There is no Planet B

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by ryon

I knew one of the scientists, a college geology professor, who was predicting with 100% assurance that we would run out of fossil fuels within twenty years. If his prediction were even close to accurate, there wouldn't be any concern for global warming today at all. We'd all be worried about collecting enough firewood for our freezing homes, while social crusaders predictably propose a tax to save the trees.

what nobody is telling you, is that he was right.
the known deposits of fossile fuels exploitable in the 70s ran out 20 years later.
i'm sure you are intelligent enough to figure the logic behind that by yourself.

[0urh]

After Paris!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you check out the link?

The first number is carbon emissions, the second is CO2 emissions. The per annum figures are on the link. I used a spreadsheet to do the totals.

"cut and paste" - another term for evidence.

It's interesting that you believe scientists were actually measuring carbon emissions several years before CO2 was even discovered as a compound by the Scottish scientist in the late 18th century.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

what nobody is telling you, is that he was right.
the known deposits of fossile fuels exploitable in the 70s ran out 20 years later.
i'm sure you are intelligent enough to figure the logic behind that by yourself.

No. I admit that your logic eludes me. Are you trying to say that "global warming" may turn out to be a bad call twenty years from now?

Don't you think the carbon taxes will still be collected anyway, just like the conservation taxes on petroleum still are? I sure do!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It's interesting that you believe scientists were actually measuring carbon emissions several years before CO2 was even discovered as a compound by the Scottish scientist in the late 18th century.

Sure thing, scientists lie to me all the time.

There is no gravity, the earth sucks.

Carbon was identified as an element in the 17th century.

Of course, carbon dating takes us back longer than that.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

what nobody is telling you, is that he was right.
the known deposits of fossile fuels exploitable in the 70s ran out 20 years later.
i'm sure you are intelligent enough to figure the logic behind that by yourself.

OK if that is so then how do you explain the fact that the refineries here in Washington are still refining light sweet crude from prudoe bay that was first discovered in 1967

[four winds]

Production actually began in 1977.

Advances in technology doubled the estimated yield from 7 billion to 14 billion barrels in the early 1980's.

[SV THIRD DAY]

How many angles will dance on the head of a pin?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by four winds

Production actually began in 1977.

Advances in technology doubled the estimated yield from 7 billion to 14 billion barrels in the early 1980's.

Yes at prudoe bay however it was known in the late 1960's so the fie.d was known of in the early 1970's so should have run out by the mid 1990's according to some scientists and they were wrong go figure.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Yesterday's Peak Oilers are today's MMGW-ers

[four winds]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes at prudoe bay however it was known in the late 1960's so the fie.d was known of in the early 1970's so should have run out by the mid 1990's according to some scientists and they were wrong go figure.

The original estimate from Prudue was delivered by about 1988. What was known at the time around 1970 would have run out.

New extraction methods increased the estimated yield in the early 1980's.

12 billion barrels have been delivered to date from Prudue Bay.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

How many angles will dance on the head of a pin?

Right, acute, or obtuse angles?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Right, acute, or obtuse angles?

My favorite is the 4 dementional Triangle.

[Capt. Rehab]

Oar?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[seandepagnier]

We don't need to burn fossil fuels for cruising. I have seen plenty of people using their engine, and not one case where they actually needed to. I have been to hundreds of anchorages and did not turn back anywhere because I didn't have an engine.

I keep hearing there is one particular pass in the tuamotus which is impossible without an engine, but in fact it isn't even true after all.

Originally Posted by 0urh

Ah but, isn't agriculture something to do with food production! So maybe an exclusion from the agreement is desirable! How else are we going to feed the ever increasing population? Mechanisation (using those nasty fossil fuels) has been responsible for much increased yields

I wanted to point out that we could increase food production even more than it is without soil erosion, fertilizers or pesticides if we implemented permiculture. I also think we have the technology to implement solar powered robots to support this type of agriculture, and it is actually now (in the last few years) the technology to support it is cheap enough.

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Perhaps in 20 years we will see electric engines that we can install to replace our diesels that are on par with our current needs. Yes, I know of the other thread. The cost for me is simply not justified.

We already have electric motors which are far cheaper and more powerful. I was able to motor 3 knots on solar power on my bristol27 using cheap trolling motors and 450 watts of solar panels.

A boat built from the beginning for solar power will go near hull speed in direct sun, and it's not very expensive to do it either. The problem is it's both boring and lazy, and so I will stick with my sculling oar which works incredibly well giving me 1.5 knots with the same effort as riding a bicycle.