As bio-fuels become economically viable, demand for fossil oils will soften, thereby extending life time of wells.
At present bio-fuels are only economically viable because fossil oils are so expensive. If demand softens as you predict then prices will drop and bio-fuels will become less attractive. Chicken and egg.
So we should set energy policy to dampen boom-bust fluctuations, then; and cause the switch-over to algae fuels to occur gradually.
1) Not so. The “humans” issue begs the question (circular reasoning). The question is how the planet deals with wide ranges of CO2 concentration. BTW, that CO2 plot doesn’t show the really interesting sequence info: temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. Oops!
2) The point is that the error bars, especially on the potential upside, are much larger than previously assumed. And it’s still “peak”, not “peek”.
3) Water vapour and the atmospheric hydrological cycle are VASTLY more potent and important than the narrow-band “sympathetic” CO2 IR effects. High cloud blocks heat escape with full-band black-body reflection, and has far more feedback potency than any other mechanism.
4) What would interfere with photosynthesis? It’s been going on since algae and fungus got together in lichens and in the seas in blue-green algae for at least 3 billion years.
1) The issue is how planet deals with co2 concentrations in human lifetime within current parameters (not parameters that were millions years ago, or maybe immediately after BB (anyone believe in BB?)). “temperature rise precedes CO2 rise” was refuted long time ago, please move on, to other non-widely-refuted arguments. Why not just try to claim that all the historical Co2 data was faked instead?
2) So basically all the recent (thousand years) data is bogus and there is a natural process which causes natural co2 peeks (sorry about this), which is:.... . And the data actually looks like this: .... . Well if you don’t know how the data looks like how can you claim the current data does not represent a peek (sorry about this)? Has the “potential upside” been demonstrated by a credible scientist in a non-biased study funded by not current-oil-ex-tobacco-fake-grassroots-organization?
3)I assume vapor? Yes, vapor is more important. What about the other less-important green-house-gasses? Compound interest on 100$ 10% vs 11% for 100 years is 1,378,061.23$ vs 3,406,417.53$ . Somehow it seems to me that when stuff accumulates small differences are important. I am not a physicists, but as far as I can tell when you build a greenhouse, it does not become hot because there is more sun inside, just because the heat accumulates. Care to show a model that disproves this?
4) How much atmospheric co2 is too much for you? If you mean 100% is not too much, then you can do photosynthesis. Hopeful genetic modifications will allow the rest of us to adapt as well.
Unfortunately I fail to see anything in your tactics that would seem you are trying to find out the truth. I guess you just are afraid of loosing control to the green illuminates too much, to look at the forest, instead of the trees. My own mission is to actually learn something new. For now I believe I can trust that data methodology and scientific integrity supports GW theory as much as reasonably possible. As far as I see the people that support GW are doing work without adequate compensation and while they are making some mistakes they admit and correct them. I wish I could follow at least one GW critic with high integrity. The only people I see against GW are denialists (not critics). They are trying to distort the truth as much as possible and are getting well documented compensations from shady business. Some biographies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change
Not on Wikipedia (probably hiding from the web) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano#Climate_change_skepticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Positions
Trivial ad hom nonsense. The science is the problem. Skeptics continue to challenge Warmists to debate openly or exchange commentary on articles and research. Silence and evasion are the only responses, plus more loads of this BS ad hom that you rely on.
The only science is open and seriously challenged science. Secretive and coddled “research” is no research at all.
The science is not a problem. The science is well established for a pretty long time. It is being challenged all the time by other scientists. The scientist are working hard on the other hand some industries and some ideologies and some press channels (FOX news specifically) don’t like what the scientists find. Such was the case with cigarettes causing cancer, such is the case with co2 causing GW and this is not the last issue (creationists, birthers, aids-deniers, MMR-autism, etc).
More openness is good, but the frameworks are not established. You got your Climategate - did anything concrete come out of that?
Try doing your own work by giving your every decision/mistake a PR, even the best politics are not able to implement that, so it is normal scientist share data only with people who understand it. Mr. Lerner actually does not give all his data to us, but you do believe him, don’t you ? Isn’t it hypocritical?
If you care about the science (which I don’t think) there are a lot of things you can check firsthand:
When are the flowers blooming http://www.skepticalscience.com/Flowers-blooming-earlier-now-than-any-time-in-last-250-years.html
When are the birds migrating http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6255181.html
Or even just measure the temperature day by day outside for a long time - if enough people do it, it might even turn out valuable.
This would be work that I would really respect - doing actual scientific measurements, even if in amateur fashion, instead of trying to disprove scientific findings in a conspiracy fashion.
To convince a skeptic you need to present facts. I would wonder what would it take to convince you ?
You cant go over line by line, piece by piece over all the data and calculations and data gathering methods and apparatus if you still would have to rely on somebody’s expertise to actually say that it is right in the end? So it is about loss of control.
So I am going back to my original statement:
“you just are afraid of loosing control to the green illuminates too much”.
It is not “argumentum ad hominem” because it is not “irrelevant to the opponent’s argument”. If I was talking to the blind person and he said that it was dark everywhere, then pointing out that he was blind (no-matter how cruel that was) would not be “AD HOMINEM”, because it is relevant to the argument.
What I am trying to point out exactly that it is NOT about science. Its about protecting your opinion.
And I actually don’t care what kind of opinion you hold or anyone else holds, I would just love to not have to hear the same old debunked lies over and over and over again.
by the way, this topic is supposed to be “Focus Fusion effect on the “Economic Limit” of depleted Oil Wells.”
You sound like a moderator. I haven’t been following this topic. Is there a point at which it should be split? What point, and what should the new topic be called?
As bio-fuels become economically viable, demand for fossil oils will soften, thereby extending life time of wells.
At present bio-fuels are only economically viable because fossil oils are so expensive. If demand softens as you predict then prices will drop and bio-fuels will become less attractive. Chicken and egg.
So we should set energy policy to dampen boom-bust fluctuations, then; and cause the switch-over to algae fuels to occur gradually.
We proposed that - the fuel tax stabiliser - but it got lost somewhere in the coalition. I’ll see if I can resurrect it in some form.
Even if we could be building commercial heat and or electric plants in 2011, there would be a long adoption gradient to traverse before the world’s fusion fraction begins showing up in anything other than local aberrations in the fossil-powered scheme of things. There may be an instant where the world is aware that fusion has been proven and commercialized, but that could be decades before a fusion-powered world.
The question thus becomes “how long will fossil fuels (not the wells) be economically viable?”
If demand softens, because alternatives become competitive, then this time frame extends.
But if extraction becomes cheaper, then the price drops, demand strengthens, and the time frame contracts.
As fusion is deployed, it will meet energy demand increases first, so i don’t see the above numbers changing a lot, near term.
If demand softens, because alternatives become competitive, then this time frame extends.
But if extraction becomes cheaper, then the price drops, demand strengthens, and the time frame contracts.
As fusion is deployed, it will meet energy demand increases first, so i don’t see the above numbers changing a lot, near term.
Since pricing is a function of expectations, I think the simple fact of FF’s existence will drive down the price of oil. It will take time to replace much demand, but the incentive to do so will be powerful. E.g.: when the new LiIon battery tech comes on-line and BEVs have a 2-3,000 range, it will take a dedicated bang-bang lover to spend money on an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car. And given range availability, the argument for haulage by electric vehicle is very compelling. (Short-haul BEV truck drivers around the Port of LA LUV-LUV-LUV their new rigs, even tho’ they’re only good for 50 miles or so, loaded, so far.) Imagine the nation supplied by fleets of silent, fast, smokeless 18-wheelers!
Focus Fusion Society 
