![]() | Econbrowser: MC on gas taxes and the president's plan... | The Oil Drum | What the right hand giveth . . . . | ![]() |
174 comments on Living in the Eemian
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
174 comments on Living in the Eemian
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Looking at your headline graph it is disturbing and shocking how rapidly the large temperature increases happen relative to all other temperature changes (all small, all reductions). Viz: "It appears that ice sheets form slowly, but collapse quickly". That smacks of a positive feedback mechanism, something discontinous is happening, it is not fully explained by Milankovitch cycles etc. I'm concerned that I have never noticed this aspect so clearly before, I'm sure I've looked at the data in graphical form.
Continental drift over these timescales could be a factor in the ice core measurements but likely to be small in comparison with these changes. It's probably safe to ignore.
The Eemian temperature peak was sharp and short lived. I wonder why; and I wonder why it bothered to happen. There may be lessons in this. I'd like to see the prior 500,000 years temperature chart on the same basis - the Vostok data seems to indicate that previous high temperatures have been brief spikes. Perhaps we are in an anomalous period in that our temperature has remained higher, longer. Is that our doing or some other combination of factors? It's hard to ascribe this to Milankovitch cycles which are widely assumed to be the main driver of climate changes over the last million years and more.
On past interglacials - if you go back 400k or so, there was a fairly broad one. There is a debate on at the moment started by Ruddiman as to whether the holocene would have been shorter if it wasn't for low level forcings due to human agricultural development (ie long before the industrial era). He summarizes his arguments in a very nice book called "Plows, plagues, and petroleum". He thinks we would have already have been starting the long slow descent into the next ice age if it wasn't for the invention of agriculture. However, there's certainly no consensus around that idea: others think it's just the way the particular combination of orbital factors line up. There was a good discussion of this recently over at RealClimate.
Another thought occurs to me: the dramatic large temperature increases may indicate that increased atmospheric cloud due to warming may be less of a negative feedback (albedo) than expected.
Thanks for the link, it will have to wait till tomorrow but I will definitely read it and say what I think here.
WRT Milankovitch, his studies and the derivatives include four components of solar and astronomic cycles. When we look at graphs of the last two million years, we see seven general cycles. But each one is unique. And my work in looking at where we go from here is based on the underlying harmonics. When several cycles are in play, the troughs and peaks of the four cycles are enhanced or diminished by the harmonics of the whole. There are sub peaks and differences in the length character of the spikes for those reasons.
The only aspect of PO theory that I find unconvincing is the doomsday scenarious. The reason I find them unconvincing is that they seem to exclude the impacts of price on demand and supply for crude, substitute energy sources, and human activities. Not that there will not be painful adjustment periods. But the end of civilization is not in the cards in my view.
In fact, when you consider the impacts on different economies, I think there is a good argument that China and India, particularly China, will pay much higher prices for the impact of PO than western economies because the high prices for transport will serve to move manufacturing back toward the source of demand, thus creating many more jobs in the developed economies and fewer in the now cheaper labor markets that are so far away. Plus, the very energy wastefulness of developed economies, particularly the US, will make it far easier for them to cut back on their energy use. This tendency will also mitigate the financial impact.
Net, net, I expect US stocks to tank very big time at some point, probably within the next five years, and for there to be an initial period of substantial unemployment. But I think that will lead to a later stage of growth for our economy accompanied by vast adjustments to high energy costs.
4%, 11%, Who the Hell Cares?
and
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze
and
Extrapolating World Production
but
you still need to take into account human behavior.
Basically the amount of decline is academic if all that is needed to trigger resource wars and other types of despair is the fact that it is declining no matter what you can do.
Is choice real or illusion, does it matter? Perhaps geopolitical events are the consequence of build up of tensions and imbalances. Maybe we are just looking in the wrong direction?
Are geopolitical events merely the expression of a more underlying reality.
Stuart was talking about the effects of a slow squeeze on oil production, what I am talking about is independent of that.
The crux will be the timing and interaction of recession and PO, and the ways geopolitical events shape these, and these shape geopolitical events.
I am not saying that PO will cause a depression (though it would) I am saying there is going to be a recession regardless of PO. THERE WILL BE A RECESSION VERY SOON, no possible avoidance. Sorry if you don't like that, reality ain't gonna negotiate on it.
The teaching ministry of Rev. Jones has touched multitudes for over thirty years. We invite you to visit the entire site in order to discover the heart and passion of this ministry!
So a collapse of stock, bond, real estate, and upper middle class income is not a bad thing for 80% of the US population. Keep in mind that most of the people on this website are in the top 5%, because they are professionals or small business people.
1% are institutionalised
4% are dependent on charity
15% are not able to afford a car and a house.
60% are able to afford a car and a house.
15% are able to afford a car, a house, and a retirement.
4% are able to afford a car, a house, a retirement, and a second home.
1% are able to afford pretty much anything.
The top 1% have done very well over the last thirty years.
The next 4% have done pretty well.
The next 15% have pretty much broken even.
The middle 60% have done slightly worse.
The next 15% have done significantly worse.
The next 4% are on charity and don't economically count.
The bottom 1% are institutionalised.
Things tend to move like a pendulum. It gets better, it gets worse, for different income groups, at different times.
- Old folks and handicapped in nursing homes--millions . . . how many?
- Prisons and jails--millions . . . 2 million to the nearest million?
- State mental hospitals--less than a million. (Perhaps half of the homeless should really be there, because they are, strictly speaking psychotic.)
Any way you add it up, I think it has to be considerably more than 1%.BTW I'm in your top 1%. But I got there by wanting only that which is truly good (e.g. good relations with family members, a reliable bicycle, a big old house with room for refugees, garden, small old sailboat, fabulously great sex life, etc.), and because I do not need much I have all that I want and sometimes some surplus to give away to The Nature Conservancy.
This will not take place evenly -- it will eat away at the edges first, pieces dropping off like chunks of ice off glaciers. That's also the middle class -- a glacier -- gigantic chunks dropping off into the abyss.
What's overlooked in the rosier scenarios is the way capitalism works. If capitalism worked the way it was pictured, we wouldn't be where we are now, ready to take on the globe militarily. Capitalism cannot go into reverse, downsizing peacefully. The ever increasing capital intensity and concentration is key to the profitability of finance capital. It's a huge mistake to just look at physical and productive resources as just material stuff which can be deployed rationally. They exist as capital, meaning profitable, or they are junk and subject physical destruction. (This does not exclude people, who are also capital -- or not.)
It's also a mistake to confuse the capitalism we have now with early capitalism and "free markets". The big corporations, the gov't, the military are all intermeshed (not that there aren't big clashes and between factions.)
This capitalism will NEVER consider any solution to PO that doesn't involve greater capital investment and greater intensity. Those parts of the economy that cease being profitable will be junked, literally. But the junking will always be disguised in one way or another. PO will render ever greater parts of the economy unprofitable.
The tendency of people will be to look at land and housing and unused productive capacity as just that, and make efforts to utilize them in some kind of effort to survive. But these efforts will meet gov't hostility because they threaten withdrawal from the market and threaten profitablity.
The energy and capital intensive part of the economy will contract, leaving ever larger parts of the rest of economy to rot. This is already happening and has been happening for a long time on the world scale. Large sections of the third world are considered to be just such detritus, until there is resistance and interference with the "world" economy. They then become terrorists, needful of suppression.
The model is there: large parts of the US will piece by piece become part of an internal third world, needful of supression and gating off.
So you see, Agric is an optimist of sorts!
It is a pity I can't find a copy of the Berger & Loutre paper An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, Science, 297(5585): 1287-1288 (2002).
But here's the point. The Eemian is analogous to the present period in so far as we can view the effects on sea level of a 2 to 3 degrees C rise in the global mean surface temperature anomaly (with respect to measured temperature records). So, the point is that forcing from CO2 levels in the atmosphere now duplicates the "natural" forcing from the Milankovitch cycles during the Eemian. Also, you should note that this period lasted from about 130 to 125/kya -- a period of about 5 thousand years. It is also important to bear in mind that all the paleoclimate data indicates that CO2 levels never rose above about 290/ppmv in the atmosphere in the last 700,000 years or so.
So, the analogy rests on the effects of the temperature rise (in a much shorter timeframe now) but due to different factors. This, at least, is my interpretation. Generally speaking, there is no analogous period in the paleoclimate record for what is going on now here on Earth. Some people refer to the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum as having some things in common with the current period but that analogy is flawed as well.