World Without Oil

if were running out of oil, then America is doing it right, buy from overseas and when they run out we can use our own oil

 

if we ran out of oil, there will be no transportation, simple as that. think about what will else happen.

 

Fossil fuel was first produced in America during Jefferson's administration. Think of Jefferson's world. That's a world without fossil fuel.

Petroleum was first produced in the US in 1857. Think on the world of Franklin Pierce. That's a world without oil.

 

Think of a clean unpolluted world and clean air.....that's a world without oil.

Think of a world that gets its clean energy from the abundant sources all around us....that's a world without oil.

Think of a world that isn't facing rising temperatures and disastrous climate changes from the CO2 that burning oil releases.....that's a world without oil.

Think of a world where the energy every nation uses is produced internally without the need for importing fuel from distant places at exorbitant costs and fighting even more costly wars to protect those supplies.....that's a world without oil.

Think of a world where the international fossil fuel industry doesn't control or highly influence most national governments to the detriment of the population and the ecology.....that's a world without oil.

 

“Think of a clean unpolluted world and clean air.....that's a world without oil.”

Taxcutter says:
That’s not the world of 1856. Cities were polluted by tons and tons of horse manure on the streets and smoke from wood-fired fireplaces. Further, everybody more or less went to bed with the chickens because illumination was by either dim candles or very expensive whale oil lamps. Your statement indicates an ignorance of the past.


“Think of a world that gets its clean energy from the abundant sources all around us….”

Taxcutter says:
Such as? All the politically correct ones – wind, solar, etc – keep trying and failing. About every thirty years or so we have a spam of attempts to replace fossil fuels. Only nuclear managed to do so even partially.


“Think of a world that isn't facing rising temperatures and disastrous climate changes from the CO2 that burning oil releases…”

Taxcutter says:
Think of the Little Ice Age (circa 1400-1850).


“Think of a world where the energy every nation uses is produced internally without the need for importing fuel from distant places at exorbitant costs and fighting even more costly wars to protect those supplies.....that's a world without oil.”

Taxcutter says:
No, that’s the US with fracking.

 

Ah yes volcanism. The warmmonger get out of jail free card. Of course there is a problem that in the modern record despite having major eruptions the cooling effect of those eruptions are seen to only last a few years at most. However, we can blame cooling spells before the modern record on eruptions despite having no similar temperature response in the 20th century.

 

Historical trends and consistently wrong doomsday predictions lead to the positive conclusion that there's probably as much oil underneath the surface as there is water in the oceans. It represents biomass produced over millions of years. It is the energy that would be produced if everything growing on earth burned continuously for thousands of years. Trends also prove that drilling technology gets cheaper and more accurate.

People have been tricked into blaming the wrong side for the Peak Oil myths. It is in the interest of the price-gougers to claim that their product is in short supply. Don't look Left or Right. Instead, look down on those who've placed themselves above us. If you've heard of someone, don't listen to him.

 

Try some facts.

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Causes

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[60] the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population. The most recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani, followed by three smaller ones in 1268, 1275, and 1284 that did not allow the climate to recover, may have caused the initial cooling, and that the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[12][13] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.

 

Wikipedia is not facts. And once again those papers are just speculation. We have had massive eruptions in this century. No ice age just quick blips that last for a couple of years. If you bothered to look at how the GISS etc model the effect of eruptions its clear that they overstate the effect greatly.

Willis Eschenbach had a nice little graph where he applied the GISS model to that they use to model the temperature response of eruptions in historic models to the actual temperature record.



Looks to me that they overstate the cooling effect of volcano's greatly.

 

Yeah, whatever it was, it couldn't have been the reduced solar activity associated with the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima, because that would mean increased solar activity since the 18th C could have contributed to observed 20th C warming, and no one is allowed to mention that.

 

I'm puzzled. Who are you arguing with and about what? You seem to be arguing against volcanic activity causing the LIA but nobody claimed that just volcanic activity was responsible. The multiple eruptions in that period mentioned in the Wiki quote contributed to some of the cooling in the northern hemisphere but that cooling was probably also a result of a number of other concurrent events, as the Wiki article detailed.

"Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[60] the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

 

I'm curious. If you can read, why don't you? It's right there in the short paragraph you quoted: "decreased solar activity". Your denier cult myths are ludicrous. No one is afraid to mention the role of changes in solar activity to climate changes. Scientists are well aware that "solar activity has contributed to the observed 20th C warming" and they have calculated that contribution and it has been responsible for only a small part of observed warming. Most of the rest of the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
(excerpts)
A number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008). Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set. Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008 ) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades.

 

It's worse than that. Vulcanism is actually La Carbonostra's nemesis: we are overdue for a level 7 eruption that will dramatically reduce global temperatures and could cause global famine. If we take ANY MEASURES to reduce global warming, and then the eruption hits, our attempts to reduce warming could be the factor that turns a global disaster into a civilization-ending apocalypse. Their own only real argument -- "It's not worth the risk" -- is precisely the debate-ender that most conclusively refutes their exhortations.

 

Warmies are B students jealous of A students. They always pull the Argument from Authority, stealing the glory of creative scientists and applying it to the merely descriptive scientists. Data-mongering is not science, it is only arithmetic. If a real scientist believed in Anthropogenic Global Warming, he would invent a molecule that would capture Greenhouse Gases, not shut the world's industries down. The cult worship of Zero Growth academic gurus elevates a political goal above a scientific goal. We shouldn't look up to these New Age Nature Boys as scientists any more than we mistake astrologers for astronomers. They are the enemy within crashing the scientific community, the ones getting all the publicity for their fad and tempting real scientists to approve of them so they don't feel left out. Perhaps one of the real causes is that creative scientists don't get the fame they deserve, unlike the era when everyone knew about Edison, Bell, and the Wright Brothers.

 

Which is only mentioned because it can't be denied, but is then dismissed because it can't be denied.

Then why does La Carbonostra "have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period"?

No. They have not. Your claim is false. What they have done is ESTIMATE it using various sets of assumptions. But none of those sets of assumptions is capable of hindcasting the 1500-year climate cycle of which the LIA, MWP and modern warming are all manifestations.

That is merely one hypothesis, and one that is not borne out by credible analysis.

That is merely a hypothesis.

This ignoramus has obviously never heard of latency. The earth's temperature response to solar activity is not instantaneous. It will take centuries for the earth to reach equilibrium temperature in response to the increase in solar activity since the LIA. 1960 represents the peak of post-LIA solar activity, so OF COURSE solar activity has decreased since then. But it has still been greater than during the LIA, so the earth's temperature is still recovering from the LIA thanks to the ONGOING increased solar activity above LIA levels.

A flawed analysis.

Start with false assumptions, get false conclusions.

 

Hurts, doesn't it, when your idols are revealed to be dummies made out of chewed-up paper?

 

I wouldn't know....but hey, have you found out yet that your moronic denier cult myths were made up by propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry or the Koch brothers?

 

The Liberal-Conservative axis is playing sincere Warmies for fools. Gasoline is only worth 12 cents a gallon, but Americans would be free to drive as much as they feel like if given a fair price. So the alarmists, who are unconscious agents of the Right Wing, claim that we need high prices (and high profits out of price-gouging) to prevent the "excessive use" of fuel causing climate change. Follow the money, if you dare. For one thing, you'd find out that most of the Warmie political leaders come from the upper class. Spoiled brats always prevent the prosperity of the majority. They lie to themselves about the class supremacy that motivates their whole agenda. Never questioning what really motivates their urges and calling giving in to them "moral superiority" is the worst form of insincerity.

Go ahead and call me paranoiac, but I have all history behind me. Totalitarian rulers always create and control their own fake opposition. History also proves that use of fossil fuels had brought widespread prosperity, and that treehugging is a step backwards into the Dark Ages. The Liberal/Conservative axis wants to rule over a powerless majority resigned to living off crumbs.

 

More conspiracy theories.

Do you know that Anthony Watts sent Dr. Mann a $20 calendar he made at Costco and Dr. Mann took it as evidence of a massive Koch brothers conspiracy.

 

Anybody managed to sell AGW to the Chinese or Russians yet?

 

whereas you supply endless rhetoric without substance...

how about those "real" scientists in employment of the energy industries invent a molecule that prevents GHG's...it's not the responsibility of the victims of pollution to solve the problem the polluters bear that responsibility...

 

What would the world look like without oil? Well we would definitely have a lot more sailing transport boats. That would most certainly be a bright side.

 

Nuclear reactors are ready to replace oil furnaces, as far as I know. Other alternatives are more expensive at this time.

 

The Warmie Treehuggers wouldn't allow coal or wood burning either. So how was life before homo erectus was taught to control fire by the first of his clan to evolve into homo sapiens? A world ruled by people who howled at the moon, grunted, thumped their chest, and hit other people over the head with a club. No wonder the bossy alarmists want us to go back there. It'll be so much easier for them to push us around.

 

Fossil fuels are finite so why discuss Peak Oil? It's not a matter of 'if' just a matter of 'when'. And mixed in with the 'when' will be the rising costs of fossil fuels and continued air pollution.

The 'when' could be within months. In my area right now 87 octane gasoline is just over $4/gallon and this has become a topic of concern and discussion. All it takes is the average price of gasoline to reach $5/gallon and the economy will be in big trouble! Oil products are woven throughout our entire society so the availability and cost of oil effects just about every aspect of our lives. $5 to $6 per gallon gasoline IMO will send the nation into an economic depression!

Now the bad news!! The collective we on Earth literally have billions/trillions of machines that depend on fossil fuels, from weed-whackers to jet planes, from our cars to military tanks and a list so long it can't fit within one of these posts. If we cannot find an alternate and sustainable fuel to replace the current fossil fuel, which will work in all of these machines without modification, as a society we may never be able to convert. There are two reasons why I say this; First, we don't have the affordable technologies which will work in all machines, and second, even if we did, the cost to convert and the time required for conversion is monumental! Let's say we had a new technology for jet planes that uses some other sustainable fuels; it would take several decades, if ever, to find the money to make this conversion. This same issue applies to all of the billions/trillions of fossil fuel machines.

Note; the US military is the single largest consumer of oil on planet Earth! If in the future the higher price of gasoline is primarily caused by low supplies, and if the government is forced to release some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, it's my guess we won't see much of those reserves because they will be held for the military.

So...IMO, long long before we run out of fossil fuels, the (*)(*)(*)(*) will hit the fan with a vengeance! $5-$6 per gallon of gasoline will force us into a recession/depression which will only exacerbate the innovation and development of new technologies, and there will be little to no money for conversions. This is not gloom and doom talk since in recent years people have had a (*)(*)(*)(*)-fit dealing with $4.50/gallon fuel...it is very clear what will happen when we hit $5-$6 gallon fuel...