LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI get the odd impression that SAT was just left out of school at three o clock.Originally Posted by ibis
I get the odd impression that SAT was just left out of school at three o clock.
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. There are lies, damn lies and Fine Gael confusions. "I don't understand." Alan "it's only 79 punts" Shatter
Here's an economic argument as to why we will never run out of oil
We Will Never Run Out of OilWe Will Never Run Out of Oil
The Oil Supply - The Doomsday Scenarios are Flawed
WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL
At least not in a physical sense. There will still be oil in the ground 10 years from now, and 50 years from now and 500 years from now. This will hold true no matter if you take a pessimistic or optimistic view about the amount of oil still available to be extracted. Let's suppose that the supply really is quite limited. What will happen as the supply starts to diminish? First we would expect to see some wells run dry and either be replaced with new wells that have higher associated costs or not be replaced at all. Either of these would cause the price at the pump to rise. When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, or cars that run on alternative fuels. Each consumer will react to the price change differently, so we would expect to see everything from more people bicycling to work to used car lots full of Lincoln Navigators.
If we go back to Economics 101, this effect is clearly visible. The continual reduction of the supply of oil is represented by a series of small shifts of the supply curve to the left and an associated move along the demand curve. Since gasoline is a normal good, Economics 101 tells us that we will have a series of price increases and a series of reductions in the total amount of gasoline consumed. Eventually the price will reach a point where gasoline will become a niche good purchased by very few consumers, while other consumers will have found alternatives to gas. When this happens there will still be plenty of oil in the ground, but consumers will have found alternatives that make more economic sense to them, so there will be little, if any, demand for gasoline.
You see you really do struggle with reading comprehension. I specifically asked Sharper which data sets we should believe/disbelieve and yet in your brain you read this as my thinking there is only one data set.
Now if you could only constrain yourself to comment on what people actually post rather than what you would have liked them to post debates would move along much more smoothly.
So these different data sets; are they measuring different planets or is there a problem somewhere?
Poor analogy. Warming is natural for the Earth. We have had global warming since long long before CO2 became an issue as we recover from the little ice age. The question is do we have extreme warming as predicted by AGW. The answer from the satellite data appears to be no.
So to use your tortured analogy it's like going to the doctors and one telling you you are dying of cancer in 6 months and another telling you, you are slowly dying of old age,
Nope. There is a key difference, I used it in the correct context whereas you did not :mrgreen:
Wrong. UAH also shows a warming trend but then I should expect nothing less from someone who thinks the Earth has been cooling for 15 years.
Perhaps though you'll believe the folks at wattsupwiththat
A comphrehensive comparison of GISS and UAH global Temperature data Watts Up With That?
Remember all the stuff we hear about faulty weather stations, heat island corrections, fraudulent manipulation etc etc? Yet when you take North America and compare GISS to independent satellite measurements they line up almost exactly.
The only "correct context" would be if what I was actually saying is that you guys are freaking awesome at both science and economics instead of what I actually said. Considering you don't know one type of temperature measurement from another we can consider the odds of me thinking you're good at science as "unlikely".Nope. There is a key difference, I used it in the correct context whereas you did not :mrgreen:
Which part of the following sentences from my post did you have trouble understanding?
We have had global warming since long long before CO2 became an issue as we recover from the little ice age. The question is do we have extreme warming as predicted by AGW.Not only are you clueless on science but your English sucks too
Last edited by SAT; 22nd January 2010 at 08:31 PM.
Oh I understood that sentence just fine I just think it's funny you've gone from "The dataset is obviously wrong! There is no warming!!!" to "Warming is natural anyway" when nobody was even discussing what was causing the warming, merely the actual existence of the warming itself. It would appear to reveal a high degree of insecurity on your part, sort like when someone is constantly trying to reinforce how heterosexual they are.
I have consistently said the Earth has a long term warming trend as it recovers from the little ice age. The recent hiatus in the warming is the sort of natural variation one would expect in the absence of manmade climate forcings. The GISS record is uncannily consistent with a data set multiplied by a 'fudge factor' but nobody would do that; would they?
Sorry to hear about your sexual problems.
NASA: Last decade was warmest ever - CNN.comThe first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ever on Earth according to data released by scientists at NASA. The U.S. space agency's data also revealed that 2009 was the second warmest year since temperature records began in 1880, and only narrowly cooler than 2005, the warmest year ever.
But the bravest fell, and the requiem bell rang mournfully and clear
for those that died that Eastertide in the springing of the year.
Actually some of the extremely fast warming has already taken place. AGW is the only plausible theory that describes why it happened.
By definition someone without expertise, who thinks that the vast majority of scientists are wrong about a scientific issue, is very likely to be clueless about science.Not only are you clueless on science but your English sucks too
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote