Uh-huh. You know more about climatology than anyone on the planet... mmmm-hmmmm.
"Insolation" = incident solar radiation. It is only the "study of a single affected area" if you nominate such an area. I did not. i was using it as a general term.
But the experts are wrong. Climate science is taught wrong. the same incorrect ideas have been taught since the 30's.
See, you are incapable of doing nothing but regurgitate what you are taught.
I clearly implied we will not run out because as the supply decreases, it will get too expensive to use. Because of that, we will never use it all. If you are incapable of parsing wording correctly, how can you be trusted to parse science correctly?
...so, in effect, we will run out as we will not be able to use it, and will thus need to use alternative fuel sources. Stop being so obtuse. I fully understand how markets work and explained to your the problem with markets and finite resources above - transition time to new technologies is not instantaneous, and a technology the scale of oil will take 20-50 years to replace. And then, what exactly are we going to replace it with?See, you are incapable of doing nothing but regurgitate what you are taught.
I clearly implied we will not run out because as the supply decreases, it will get too expensive to use. Because of that, we will never use it all. If you are incapable of parsing wording correctly, how can you be trusted to parse science correctly?
I was never formally taught about peakoil, I taught myself. You didn't tell me where your "revised figures" come from.
That would be like saying rectangles are squares.
Without specifying it's usage as the entire global area, then 65N is the most common application of insolation in climatology.
I am aware of that. I used it generally. You leaped to the assumption I was referring to 65N, even though I was merely responding to tlong's idiocy.
Bye bye, you can stay here spouting horse as long as you like, I have things to do.
I don't recall the source, but for one, there was a huge reserve recently found larger than Saudia Arabia's in the Atlantic, I think off of Brazil. Maybe Venezuela. I forget where.
Nope. 2 billion barrels:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...910_707567.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-oil-discovery
That's not even one month's world supply (30bil bbl/yr).
There have been no supergiant finds since the 70s. ANWAR has 12-15 bil bbl, or 6 months world supply. You are WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The world is rapidly running out of oil, and there are no plans in place about what we're going to do when supply suddenly (over the space of a decade or two) drops through the floor.
It was an Exxon find. Not the right one. They might be refering to that entire region, not a single field.
Doesn't matter for this debate anyway. When it happens, corporate America will adapt.
Even if you were talking about the Tiber field in the Gulf of Mexico, it is still only 4bil bbl, or about 6 weeks of world supply:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...gulf-of-mexico
Note:
"However, exponents of peak oil theories said the BP find would not fundamentally change the longer-term supply-and-demand picture. "The International Energy Agency said in its 2008 report that the world needed to find six new Saudi Arabias to meet the growing demand for oil in the future," said Jeremy Leggett, chairman of the renewable power company Solarcentury, and a key peak energy specialist.
"This [BP] find is welcome but its not going to take concerns away at a time when existing fields are depleting faster than expected and the new discoveries have a very long lead time." "
Note that the Saudi Gwahar field contains about 170bil bbl. Even that would only last the world 6 years.
Can we get back on topic please?
You haven't really thought this through, have you? Where is the replacement for transport fuel coming from, and how will we switch to it rapidly enough to avoid global financial meltdown? How will we grow food when farmers can't afford the oil to run their machinery or the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers to put on their crops? It takes 40L petrol and 75L deisel to grow a hectare of corn under current methods, for example.
When oil supply starts to rapidly decline the first move of govts all over the world will be to nationalise oil ownership and supply and use it only for food cultivation, defence and public transport. We are headed for an Orwellian future unless we as a world start switching away from petroleum right now, but most people can't see it. We'll revisit this thread in 2025 and see where we are.
Nope, I've got things to do, and there is no debate that I can see.
Yeah, just like the finance industry displayed its resilience.
It doesn't matter, we went off on a tangent, and if you want to hear these words...
Yes, I could be wrong.
Satified?
Want to debate it, start a new thread please.
And I'm laughing at your ignorance.
You haven't really thought this through, have you?
I was never a ethonal advocate for those reasons and more. Continue to laugh in ignorance. I cannot stand idiots like you who assume they know my thoughts.
This is my last resonce to this topic in the wrong thread. Want to debate it, start a proper thread for it. Until then, bask in your own ignorance.
Ruff has been drinking too much Kool-Aid.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
