!OIL!

[fukuda 351]

and now the way the planet drags space and time as it rotates.quote>

What?

Although the oil is a tiny tiny amount of earths overall mass , i feel that its the worst most destructive kind of mass redistribution/loss that earth can be subjected to .quote>

Not really, a group of huge volcanos erupting at the same time, or Yellowstone caldera celebrating it's past glory would be 1000 times worse for life and climate.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: fukuda

and now the way the planet drags space and time as it rotates.quote>

What?   

Although the oil is a tiny tiny amount of earths overall mass , i feel that its the worst most destructive kind of mass redistribution/loss that earth can be subjected to .quote>

Not really, a group of huge volcanos erupting at the same time, or Yellowstone caldera celebrating it's past glory would be 1000 times worse for life and climate.quote>

What?    Albert Einstiens thoery of special relativity ,electrodynamics of moving bodies .           

I wasnt considering natural occurances only man made .

[fukuda 351]

What? Albert Einstiens thoery of special relativity ,electrodynamics of moving bodies .quote>

Ok... Those laws only apply to huge weights, you would need a variation of several more orders of magnitude to have any visible effect. As Duke already pointed out with his numbers, the amount of mass is ridiculously small compared to the earth's mass.

And once again, the earth is not losing weight as a body, as we're not sending CO2 to space

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: fukuda

What? Albert Einstiens thoery of special relativity ,electrodynamics of moving bodies .quote>

Ok... Those laws only apply to huge weights, you would need a variation of several more orders of magnitude to have any visible effect. As Duke already pointed out with his numbers, the amount of mass is ridiculously small compared to the earth's mass.

And once again, the earth is not losing weight as a body, as we're not sending CO2 to space quote>

What ?  Those laws apply to the earth .  Several more magnitudes ,uhh ? apparently not .

Your visible effects are the climate and whats happening at the poles .

You know Nasa have equipment to detect the slightest changes in the values , that you and duke claim to be ridiculous ,insignificant .

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

^^ Sorry for cheating there dewds ,you leave me no choice .

-----Confirming a prediction-----

At heights of more than 60 miles, one of the main elements of the atmosphere is atomic oxygen, a single atom of oxygen. As carbon dioxide increases near Earth's surface, it gradually diffuses upward and absorbs heat through collisions with atomic oxygen. It then radiates the heat away to space.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Originally posted by: fukuda

What? Albert Einstiens thoery of special relativity ,electrodynamics of moving bodies .quote>

Ok... Those laws only apply to huge weights, you would need a variation of several more orders of magnitude to have any visible effect. As Duke already pointed out with his numbers, the amount of mass is ridiculously small compared to the earth's mass.

And once again, the earth is not losing weight as a body, as we're not sending CO2 to space quote>

What ?  Those laws apply to the earth .  Several more magnitudes ,uhh ? apparently not .

Your visible effects are the climate and whats happening at the poles .

You know Nasa have equipment to detect the slightest changes in the values , that you and duke claim to be ridiculous ,insignificant .

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

^^ Sorry for cheating there dewds ,you leave me no choice .

-----Confirming a prediction-----

At heights of more than 60 miles, one of the main elements of the atmosphere is atomic oxygen, a single atom of oxygen. As carbon dioxide increases near Earth's surface, it gradually diffuses upward and absorbs heat through collisions with atomic oxygen. It then radiates the heat away to space.quote>

 

Heat is not mass.

The loss of atmospheric gases leaching away to space is not significant when compared to the total mass.

Im not up on my solar sciences, but it your saying that CO2 reacts with the atomic Oxygen in the upper atmoshere and expels said CO2 to space. Ill say the the  particles the sun constantly bombards the earth with more then makes up for the loss from leaching out energized gas particles to space

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Heat is not mass.

Heat is just a byproduct of the chemical reaction that happens in the upper atmosphere . Its the reaction / counter reation that causes the atmosphere to loose mass .

The loss of atmospheric gases leaching away to space is not significant when compared to the total mass.

Our bodies are 70% blood , but you dont need to loose all of it to die .  The ammount may be insignificant to the total volume and survival of earth as a planet , but very significant when it comes down to the survival of mankind .

If you hadnt noticed Earth is undergoing the largest mass extinctions for 65 million years .

Im not up on my solar sciences,

 This is very clear in your last sentance .At this level this is more about awareness imho than science

 but it your saying that CO2 reacts with the atomic Oxygen in the upper atmoshere and expels said CO2 to space.

  You talk as though you think im just making it up , well i didnt discover it , NASA did and other World scientific bodies .

 Ill say the the  particles the sun constantly bombards the earth with more then makes up for the loss from leaching out energized gas particles to space.

lmao

[jammy 0]

Ilikehotdogs:  Ethanol is not a viable option, there is currently only just enough farmland to keep everyone fed in the world and a lot of food is not getting to places like Africa and Southeast Asia. So sugarcane is a no go area considering the global population is going to reach 9.5 billion in 2050. 

Overtime maybe by 2050 though I expected our use of oil to be dying out as we will rely on other things, but right now in 2008 we CANNOT run out of oil, we will run the world into ruin because it is the blood thta keeps us moving, trade moving which includes food, goods and things we need from day to day life. If we dont pump more oil inflation will contimue to skyrocket and no one will be able to afford much apart from the very richest so as you see, 2008 is not the year we need to let oil prices go up, the future is when we have the right technology. 

Gridlock - Yes your probably right speculation means people make assupmtions that trash the world economy and people panic driving up the price of not just oil but everything. The Iraq war is a different subject so I wont make any comments on it. And again its speculation about Iran, if everyone just stopped making media about it then the would not be as much of a problem people would not be like OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG over nothing 

And finnaly, I know the mass is slighty relevant but I personally dont want to know, animal populations, trees growing and people been born increase the mass aswell as meteorites and that is it. things in the atmosphere still contribute to the weight of the earth dont panic. The earth is generally actually getting heavier everyday.Please make a new thread if you wish to continue this argument, Thank you.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

What ?  Those laws apply to the earth .  Several more magnitudes ,uhh ? apparently not .

Your visible effects are the climate and whats happening at the poles .quote>

You speak of global warming. Some say it's due to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Some say it's due to increased levels of moisture in the atmosphere. Some say it's due to changes in the salinity of the oceans. Some say it's completely natural. We don't really know for sure where the cause lies. But I can tell you it's not due to the Earth losing mass, because that Idea is just preposterous.

You know Nasa have equipment to detect the slightest changes in the values , that you and duke claim to be ridiculous ,insignificant .quote>

I'm going to go Wikipedian here and say "citation needed". Who says the mass of the Earth is changing and by how much? Throw me a link or two.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU).quote>

Nitrogen, the key component of the Earth's atmosphere, has a molecular weight of 28. Oxygen, the other key component, has a molecular weight of 32. Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44. Where is this reduction in density coming from? If anything, the density of the atmosphere should increase. But again, that's not changing the Earth's mass since the blk density of the solid part of the Earth would decrease proportionally.

At heights of more than 60 miles, one of the main elements of the atmosphere is atomic oxygen, a single atom of oxygen. As carbon dioxide increases near Earth's surface, it gradually diffuses upward and absorbs heat through collisions with atomic oxygen. It then radiates the heat away to space.quote>

Um... carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It prevents heat from radiating away into space.

The loss of atmospheric gases leaching away to space is not significant when compared to the total mass.quote>

Our bodies are 70% blood , but you dont need to loose all of it to die .  The ammount may be insignificant to the total volume and survival of earth as a planet , but very significant when it comes down to the survival of mankind.

If you hadnt noticed Earth is undergoing the largest mass extinctions for 65 million years .quote>

Those mass extinctions are due to humans cutting into nature and developing land in an unnatural way for our use, and due to chemicals we release into the environment, for the most part. How the hell would the atmosphere shrinking a little cause mass extinctions, anyway? That's not how biology works. Something needs to kill those organisms. They don't just spontaneously die because some natural condition unrelated to their survival is disturbed a little. That's like saying stepping on a spider in New York causes penguins in Antarctica to start getting sick.

Also, our bodies are about 70% water, not blood. Get your facts straight.

[fukuda 351]

What ? Those laws apply to the earth . Several more magnitudes ,uhh ? apparently not .

Your visible effects are the climate and whats happening at the poles . quote>

Sorry, I don't get the relationship between greenhouse effect and orbit modification...

You know Nasa have equipment to detect the slightest changes in the values , that you and duke claim to be ridiculous ,insignificant .quote>

Source? Data?

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

^^ Sorry for cheating there dewds ,you leave me no choice .quote>

So what? The outermost atmosphere has a very low density and therefore its weight is also irrisory compared to the earth's one. And.. there are 2 ways of losing density, losing mass or increasing volume, which one is the cause in this case?

-----Confirming a prediction-----

At heights of more than 60 miles, one of the main elements of the atmosphere is atomic oxygen, a single atom of oxygen. As carbon dioxide increases near Earth's surface, it gradually diffuses upward and absorbs heat through collisions with atomic oxygen. It then radiates the heat away to space.quote>

Hum, what? Heat? We're talking about mass, the gravitational attraction is about mass not heat.

Heat is just a byproduct of the chemical reaction that happens in the upper atmosphere . Its the reaction / counter reation that causes the atmosphere to loose mass .quote>

That made my day. 1st law of chemistry: Mass Conservation no matter can be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

So.. What is the reaction then?

CO2 + O -> CO + O2?

Hum.. That reaction is not spontaneous, it neeeds a lot of energy to break the double bonds of CO2, and is not energically good, it should rely on the high energy particles that come form the Sun, which makes it very localized and slow....

Our bodies are 70% blood , but you dont need to loose all of it to die . The ammount may be insignificant to the total volume and survival of earth as a planet , but very significant when it comes down to the survival of mankind . quote>

Our bodies are 70% water, fyi

If you hadnt noticed Earth is undergoing the largest mass extinctions for 65 million years .quote>

Eocene/Pleistocene.

Oops, Duke replied while I was writing my post

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Heat is not mass.

Heat is just a byproduct of the chemical reaction that happens in the upper atmosphere . Its the reaction / counter reation that causes the atmosphere to loose mass .

The loss of atmospheric gases leaching away to space is not significant when compared to the total mass.

Our bodies are 70% blood , but you dont need to loose all of it to die .  The ammount may be insignificant to the total volume and survival of earth as a planet , but very significant when it comes down to the survival of mankind .quote>

 

I thought thats what we were talking about.The mass loss,not what would happen if the atmosphere were to reduce to mars levels and be mostly CO2.

You just said it yourself the mass lost is insignificant.

Well back on topic.

Oil is at 140 but the rest of the market is droping.

[jammy 0]

Can we please stop talking about the mass of the earth we are not meant to be talking about that!

We are duscussing why oil is so wexpensive, whether we agree that we should start extractting oil shale, President Bush agrees that the USA should.

And how we can save petrol and bring the oil price back down to $60 a barrel or whatever would be a reasonable amount. $20 is too cheap as it was in the 90salthough been heap the american economy boomed like it will when oil and thus inflation finnaly goes down in price.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Well President Bush agreed on a lot of things, doesn't make it right, does it?

It'll bring down the price a few bucks, then it'll go back up when our demand exceeds the supply. It's a short term solution, it may help the economy, but in a few years we'll be in the same trouble we are right now. Not to mention drilling for oil can affect shipping lanes, decrease tourism in areas around the new refineries, and there is always a looming environment risk for more oil spills, it doesn't affect most and many people probably don't really care, but I personally don't want to screw the environment up more because people want more oil.

EDIT: @jammy: Sorry, I didn't see your reply earlier. I'm not saying that we should trade in oil for ethanol, I simply think that ethanol is a reasonable resource to help out with high gas prices.

Brazil's ethanol is much more efficient than the U.S's corn ethanol, but the U.S is reluctant to allow them to distribute it for reasons beyond me. It's a much better alternative energy to use than continuing to import more oil from Middle Eastern nations, and should be used with things such as hydrogen, wind and solar power to provide a (reasonable) short term solution for the time being.

There's a few news articles about it, but here's one I found from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1596848,00.html

(Firefox 3 doesn't let me link for some reason).

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: jammy[.Please make a new thread if you wish to continue this argument, Thank you.

quote>

Fine , sorry to intrude , i see all this means to some is the effect on the depth of one s wallet . Well bring it on , i can afford to go $300-400 a barrel .

Duke 87  , Water ,lol 70% water  i knew we was 70 % something . I do however stilll stand by all my other statements .

Fukuda - quote

That made my day. 1st law of chemistry: Mass Conservation no matter can be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

No but it can be tranfared to Heat energy -P .

End of topic for me , if you want to find out  more i suggest you do the reasearch .

[jammy 0]

I just want to say that I was right about the 20 trillion barrels but not fully, 20 trillion barrels is the maximum amount of oil the USA could get out of its shale oil, estimates range from 2 trillion to 20 trillion, or around 200 years supply or 2000 years of supply!

the oil is profitable at $20 a barrel but most of it sells at $75 as there is no competiton as of yet, it is also already refined in Estonia (a country in eastern europe incase you dont know Europe too well) they get 90% of the electricity from it.

Although you have all that oil I still think most people should trade in their SUVs and pickup trucks for suitable sedans and small cars, unless you need them obviously (job requirements, large family etc.) ...