Endangered Polar Bears.... NOT! (Barrow, Nome: credit, store, safety)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

Most expert figures I’ve seen puts the total amount of oil that EVER existed on this planet at around 2 trillion barrels, and in the last one hundred or so years that we’ve been using oil, we’ve consumed roughly 1 trillion. Put in other words, in little over a century, man has been able to burn through and release HALF of all the oil this planet needed a geologic time scale to create. I don’t know about arrogant – that’s a word/emotion created by man – but clearly human activity has been able to affect things on a planetary scale.

Anytime you have so-called "experts" claiming they know the total amount of ANYTHING on this planet can be instantly discounted as a wacko. They may have a "best guess" based on historical consumption and try to extrapolate, but in reality they have absolutely no clue. The only way anyone can know for certain how much total oil is left on this planet is by consuming every last drop first. Obviously that has not happened, so no one can know the total amount of any resource.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

Just doing some quick calculations, take one trillion barrels X 42 gallons X 7 lbs per gallon = 294 trillion pounds, half of that if you want to make it the last 50 yrs so lets just call it 150 trillion pounds of stuff released into our atmosphere from burning oil (and that doesn’t account for coal, gas, etc). I have no idea what a typical volcano releases into our atmosphere. On the other hand, 150 trillion pounds is a bigger number than I can wrap my brain around either. Who knows, maybe that’s even MORE than a typical volcano.

Your calculations are precise, but not accurate. You are making too many assumptions that have no demonstrated values. For example, your first (and biggest) assumption is that 100% of every drop of oil is released into the atmosphere. Another erroneous assumption being made is that 100% of the oil refined becomes gasoline, and that there is no waste.

These kinds of assumption are no different than those who claim the oil in ANWR would only produce the US with a 6 month supply of oil. They completely ignore the maximum throughput of the pipeline. In short, they fail to apply common sense, a.k.a. reason.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

So, you clearly acknowledge that Mt St Helen’s had a planetary wide effect on global temperatures. In other words, releasing pollution into the atmosphere does have an effect. What if it turns out that Mt St Helen’s only released 100 trillion pounds of stuff? Where do human effects on climate change stand then?

Even nature only has a temporary effect on the planet. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs probably took the planet decades to recover, or even longer, but it was still only temporary. To assume that humans can effect the planetary weather for centuries to come is the epitome of arrogance.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Anytime you have so-called "experts" claiming they know the total amount of ANYTHING on this planet can be instantly discounted as a wacko. They may have a "best guess" based on historical consumption and try to extrapolate, but in reality they have absolutely no clue. The only way anyone can know for certain how much total oil is left on this planet is by consuming every last drop first. Obviously that has not happened, so no one can know the total amount of any resource...

I'll bet that's the first time the American Petroleum Institute has ever been lumped in with the "Wacko" crowd.

Welcome To The API Website

In fact, I was at their DC Office in March while they were being picketed by the real Wacko's wearing Polar Bear Suits!

Anyway, the point is we've consumed a WHOLE BUNCH of oil.

Originally Posted by Glitch

Your calculations are precise, but not accurate. You are making too many assumptions that have no demonstrated values. For example, your first (and biggest) assumption is that 100% of every drop of oil is released into the atmosphere. Another erroneous assumption being made is that 100% of the oil refined becomes gasoline, and that there is no waste....

At no time am I trying to be accurate. Yes, there's no allowance for the exact stoichiometric ratios in the chemical equations, so the figure could be off by +/- 50% or more. But then I also said I didn't account for coal or natural gas which would only raise the numbers higher.

The point is that the scale of the numbers, in the trillions of pounds, could be comparable to that which is released by natural activity.

Originally Posted by Glitch

Even nature only has a temporary effect on the planet. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs probably took the planet decades to recover, or even longer, but it was still only temporary. To assume that humans can effect the planetary weather for centuries to come is the epitome of arrogance.

Where did I ever make any reference to a time scale? All I am saying is that if you accept the logic that volcanoes affect the climate, on any time scale, then any phenomena that releases comparable emmissions by weight would have a similiar effect.

And, while saying that "To assume that humans can effect the planetary weather for centuries to come is the epitome of arrogance" may be true, if human activity is comparable to say a medium sized volcano, it is therefore real, and logically it can't be dismissed as simply a hoax either.

[Rance]

starlite9 apparently there is a dead whale washed up at Point Mac. The rig moving off location got to watch a grizz and polar bear brawling a couple days ago. And they said there were 4 polar bears feeding on the whale. You close enough to get any pictures?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

I'll bet that's the first time the American Petroleum Institute has ever been lumped in with the "Wacko" crowd.

Actually, it was your misquoting the API that put your statement in the "wacko" category. Nowhere on the API web site will you ever read that they know precisely how much oil is left on this planet. They couldn't possibly know, no one could. So by attributing your mistatement as originating with the API you are deliberating attempting to deceive, a.k.a. lying.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

Anyway, the point is we've consumed a WHOLE BUNCH of oil.

Now THAT is an accurate statement.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

At no time am I trying to be accurate. Yes, there's no allowance for the exact stoichiometric ratios in the chemical equations, so the figure could be off by +/- 50% or more. But then I also said I didn't account for coal or natural gas which would only raise the numbers higher.

The point is that the scale of the numbers, in the trillions of pounds, could be comparable to that which is released by natural activity.

Another assumption. Why not millions of pounds or billions of pounds? If you plug different values, based on different assumptions, into your equation, the results can vary by a considerable amount. Pulling a large number out of your posterior does not make it factual.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

Where did I ever make any reference to a time scale? All I am saying is that if you accept the logic that volcanoes affect the climate, on any time scale, then any phenomena that releases comparable emmissions by weight would have a similiar effect.

If something managed to put as much gases and materials into the atmosphere equivalent to an erupting volcano, then it is reasonable to conclude that the effect on the planet would be similar. In otherwords, the planetary weather may be impacted for as long as 2 years, depending on the size of the eruption you are using for a comparison.

There are also volcanoes that erupt and have absolutely no effect on the planetary weather. Again, it is a matter of scale, which you are assuming is massive.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

And, while saying that "To assume that humans can effect the planetary weather for centuries to come is the epitome of arrogance" may be true, if human activity is comparable to say a medium sized volcano, it is therefore real, and logically it can't be dismissed as simply a hoax either.

The amount of "impact" you are referring to is so insignificant as to be laughable. Erupting medium sized volcanoes do not have a planetary impact. Therefore, using your own comparison, if human pollution is equivalent to a medium sized volcanic eruption, then humans do not have a planetary impact on the weather.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Actually, it was your misquoting the API that put your statement in the "wacko" category. Nowhere on the API web site will you ever read that they know precisely how much oil is left on this planet. They couldn't possibly know, no one could. So by attributing your mistatement as originating with the API you are deliberating attempting to deceive, a.k.a. lying..

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/upload/truth_primer.pdf

Page 31, Quote: "World reserves of 1. 3 trillion barrels as of January 1, 2007 according to Oil and Gas Journal December 24, 2007"

API is the industry consortium of the leading (free market) Oil Producers. It is their business to drill for oil. If you think you know better and they are a "liars", well, there's nothing I can say to help you there.

But the amount of oil remaining in the ground isn't even germaine to this discussion, it is the amount consumed so far. So what's you're point?

Originally Posted by Glitch

Another assumption. Why not millions of pounds or billions of pounds? If you plug different values, based on different assumptions, into your equation, the results can vary by a considerable amount. Pulling a large number out of your posterior does not make it factual.

OK, so it "only" a billion, or "only" a million. I could care less what the number is. The point is that, here in this thread, where everyone has demanded "unequivocal proof" for every statement, a claim was made that "We had a couple of Volcano's that blew ash into the air a few weeks ago that put more particulates into the air than man has in the last fifty years." OK, that's fine, and it may even be true, so lets see the numbers to back this up.

Originally Posted by Glitch

If something managed to put as much gases and materials into the atmosphere equivalent to an erupting volcano, then it is reasonable to conclude that the effect on the planet would be similar.

The amount of "impact" you are referring to is so insignificant as to be laughable.

In one sentence you say there are real effects, in the next you say it is "laughable."

At this point I can only say that a rational and civil discussion of this point is impossible.

[warptman]

Who shot Kennedy?

Is Elvis dead?

Did we really goto the moon?

Was Darwin adopted?

What if E didn't equal mc squared?

I'm sure you guys can answer these questions.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by warptman

Who shot Kennedy?.

Ask Oliver Stone!

Originally Posted by warptman

Is Elvis dead?.

No, he was abducted by aliens!

Originally Posted by warptman

Did we really goto the moon?.

Ask Buzz, then watch out for his right hook!

Originally Posted by warptman

Was Darwin adopted?.

Probably, but the adoption laws evolved from the Magna Carta!

Originally Posted by warptman

What if E didn't equal mc squared?.

Then my computer wouldn't work, and this discussion wouldn't be happening!

Originally Posted by warptman

I'm sure you guys can answer these questions.

No, we are liars, and probably don't even live in Alaska!

[Rance]

Play or download:

senduit | Share easily.

[warptman]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

What would happen if you taped a piece of toast butter side up to the top of a cat and dropped it?


More questions.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/upload/truth_primer.pdf

Page 31, Quote: "World reserves of 1. 3 trillion barrels as of January 1, 2007 according to Oil and Gas Journal December 24, 2007"

API is the industry consortium of the leading (free market) Oil Producers. It is their business to drill for oil. If you think you know better and they are a "liars", well, there's nothing I can say to help you there.

But the amount of oil remaining in the ground isn't even germaine to this discussion, it is the amount consumed so far. So what's you're point?

Nice try at deflection, but you made it germaine when you posted this deliberate lie:

Most expert figures I’ve seen puts the total amount of oil that EVER existed on this planet at around 2 trillion barrels.

No "experts" ever made any such claim. You posted the estimated reserves from the API, not "the total amount of oil that EVER existed on this planet" which is pure fabrication on your part.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

OK, so it "only" a billion, or "only" a million. I could care less what the number is. The point is that, here in this thread, where everyone has demanded "unequivocal proof" for every statement, a claim was made that "We had a couple of Volcano's that blew ash into the air a few weeks ago that put more particulates into the air than man has in the last fifty years." OK, that's fine, and it may even be true, so lets see the numbers to back this up.

I never made any such assertion, and therefore have no need to back it up.

Originally Posted by AK_Photographer

In one sentence you say there are real effects, in the next you say it is "laughable."

At this point I can only say that a rational and civil discussion of this point is impossible.

Another attempt to lie by taking statements out of context with a little creative editing on your part. A pin prick is a "real effect", but it is NOT the gashed artery leaf-lickers pretend it is.

I'm not surprised that you would terminate this discussion, having been caught in so many erroneous assumptions and deliberate lies.