Originally posted by loam
Problem number one. You can't just 'glance'. You need to read the actual links provided.
Cmon now. I never said I glanced over the OP, I said I glanced over the thread, meaning the rest of the thread. I get the feeling you responded to
this and then read my post where I talk specifically about your links. Note that I responded to the 'thread', and the wild claim that the flow rate
is increasing exponentially, and then I used the old "Reply to loam" code and went into your OP.
The 3x15 mile dimension is relative to the CONFIRMED underwater plume. It has nothing to do with the dimensions of the surface oil slick
mentioned in the two previous articles. I cited the plume to further demonstrate that an additional very significant quantity of oil not accounted for
in the surface area exists.
Right. You chose to use rhetorical qualitative assessment reports, that themselves contain no citations, over "CONFIRMED" quantitative 'official'
You would have been better off not having mentioned the latter because you in effect debunked yourself.
You could have tried to use that official number and used what I like to call volumetric
to try and calculate the volume of the oil spill, but you didn't. Don't feel bad, my math in that department is weak too.
You don't understand my math, and honestly I don't understand your English.
Do you not understand the the words qualitative and quantitative? How about mils? Do you know what mils are? Like I said a layer of paint would be a
small handful of mils thick, and another ATS'er confirmed it to be 4 mils.
I have to ask this, been wondering for a while now: What credentials gives you that "Subject Matter Expert" badge?
I assume you could read the source to further to determine the answer. But again, it's graphic has nothing to do with the dozens of surface
area representations cited by the literature and the corresponding calculations I made.
The "literature"? Are there some secret scholarly peer reviewed papers you're holding back on? All I saw was a 'news' report claiming that the
source oil is "heavy crude" which is a total LIE, and then a CBS news article that quoted the transhumanist nutter Michio Kaku. A few month ago he
said the sun is going to basically destroy the world in 2012 which is way over the top fearmongering, much like him screaming that the gusher will go
unabated for years on end.
And then this buzzword "slick". You seem to be acting as if the stuff that's all around out there is a huge OIL SLICK. The source oil is sweet
light crude, meaning 75% of it will evaporate. It isn't ALL tar.
Maybe you had a few drinks before posting this thread last night. I make strange threads from time to time when the Corona's are tasting real good
I say this because if we were to take this math from your 'state scale' model you came up with here, and added to that the oil underwater, and the
oil components already evaporated, and the natural gas, and the rest, we'd be looking at millions of barrels per day, which is totally ludicrous.
Anyways 'good times' as they say. A lot of other people have brought some other good perspective here and I hope to see you respond to all of it.