 | Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems | The Oil Drum | Ghawar reserves update and revisions (1) |  |
DrumBeat: May 2, 2007
Posted by Leanan on May 2, 2007 - 9:02am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Renewable energy could power half the nation
Renewable energy could supply up to half the nation's current electricity demand and 40 percent of its transportation fuel demand by 2025, proponents said Tuesday.But to do so, the government would have to commit to long-term policies that promote renewable energy.
Wind energy could play the biggest part in generating electricity, supplying nearly 40 percent of the renewable power, according to a report from the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).
Second on the list is solar power, at 26 percent, followed by geothermal energy with 16 percent, biomass, which is energy produced from plants and garbage, comes in at 16 percent, and water - including hydro dams, tidal and wave power - rounds out the alternative-energy-source list at 3.6 percent.
Save the planet – and save some money, too
If you’re among the people who saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” felt shaken up by its message and then never got around to doing anything about it, consider this little jolt of motivation:You stand to save some serious money while you’re saving the planet.
Liquid detergents will come in smaller packaging with double concentrate as the company moves to become enviro-friendly, according to a published report.
Global Oil Production Peaking: What Happens Now?
Peaking of Ghawar will occur sooner rather than later. Recent horizontal multi-lateral wells indicate the coming of a peak. Unlike vertical wells, which are able to capture the oil from its natural geologic pressure, horizontal wells are used to extract oil between the injected water and the gas cap which has formed above the oil column. This is an indicator of peaking. However, no field as large as Ghawar has been found so it is difficult to speculate the decline rates or how long a plateau can be maintained.
The U.S. Solution to Peak Oil: Ten Billion Barrels or Bust
The U.S. government's latest plan to save us from peak oil comes from the Department of the Interior. The latest ploy is to exploit offshore oil targets in Federal waters. It may not help, but at least our government's last stand against peak oil gives us another chance to reap the benefits.
Gas shoots up on tight supplies
Most terminals in Iowa ran out of unleaded gasoline on Sunday and Monday and had to turn delivery drivers away, Crowe said. But the supply problem is expected to be solved within a week, he said, and gas should be in ample supply at conveniences stores and gas stations.Supplies are tight because of increased demand, a refinery fire in Oklahoma, annual refinery switches from winter to summer blends and production cuts by the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Crowe said.
Oregon Fuel Prices Churn Stomachs
With the price of gas soaring so high in Oregon it’s become painful to even drive past the fuel pumps, it’s time for Bend residents to take action that will protect their bank accounts and mental health. Our advice: don’t drive at all.
Popular wisdom holds that safety concerns, fueled by the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Penn., eventually shuttered nuclear construction by the Tennessee Valley Authority—the most ambitious commercial nuclear power program in United States history. Not so, says David Freeman, the former TVA chairman largely credited with putting the brakes on the utility’s nuclear construction in the 1980s. “We had to shut them down, even though they were under construction, because they cost too much,” he recalls. “We didn’t shut those plants down on account of their being unsafe. That should have been a reason, but it was the economics.”
Nigeria Group MEND: Chevron Hostages May Be Released on May 30
A well-known Nigerian militant group on Tuesday said it would release six foreign oil workers of U.S. oil major Chevron Corp. (CVX) on May 30 so long as no rescue effort is undertaken to procure their release.
Take a broader look at local ownership of biofuels
Unfortunately, local ownership has now become an increasingly divisive topic that threatens to slow the rate of renewable-energy development more broadly, just as the scientific community is telling us we have to accelerate the deployment of zero-carbon energy. Much of the divisiveness stems from how we think about this issue.
Biofuels Money 101: Mixing public, private
Q. What’s the right balance between local and outside ownership?A. Experts disagree. Some say the industry shows better promise of expanding with a mix of investors. But research at Iowa State University also shows rural economies benefit more when an ethanol plant is owned by local investors, because those investors reinvest their earnings locally.
Aussies make solar power cell breakthrough
Researchers at the University of New South Wales ARC Photovoltaics Centre of Excellence have developed a means of increasing the cell's light-trapping ability by up to 50 per cent.
Vancouver Company May Make Ultraclean Jet Fuel in Ohio
-A Vancouver-based energy company has generated newspaper headlines in Ohio this week with its proposed coal and biowaste fuel plant valued at $4 billion.
India may buy Algerian crude for planned stockpile
India, Asia’s third-largest oil consumer, may build strategic reserves for oil and liquefied petroleum gas to protect itself from supply disruptions and may import crude from Algeria to fill the tanks.
Ministers act to stop lights going out in 2015
Fears that Britain could be plunged into an energy crisis by 2015 will result in the green light being given by Christmas for a new generation of nuclear power stations, senior Whitehall sources are indicating.
Intl. committee to study Iran’s heavy oil
Iran and some foreign companies have established a committee to study on Iran’s heavy oil, said a member of National Iranian Oil Company’s (NIOC) board of directors here Tuesday.
Turbulent days ahead on labour front, TUC predicts
Earlier, workers defied the early morning heat and went on a procession from the Nkrumah Circle through Adabraka, UTC and High Street before finally converging at the Independence Square. Some of the workers carried placards, which read, “Solve the Energy Crisis,” “President, Ghana Consolidated Diamond Workers are Dying,” “50 Years of Light Off. Why?”
What’s Possible in the Military Sector?
The military is the only sector of the economy where emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) can be reduced by greater than 100%. This is because militarism is the only type of activity whose primary purpose is destruction.
Another issue is the choice of materials. As you march down the decades from the 1950s, the materials-of-choice for finishing the exterior are more and more materials not found in nature. Aluminum siding was a big favorite for a while -- and you can always spot it because of the dents below the three-foot high level, where the lawnmower has shot stones at the panels for decades. After the 1980s, there is a distinct acceleration in the use of vinyl for practically everything. The vinyl clapboards, soffits, window-surrounds, et cetera, are often little more than stapled onto the house. And naturally they begin to sag and pull apart instantly. After twenty-odd years of that you end up with a house that looks like a birthday present wrapped by a five-year-old.
A Different Kind of Alternative-Energy Portfolio
No, I didn't go for unprofitable fuel-cell startups such as Ballard Power, or the new ethanol plays. I like my stocks dripping with cash flow and profit growth. But I've found other ways to invest in the energy sector while getting steadier charts than the usual suspects offer. Here's a list of lesser-known energy names I own that you might want to consider for your own portfolio.
Dr. J.W. Eerkens' new book, The Nuclear Imperative, examines the various alternatives to fossil fuel from a scientific angle, and shows why nuclear power must be a crucial component in solving the impending energy crisis.
Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military
A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."
Gulf of Mexico oil output expected to soar
Action in the Gulf of Mexico's deep waters is growing so much that oil production could grow by more than 50 percent in the next decade, the federal agency that oversees oil and gas activity off the nation's coastlines reported today.
Iowa refinery snags may raise gas prices
Refinery snags that left two Iowa storage facilities short of fuel over the weekend are a reminder of how tight the U.S. gasoline market has become and why average prices could soon top $3 a gallon, experts said Tuesday...."We're in big trouble," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. He noted that inventories stand at 194.2 million barrels — or slightly above the levels reported in the days after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005 — and he predicted that that the average prices this summer will surpass the 2005 record of $3.06 a gallon.
Feds Clear Way for UT Oil-Shale Project
The federal government gave its approval Monday for the reopening of an oil-shale mine in Utah, one of the experimental works intended to boost domestic oil production on Western lands.
Energy: The Grim Future For Our Global Community
In our global community, the markets are intertwined. The energy market is the largest market in the world. Energy effect’s everyone’s day to day life. Decreasing supply and increasing demand has cause political strife and social determent even beyond inconvenience of three dollar per gallon of gasoline.
Raymond J. Learsy: Saudi Arabia's 'Oil Plot' Arrests: Targeting al-Qaeda or Our Congress?
172 Islamic militants were arrested by Saudi Security forces in an advanced stage of readiness to attack energy and high impact targets according to the Saudi Interior Ministry. "They had the personnel, the money and arms". Quick cut to Saudi television, broadcasting images of neatly lined up rapid fire armaments with ammunition clips and orderly stacks of Saudi riyal's.Real life or stage props? Please consider the following...
Ford Charts Fuel Savings Impact of Reduced Speeds
Ford UK has provided performance data illustrating the effect of driving a cross-section of its Transit van models at governed speeds of 60 and 65 mph as a means to demonstrate the utility of a low-cost (£25) road speed limiter (RSL) it offers on its lineup.On a Transit 260 or 280S 2.2-liter low-roof van, for example, driving 60 mph rather than 70 mph could save more than 19% on fuel consumption at cruising speeds—alongside a similar percentage cut in CO2 emissions.
Nuclear storm gathers as climate change experts meet
Few issues are as divisive as nuclear power, and the furore over its use threatens to resurface as leading scientists meet in Thailand to thrash out a plan to reduce the impact of climate change.
Melting Greenland ice could raise ocean seven meters
The world's oceans could rise by up to seven meters if Greenland's ice cap entirely melts because of global warming, climate scientists said Tuesday.
Prince Charles: climate change battle is like World War II
Addressing representatives from firms including Barclays Bank, British Airways and Rolls-Royce at Saint James's Palace, Charles said that "we need to act very rapidly indeed" to avert environmental disaster."We can do it, just think what they did in the last war. Things that seemed impossible were achieved almost overnight," the heir to the throne added.
Experts target rice as climate culprit
Methane emissions from flooded rice paddies contribute to global warming just as coal-fired power plants, automobile exhausts and other sources do with the carbon dioxide they spew into the atmosphere.In fact, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting this week in Bangkok concludes that rice production was a main cause of rising methane emissions in the 20th century.
Can the "Axis of Oil" Topple the US Dollar?
Were it not for its "reserve currency" status, slowly turning into a post-World War II relic, the US dollar would have already collapsed by now. A string of $4.4 trillion of US trade deficits since 1996, and a heavy reliance on foreign money to fund its external imbalance, has severely weakened America's global economic leadership over the past five years. The US dollar survives, due to America's political stability, its military might in the Persian Gulf, its large $12.5 trillion economy (28% of global GDP), and deep and liquid financial markets for bonds and stocks.
The WSJ has an article today called "A Hard Lesson in Derivatives". Some quotes:
Once folks figure out you really can't sell the things, will this be the start of "the great unwinding"?
Gail, in your monetary collapse models, do you have a scenario in which the US Dollar undergoes such a collapse due to fundamentals (exposed as it ceases to be a reserve currency), but the Euro and the Yen survive?
ciao,
Bruce
Bruce,
That's a good question. It seems like the collapse of one major currency would tend to bring the others along, because of the interconnectedness of the economies. At best, there might be hyperinflation in the US, and a lesser (but still significant) impact on the Euro and Yen.
Thats not how hyperinflaction happens though. That happens when you use the central bank to print money instead of using taxes.
You can have a sudden currency correction where it loses say 50% of its value (certainly extremely painful) if say a country dumps all of its foreign currency holdings, but absent flooding of the money supply hyperinflation doesnt occur.
Fed: Hedge funds may pose huge market risk
Could be largest risk since Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998 says New York Federal Reserve
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ford-gm-posts-steep-declines/story...
In fact, all the brands noted declines, with exception to Chrysler, which had increased sales to fleet customers such as rental car companies.
The trend for a long, long time to come: deflationary effects in auto/housing/finance and inflationary effects in food & energy.
Relative price declines for just about everything other than energy & food, really - especially for anything that is more or less discretionary. The higher prices for energy and for food (partially energy input driven, partially biofuel diversion driven, partially climate change & water supply driven) have to be paid for by cutbacks in other purchases. When we talk about "demand destruction", remember that it is not just ENERGY demand destruction.
STAGFLATION!!!
I have often used Las Vegas and Orlando as premiere examples of American consumption.
As Jim Kunstler predicted, many of the areas that did best on the upside of Hubbert's Peak will most likely do the worst on the downside.
The most amazing statistic I have seen lately is that one out of every thirty homes in Clark County, Nevada--where Las Vegas is located--is in foreclosure proceedings.
"Cut thy spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy."
Orlando's situation is not the best, and continued suburban growth could be it's death. But we have many more natural resources (i.e. water) than Las Vegas and I think we're starting to denisify around the urban core. I see more and more bikes and scooters.
Not near as many foreclosures here as on the coast either.
From the Housing Bubble Blog ("They were simply living beyond their means"):
I was surprised that there was no discussion of George Monbiot's article from drum beat yesterday.
George Monbiot claims that governments are aiming at much too high a target for global warming gasses. He believes that to prevent an increase of more than 2 degrees centrigrade from base temperatures, we need to keep CO2 equivalent levels below 400 ppm. The problem is that they are already at 459 ppm on this basis. To get levels down, we need absolutely amazing reductions in fuel use.
One quote:
It would be interesting to see an analysis done by someone with more time and skill than I indicating how much FF demand destruction must happen, and how quickly it must happen, to achieve these GHG goals.
All scientists are not on the GW train. Climatchanges has happened before. Perhaps 95% of the coming climatchange is caused by the sun and cosmic rays etc, and only 5% from ouer burning of fossil fuels, some scientists say.
Anyway we can not do much about it. Do you think, that for example China will curtail their use of coal??
The only thing, that we as persons can do is to prepare for PO and take the climatchange as it comes.
Swede,
Amongst climatologists, human caused warming of the planet is considered proved. There is no debate, except that provided by corporate funded "science."
We should presume China is beyond reason.
Perhaps this is a groupethink?? I do not know, i am ceartainly no expert on theese matters.
What i believe though is that we can´t do anything about it. What will happen regarding the climat will happen, it´s to late to do anything. Enjoy it like we in northern Sweden, or fear it if you live in more southern areas.
"Perhaps this is a groupethink??"
It's called "science". And to rely on denialists and public relations firms for your information is called "insanity".
Back to the reservation Swede. :>
Oh, I forgot, because it is "peer-reviewed science," that would make it group think. But then what is the alternative, science reviewed by Exxon-Mobil?
A comment on science.
I have no solid opinion on the GW issue as it is not an area I have looked into in any depth, so I would go with the consensus view until convinced otherwise.
Having said that however, a large portion of science is corporate funded today. From having done extensive research into medical science there are a number of studies showing some serious problems with the current peer-review system too. I would say a reasonable proportion of everything we think we know through "science" is skewed to give us the wrong impression about things. Skewed by a mix of: corporate funding, which publishes favourable results, but rarely unfavourable; personal desire/belief on the part of the scientists who want positive results; media coverage; PR and propaganda pushing certain theories and not others; etc.
Just one of myriad examples, a common tactic of Pharmas is to mix relative statistics with absolute statistics to make their drugs look good. This is rarely questioned by doctors, but happens over and over again. Herceptin is a case in point. It has been touted as the next big thing in breast cancer treatment. Thankfully some people have being taking note of the inconsistencies with the claims about this drug, but too few judging by most news stories about it.
It is often claimed that Herceptin can decrease the mortality rate from breast cancer recurrence by 25% (and reduce recurrence by 50%). This is fine, but the statistic is a relative one. In a trial of absolute survival rates, the control group had 2.2% mortalities contrasted to 1.7% in the Herceptin group. That is, out of 1000 women who had breast cancer, 22 and 17 had a recurrence that resulted in death during the multi-year trial. A 0.5% absolute decrease, but ~25% relative decrease.
Why does this matter? Surely saving 5 people is all good?
Uh-huh. But all drugs have side-effects and all 1000 women had to take the drug to get those 5 extra survivers. Therefore when we compare benefit to side-effects we must use absolute numbers. It turns out that there was an increase of about 4% (40/1000) of woman who had heart damage from taking Herceptin, resulting in an increased number of heart attacks. When you compare 0.5% to 4% the drug no longer looks good. (Note: it has been a while since I have looked at the exact numbers - but these are approx. correct, and are used for illustrative purposes)
But PR and advertising for drugs don't dwell on these types of analysis. The studies that are released by the Pharmas contain the raw data, but the text emphasises the high % relative benefit vs low absolute % of side-effects.
Look at raw data yourself, and draw your own conclusions. If that differs from consensus then find out why.
Statistics is only one area in science that we need to be careful of. I am sure Gail or others here can elaborate on that with far more expertise. There are other considerations to take into account too, of course, when looking at claims that are based on "science". Check out the Feynman link someone posted the other day. There are plenty of other discussions along these lines available on the web or in books. I would argue that plenty of consensus science falls victim to some of the points Feynman makes too.
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/soa/peerreview.htm
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
The U.S., of course, is beyond reason as well, at least as long as Bush is in office. Regardless, I believe that the Democrats, although they basically believe that there is global warming, will be engaged in their own form of denial. The Obamas and Clintons of the world will promise things like ethanol as a way to avoid the difficult choices. Others like Gore, will tell us that we can continue to grow our economy while also taking a serious stab at delaing with global warming. It doesn't help that Gore uses 50 times as much electricity as the average U.S. household. After all is said and done, you've still gotta walk the talk.
The U.S., if it took clear and effective action to address global warming would then be in a position to address the China problem. France, earlier this year, suggested a course of action, except that it was directed against the U.S. They suggested that if we didn't take action, that Europe should begin imposing trade sanctions. The same strategy could apply to China.
China's scientists are hardly ignorant of the problem. They know full well that global warming is already impacting their well being and will get much worse in the future. And yet they explicitly vow to continue to pursue their development path anyway. The worst of it is that they explicitly are on a path that pushes their domestic auto industry as a major linchpin in their development. They are building infrastructure now that makes no sense in an era of peak oil and global warming.
Shanghai is building 17 subway lines and will becoem the premier subway city in the world by any commonly used measure of comparision. Comparable developments in other large Chinese cities.
Intercity rail is also under intensive development.
Not NEARLY enough, but China appears to be "hedging their bets". Would that the US would do as much !
Best Hopes,
Alan
Wuxi, China based Suntech Power (STP) is poised to become the world's largest PV manufacturer. If you're looking for containers full of pv, I'll pass your info on to the execs at Suntech America.
I see there's 160 watt panels available on the net for $4.56 a watt. And there's somebody on eBay selling 175 watt panels for about 4.57 a watt.
In addition to this, sea level rise will seriously affect China as well as any other nation that isn't landlocked.
Check out the flood map for Shanghai:
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=31.3489,121.3412&z=8&t=2
With a 7-meter rise, most of Shanghai is under water.
China will have to come around sooner or later...
Eric,
how much sea level rise has there been to date in the Pacific Ocean.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
So far, not much - on the order of an inch or so if I recall correctly.
But one of the items in the drumbeat today said that if all of the ice in Greenland melted, the sea level rise would be 7 meters. It won't happen tomorrow, but then again if we ignore the problem for 20 years such a circumstance would almost be an inevitability over time.
It has risen, do you have a link to that. I thought that it had fallen. The island that is just 12 inches above sea level, well its more than that now.
Have a link to how they claim the one inch rise.
thanx
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
I just recall reading it somewhere - sorry - no direct link to that. They talk about it here though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
and as you can see, it is important to ask at what time you start measuring sea level.
The IPCC notes, however, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
True, they say they haven't detected any so far. As far as the future is concerned, the best we have available is computer models, but this is one area where the mathematical models aren't yet doing a good job - there was a story in the paper just this week:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
Both of you guys need to check this website and read the latest monthly report.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml
"No significant acceleration" in the rate doesn't mean the rate is zero. For example, the WG1 authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment did detect an acceleration in the rate at which the average air temperature has been increasing. The rate at which temperature rose in the last 50 years was twice the rate at which it rose in the last 100 years.
The IPCC assessment of average sea level rise during the 20th century was 170 mm, which is between 6 and 7 inches. Despite this, the sea level may not have risen in your neighbourhood (if that's coastal) because of changes in land elevation brought about by geological processes. Some parts of the North American coast are moving upwards faster than the sea level rise. If you live in New Orleans, on the other hand, sea level rise is more than 7 inches because the land under the Missippi delta is sinking.
Acceleration. Read that word, PrisonerX and free your mind. Sea level has been rising throughout the entire warming period to date. There are structures in the Mediterranean that are underwater now that were docks for ports 2000 years ago.
The IPCC has seen no acceleration in the rate of rise. But it is rising, just not any faster... yet.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
They say the rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. That suggests that its rising, just not faster than before?!?
The only people I see campaigning for global warming awareness are flying around in private jets.
In the meantime, PO is at the very least 10x a more serious issue, which is already starting to wreak havoc in 3rd world countries- of course not only with fuel supply, but food as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_on_re_af/zimbabwe_corn_hike;_ylt=...
Global warming pundits fiddle....
And living in 28,000+ sq foot houses.
And riding in caravans of Chevy Tahoes & Suburbans.
You are dramatically overstating the case.
There is enough data to identify a recent warming trend. The recent trend in atmospheric CO2 is clear. All things being equal, more green house gasses in the atmosphere result in increased average temperatures. Swell so far.
However, all things are not equal. We are engaged in a great carbon experiment. In a hundred thousand years or so, [a few 22,000 year cycles and one 100,000 year cycle] some future scientist might be able to draw a valid conclusion on the impact of this increase in atmospheric CO2 from observations. Until then, we have models which may or may not describe the global climate.
For the record, I would would prefer not to participate in the great carbon experiment, but any conclusions you or I might draw from our at most my 80 years adult lifespans would only constitute guesses.
One last thing. The research grant money grab bag game currently favors those those climatologists who advocate global warming [who of course would never take on a bias based on personal monetary concerns or perceived availability of funding], unlike those evil Corporate sponsored types. Noble purposes are also in the eye of the beholder.
Did you mean to say coming climate change or past climate change. Climate scientists have carefully measured the change in solar radiation reaching the earth and have concluded that the effect of solar flux is minimal.
If you are talking about the future, I would be interested in knowing how these scientists are predicting a greater role for solar flux.
I do not agree that there is not much we can do about it, but I would agree that there is not much we will do about it. Part of the reason we are in serious trouble, however, is that we have ignored scientists like James Hansen to started warning us in the 80s. I remember it well because I worked in Washington,D.C. when he gave his orgiginal testimony. Even then, it was obvious to me that the weather was changing radically.
It doesn't help that governments are in denial about this problem, even those like the U.K. who profess to be doing something about it.
OK, i don´t know who is right or wrong in the climatchange discussion. The only thing that i know, is that we won´t do anything about it.
Personally i do not use much energy, but i do not believe that others(like China) will curtail their energyconsumption.
So some of us are doomed anyway, just get used to it. Here in northern Sweden it will benefit us with a milder climat.
Don't be too sanguine about warmer times in Sweden, Swede: If you decide to do more research into global warming/climate change, which I would recommend based on your comments, you really should look into the the results of changes in ocean currents, AKA "thermohaline circulation". It is what keeps the climate in Europe so modest given your high latitude. Fresh meltwater from glaciers threatens to shut down this warm water or at least prevent it from moving far enough north. This would affect the eastern half of the United States, too, and I live in New Hampshire...
At the end of the last ice age most of the world was warming, but an ice dam broke and flooded fresh water into the North Atlantic. The Great Lakes are the puddles that were left behind, still draining slowly into the ocean via Niagara Falls. This plunged Europe back into an ice age for 1000 years.
I repeatedly encounter the concept of "rapid climate change", also referred to as "climate flip". But just what they mean by this isn't explained without putting the pieces together. It has become clear to me that "climate flip" means Ice Age. Which can happen very quickly.
We are carrying out a vast uncontrolled experiment on our planet. The exact results cannot be known.
You're right that Sweden will play a spectator's role. But I wouldn't get too comfortable with the forecast. The key thing about climate change is the word CHANGE. You might be warmer, but you might also be colder. Changes that happen fast relative to the lifespan of trees tend to do unkind things to forests. You might get less precipitation. Or more.
If it does get nicer, lot's of other creatures will notice. People, for one. Mosquitos bearing tropical diseases another. Or perhaps tree munchers such as these:
Pine beetles poised to attack Canada's boreal forest
God forbid someone sees a silver lining in global warming.
Yes, at the end of the last ice age, a huge pool of fresh water formed in Northeastern America, and flooded into the atlantic disturbing the gulf stream. Tell me again, where is this huge pool of fresh water waiting to burst into the Atlantic right now? Oh that's right, there isn't one.
I'm as scared of global warming as the next guy, but pointing to a threat that does not exist is scaremongering any way you look at it...
Garth
I think you replied to the wrong poster. Where is the huge pool of fresh water waiting to burst into the Atlantic? Well, there is Greenland. The IPCC reduced the assessment of the possibility of the Greenland ice sheet melting quickly enough to impact the Atlantic conveyor, but as Dr. Hansen has pointed out, the Greenland ice sheet is changing much faster than the IPCC's assessment. And as scientists have found, they really don't understand the dynamics of the Atlantic conveyor very well.
It's called Greenland.
There is a fundamental difference between greenland slowly melting into the sea, and the center of greenland melting into a huge pool of water (surrounded by ice), and then flooding out all at once....
Aye Carumba.
Garth
Actually that depends on where the tipping point is, it may be low enough to make no difference. I'll bet you have no better idea than the scientists who study it, and they don't know.
Anyway, the situation is that Greenland is melting rapidly, not slowly.
Still, the scientists' argument appears be over differences of a few hundred microns a year sea level rise (Greenland with water draining into the ice sheet), as opposed to rates of conceivably meters per week when the biggest glacial ice dams suddenly collapsed. But when we're worrying ourselves to death, what's five or six orders of magnitude between friends?
Oh, but it does exist.
http://www.nbc11.com/msnbcnews/11621174/detail.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/5998.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/10/gulfstream/index.html
There are many who reject such a message of apathy, passivity and resignation. Paul Hawken writes in To Remake the World (emphasis added):
There may very well be a natural trend underlying global warming. However, simple logic will suggest that you can't go digging up and burning all of the carbon that has been geologically sequestered over the planet's history without it having an exacerbating impact on the trend. In other words, burning fossil fuels makes whatever global warming we might otherwise be having considerably worse. Reducing our emissions of GHGs may not totally eliminate GW, but it will certainly help with mitigation.
Maybe or maybe not.
You've already admitted, after throwing around relatively precisce numbers like '95%', that you have no idea. So let's leave it at that. One admission that you don't really know is enough.
Even at this temp of "global warming" Swede, we can still have an ice age.
How many of you saw the story of Sir Issac Newton on Nova. I think you should watch it. Seems the assumptions about him and how "science" views him is perhaps lacking.
Maxwell and Newton, the list of scientists that invented but disagree with todays viewpoint is growing.
energy and "gravity both built on not knowing the full model and thinking of both men.
Yet Swede, they claim that physics is solved and solid proof.
I doubt that.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
You are right. The "precise number" i read in an article whas that some scientist talked about that number.
Not that I know much more than what I read. But I know that some gases retain heat better than others, so I would hold to the opinion that increases in those gases would negatively affect the earth until proven otherwise.
Kenneth wrote:
The "scientists" who still say this are not the same as the scientists actually working in the field. Usually they are people from other fields or are inactive former participants. Whether "oil-funded" or not is not so relevant (some of the loudest in the UK for example are not oil-funded, but independents operating mostly from belief, as correlation with other activities shows... google for the scam of the Channel 4 swindle for more).
Solar activity was brought up as an hypothesis in the 1990s but has been since then ruled out as the effects are too small and too slow to account for observations. Cosmic rays were brought up more recently but this also has been ruled out. In the meantime very good agreement was found by models which keep only earth-based radiative forcing effects (volcanic as well as anthro). If any of these forcings, themselves small, is substantially changed then the agreement is lost (i.e., showing that these mechanisms are indeed significant). The strongest forcings are aerosols and CO2, and CO2 has outstripped the aerosols since circa 2000, which is also in agreement with the temperature/CO2 signal outstripping the "noise" also circa 2000. This is the gist of the paper by Hansen et al in last year's Science which reviews work done by the entire climate science community.
Climate change with anthropogenic CO2 as cause is a done deal, absolutely rock solid since the papers published in the last 3 or 4 years. Of course there may be stragglers as some people, especially the older ones, can't quite face the results, but that is quite normal in science, even when political ramifications are not present.
It is one thing to say a lone rider might be right when s/he has brought something up which is new. But it is another thing to discuss lone riders on topics after several years in which practically everyone in the field has scrutinised the points in question with all available data and all available methods, and the error bars have become small.
There are still people who say they are scientists who cannot accept the reality of special relativity. That's just human. Not always is it a question of in whose pay they might be. But that doesn't change the fact that the science has revealed a reality and the rest of us are better off learning how to deal with that reality.
ciao,
Bruce
OK, OK I give up, i am flamed, but i cross my fingers.
Cheers all of you
Kenneth
Bruce,
Your piece is nothing more than opinion and admits that unless you are in the club you don't have a say.
You can shout all day, (like those that said man can't fly from the worlds most admired scientist of the day did). Yet they were wrong. The smartest minds of the early 1900's said, when the atmosphere changes in 2000 then man might be able to fly. Yep thats what they said.
You claim that the sun has been ruled out. Really, then explain all the ice core evidence, and the Nile evidence that shows such a relationship.
Are you really trying to claim that CO2 and not Water vapor drives the climate.
Oceans warm and release CO2. Is this not correct. Are you saying that you have absolute proof that the CO2 Warmed the oceans first, then released the oceans, or is it a "theory", that has more additions and clarifications to fill volumes of material.
All this volcanic activity around the globe (80 percent of volcanic activity is underwater ya know) and what is going on above the surface and all the new volcanoes and islands being found below the surface is startling. Yet, move along nothing to see here say the CO2 crowd. Might disturb THEIR FUNDING, and ruin this ride huh. Like the oil company's have spent as much as the organizations that promote and fund CO2.
You also left something else out. DUST. Space Dust.
ftp://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/tai-utc.dat
leap seconds added, its back.
Check and I think you will also find that we have entered a part of the solar system that has quite a bit of DUST in it.
What happens when an object encounters dust. Friction, and Friction causes what.
How often in the last twenty years have they had to correct the clock for the earth. Earth slowing down, what causes that, friction, what happens to a spinning mass with a core spinning inside of it when the outside mass slows down. What does the interior mass do.
Slam duck huh, where have I heard that term before.
Also they don't explain all the other planets with atmosphere warming. The storms on other planets. The lenticular ice clouds forming above the poles (huge amounts of hexagon shaped water crystals, HEXAGON)/. As the project manager for the team investigating the water vapor at 50 miles up. Its A LOT of water vapor. WATER VAPOR is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Care to tell Swede how much water vapor is in the atmosphere and how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Slam duck, done deal, yada yada,. its a theory, and a constantly evolving one that has more holes than swiss cheese.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Idiocy such as this should be called out for what it is: idiocy.
Which is why you shout about it here, and not at realclimate?
Space Dust?! WHO is seriously pushing these theories, PX? Are you content to just play the 'Nicotiene's Not Actually Addictive' game by saying there's still some cause for doubt? Enough voices in the climate science community are truly concerned about this to have been ringing the bells for a couple decades now. I don't care if it's a 'slam dunk' (.. and try to be nice to the Ducks.. it's 'Slam Dunk!') it seems reasonable to listen to their hypotheses and conclusions and consider that the perpetual fires we've been stoking planetwide for a couple centuries might be having an ill effect on our biosphere.
Just Remember.. the Duck you Slam might be your own!
Bob Fiske
go back to astro physics 101.
what your pointing out is the very slow, slowing effect the moon has on earths rotation.
in a few hundred million years this will result in a day lasting 54 hours long.
Prisoner X,
I have learned via experience not to waste time doing the legwork for people such as yourself. I gave you plenty of information you can go and look up for yourself. Whether you are motivated to do that is up to you.
I didn't put that piece up for you, but for a sincere gentleman who might not know the current status of the field but has shown more than once he is quite willing to look things up. Kenneth knows I didn't flame him actually.
The thing I've found about global warming is that the commentary literature by itself is quite worthless. And yes, that includes very well what I myself write. The _content_ that is, not the stuff to go and look up.
In this field there is absolutely, absolutely no substitute for the scientific literature. Do the homework, learn enough to understand what you read there, and get your information from the primary scientific literature. There is absolutely no shortcut on this topic.
Sort of like peak oil circa 5 years ago, when there was absolutely nothing worth reading except what the insiders were putting up and backing up with extensive analysis.
ciao,
Bruce
ps It was much harder when you had to chase such stuff up in libraries, but in this day and age where if you have more than a few days' experience you can find most anything you're looking for. Therefore there is no excuse not to look at the primary sources.
" Perhaps 95% of the coming climatchange is caused by the sun and cosmic rays etc, and only 5% from ouer burning of fossil fuels, some scientists say."
If that were to happen it would mean that the sun somehow is going to get much hotter tomorrow and dwarf the global warming effect from greenhouse gases. Like 20C of warming?
That's an "extinction-level event". Fortunately there's no evidence whatsoever it will happen.
Also, there is no evidence that the Sun or cosmic can explain the existing, already observed warming to any significant magnitude compared to greenhouse gases. Solar output has been measured for decades and is stable, with the expected solar sunspot cycle fluctuations, but no trending behavior.
Do you think, that for example China will curtail their use of coal??
If everybody else agrees, and pushes hard, then perhaps.
In fact, China already took the most dramatic step possible towards reducing greenhouse gases (though not for that reason): 1 child policy.
If the planet followed that we'd have a much better chance.
The Sun!
Could it be the Sun is entering into an early stage of Red Giant? Where it swells to 100 or 1000 times it's current size, and simply drys up everything?
Could it be the Sun is just getting hotter? Is the sun at the early stages of swelling? Bear in mind that this will not happen over night, but rather a very long process, a million years? a billion? who knows!
If the sun is only in the very very very early stages of swelling, then it really doesn't matter how much climate change we make, bottom line the sun will not last forever, it too has a life expectency. The oceans will eventually dry up, and our planet will be no different than Venus!
Only NASA knows, as they study the sun.
This was a disheartening article. Here I was greeting my teeth for an 80% reduction and says even that is not good enough. Without a total civilazational crash, there is no hope.
The continual drumbeat of GW denial here is making me read less. F**k these clowns.
Global warming is all talk and no cattle. Everybody talks about it but nobody does anything. Just endless rationalistic ideological babbling, ad hominem attacks and complaining. Meanwhile all kinds of rich folks are trying to figure out how to make money off of it selling carbon credits and negative EROEI ethanol. The developing world used to take the west's bad ideas and run with them (See Cambodia, Vietnam, China). Now they've wised up and won't give global warming the time of day. It's kind of like.. "You got us with central planning last time but now we've wised up"!
Meanwhile, Peak Oil is actually here and nobody is talking about it! That, and every peak oil forum/mailing list has all kinds of people trying to change the subject to global warming.
I think it's because global warming has a solution and peak oil, barring a deus-ex-machina techno-fix, doesn't have a solution.
Gail, I used that article in my testimony at the state legislature today, essentially accusing them of mass murder if they don't get proactive. There were two lines I highlighted in the copy I handed out:
I found the article stunning - they know they have set the wrong targets. DOH. But I'd not connected that in my own head. There is no more "good faith exemption" for idiocy. I've been - disappointed is not the word - by a former greenpeace activist now legislator that won't even consider banning incandescent bulbs. Like Canada, Australia and Ghana. By others for other reasons. They know. It's like the leaders in the Jewish community in the ghettos - they knew. Did they maybe cut deals for a few, what was "realistic"?
Cheney knows. Lots of them know. Maybe lots of 'mericans know too and don't care. Drowning rats climbing on each other. And if you won't play, homeland stazi and halliburton have a place for you. Get with the pogram.
cfm in Gray, ME
Way to go. Which State? Is the denial because they realize they have not idea how to actually meet those targets that are necessary. Of course, there is always the gambit of passing legislation saying we are going to cut ghg by 80% or whatever by 2050. Nice. Leave it up to our grandchildren.
In the transporation sector, I think this is doable. Not by 2050 , but by 2020. The Prius already cuts ghg by over 60% from the current average consumption. The next gen Prius is rumored to get 85 mpg. Pump that up to beyond 100 mpg with plug ins and you are there. Of course, if the majority continues to insist on continued bigger and faster vehicles, then yeh, we won't get there.
The housing sector will be more of a challenge because of all the existing stock.
Legislators need to make this the moral equivalent of world war II. Now there was a war where we truly mobilized the whole country behind one purpose.
While reading the articles posted at The Oil Drum and Peak Oil, is may be good to keep in mind that most are written by writers as opposed to technically-trained people.
Here's a great example of writing
The author ignores agricultural use of oil.
Mark Twain understood the writer problem
Regarding the beef question, I assume that is for grain fed beef. Grass fed beef would be another matter entirely - I suspect that as grain prices climb and climb that we will ultimately switch back to grass-fed as a step back towards a less meat-centric diet.
Some folks won't like the taste, I suppose - I guess they can eat tofu instead.
Tofu? Have you been following the melamine meltdown? Melamine and human hair - soy protein.
I'm looking at stuff in the store and unless it has the local organic certification or buy-local source, I'm going to dig dandelions instead. I realize the melamine meltdown is only one indication of limits to growth; the same thing will be happening in other areas.
cfm in Gray, ME
Saudi's Naimi making a lot of comments to the press today. I will post full article when it is ready. Suffice to say, it is not entirely credible. Best comment so far:
"Saudi Arabia will probably not need to go beyond 12.5 million BPD production capacity due to energy conservation and efficiency"
Clearly he is not on board with supply and demand growth projections from CERA et al
14:49 02May07 RTRS-Saudi doubts need to boost capacity beyond 12.5 mln bpd
RIYADH, May 2 (Reuters) - OPEC power Saudi Arabia is on track to raise capacity to 12.5 million bpd by 2009 but does not envisage having to go beyond that level due to increased energy conservation, its oil minister said on Wednesday.
"Our feeling now with this thrust and push for conservation, efficiency and the use of alternatives is that we probably need not go beyond 12.5 million barrels per day," Ali al-Naimi told reporters in Riyadh.
He said that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, would analyse potential future demand growth once it reaches its current capacity target.
Naimi said there was no doubt that instability in Iraq was affecting world oil markets and that producers must ensure sufficient supply and inventories were in place.
"There is no doubt that the crippling of energy because of the lack of stability affects world markets," Naimi told reporters at a meeting of oil ministers.
"If stability could be achieved, it would raise production capacity a lot."
((Reporting by Simon Webb and Andrew Hammond, Gulf newsroom,
Do you know any more details? Why can't they find buyers? How much oil do you think they are talking about?
WT was being sarcastic.
Well, thanks for clearing that up. LOL
Actually, my recurring Texas RRC version of recent Saudi comments is based on a real comment.
I was at an industry meeting in 2005 where the Texas State Geologist, Scott Tinker, stated that while Texas "may" not be able to equal its peak production, it could, with the use of "improved technology," significantly increase its oil production.
We can find--and are finding--new oil fields in mature regions like Texas. What we can't do is to offset the declines from giant oil fields like the East Texas Field. In regard to the "improved technology" assertion, so far it hasn't reversed the long term decline in either the Lower 48 or the North Sea.
I talked to a delivery driver this morning and he firmly believes that oil and coal are produced deep in the earth just like lava...
Fortunately, I was too busy to argue....just wait until they wak