It's Zoot!



Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:36:19 GMT, "Dave Mayer" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> When I saw this photo on CrazyGuyonaBike.com, I immediately thought of
>> Zoot in his raptor suit.
>>
>> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/journal/page/pic/?pic_id=65679

>
>Another dino on a bike:
>http://www.emrg.sfu.ca/sustainablefossilfuels/
>

That's one of the old cacasaurs modelled on the T.Rex. One of 'em even
ran for mayor in 1999.
http://bikesexual.org/dinos/action.html
>
>I heard the author of this book speak. A reference was made to the
>misguided "chicken littles" who though the end of fossil fuels was upon us.


The end of the Dinosaurs Against Fossil Fuels may be upon us too since
the abiotic theory of oil production is starting to gain ground. Large
amounts of methane have been detected on Jupiter's moon, Titan. There
weren't any dinosaurs there, nor flatulent cattle.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

Oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that were capped, since they were no
longer productive, have refilled. The geological age of today's oil is
different from that recovered 10 years ago.
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm

The Russian have been deep-drilling for oil and finding it.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html

"Peak Oil" is possibly a scam to keep prices high.
--
zk
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Zoot Katz wrote:

> The end of the Dinosaurs Against Fossil Fuels may be upon us too since
> the abiotic theory of oil production is starting to gain ground. Large
> amounts of methane have been detected on Jupiter's moon, Titan. There
> weren't any dinosaurs there, nor flatulent cattle.
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675
>
> Oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that were capped, since they were no
> longer productive, have refilled. The geological age of today's oil is
> different from that recovered 10 years ago.
> http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
>
> The Russian have been deep-drilling for oil and finding it.
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
>
> "Peak Oil" is possibly a scam to keep prices high.


However even if the supply of oil is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
times as large as even the best estimate, then that still doesn't answer
the questions of pollution, and congestion, and what are the long term
effects to the planet, as we remove it.

It is estimated that the cost of congestion in The Province of Ontario,
Canada is $2,000,000,000 per year. The cost of adding one lane to a
freeway is around $8 Million per mile, not including land costs, in a
large city, land acquisition can be many times the cost of construction.
Now of course, you can build under ground, but the cost there, well
just ask Boston, MA about that one, $87 Million per lane mile..... (161
lane miles for $14.1 Billion). How long will a given lane of highway
actually increase capacity, if it doubles the width, about 10 years,
divide that in half for each pre-existing lane above one. On a highway
like the 401, which is 6 lanes wide in each direction, adding a lane
would be worth about 3-4 months.

Health effects, this past summer, we in Ontario, had a smog alert issued
in the middle of June, it continued with about 4 days off, until the
middle of September, half of that is due to coal plants in OH and PA,
the rest is due to motor vehicle traffic, anyone want to guess the cost,
in hospital visits, sick days, etc.

As for planetary effects, well God only knows at this point, do we
really want to find out?

W
 
R

Roger Houston

Guest
"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> However even if the supply of oil is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> times as large as even the best estimate, ...
> It is estimated that the cost of congestion in The Province of Ontario,
> Canada is $2,000,000,000 per year.


Hey, Wog, clean your keyboard. Looks like your zero key is stuck.

Extra Credit question: What is the predominant "greenhouse gas"?
 
Zoot Katz wrote:

> "Peak Oil" is possibly a scam to keep prices high.


The US reached its production peak in 1970. If oil
is a renewable resource, how come we can't even
produce as much domestically as we did in the 1960s,
when the US was one of the world's leading EXporters
of oil? Why can't the Russians, who actually believe the
primordial theory of oil's origin, produce as much today
as they did twenty years ago? Why does oil production
in the US and Russia decline every year?

We will only see the global peak in the rear view mirror, a
few years after the fact. Numbers for available reserves
are fraudulent, because OPEC rules dictate a country's
export volume based on its reserves--all the OPEC
countries lie about their reserves so they can pump more
oil. Global demand is projected to double in 12 years.
No new fields have been discovered in about a quarter
century. Let's put it this way, even if Gold is right, and
oil does spring magically from the center of the earth,
it seems highly unlikely that it will renew itself fast
enough for our purposes. I should put 'purposes' in
quotes. And let's not forget that when we use a barrel
of oil to extract a barrel of oil, that's not a smart exchange.

Robert
 
R

Ryan Cousineau

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:36:19 GMT, "Dave Mayer" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> When I saw this photo on CrazyGuyonaBike.com, I immediately thought of
> >> Zoot in his raptor suit.
> >>
> >> http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/journal/page/pic/?pic_id=65679

> >
> >Another dino on a bike:
> >http://www.emrg.sfu.ca/sustainablefossilfuels/
> >

> That's one of the old cacasaurs modelled on the T.Rex. One of 'em even
> ran for mayor in 1999.
> http://bikesexual.org/dinos/action.html
> >
> >I heard the author of this book speak. A reference was made to the
> >misguided "chicken littles" who though the end of fossil fuels was upon us.

>
> The end of the Dinosaurs Against Fossil Fuels may be upon us too since
> the abiotic theory of oil production is starting to gain ground. Large
> amounts of methane have been detected on Jupiter's moon, Titan. There
> weren't any dinosaurs there, nor flatulent cattle.
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675
>
> Oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that were capped, since they were no
> longer productive, have refilled. The geological age of today's oil is
> different from that recovered 10 years ago.
> http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
>
> The Russian have been deep-drilling for oil and finding it.
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html
>
> "Peak Oil" is possibly a scam to keep prices high.


Zoot, that last line was so good that milk shot out of my nose, and I
wasn't even drinking milk.

Peak Oil is a concept that, scientific validity left aside, has been
enthusiastically embraced by political entities on the left. Meanwhile,
the Mises Institute is the one publishing articles under the title "The
Myth of 'Peak Oil.'"

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717
note: references to the sweet-sour spread have nothing to do with ethnic
cuisine.

Locally, the price of gasoline (everybody's favourite real-world proxy
for crude oil pricing) has dropped pretty substantially since its
post-Katrina hit. Margins in the oil and gas industry are such that if
the corporate masters were actually any sort of clever, they'd be
writing software instead.

My thoughts? Well, if petroleum becomes so valuable that one can no
longer afford to burn it, I suppose we'll have to change the primary
energy source for our most important transportation infrastructure. By
my off-the-top-of-my head figuring, that will be the third major fuel
and transit method transition since trains took over from livestock, and
fourth if you think bicycles were important enough to have counted
between trains and cars.

Apologies to Colby Cosh for stealing his line,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Roger Houston wrote:
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>However even if the supply of oil is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>times as large as even the best estimate, ...
>>It is estimated that the cost of congestion in The Province of Ontario,
>>Canada is $2,000,000,000 per year.

>
>
> Hey, Wog, clean your keyboard. Looks like your zero key is stuck.


Naw that first one was intentional, I actually need a new keyboard, but
I wanna new computer next spring anyway. This one is about 6 years old,
and the memory is low for what I want to do on it, and it's running out
of disk space, so part of next years tax refund is going to a new one.

I could have used scientific notation, but some people would not
understand, and I hate using HTML for usenet or mail.

> Extra Credit question: What is the predominant "greenhouse gas"?


According to Environment Canada's "One Tonne Challenge" website (
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ see the FAQ page), it's
Carbon Dioxide (CO2), followed by Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
Nature creates some CO2, heck breathing causes some, but natural
vegetation used to be sufficient to take care of it, now with removing
large areas of vegetation to put up clay boxes with huge roads and
driveways, the natural process isn't able to deal with it any longer,
and that is what creates the problem. Fossil fuel burning creates it in
copious amounts, although modern cars create less then older ones did,
the more cars, the more green house gas, and the warmer the planet gets.
Add more gas, remove more of the natural vegetation that reduces it,
and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you the result.

Governments can be in the middle of this, for example an R2000 home uses
30-40% less energy then a convential one, but costs slightly more to
build, you change building codes, so that R2000 building methods are
required rather then optional, you can skip the certification step, if
desired. Implement more non fossil fuel based transportation methods,
like Light Rail Transit, replace diesel buses with electric trolley
buses. Require Green belts around cities, so that we stop paving over
farm land and forest.

W
 
C

Chris Zacho The Wheelman

Guest
Now THAT'S a retro-grouch! LOL

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
 
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Peak Oil is a concept that, scientific validity left aside, has been
> enthusiastically embraced by political entities on the left. Meanwhile,
> the Mises Institute is the one publishing articles under the title "The
> Myth of 'Peak Oil.'"
>
> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717
> note: references to the sweet-sour spread have nothing to do with ethnic
> cuisine.


Strange. There is nothing in this article "The Myth of 'Peak Oil'"
that claims or indicates in any way that the phenomenon of
'Peak Oil' is a myth. Except the title, of course.

Robert
 
P

Peter Keller

Guest
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:38:51 -0500, The Wogster wrote:

> Roger Houston wrote:
>> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>
>> Extra Credit question: What is the predominant "greenhouse gas"?

>
> According to Environment Canada's "One Tonne Challenge" website (
> http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ see the FAQ page), it's
> Carbon Dioxide (CO2), followed by Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
> Nature creates some CO2, heck breathing causes some, but natural
>


Naw!!
The main greenhouse gas is Water Vapour! Without it the average
temperature on the surface of earth would be minus 15 celsius. So Water
vapour is responsible for almost 30deg warming, and Carbon Dioxide about
one half of a degree, and all the rest together about another half of a
degree.
Without Water vapour life here as we know it would not be possible --

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Peter Keller wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:38:51 -0500, The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>Roger Houston wrote:
>>
>>>"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
>
>>>Extra Credit question: What is the predominant "greenhouse gas"?

>>
>>According to Environment Canada's "One Tonne Challenge" website (
>>http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ see the FAQ page), it's
>>Carbon Dioxide (CO2), followed by Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
>>Nature creates some CO2, heck breathing causes some, but natural
>>

>
>
> Naw!!
> The main greenhouse gas is Water Vapour! Without it the average
> temperature on the surface of earth would be minus 15 celsius. So Water
> vapour is responsible for almost 30deg warming, and Carbon Dioxide about
> one half of a degree, and all the rest together about another half of a
> degree.
> Without Water vapour life here as we know it would not be possible --
>


Water vapour is essentially a constant though. However, if we increase
the amount of other green house gases in the atmosphere, that raises the
earths temperature slightly, which causes increased evaporation rates,
which adds more water vapour, making the problem even worse.

What we need to learn is that our planet, like ourselves, are in a fine
balance, as long as balance is maintained, or only changed in small
amounts, nature can recover the balance. However changing it .01% may
be an easy recovery, changing it 50% (like we have in the past 100
years), and recovery could be a long, difficult process.

Mind you, the GHG problem, may be dealt with in another way, if the
Peakoil folks are right. If we find alternatives to oil, and the peak
oil folks are wrong, then no problem. If the peak oil folks are right,
and we do nothing, um, uh, er were screwed.

W
 
B

Brian Huntley

Guest
The Wogster wrote:

> Water vapour is essentially a constant though.


I dunno - as my surface area increases, I'm pretty sure my water vapour
output increases too.

I sometimes think I'm approaching the old physics joke that states
"Assume a spherical cow..."
 
R

Roger Houston

Guest
"Peter Keller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:38:51 -0500, The Wogster wrote:
>
>> Roger Houston wrote:
>>> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
>>
>>> Extra Credit question: What is the predominant "greenhouse gas"?

>>
>> According to Environment Canada's "One Tonne Challenge" website (
>> http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ see the FAQ page), it's
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2),

> Naw!!
> The main greenhouse gas is Water Vapour!


Give the man a cigar (even though he misspelled "vapor"). Don't light it
though. Might melt the ice caps, you know.
 
P

Peter Keller

Guest
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:39:40 -0600, Roger Houston wrote:

>
> "Peter Keller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]
>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:38:51 -0500, The Wogster wrote:
>>
>>> Roger Houston wrote:
>>>> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message

\
>>> http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/onetonne/english/ see the FAQ page), it's
>>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2),

>> Naw!!
>> The main greenhouse gas is Water Vapour!

>
> Give the man a cigar (even though he misspelled "vapor"). Don't light it
> though. Might melt the ice caps, you know.


Cor Blimey!
Is a man not allowed to spell like a limey?

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:39:40 -0600, "Roger Houston" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Give the man a cigar (even though he misspelled "vapor").


No; you did.

"Vapour" is the proper spelling used by the millions of English
speakers throughout the world. Your spelling may be proper within your
borders but realise that you look ignorant or lazy when you post in a
global forum.
--
zk
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Zoot, that last line was so good that milk shot out of my nose, and I
> wasn't even drinking milk.
>
> Peak Oil is a concept that, scientific validity left aside, has been
> enthusiastically embraced by political entities on the left. Meanwhile,
> the Mises Institute is the one publishing articles under the title "The
> Myth of 'Peak Oil.'"
>
> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1717
> note: references to the sweet-sour spread have nothing to do with ethnic
> cuisine.
>


Gee, read the article again, he doesn't even have the correct definition
of the term OPEC. One always wonders with such pieces, if they get
something simple like this wrong, how many other "facts" in the article
are also wrong.

W
 
R

Roger Houston

Guest
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Vapour" is the proper spelling used by the millions of English
> speakers throughout the world. Your spelling may be proper within your
> borders but realise that you look ignorant or lazy when you post in a
> global forum


It's "Realize", Hoser.

Wonder what the internet would look like if the Canucks ran it?