Global warming

[Saggy Aggie]

Pretty much everywhere is reporting that this is the coldest winter on record in about 30 years and one of the coldest ever since records have been kept. Hmmmm

[caleb_mccaig]

Pretty much everywhere is reporting that this is the coldest winter on record in about 30 years and one of the coldest ever since records have been kept. Hmmmm

Whenever Al Gore is the lead spokesman for something you know it's fishy.

[regaleagle]

It's a political thing by the powers that be to get what they want....plain and simple.

[YTBulldogs]

Those supporting the GW side of the debate, told me to look at Australia and the record heat they've had. Told me, there is more to the globe than the USA. LOL.

[Emerson1]

Those supporting the GW side of the debate, told me to look at Australia and the record heat they've had. Told me, there is more to the globe than the USA. LOL.
Or watch 'Day After Tomorrow'.

[Saggy Aggie]

Those supporting the GW side of the debate, told me to look at Australia and the record heat they've had. Told me, there is more to the globe than the USA. LOL.

Correct, and just because Australia is really hot right now isn't indicative of the world as a whole either. Yes, the earth has warned recently. I'm not denying facts, I'm saying it's cyclic. The earth has always gone through cold/hot phases

[Manso/V8]

Pretty much everywhere is reporting that this is the coldest winter on record in about 30 years and one of the coldest ever since records have been kept. Hmmmm

I think Australia is having record high temps this year......it is called weather.

[MUSTANG69]

I was watching a show not to long ago and one of the environmentalist said we would be having global warming if it wasn't for global cooling.:vrycnfsd:

[Macarthur]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/global-warming-winter-weather-and-the-olympics-five-leading-climate-scientists-weigh-in/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I believe in global warming.

[BB BULLS]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/global-warming-winter-weather-and-the-olympics-five-leading-climate-scientists-weigh-in/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I believe in global warming.

there is no doudt in my mind that you would believe it

[waterboy]

I read in the paper today where John Kerry was mocking those who don't believe in global warming...

I wonder how much money Al Gore, John Kerry, and their ilk have invested in green energy? Is this a scam? Do these scientists have sufficient data to make such claims? Could global warming have something to do with a growing populace? Hmmmm... Just some questions to ponder...

[Macarthur]

I read in the paper today where John Kerry was mocking those who don't believe in global warming...

I wonder how much money Al Gore, John Kerry, and their ilk have invested in green energy? Is this a scam? Do these scientists have sufficient data to make such claims? Could global warming have something to do with a growing populace? Hmmmm... Just some questions to ponder...

There's plenty of material out there that is geared to laymen such as us. You're right in being skeptical of politicians. Ignore their nonsense and follow where the science leads you.

[waterboy]

There's plenty of material out there that is geared to laymen such as us. You're right in being skeptical of politicians. Ignore their nonsense and follow where the science leads you.

I've read a whole lot of the material out there, and I'm still skeptical about it. For all the climatologists that claim "global warming", I find other climatolgists that say just the opposite. The data they're using is flawed any way you look at it. When some people like John Kerry, and especially Al Gore, say "global warming" is true, that puts up red flags for me right away. Until proven otherwise, I will say it's a hoax.

[defense51]

My thoughts are:
1. In the winter it's cold
2. In the summer it's hot
3. In Texas, it may be hot or cold at any given time

[Macarthur]

I've read a whole lot of the material out there, and I'm still skeptical about it. For all the climatologists that claim "global warming", I find other climatolgists that say just the opposite.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm



The data they're using is flawed any way you look at it.

No, not really. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


When some people like John Kerry, and especially Al Gore, say "global warming" is true, that puts up red flags for me right away.

As I said before, stop using politicians as a means to form your opinions on matters, especially science.


Until proven otherwise, I will say it's a hoax.

It's not a hoax. It may be proven to be wrong, but it is most certainly not a hoax.

[Manso/V8]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/global-warming-winter-weather-and-the-olympics-five-leading-climate-scientists-weigh-in/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I believe in global warming.

I have read many NYT articles and blogs on subjects I know very well that were flat out wrong.
Linking a NYT blog does nothing to support and questions your judgement.
The Skeptical Science link you gave is also weak.
Have you formed your opinion on these types of sources?

[Macarthur]

What sources would you recommend?

[YTBulldogs]

Not NYT, NBC for sure. I think they are on Gore's GW payroll. Common sense usually works.

[Macarthur]

Okay, so the links I used, which btw linked to many original source material, and then anything such as NYT, NBC, CNN, Newsweek, Wash Post, Salon, Harper's, Vanity Fair, etc. are not acceptable to link.

Let me guess, should I use Fox News or The Weekly Standard to get the real unbias scoop, huh?

[YTBulldogs]

Okay, so the links I used, which btw linked to many original source material, and then anything such as NYT, NBC, CNN, Newsweek, Wash Post, Salon, Harper's, Vanity Fair, etc. are not acceptable to link.

Let me guess, should I use Fox News or The Weekly Standard to get the real unbias scoop, huh?

No, use your common sense. Not chit both sides make money off of. It's cold this year in some places, warmer in others. That will change, as it has for thousands of years. Maybe in 3114, it will revert back to the cycle it was in 1610. Why ya think weatherman always give a chance for rain? Cause, it's the weather, it changes. One thing I do know, this GW better hurry up an end, cause the Great Lakes are about to freeze over totally. Not sure that has ever happened before. I know it got to like 90% frozen, but --not sure totally. I'm ready for some Global cooling, and some 90 degree weather.

[Macarthur]

No, use your common sense. Not chit both sides make money off of. It's cold this year in some places, warmer in others. That will change, as it has for thousands of years. Maybe in 3114, it will revert back to the cycle it was in 1610. Why ya think weatherman always give a chance for rain? Cause, it's the weather, it changes. One thing I do know, this GW better hurry up an end, cause the Great Lakes are about to freeze over totally. Not sure that has ever happened before. I know it got to like 90% frozen, but --not sure totally. I'm ready for some Global cooling, and some 90 degree weather.

Your quote shows that you clearly do not understand global climate change. There is a diference in weather and climate.

[YTBulldogs]

Your quote shows that you clearly do not understand global climate change. There is a diference in weather and climate.

Guess I don't understand. I got more important stuff to worry about. I see you only understand what some loons have you believe. Yes, there is change. That's normal. Wait 100 years, and it will be back where it should be. Or, maybe .00025 degrees cooler. **yawn**

[waterboy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm




No, not really. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm



As I said before, stop using politicians as a means to form your opinions on matters, especially science.



It's not a hoax. It may be proven to be wrong, but it is most certainly not a hoax.

If I had time I would debate it with you, but I really don't think it's worth it. Suffice it to say, I don't believe anything a politician tells me without proof, and I don't care who they are. When you listen to a politician they fill you with half-truths, skewed "facts", and other twisted views. When it comes to politicians I always follow the money. That, however, does not make the decision for me. Climatologists have differing opinions, too. I've read several articles on the matter, and have come to the conclusion that "global warming" is most likely cyclical. If it's not, then so be it. We will eventually have to be weaned off of fossil fuels, that is fact, but to do it suddenly, or at rate where it is not economically feasible is just plain stupid. It would send the entire world into an economic depression such as the world has never seen. Anarchy anyone?

[Macarthur]

Suffice it to say, I don't believe anything a politician tells me without proof, and I don't care who they are. When you listen to a politician they fill you with half-truths, skewed "facts", and other twisted views. When it comes to politicians I always follow the money. That, however, does not make the decision for me.

Couldn't agree with you more.


Climatologists have differing opinions, too.

While technically you are correct, as pointed out in one of the links, there is somewhere around 97% to 98% consensus among climate scientists. So there really is a very strong consensus about this matter.

And your term opinion is really not a correct use when it comes to science. Opinion should not really be a part of scientific vernacular.


I've read several articles on the matter, and have come to the conclusion that "global warming" is most likely cyclical. If it's not, then so be it. We will eventually have to be weaned off of fossil fuels, that is fact, but to do it suddenly, or at rate where it is not economically feasible is just plain stupid. It would send the entire world into an economic depression such as the world has never seen. Anarchy anyone?

Agree with some of this. We definitely need to be off fossil fuels at some point because eventually they will be gone. Not sure if this will happen in our lifetime or not.

[Macarthur]

Guess I don't understand. I got more important stuff to worry about. I see you only understand what some loons have you believe. Yes, there is change. That's normal. Wait 100 years, and it will be back where it should be. Or, maybe .00025 degrees cooler. **yawn**

Really poor post. So you either don't want to or don't want to take the time to try and educate yourself and then resort to calling those that dedicate their life's work to it 'loons'. Your post is the definition of willfully ignorant.

[YTBulldogs]

Really poor post. So you either don't want to or don't want to take the time to try and educate yourself and then resort to calling those that dedicate their life's work to it 'loons'. Your post is the definition of willfully ignorant.

Look, we have the same number of educated scientist goof-balls claiming there is an issue as there are saying there isn't a issue. So, what do I do? I cancel them both out. They are both saying what those that give them millions a year, wants them to say. Nice gig, huh?

We have more important issues that will destroy us faster, then the weather heating up/cooling down a fraction over a couple hundred years. Like, a freaking national debt, that now has so many zero's in it, I can't tell ya how many 0's are in 18 trillion. You kidding me. You want me to be concerned about a fraction degree change the last couple hundred years, with this facing us? No thanks. I think I have my priorities in order.

.

[Macarthur]

Look, we have the same number of educated scientist goof-balls claiming there is an issue as there are saying there isn't a issue. So, what do I do? I cancel them both out. They are both saying what those that give them millions a year, wants them to say. Nice gig, huh?


There is not the same amount on each side. That's the point I've been making.


We have more important issues that will destroy us faster, then the weather heating up/cooling down a fraction over a couple hundred years. Like, a freaking national debt, that now has so many zero's in it, I can't tell ya how many 0's are in 18 trillion. You kidding me. You want me to be concerned about a fraction degree change the last couple hundred years, with this facing us? No thanks. I think I have my priorities in order.

.

No doubt we have other important issues but by your logic, we should only worry about one thing at a time. God forbid we have the capacity to contemplate more than one problem at a time.

[Tejastrue]

https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=H.4813658881918774&pid=15.1

[YTBulldogs]

No doubt we have other important issues but by your logic, we should only worry about one thing at a time. God forbid we have the capacity to contemplate more than one problem at a time.
When your broke, you can't do multiple things. Just like in our own households.

[YTBulldogs]

https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=H.4813658881918774&pid=15.1

LOL. That makes just as much sense as the experts proof tt. One thing that get's me, is if Gore is so set on this mission to save the planet, why don't he live and operate like it. I mean, he jet's around the world in his private jet's, like I do using my little Civic. I bet he has SUV's too. His carbon footprint in one year, is a impact I'll never achieve in my households life time.

[Manso/V8]

What sources would you recommend?

Well that is a tough one, I just have a particular mistrust of the NYT.........and the skeptical science blog with the ominous chart with rising count of accumulated heat is very sensational and makes Fox News come off as calm.

[Manso/V8]

Agree with some of this. We definitely need to be off fossil fuels at some point because eventually they will be gone. Not sure if this will happen in our lifetime or not.

We will run not out of fossil fuels on our lifetime.

I would be more concerned about sun activity.

[Macarthur]

We will run not out of fossil fuels on our lifetime.

I would be more concerned about sun activity.

Depends on which one. Lots of sources suggest we will run out of oil sometime mid century. That just about 30years.

[YTBulldogs]

Drill baby drill. It's there.

[Manso/V8]

Depends on which one. Lots of sources suggest we will run out of oil sometime mid century. That just about 30years.

Think about how much additional oil we have "found" in the last 5 years or so, like in the Eagle Ford and Williston Basin among many other areas. As busy and productive as those plays are, they are still only extracting maybe 15% of the oil in and around a limited area around each well, and there is still alot of land yet untouched. It is only the beginning. This oil was always there, everyone knew about since it showed up in the mudlogs/cuttings.......new technology and techniques have only recently made it possible/economical to extract that oil. Those played out fields in West Texas have new life, and the Permian is now the most profitable basin again. The technology and understanding continues to grow every year.
We are going to able to squeeze oil out of the ground, either here in USA or in yet untouched formations in other parts of the world well past mid-century as long as it is profitable to do so........that may mean the price needs to go up, but what doesn't go up in price?

Natural gas is very abundant, here and in other parts of the world, we certainly have enough for our lifetimes. We should be looking at natural gas to replace oil in a lot of sectors.

I am all for developing other energy sources, but so far, oil and gas rule and will continue to rule until something better is developed.

[LH Panther Mom]

My thoughts are:
1. In the winter it's cold
2. In the summer it's hot
3. In Texas, it may be hot or cold at any given time

:D That post makes the most scientific sense to me. Okay, Tejastrue's picture is a very close second. ;)

[44INAROW]

My thoughts are:
1. In the winter it's cold
2. In the summer it's hot
3. In Texas, it may be hot or cold at any given time

This :)

[Macarthur]

Think about how much additional oil we have "found" in the last 5 years or so, like in the Eagle Ford and Williston Basin among many other areas. As busy and productive as those plays are, they are still only extracting maybe 15% of the oil in and around a limited area around each well, and there is still alot of land yet untouched. It is only the beginning. This oil was always there, everyone knew about since it showed up in the mudlogs/cuttings.......new technology and techniques have only recently made it possible/economical to extract that oil. Those played out fields in West Texas have new life, and the Permian is now the most profitable basin again. The technology and understanding continues to grow every year.
We are going to able to squeeze oil out of the ground, either here in USA or in yet untouched formations in other parts of the world well past mid-century as long as it is profitable to do so........that may mean the price needs to go up, but what doesn't go up in price?

Natural gas is very abundant, here and in other parts of the world, we certainly have enough for our lifetimes. We should be looking at natural gas to replace oil in a lot of sectors.

I am all for developing other energy sources, but so far, oil and gas rule and will continue to rule until something better is developed.

You're a bit more optimistic than I am about how much oil we have. The variable that I think you are missing is the demand. Sure, there's a lot of oil out there, but you also have to realize that the demand for oil is going through the roof with the development of china and other developing nations.

[BB BULLS]

here is something i read last year. you guys might like this as far as oil goes.


Bakken oil boom in North Dakota might last for 100 years


The excerpt below is from a long, but very informative New York Times Magazine article ”North Dakota Went Boom,” about the Peace Garden State’s amazing oil boom in the Bakken formation (and some history of the state’s previous oil booms). According to some estimates, the Bakken boom might last for 100 years, and is being driven by new, breakthrough drilling technologies, and the state’s “petropreneurs” (and not by any government energy policy):


Around seven years ago — driven by technological refinements that have made North Dakota a premier laboratory for coaxing oil from stingy rocks — the state’s Bakken boom began in Mountrail County. At the time, North Dakota was ranked ninth among U.S. oil-producing states. By 2010 it had climbed to fourth. In July 2012, monthly oil output reached 20.97 million barrels, and North Dakota was the largest oil producer in the country after Texas (see chart above).

Just how much oil is in the Bakken is still unknown. Estimates have been continuously revised upward since a 1974 figure of 10 billion barrels. Leigh Price, a United States Geological Survey geochemist, was initially greeted with skepticism when, about 13 years ago, he came to the conclusion that the Bakken might hold as much as 503 billion barrels of oil. Now people don’t think that number is as crazy as it seemed.

As long as prices stay above $60 a barrel or so, oil will be a mainstay of the North Dakota economy for a generation or more. After drilling companies finish securing leased acreage, it will take 20 years to develop the 35,000 to 40,000 production wells needed to fully exploit the “thermally mature” part of the Bakken shale, an area about the size of West Virginia. Production from a typical Bakken well declines rapidly but on average produces modest amounts of oil for 45 years and earns a profit of $20 million. But as the volume of oil in the Bakken shale is still a moving target, and recovery techniques are increasingly sophisticated, some estimates put the life of the Bakken play, and the attendant upheaval it is causing in North Dakota, at upward of a hundred years.

[Cam]

...I'm gettin' hot.....:flaming:

[Cam]

https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=H.4813658881918774&pid=15.1

I just want to know what the next garment looks like!!....

[Macarthur]

here is something i read last year. you guys might like this as far as oil goes.


Bakken oil boom in North Dakota might last for 100 years


The excerpt below is from a long, but very informative New York Times Magazine article ”North Dakota Went Boom,” about the Peace Garden State’s amazing oil boom in the Bakken formation (and some history of the state’s previous oil booms). According to some estimates, the Bakken boom might last for 100 years, and is being driven by new, breakthrough drilling technologies, and the state’s “petropreneurs” (and not by any government energy policy):


Around seven years ago — driven by technological refinements that have made North Dakota a premier laboratory for coaxing oil from stingy rocks — the state’s Bakken boom began in Mountrail County. At the time, North Dakota was ranked ninth among U.S. oil-producing states. By 2010 it had climbed to fourth. In July 2012, monthly oil output reached 20.97 million barrels, and North Dakota was the largest oil producer in the country after Texas (see chart above).

Just how much oil is in the Bakken is still unknown. Estimates have been continuously revised upward since a 1974 figure of 10 billion barrels. Leigh Price, a United States Geological Survey geochemist, was initially greeted with skepticism when, about 13 years ago, he came to the conclusion that the Bakken might hold as much as 503 billion barrels of oil. Now people don’t think that number is as crazy as it seemed.

As long as prices stay above $60 a barrel or so, oil will be a mainstay of the North Dakota economy for a generation or more. After drilling companies finish securing leased acreage, it will take 20 years to develop the 35,000 to 40,000 production wells needed to fully exploit the “thermally mature” part of the Bakken shale, an area about the size of West Virginia. Production from a typical Bakken well declines rapidly but on average produces modest amounts of oil for 45 years and earns a profit of $20 million. But as the volume of oil in the Bakken shale is still a moving target, and recovery techniques are increasingly sophisticated, some estimates put the life of the Bakken play, and the attendant upheaval it is causing in North Dakota, at upward of a hundred years.

That's good. I hope there's as much as they think there is.

[Tejastrue]

What? No farting cow theory?

[waterboy]

I just want to know what the next garment looks like!!....

It's there, Cam! You just can't see it...

[Cam]

It's there, Cam! You just can't see it...

well shoot then....bring on the global warmin'......oh wait...does that mean I gotta look at Greendawg too?....:ack!:

[waterboy]

well shoot then....bring on the global warmin'......oh wait...does that mean I gotta look at Greendawg too?....:ack!:

Naw..., not unless you want to...:ack!:

It's only the ladies that the clothes get skimpier for. Men just wear the same clothes no matter what.

[Manso/V8]

You're a bit more optimistic than I am about how much oil we have. The variable that I think you are missing is the demand. Sure, there's a lot of oil out there, but you also have to realize that the demand for oil is going through the roof with the development of china and other developing nations.

I work in the industry and optimism is somewhat of a neccessity........increased demand drives cost, and higher prices mean that more oil is economically recoverable. It is all about return on investment. China has one of the world's largest shale deposits as well, and they are invested over here, not for the oil, but to learn how to develop shales.

As time goes on, and prices continue to increase, oil will be supplanted by natural gas for many uses. Right now, an infrastructure for CNG- compressed natural gas for cars and trucks would be a huge boon and cut emissions by 25% or more. In OKC, CNG is below $1.20 gge (gal gas equivalent)........mot bad. As time goes on, and supplies get tighter, most likely some other energy source will tale over. One I think has potential is oil derived from algae. Huge algae farms would be carbon nuetral, maybe even carbon negative. By that time, regular petroleum gasoline will still be around, but will likely be a high priced boutique product.

Life will go on, we will get it figured out, and everything will be ok......as long as that big ball of plasma called the sun continues to keep us warm.

[Macarthur]

I appreciate your optimism. I hope you are right.

[Cam]

Naw..., not unless you want to...:ack!:

It's only the ladies that the clothes get skimpier for. Men just wear the same clothes no matter what.

Whew!...well then I say again, "bring on global warmin'"......

[Manso/V8]

I appreciate your optimism. I hope you are right.

I thought you would.

What are you worried about?

[Macarthur]

I thought you would.

What are you worried about?

Making the planet uninhabitable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/

[Saggy Aggie]

Making the planet uninhabitable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/


LOL, aren't you the one posting on the other threads about people being alarmists?

[Macarthur]

LOL, aren't you the one posting on the other threads about people being alarmists?

Yep. Some of the reaction to that story does seem alarmists.

And before you continue to try and connect these dots, let me say that one stance has actual evidence (climate change) and the other has no evidence of wrong doing, at this point.

[Manso/V8]

Yes, the climate has been changing continuously since earth formed. Nothing in the alarmist article posted says the planet will be uninhabitable.

Obviously things change on earth, much of West Texas used to be under an ocean.

I am not convinced that man made emissions are having any significant impact on climate change, but I am all for reducing emissions and reducing deforestation.

[Manso/V8]

Here is an example of the type of blather put forth by the NYT.
This "humorous" graphic suggests that climate change deniers should be stabbed in the heart.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/see-something-say.html?_r=3&#1

[Farmersfan]

Climate change is a FACT! Global Warming is a FACT! We might not know the extent of our impact on this or what the long term effect of our impact will be but we do know pretty convincingly that we don't want to continue on the path we are currently on. Is there any argument on this?

[Macarthur]

Climate change is a FACT! Global Warming is a FACT! We might not know the extent of our impact on this or what the long term effect of our impact will be but we do know pretty convincingly that we don't want to continue on the path we are currently on. Is there any argument on this?

agree

[YTBulldogs]

Climate change is a FACT! Global Warming is a FACT! We might not know the extent of our impact on this or what the long term effect of our impact will be but we do know pretty convincingly that we don't want to continue on the path we are currently on. Is there any argument on this?

Wonder what will cause us more harm first? The national debt (which has risen faster than the weather I think) or global warming? Just like the environment, we should be ashamed the way we left our country financially for our kids, and theirs.

[Macarthur]

Wonder what will cause us more harm first? The national debt (which has risen faster than the weather I think) or global warming? Just like the environment, we should be ashamed the way we left our country financially for our kids, and theirs.

Two different types of 'harm'. Sure, our current financial situation is unsustainable, but I believe the consquences of the damage being done to our planet are much more important. First, this is a global issue. Many people around the world could care less if our banks fail or we have too many people on welfare. They do care if their coastal cities are 4 feet under water.

I would think that most of the good conservatives on this board like our military. I would think you support our military.

You might read up a bit on how our military is already preparing for this and how it will affect what they do in the future.

[Macarthur]

Here is the sad story of Kiribati.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/kiribati-a-nation-going-under/590/

As Americans, we have to really focus on not being so selfish about this issue - This is not just about us and our economy.

[YTBulldogs]

Two different types of 'harm'. Sure, our current financial situation is unsustainable, but I believe the consquences of the damage being done to our planet are much more important. First, this is a global issue. Many people around the world could care less if our banks fail or we have too many people on welfare. They do care if their coastal cities are 4 feet under water.

I would think that most of the good conservatives on this board like our military. I would think you support our military.

You might read up a bit on how our military is already preparing for this and how it will affect what they do in the future.

When your hurting financially. Trouble making ends meet, get or regain affordable insurance again, choosing between eating or taking your life saving medication. I think the global warming concern goes to the back burner for a decade or two until we get our financial issues in order.

[Macarthur]

I understand the point your making, but this is a global issue. This is about more than your paycheck. Do you want a viable planet for your grandkids?

[YTBulldogs]

I understand the point your making, but this is a global issue. This is about more than your paycheck. Do you want a viable planet for your grandkids?

I told you, due to many dire needs now financially for a large number of Americans, and health care issues, the global warming will have to wait. I'm sure we will still have a viable planet couple decades from now. But, we will not have a USA if we continue spending at this pace, in the same decades. So, yes--- I think my grandkids would rather we save America first.

The global temp has risen 1.4 degrees since 1880. Since 1975, 3/4 of that increase has happened. So, I think the planet can wait over getting our house in order financially.

[Macarthur]

I told you, due to many dire needs now financially for a large number of Americans, and health care issues, the global warming will have to wait. I'm sure we will still have a viable planet couple decades from now. But, we will not have a USA if we continue spending at this pace, in the same decades. So, yes--- I think my grandkids would rather we save America first.

The global temp has risen 1.4 degrees since 1880. Since 1975, 3/4 of that increase has happened. So, I think the planet can wait over getting our house in order financially.

Who exactly is going to get our financial house in order? The Republicans? :-D

[Cam]

I believe in global warming....how else can I explain that annoyin' sensation of waking up in the middle of the night with my nuts stuck to my legs??.....and that's even after showering!!...not only that, all my blankets end up on the floor........It's gettin' hotter I'm tellin' ya!....:flaming:

[caleb_mccaig]

You guys need to hang out with my parents. My step-dad is a retired Texas Ranger and U.S. Marshall and he seriously thinks the U.S. is going to go to actual hell possibly within whatever week it is. He's bought go bags for all of us for Christmas, including a machete, multiple firearms, tents and just standard survival gear and he got a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook for Valentine's from my mom in case he needs to ever know how to make a pipe bomb if ,and in his mind, when, society fails.
You people worry to much, if it's going to happen then there probably isn't anything we're going to be able to do about it at this point. I'm convinced my death will be caused by nuclear fallout so in my mind it's whatever.

[Cam]

Wonder what will cause us more harm first? The national debt (which has risen faster than the weather I think) or global warming? Just like the environment, we should be ashamed the way we left our country financially for our kids, and theirs.

I say neither...the terrorists/enemies will bring us more harm first!.....

[Macarthur]

I say neither...the terrorists/enemies will bring us more harm first!.....

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/09/07/did-the-u-s-overreact-to-the-911-attacks-undoubtedly/

Between 1970 and 2007 Mueller and Stewart asserted in a separate paper published last year in Foreign Affairs that a total of 3,292 Americans (not counting those in war zones) were killed by terrorists resulting in an annual risk of one in 3.5 million. Americans were more likely to die in an accident involving a bathtub (one in 950,000), a home appliance (one in 1.5 million), a deer (one in two million) or on a commercial airliner (one in 2.9 million).

The global mortality rate of death by terrorism is even lower. Worldwide, terrorism killed 13,971 people between 1975 and 2003, an annual rate of one in 12.5 million. Since 9/11 acts of terrorism carried out by Muslim militants outside of war zones have killed about 300 people per year worldwide. This tally includes attacks not only by al Qaeda but also by “imitators, enthusiasts, look-alikes and wannabes,” according to Mueller and Stewart.

[YTBulldogs]

I say neither...the terrorists/enemies will bring us more harm first!.....

That's related to being broke as a country, I think Cam. Can't even afford to defend ourselves. Sad. And they want us to worry about some ice melt.

[Manso/V8]

Here is the sad story of Kiribati.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/kiribati-a-nation-going-under/590/

As Americans, we have to really focus on not being so selfish about this issue - This is not just about us and our economy.

I read the articlie with interest. It is a story of overpopulation, pollution, a poor economy, and overuse of the limited supply of freshwater. The article keeps mentioning climate change and global warming, but fails to really make a solid connection to the islands' problems. Although it is mentioned briefly, it skirts around the ssue of land erosion and subsidence from storms and storm surges. Atolls and similar types of islands in the South Pacific come and go with time..........the aritcle says that the sea level has risen about 1 to 2 mm per year over the last century in that region, and now the recent average is 2.9 mm in that region. I looked some of the reports for Betio island sea level gauge (mentioned in the article) and some of the those reports mean sea level rise below global average. The fluctuations in seal level tend to be month to month and have more to do with El Nino effects, winds, etc, rather than expanding ocean volume or melting polar ice.

Maybe there is more to the story, but it seems to me that climate change/global warming is not the real issue for the Kiribati...........it is eroding and sinking, overpopulated, polluted, and they are over pumping their precious fresh water supply.

I feel bad for them, kind of like I feel bad for some folks I know that have land on the wrong side of a bend in the Brazos River that keep losing land to erosiion.

Just last Sunday, my wife and I were talking about getting a place on the coast.........and she said, "no, it will be a huge hassle if a hurrican comes"........life goes on.

[Macarthur]

I really don't want to get into a pissing match, Manso, becuase you are a very reasonable poster, but I think the data disagrees that rising sea levels is not an issue. Yes, sea levels do fluctuate from month to month, but that's like saying it's been really cold this month so the planet is not warming. You can't measure in one spot at one particular time and make a judgement. You have to use gloabal measurments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

[waterboy]

I really don't want to get into a pissing match, Manso, becuase you are a very reasonable poster, but I think the data disagrees that rising sea levels is not an issue. Yes, sea levels do fluctuate from month to month, but that's like saying it's been really cold this month so the planet is not warming. You can't measure in one spot at one particular time and make a judgement. You have to use gloabal measurments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

The thing is...where are they taking these temperature measurements, and how have those areas changed? More concrete where there used to be none, fewer rural measuring stations than there used to be... The data is flawed, no doubt about it. Could the globe be warming? Absolutely, but the data they are using is most definitely flawed. A little common sense will tell you that. What impact would 1 degree difference have on our planet every century or so? These people that are talking about global warming are being alarmists and are not called such because they are liberals, yet if a conservative person were to say the same thing they would be alarmist nutjobs. Where's the balance? I'll guarantee that if you follow the money you'll find the real answers.

[Macarthur]

The thing is...where are they taking these temperature measurements, and how have those areas changed? More concrete where there used to be none, fewer rural measuring stations than there used to be... The data is flawed, no doubt about it. Could the globe be warming? Absolutely, but the data they are using is most definitely flawed. A little common sense will tell you that. What impact would 1 degree difference have on our planet every century or so? These people that are talking about global warming are being alarmists and are not called such because they are liberals, yet if a conservative person were to say the same thing they would be alarmist nutjobs. Where's the balance? I'll guarantee that if you follow the money you'll find the real answers.

waterboy, the data accounts for the urban heat island effect. The data is there for you to examine. The data is not perfect but nothing ever is....it's the best we've got and it doesn't look good.

[YTBulldogs]

The thing is...where are they taking these temperature measurements, and how have those areas changed? More concrete where there used to be none, fewer rural measuring stations than there used to be... The data is flawed, no doubt about it. Could the globe be warming? Absolutely, but the data they are using is most definitely flawed. A little common sense will tell you that. What impact would 1 degree difference have on our planet every century or so? These people that are talking about global warming are being alarmists and are not called such because they are liberals, yet if a conservative person were to say the same thing they would be alarmist nutjobs. Where's the balance? I'll guarantee that if you follow the money you'll find the real answers.

:2thumbsup Boom. Nail on the head.

[waterboy]

waterboy, the data accounts for the urban heat island effect. The data is there for you to examine. The data is not perfect but nothing ever is....it's the best we've got and it doesn't look good.

To make a convincing argument the data has to have more rural gauging stations in my opinion. The "island effect" being accounted for is subjective at best. Do I believe the planet is warming? Yes, I do, but the evidence as to what is causing it is also subjective. It could just be another cycle, it could be induced by an increasing population, urbanization, etc., but there is no absolute proof that "greenhouse gases" are the cause. That's why I say, yes, we do need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but it has to be a slow process, allowing for renewable energy sources to be viable and affordable. Until renewable energy sources become affordable I'll continue to say it's a hoax.

[Farmersfan]

I was traveling through McKinney on Saturday at about 2 pm. The traffic was ridiculous. I pulled over at a Whataburger, got a to-go order and sat and watched the traffic for about 45 minutes with my wife. I was astounded at the number of people on the go. My wife asked me if there was any possible way our economy could be in bad shape if this many people were running around in this many new vehicles on a Saturday afternoon? The shopping malls are full! The gas pumps always have a line! The eating places are packed! The highways are bumper to bumper! The movie theaters are sold out! The parks are crowded! People are running around like they don't have a care in the world. This country will need to fall a long, long, long way down before most of these people experience actual hardship. Even the most downtrodden in our society carry cell phones and drive nicer vehicles than I can drive. It is disheartening!

[Macarthur]

I was traveling through McKinney on Saturday at about 2 pm. The traffic was ridiculous. I pulled over at a Whataburger, got a to-go order and sat and watched the traffic for about 45 minutes with my wife. I was astounded at the number of people on the go. My wife asked me if there was any possible way our economy could be in bad shape if this many people were running around in this many new vehicles on a Saturday afternoon? The shopping malls are full! The gas pumps always have a line! The eating places are packed! The highways are bumper to bumper! The movie theaters are sold out! The parks are crowded! People are running around like they don't have a care in the world. This country will need to fall a long, long, long way down before most of these people experience actual hardship. Even the most downtrodden in our society carry cell phones and drive nicer vehicles than I can drive. It is disheartening!

good points.

[Macarthur]

To make a convincing argument the data has to have more rural gauging stations in my opinion. The "island effect" being accounted for is subjective at best. Do I believe the planet is warming? Yes, I do, but the evidence as to what is causing it is also subjective. It could just be another cycle, it could be induced by an increasing population, urbanization, etc., but there is no absolute proof that "greenhouse gases" are the cause. That's why I say, yes, we do need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but it has to be a slow process, allowing for renewable energy sources to be viable and affordable. Until renewable energy sources become affordable I'll continue to say it's a hoax.

What do you consider absolute proof?

This goes to the heart of the matter. In the areas of science, there is NO SUCH THING as absolute proof. To make the case that something is not true because there is no absolute truth shows a lack of understanding of how science and the scientific method operates. Most people don't understand that there is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. This causes a lot of confusion with respect to the Theory of Evolution.
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

What science does, among other things, is allows a method of testing and coming up with verifiable data that can support or disprove a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you live your life trying to live by only absolute proof, it will be impossible. There really is not such thing. What we live by is the probabilities that things will react the same was it did before.

[panfan]

I was traveling through McKinney on Saturday at about 2 pm. The traffic was ridiculous. I pulled over at a Whataburger, got a to-go order and sat and watched the traffic for about 45 minutes with my wife. I was astounded at the number of people on the go. My wife asked me if there was any possible way our economy could be in bad shape if this many people were running around in this many new vehicles on a Saturday afternoon? The shopping malls are full! The gas pumps always have a line! The eating places are packed! The highways are bumper to bumper! The movie theaters are sold out! The parks are crowded! People are running around like they don't have a care in the world. This country will need to fall a long, long, long way down before most of these people experience actual hardship. Even the most downtrodden in our society carry cell phones and drive nicer vehicles than I can drive. It is disheartening!

My wife teaches 6th grade. She regularly has students show up who say they can't afford pencils, notebooks, backpacks, lunch, but they have cell phones, $100 jeans, and momma or daddy is driving around in a gas hog.

Global warming is occurring - but is likely within the normal warming and cooling cycles of geologic time. Are human activities contributing to an accelerated cycle? Maybe. What is the outcome? Now that is the million dollar question? No one really knows for certain. Climatologist have their best guesses with their models and they may be right or they may be wrong. Its definately worth keeping an eye on, IMO. But I don't think the sky is falling either.

Oil an gas exploration - there are several major plays in North America. Oil sands in Canada, Fracking the the shales in various parts of the US, and coal bed methane which is a kind of fracking going on in Wyoming, Colorado, and some other places out west. Each has their benefits - i.e., more oil and gas, and profits for those extracting it. Also, each has their downside - requires large amounts of water, discharge of brines and other waste materials, habitat fracturing and partitioning for wildlife. Each of these downsides is playing out now and we simply won't know the long term effects for years. In pennsylvania, reinjection of brines is now being found to co mingle with aquifers they thought were isolated. In Texas, injection is very deep, so I just hope we don't see what is happening in Pennsylvania. Powder River basin in Wyoming (coal bed methane extraction) has a lot of surface water discharge of brines which as of now results in unusable water - need treatment of those waters, but companies don't want to spend money on that. Canada is facing similar issues on the oil sands plays up there. We just need to be careful that the drive for profits excludes good scientific thinking about the long term effects of the current actions. Some prevention now, will be well worth the effort to minimize the potential fallout later.

[Cam]

My wife teaches 6th grade. She regularly has students show up who say they can't afford pencils, notebooks, backpacks, lunch, but they have cell phones, $100 jeans, and momma or daddy is driving around in a gas hog.

Global warming is occurring - but is likely within the normal warming and cooling cycles of geologic time. Are human activities contributing to an accelerated cycle? Maybe. What is the outcome? Now that is the million dollar question? No one really knows for certain. Climatologist have their best guesses with their models and they may be right or they may be wrong. Its definately worth keeping an eye on, IMO. But I don't think the sky is falling either.

Oil an gas exploration - there are several major plays in North America. Oil sands in Canada, Fracking the the shales in various parts of the US, and coal bed methane which is a kind of fracking going on in Wyoming, Colorado, and some other places out west. Each has their benefits - i.e., more oil and gas, and profits for those extracting it. Also, each has their downside - requires large amounts of water, discharge of brines and other waste materials, habitat fracturing and partitioning for wildlife. Each of these downsides is playing out now and we simply won't know the long term effects for years. In pennsylvania, reinjection of brines is now being found to co mingle with aquifers they thought were isolated. In Texas, injection is very deep, so I just hope we don't see what is happening in Pennsylvania. Powder River basin in Wyoming (coal bed methane extraction) has a lot of surface water discharge of brines which as of now results in unusable water - need treatment of those waters, but companies don't want to spend money on that. Canada is facing similar issues on the oil sands plays up there. We just need to be careful that the drive for profits excludes good scientific thinking about the long term effects of the current actions. Some prevention now, will be well worth the effort to minimize the potential fallout later.

....what he said!.....what the hell did you just say panfan??...:vrycnfsd:........well whatever you said, listen to him folks....I think it kinda falls within his line of work....he's one smart sumbeech!......and he wears purple underwear too!.....
...if global warming is real....it's all Greendawgs fault!!!

[regaleagle]

Your post didn't mention all the recent earthquakes being reported in areas known to have faults that are being disturbed by fracking. And the water tables that are at risk because of it. When it comes to water conservation and setting off earthquakes, suddenly the rewards of fracking for our great state pale in comparison. Besides, the oil companies are making most of the hay, as always....or they wouldn't be so heavily invested. Extract, say thank you, and ADIOS AMIGOS.

[waterboy]

What do you consider absolute proof?

This goes to the heart of the matter. In the areas of science, there is NO SUCH THING as absolute proof. To make the case that something is not true because there is no absolute truth shows a lack of understanding of how science and the scientific method operates. Most people don't understand that there is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. This causes a lot of confusion with respect to the Theory of Evolution.
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

What science does, among other things, is allows a method of testing and coming up with verifiable data that can support or disprove a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you live your life trying to live by only absolute proof, it will be impossible. There really is not such thing. What we live by is the probabilities that things will react the same was it did before.

I won't argue with a scientist, and I won't argue with the math, but I will argue with the math they use. I am WELL aware of how they, and their scientific community works. They don't use common sense, because they usually don't have any. A theory is just that, a THEORY. I don't have to have absolute proof of something when the evidence presented is tangible, and will hold up to scrutiny. These scientists likely believe in the THEORY of evolution for gosh sakes, yet where are all the missing links. I will scrutinize anything a scientist says using common sense, because most of them are clueless about anything outside the science community. In other words, they can't see the forest because of the trees. I don't believe everything they say, and neither should anybody else, in my opinion. When the scrutiny exposes flaws, follow the money is what I say.

[Macarthur]

These scientists likely believe in the THEORY of evolution for gosh sakes, yet where are all the missing links.

I give up. :crazy:

[Macarthur]

Your post didn't mention all the recent earthquakes being reported in areas known to have faults that are being disturbed by fracking. And the water tables that are at risk because of it. When it comes to water conservation and setting off earthquakes, suddenly the rewards of fracking for our great state pale in comparison. Besides, the oil companies are making most of the hay, as always....or they wouldn't be so heavily invested. Extract, say thank you, and ADIOS AMIGOS.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178534/exxons-pro-fracking-ceo-suing-stop-fracking-near-his-mansion

How's this for irony! Irony wins again!

[BB BULLS]

well if its gone kill us all i am just gonna keep doing what i been doing enjoy life while i can. we will never know what happens we will all be gone, why worry about something we have no control over. yes i think we have no control over the so called warming. one good thing if there is Global Warming it will get rid of all them Zombies that was gonna eats us.

P.S. we are all going to die of something. Have fun while you can, enjoy your family and friends while you can and let God worry about everything else.

[Macarthur]

well if its gone kill us all i am just gonna keep doing what i been doing enjoy life while i can. we will never know what happens we will all be gone, why worry about something we have no control over. yes i think we have no control over the so called warming. one good thing if there is Global Warming it will get rid of all them Zombies that was gonna eats us.

P.S. we are all going to die of something. Have fun while you can, enjoy your family and friends while you can and let God worry about everything else.

I think this is a very irresponsible attitude to take regarding the earth and how we leave it for generations to come. I'm sure your great great great grandkids will appreciate your attitude about the world they will have to live in.

[Macarthur]

ANd this is not about how YOU die. How selfish...

[BB BULLS]

ANd this is not about how YOU die. How selfish...

you are right i dont care about anyone in here just me and my family. and we will all be gone before this so called warming does anything.

[waterboy]

I guess I'm just a right-wing nutjob for believing what I believe, irregardless of what somebody supposedly smarter than me says....! :crazy:

[Cam]

I won't argue with a scientist, and I won't argue with the math, but I will argue with the math they use. I am WELL aware of how they, and their scientific community works. They don't use common sense, because they usually don't have any. A theory is just that, a THEORY. I don't have to have absolute proof of something when the evidence presented is tangible, and will hold up to scrutiny. These scientists likely believe in the THEORY of evolution for gosh sakes, yet where are all the missing links. I will scrutinize anything a scientist says using common sense, because most of them are clueless about anything outside the science community. In other words, they can't see the forest because of the trees. I don't believe everything they say, and neither should anybody else, in my opinion. When the scrutiny exposes flaws, follow the money is what I say.

Them scientists are wrong according to Dan and his vulgarious song! It's them aliens I'm tellin' ya!..just ask Stephenville folks!..has anybody noticed anything peculiar with them monkeys at that Fossil Rim wildlife park nearby??..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMsxqWYK-g

[Cam]

you are right i dont care about anyone in here just me and my family. and we will all be gone before this so called warming does anything.

....:eek:...does this mean you don't love me anymore BB??......

[BB BULLS]

....:eek:...does this mean you don't love me anymore BB??......

love and caring are two different things Cam. i love everyone, just dont care about everyone some more than others if you know what i mean.

[Macarthur]

:( ..

[BB BULLS]

Them scientists are wrong according to Dan and his vulgarious song! It's them aliens I'm tellin' ya!..just ask Stephenville folks!..has anybody noticed anything peculiar with them monkeys at that Fossil Rim wildlife park nearby??..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMsxqWYK-g

no cam its not aliens it is all them zombies

[Cam]

meanwhile.....the fella who started this thread, Saggy Aggie, continues to keep a low profile and stay out of this mess!.......

[Cam]

no cam its not aliens it is all them zombies

well either way...them aliens or zombies are really just demons.....according to orange machine.....

[panfan]

Your post didn't mention all the recent earthquakes being reported in areas known to have faults that are being disturbed by fracking. And the water tables that are at risk because of it. When it comes to water conservation and setting off earthquakes, suddenly the rewards of fracking for our great state pale in comparison. Besides, the oil companies are making most of the hay, as always....or they wouldn't be so heavily invested. Extract, say thank you, and ADIOS AMIGOS.

I think the whole post centered around the risks associated with these activities, and yes I did mention the aquifers. I just brought up a few examples and you have provided a few more. Point is, there are usually sustainable methods for many actions, maybe even fracking, but the urgency to get it out of the ground and reap the profit has outpaced the necessary investigations to figure out what the long term potential impacts are.

[regaleagle]

So I guess you could say a lot of Texans don't give a frackin' Sheite about the consequences to their native state's water supply and resource stability. As long as those(Big Oil) provide jobs and industry in the short run, and spread some(very little by comparison) of the wealth around for the here and now. I tend to disagree with that philosophy, even though I'd love nothing more than to see Texas in particular and the US in general be able to solve some of our immediate energy shortfalls and our dependency on foreign trade in oil....which just so happens to encompass a huge part of many other trade agreements we have at stake. From what I've been able to gather and comprehend, it's not just the oil and natural gas resources at issue, but other trade issues and economics that are the driving forces behind this fracking issue. And supposedly, many other nations are suddenly interested in learning our technology to develop their own reserves in their own countries. But at what expense??? This is the real question. There's rich oil and gas that comes outta the ground(i.e. the Arab nations) and then there's the "fracking" little that can have destructive consequences.

[panfan]

So I guess you could say a lot of Texans don't give a frackin' Sheite about the consequences to their native state's water supply and resource stability. As long as those(Big Oil) provide jobs and industry in the short run, and spread some(very little by comparison) of the wealth around for the here and now. I tend to disagree with that philosophy, even though I'd love nothing more than to see Texas in particular and the US in general be able to solve some of our immediate energy shortfalls and our dependency on foreign trade in oil....which just so happens to encompass a huge part of many other trade agreements we have at stake. From what I've been able to gather and comprehend, it's not just the oil and natural gas resources at issue, but other trade issues and economics that are the driving forces behind this fracking issue. And supposedly, many other nations are suddenly interested in learning our technology to develop their own reserves in their own countries. But at what expense??? This is the real question. There's rich oil and gas that comes outta the ground(i.e. the Arab nations) and then there's the "fracking" little that can have destructive consequences.

Just read an article about a current court case where the company responsible for deep injection is now being sued because while they inject to about a mile down, the fluid is now surfacing about around 800 to 1000 feet below an adjacent property owner. This is the tip of the iceberg, I can see cases like this and the fall out coming for years to come. We just haven't figured out how to do this in a manner that isn't going to come back and be a big problem later.

[Macarthur]

Agree and what makes this such a huge problem is that the water that is contaminated is ruined. It simply can not be recycled. Texas can't afford to lose any more water.

Wasn't it Boone that said not too long ago that fossil fuels are not our most urgent issue? It's water!

[Snotbubbles]

Wasn't it Boone that said not too long ago that fossil fuels are not our most urgent issue? It's water!

Not sure Daniel gave it a second thought really.

[panfan]

Agree and what makes this such a huge problem is that the water that is contaminated is ruined. It simply can not be recycled. Texas can't afford to lose any more water.

Wasn't it Boone that said not too long ago that fossil fuels are not our most urgent issue? It's water!

Its not lost, there are treatment options. Question is, do you want to spend the money upfront to treat 10 million gallons (contaminated process water), or later to treat a billion gallons (the aquifer contaminated). Course the companies don't want to spend any money to treat water, that cuts into their profit margins. Environmentalist say treat it all and make it as clean as it was. Somewhere in between is a compromise that will work - say treatment to a level that allows it to be used as irrigation water, but not usable for drinking. We make these trade offs everyday in our wastewater treatment plants that treat household sewage wastes.

[Macarthur]

Here's a good article on fracking water.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203937004578077183112409260

[panfan]

Here's a good article on fracking water.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203937004578077183112409260

Here is another:
http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/04/fracking-water-its-just-so-hard-to-clean/

its treatable, but expensive - recylce frack water is a good idea, but I'm curious as to how much contaminant build up in the reuse fracking fluid occurs if at all, and does it affects its ultimate reuse.

In the end though, the true costs of fracking are not being accounted for when you start adding up the bills for dealing with the wastewater side, as well as use of good water lost for use on the intake side. Lots of issues.,

[Macarthur]

Agreed. Ultimately the technology needs to advance to the point where water is not needed.

[Tejastrue]

I found it disturbing that this industry is sparsely regulated...


http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/f/What-Is-Fracking-Hydrofracking-Or-Hydraulic-Fracturing.htm

[Saggy Aggie]

Probably due to all the hot air coming out of al gores mouth

[Manso/V8]

Wow a lot of posts about frac treatments, frac water, induced seismicity, etc in one day. This is a topic I happen to know a lot about since I am involved in reservoir evaluation, well design, frac treament design, and also monitoring of frac treatments. Y'all bring up some valid concerns, but most are missing the target with what is really going on.

Don't get caught up in hysteria.

[Macarthur]

In your opinion, what is the main point we are missing?

[Tejastrue]

Okay Manso/V8...what is really going on?

[Manso/V8]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178534/exxons-pro-fracking-ceo-suing-stop-fracking-near-his-mansion

How's this for irony! Irony wins again!

Rex and his neighbors just don't want industrial activity in their fancy neighborhood. When it comes down to it, the real complaint in areas with an oil boom is the truck traffic and heavy industrial type activity while the drilling and stimulation is going on.......after that is done, there are just some well heads, maybe some pumpjacks, and a few tanks.

[Manso/V8]

Okay Manso/V8...what is really going on?

I wanna answer but I gotta get some work done and get up extra early in the morning.
I will try tomorrow.

[panfan]

The Texas railroad commission is the regulating entity for all oil and gas wells. If you want to learn more, its a good place to start. They have a FAQ page - and you can make up your own mind about answers provided. TCEQ is responsible for making sure that agencies such as the RR commish and the well permits they dole out meet the State Water quality standards, if there is a discharge, or meet the haz waste requirements if there is no discharge situation. Then there are the air quality permits and regs and whole host of other conditions to be met at these facilities.

Since I don't deal too much with groundwater, not sure what the guidelines are on reinjection, but for those entities that are treating process water, they either end up with a water discharge or a solid waste - both regulated by TCEQ. There are a lot of rules and regs, but these are the two primary agencies

I'm interested to hear Manso's take on everything and I'll pose an additional question or two to him. What is your take on the regulatory environment for Oil and gas development via fracking? Over-regulated, just right, under regulated. Do you believe enforcement of these regs is too much, just right, not really occurring.

[defense51]

My thoughts are:
1. In the winter it's cold
2. In the summer it's hot
3. In Texas, it may be hot or cold at any given time

Yesterday and today prove #3 of my theory! :evilgrin:

[BwdLion73]

Yep, 91 yesterday and got a little blistered working outside. Tonight...18

[BwdLion73]

Yep, 91 yesterday and got a little blistered working outside. Tonight...18 degrees.

[BB BULLS]

Yep, 91 yesterday and got a little blistered working outside. Tonight...18 degrees.

i am working outside yesterday with shorts on go inside for about 15 min go back outside and have get pants and jacket. thats global warming for you just never know

[Phantom Stang]

The next time y'all wanna work outside, fire up your lawn mowers even if the grass ain't growing. Then maybe the Globe won't cool off so dang much!:crazy1::smoker:

[YTBulldogs]

I'll be glad when the GW episode passes. I'm freezing. 60 degree change in 24 hours.

[panfan]

The next time y'all wanna work outside, fire up your lawn mowers even if the grass ain't growing. Then maybe the Globe won't cool off so dang much!:crazy1::smoker:

or go out a squeeze your cows cause everyone knows that cow farts are the real cause, right!:eek:

[Manso/V8]

In your opinion, what is the main point we are missing?

Hmmmm, the main point, that is a tough one............you, me, and everyone else have become accustomed to quick, easy access to readily available, convenient, and relatively inexpensive energy in the form of oil&gas.

To supply that cheap energy is a big undertaking. Think about what we are doing. Drilling at least a mile, maybe up to two miles down, and then horizontally for a mile or two, casing and cementing the hole, and then pumping 4-6 million gallons of fluid and tons and tons of proppant in to the well is a major industrial activity. Yes, there are risks involved. The biggest risk is that industrial activity, the truck traffic, refueling the equipment, etc, and the industry does a good job at minimizing those risks.

[YTBulldogs]

Hmmmm, the main point, that is a tough one............you, me, and everyone else have become accustomed to quick, easy access to readily available, convenient, and relatively inexpensive energy in the form of oil&gas.

To supply that cheap energy is a big undertaking. Think about what we are doing. Drilling at least a mile, maybe up to two miles down, and then horizontally for a mile or two, casing and cementing the hole, and then pumping 4-6 million gallons of fluid and tons and tons of proppant in to the well is a major industrial activity. Yes, there are risks involved. The biggest risk is that industrial activity, the truck traffic, refueling the equipment, etc, and the industry does a good job at minimizing those risks.
Keep up the good work Manso. We appreciate what ya'll are doing for us and helping rid us depending somewhat from foreign energy's. And not to mention, boosting the Texas economy. Drill baby drill!!!

[Macarthur]

Wow a lot of posts about frac treatments, frac water, induced seismicity, etc in one day. This is a topic I happen to know a lot about since I am involved in reservoir evaluation, well design, frac treament design, and also monitoring of frac treatments. Y'all bring up some valid concerns, but most are missing the target with what is really going on.

Don't get caught up in hysteria.

This was your previous post, Manso. What exactly do you mean by the point we are missing about what is REALLY going on. Also, address your hysteria point.

[Macarthur]

And, BTW, you are certainly correct with your point about the efficiency of fossil fuels.