Apocalypse Soon?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Futilitist, Jan 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    You see in only black and white. You don't consider the alternatives. We need to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. That can be done by reducing the introduction of carbon through the burning of fossil fuels, or through the removal of carbon, or from a combination of the two.

    Because your blanket assertions are being challenged you automatically assume, either from stupidity or manipulative debating technique, that your challengers do no think there are problems. I believe all of them do, they just don't think the consequences are as you predict. The world is a more complex place than your simplistic model takes account of.

    1. You guess wind is good. That would be about the size of it. Guessing.

    Let's consider Scotland's renewable energy figures for 2011 as a percent of total energy use:
    Hydroelectricity - 13%.
    Wind, wave and tidal - 17 1/2%
    Landfill gas and other biofuels - 3 1/2%

    So 30%, in 2011, of Scotland's energy needs are not directly putting carbon into the environment. The goal is to meet the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electicity demand from renewable resources by 2020. In what way are the alternatives, added together, not enough to avert collapse? Are you suggesting that Scotland is unique among countries, or part of a tiny minority who are taking few steps in that direction? Perhaps because you seem incapable of change yourself, you attribute that fixity of behaviour to the rest of humanity. It just ain't so.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    That is not true.

    That is also not true.

    Evidence is emerging that shows that the climate may already have crossed the tipping point into a runaway effect. It may no longer be possible avert the worst possible outcomes of climate change through any means, even reducing emissions to zero.

    I'm glad you decided to join the actual debate at this point. That was the rational thing to do in your situation. However, accusing me of being either stupid or manipulative is rude, unnecessary, and not conducive to a productive discussion. Since this is your first attempt at a serious post in this thread, I suppose we can overlook this. I must admit that it is a big improvement over calling me a pr**k and a lying bastard.

    Scotland seems to be doing great. How long do you think it would take for the whole world to reach the level of 100% of electricity demand from renewable resources? Is it even possible?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes, it would seem so, judging by the statistics in the graphic above. Perhaps Scotland is unique in that it has a low population and an abundance of potential wind and water power.

    Once again, it is not necessary to resort to personal attack.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    We need to reduce the carbon put in the atmosphere. Big difference.

    Good start! Keep guessing.

    Fortunately it isn't. The IPCC in 1990 predicted a worst case temperature rise of .5C a decade. It's been less than .2C a decade, close to their best case scenario.

    Oh, there's plenty wrong. Over-reliance on fossil fuels. Too much CO2 emission. Heavy metal pollution in China and India. Nutso dictators with nuclear weapons. Governments that can't get out of their own way.

    Just nothing that will lead to a 90-95% dieoff of all humanity. We've solved such problem before.

    ?? Come by my house sometime and I'll show you how to change the future. Stop by my place of work and I'll show you some alternatives to pulling up to the gas pump. I'll even buy you a beer at a local brewery that uses primarily solar power to brew their beer. Not everyone has given up as you have.

    Nope. Nor am I an alarmist.

    Sounds like you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. Which is fine - but if that's the case, perhaps you should simply publish a blog and disallow comments.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    By 2050 we could be supplying 70% of our electrical power from renewable resources.

    Sure, but why? The goal is not to eliminate any use of coal, nuclear, natural gas etc. The goal is to reduce their usage to a level that allows us to go centuries on what we have left.
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Despite Anadarko´s very recent discovery of "A Bottomless Oil Well 31,405 Feet Below the Ocean Floor" estimated to hold to 900 million boe in Gulf of Mexico (“bottomless” as even after drilling thru 1000 feet of oil rocks, they still had not gotten down to the water interface below! - More details in post 859) and The Kashagan Field with recoverable reserves about 13 billion barrels (2.1×109 m3) of crude oil that will start production near end of 1013. (More details in post 869) Both new large CONVENTIONAL OIL fields, Futilitist continues repeating same broken record message for years: ‘Peak Oil happened in 2005.”
    Non-sense broken record. You have been told a dozen times that production can not exceed demand at the current price because there is now way to store what will not sell. Now we are not even at the conventional oil peak of supply! – See data above on huge new finds, one producing in a few months. US fracking production is surging. – Has cut oil imports by 1/3 already and many think will end need to import any oil in a few years. (That would be the entire US consumption is new supply!)

    A broken record is incapable of learning these new facts (or perhaps just ignores them?) You just keep false repeating suggestion that supply is limiting production, now even the production of liquids. Keep ignoring fact demand is falling in US and EU as data below shows. Only reason production is flat, instead of falling, is that Asian demand, though small compared to US & EU is increasing. Again production can not exceed demand. There is plenty of supply, and it is growing fast.
  9. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    That is what we tell ourselves, but there is evidence that the problem may be much more severe than the consensus view.

    The IPCC represents the consensus view.

    That is your opinion.

    I haven't given up. I could just as easily say that you have given up trying to understand your world and that you wallow in Groupthink. But thanks anyway for the invitation to your anecdotal world.

    Me neither. I am a realist and a Futilitist.

    I can handle disagreement as well as anyone else. I enjoy debate. I don't enjoy having you put words in my mouth like you constantly do. And the repetition of the false attribution after I have corrected your mistake is particularly annoying and even cartoonish. That is why I pointed it out.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes. And even their average predictions have been demonstrated to be not quite accurate. We are barely tracking to their best-case (i.e. minimum warming) scenario.

    Sure you have. The dieoff is inevitable, according to you. Nothing anyone can do. Might as well just give up and party.

    You're welcome! Might even inspire you to change your name.

    Your substitution of childish personal attacks for rational discourse puts lie to that.
  11. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    This is just irrelevant hype. Just because someone impossibly describes an oil well as "bottomless" doesn't mean that all of our problems are solved.

    As billvon cautioned you:


    If there is no way to store oil, as you say, why does the article you reference refer to "inventories" and "stockpiles"?

    You said:

    Yet the article you quoted totally contradicts your statement:

    Of course production can't exceed demand at the current price. When supply exceeds demand, the price falls. That is just basic economics. In the past, oil prices as high as the ones we have now would have stimulated more production, causing the price to fall. Nowadays, something very is different is happening. It seems like this would logically point to the possibility that all of this is being caused by peak oil, but instead you offer up your wacky "peak demand" theory which makes no sense at all.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  12. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    I am pretty sure that the exact opposite is true, but I don't want get into those details in this thread.

    So what you are actually saying is that if the die off were, in fact, inevitable, you would choose not to believe it anyway because all the responses that you can think of to that situation are distasteful to you.

    Gee, I doubt that. I like my name and I chose it quite carefully.

    Wow. That is amazing. I am clearly not the one making personal attacks as a substitute for rational discourse. I think the 149,322 readers so far know that by now, too.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The first IPCC assessment in 1990:

    "Based on current models, we predict: under the IPCC business-as-usual (BAU) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 C per decade (with an uncertainty between 0.2 to 0.5C per decade), this is greater than is seen over the past 10,000 years."

    I'll let you look up the actual rate of warming between 1990 and 2010 (or 2012 if you prefer.)

    Uh . . . no.

    So trying to change your perspective would be . . . futile?

    I'm not too worried about being seen as the irrational one. But see yourself however you like; most people are the protagonists in their own internal stories.
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    The inventories are in the normal distribution chain, much less than the production increase you suggest would drive the price down to $25/brl. Even what is in individual gasoline tanks of cars is several days’ worth of storage, if you want to call it "storage."
    No. The article was noting that the inventories were at an 82 year high. - i.e. No place to put significant more production. To re-quote from the article: "U.S. is very comfortably supplied."
    It does not help your claim to only attack "peak demand" as my wacky theory. You need to counter the facts that demand is falling as big trucks switch to natural gas, car fleet is 2.5% more efficient in MPG each year as the old clunkers are replaced by high MPG cars; cars are driven less; some cars are converting to batteries or natural gas or other energy storages, but this last part is a small, but growing, factor in the reduced demand for oil currently.

    Also “peak demand” is not even my term. - I found it and adopted it in article I posted several pages back.

    The US is "swimming" in oil and gasoline. Here are factual examples of falling demand, again quoting from Bloomberg quoted in post 905:
    (1) Gasoline consumption of the fuel is 1.8 percent lower than a year earlier.
    (2) Stockpiles jumped to 395.3 million barrels in the seven days to April 26, the most since the government began gathering weekly data in 1982.
    (3) Monthly data, {on supplies} were last at this level in 1931.
    (4) Total fuel consumption dropped 1.4 percent (in four weeks of April 2013)
    (5) The market is focused on the overwhelming supplies.
    (6) U.S. oil inventories rose by 6.7 million barrels last week, ... “It’s a huge build,”

    Yes you are correct that when more oil is produced than the producers can sell, that does drive prices and oil company profits* down down:

    (7) "WTI for June delivery retreated $2.85, or 3.1 percent, to $90.61 a barrel"
    (8) "Brent for June settlement slid $2.92, or 2.9 percent, to $99.45 a barrel"
    (9) "Brent’s premium to WTI shrank to as small as $8.39, the narrowest level since January 2012.

    That is nine more FACTS, from Bloomberg for you, a broken record, to ignore while you claim US is short of oil so production is falling or flat.

    Other than your silly unsupported claims, do you have any counter fact(s) suggesting the flat oil production is due to supply limitations?
    Or can you only try to discredit me (and Bloomberg) by calling the growing idea that US is now in the Peak Demand era and that is limiting production, "wacky."

    You frequently claim to want to debate but never even mention facts like the nine above, from just one article, much less try to refute the facts (except by broken record repeat of things like "peak oil happened in 2005." Flat production is indication of supply exhaustion, etc.")
    Or attack people who know the facts for mentioning them. Futilitist does not like the message so attacks the messenger, not the facts of the message.

    Telling of two, new very large** new conventional oil finds is not “just irrelevant hype.” – It is direct refutation of your broken record claims that convention oil peaked in 2005.

    ** The one to start production in less than a year is estimated to hold 13,000 million barrels. The first well into the new deep field of Gulf of Mexico is at least 900 million barrels, but geological sounding show the field to be large. Many other wells will b e drilled, because even after drilling thru 1000 feet of oil bearing rocks, that first well was not able to determine how thick the oil layer is! No one knows how much thicker than 1000 feet of oil the proven reserves will turn out to be. Calling it “bottomless” should not be taken literally –That is just telling they don´t know how much more than 1000 feet thick the oil layer is. Many commercial oil wells have only 30 or so foot thickness of oil bearing rocks. So this one is huge, perhaps the thickest oil layer in the world, when they find the bottom if 1000 feet thick does not already give it that title.

    BTW There is little sense in you caution about quoting from sources that are "all spin and no facts" as Bloomberg is my source. "All spin and no facts" would apply to any MODERN (Last four years or less) source (probably someone´s blog, if it exist) you can find that supports your claim that peak oil occurred in 2005. I doubt you can find modern support for that silly claim - you are propbably the last to hold on to that idea.

    * Their production cost, may even rise with porduction if it comes from higher cost fields. Certainly their entired volume is sold at lower price per gallon and only a modest incrument of volume increase is achieved. Oil companies ALREADY are operating that the production level which is optimum for their ROE. If they produce less, prices will rise, but not enough to compensate for the samller sales volume (or they would be doing that). Like wise if they produce more the prices fall and that is on their entire sales volume, so hurts their profits. They are not dumb, but ALREADY produce at the optimum volume.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2013
  15. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    As I said before, my preference would be to discuss climate science details in a separate thread.

    I am pretty sure that was what you were saying. Are you attempting to retract your prior statement?

    To recap:

    You find giving up to be distasteful and you obviously can't think of another response to the inevitability of apocalypse. So what you are actually saying is that if the die off were, in fact, inevitable, you would choose not to believe it anyway because all the responses that you can think of to that situation are distasteful to you.

    I think that is pretty clear.

    No. Trying to get me to change my name would be . . . futile. That was what we were talking about.


    Your best insight yet.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    U.S. oil production and stocks surge while demand remains anemic
    Wednesday, May 1, 2013 13:35 EDT

    US oil stocks reached a new three-decade high and pressed crude prices lower Wednesday, as US oil production continued to surge while domestic demand remained anemic.

    US commercial stocks stood at 395.3 million barrels for the week ended April 26, the highest weekly inventory figure since the US Energy Information Administration began collecting the data in 1982.

    The build comes as US crude production has taken off on the rise in exploitation of shale oil and gas deposits.

    "It’s just indicative of these shale plays ramping up,” said Matt Smith, an analyst at Schneider Electric, an energy management firm. “It tells us we’re in the middle of an oil boom.”

    Oil production over the four-week period ending April 26 was 7.3 million barrels a day, up 19.4 percent from a year ago.

    During the same period, US domestic consumption slipped 2.7 percent to 18.3 million barrels, data show.

    This week’s rise in oil stocks of 6.7 million barrels came in well above the 800,000 barrels forecast by analysts, according to a survey by Dow Jones Newswires.

    That sent the New York oil price tumbling further after an early fall ahead of the data release.

    West Texas Intermediate futures for June delivery were down $3.07 to $90.39 a barrel around 1530 GMT.

    European benchmark Brent oil futures fell $3.07 to $99.30 a barrel in London trade.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Your assumption is incorrect.


    To demonstrate this, let me ask you a similar question about this statement:

    In 1968 an author made this statement: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

    If that were, in fact, inevitable in 1970, would you choose not to believe it anyway because that outcome is distasteful to you?
  18. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    It's OK. I was kind of kidding with this one. I was imitating your style of putting words in my mouth and applying it back to you so you could see how it feels. Sorry for the trouble.

    That would be Paul Ehrlich.

    I don't understand the question. Does it involve time travel?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Record inventories levels and rapidly falling oil prices could be a sign that oil production is suddenly surging, but world oil production has been flat for more than a year and falling for the last 5 months, so that doesn't really make much sense. On the other hand, record inventories levels and rapidly falling oil prices could be a sign that the economy is suddenly getting weaker and possibly heading into another recession. I think it is the later.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Every Wednesday at 10:30 AM, the weekly oil inventory report comes out of Cushing, Oklahoma. The report details how much oil is being held in the large storage facilities in Cushing. The oil traders read the report, and oil inventory levels are basically the most important factor in determining the price of West Texas intermediate crude oil.

    Here is what you said that is contradicted by your article:

    That seems like a pretty clear contradiction to me.

    There is nothing to counter here. All the things you are talking about are happening, but you are confusing cause and effect. High oil prices drive the quest for efficiency and alternatives.

    I know. I think the term comes from a Michael Lynch (or maybe Daniel Yergin) article from a couple of years back. The main stream media spread the story around and now people are forced to defend a very weak idea. Peak demand theory was born when the public was first becoming aware of peak oil, which is a robust scientific theory going back more than 50 years. The new "peak oil demand" theory does not really explain anything. And the things it tries to explain are better explained by the peak oil theory. Occam's razor.

    Yes, those are all good examples of falling demand. I have no argument with any of them. I think the falling demand is due to a worsening economy, rather than from a sudden production spike. That is confirmed by oil production numbers, which have been falling for the last 5 months.

    I am clearly not ignoring your facts.

    Yes. Oil prices are too high. They should be attracting much more production to market, thus lowering the price.

    I do think it is "wacky" because it does not make any sense.

    Damn dude, take it easy. I addressed your nine important facts above.

    You are the one attacking me, and claiming that I am attacking you.

    It is no such thing. You talk about huge finds without any reference to how the finds actually fit in the big picture of world oil production. Your posts talking about huge oil discoveries are just hype and billvon agrees with me.

    How does it compare to the size of Ghawar? As Ghawar goes into depletion, this new find will have to make up for the loss.

    Tell it to billvon. He is the one who used the phrase "all spin and no facts" in regard to your posts.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Billy T said:
    (1) "Production can not exceed demand..." often with word "significantly" or noting "there is no place to store it."
    (2) Quoting from Bloomberg, also said: "Overwhelming Supplies: The concern is that supplies are going to exceed demand"

    Just after I had noted two new conventional oil sources had been found with some production coming near end of this year. They hold at least 13,900 million barrels in them. ("At least" as one has a more than 1000 feet thick layer of oil bearing rocks, but how much more is not known as they did not continue drilling to the water interface below the oil layer. To put 1000 feet in perspective: many commercial oil layers are less than 30 feet thick. - Why article referred to this new find as a "bottomless oil well." Quite possibly more than 20,000 million barrels have been found, but not yet proven to exist.)*

    There is no self contradiction by me or Bloomberg in noting that SUPPLY, which is increasing with new technology and large new field finds, is now clearly exceeding PRODUCTION, which is falling for one of two possible reasons:

    (A) Futilitist thinks: Oil prices are too high, destroying the economy (less economic activity = less oil demand) AND that "too high price" makes demand for oil decrease even more as the high prices make oil consumers (big trucks & cars for 93% of the oil) switch to alternatives, like natural gas, battery power cars, and drive less, car pool more, etc. Please correct if that is not a fair summary of your POV.

    (B) Billy T thinks: Oil prices, in inflation adjusted terms, are essentially the same as they were in 1918 (gave proof in prior post) so are not harder to pay from the greatly increased nominal salaries than back then. Also that new technology* has made it feasible to switch to alternatives to oil and many do so in part as they don´t want to contribute to global warming, especially when it even cost less to drive per mile driven with the new technology. Plus governments can reduce their import cost (Give large subsidies to help sales of electric power vehicles, for one example.) or with local production of non-fossil energy (alcohol was developed as car fuel in Brazil nearly 100% for this reason.)

    * Not only better batteries, but "fracking" is new technology that has cut the price of natural gas ~70% so Big Trucks now cost less than 1/3 as much to run per mile. Although big trucks are relatively small fraction of vehicles on the road, they are heavy and need several times more fuel per mile plus, with two drivers may run nearly 24 hours per day crossing the US with Idaho potatoes or California fruit etc. for the East Coast so have much larger per vehicle fuel consumption.

    The main economic change since 1918 has NOT been the real cost of fuel, but the dramatic reduction in the cost of food. No longer does 90% of the population earn their income from some aspect of the food economy. Now less than 5% do. This has free up huge cash resources for spending on other things, most of them certainly not needed for the wholesome life the population enjoyed in 1918. I.e. in an economic slow down, the population can, for example, visit Disneyland and movies less, cease going to distant NFL and baseball games, take no vacation trips, make do with last years style of clothing. Etc. and not have 90+% die off as Futilitist predicts must soon happen. US has an extremely resilient economy, in part because of all this needless "fluff" in it, which seldom brings greater happiness, but does employ many psychiatrists at ~$350/ hour helping the people cope with "modern life."
    Agreed, old fields will need to be fully replaced, except for fact 93% of their production is for vehicle fuel and before they cease to produce much, if not all of that vehicle fuel will have switched. Natural gas, batteries or sugarcane alcohol, being the main alternatives. None the less the reserves in only the two new conventional fields I mentioned are larger than that Saudi field. Hell even with out those two (or many others I have mentioned) the US alone may be self- sufficient:
    but to more directly answer your question (about the two new conventional field I mentions:

    Lets guess that when the "bottom" of the large new "bottomless" Gulf of Mexico field is found they will yield 10,000 million barrels of oil (=10E9). If producing at rate of Ghawar 5E6 brl/day) they would last for 2E3 days = 2000 days or about 5.5 years, but no one expects them alone to be the new sources of oil, which already has falling demand. The world must (for CO2 reasons) and will make a smooth transition out of the "oil era." I for one, think renewable, slightly carbon negative, economically viable, sugarcane alcohol (plus cellulosic alcohol, if that proves to be economically viable) will easily supply the world´s needs for liquid fuel. - It is a form of currently captured solar energy, much like coal and oil are prehistoric captured solar energy.
    Not accurate. Billvon read one line I quoted from part of the Dartmouth Business School, and by his interpretation that was an impossible statement (and I agree, but had made a very different and completely plausible interpretation of the poorly worded statement.) I think they said nothing about MPG being five times greater with sugarcane alcohol than corn based alcohol, but that sugarcane alcohol was more efficient in boosting the mpg efficiency. For example (as I gave in reply to billvon) a 2.5% improvement vs. only a 0.5% improvement. I also noted that corn based and sugarcane based alcohols are both eutectics with only about 95% alcohol content with very different minor components which have disproportional effects on “knocking” which limits the engine´s peak power. I.e. with the only plausible interpretation of the paper I quoted, it is quite possible the Dartmouth Business School is correct not giving “spin and no facts.”

    AFAIK, Billvon now accepts that the Dartmouth Business School may be correct not is giving “spin and no facts.” His earlier belief that they were was based on a different and impossible interpretation of a (badly worded) sentence in their paper. Anyway, you should not be putting false words in his mouth. He never said anything about my "postS" only about my one quote of another university source. - He can speak for himself.

    * As I recall, another "bottomless well" (no water contact yet reached for a bottom) has been found off East Coast of Africa, but think it is mainly natural gas.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2013
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Now you have added patronising asshole to the lying bastard description. Do you want to go for the hat trick?

    I believe I have explained to you before that it is. You are a decietful, manipulative, egomaniac and I want to keep reminding passers by that that is so. I view it as a civic duty.

    You suggested you were responding to my first on topic post in this thread. I have already demonstrated in an earlier post that you were entirely wrong in that clam. Therefore this is clear evidence that you are either lying or too dumb to understand what you read.
  23. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    This makes absolutely no sense at all. In the article, supply and production are clearly the same thing! Supply does not refer to reserves in the ground. Why would anyone be worried that reserves are growing too quickly? How could reserves in the ground exceed demand anyway? It is the rate of production that counts. Your statement, above, is saying that the available supply (production) is now exceeding production. :bugeye:

    Your weird interpretation of the word supply is now necessary to cover your mistaken claim that "Production can not exceed demand". Of course it is possible for production to exceed demand. That would be an oil glut, which would cause prices to fall.

    You have painted yourself into a corner with this one.

    In (B) above, you can't help but reference the cost of oil:

    Thus it is the cost of oil which is the main driver in the quest for efficiency and alternatives. That is consistent with basic peak oil theory. Peak demand theory just doesn't make any sense.

    If people cut back on these things to save money when oil prices get too high, it reduces overall economic activity. If people cut back as much as possible and then oil prices rise more anyway, it could lead to an economic collapse.

    And if there wasn't all of this needless "fluff", as you call it, people like psychiatrists would be out of work. If we eliminated all the "fluff" from the economy, there wouldn't be much economy left.

    Please cite a source for your claim that these new discoveries are larger than Ghawar. Please cite a source which claims that more than 5 million barrels a day can be produced from your new discoveries.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page