Not real familiar with satellite imagery, are you?
The ice that is there may come and go (freeze and thaw) with the seasons, but it is indisputable that there is a hell of a lot more going than there is coming back.
Satellite imagery from the 70's to now is shocking and disappointing, even bordering on the scary (beyond scary, I think).
So which is it: They're not a major source of methane in the atmosphere OR their crap puts off a ton of methane and we should use it as fuel? I don't think you can have that both ways.
I believe it is the latter. They are a significant contributor to the methane problem AND we should be harnessing every bit of methane we can as fuel.
For the record, cows produce a lot of methane from both ends. Their 4 stomachs and digestion produce a fair amount from that end, and we've all smelt the other ends production. Whew, it's hard to dispute.
I did a search a for a company I hadn't done business with in 10 years (no kidding) and visited their website for the first time ever and a week later their catalog showed up in the mail.
Somehow they had the cookies and partnerships to identify me and send me a catalog in my name.
If that's the extent of privacy anyway, then I have no problem with people being stopped with reason being required to give fingerprints. In fact, I think the same should be required on any flight entering or leaving the country, if it isn't already. And those should be stored.
The problem with this is if the computer image is hosted by Google, it either has to be transferred to your machine in it's entirety and be run there, or left at Google and run there.
Due to the current limits of even the best broadband and the impatience of humanity, the first option isn't feasible.
The problem with the second option is that it puts the entire CPU load on the Google servers and your machine just becomes a terminal. Google's infrastructure is setup for massive storage, but not that kind of massive computing.
But for most people a basic Linux OS with OpenOffice and a few other app, and a browser with access to the web is all they need.
The kicker is games. 90%+ of our computing is (IMHO) driven by the requirements of gaming.
If understanding the world around you is the single most precious thing you have, you need to get some friends, family, and perspective. In case you haven't noticed, our understanding of the world is subject to serious change.
I tend to agree with you, if the decline is gradual.
The problem is if the decline is rapid, or during the decline there is an event that causes the major exporters to horde. We're screwed.
The irony is the solution was here and it got squashed. I'm not talking conspiracy theory 250 MPG magic carburetors, I'm talking about the fully electric car.
The average owner of that car absolutely loved it, actually held funerals for their cars when they got taken away (lease only, no purchase option available), and protested like mad.
Not only that, it worked! Not a single drop of gas, and no oil changes. The only oil was in the tires and maybe some seals. Plug it in at night, drive during the day. Considering the average car in America goes 47 miles per day, it had plenty of range.
Are you still going to argue that this is insignificant?
In light of the fact that Section 179 of the IRS code mandates a gas guzzler (>6,000 lbs) if you want to write off the entire vehicle, the fact that the electric vehicle was squashed, the fact that ethanol as it is implemented in the U.S. is pork, and the fact that hydrogen is all the rage because it is 20 years out (which is why the electric car was squashed, it's a solution now which none of the big boys wanted)?
Yes, given all that I think it is insignificant in that it won't change anything. We will still be hugely dependent on foreign oil (by design) and that dependence will still be one of our greatest national security risks.
Innovation is great, but the fact that that level of innovation is required to get anymore oil out of the ground is further evidence of it's decline. Oil is getting more scarce (hence the extreme measures) and will continue to do so.
The entire lower tertiary area of the Gulf is estimated to hold no more than 15 billion barrels of oil, which is very deep and expensive to get to.
Even if it was easy to get to it will only serve the U.S. at current consumption for 2 years.
Woohoo! We're saved!!! Or not.
I'm supposed to get excited because the biggest domestic oil discovery this decade (I didn't search that out, so don't get all huffy if you find one) prolongs the inevitable by 24 months? If I were a major shareholder of Chevron maybe. As John Q. Public in the U.S.? Nah, I don't think so.
Futures markets, the stock market in general, and even banks work based on general consensus.
The stock market crashed on black monday because everyone panicked together and it was a race to the bottom.
The savings and loans crashed because people thought they would crash, so they all pulled their money out together, causing them to crash.
The futures market is open, and pricing is set based on what people are willing to buy or sell it for. So if most people don't believe in peak oil, they will trade accordingly. That doesn't mean they're right.
In fact, some of the biggest profits made in the stock market and real estate are by zigging when everyone else zags.
So if you believe in peak oil and want to be speculative, buy futures. I believe in it strongly, but don't have a lot of money to speculate and would keep it in real estate anyway.
In any case, the price of the futures market 5 years in the future in no way proves or disproves peak oil. Just the opposite, it's a good indicator of how the masses view oil production and consumption in 5 years.
The motivation to drill in Alaska isn't tribal, but it is financial. Most of the natives seem to be against it from what I've seen.
Who keeps hammering on drilling in Alaska, over and over and over? Bush and his big oil cronies. You are right in following the money trail, but I think wrong in where you think it leads.
Big oil and Bush want to drill there, not because we need it (it's a trivial amount of oil compared to our consumption), but because it's the last of the cheap, easy oil that we have access to.
And Americans have way too short a memory to stop buying SUV's for long. Prius's no longer have a waiting list now that gas prices are normal.
There is no way of knowing for sure, but my bet / prediction is on a continued increase in consumption until pricing dictates otherwise, which will be because of declines in oil reserves or an increase in middle-easter chaos.
That is what we've been fighting over?!? That won't make any difference whatsoever in our energy independence or national security, it will only prolong the inevitable. The only reason that is being argued over is because people are misinformed, have a political agenda to push, or stand to make money off of it!
We're going to trade that much pristine wilderness for 2 to 3 years worth of oil that won't make a difference? No thanks.
How about actually do something about alternative fuels, like we mean it...
The world doesn't have to run out of oil before we have to feel it's effects dramatically.
The fact is that if the United States were cut off from foreign oil we would last 2.87 years at our current consumption.
But we wouldn't remain at our current consumption. Rationing and hording would be quick, which we got a taste of in the 70's IIRC.
Very little new oil is being found, but consumption is going up very quickly in countries like China and India. The rest of the world wants to live like Americans, and as they do there simply won't be enough. Period.
That may not happen today, and it may not happen in the next few years, but it will happen in the next few decades. And in my opinion that will be the cause of WW3 if it hasn't already taken place and no alternative energies fill the vacuum.
Bah, we just need a 200 yard neutral zone around our entire country, with these every 200 feet.
OK, that may make trips to the beach less enjoyable. Let's not have it around our entire country, just our borders on land. And maybe we need them every 50 feet on our southern border.
I agree. If you count up all the people that have ever died as a result of radiation exposure, and all the people that have ever died as a result of pollution, nuclear is very, very, very safe.
The only reason we don't have nuclear is because our government is in love with foreign oil. They ~talk~ about alternatives, but their action speaks volumes.
For instance, no tariff on imported oil, but a 100% tariff on imported biodiesel. Then there is the IRS regulation section 179 that requires your vehicle be a 6,000 lbs gas guzzler to write it off. There is absolutely NO logical reason for that requirement except to promote the purchase of large trucks and SUV's. I'm a web designer and wrote off a $36,000 truck, but couldn't write off a Prius or other fuel efficient car. Ludicrous.
You'll get no argument from me that we have created our current enemies, including Bin Laden, and that we have pretty much the worst foreign relations and policies that we've ever had.
However, just because he (they) talk more than they act doesn't mean they aren't a threat.
Iran (and maybe even North Korea) would love to facilitate a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Especially if they're name wasn't attached to it. So even if Bin Laden alone isn't a threat, the potential is there.
A single nuke in a single U.S. city would have a devastating effect on moral and the economy. Look at what happened after 9/11 and it is near the bottom of the scale for big terrorist attacks. Even sporadic bombings (suicide or otherwise) would have a pretty profound impact.
I hate fear-mongering as much as I hate complacency. I just think it's worth taking our enemies seriously.
Of course its the minority, but that's all it takes.
I think 10% is a very, very reasonable estimate. You think when they have 200,000 people out in the streets all chanting "death to America" and burning our flag and efagies of Bush that represents everyone in the world with that view? What, they all just fly from country to country holding these rallies? Radical islam roadies?
Yes, we've had one attack in the last 5 years, but I think the important thing is that they (bin laden, al qeada, etc) said they would bring down the WTC and did. We were largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves then, and are largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves now.
So now they say they want to kill 10 million Americans (biological, nuclear, whatever). You just think they're talking out their butts? If they say it, they mean it, and believe they can do it.
All this crap about just leaving them alone and they'll leave us alone reminds me of Arthur Neville Chamberlain. That sucker actually thought he had brokered peace with Hitler. A year later german tanks were rolling into his home town.
I'm not saying muslims are evil. I'm saying history teaches us we must be vigilant and must not underestimate those that would love to see us infidels smoldering in ruins.
And they don't suck at war, they're mopping the floor with us in Iraq, achieving every one of their goals: death of infidels and the breeding of hatred for the west. Anti-American sentiment has to be at or near an all-time high, which is exactly what they want.
Mind you this is not all muslims, just the estimated 10 - 15% of them that are radical. So there are only about 200 million people involved in the conspiracy. Does that make it global?
It may surprise you, but all of the people in this video are real humans. They live, they breathe, they hate, and they teach their children to hate.
I don't hate them (or anyone), and I don't teach my children to hate them (or anyone). However, I believe that we MUST take them at their word.
When their clerics stand at a pulpit in front of hundreds and thousands and preach that they are going to kill us and overthrow us in the name of allah, chanting god is great, you MUST take them at their word.
When a school child in America even talks about blowing up their school they are taken at their word and prosecuted.
The entire reason 9/11 happened is because we didn't take the terrorists at their word. They had told us they would bring down the towers, they had even tried before. We simply didn't believe them. We underestimated them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know enough about which ice is over the ocean and which is over land, but much of it is over land.
Much of that land is comprised of old peat bogs and other partially decomposed plant life.
As it is exposed and thaws it releases huge amounts of methane. This has already been observed and written about at length.
IIRC it's one of the greatest potential contributors to the "tipping point".
Not real familiar with satellite imagery, are you?
The ice that is there may come and go (freeze and thaw) with the seasons, but it is indisputable that there is a hell of a lot more going than there is coming back.
Satellite imagery from the 70's to now is shocking and disappointing, even bordering on the scary (beyond scary, I think).
So which is it: They're not a major source of methane in the atmosphere OR their crap puts off a ton of methane and we should use it as fuel? I don't think you can have that both ways.
I believe it is the latter. They are a significant contributor to the methane problem AND we should be harnessing every bit of methane we can as fuel.
For the record, cows produce a lot of methane from both ends. Their 4 stomachs and digestion produce a fair amount from that end, and we've all smelt the other ends production. Whew, it's hard to dispute.
Privacy is a myth.
I did a search a for a company I hadn't done business with in 10 years (no kidding) and visited their website for the first time ever and a week later their catalog showed up in the mail.
Somehow they had the cookies and partnerships to identify me and send me a catalog in my name.
If that's the extent of privacy anyway, then I have no problem with people being stopped with reason being required to give fingerprints. In fact, I think the same should be required on any flight entering or leaving the country, if it isn't already. And those should be stored.
The problem with this is if the computer image is hosted by Google, it either has to be transferred to your machine in it's entirety and be run there, or left at Google and run there.
Due to the current limits of even the best broadband and the impatience of humanity, the first option isn't feasible.
The problem with the second option is that it puts the entire CPU load on the Google servers and your machine just becomes a terminal. Google's infrastructure is setup for massive storage, but not that kind of massive computing.
But for most people a basic Linux OS with OpenOffice and a few other app, and a browser with access to the web is all they need.
The kicker is games. 90%+ of our computing is (IMHO) driven by the requirements of gaming.
If understanding the world around you is the single most precious thing you have, you need to get some friends, family, and perspective. In case you haven't noticed, our understanding of the world is subject to serious change.
We ~hope~ there is more than that.
Since you know the truth, why don't you shed some light on your sources.
I tend to agree with you, if the decline is gradual.
The problem is if the decline is rapid, or during the decline there is an event that causes the major exporters to horde. We're screwed.
The irony is the solution was here and it got squashed. I'm not talking conspiracy theory 250 MPG magic carburetors, I'm talking about the fully electric car.
The average owner of that car absolutely loved it, actually held funerals for their cars when they got taken away (lease only, no purchase option available), and protested like mad.
Not only that, it worked! Not a single drop of gas, and no oil changes. The only oil was in the tires and maybe some seals. Plug it in at night, drive during the day. Considering the average car in America goes 47 miles per day, it had plenty of range.
I highly recommend "Who Killed the Electric Car". Here are some excerpts.
Are you still going to argue that this is insignificant?
In light of the fact that Section 179 of the IRS code mandates a gas guzzler (>6,000 lbs) if you want to write off the entire vehicle, the fact that the electric vehicle was squashed, the fact that ethanol as it is implemented in the U.S. is pork, and the fact that hydrogen is all the rage because it is 20 years out (which is why the electric car was squashed, it's a solution now which none of the big boys wanted)?
Yes, given all that I think it is insignificant in that it won't change anything. We will still be hugely dependent on foreign oil (by design) and that dependence will still be one of our greatest national security risks.
Innovation is great, but the fact that that level of innovation is required to get anymore oil out of the ground is further evidence of it's decline. Oil is getting more scarce (hence the extreme measures) and will continue to do so.
The entire lower tertiary area of the Gulf is estimated to hold no more than 15 billion barrels of oil, which is very deep and expensive to get to.
Even if it was easy to get to it will only serve the U.S. at current consumption for 2 years.
Woohoo! We're saved!!! Or not.
I'm supposed to get excited because the biggest domestic oil discovery this decade (I didn't search that out, so don't get all huffy if you find one) prolongs the inevitable by 24 months? If I were a major shareholder of Chevron maybe. As John Q. Public in the U.S.? Nah, I don't think so.
Futures markets, the stock market in general, and even banks work based on general consensus.
The stock market crashed on black monday because everyone panicked together and it was a race to the bottom.
The savings and loans crashed because people thought they would crash, so they all pulled their money out together, causing them to crash.
The futures market is open, and pricing is set based on what people are willing to buy or sell it for. So if most people don't believe in peak oil, they will trade accordingly. That doesn't mean they're right.
In fact, some of the biggest profits made in the stock market and real estate are by zigging when everyone else zags.
So if you believe in peak oil and want to be speculative, buy futures. I believe in it strongly, but don't have a lot of money to speculate and would keep it in real estate anyway.
In any case, the price of the futures market 5 years in the future in no way proves or disproves peak oil. Just the opposite, it's a good indicator of how the masses view oil production and consumption in 5 years.
The motivation to drill in Alaska isn't tribal, but it is financial. Most of the natives seem to be against it from what I've seen.
Who keeps hammering on drilling in Alaska, over and over and over? Bush and his big oil cronies. You are right in following the money trail, but I think wrong in where you think it leads.
Big oil and Bush want to drill there, not because we need it (it's a trivial amount of oil compared to our consumption), but because it's the last of the cheap, easy oil that we have access to.
Historically there isn't a lot of downtrend in U.S. oil consumption.
And Americans have way too short a memory to stop buying SUV's for long. Prius's no longer have a waiting list now that gas prices are normal.
There is no way of knowing for sure, but my bet / prediction is on a continued increase in consumption until pricing dictates otherwise, which will be because of declines in oil reserves or an increase in middle-easter chaos.
Wrong-o.
The Alaskan reserve that everyone is having a hissy fit over contains around 2 to 3 years worth of oil at current U.S. consumption.
Phffft! That's a drop in the proverbial bucket!
That is what we've been fighting over?!? That won't make any difference whatsoever in our energy independence or national security, it will only prolong the inevitable. The only reason that is being argued over is because people are misinformed, have a political agenda to push, or stand to make money off of it!
We're going to trade that much pristine wilderness for 2 to 3 years worth of oil that won't make a difference? No thanks.
How about actually do something about alternative fuels, like we mean it...
The world doesn't have to run out of oil before we have to feel it's effects dramatically.
The fact is that if the United States were cut off from foreign oil we would last 2.87 years at our current consumption.
But we wouldn't remain at our current consumption. Rationing and hording would be quick, which we got a taste of in the 70's IIRC.
Very little new oil is being found, but consumption is going up very quickly in countries like China and India. The rest of the world wants to live like Americans, and as they do there simply won't be enough. Period.
That may not happen today, and it may not happen in the next few years, but it will happen in the next few decades. And in my opinion that will be the cause of WW3 if it hasn't already taken place and no alternative energies fill the vacuum.
Bah, we just need a 200 yard neutral zone around our entire country, with these every 200 feet.
OK, that may make trips to the beach less enjoyable. Let's not have it around our entire country, just our borders on land. And maybe we need them every 50 feet on our southern border.
Yeah, the grandfather clause should have been for a maximum of 5 - 10 years, only enough to upgrade a plant or build a new one and no more.
The problem is there are 60 lobbyist's for each politician, so it's hard for common sense or the voice of the people to be heard.
I agree. If you count up all the people that have ever died as a result of radiation exposure, and all the people that have ever died as a result of pollution, nuclear is very, very, very safe.
The only reason we don't have nuclear is because our government is in love with foreign oil. They ~talk~ about alternatives, but their action speaks volumes.
For instance, no tariff on imported oil, but a 100% tariff on imported biodiesel. Then there is the IRS regulation section 179 that requires your vehicle be a 6,000 lbs gas guzzler to write it off. There is absolutely NO logical reason for that requirement except to promote the purchase of large trucks and SUV's. I'm a web designer and wrote off a $36,000 truck, but couldn't write off a Prius or other fuel efficient car. Ludicrous.
You'll get no argument from me that we have created our current enemies, including Bin Laden, and that we have pretty much the worst foreign relations and policies that we've ever had.
However, just because he (they) talk more than they act doesn't mean they aren't a threat.
Iran (and maybe even North Korea) would love to facilitate a suit-case nuke inside the U.S. Especially if they're name wasn't attached to it. So even if Bin Laden alone isn't a threat, the potential is there.
A single nuke in a single U.S. city would have a devastating effect on moral and the economy. Look at what happened after 9/11 and it is near the bottom of the scale for big terrorist attacks. Even sporadic bombings (suicide or otherwise) would have a pretty profound impact.
I hate fear-mongering as much as I hate complacency. I just think it's worth taking our enemies seriously.
Of course its the minority, but that's all it takes.
I think 10% is a very, very reasonable estimate. You think when they have 200,000 people out in the streets all chanting "death to America" and burning our flag and efagies of Bush that represents everyone in the world with that view? What, they all just fly from country to country holding these rallies? Radical islam roadies?
So the muslims that burned 21,000 cars in France were what, 1% of the population?
Forget it. Good night.
I don't know anything about your lingering fear and hatred of muslims.
I don't know what more you need than Bin Laden saying he is ready to kill 10 million Americans?
Seriously, what the hell more do you need?
If some punk even jokes about killing someone at his school he's expelled and probably arrested. Labeled for life for sure.
But the leader of the extremest movement and orchestrator of 9/11 says he's ready for round 2, and I'm supposed to think he's just joking?
Watch the news and take them at their word that they mean what they say and that they really want to do it.
Yes, we've had one attack in the last 5 years, but I think the important thing is that they (bin laden, al qeada, etc) said they would bring down the WTC and did. We were largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves then, and are largely complacent and bickering amongst ourselves now.
So now they say they want to kill 10 million Americans (biological, nuclear, whatever). You just think they're talking out their butts? If they say it, they mean it, and believe they can do it.
All this crap about just leaving them alone and they'll leave us alone reminds me of Arthur Neville Chamberlain. That sucker actually thought he had brokered peace with Hitler. A year later german tanks were rolling into his home town.
I'm not saying muslims are evil. I'm saying history teaches us we must be vigilant and must not underestimate those that would love to see us infidels smoldering in ruins.
And they don't suck at war, they're mopping the floor with us in Iraq, achieving every one of their goals: death of infidels and the breeding of hatred for the west. Anti-American sentiment has to be at or near an all-time high, which is exactly what they want.
Well if it uses techniques used every day in advertising, political commercials, and most documentaries ever made, it can't be true.
Whew, peace at last! I'll sleep good tonight knowing that.
I'm saying I've seen video of one of their clerics condemning the attacks one day and leading a "death to America" rally the next.
Which is not suprising when their religion allows them to lie.
Mind you this is not all muslims, just the estimated 10 - 15% of them that are radical. So there are only about 200 million people involved in the conspiracy. Does that make it global?
It may surprise you, but all of the people in this video are real humans. They live, they breathe, they hate, and they teach their children to hate.
I don't hate them (or anyone), and I don't teach my children to hate them (or anyone). However, I believe that we MUST take them at their word.
When their clerics stand at a pulpit in front of hundreds and thousands and preach that they are going to kill us and overthrow us in the name of allah, chanting god is great, you MUST take them at their word.
When a school child in America even talks about blowing up their school they are taken at their word and prosecuted.
The entire reason 9/11 happened is because we didn't take the terrorists at their word. They had told us they would bring down the towers, they had even tried before. We simply didn't believe them. We underestimated them.
Now bin laden (lowercase out of disrespect) has said he is ready to kill 10 million Americans. If we ignore him, if we don't take him at his word, we do so at our own peril.
Unless prevented, history has a way of repeating itself. Especially when very determined people are hell-bent on doing just that.