The sea floor where the wellhead sits it a bit over 5,000 ft under the surface. The total depth of the well is over 18,000 ft and by some reports over 20,000 ft. That leaves well over 10,000 ft of intervening ground between the oil and the sea bed.
Regional stability would have been better served by leaving Saddam in place. He wasn't strong enough to be a absolute threat to others in the region, especially since the US would have responded to help, but he served to draw Iran's attention enough to reduce their threats to others. Now Iraq has become an ally of Iran.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but you can't get it without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to insure it so the government has to. Private financiers are not willing to fund it without government loan guarantees. That's more of an impediment to nuclear power than all of the environmentalists protests in my view.
Your opinion that global warming is not a problem is not shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying the problem. Who am I going to believe, cbeaudry or scientists actually studying the problem?
Cap & Trade is merely a market based solution to reducing CO2 emissions. Increasing the cost of using fossil fuels will encourage the development of alternative technologies.
What? Scientists aren't people too? They have families. They're concerned about the future for them. Don't they have as much right as anyone to express their views?
But in reality, for the most part what climate scientists are saying is the simplest and most effective way they know of to combat global warming is to reduce and ultimately stop net emissions of GHG's, primarily CO2. Just because you don't like the political and other implications of what they are saying doesn't mean they're wrong.
Worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms have nothing to do with science, at least not the science you're talking about, and the scientists practicing that science have no such motivation except in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Considering that a large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has occurred at least 7 times in the last 3500 years without triggering the Yellowstone Caldera I don't think it's a problem.
There is no direct connection between the Nisqually quake and the subduction zone off the coast. Quakes like the Nisqually may be due to stresses caused by subduction but they don't do much if anything to relieve the build up of the subduction zone itself.
If I could use my mod points you'd get a +1 insightful.
Until you make it too expensive for employers to hire undocumented workers they'll continue to do it. I would say the fine should be you pay the cost of deporting any undocumented foreigners you employ and their families back to their homes.
Well I have to assume your mystery answer is nuclear power. I'm not against nuclear power per se but it can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to write coverage for it so the government has to insure it. Private lending isn't willing to finance it without government loan guarantees. That's as much if not more of an impediment to building nuclear power plants than opposition by environmentalists.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When scientists as NOAA examined Watts's list of well sited vs. poorly sited stations and compared the results against each other the results strengthened their argument that their statistical methods are valid.
Externality: In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.
Just because it isn't in your dictionary doesn't mean it's not a word.
Externalities associated with fossil fuels include the environmental devastation of acquiring them (mountain top mining, the gulf geyser), the increase in illness from the pollution, the cost of maintaining a large enough military to assure our supply of them and in the end global warming is a big one. They're hard to put a dollar value on but there certainly is a cost to them.
Canadians may have complaints about their health care system but the question to ask here is if they'd like to trade their system for the system in the US. I suspect 95% of them would say "No f'n way!"
The problem with fossil fuels is that we're not paying the true cost of using them. If you added in all the externalities it would cost 3 or 4 times what it does now. A carbon tax just accounts for some of the externalities. It invokes the profit motive to move us off of fossil fuels.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but they can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance is willing to insure them. Private interests aren't willing to finance them without government guarantees. We've had enough of government guarantees.
While I'm not a scientist by trade it's been an interest of mine for my whole life (58 years). I took college science classes through the 200 level with some 300s. I think I understand science a little better than the average American (but maybe that's just my foolish pride). I can follow the science pretty well until they get into the heavy math.
There are very few people I would consider experts on the "skeptic" side, Lindzen, Spencer and a few others. They are vastly outnumbered by their peers on the global warming side.
The whole point of science is to make the inexplicable explicable.
Yet a recent study comparing Watts' list of well and poorly sited stations showed that if anything after adjustments the poorly sited ones add a slight negative bias to the temperature record compared to the well sites ones.
Yes, they do use statistical methods to make the adjustments but they've tested them against the real world to verify their validity. You don't have to visit 100% of the stations to test that.
On a per capita basis the US emits 4 times the CO2 of China. Until that's equal I don't think we can complain much. Or do you believe we have the right to expect a better standard of living than they do?
Slashdot Mirror
The sea floor where the wellhead sits it a bit over 5,000 ft under the surface. The total depth of the well is over 18,000 ft and by some reports over 20,000 ft. That leaves well over 10,000 ft of intervening ground between the oil and the sea bed.
GPS doesn't work underwater at all and there's nothing that can change that.
(Yes I work for a GPS company).
If I could use my mod points you'd get a +1 Informative
Regional stability would have been better served by leaving Saddam in place. He wasn't strong enough to be a absolute threat to others in the region, especially since the US would have responded to help, but he served to draw Iran's attention enough to reduce their threats to others. Now Iraq has become an ally of Iran.
What came to my mind after reading your OP was spotted dick.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but you can't get it without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to insure it so the government has to. Private financiers are not willing to fund it without government loan guarantees. That's more of an impediment to nuclear power than all of the environmentalists protests in my view.
Your opinion that global warming is not a problem is not shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists studying the problem. Who am I going to believe, cbeaudry or scientists actually studying the problem?
Cap & Trade is merely a market based solution to reducing CO2 emissions. Increasing the cost of using fossil fuels will encourage the development of alternative technologies.
What? Scientists aren't people too? They have families. They're concerned about the future for them. Don't they have as much right as anyone to express their views?
But in reality, for the most part what climate scientists are saying is the simplest and most effective way they know of to combat global warming is to reduce and ultimately stop net emissions of GHG's, primarily CO2. Just because you don't like the political and other implications of what they are saying doesn't mean they're wrong.
Worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms have nothing to do with science, at least not the science you're talking about, and the scientists practicing that science have no such motivation except in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
Yes, the Cascade volcanoes are a result of the subduction zone.
As an Oregonian all I can say is: Thank God I don't live in Texas!
Considering that a large Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake has occurred at least 7 times in the last 3500 years without triggering the Yellowstone Caldera I don't think it's a problem.
There is no direct connection between the Nisqually quake and the subduction zone off the coast. Quakes like the Nisqually may be due to stresses caused by subduction but they don't do much if anything to relieve the build up of the subduction zone itself.
If I could use my mod points you'd get a +1 insightful.
Until you make it too expensive for employers to hire undocumented workers they'll continue to do it. I would say the fine should be you pay the cost of deporting any undocumented foreigners you employ and their families back to their homes.
It's also has the highest number of microbreweries of any city in the world.
Well I have to assume your mystery answer is nuclear power. I'm not against nuclear power per se but it can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance company is willing to write coverage for it so the government has to insure it. Private lending isn't willing to finance it without government loan guarantees. That's as much if not more of an impediment to building nuclear power plants than opposition by environmentalists.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When scientists as NOAA examined Watts's list of well sited vs. poorly sited stations and compared the results against each other the results strengthened their argument that their statistical methods are valid.
Externality: In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.
Just because it isn't in your dictionary doesn't mean it's not a word.
Externalities associated with fossil fuels include the environmental devastation of acquiring them (mountain top mining, the gulf geyser), the increase in illness from the pollution, the cost of maintaining a large enough military to assure our supply of them and in the end global warming is a big one. They're hard to put a dollar value on but there certainly is a cost to them.
Canadians may have complaints about their health care system but the question to ask here is if they'd like to trade their system for the system in the US. I suspect 95% of them would say "No f'n way!"
Watts did a service to the climate scientists forcing them to examine their data more closely. In the end though it strengthened their case.
Land mass may have something to do with the amount of CO2 emitted but compared to population it's a pretty small effect.
The problem with fossil fuels is that we're not paying the true cost of using them. If you added in all the externalities it would cost 3 or 4 times what it does now. A carbon tax just accounts for some of the externalities. It invokes the profit motive to move us off of fossil fuels.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but they can't be built without massive government subsidies. No private insurance is willing to insure them. Private interests aren't willing to finance them without government guarantees. We've had enough of government guarantees.
While I'm not a scientist by trade it's been an interest of mine for my whole life (58 years). I took college science classes through the 200 level with some 300s. I think I understand science a little better than the average American (but maybe that's just my foolish pride). I can follow the science pretty well until they get into the heavy math.
There are very few people I would consider experts on the "skeptic" side, Lindzen, Spencer and a few others. They are vastly outnumbered by their peers on the global warming side.
The whole point of science is to make the inexplicable explicable.
Yet a recent study comparing Watts' list of well and poorly sited stations showed that if anything after adjustments the poorly sited ones add a slight negative bias to the temperature record compared to the well sites ones.
Yes, they do use statistical methods to make the adjustments but they've tested them against the real world to verify their validity. You don't have to visit 100% of the stations to test that.
On a per capita basis the US emits 4 times the CO2 of China. Until that's equal I don't think we can complain much. Or do you believe we have the right to expect a better standard of living than they do?