The Oil Drum

47 comments on Public interest, peak oil and global warming

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on February 12, 2006 - 5:15pm

I often find that the posts that provide information do not attract a lot of discussion. Don't be discouraged by an apparent lack of debate, I don't believe it reflects a lack of interest. Rather just accept that the facts are noted. Sometime in the future you may find that someone who saw this will quote it in some other debate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Reed on February 12, 2006 - 5:32pm

Thanks. I didn't reproduce the article as I felt it would take up too much space, but thought the subject and the implications of what the article contained would be of interest. Sorry no graphs or other visuals were provided to pique interest. It's OK, we're screwed anyway.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Halfin on February 12, 2006 - 6:40pm

Let's keep this report in perspective. It is not a peer reviewed scientific discovery; rather, the newspaper commisioned some experts to estimate the current "effective" greenhouse gas concentration (including the contributions of methane and other GHGs) and it came out to 425 ppm. This is higher than the 400 ppm ceiling which is estimated to keep global temperature increases less than 2 degrees C which is estimated to keep Greenland's glaciers from melting.

So there is still uncertainty here. We have an uncomfirmed report of one phenomenon (GHG concentrations) which is predicted to lead to another phenomenon (global warming > 2 degrees) which is predicted to lead to a bad outcome (Greenland melting). It's a somewhat tenuous chain. Among sources of uncertainty, the article mentions the impact of aerosols, industrial emisions that block sunlight and reduce global warming. It's not clear whether things are that bad once aerosols are taken into consideration.

The experts cited in fact put things more mildly: "What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate." It's not even clear what that means - could we "count on" a safe climate before? I don't recall being given a guarantee of a safe world when I was born. Maybe my parents lost the paperwork.

Part of the problem is that even if scientists believe this report, they can't come right out and say we're doomed, because it could actually undercut efforts to stop warming. "Why should we impose all these enormous costs when we're doomed anyway?" people might ask. (I love the guy in the article who said that fixing global warming is "affordable" - because it wouldn't cost any more than the Iraq war!) So the scientists would have to say, "well, we'll be even more doomed if we don't stop making things worse." It's not a very good way to sell a policy, that by undergoing enormous sacrifice you can improve from being "very doomed" to just doomed.

Should be interesting to hear how this "tipping point" stuff plays out in the next few months and years. Seems like neither side gains much political benefit from pushing it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jamie on February 12, 2006 - 7:04pm

I think part of the problem in getting interest is calling the problem "Global Warming". Some in colder countries will say bring it on, that will help with my high heating bills! If it were always referred to as "Climate Change" people might relate better as in "there were more Cat 5s last year" or "its dryer / wetter than I remember when I was younger". All these things are consequential on the GHG effects but the wider public might not be making the connection, waiting for the temperature to rise in their district before thinking anything of it.