Tree growth rings disprove that the earth is warmer now than during Roman times and or even 1000 years ago.

Page 4 of 9  


Well, they are. Production AND burning.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Somebody wrote:

The market is taking care of that.
N/G is about 1/2 the cost of coal.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For the moment. There is a glut now, in part because of the mild winter. When supply and demand get into more of an equilibrium, nat gas prices will go up, and coal will come down. Although I don't mind cheap natural gas ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Nope. There IS a glut, but not because of a mild winter; there's an abundunce of NG due to increased discovery and production methodology (i.e., "fracking").
Today, we have, in the U.S., about 270 trillion cu ft of proven reserves.
U.S. consumption is about 1.5 trillion cu ft per year. At current levels of use and known reserves, that comes to a 180-year supply.
Since the beginning of 2001, the price of NG has dropped from $6.82/1000 cu ft to $1.89.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You missed the "in part" I mentioned. As more power plants switch or get newly built to use natural gas, the excess supply will decrease. They're building or are going to build a liquified natural gas plant somewhere in the South. Originally meant to be for importing LNG, it is now being modified for export. That'll take some of the supply to other countries (Japan? China?). All great for the US economy. Perhaps less so for the people living near the wells (Larry J?).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:14:08 +0000, Han wrote:

Undoubtedly so, but even if usage triples, that's still a 60 year supply :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Ah, but we're FINDING recoverable gas at eleven times the rate we're USING the gas.
As for the folks living NEAR the wells, they're getting rich from the royalties.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If that is really true, it may mean a) that our future is guaranteed in terms of energy from NG. Or, b) that the free market system of supply and demand isn't quite working, or at least has some hysteresis in it.

Some may be, others are getting screwed. The mineral rights are sometimes divorced from the surface property rights, and even if the property owners own the mineral rights, the fracking lawyers are "smarter" than the old folks sitting in their rocking chairs, or trying to make ends meet on a damaged farm.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

You make an excellent point - if it was true. There are virtually NO "damaged" farms directly attributable to fracking. If you know of one, I'd sure like to hear about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why don't you look?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Han, are you really asking him to prove a negative with a straight face?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

What makes you think I didn't? That I couldn't find one?
Well, I did look. I DID find several accounts of "damage" to surface installations but the cause of such damage is: a) rank speculation with no empirical proof, or b) symptoms (i.e., flaming water from wells) that existed long before fracking was even invented.
Now if YOU know of a credible example, I'd much appreciate your sharing it with me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what?!

No, it's not logical to conclude anything of the kind. You take it as faith; i.e. religion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Sorry, I don't do faith (others may do as they want). But I can read English and separate most facts from most fiction. I do cry wolf ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, but you do. Worse then the most devout Christain, you won't admit it to yourself.

Which causes people to laugh at you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:22:05 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Since there is no absolute proof of aynthing, that charge can be flung at both sides in any debate - it's meaningless.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:06:13 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

Proof of religion. Now there's a concept worthy of only an AGW freak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:54 -0700, Doug Winterburn

Rightio! The books I read show that it follows warming. This means, to those of you out in Rio Linda and you liberal folks, that the CO2 did not cause the warming. It's an -effect- of said warming.
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yebbut ...
Wobble or changes in earth's orbit as well as change sin the sun's output lead to changes in absorbed energy of the earth. That warming can release stored CO2 (or methane). Then the released greenhouse gases exacerbate the warming trends. So the primary effect (orbital change- induced warming) might have been much smaller than the amplified effects due to greenhouse gases. But I'm just a retired scientist, and never studied climatology at the high end.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Theoretically. The politically sensitive liberal groups of "scientists" endorse it, but it has not yet been proven to real scientists. Solar output can be tracked. And if warming can release stored CO2, why is man being blamed for it, hmmm? There goes your anthropogenicity. (new word? ;)

You're a scientist, yet you do not question these theories and ask for proof?
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.