Control does one climate with HAARP? Reportage i-Tele

[dede2002]

Yes, absolutely, the balance is precarious and 1% oxygen should have considerable influence.

But, Sen-no-sen writes, "With peak oil reaching in 2006/2008, a slow but certain decline in black gold is expected to quickly reach, so it will not be possible to maintain this rate for very long."
and I notice that since 2008 consumption continues to rise, slowly but ...
And maneuvers like shale gas, bituminous sand, arctic surveys, Indian Ocean, etc., do not make me think of a downward trend will.

[sen-no-sen]

And maneuvers like shale gas, bituminous sand, arctic surveys, Indian Ocean, etc., do not make me think of a downward trend will.

It is precisely because of the drop in production linked to "peak oil" that all its readjustment measures have been implemented.
If we take the case of unconventional gases (shale gas, "tight gas") it appears that their production has dropped drastically (nearly 80%) in less than 2 years!
Given the increasing expenditure of energy required to extract its fossil products, here we will see a few decades an investment withdrawal of more stable sources.

[dede2002]

...

This is, especially not considering a return back, it will happen anyway spontaneously, but to be aware of the urgency to invent new ways radically different, as this is still possible.

In the absence of obvious new way, a flashback may be prudent ...?
A step back is to consume less?
The current obvious new path, producing lots of material that consumes less, so that everyone buys (and uses) "with a clear conscience"



edit:

@ Sen-no-sen

"in a few decades"?
But our pace 2030 we will have consumed as much oil in 21 century that throughout the 20ème century.

[sen-no-sen]

@ Sen-no-sen

"in a few decades"?
But our pace 2030 we will have consumed as much oil in 21 century that throughout the 20ème century.

Only if you want account growth projections based on limitless reserves!
Excluding this growth is directly correlated to the energy supply ... which is limited!
Less energy = less growth = fewer planes in the sky = less condensation trail!
Below is a graph of the evolution of the situation:

Evolution of global liquids production, billion barrels a year, for ultimate reserves of about 3500 billion barrels. The vertical bar is 2010. Oil production in the strict sense corresponds to the conventional total + + offshore extra-heavy.

(Source JM Jancovici).

Note that the 2040 period is the same level as that of 1990.

[dede2002]

And in 2070 we would arrive at the conso of 1960.
We will still see a time, the traces of planes ...

According to this graph, it has not consumed half of the supposed oil, so that provision is to pollute beyond what has been polluted so far (for oil)?

[sen-no-sen]

And in 2070 we would arrive at the conso of 1960.
We will still see a time, the traces of planes ...

According to this graph, it has not consumed half of the supposed oil, so that provision is to pollute beyond what has been polluted so far (for oil)?

If you look carefully chart the part in dark gray corresponds to biofuels, it does not fit into the categories of fossil fuels.
And actually if allowed to do, the soon risks causing a nuisance level never before achieved ...

[dede2002]

Earlier I presented a world average, distorted by the geographical distribution of consumption.
To continue in "science fiction", I put Singapore in a bubble. The model does not last long ...

Regarding the "unlimited energy stock" model, the ultimate limit would be oxygen, assuming that man would try to burn everything that can be ???



ps: dark gray, 25 2100% in ...?
And used oil to produce ...

[dede2002]

A note on the graph on the previous page:
This is the production of liquid fuel, I guess that the gray energy is not accounted for ...?

For example for oil sands, agro-fuels, etc.?
An additional burden for the environment, which will increase in proportion to the price of oil and the difficulty of producing it.

[Ahmed]

Dede a write:

In the absence of obvious new way, a flashback may be prudent ...?
A step back is to consume less?

only aim lower consumption means that it retains the same mental pattern with less means; This is radically a path that leads nowhere, even if it would apply provisionally. As you say, this is the chosen path.

This is not to consume less, but to be free of the obligation of growth for other unattainable goals now because contradict it.
To stop, therefore, to consider that it is a deprivation, a renunciation, but of the condition of other ends both possible and desirable.

[dede2002]

Our ancestors, they consumed less, and were not more unhappy.
They put on warm clothes at home, used their objects to the end, did one thing at a time, used animal traction, ate local food, etc.

I think that the latest arrivals (in our "western" system) are the ones who will have the easiest time to get by! (Utopia)
For us Europeans it means several generations back ...
Personally I would see there no privation, if I did not have my PC (found in the trash) I would go more often to the pub