/~pzicari/text/img/cuyfire.jpg

[Yonivore]

And, still, we don't hold a candle to the amount of air toxins emitted into the atmosphere by one of these:
http://interactive2.usgs.gov/learningweb/images/volcanoes1_3.jpg

Although human pollution, through the burning of fossil fuels, has contributed to acid deposition, rainwater is naturally acidic as a result of carbon dioxide in the air dissolving in the water. In addition, natural sources of sulphur and nitrogen emissions can contribute further to the acidity of rainwater.

Natural sources of sulphur dioxide include release from volcanoes, biological decay and forest fires. Actual amounts released from natural sources in the world are difficult to quantify; in 1983 the United Nations Environment Programme estimated a figure of between 80 million and 288 million tonnes of sulphur oxides per year (compared to around 69 million tonnes from human sources world-wide).

Natural sources of nitrogen oxides include volcanoes, oceans, biological decay and lightning strikes. Estimates range between 20 million and 90 million tonnes per year nitrogen oxides released from natural sources (compared to around 24 million tonnes from human sources worldwide).
You know, they've determined that you could completely abandon Harris County, pull up the concrete, and remove every sign of human presence from the area and STILL, they'd be in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the emission of nitrogen oxides.

Why? All the rotting biomass in the swamps and bayous.

Toss into the mix, all those hydrocarbon-farting farm animals and Jeeze!

Fucking Nature! Regulate her ass for a change.

[Extra Stout]

On my next trip to houston, I will randomly (heh) sample some well water from nearby refineries, and fill up 100 large water containers of 5 gallons each with this water. I will drop these containers off at your house, and if you drink all 500 gallons at one glass per meal, I will then advocate the relaxation of environmental standards to enable new refineries being built.

I may be a "fucking trip", but I *know* that you will not take me up on this, because we both know how polluting they are.

You're comparing the following heavily rerofitted facilities to what a brand-new refinery with state-of-the-art environmental controls would be like?

ExxonMobil Baytown - 1919
Shell Deer Park - 1929
Lyondell-Citgo Houston - 1920
Valero Houston - 1942
Crown Central Houston - 1925
BP Texas City - 1934
And the youngster of the group...
Valero Texas City - 1951.

Do you think just perhaps engineers have made some advancements in facility siting, containment, and other environmental controls over the past 50-80 that might work a whole lot better on a greenfield installation than they do on retrofitting ancient plants? Maybe if we could build some new refineries now and then, we could eventually shut down these old dinosaurs?

[Yonivore]

Do you think...?
Wait just a frappin' minute! You just accused him of thinking.

[scott]

I personally have drank treated refinery waste water. I wouldn't recommend it, but it was better than the stuff I'd get out of my tap in New York City.

[scott]

The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.

Here in lies the difference between accountants and economists. An accountant will devide the price of oil by the price of gasoline and say "X% of the price of gasoline is because of the high cost of oil!!!"

An economist, however, will look beyond superficial numbers and ask WHY is the cost of oil high? Refining is the bottleneck, and refineries are the entities that demand oil - not consumers. If you could stick any grade of crude oil in your engine, the price of crude would be a lot cheaper.

Never ask an accountant for explanations on why prices are they way they are, he's just a bean counter.


New refineries are a bad idea, in the US or anywhere. Any short-term economic benefit you might get out of reducing the cost of gasoline, is more than out-weighed by the extremely toxic pollution that results from even the clean refineries in the US.

That would be an economically justifiable position... if I think that was a bunch of BS. Link?

[RandomGuy]

And, still, we don't hold a candle to the amount of air toxins emitted into the atmosphere by one of these:
http://interactive2.usgs.gov/learningweb/images/volcanoes1_3.jpg

You know, they've determined that you could completely abandon Harris County, pull up the concrete, and remove every sign of human presence from the area and STILL, they'd be in violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the emission of nitrogen oxides.

Why? All the rotting biomass in the swamps and bayous.

Toss into the mix, all those hydrocarbon-farting farm animals and Jeeze!

Fucking Nature! Regulate her ass for a change.

The original post was indeed about oceanic acidity, much like your quoted post was.

It then went on to talk about nitrous oxides, a completely different compound.

I will readily accede that volcanoes put out more nitrous oxides than human activity, even without knowing your source of information, because it actually SUPPORTS the original post about the climate change thesis, but you weren't quite savvy enough to realize it, no offense.

The recent sudden upsurge in oceanic acidity is directly tracable to atmospheric CO2. More CO2 in the atmophere equals acidity. Human activity contributes massively to the amount of CO2 in the air.

Your post says that more nitrous compounds equals acidity. It then says that natural phenomenon contribute more of these compounds than human activity.

If we have NOT contributed more than a natural amount of these compounds to the atmophere then the sudden increase of acidity PAST NATURAL LEVELS, must be attributable to the only causal variable that has changed at the same time, namely CO2.

Just in case you aren't quite getting how your post actually supports my thesis, let's use an analogy that everybody can understand.

One perons is pushing a car on level ground. It is moving along at a slow speed. (this is the nitrous emissions your post was about)

Another perons gets in the car, turns on the engine, puts the car in gear, and hits the accelerator. (this is the human emission of massive amounts of CO2)

Both have contributed to the car's ultimate speed.

You have, in essence, said that the person who pushed contributed as much as to the car's speed as the person who hit the accelerator. Which is false to anybody with common sense.

I would lastly say:

Thanks for backing my post up with this new information.

[RandomGuy]

Here in lies the difference between accountants and economists. An accountant will devide the price of oil by the price of gasoline and say "X% of the price of gasoline is because of the high cost of oil!!!"

An economist, however, will look beyond superficial numbers and ask WHY is the cost of oil high? Refining is the bottleneck, and refineries are the entities that demand oil - not consumers. If you could stick any grade of crude oil in your engine, the price of crude would be a lot cheaper.

Never ask an accountant for explanations on why prices are they way they are, he's just a bean counter.



That would be an economically justifiable position... if I think that was a bunch of BS. Link?

Cost accounting and economics are more directly related than you suggest. I really like economics and finance, and read a lot more about them than most accountants anyways.

BUT

I gotta get to work. I will get to this later.

[word]

Gee, where are the anti-environmental idiots on this one?

I guess silence is better than admitting the greenies MIGHT have a point?

You should stop driving.

[scott]

Cost accounting and economics are more directly related than you suggest.

No, they aren't. Don't make the mistake of confusing the bean counters with the decision makers.

[RandomGuy]

You should stop driving.

I should, but in this country, I have no choice. Our cities have evolved in a low-density format that makes mass transit unfeasible. The nature of my current employment makes the no-car option impossible. If I had a job at a single place, I would find housing right next door to my place of work, and use a bicycle with a small towed trailer for groceries.

The solution to reducing CO2 emissions is fairly simple, but political suicide.

Hike gasoline taxes by a good dollar per gallon, and put the money into rational city planning of mixed-use, high-density re-development of city centers, and build feasible mass transit systems while energy is still relatively cheap.

Energy will become more and more expensive at a rate that will surpass inflation over the next 20-40 years. The longer we wait to do the inevitable, the more expensive it will be, both energetically and monetarily.

Market forces will drive the changes I listed above due to the increasing costs of commuting over time as people make, as an aggregate, the decision to start living closer to where they work, or work closer to where they live.

I simply wish we as a nation had the vision and the wisdom to act with some long-range vision and not the short term "me-first myopia" that seems to be the order of the day.

The thing about hiking the price of gas with a tax is that it would force energy independence on us that much faster, killing two birds with one stone.

[RandomGuy]

No, they aren't. Don't make the mistake of confusing the bean counters with the decision makers.

Ok, smart guy. Explain to me the difference between cost accounting and economics. This oughta be good.

[RandomGuy]

I personally have drank treated refinery waste water. I wouldn't recommend it, but it was better than the stuff I'd get out of my tap in New York City.

I wasn't talking about treated refinery waste water.

I was talking about the ground water underneath these things that has absorbed decades of toxic emissions and leaks.

[RandomGuy]

You're comparing the following heavily rerofitted facilities to what a brand-new refinery with state-of-the-art environmental controls would be like?

ExxonMobil Baytown - 1919
Shell Deer Park - 1929
Lyondell-Citgo Houston - 1920
Valero Houston - 1942
Crown Central Houston - 1925
BP Texas City - 1934
And the youngster of the group...
Valero Texas City - 1951.

Do you think just perhaps engineers have made some advancements in facility siting, containment, and other environmental controls over the past 50-80 that might work a whole lot better on a greenfield installation than they do on retrofitting ancient plants? Maybe if we could build some new refineries now and then, we could eventually shut down these old dinosaurs?

This is actually the sanest argument for new refineries yet. If a new refinery was actually held to some very strict environmental standards, I would say go for it, and raise the taxes on the older refineries at the same time to level the playing field, and pay that into the Superfund.

Environmental standards (a long term very positive plus) shouldn't be lowered for short term (waaah, I want cheaper gasoline for my SUV) concerns.

[Yonivore]

Random Guy:

I don't read your posts since I have you on ignore but, judging by the sheer number, just in this thread alone -- the last four in a row -- could I suggest you change your name to Ramblin' Guy?

[scott]

Ok, smart guy. Explain to me the difference between cost accounting and economics. This oughta be good.

I don't have the time nor the patience to give you a lesson in economics 101. Feel free to post something of the effect of "that's what I thought because you can't."

Here's a link to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org), figure it out yourself.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have the time nor the patience to give you a lesson in economics 101. Feel free to post something of the effect of "that's what I thought because you can't."

Here's a link to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org), figure it out yourself.

Now I really am curious. I would like to hear your take on it.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy:

I don't read your posts since I have you on ignore but, judging by the sheer number, just in this thread alone -- the last four in a row -- could I suggest you change your name to Ramblin' Guy?

Coward. It is sad the way you can't stand up for your own ideas, but that is to be expected from the lazy types.

[scott]

For the sake of a friendly debate, why don't you tell me why you think Cost Accounting and Economics are alike, and I'll give you my opinion on it.

[Yonivore]

For the sake of a friendly debate, why don't you tell me why you think Cost Accounting and Economics are alike, and I'll give you my opinion on it.
You're feeding the monkey, scott.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy:

I don't read your posts since I have you on ignore but, judging by the sheer number, just in this thread alone -- the last four in a row -- could I suggest you change your name to Ramblin' Guy?

Heh, this was actually funny, I actually tried, but couldn't figure out how.

Thanks for the idea.

[RandomGuy]

For the sake of a friendly debate, why don't you tell me why you think Cost Accounting and Economics are alike, and I'll give you my opinion on it.

Accounting, at the risk of oversimplifying, is nothing more than tracking economic events. In this sense you are correct that it mostly is simply describing information ("bean counting") than doing much analysis as to what those numbers mean in a broader sense, which is the study of economics.

As my introductory accounting professor very succinctly said: "What did you give up, and what did you get?"

BUT

You can't be a good accountant without understanding economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), especially microeconomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics).

"One of the goals of the field of microeconomics is to analyze mechanisms and market forces that establish relative prices amongst goods and services and allocate society's resources amongst their many alternative uses."--wikipedia

Cost accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_accounting) is a branch of accounting that, in deference to my my cost accounting textbook (http://www.pandora.com.tr/urun.asp?id=129807), :

"Accounting systems take economic events and transactions, such as sales and materials purchases, and process that data into information helpful to manager, sales representatives, production supervisors, and others. Processing any economic transaction means collecting, categorizing, summarizing, and analysing...
[cost accounting] measures, analyszes, and reports financial and nonfinacial information relating to the costs of acquiring or using resources in an organization.

One must understand the costs that go into a product to be able to understand the true economic cost of anything, and cost accounting is the intersection between accounting and economics. Both disciplines require an understanding of supply and demand, and I would go so far as to call cost accountants a highly specialized branch of economists.

We spent a good week studying bottlenecks and how to identify them (chapter 19 under "theory of constraints"), because they are so important to making good management decisions.

In determining the costs of producing gasoline, such as you described, a cost accountant would not say flatly that "x percent" of the cost of gasoline is due to the cost of oil. The cost of gasoline is a URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependant_variable]dependant variable[/URL], with the independant variable being the cost of oil, with a high degree of correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation). The lack of refining capacity would also be an independant variable to consider.

Both do drive the cost of gasoline to a certain degree. A cost accountant could tell you the same thing that an economist would, namely how much each does contribute to each unit of price. In this they are very much the same.

[RandomGuy]

You're feeding the monkey, scott.

Heh, you said "monkey".

Believe it or not, some people actually like to throw ideas back and forth, and consider another person's point of view, as opposed to simply seeking to dismiss or ridicule.

I will readily own up to the latter at times, when the former seems pointless, or I am feeling lazy. But I enjoy an intellectual work out, so I try to limit my laziness.

I actually do take some of what you post into consideration when forming my own views. That's why I don't put you on ignore, even though I actually agree with very little of what you say.

[sickdsm]

I should, but in this country, I have no choice. Our cities have evolved in a low-density format that makes mass transit unfeasible. The nature of my current employment makes the no-car option impossible. If I had a job at a single place, I would find housing right next door to my place of work, and use a bicycle with a small towed trailer for groceries.

The solution to reducing CO2 emissions is fairly simple, but political suicide.

Hike gasoline taxes by a good dollar per gallon, and put the money into rational city planning of mixed-use, high-density re-development of city centers, and build feasible mass transit systems while energy is still relatively cheap.

Energy will become more and more expensive at a rate that will surpass inflation over the next 20-40 years. The longer we wait to do the inevitable, the more expensive it will be, both energetically and monetarily.

Market forces will drive the changes I listed above due to the increasing costs of commuting over time as people make, as an aggregate, the decision to start living closer to where they work, or work closer to where they live.

I simply wish we as a nation had the vision and the wisdom to act with some long-range vision and not the short term "me-first myopia" that seems to be the order of the day.

The thing about hiking the price of gas with a tax is that it would force energy independence on us that much faster, killing two birds with one stone.

Theoretically you'd help the enviroment by using your computer less by drivel like this. Which would in turn bring less replies from others saving energy, which would allow search engines like google and wikipedia to save on traffic, which also would lower the temp of the servers, routers equip. etc.. by 0.0000001 degrees which would keep the cooling system off a milisecond longer.


You just probably burned a bushel full of coal with that one reply. Don't you hate yourself for that you enviroment trashing person?


I pee on the bushes and shit on the grass when i feel like it, and you know what? Everything works out.

[sickdsm]

I never bitch about gasoline prices. I bitch about dumb policies that are more political manuevering than effective. Look and you will not find any post where I complain that gasoline is too expensive. It is what it is, and I understand enough economics to know why.

The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.

Lastly:

New refineries are a bad idea, in the US or anywhere. Any short-term economic benefit you might get out of reducing the cost of gasoline, is more than out-weighed by the extremely toxic pollution that results from even the clean refineries in the US.

If you want more refineries, then you need to start drinking the groundwater downstream from them. The long term costs of these ecological monstrosities is not to be underestimated in terms of damage to the only national resource that matters in the long run: people.

I will make you a deal.

On my next trip to houston, I will randomly (heh) sample some well water from nearby refineries, and fill up 100 large water containers of 5 gallons each with this water. I will drop these containers off at your house, and if you drink all 500 gallons at one glass per meal, I will then advocate the relaxation of environmental standards to enable new refineries being built.

I may be a "fucking trip", but I *know* that you will not take me up on this, because we both know how polluting they are.

I am reminded of a former friend with epilepsy. He is (SURPISE!) from a small town downstream from some sort of refining facility. He has epilepsy, as so a freakishly large percentage of his high-school classmates. The rest of the town also has an abnormally high percentage of people with brain cancers.

This is simple anecdotal evidence with no scientific support, but I don't need to spend millions of dollars to know that I would never take the above challenge.

I am 100% serious about my offer of getting the water for you. Let me know where to drop it off, and I will spend my weekends getting the water to poison you. :D

When you decline my offer be sure to add the word "hypocrite" to your siggy.


Wow man, way to go out on a limb with that deal. I'll make you a deal. If you go out on the SBC center floor during play at the next game, de-pants Duncan, kick him in the nuts and at your option, pee or rub your bum on his lips and yell to the crowd "wouldn't you rather have KG then this sorry case of vaginitis?" and the crowd disagrees with you, I will admit to everyone on here that Tim is the better player/fit for that team and will take a one year vacation from spurstalk.


Deal?

[boutons_]

May 3, 2006

Federal Study Finds Accord on Warming

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

The finding eliminates a significant area of uncertainty in the debate over global warming, one that the administration has long cited as a rationale for proceeding cautiously on what it says would be costly limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases .

But White House officials noted that this was just the first of 21 assessments planned by the federal Climate Change Science Program, which was created by the administration in 2002 to address what it called unresolved questions. The officials said that while the new finding was important, the administration's policy remained focused on studying the remaining questions and using voluntary means to slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

( iow, no action from the polluting, business-protecting/enriching Repugs. "voluntary" never works. "self-regulation" NEVER works. "more study" isn't needed. This is just more do-nothing "Repug science" )

The focus of the new federal study was conflicting records of atmospheric temperature trends.

For more than a decade, scientists using different methods had come up with differing rates of warming at Earth's surface and in the midsection of the atmosphere, called the troposphere. These disparities had been cited by a small group of scientists, and by the administration and its allies, to question a growing consensus among climatologists that warming from heat-trapping gases could dangerously heat Earth.

The new study found that "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere," in the words of a news release issued by the Commerce Department and approved by the White House. The report was published yesterday online at climatescience.gov.

The report's authors all agreed that their review of the data showed that the atmosphere was, in fact, warming in ways that generally meshed with computer simulations. The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

All other industrial powers except Australia have accepted mandatory restrictions on such gases under the Kyoto Protocol, but efforts to extend and expand that treaty face hurdles.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that conducts an exhaustive periodic review of causes and impacts of warming, has just finished reviewing drafts of its next assessment, to be published next year.

Scientists involved in that effort, while refusing to comment on specific findings, said that research since the last assessment, in 2001, had generated much greater certainty that humans are the main force behind recent warming, and that much more warming is in store unless emissions are curtailed.

Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, "We welcome today's report" and added that it showed that President Bush's decision to focus nearly $2 billion a year on climate monitoring and research was "working."

( what's "working" is that the Repugs have wasted 6 years doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions, doing nothing on conservation of oil and swtiching to alternative fuels and transport engines)

Thomas Karl, the director of the National Climatic Data Center in the Commerce Department and the lead editor of the report, said it was not simply a review of existing work but also, by forcing scientists with differing views to meet repeatedly, resulted in breakthroughs.

"The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases," Dr. Karl said.

John R. Christy, an author of the new report whose analysis of satellite temperature records long showed little warming above Earth's surface, said he endorsed the conclusion that "part of what has happened over the last 50 years has clearly been caused by humans."

But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.

This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said.

Dr. Christy also said that even given what the models projected, it would be impossible to slow warming noticeably in the coming decades. Countries would be wise to seek ways to adapt to warming, he added, even as they seek new sources of energy that do not emit heat-trapping gases.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[xrayzebra]

^^See it didn't take long for boutons to post the little propganda piece this
morning. Notice he didn't highlight: "But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.

This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said."

Guess they just couldn't get a good spin on those findings.

Or should we just say: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are all
doomed.

[RandomGuy]

Wow man, way to go out on a limb with that deal. I'll make you a deal. If you go out on the SBC center floor during play at the next game, de-pants Duncan, kick him in the nuts and at your option, pee or rub your bum on his lips and yell to the crowd "wouldn't you rather have KG then this sorry case of vaginitis?" and the crowd disagrees with you, I will admit to everyone on here that Tim is the better player/fit for that team and will take a one year vacation from spurstalk.


Deal?


HAHAHAHA

You basically said that doing all that was as good as drinking the groundwater from the refineries that you want built...

[RandomGuy]

^^See it didn't take long for boutons to post the little propganda piece this
morning. Notice he didn't highlight: "But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.

This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said."

Guess they just couldn't get a good spin on those findings.

Or should we just say: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are all
doomed.

Um, dozens of scientists get together and agree on something, and it is a "propaganda" piece?

What would it take to convince you that global climate change is really happening?

[RandomGuy]

I guess I am on ignore.

Time to create new profiles to irritate Yoni, etc...

[xrayzebra]

Um, dozens of scientists get together and agree on something, and it is a "propaganda" piece?

What would it take to convince you that global climate change is really happening?

First, there may be a climate change, but man is damn sure
not causing it. We could not change anything if we wanted
to. Otherwise we could control hurricanes, tornado's, droughts,
so on and so forth.

Second, I now understand that this was a draft release, not
meant to be released until later....

And there are other "reputable" scientist who disagree
with those findings. They don't count?

There has been many climate changes in history, some
we may not even be aware of, many occurred before man
was even around. Nothing is static in this world. Just
as our puny lifetime is a zero in the whole of time.

How many things has some expert claimed with absolute
certainty that such was such only to be proven wrong at
a later date? How come we cant with any certainty fore-
cast weather three days from now, or even tomorrow in
many cases, but these "experts" can tell you with all the
certainty they can muster, with their co-harts that man
is causing all these problems. Hogwash, I have too many
years already on this earth to worry about these twerps
who in most cases want only two things. Money and
fame. And most have a socialist ideology. Somewhere
some of you folks are going to have start using what
God gave you, some common sense.

[scott]

Just saw that you responded, Random Guy - I hadn't checked this thread in a while. I'll get back to you, just wanted to make sure you knew I'm not ignoring you.

[MannyIsGod]

^^See it didn't take long for boutons to post the little propganda piece this
morning. Notice he didn't highlight: "But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.

This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said."

Guess they just couldn't get a good spin on those findings.

Or should we just say: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are all
doomed.http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4269858

Read that from the Economist. Then come here and explain to the forum who is spinning things.

[MannyIsGod]

That study lends a lot more creedence to what climate change scientists have been saying. Now that the observations are more in line with the models, it takes out a big portion of the arguement against climate change. I found it very interesting.

[boutons_]

"Those data have thus been over-corrected, reducing the apparent temperature below the actual temperature."

"By comparing the raw data, the team was able to identify a trend: recorded night-time temperatures in the troposphere (night being the ultimate form of shade) have indeed risen."

"Correct for orbital decay and you see not cooling, but warming."

"compared 19 different computer models. ... the fact that all of them trend in the same direction reinforces the idea that it is the data which are spurious rather than the models' predictions."

Only right-wing ideologists and oilco-owned Repugs are spewing against warming, and for finding WMD. :lol

[sickdsm]

HAHAHAHA

You basically said that doing all that was as good as drinking the groundwater from the refineries that you want built...


It doesn't take much more than a moron to realize that drinking that water probably isn't kosher. You're still out on a limb to decide whether or not you're officially retarded. Guess what? I don't drink that crappy water that's treated at cities either. I'll take my unproven ground well over that scientifically safe, chemically treated crap any day. You can process sewage and slurp that up but i'd rather drink from a rocky mountain stream any day also.


Just checking though, weren't you the one bitching about biofuels? Shouldn't you be ranting about Brazil and explain to everyone that its a mirage that there actually becoming a force in the world and now are evergy independent thanks to biofuels?


Its a worthless idea if it doesn't help 100 percent of those involved right? Whether it be biofuels, social programs, tax rebates or refineries. Face it, you fit the stereotype of the liberal who knocks any idea that doesn't help everyone and everything and forget about those that it harms. It would cap it off if you were old, bald, wore supspenders and spoke really loud and animated when you rant about this sort of thing.

[RandomGuy]

First, there may be a climate change, but man is damn sure
not causing it. We could not change anything if we wanted
to. Otherwise we could control hurricanes, tornado's, droughts,
so on and so forth.

Second, I now understand that this was a draft release, not
meant to be released until later....

And there are other "reputable" scientist who disagree
with those findings. They don't count?

There has been many climate changes in history, some
we may not even be aware of, many occurred before man
was even around. Nothing is static in this world. Just
as our puny lifetime is a zero in the whole of time.

How many things has some expert claimed with absolute
certainty that such was such only to be proven wrong at
a later date? How come we cant with any certainty fore-
cast weather three days from now, or even tomorrow in
many cases, but these "experts" can tell you with all the
certainty they can muster, with their co-harts that man
is causing all these problems. Hogwash, I have too many
years already on this earth to worry about these twerps
who in most cases want only two things. Money and
fame. And most have a socialist ideology. Somewhere
some of you folks are going to have start using what
God gave you, some common sense.


Go back and reread the original post. This isn't global warming.

This is increasing acidity in the ocean on a massive scale. This acidity is dissolving things like coral reefs and the shells of the microscopic life that form the basis of the aquatic food chain.

This change is directly tied to CO2 emissions that we are pumping out in increasing amounts.

You may find a minority of scientists who poo-poo global warming and they will get a lot of play on right-wing anti-environmentalist propaganda,

but

This is not global warming. Read the first post again, please.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't take much more than a moron to realize that drinking that water probably isn't kosher. You're still out on a limb to decide whether or not you're officially retarded. Guess what? I don't drink that crappy water that's treated at cities either. I'll take my unproven ground well over that scientifically safe, chemically treated crap any day. You can process sewage and slurp that up but i'd rather drink from a rocky mountain stream any day also.

Just checking though, weren't you the one bitching about biofuels? Shouldn't you be ranting about Brazil and explain to everyone that its a mirage that there actually becoming a force in the world and now are evergy independent thanks to biofuels?

Its a worthless idea if it doesn't help 100 percent of those involved right? Whether it be biofuels, social programs, tax rebates or refineries. Face it, you fit the stereotype of the liberal who knocks any idea that doesn't help everyone and everything and forget about those that it harms. It would cap it off if you were old, bald, wore supspenders and spoke really loud and animated when you rant about this sort of thing.

Biofuels will not be able to replace oil in the US. Brazil, yes. Mostly because they don't drive anywhere near the mileage that the US does. Biofuels based on sugar cane could replace some of our energy needs, but corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than can be extracted from it. I doubt we have the water resources to come anywhere even near the requirements to replace more than a fraction of our gasoline usage.

I am really against biodiesel as a total replacement for gasoline, because even this cleaner form of diesel is still 70 times more polluting in terms of particulate soot than gasoline. Biodeisel could/should replace diesel as it burns a lot cleaner than oil-based diesel does.

As for the persoan insults:
Knock yourself out. Your stereotypes/prejudices don't concern me. Stick to the topic at hand, and I will give you reasoned arguments supporte by data.

[xrayzebra]

^^did anyone, but me, watch the propaganda piece on 60 mins last
night about E85. First time I have watched the show in years, but
wanted to see what John Daly had to say.

[Extra Stout]

Biofuels based on sugar cane could replace some of our energy needs, but corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than can be extracted from it.
While it is true that corn-based ethanol is energy-negative, right now we're already producing the corn and just throwing it away to keep prices up artificially. AS long as we insist upon perpetuating our stupid corporate-welfare-to-ADM-and-ConAgra scheme, it makes sense at least to do something with that corn.

[xrayzebra]

While it is true that corn-based ethanol is energy-negative, right now we're already producing the corn and just throwing it away to keep prices up artificially. AS long as we insist upon perpetuating our stupid corporate-welfare-to-ADM-and-ConAgra scheme, it makes sense at least to do something with that corn.

I am always hesitant about using food products for fuel. Somewhere down
the line that food is going to be needed to feed people. Yes, I know right
now we have a surplus, but that was true about oil before WWII, we exported
oil. I still just wish that Congress would get off its duff and allow us to
go after the oil we have available. The Cubans and Mexico are now starting
to drill just miles off our coast, you know they are really going to be
environmentally friendly, now don't you. One person said they other day,
it would not be above the realm of possibility that they would do a little
slant drilling and get our oil.

[Extra Stout]

One person said they other day,
it would not be above the realm of possibility that they would do a little
slant drilling and get our oil.
It would not be good for them to get caught doing that. That tends to earn one a house call from the U.S. Navy.

[xrayzebra]

It would not be good for them to get caught doing that. That tends to earn one a house call from the U.S. Navy.

And who is going to know. I don't know of a way to monitor that sort of
activity. Do you?

[Extra Stout]

And who is going to know. I don't know of a way to monitor that sort of
activity. Do you?

Our surveillance abilities in the Western Hemisphere are pretty good. Drilling rigs can't hide in caves. And since through public-domain GPS images I can see my brother-in-law smoking a cigarette on his front porch, I imagine the stuff DoD has can identify horizontal-drilling equipment.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe, but I cant see positioning one of our surveillance things out there to
monitor their drilling activities. But you may be right.

[scott]

Accounting, at the risk of oversimplifying, is nothing more than tracking economic events. In this sense you are correct that it mostly is simply describing information ("bean counting") than doing much analysis as to what those numbers mean in a broader sense, which is the study of economics.

As my introductory accounting professor very succinctly said: "What did you give up, and what did you get?"

BUT

You can't be a good accountant without understanding economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), especially microeconomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics).

I'll defer to you on whether or not someone can be a good accountant without understanding economics. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone can be a good anything without understand economics, but that is an entirely different topic. Whether an accountant is familiar with economics, however, is independent of whether economics and cost accounting are "directly related." Maybe cost accountants take cues from Economists, but the relationship isn't mutual.


"One of the goals of the field of microeconomics is to analyze mechanisms and market forces that establish relative prices amongst goods and services and allocate society's resources amongst their many alternative uses."--wikipedia

Cost accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_accounting) is a branch of accounting that, in deference to my my cost accounting textbook (http://www.pandora.com.tr/urun.asp?id=129807), :

"Accounting systems take economic events and transactions, such as sales and materials purchases, and process that data into information helpful to manager, sales representatives, production supervisors, and others. Processing any economic transaction means collecting, categorizing, summarizing, and analysing...
[cost accounting] measures, analyszes, and reports financial and nonfinacial information relating to the costs of acquiring or using resources in an organization.

Aside from the use of the word "economic" in the definition of accounting that you have provided, I don't see a lot of overlap.


One must understand the costs that go into a product to be able to understand the true economic cost of anything, and cost accounting is the intersection between accounting and economics. Both disciplines require an understanding of supply and demand, and I would go so far as to call cost accountants a highly specialized branch of economists.

Understanding the costs of producing something is only 1 small part in understanding the true economic cost of anything, but it appears that is where the accountant's job ends. Where accounting and economic perspectives diverge is the economists inclusion of opportunity costs. I've yet to see opportunity costs put on a financial statement. Maybe a cost accountant is able to consider these things, but I don't think that is necessarily a critical job function.

I just did a Monster.com search for Cost Accountant, looked at about 6 postings, and no where did I see consideration to opportunity costs. It seems that most Cost Accountants (like most accountants) are focused on what I would call "accounting transactions" (crediting one account and debiting another) as opposed to "economic transactions".

There is a specific reason that we have terms like "economic profit" which is differentiated from "accounting profit", and it's not because they are the same thing.


We spent a good week studying bottlenecks and how to identify them (chapter 19 under "theory of constraints"), because they are so important to making good management decisions.

I'm glad that accountants spend a good week studying bottlenecks. I don't really see your point though.


In determining the costs of producing gasoline, such as you described, a cost accountant would not say flatly that "x percent" of the cost of gasoline is due to the cost of oil. The cost of gasoline is a URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependant_variable]dependant variable[/URL], with the independant variable being the cost of oil, with a high degree of correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation). The lack of refining capacity would also be an independant variable to consider.

Well, that's essentially what you did.


The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.

Either:

a) You are confusing correlation and causation
b) You believe that regression analysis is the end-all of economic understanding
c) You've actually run the regression, tested for multicollinearity, then tested against fundemental economic theory and your original statement was correct - because that is what an economist would have done before making such a statement. However, since you've arrived at a fundementally and technically wrong conclusion, I've ruled this possibility out although you may have just screwed up in your econometric analysis.

Please do tell, however, what is in these financial reports that shows exactly what drives the price of gasoline?


Both do drive the cost of gasoline to a certain degree. A cost accountant could tell you the same thing that an economist would, namely how much each does contribute to each unit of price. In this they are very much the same.

An economist acting in the role of an economist probably wouldn't tell you how much the price of crude oil is driving the price of gasoline since the price of crude oil is driven in part by the cost of gasoline. That's quite the circular reference. But I digress.

Maybe you are right, Cost Accountants are just highly specialized Economists. I've never taken a cost accounting course, but I know there is a reason we don't hire Cost Accountants to be Economists and we don't really seek the advice of them either. Maybe we are just snobby that way.

However, I think your initial statement of:


The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies.

is evidence enough that Cost Accountants have a very different perspective of things than Economists.

[RandomGuy]

While it is true that corn-based ethanol is energy-negative, right now we're already producing the corn and just throwing it away to keep prices up artificially. AS long as we insist upon perpetuating our stupid corporate-welfare-to-ADM-and-ConAgra scheme, it makes sense at least to do something with that corn.

That is a good point. If we have excess at our disposal, let's make use of it.

[RandomGuy]

Aside from the use of the word "economic" in the definition of accounting that you have provided, I don't see a lot of overlap.

Do some more studying, it is there.


Understanding the costs of producing something is only 1 small part in understanding the true economic cost of anything, but it appears that is where the accountant's job ends. Where accounting and economic perspectives diverge is the economists inclusion of opportunity costs. I've yet to see opportunity costs put on a financial statement. Maybe a cost accountant is able to consider these things, but I don't think that is necessarily a critical job function.

Cost accounting is very concerned with opportunity costs, both in terms of capital and resource usage, because if you don't have a grasp on these costs, you don't have a complete picture.

Economists in general are indeed concerned with wider implications of opportunity costs in terms of society as a whole, and this is why I like to study economics as I like to see the "whole" picture in any thing I chose to learn about.


I just did a Monster.com search for Cost Accountant, looked at about 6 postings, and no where did I see consideration to opportunity costs. It seems that most Cost Accountants (like most accountants) are focused on what I would call "accounting transactions" (crediting one account and debiting another) as opposed to "economic transactions".

So six job decriptions on Monster.com are an all-inclusive definition of an entire field of study, and/or a better description of cost accounting than a 800+ page textbook on the subject?

An understanding of debits and credits is essential to accounting as well. Did any of those job descriptions ask for someone who understands debits and credits? Could it possibly be that both understanding opportunity costs and debits and credits is so basic to cost accounting that it is simply assumed when posting for jobs in that field that the person should know something of both?


There is a specific reason that we have terms like "economic profit" which is differentiated from "accounting profit", and it's not because they are the same thing.

Please explain how, I am honestly puzzled at what you are getting at here.


Either:
a) You are confusing correlation and causation
b) You believe that regression analysis is the end-all of economic understanding
c) You've actually run the regression, tested for multicollinearity, then tested against fundemental economic theory and your original statement was correct - because that is what an economist would have done before making such a statement. However, since you've arrived at a fundementally and technically wrong conclusion, I've ruled this possibility out although you may have just screwed up in your econometric analysis.

Please do tell, however, what is in these financial reports that shows exactly what drives the price of gasoline?

...and I suppose you have "run the regression" etc in advancing your hypothesis? I would like to see such an analysis that you have done yourself in making the statement that refinery capacity is the primary driver in the cost of gasoline.

As to what in those financial reports that shows what drives the price of gasoline, that is a good question. As an accountant, I know what data gets incorporated into financial statements, but it is not there in an easy-to-get at formula.

As it is, I will go ahead and plow through the financials, because it interests me. I will get back to you in a couple of weeks.


An economist acting in the role of an economist probably wouldn't tell you how much the price of crude oil is driving the price of gasoline since the price of crude oil is driven in part by the cost of gasoline. That's quite the circular reference. But I digress.

It is not quite a circular reference, but more accurately a feedback loop. But I digress.


Maybe you are right, Cost Accountants are just highly specialized Economists. I've never taken a cost accounting course, but I know there is a reason we don't hire Cost Accountants to be Economists and we don't really seek the advice of them either. Maybe we are just snobby that way.

Snobby? You don't say...


However, I think your initial statement of:
[quote about cost drivers here, see earlier posts--RG]
is evidence enough that Cost Accountants have a very different perspective of things than Economists.

Were you either, I *might* take your word for it. I don't really know if you are an economist or not, but you certainly aren't an accountant, so being able to speak to cost accounting is not something that I will defer to you in terms of expertise.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to state that the primary constriction of the supply of gasoline is not the supply of refining capacity, it is the supply of oil. We are talking about a price point after all, and this is a point that happens to be dependent on where ever the intersection of supply and demand curves is. If that is the bee in yer bonnet, pardon the Steve Martin quote, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I find this whole ad hominem rather wierd, but will play along, because it seems an intersting bit to play with.

I will go ahead and and start pulling data from Exxon's annual statement (http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf). It is a big honker and will take a bit to sift through.

I will also pull up some industry analysis. Hell I even know an accountant with BP, and she might have a good idea where to start.

Don't expect instant results, as my spare time is limited by my income-earning activities.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, Exxon's annual statement is a 20MB monster. At first glance it seems to have plenty of data on refining capacity and throughput.

That should be enough to marry it to gasoline price data and run a regression analysis. Heh, it would do my statistics professor proud.

I suppose it would also be a good idea to comb through a few other large oil companies financial reports and get a better handle on the data.

I love this stuff. :nerd

[RandomGuy]

Here's an interesting bit:

"by investing primarily in low-cost debottleneck steps, we have effectively added a new industry-average sized refinery to our portfolio every three years and an average conversion unit each year..."

Wonder if they hired an economist to find the bottlenecks? :lol

[scott]

Do some more studying, it is there.

I was just using the definition you provided:

"Accounting systems take economic events and transactions, such as sales and materials purchases, and process that data into information helpful to manager, sales representatives, production supervisors, and others. Processing any economic transaction means collecting, categorizing, summarizing, and analysing... [cost accounting] measures, analyszes, and reports financial and nonfinacial information relating to the costs of acquiring or using resources in an organization."

Economics is much more beyond the cost of production. To say Accounting and Economics are similar is like saying Physics and Operating a Calculator are similar because they both rely on mathematics.






Cost accounting is very concerned with opportunity costs, both in terms of capital and resource usage, because if you don't have a grasp on these costs, you don't have a complete picture.

Economists in general are indeed concerned with wider implications of opportunity costs in terms of society as a whole, and this is why I like to study economics as I like to see the "whole" picture in any thing I chose to learn about.

Again, I'm pleased you have taken an interest in economics - I think more people should. But just because a dentist likes to gaze at the stars, it doesn't necessarily make him an astronomer.


So six job decriptions on Monster.com are an all-inclusive definition of an entire field of study, and/or a better description of cost accounting than a 800+ page textbook on the subject?

An understanding of debits and credits is essential to accounting as well. Did any of those job descriptions ask for someone who understands debits and credits? Could it possibly be that both understanding opportunity costs and debits and credits is so basic to cost accounting that it is simply assumed when posting for jobs in that field that the person should know something of both?

I randomly looked at 6 Cost Accountant jobs - they all looked pretty similar. Understanding opportunity costs and them being a critical function of a job are two different things. Are you telling me that someone's job as a Cost Accountant is to determine all the alternative uses of that resource to determine whether or not it is being put to optimal use? That isn't something that requires the use of an economist, but that is economics.





...and I suppose you have "run the regression" etc in advancing your hypothesis? I would like to see such an analysis that you have done yourself in making the statement that refinery capacity is the primary driver in the cost of gasoline.

My hypothesis is supported by pretty basic logic and a handful of facts. A regression isn't necessary anymore than it is to determine that the key driver of water boiling is the application of heat to it.


As to what in those financial reports that shows what drives the price of gasoline, that is a good question. As an accountant, I know what data gets incorporated into financial statements, but it is not there in an easy-to-get at formula.

As it is, I will go ahead and plow through the financials, because it interests me. I will get back to you in a couple of weeks.

What are these things that get incorporated? I'm not asking you to go out of your way to do research, I'm asking you to explain your process. If you want to go through the numbers, thats your thing - but I'm curious as to the process that led you to the conclusion that you, and apparently "the cost accountants at major oil companies" have come to that the cost of oil is the primary driver of higher gasoline prices and not refineries. Also note that you didn't say refining capacity. You said refineries. I also never said refining capacity. I said refineries.


Were you either, I *might* take your word for it. I don't really know if you are an economist or not, but you certainly aren't an accountant, so being able to speak to cost accounting is not something that I will defer to you in terms of expertise.

Well I don't really know if you are an accountant, so neener-neener.


Perhaps it would have been more accurate to state that the primary constriction of the supply of gasoline is not the supply of refining capacity, it is the supply of oil.

Actually, that wouldn't be more accurate - which is the entire point. Oil supply is not constraint. The ability to turn oil into something people demand, is. (See forthcoming discussion related to what is driving gasoline and distillate prices right now).


We are talking about a price point after all, and this is a point that happens to be dependent on where ever the intersection of supply and demand curves is.

It is, and you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that the supply of oil, or rather the relative lack thereof, is what is driving prices. But as you know, there is another side to the equation.


I will go ahead and and start pulling data from Exxon's annual statement. It is a big honker and will take a bit to sift through.

Again, I don't know what it is you can find... just what it is you are looking for.

[scott]

Damn, Exxon's annual statement is a 20MB monster. At first glance it seems to have plenty of data on refining capacity and throughput.

That should be enough to marry it to gasoline price data and run a regression analysis. Heh, it would do my statistics professor proud.

I suppose it would also be a good idea to comb through a few other large oil companies financial reports and get a better handle on the data.

I love this stuff. :nerd

If you are looking to regress gasoline price to... well... anything, a company's financial statement probably isn't going to be any use to you. I'd recommend DOE stats, which are readily available and updated weekly.

[scott]

Here's an interesting bit:

"by investing primarily in low-cost debottleneck steps, we have effectively added a new industry-average sized refinery to our portfolio every three years and an average conversion unit each year..."

Wonder if they hired an economist to find the bottlenecks? :lol

Did I ever say that economists = bottleneck finders? Maybe the problem is that your definition of economics is skewed and you think that because accountants have to take economics classes in college that makes their respective skills to be interchangable?

At my company, we hire chemical and mechanical engineers to understand and develop detailed work arounds for bottlenecks at a refinery. Most economics wouldn't know the first thing about debottlenecking a delayed coker or an akly unit. But anyone body in the right place at the right time can find the debottlenecks... I used to work with a guy who majored in Spanish in college who is aptly capable of doing so.

What exactly is the point of your post?

[scott]

Here is a question for you to ponder...

If global oil production ((link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41c.xls)) and suppy (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls)) are at an all time high and both exceed global refining capacity (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1109.html)) and historically high crude oil inventory levels (link (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html))... why are crude prices at record levels?

Here is a excerpt from the latest DOE release:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp


EIA’s analysis of current oil market conditions has led us to believe that there are three major factors that have caused the price of West Texas Intermediate to go from $20 to $30 per barrel in 2000-2002 to over $70 per barrel the last couple of weeks. In no particular order, they are: 1) strong global demand growth, especially in China and the United States, 2) limited surplus capacity, both upstream and downstream, and 3) major weather and geopolitical risks that have highlighted the need for more surplus capacity, both upstream and downstream. If EIA is correct in its analysis that these are the major factors driving oil prices right now, then it is logical to assume that oil prices will stay at high levels until current concerns are eased in one or more of these areas. To see if any of these factors are likely to fade away soon, let’s analyze each one a little more closely.

Along with that, I'll ask...

1) In regards to strong global demand growth... what is it exactly that China and the United States demand? Do they demand crude oil or do they demand finished product?
2) What is the next limiting factor on the ability to meet the demands in (1)?

[sickdsm]

Biofuels will not be able to replace oil in the US. Brazil, yes. Mostly because they don't drive anywhere near the mileage that the US does. Biofuels based on sugar cane could replace some of our energy needs, but corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than can be extracted from it. I doubt we have the water resources to come anywhere even near the requirements to replace more than a fraction of our gasoline usage.

I am really against biodiesel as a total replacement for gasoline, because even this cleaner form of diesel is still 70 times more polluting in terms of particulate soot than gasoline. Biodeisel could/should replace diesel as it burns a lot cleaner than oil-based diesel does.

As for the persoan insults:
Knock yourself out. Your stereotypes/prejudices don't concern me. Stick to the topic at hand, and I will give you reasoned arguments supporte by data.



Prove it. I asked you for production data before and you shimmyed like Antoine Walker's photoshop of him leading the orchestra. You responed with bullshit of the us can't produce enough corn, even though you ignore that feed demands for livestock would drastically be reducuced bc a higher value, cheaper food source would be available. Seriously, why is it a yes/no question for you? No one source of energy is EVER going to completely replace another in one generation. There's still people using animal power to farm, also steam. Get my point?

Corn has improved its yeilds 80 percent in 25 years, mainly from technology. You are no different than naysayers of any other major advancement, whether it be electricty, combustable engine or gunpowder. You also are only looking at the US, let me reitterate this to you AGAIN, Brazil has not yet "discovered" corn. They are a soybean only mentailty. When they get their infrastructure in place, they WILL produce 300 bu corn and more than enough beans. We are no where near even using the potential of the worlds ag land. I guarandamntee you that if American's farmed all the worlds' land they would use corn for roads and soybeans for baseballls. I will produce 300 bu corn in my lifetime and be dissapointed at the yield. Geuss what though? 200 bushel corn is common around here with NO irrigation. In other words, you want to be greedy and take the north central's supply of water for your area (southwest) that when you take a good look at it, should not even be inhabited. Monsanto has been working on there drought tolerant corn variety that a few years ago produced 80 bushel corn in the badlands of South Dakota, this is a variety aimed at africa. Severe droughts in the corn belt this year led to a surprising 120 bu average in those areas hit in indiana. Years ago that would have been a total loss as it wouldn't have fully matured.

Canola is another crop that shows big promise in the US as a biodiesel, i believe that's what Canada uses.


The negative energy theory may have been true years ago but not now. Believe me, there's a million things that aren't being factored in in just the production stage. Ethanol and Biodiesel are tied together tightly in the production area.

They can make gas out of turkey shit and have been able to do that for years now but its not feasible enough to do widespread. Geuss what? there's still improving it! Should they stop bc its not penciling out?

[RandomGuy]

Did I ever say that economists = bottleneck finders? Maybe the problem is that your definition of economics is skewed and you think that because accountants have to take economics classes in college that makes their respective skills to be interchangable?

At my company, we hire chemical and mechanical engineers to understand and develop detailed work arounds for bottlenecks at a refinery. Most economics wouldn't know the first thing about debottlenecking a delayed coker or an akly unit. But anyone body in the right place at the right time can find the debottlenecks... I used to work with a guy who majored in Spanish in college who is aptly capable of doing so.

What exactly is the point of your post?

It was close to my bedtime and I was being cranky. Please forgive my snarkiness there.

[RandomGuy]

The negative energy theory may have been true years ago but not now. Believe me, there's a million things that aren't being factored in in just the production stage. Ethanol and Biodiesel are tied together tightly in the production area.

They can make gas out of turkey shit and have been able to do that for years now but its not feasible enough to do widespread. Geuss what? there's still improving it! Should they stop bc its not penciling out?

Ok let's do some math.

Let's assume:
1. Corn is as efficient as sugar cane in producing ethanol. The reading that I have done is that it is still much less productive at converting mass into fuel, but let's roll with this for simplicity's sake.

2. Ethanol has as much energy in it per volume as gasoline. I seem to remember it is a bit less, but again, simplicity.

From the wikipedia article on ethanol in brazil, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil) we can pull out the following information:

Amount of sugar crop acreage allocated to Ethanol in 2003-2004:
8789 square miles.

45,000 km2, of which half is used for ethanol, and converted into square miles)

This square area produces:
88 Million barrels of ethanol per year

(cubic meters converted to liters at 1000 liters per cubic meter, converted to gallons at .256 liters per gallon, converted to barrels at 42 gallons per barrel of petroleum)

Directly converting this to gasoline would yield 88 million barrels of gasoline per year using our simplified assumptions.

The US uses 3,321,500,000 barrels of gasoline per year per ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html )

3.3Bn divided by 88M= 37.75 (the number of times larger that US gasoline consumption is than Brazil's consumption)

37.75 times 8789 square miles is 331,521 square miles.

Assume we can find 50% of that figure in unused crop land, that leaves us with 160,500 square miles of NEW crop land that would be need to completely replace gasoline with ethanol at current usage rates.

Factor in the fact that Ethanol has less energy per unit of mass, and that square mileage will go up. Substitute a less efficient crop of corn, and that square mileage will go up.

According to the CIA factbook (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) the united states has only 87,000 square miles of irrigated land now.
Where would we get the water to irrigate the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of crop land that fully replacing gasoline with ethanol will take, ASSUMING we can find the arable land?

Saying "let's just replace our gasoline powered cars with ethanol" doesn't make it viable as a realistic solution.

Rolling forward a bit:

Yes, we will have to start driving less and buying more efficient vehicles. This will reduce the square mileage needed.

Our population is also growing, as is the economy. This will increase demand for fuel. This will offset gains from efficiency somewhat, if not a lot.

Yes, agricultural production will become more efficient, again reducing the square mileage issue. But not by enough of a conceivable factor to replace gasoline as it stands.

Biodiesel will face the same problems of water and arable land. Keep in mind that the figure given was just for gasoline, and not for diesel. Replacing oil-diesel with biodeisel will require a similar ramp up in devoted area to crops.

One good factor that the wikipedia article pointed out is that a good chunk of the waste mass from producing ethanol can be used to produce electricity beyond what the refining process uses.

I am not saying that ethanol is stupid.
Ethanol is certainly part of what I consider part of an energy solution that takes a longer term view. I am all for ramping up usage of this renewable source of energy.

I simply wanted to point out the scale of the problem we are trying to address.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a question for you to ponder...

If global oil production ((link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41c.xls)) and suppy (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls)) are at an all time high and both exceed global refining capacity (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1109.html)) and historically high crude oil inventory levels (link (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html))... why are crude prices at record levels?

Here is a excerpt from the latest DOE release:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

Along with that, I'll ask...

1) In regards to strong global demand growth... what is it exactly that China and the United States demand? Do they demand crude oil or do they demand finished product?
2) What is the next limiting factor on the ability to meet the demands in (1)?

1) Both crude and refined.
I actually pointed out that global refining capacity is expanding, both by making current refineries more productive (see the exxon annual report) and by countries like Saudi Arabia and others buliding new ones.
2) Refining capacity is potentially unlimited over the long term. Crude oil production is not.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other on some basic level here?

[RandomGuy]

Here is a question for you to ponder...

If global oil production ((link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41c.xls)) and suppy (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls)) are at an all time high and both exceed global refining capacity (link (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1109.html)) and historically high crude oil inventory levels (link (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html))... why are crude prices at record levels?

Here is a excerpt from the latest DOE release:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp



Along with that, I'll ask...

1) In regards to strong global demand growth... what is it exactly that China and the United States demand? Do they demand crude oil or do they demand finished product?
2) What is the next limiting factor on the ability to meet the demands in (1)?

Ok, I took a look at your links. (all figures in millions of barrels per day) Using 2004 as a basis and the higher of the two given production/supply figures of 82.995 versus refining capacity of 82.26, leaving a disparity of .735
.735 as a percentage of refining capacity is .89%

If refinery capacity is the true driver in the cost of gasoline, should a shortfall of .89% capacity cause gas prices to rise 30%+?
This speaks only to the price of gasoline, not to oil itself.

If the supply is constant or slightly increasing, and the price point is increasing it stands to reason that the demand curve is rising faster than the supply curve, all things held equal.

While I will readily acknowledge that a bottleneck anywhere in the system, such as refining capacity, will cause the supply curve to move downwards, your own figures would seem to point out that refinery capacity doesn't seem to be as much of a driver as the fact that demand is outpacing overall supply.

Given that I think that global supply of oil is at, near or recently passed its ultimate peak, I would say that building new refineries is a fool's errand, as efficiency gains can be had out of existing refineries, and oil production will be dropping off eliminating any refining bottleneck.

[scott]

1) Both crude and refined.

Here is where I have a fundemental disagreement. The demand for oil is not exogenous of the demand for refined products. If we could make gasoline (or other oil products) out of iPods and iPods were always cheaper than oil, there would be no oil demand.

Put another way, I don't think it is accurate to say that "Intel iPod processor demand is X units per year" - people don't demand Intel iPod processors (don't know if Intel makes them... just throwing out examples)... they demand iPods.

Let's say that Intel is the only maker of iPod processors and they have unlimited production capacity. Let's assume Apple can make 1 million iPods a year, but they have demand for 3 million and prices are allowed to float in order to allocate the scarce resource (iPods). Let's say the iPod price rises to $1,000. Previously when iPods were only $299, Intel was only charging $100 for their processor (which we will assume is the only cost that goes into making an iPod). Apple's profit margin, but their own inability to produce more iPods, has risen then from $200 per unit to $900 per unit.

Intel has pricing power, and they are going to sit around and let Apple make monster profits - they are going to jack up the price of their processors. Let's say that they put them at $800, and Apple still makes $200 per iPod. In this case, it wasn't the processors driving up the iPod cost, it was the lack of iPod production capacity and the inherent pricing power of the monopoly supplier that drove up the cost of Intel processors.

That is an extremely simplified version of what is going on with refining.


I actually pointed out that global refining capacity is expanding, both by making current refineries more productive (see the exxon annual report) and by countries like Saudi Arabia and others buliding new ones.
2) Refining capacity is potentially unlimited over the long term. Crude oil production is not.



These are generally true statements - but I'm not debating what may be the driver of oil and petroleum product prices 5 to 10 years from now - but what is driving them today.

[scott]

Ok, I took a look at your links. (all figures in millions of barrels per day) Using 2004 as a basis and the higher of the two given production/supply figures of 82.995 versus refining capacity of 82.26, leaving a disparity of .735
.735 as a percentage of refining capacity is .89%

If refinery capacity is the true driver in the cost of gasoline, should a shortfall of .89% capacity cause gas prices to rise 30%+?
This speaks only to the price of gasoline, not to oil itself.

The price elasticity of demand for gasoline has proven to be very inelastic - so maybe a small shortfall of capacity could result in a 150% rise in gasoline price. From a statistical perspective I can't tell you, because I haven't run the numbers. But fundementally and logically, it is not too far fetched. Demand for gasoline continues to grow despite record high prices, and we went from a situation 5 years ago when we were long refining capacity to a situation where we are now short.

Another thing to consider is that it is not just refining capacity (the number of barrels of crude oil that can be processed into product) but refining capability (the ability to process certain qualities of crude into product that meets tightening specifications). The capabilities part of the equation is BIG. The price of oil you see quoted is for West Texas Intermediate, a light sweet (low sulfur) grade of crude. This is easier to refine and easier to make low-sulfur spec product with. While the price of this grade has skyrocketed, the discount of a heavy-sour barrel of crude oil has widened tremendously. This is an indication to the impact that refining capabilities are having on prices for finished product.


If the supply is constant or slightly increasing, and the price point is increasing it stands to reason that the demand curve is rising faster than the supply curve, all things held equal.

Demand is rising faster than supply, exactly correct. But again, what do YOU, the consumer... demand? It isn't raw crude oil.


While I will readily acknowledge that a bottleneck anywhere in the system, such as refining capacity, will cause the supply curve to move downwards, your own figures would seem to point out that refinery capacity doesn't seem to be as much of a driver as the fact that demand is outpacing overall supply.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of my numbers.


Given that I think that global supply of oil is at, near or recently passed its ultimate peak, I would say that building new refineries is a fool's errand, as efficiency gains can be had out of existing refineries, and oil production will be dropping off eliminating any refining bottleneck.

Peak oil is a topic for another discussion - but I will say that spare capacity exists today and at $70 oil a lot of projects are coming online. There is a peak to oil production, but I don't think we are at that peak (physically capable peak, not a price driven peak). Either way, we won't know until we are passed it.

[RandomGuy]

I would take a wild guess that you work for Valero... :lol

Thanks for the analysis. I would defer to you in terms of economics and oil, over my more limited knowledge of the market.

You seem to have access to better data than I do, you could run the numbers and let me know. This is something that interests me a lot. I prefer to take positions based on understanding and data.

[scott]

Ok, I took a look at your links. (all figures in millions of barrels per day) Using 2004 as a basis and the higher of the two given production/supply figures of 82.995 versus refining capacity of 82.26, leaving a disparity of .735
.735 as a percentage of refining capacity is .89%

If refinery capacity is the true driver in the cost of gasoline, should a shortfall of .89% capacity cause gas prices to rise 30%+?
This speaks only to the price of gasoline, not to oil itself.

One more thing... even at the peak of production margins, refineries don't run at 100% of capacity - it is not sustainable over periods of time due to maintence needs (both scheduled and unscheduled) and the physical strain placed on the assets. "Refining capacity" is officially measured by the capacity of the crude unit though, and different refinery configurations lead to some "skewing" of official data. You can have refineries that have over or undersized crude units. Gasoline production per barrel of crude comsumption varies WIDELY from refinery to refinery (for a number of reasons).

I bring this up because if you take a historically high refinery utilization number like 95%, the gap between crude production and refinery capacity is more evident. Again, my explaination for prices applies only to the current situation.

[xrayzebra]

Some folks, it appears, is not really happy with Gore and his "junk science". Seems
he has erred somewhat according to the real experts.

Guest Column
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at [email protected]




This page printed from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[German_Spursfan]

Thank you for your explanations. In europe, this stuff is common cause, but it's nice to read here.

[Nbadan]

In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

This is a common misconception put out by industry sponsored eco-shills. As you can see by this graph from Wikipedia's global warming page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming), before the industrial revolution CO2 levels remained consistant for almost a thousand years. Median temperatures rose and fell slightly, probably attesting to the effects of solar radiation on the planet due to active and inactive sun cycles and Milankovitch cycles. However, the long-term peaks in the earth temperature always coorelated with increased CO2 activity. High CO2 levels used to be naturally due to increased volcanic activity, but there aren't too many active volcanos in the world today.

[Sec24Row7]

yeah... that graph is 400,000 years when earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.

So basically you are saying that something that is a 1/11500 sample of earths history holds true for everthing. I challenge you to find anything that you can look at 1/11500th of and get a decent picture of how it works.

He refered to a time in the Ordovician... 450 million years ago that had more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now and was a ton colder.

Nice try dipshit.

[Nbadan]

that graph is 400,000 years when earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.

I covered naturally occuring increasing CO2 levels, but I guess that went over your head like 90% of my posts.

[Yonivore]

I covered naturally occuring increasing CO2 levels, but I guess that went over your head like 90% of my posts.
OMG! How are we still freakin' breathing!?!?!?!?

[Sec24Row7]

I covered naturally occuring increasing CO2 levels, but I guess that went over your head like 90% of my posts.


You know what dan? You arent even worth responding to anymore. Why don't you go find Zarqawi since he is still alive and go plot our destruction with environmentally friendly weapons of mass destruction.

[Nbadan]

You know what dan? You arent even worth responding to anymore. Why don't you go find Zarqawi since he is still alive and go plot our destruction with environmentally friendly weapons of mass destruction.

That's right, when personal attacks fail - quit.

Show me the evidence.

[xrayzebra]

That's right, when personal attacks fail - quit.

Show me the evidence.

Did you read my post? The people who really deal with weather say your
bunch are "experts" alright, just not about weather. But as you say,
truth normally passes right over your little tinfoil hat. Like, hey, you
reading, there is no melting of the ice caps. Like the man says:
""The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

and

"Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Now go back to your room and I will bring you some more tinfoil. That's
a nice boy.

[RandomGuy]

The Pacific is getting warmer and more acidic, while the amount of oxygen and the building blocks for coral and some kinds of plankton are decreasing, according to initial results from scientists with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, the University of Washington and elsewhere.

"There are big changes," said Christopher Sabine, chief scientist for one leg of the research trip, which ultimately traveled from Antarctica to Alaska.

Many of the most interesting results are tied to the ocean becoming increasingly acidic because of its absorption of carbon dioxide.

GRANTED:

Humans are responsible for the massive spike in atmospheric CO2.

Humans=more CO2
More CO2=more acid rain,
more acid rain=more acidic oceans,
more acidic oceans=die off of micro-organisms
die off of micro-organisms=collapse of aquatic food chain
Therefore
Humans=collapse of the aquatic food chain

None of the poo-pooing of global warming that conservatives have been doing in this thread has changed the above.

[RandomGuy]

In case you start wanting to claim that the billions of tons of CO2 that we have released in since the start of the industrial revolution don't really mean much, the only other driver in atmospheric CO2 is volcanic activity.

If you look at a graph of CO2 levels based on millions of years of data, you can see that the current spike (30%+ in 200 years) is faster than any other trend in that period of time.

Meaning that either
1) the Earth has had an uptick in volcanic activity on a massive scale that has not been seen in millions of years and this activity has happened in the last 200 years without us noticing it,
or
2) humans really did cause the spike in global CO2.

The problem is not with the scale of the change in CO2 levels, which is in line with historic variances, but with the PACE of those changes.

This is one that will drive the creationists nuts, so hold on ta yer hats.

The pace of the change in CO2 levels is so fast that organisms can't adapt fast enough.

If god really did plunk everything down "as is" 10,000 years ago and no evolution happens, the organisms that were created for lower acid levels in the oceans will all die off and "piff" goes the food chain.

[RandomGuy]

yeah... that graph is 400,000 years when earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.

So basically you are saying that something that is a 1/11500 sample of earths history holds true for everthing. I challenge you to find anything that you can look at 1/11500th of and get a decent picture of how it works.

He refered to a time in the Ordovician... 450 million years ago that had more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now and was a ton colder.

Nice try dipshit.

If you want to get technical the levels of CO2 were so high because the earth was so cold.

If you are that much smarter than I am, feel free to explain why that is so.

[xrayzebra]

Hey RG, did you read my post #75 in the following link.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52629&page=3&pp=26

How will you address this problem? Hmmmmmmm. Or will you just ignore it and
tell us what terrible people we are?

[xrayzebra]

^^He is going to ignore it!

[RandomGuy]

^^He is going to ignore it!

I didn't ignore it, it just got lost. It was adequately addressed in that thread though.

[DarrinS]

Article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html)

For the dumbasses who poo poo all the data on global warming:

Here is some very undeniable effects of burning all those fossil fuels. You might dispute the causality of global warming, but can't dispute the amount of carbon we are putting out and that it increases acidity.


No one "poo poos" the data, just some people's interpretation of the data.

We haven't has any warming in the last 10 years. Have CO2 emmisions declined in that time period?

There was a decline in global temperatures form the mid 1940's to the early 1970's. Was that a time period when CO2 emmissions were on the rise or fall?


YES, I think that humans influence the climate -- they have since they first discovered fire. Do I think Florida will be underwater any time soon? NO. So, you can believe in "climate change" (always has -- always will) without being a Gore catastrophist.

[DarrinS]

By the way, RG, why does it bother you if there are so-called "GW Deniers" out there? You can just dismiss us as heretics and move on with your church of global warmingology consensus. You can build a solar-panelled house way up in the hills, stockpile it with food, water, etc. and wait for the giant waves to engulf the coastline.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, RG, why does it bother you if there are so-called "GW Deniers" out there? You can just dismiss us as heretics and move on with your church of global warmingology consensus. You can build a solar-panelled house way up in the hills, stockpile it with food, water, etc. and wait for the giant waves to engulf the coastline.

"church of global warmingology"?

Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch. I would say that you and WC are hewing to something akin to dogma much more than I am.

I think the rabid bad logic tends to be on the radid deniers like Wild Cobra just as much as some of the most vocal alarmists.

Since you have distorted my postion on the matter, yet again, I will ask you the same question that WC can't seem to answer:

Which is the more dogmatic statement, Darrin?

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

[RandomGuy]

BTW

This thread isn't about global warming. It is simply about acidity in the oceans.

[DarrinS]

"Which is the more dogmatic statement, Darrin?

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"


I don't think either statement is completely accurate. By the way, the second statement, beginning with "It is a plausible theory" is a much different statement than "the debate is over" rhetoric of the Al Gore-ists.

I just don't think computer modeling + consensus = science.

I think this quote by from Albert Einstein expresses this best:

"No amount of Experimentation can Prove Me right, It only takes one to prove me wrong."

[RandomGuy]

I don't think either statement is completely accurate.

I didn't ask which one you thought was more accurate.

I asked which one you thought was more dogmatic.

Now please answer the question.

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

[DarrinS]

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"



Who is it you think is saying this?

[RandomGuy]

Who is it you think is saying this?

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

[Wild Cobra]

"church of global warmingology"?

Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch. I would say that you and WC are hewing to something akin to dogma much more than I am.

Dogma is a belief of faith, without good evidence. I say the alarmists have no good evidence because they ignore real scientific facts that don't suit their agenda.



I think the rabid bad logic tends to be on the radid deniers like Wild Cobra just as much as some of the most vocal alarmists.

At least I'm not in denial. I'll accept the term "Denier" as a badge of honor. Few people are willing to defy dogma and be called a heretic.



Since you have distorted my postion on the matter, yet again, I will ask you the same question that WC can't seem to answer:

Which is the more dogmatic statement, Darrin?

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

Problem is, both statements are blatantly false. To take false statements, and decide which is more dogmatic? Too much gray for me. How about some separation:

"There is no possibility that global warming exists"
False

"There is no possibility that global is caused by man"
In degrees of effect, more false than true. Only a very small part can be attributed to man.

"Natural Global Warming is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding"
True

"Anthropogenic Global Warming is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding"
True, to a limited extent

"Global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
False

Does that clarify things for you?

This is the first day I've seen this thread. I joined 5/28/07, more than a year after this thread was started. I find you assessment of ethanol absolutely laughable. To take a crop grown near the equator, in an area with an average 22 inches per year rainfall, and think there's any comparison to growing crops for ethanol here? Have you since rethought your ideas?

[DarrinS]

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"


Obvisously the first one, but I have never stated that.


By the way, ever seen the program "Discovery Project Earth". Mostly a bunch of reallly bad ideas, including

* wrapping glaciers in blankets to keep them from melting :lmao
* Adding water vapor to create more clouds and block sunlight. Uh, what?
* Sending trillions of lenses in space and creating a 100,000-square-mile sunshade. (Gee, these guys are awfully worried about the sun for some reason).


More bad ideas here (a few are ok) --> http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/highlights/highlights.html



You know what would actually be frightening? Global cooling.

[DarrinS]

And RG, I don't know if it makes any difference, but I have two small cars -- a Honda and a Subaru. I ride my bike or walk when I can. I do a lot of recycling. I turn off electricity when it's not being used.


Based on everything I've read, I just don't think we are headed for some environmental doomsday. If that makes me a "denier" or a "heretic", then so be it.

[Sec24Row7]

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

Whats more dogmatic...

This lie or this lie?

[RandomGuy]

Which is the more dogmatic statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

or

"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"



Obvisously the first one, but I have never stated that.

Thank you. An intellectually honest answer to the question as asked. Props, man.

I know you have never stated that, and it is not my contention to put words in your mouth.

However, you accuse me of being some blind adherent to "church of warming" or similar, and I think that was a bit unfair.

My views are more closely represented by the latter statement, which is the less dogmatic version of "there is no possibility that we aren't causing global warming".

The statement:

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

Is pretty much what Wild Cobra has said.

He has claimed, if memory serves, that all the global warming trends up until 2004 have been erased by recent declines in temperature (global warming doesn't exist).

Further, he has put the possibility that man's actions have contributed to global warming, even if it exists, to such a negligible amount that saying that man-made global warming is next to impossible.

For these reasons, I don't think that statement is an inaccurate portrayal of what WC and a lot of people like WC believe.

This would, by your admission, put him in the "church of man-made global warming deniers" on the other side of the "church of man-made global warming" camp.

Both sides in this debate have their wild-eyed fanatics, and it is left to the rest of us to try and ferret out some reasonable conclusions.

From what I see the weight of scientific opinion is on the side that we are warming our planet with our releases of greenhouse gases.

When people like WC start throwing out scientists who doubt it, I can't help but be reminded of conspiracy theorists and how they trot out a few people with topical knowledge who buy their theories, and ignore the tens of thousands of people with topical knowledge that don't.

Again, people like WC remind me of these conspiracy theorists who learn just enough science to be able to construct some reasonable sounding arguments, but when real scientists who actually have PhDs in the area look into these arguments, they tend to fall apart.

As I have said before, since the topic is more complex than I can reasonably figure out without going back to grad school I am left with this logical conclusion:

zORv8wwiadQ

You are more logically functional than the fanatics, so in the end, despite your doubts, the conclusion about what we should be doing is fairly obvious.

[RandomGuy]

I find you assessment of ethanol absolutely laughable. To take a crop grown near the equator, in an area with an average 22 inches per year rainfall, and think there's any comparison to growing crops for ethanol here? Have you since rethought your ideas?

I don't think you quite understand my thoughts.


Ok let's do some math.

Where would we get the water to irrigate the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of crop land that fully replacing gasoline with ethanol will take, ASSUMING we can find the arable land?

Saying "let's just replace our gasoline powered cars with ethanol" doesn't make it viable as a realistic solution.



Ethanol replacing more than a fraction of our energy needs for transportation is simply not economically viable.


One doesn't have to take much more into consideration than simply pointing out, under the BEST conditions and using the MOST unrealistically favorable assumptions, corn-ethanol is not going to solve our problem.

I don't think there is "any comparison to growing crops for ethanol here" as the above statements in that thread clearly demonstrate.

[RandomGuy]

Whats more dogmatic...

This lie or this lie?

That they both might be lies, does not preclude one from being more dogmatic than the other to a reasonable person.

Thanks for playing though. Here is the home version of "Missing the Point". ;)

[Wild Cobra]

"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"

Is pretty much what Wild Cobra has said.

Here is a prime example of why I get pissed off at you. That is not from my viewpoint How can you forget that I have constantly acknowledged that about a third of warming can be antropogenic?

I'll give you this. I am confident that between 10% to 30% of the warming we see is by us!


"It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"

Funny how you change the quote. A person comming in may not understand the facts if they don't look back a few posts. I even explained in by parsing of the quotes, yet you just gon't give up.

Problem is that you are looking at it from your understanding of science, and expect everyone to see the same thing. Like I pointed out in another thread, I don't think here. You haven't touched the thread I started about Solar Global Warming (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109562). You simply refuse to acknowledge how much the sun clearly affects us.



He has claimed, if memory serves, that all the global warming trends up until 2004 have been erased by recent declines in temperature (global warming doesn't exist).

Wrong again. I have NEVER made such a claim. I said we see no new data past 2004 that supports antropogenic warming.



Further, he has put the possibility that man's actions have contributed to global warming, even if it exists, to such a negligible amount that saying that man-made global warming is next to impossible.

Impossible as the sole cause. Yes. Impossible as the major cause. Yes.



For these reasons, I don't think that statement is an inaccurate portrayal of what WC and a lot of people like WC believe.

That's because you refuse to acknwledge our reasons for believing otherwise. Factors not given weight by the Alarmists like the changing solar radiation, soot on the arctic surfaces, the time lag of stored heat, carbon dioxide equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere vs. temperature, etc.



From what I see the weight of scientific opinion is on the side that we are warming our planet with our releases of greenhouse gases.

No, the evidence is well within the 'noise' levels of measured temperatures when you properly account for the other factors.



When people like WC start throwing out scientists who doubt it, I can't help but be reminded of conspiracy theorists and how they trot out a few people with topical knowledge who buy their theories, and ignore the tens of thousands of people with topical knowledge that don't.

Remember the post that had an insider state the IPCC as a purely political agenda?



Again, people like WC remind me of these conspiracy theorists who learn just enough science to be able to construct some reasonable sounding arguments, but when real scientists who actually have PhDs in the area look into these arguments, they tend to fall apart.

It is the alarmists that act like conspiracy theorists. Show me a paper that properly addresses the sun ocean and physical pollutants, and I will consider changing my mind. I have never seen one yet.

[RandomGuy]

How can you forget that I have constantly acknowledged that about a third of warming can be antropogenic?

Quite easily, actually.

My memory of your ultimate position is that man was responsible for a negligable portion of current warming trends.

This isn't too far off of the above statement, but if that is your position, my statement of your position would be inaccurate, yes.

If that's the case:

My apologies for getting it wrong.

[RandomGuy]

I'll give you this. I am confident that between 10% to 30% of the warming we see is by us!


Is it a reasonable possibility that 10-30% might be enough to push climate patterns over some unknown "tipping point" and cause some really drastic changes in climate patterns worldwide?

[Wild Cobra]

Is it a reasonable possibility that 10-30% might be enough to push climate patterns over some unknown "tipping point" and cause some really drastic changes in climate patterns worldwide?
Problem is that we have past global temperatures three times the increase we compare against the 18th century temperatures than today. This is just within the last 10,000 years. They haven't taken us pat the tipping point.

[RandomGuy]

Problem is that we have past global temperatures three times the increase we compare against the 18th century temperatures than today. This is just within the last 10,000 years. They haven't taken us pat the tipping point.

"the tipping point".

You say that as if you know what that tipping point is for any given combination of factors in the complex system of our global climate.

Do you know where that tipping point is for the current and near future set of factors?

[RandomGuy]

I'll give you this. I am confident that between 10% to 30% of the warming we see is by us!

Among points made in some of those papers are that natural climate variations affect temperature. This has never been in dispute, but the critical question for the warming of the past 100 years is quantitative - how much is natural and how much anthropogenic? The predominance of anthropogenic carbon emissions, mainly CO2, has been documented by hundreds of studies over the past several years, but one criticism is the extent to which that conclusion depends on specific climate models. It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5901/532

"The strong scientific consensus on the causes and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion and complacency among the public."

"For most people, uncertainty about the risks of climate change means costly actions to reduce emissions should be deferred; if climate change begins to harm the economy, mitigation policies can then be implemented. However, long delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing mean such reasoning is erroneous...Mitigating the risks therefore requires emissions reductions long before additional harm is evident."

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5901/532

"The strong scientific consensus on the causes and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion and complacency among the public."

"For most people, uncertainty about the risks of climate change means costly actions to reduce emissions should be deferred; if climate change begins to harm the economy, mitigation policies can then be implemented. However, long delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing mean such reasoning is erroneous...Mitigating the risks therefore requires emissions reductions long before additional harm is evident."

Back to strong scientic consensus. That's not true when you speak to nonpartisan scientists that don't get paid for being an alarmist. Besides, if scientific consensus was fact. The earth would be flat.

Mitigation first requires understanding the major causes. How about we reduct black carbon emissions rather than CO2?

[Wild Cobra]

It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

They have some interesting stuff, but completely ignore the effects of black carbon.

I missed where the 90% is. Help please.

Here are some interesting passages in the link I noted:



By differencing years of solar maxima and minima in NCEP temperatures since 1959, Camp and Tung [2007] determined a solar cycle amplitude in global surface temperature of 0.2 K, a factor of two larger than obtained from multiple regression analysis of satellite data since 1979.




In contrast, recent empirical analyses suggest that solar variability accounts for as much as 69% of twentieth century warming




Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies.

[RandomGuy]

I liken this whole debate to three guys in a cave with a sleeping bear.

One of the guys starts poking the bear with a stick. After a minute or so, he starts poking the bear a bit harder than previously.

The other two then start arguing over how hard the guy is now poking the bear.

One says "he is poking he bear 30% harder" and the other says "he is poking the bear 90% harder".

The real issue is DON'T FUCKING POKE SLEEPING BEARS WITH STICKS.

Sure, the bear could wake up naturally and rip the guy's faces off over time, but why take the risk of poking the bear in the first place and increasing the chance?

[RandomGuy]

They have some interesting stuff, but completely ignore the effects of black carbon.

I missed where the 90% is. Help please.

Here are some interesting passages in the link I noted:

The 90% is inferred from the remainder of warming not associated with solar forcing.

Re-read the last page or so.

[RandomGuy]

"the tipping point".

You say that as if you know what that tipping point is for any given combination of factors in the complex system of our global climate.

Do you know where that tipping point is for the current and near future set of factors?

The obvious answer to this question is:

"I don't really know any more than anyone else does." We can infer from past data that there are such tipping points, but we can't really know yet what they are.

We have a risk of potentially huge magnitude and a reasonable possibility of loss according to a broad consensus of scientists.

These are the TWO measures of risk.

Now the kinds of people who study risk for a living, namely insurance companies who sell insurance to other insurance companies, i.e. reinsurance, and who ultimately stand to lose hundreds of billions in real money have taken the stance here:

http://www.reinsurance.org/files/public/RAA_Climate_Change_Policy_Statement.pdf


[The Reinsurance Association of America] encourages efforts to mitigate human induced greenhouse gases and to adapt to
climate change through risk reduction initiatives.

This isn't a wild-eyed bunch of envio-wackos.

This is a bunch of truly conservative people whose job it is to measure risk.

They aren't arguing about how hard we are poking the bear. They are telling us that we should stop poking the bear.

[Wild Cobra]

The 90% is inferred from the remainder of warming not associated with solar forcing.

Re-read the last page or so.
From the same area:


To properly quantify their amplitudes, the natural
and anthropogenic changes must be accounted for
simultaneously when analyzing the surface
temperature anomalies, since neglecting the
influence of one can overestimate the influence of
another. For this reason, we suggest that
estimated solar cycle changes of 0.2 K [Camp and
Tung, 2007] and Pinatubo cooling of 0.4 K
[Santer et al., 2001] are too large.

"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

[kwhitegocubs]

Yes, because if they inserted "We know for damn sure that those numbers are definitely too large", that would be scientific?

[Wild Cobra]

OK Random. Like I pointed out in a different posting, there are different aspects of global warming. I made another related post in the thread Solar Global Warming (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109562), post #13. Please read it.

[RandomGuy]

From the same area:


"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

How many scientific papers have you ever written and submitted for peer review?

[RandomGuy]

From the same area:


"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

Translation:

'We suggest not poking the sleeping bear with a stick?' What kind of mumbo jumbo is that. I tell you. No matter where you look at the idiots who say poking sleeping bears with sticks is a bad idea, they change their results on how hard you should poke them based on their opinion."

:rolleyes

Do you ever include estimations based on your best judgement in your calculations?

[RandomGuy]

As for pandemics, it is a question of when, not if.

It is a bit like earthquakes, in that they are unavoidable. I say we do some prudent preparation for both...

As long as "good job" Brownie isn't in charge of the response...

From 2006.

Fun search for the word "Pandemic"