Unclear what you are saying here. In the early 70’s half the rigs in America was in the Highlight Field. The reason there were not more is that was all the rigs at the time that could reach two miles down. The drilling didn’t even slow until we got over 6,000 foot in depth. We were drilling at ten feet per minute. So fast that we had to put reamers on the drill stem. We need more weight pipe but there was no more available to use. All the weight pipe was in use. Your chart for continental shelf shows blue and red dots. Can’t read the index. I think it has to do with the leasing type. But the blue is closer to shore which would be platform and jackup rigs. The deeper the water the more the rig cost. Floaters and drillships are very expensive to operate. Right now we have 779 land rigs and 15 offshore rigs. But there are 1,862 platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. I have worked platforms. A platform will directional drill many holes. Then the platform becomes a production tool. The wells will have to be serviced but no new drilling will take place. The platform will be there as long as oil production takes place. With your expert talk. Don’t try and make something that is not there. There is no secret technology to drilling. Just hard work that has to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without shutting down. A shutdown can cause all sorts of problems because of the drilling fluids or freezing weather. Just getting to the rig can be hard work. Muddy roads, blowing snow, high waves. Do you ever think of what it takes to get the gasoline to the pump?
Damm right. You don’t want to see a court case because you want to push fault information and a political driven agenda. People who don’t want a court case know they are lying about the issue.
Some Supreme court cases that have changed the U.S. are:
Marbury v. Madison.
Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Brown v. Board of Education.
Mapp v. Ohio.
Gideon v. Wainwright.
Miranda v. Arizona.
Roe v. Wade.
Yes. That was what happen with tobacco. You have science that can’t be agreed on by scientists. Make those scientists put their reputation on the line. You got a problem with that? Normally a debate can solve a problem with different science views. That’s not going to happen here because the science is political and money driven on one side.
The tobacco court cases proved that tobacco was bad for people. You got a problem with that. You think it would be better for America to still be debating the problems of tobacco? Where are your morals?
No, the science was understood. Congress needed to understand it so they could set policy. The tobacco companies were lying. They used science to determine that they were lying. There weren’t scientists arguing, there was science and there were liars.
I’m not trying to say anything - I’m asking a simple question: Do you understand the difference between oceanic crust and continental crust when it comes to finding oil bearing formations?
BS. The science is dollar driven. No, the science is not understood. Even on this site I think most people think Co2 is the driver of heat. That is just stupid. I have a bottle of Co2 and I can tell you it is not hot. It is that simple. The sun is the driver. The Climate scientists have told us three times now that we needed regulations to stop the Co2 or the Co2 will reach the point of No Return and there would be nothing we could do to save the earth. We have passed the point of No Return three times now and what do your full proof scientists say? Oh, we will just change the Co2 number of No Return. And you call that science? And that doesn’t mean anything to you. Which means you want the science to fit your beliefs. You should try following the science. The scientists after thirty years are just getting around to studying the clouds and sun numbers to be added to the computer models that have not match in twenty years. And that doesn’t bother you either?
You brought up BP Global as slowing its drilling. Yes, it looks like to me that big corporations see Climate Change like they view wars. Plus, the big oil leak in Gulf of Mexico that was corporate caused must be hell on their cost of insurance today. Big money to be made is in the political Climate Change. BP is changing to Climate Change.
“No, the science was understood.” Great, if that is true. Then explain to me why the biggest mover of energy in the universe is not in the climate models. That would be the neutrinos. Ten years ago, which is quite new for science. It was discovered that neutrinos have mass. Mass has energy. The Climate Change models do not account for the neutrinos because Climate scientists are a decade behind on the science done by people like the 1,300 scientists, including 35 from Los Alamos, who received the 2016 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for their work in defining neutrino oscillations across five international experiments.
And if you have time, you could explain if Climate Change is good or bad for a world gaining population. History has shown that the population has always done better when the earth was warmer.
And don’t be far left with the numbers. Keep Mother Nature climate numbers separate from Climate Change. A percentage would be good.
What percentage of climate scientist believe extreme weather events are caused by man-made climate change? Is this a contested idea, or is it unanimously agreed upon?
Are you asking if there are oil deposits in igneous rocks. No, there is not. Is there energy in igneous rocks. Yes there is. Iceland is an example.
rereading your post, I see you may have been saying that the tobacco science was understood. Yes, I agree with that. As you can see, I am upset that the United States is driving a program designed to make the rich, richer. Which would not be that bad if they were saving the world. That doesn’t look like the what the science is showing. The supreme court is just what i call the Jesus test, when the scribes (congress) make laws political. A lot of people were hurt by the tobacco companies lying to make money. The supreme court has a lot of weight on the public’s beliefs.
Okay, that brings us to the cognitive dissonance evoked by:
Of course you double down, with the vague suggestion that we start drilling for oil in Antarctic.
And the proceeds can be used to get us to Mars, is that the plan?
yeah, like what the . . . more words for the sake of words
I stopped reading here
I said that in reference to tobacco
This aberrant way of thinking is yours entirely. Nobody here thinks CO2 is "hot’, but it clearly shows your ability to imagine conspiracies where none exist.
No “cognitive dissonance” on my part. I quoted data from the NOAA. I can see where that could be a problem with you. You’re against drilling. Yet methane in the Atlantic Ocean can only be captured by drilling as the oceans warm. Methane is 80 times more potent at warming than carbon dioxide. And it accounts for 30% of global warming (climate change) since pre-industrial times. Without drilling, there is no way to slow up the increasing natural leakage from the sea floor.
I don’t see any drilling for a couple of decades in the Antarctic. And the treaty, well don’t worry about the treaty. America broke every treaty with Ukraine and Crimea. So, China breaking a treaty will not be a big deal. The UN is becoming a political joke.
We are talking about the driving force of heat. CC says the Co2 is the driving force. I say it is the sun. The earth can be a snowball with high Co2 levels. And can be extra hot with low Co2 levels. The earth is just coming off historic low levels of Co2. I say the sun is the driving force and the cycles of the sun is the major factor in temperature changes with the Milankovitch Cycles. Google and Microsoft built one of the largest solar plants in the United States and their output was off by 35% because of clouds. If clouds are reflecting sunlight, and there is less energy, then the sun is the driving force. Because the levels of Co2 don’t change with clouds.
Ok, if you don’t think Co2 is “hot”. Then what do you think is the driving force heating the earth?
But we are not talking about the heating of the earth. We are talking about a chemical imbalance in the earth’s atmosphere that does not allow heat to escape back into space. That imbalance is caused by excess amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and is the cause not of heating the earth but of overheating the earth, a slow but constant increase in global warming that may become disastrous if we do not control any further CO2 emissions.
I hope you are not talking about controlling the sun’s emissions?
This is what we can control!!!
15,026,409,863 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
Quick Facts:
- CO2 Emissions shown are from Fossil Fuel Combustion
You low life manipulative _(&(^&$^%#$#W&^^&)( -n you type can only thrive in a profoundly ignorant society.
Increase in atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of the observed increasingly extreme warming of our global heat and moisture distribution engine because of the physics of the simple and well understood (by anyone with a little honest curiosity and two bits worth of function little gray cells) CO2 atom makes it, fundamentally “atmospheric insulation” what in heck does that mean, you may ask.
It slows down the escape of infrared radiation from our planet’s surface to outer space.
Damned good thing we never bump into each other in a bar some night, you maliciously dishonest criminal character.
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.
Second Edition now shipping. Thoroughly revised and updated but basically the same material.
On-line interactive computer models allow you to play with the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast.
Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change is running now on Coursera, a not-for-profit education company that partners with the top universities and organizations in the world to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free. The video lectures have been completely redone in a punchy 2-10 minute format, with revamped exercises using the updated online models interspersed throughout.
Open Climate 101 brings the experience of University of Chicago class PHSC13400, part of our “core” science curriculum for non-science major undergraduates based on this text, to the internet at large. However, this class seems supplanted by the updated content in the Coursera class (above), so unless lots of people request otherwise, Open Climate 101 will shut down on or about Jan 1, 2014.
Videos of lectures, both in ~45 minute classroom format (recorded Fall, 2009, University of Chicago), and in a 2-12 minute topical format intended for on-line learning (recorded Summer, 2013).
You haven’t a clue. Or more likely you know exactly how utterly dishonest and cynical your arguments are.
During the PaleoProterozoic 2.45 to 2.2 billion years ago, several glaciations may have produced Snowball Earths.
and more recently we had slushball Earth
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201508_slushball/
“Snowball Earth” Might Have Been Slushy
By Michael Schirber, Astrobiology Magazine — August 2015
Imagine a world without liquid water — just solid ice in all directions. It would certainly not be a place that most life forms would like to live.
And yet our planet has gone through several frozen periods, in which a runaway climate effect led to global, or near global, ice cover. The last of these so-called “Snowball Earth” glaciations ended around 635 million years ago when complex life was just starting to develop. It’s still uncertain if ice blanketed the entire planet, or if some mechanism was able to halt the runaway.
You’re being totally dishonest, you’re ignoring the fact that was a totally f’n different Earth from the one we exist within. You grab bits of headlines then create your own bullpoop intent on confusing and stupefying your audience - Mike, you are never about learning from the full spectrum of available information.
You consistently ignore the full spectrum of available facts.
Jesus f’n Christ, complex life and Earth’s biosphere didn’t even appear until less than 600,000 years.
You’re simply a crazy with no regard for actually learning about these things - you simply have a political agenda to peddle, no matter how dishonest you need to be about it.
For those out there who are interested in actually learning about Earth geophysical dynamics:
When one party has complete disregarded for honesty and the scientific method of collecting all the available data and allowing the facts to rationally drive one’s opinions and beliefs - then constructive dialogue becomes impossible.
What mikeyohe does achieve is pointing out the utter futility of honesty, in a world where gold and a sense of power is all that matters to so many. He’s like a specter of death leading fools to our collective self-destruction.
How much heat is not escaping due to the gas. I agree that is some. Science proves that. The problem is there is not enough to measure. That is what the computer models are setup to do. Over thirty models and a couple decades. They still don’t have three models agreeing. And when they do back model data. The heating they claim never happens. The problem seems to be the more the earth heats up. The more water vapor in the air. The more clouds, the more sunlight reflected back into space.
The overheating of the earth. In the earth’s cycles. We just entered the Ice Age cycle. But because of the LAG we will still be heating up for a couple hundred years. Follow the ocean rise. The sea level rise has not been more that the natural rise. If the earth is heating. We will know by the sea level rise. In one natural cycle there is over 400 feet of movement in the ocean. Nothing we can do to change that.
As far as the sun’s emissions. The science is just getting started on real science of sunlight. The sun has cycles. The sun rays cause the Co2 to warm. But only a very small part of the ray has the vibrations that will affect the Co2. What is being work on now is when, and how much that part of the ray changes in the sun’s cycles. We don’t notice the the bands of sunlight changes with the sun’s cycle. And you would think that should have been dealt with a decade ago.
If the earth warms, then the clouds cool. We should not have run-a-way heat that has been claimed by the climate change scientists. The facts are that the Co2 may help extend the earth’s intermediate cycle out another 2 to 3 thousand years.
Earth’s cycle. It takes 10K to reach the peak of coldness. 78K to warm back to the intermediate stage. And we get 12K yrs of good life and mankind expanding and life on earth doing well. That 12K year period is over. The weather should get more unstable.
From now and the next 100 plus years the we should be getting warmer in the LAG. And the inter earth may warm by two degrees also due to the sun’s cycles. When this happen the inter heat is release in the form of volcanos. If we get a lot of volcanos. The climate will take a JUMP. The JUMP is something that is never talked about. But is the reason the earth cools in so fast. The science is being work on. The amount of neutrinos from the sun does change. And we now know that neutrinos have mass. And that is the science we need to understand before we make any moves. All I hear is how we need to do something right now. If the Climate Change scientists could see past the Co2 we should have the research done by now. Instead we are still a decade away. Or more because Biden administration is now interfering and changing the scientific steps that are trying to be taken. They don’t want the climate science to interfere with their Green Deal.
No. Just trying to understand the emissions.
You can’t control volcanos. Trump has the best record of lowering Co2. He did that by having a better economy and using natural gas. And population is the biggest problem causing Co2. Countries with good economies have lower birth rates.
That is a totally false statistic. Population growth has nothing to do with birth rate.
The US was one of those countries with low growth rate. But no longer.
Your Trump lovers put an end to that didn’t they? From now on, no more abortions.
But then lots of poor people make for cheap labor, no?