The ASPO Conference - a comment
Posted by Heading Out on September 25, 2007 - 10:30am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: china, media coverage, peak oil [list all tags]
So! Going to Cork was not a cheap experience, with at least a day of travel each way, not to mention the energy cost – so was it worth it? And to define whether it was worth it, what did I learn? What follows is purely my set of opinions and recollections, and given the number of TOD folk there – do please chip in with your own comments. And let me begin by stating that I am definitely glad I went, and, even though a fair amount of what we heard reflects posts on different topics that have appeared here over the past year or so, the information was largely more up-to-date, the speakers were highly qualified, and the conversations outside the formal presentations could not have been reproduced in any other way. (And if you want to consider that a hint about the value of going to the Houston ASPO Conference , you’d be right).
Putting together the papers on Supply, there are perhaps two or three significant thoughts that have hardened based on what I have heard. The first is in regard to the actual peak volume of oil and associated liquids that will mark the peak. Numbers at the conference floated up around 100 mbdoe, but I think it is now likely to be closer to 90. The second is in regard to how much of this will be exported. Westexas points on the decreasing amounts that will flow from producing countries were validated by the growth numbers that we heard for the indigenous economies of the producers. This reduction in export volumes will likely advance the arrival of an apparent peak to oil-importing nations to a time in advance of the real peak in production, with an even earlier significant economic impact above that seen to date. My sense for that timing is about two years, with the potential that, given the sensitivity of the issue, volumes might be adjusted prior to that in order to influence the next Presidential election. And in regard to how much of the export volumes the OECD can anticipate – well probably less than they are currently expecting. The way in which China, with foresight, has sought out future supplies and lined up commitments is likely to make the available supply significantly less for the rest of us, and the earlier optimistic projections from the majors that they had enough for us not to worry is being increasingly made irrelevant, as they get displaced from country after country. And, finally, as sort of a combination of these, I worry that the post-peak supplies may decline faster than the long plateau that currently keeps us complacent, and which does not reflect the bell-shaped curve that some of us use when talking about the subject. I am significantly more pessimistic.
In regard to the supplies of other fuels that were discussed at the Conference, I was a bit disappointed that we did not hear more about the state of natural gas. This has to be a topic of some concern, given the decaying prospects for North American supply, against a large use, and the current stories from the Middle East. It is a major concern for Ireland, given that they are at the end of a long, “leaky” supply pipe that stretches back to corroding pipes set on melting muskeg in Siberia. I did not find the discussion about nuclear supplies particularly credible. The delay in the re-opening of the Canadian mine can easily be offset by increasing production from adjacent mines owned by the same company, and the alarmist nature of this as presented in the paper tended to reflect on the overall value of the paper itself. There was really no comment on coal – apart from the reply, elicited by Dr Schlesinger that China has definitely stopped CTL development. Which in itself is highly informative. Given that it will become, while definitely not the fuel of choice for many, but the fuel of necessity, I thought it might have been useful to have a debate on the size of the resource – perhaps next time.
In terms of Demand, there are many things going on, outside the Conference, that make it hard to come to a definite conclusion. Anecdotally the car park that I normally use at the airport was full, for the first time in at least five years, when I got there. Planes I flew on usually seemed to have stand-by passengers ready to fill untaken seats (which may be why the airline let the flight I was supposed to cross the Atlantic on leave, when the 20 passengers on my delayed connection had been promised that it would be held for us). However the rising use of energy in China and India, as well as the oil-producing countries, will likely help pull demand to the levels of future availability of supply, with demand being managed (I got told off for saying destroyed) by price. The futility of imposing a gas tax to manage demand was briefly discussed. The tax would have to be so onerous (see European experience) to have any impact that any Government imposing it could anticipate a short life, and a long political exile. Unfortunately the uncertainties that governs this, taken with some of the increased costs for new production equipment, are likely to impact the decisions to start new projects, and so will influence intermediate term supply. Demand can, therefore, be expected to grow, at levels that will not be met by the available supply at current prices.
So, what do we do about this – the Conference was, after all, named “Time to React?” Well to make my point here I suspect I am going to make a whole lot of you mad at me, again. But, if you will allow me to make the argument, it might help you to understand the problem.
One of the speakers at the Conference was the ex-Minister for the Environment in the UK. As part of his remarks he made a fairly passionate set of statements about Global Warming in the course of which he stated that “the case for greenhouse gases causing Global Warming is inarguable” (or words to that effect). Now that is not a true statement. On my way back to the States, for example, I read the book The Chilling Stars – A New Theory of Climate Change by Svensmark and Calder. In this book they show the influence of cosmic rays on cloud growth, and thereby on global climate. Anecdotally you have only to go out on a clear night in winter, as opposed to a cloudy one, to see the role that clouds play in reflecting heat (you will find it colder without the clouds). However, it is in the reflection on the top side, which reflects sunlight back into space, rather than letting it through, that the book discusses. The relative cloud cover is, in part, potentially due to the changing density of the cosmic rays to which the Earth is exposed, in itself a function of the relative position of the Sun in the Galaxy, and the strength of its magnetic field. Experiments are described (carried out last year in Denmark) that show that this occurs. Specks are the small droplets that form the nucleation sites for the larger particles that form a cloud.
They showed very clearly that the greater the number of charged particles set free in the air, the higher was the production of ultra-fine specks. To double the count of specks needed a fourfold increase in the number of ions. (In other words the productivity goes with the square root of the density of ions). That means that any variations in the cosmic rays would have most effect on speck production when the overall intensity was fairly weak. So the ion seeding was real, after all.
What is also interesting (to those of us more nerd-like) is that geological information is then used to calculate the speed of the Sun through the Milky Way. (12 km/sec). This is deduced because as the Sun (and us on the planets) moves through the different parts of the Milky Way, so the intensity of the cosmic rays changes significantly. This affects the clouds, which is, in turn, reflected in the ground temperature, and what grows (and is retained in the fossil record).
An experiment is planned in a cloud chamber at CERN in 2010 that will look into this further. (Anecdotally it was a visit to my later alma mater on a school trip to see the construction of a cloud chamber that ultimately led to my going there). By the way did you know that the Alpine glaciers were at their greatest extent in 10,000 years in 1852 during the Little Ice Age? It might be why Hannibal could cross the Alps with elephants during the Roman Warming period, when the ice was about 300 m above current levels. The ice advance of the Little Ice Age was sufficiently great that it destroyed or moved earlier moraines (p 24 in "Glaciers and Climate Change - Spatio-temporal Analysis of Glacial Fluctuations in the European Alps after 1850," Michael Zemp von Roomos LU, Dr. sc. nat. Dissertation, Univ Zurich, 2006).
So why the big concern with this, and why are the authors treated as pariahs and find it difficult to get funding or serious consideration, well:
Svensmark and Nigel Marsh were able (to) reckon that the reduction of the relevant cosmic rays since the beginning of the century was 11 per cent. Translating that into the effect on clouds, they concluded that low-level cloudiness diminished by about 8.6 per cent as the Sun became busier. “A crude estimate for the century trend in low cloud radiation forcing is a warming of 1.4 watts per square meter. That was a provocative figure to give, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the same 1.4 watts per square meter for the supposed global warming effect of all the carbon dioxide added to the air by human activity since the Industrial Revolution.
So how many of you are going to go out and buy the book? Raise your hands, oh! That Few! Instead (if you haven’t read beyond this) what we are likely to see, based on past experience, is a lot of ad hominem attacks on me and the authors and, aside from that, more salient comments pointing to a web-site of climate scientists who have discussed this issue, an international panel that reviews these matters, the opinions of influential, and knowledgeable people and your own common sense based on the media keep giving examples of how it is happening, and it does seem hotter this year.
OK so you’re all good and mad at me – but now I want you to change places. You are John Q Public (or the mayor of a small town in the US) concerned with your fuel bill. You have not really heard about Peak Oil, but when you look around to see if it is true you will find industry experts that tell you not to worry. There are International Agencies that state that there will be no problem, and national agencies that state that there is loads of oil left to find. International figures and reputable folk that graduated from Harvard tell you that there is no problem, and the media talk about oil companies ripping us off and that this is an excuse, and your common sense remembers that gas prices always go up immediately on a crisis. And so you decide it is a conspiracy of the oil companies. Now you have made that decision, and you start to read more of the blogs that state that Peak Oil is a myth, and interpret the stories in that light. And you become more of a believer.
Now here is the problem – you remember the incredulity that you felt when I told you about the Cosmic Ray book? Was this based on your own evaluation, or on your “knowing the facts”? (This is not meant as a judgment, I am trying to make a point). And the reality is, as I believe it was Debbie Cook said in the closing session – once someone has made up their mind it is very difficult to get them to change it. We deride politicians who “flip-flop” on issues. However, as yet the general public really does not have a strong perception of the Peak Oil situation. She noted that no academic had come to her, during her time as mayor. (Note to self – go talk to the mayor). And where there is media comment, in large part it is still (in the mainstream) equivocal about the issue, though, as George Lee an Economics Reporter for a national TV station in Ireland mentioned, he found it, actively against the concept of peak oil. And this ties in with what I think that Nate was referring to in terms of mental activity. Tie the two together and instead of a response we will, apart from Ireland, (and even there it may be that they are more concerned with political supply restrictions than geological ones) likely see a continuing inertia in the system. The public will continue to believe in the conspiracy. (And there is a good example of this in the story that Leanan led off with on Sunday.)
The public, therefore, needs to be educated on the problem, and this is likely better done at the grass-roots and local government levels, since these are those who see the problems already. But who should do the educating. Those that are aware of the issue. And who are they? Stand up, go find a mirror and take a good look! If you have been a reader here very long you have been given information that very few people on the planet have. You have an understanding of the issues that very few others have. If you don’t do it, who will?
But if you think it will be easy – well you really aren’t going to buy that book, are you?
From which you will gather, that the answer to the Conference question is a strong YES!
Indeed, for most developed countries, the most significant metric is peak exported oil; from our examination of the Export Land Model, it is obvious that overall global peak production is important, but not the sole driving factor for most industrialized nations.
I too am very interested in the state of natural gas production, especially in North America; a drop in production followed by a recession/depression there would ripple devastating through most of the economies of the world.
You will find that the Cosmic Ray hypothesis has not received much confirmation from the climatology community (quite a bit of disagreement, in fact).
The Hubbert Curve, e.g. the Lower 48, is actually kind of "comforting," in that a 2% decline rate in production would seem to give us plenty of time to adjust, to conserve, to bring on alternative forms of energy, etc.
In fact, with a steady exponential decline rate, the year over year volume of the production decline falls with time. For example 2% of 10 mbpd is 200,000 bpd, while 2% of 5 mbpd is 100,000 bpd.
The Export Land Model (ELM) and the UK and Indonesian net export declines were far worse than the Lower 48 production decline. The net export decline rate accelerates with time, leading to volumetric declines that more or less stay the same, or in some cases, actually increase.
A case in point is Saudi Arabia. From 2005 to 2006, their net exports declined by about 500,000 bpd (EIA, Total Liquids). From 2006 to 2007, their net exports will probably decline by 700,000 to 870,000 bpd.
WT, your ELM would put extreme upward pressure on price which would severely curtail demand - not just in the exporting country (as subsidies in producing countries are removed to preserve profit from exports) - but also in the OECD.
This will definitely have the effect of flattening the curve and putting us back into the "Comfort zone" (any comfot??!!) of 2% decline.
Marco.
Marco,
Which countries have net subsidies of their exported crude oil?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying in brackets. Many OPEC countries subsidise petroleum products INTERNALLY eg IRAN. It will be these subsidies that are removed to protect their own export revenues. But my main point in post is needing addressed and that is WT's ELM will force up price on an exponential curve of a higher order that that already being witnessed which will in turn lessen the gradient of the decline curve as demand is pinched ever higher up the ladder.
Marco.
Note that the UK had practically no increase in consumption, versus a fairly rapid increase in consumption in Indonesia, but UK net exports crashed faster than Indonesia's.
Also, at least at first, what I call the Phase One decline, I expect that the cash flow from export sales will increase, even as export volumes fall, because of rapid increases in oil prices, which will create some problems for exporting countries that try to reduce domestic consumption.
And, we may see some efforts to reduce exports, even beyond the effects of declining production and rising consumption. If exports are going to crash anyway (i.e., the big importing countries are toast no matter what), why not conserve your oil, maximize the per barrel price, and try to use your remaining oil to develop a less oil dependent lifestyle?
I agree with all 3 of your point here - but if we both acknowledge these points then price rise in crude will accelerate further (2nd order acceleration!!) which will pinch demand drastically - hence my conclusion that the downslope of oil production will be less steep.
I live in the UK and am aware of the flat consumption. For example many people i know have ben moving to cars with 5-10+ MPG BETTER than they had before. i have just spent ove £1500 on energy efficient measures around my house as have many i know.
I read with much interest your take on the housing markets and related economic posts here and the outlook for a recession (aka reduced oil demand) is indeed strong.
Marco.
Marco,
Is demand going down in the UK? Do you have any specific references you can share on his topic? Thanks
WT explained that demand has been essentially flat
From: http://www.cslforum.org/uk.htm
Good tables of production/consumption for UK
Marco.
Thanks for the good reference. After re-reading your above post, it seems you mean that demand will be reduced in producing countries when prices accelerate further (2nd order), which implies that we are not at that point now. Do you see consumption in the UK going down as a result, or are you referring to the developing producer countries?
I see 3 divisions:
1) Slightly reduced demand in OECD countries as the price starts to bite - but remember we are highest up the food chain and will survive the highest prices for longer.
2) 3rd world/developing countries are already seeing severe shortages. A previous post 2 weeks ago listed about 20 instances of this, so demand is already being destroyed here rapidly. Major problems soon. A good example is that world oil production is down 2% in 2 years yet OECD consumption is up?? HOW? Simple - we bid up and destroyed consumption elsewhere.
3) The third divison I see, and WT has pointed this out, is hoarding by oil producing countries, tempered by their need for export revenues where their reduction in consumption is likely to be similar to the reduction in OECD countries.
There is no doubt that sustained +$70 oil is curtailing demand. it must as world production of all liquids has been flatish since JAN 2005. WT's ELM puts extreme upward pressure on price as noted before, with the potential to wreak havoc on demand and I believe this is the only achilles heel in the ELM. (Would you agree WT?). I agree that essentially net exports decline exponentially but i refuse to believe this wouldn't nock the price on by the same order of magnitude. It's just that we appear to be on the cusp of that happening so right now it is conjecture.
Marco.
I think this is getting off the topic of oil production and heading into the way in which oil is traded. The flattening in UK oil consumption can be shown in the Nth Rock credit squeeze. This is because the countries you are referring to are beginning to shift the way they trade oil from US$ to €'s the problem hear is about the availability of credit not the availability of oil reserves. Under this scenario it is more a case of the last man standing, will oil be traded in $ € or cash in the local currency. The economic implications of this for the countries that are trading outside the US$ is profound. Even if say Iran further linits it's production without expanding it's € based bourse, it will cause pressure on, for examplke US housing prices. The lack of liquidity in markets will pinch oil exploration rather than increases in price.
Your reply is like that junk mail I get from loan companies and people that want to enlarge my penis/conservatory.
I am not refering to the broader picture hear Marco just this specific incidence. I think you have the cause and effect a little mixed up. Not that the supply is not flattening off but that your reasons are narrow in scope.
WT:
One of my regrets is that we had almost no discussion of decline/depletion rates and the easy assumption that we make in picking numbers is not something that gives me a whole lot of confidence.
I really like the way that Khebab did the production/consumption projections for the top five net exporters. He used low, middle and high case production and consumption curves, resulting in nine estimates of when production = consumption.
It is not a pretty picture.
BTW, the number of Google listings for Net Oil Exports has increased significantly, from about 2 million or so to 19 million recently. The Paris Hilton to Net Oil Exports Google ratio is down to only about two to one. It was something like forty to one.
Jeffrey,
The analysis based on logistic equation shows that, for the world, production decays at the rate which starts at zero at the peak and increases progressively to about 5% as the world moves down the production curve. This is also the projected decay rate for USA. For a smaller basin such as North Sea the decay rate increases progressively toward 11%.
Dear Heading Out,
Thanks for going to Cork for me and giving your take on the conference!
I'd just caution you not to to lend too much credence to the work of Svensmark and Marsh, just yet. Svensmark, like Lomborg are two very controversial figures in Denmark and their work is regarded with a great deal of scepticism, which, in Svensmark's case, doesn't mean he's not on to something, but what and how important that 'something' is, is still uncertain. Appearing to be a 'lone voice, crying in the wilderness' doesn't always mean that one is 'correct' or a misunderstood genius! Fanstasic theories are, often, fantastical.
And now, with apologies, an aside about Bjorn Lomborg, because like Svensmark he's a Dane. Here goes, no holds barred! Lomborg is almost a textbook definition of a charlatan. His new book on global warming is scandalous, pure propaganda, amazingly selective in his use of statistics and strangely, bizarrely amoral at its very core. Lomborg isn't even an 'expert on climate', he very rarely contradicts people in the media who introduce him as a 'climatologist' or 'expert' in that area. He's no more an 'expert' than I am. He's actually a statistician whose 'spinning' the numbers for all he's worth. He uses the 'goodwill' that lots of people have for a country like Denmark to promote himself and his books. But he isn't stupid, he's a propagandist whose identified a hole in the market and has stepped into it. In my opinion he not dumb enough to really believe the stuff he's writing about global warming and the bizarre choices we could/should make - whose to live and whose to die. Basically I think he's just in it for the money and the opportunity to smile and bask in all that very sexy attention.
In the American system there is a built in cultural bias in favor of those who are optimistic. It is the optimists that climb to the top of the ladder. People don't want to hear, or vote for, or buy from pessimists.
The optimists at the top or on their way up always have plenty of money to pay for the services of those who are ready to tell them what they want to hear. Such people always have a market and can do very well for themselves.
Sorry, but that is the way the world works -- all the way up to the moment when the optimists are proven wrong and their house of cards collapses.
Thanks Heading Out, and that was interesting and particularly about: China has definitely stopped CTL development sounds like maybe Alan has sold them on electric trains?
Hey WNC, don't leave out the British, they built the Titanic and called that unsinkable too.
Stoneleigh has some really interesting articles on The Roundup about icebergs int the path of our economic ship today, also a laugh or two in this first one he put up:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/AreWeHeadedFo...
Optimism is a species survival trait. A turtle spawns "millions" of turtle-etts [sorry, I forget the right term], and almost all of them die. An optimistic guy might have 5 kids. If even one of them gets lucky, and bonks the pessimist over the head, it's still a win.
Sometimes, risky behavior has a higher expected rate-of-return than "safe" behavior; given this, blindness to risks is probably a good thing.
An optimist might think he sees possible advantages and take a risk on solar energy, perpetual motion, aerogel insulation, oil sands, fusion generators, gallium powered cars, thorium fusion, insurrection, pokemon speculation, grain farming, or whatever.
He may well fail. We sometimes call people who succeed "visionaries", but many of them are probably just hard working, lucky, and unjustifiably optimistic.
If 1000 lottery tickets sell for 1$ each, and the prize is $1050, it's still rational to play. I don't think that optimism is a zero-sum game quite yet.
This incessant optimism has led in part to a culture of failure in the USA. Americans preference for what they want to hear in exclusion of facts, is part of the problem.
Svensmark comes in for some criticism for cherry-picking as well. Still, the point Heading Out makes that breaking through with a new idea is tough going has some merit. His own nuclear cornucopian views are in evidence earlier in the post by his use of the term alarmist. In the presence of growing demand, just a few glitches can create scarcity, which he acknowledges for oil yet dismisses for uranium. In fact, greenhouse gasses do warm the Earth, this is basic physics and it is becoming very difficult now to argue that recent warming is not owing, in part, to the gasses we have added to the atmosphere. The cosmic-ray data do not show this recent trend and so cannot provide much in the way of explanation. This is the reason for the environmental minister's statement.
I've noticed that the mark of a good conference is that it takes a while for things to sink in. The broadening of interest to other depletable energy resources, which Heading Out would have liked to see more of, and to the effects of concerns about climate change on the peak oil issue are likely all to the good.
Chris
Ah! I think you misunderstood what I meant to say (which may mean that I didn't write it clearly enough). In my review of what was said, I noted
While I try not to editorialize when reporting what is said at a conference (holding that until I do a comment afterwards) I felt that this was unnecessarily alarmist, given the presence of adjacent mines that can take up the slack. Hence the comment, which really had nothing to do with the longer term implications for uranium supply - though I suspect it will be a bit like coal, the higher the price the more of what is currently a resource will turn into a reserve.
There is no doubt that the flooding has had an effect on price. But, I think the point would be that an anticipated ability to use uranium (enrichment facilites and reactors) can't be supplied at any price in say 2012. I would not put a lot of faith in other mines to pick up the slack in the short term, but I would not be too suprised if the growth in demand did not materialize. Nuclear power stuff usually comes in delayed and over budget. The NRG application, for example, will likely run into siting issues as the sea level rise projections from current warming get updated based on the observed icesheet behaviors that did not make it into the latest IPCC assessment. They'll need to find an inland cooling water source. But, the concern about Cigar Lake has been expressed elsewhere so I would not call it alarmist, just part of the mix.
Chris
No sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
It would be nice if it was natural, but you just can't dump 14 months worth of fossilized carbon into the atmosphere every day and not expect a change. As Bartlett pointed out to Dana Rohrback at the House GW hearings, if you have a balance with equal weights on it, and you add 1000 lbs to one side, it will move the balance. And we are adding 7.5 GT of carbon to the atmosphere every year.
Rat
Writerman,
I do not find your personal attack on Bjorn Lomborg helpful. If you would like to criticize his work, please pick some aspect of it, and do a technical post
Thanks,
Dave
Dave R
Re. Bjorn Lomborg.
At first I thought - why bother, I really don't have the time. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who actually take Lomborg's books seriously. I suppose I worry about what the 'Lomborg brand' tells us about the state we're in intellectually and culturally. It ain't a good place. How is it possible that a guy like this can be so influential, when it's all built on sand? Is it because he's a kind of psuedo-scientific novelty act? Or is it more serious? Does he represent a kind of attack and attempt to undermine the very basis of science, rather like the creationist cultists? Where is this whole faith-based 'science' going to lead us if we aren't careful?
I really thought I was being helpful. Lomborg continually presents himself as something he isn't - a professional and qualified expert on climate change. My remarks about Bjorn Lomborg were meant to be a warning - be careful! I just thought I'd cut to the chase about this guy. It's rather sad when so much first class work is done in Denmark relating to climate change by dedicated scientists who are really experts in their respective fields, and Lomborg comes along, and, because of his political connections, pushes the genuine Danish climate experts to the sidelines. They are going nuts!
I hope this doesn't sound like another personal attack on Bjorn Lomborg; but Lomborg has never had a scientific paper on climate change, or global warming, accepted for publication in any scientific journal and subject to qualified peer review. There's a reason for that, because he's not an expert in this field. The guy presents himself as something he is not, or perhaps, to be very charitable, he allows himself to be presented as something he isn't. Journalists, especially in the US, let him get away this over and over again.
Dave you suggest I pick some aspect of his work and do a technical post, why should I do that, when so many other people have already done it refuted almost everything he's written? I'm more interested in the general nature of the Lomborg brand and what it tells us. One of the many problems I have with Bjorn Lomborg, is, that he often blinds people with 'science' and statistics in debates, and any person that's dicussing this subject with him is forced to use lots of statistics and numbers too, and soon one can't see the wood for the trees, and most people listening are confused and totally lost. I'm really not sure how productive such debates really are. The fundamentally amoral nature of his writings is usually obscured. He's like a guy who knows the price of everything and the worth of nothing. With Lomborg this numbers game is like fighting a battle with him on field of his chosing, with the weapons he's decided to use. This might be interesting, even entertaining; but stripped of all the numbers his writing is highly political. I'm deliberately not using the word 'work' to desribe what he does, as I think it makes it sound way too credible, like he's producing 'scientific work' which he has not, unless one really chooses to bend the meaning of the word science.
I've read Bjorn Lomborg's latest book about global warming. It's called 'Cool It' which is a pithy little title for a serious subject. Bjorn thinks we should relax and calm down about the 'threat' of climate change. Things really aren't that bad, in this the best of all possible worlds. And he writes this stuff at at time when the North West Passage has become safe for surfers and the ice at the North Pole has shrunk to its lowest level ever! It almost beggars belief.
Also it's hard to not to criticize Lomborg's 'person' when he has done so much to promote himself and his person as a brand. Sceptical Bjorn the 'environmentalist' a brave iconoclast prepared to speak truth to power, in this case the evil scientific establishment who've slavishly manufactured a politically motivated concensus designed to question the very foundations of Capitalism! How fortunate we should count ourselves that a man of Bjons mettle walks among us, a man not afraid to challange the dogmas of the day! A man of humour, charm and boyish good looks.
However, most Danish academics involved in the fields of economics, climate research and statistical analysis are virtually incredulous and enormously frustrated that Lomborg receives so much attention abroad. And it isn't based on envy because of his success. It's the damage he's doing to the reputation of Danish science. In Denmark he's regarded mostly as a joke, and a rather dangerous one. One could get the impression that he represents mainstream and reputable Danish research into climate change and global warming - believe me, he doesn't. It may be hard to believe, but Lomborg is an extremist. He reminds me a lot of another 'charming' extremist - Tony Blair. Lomborg has a social and political agenda which is appreciated by right-wing elements in the US who support him precisely because he's sceptical about the need to radically transform the Capitalist system before it drags us all over the edge into oblivion. After all when this planet becomes too expensive to maintain we'll just substitute it for another one. With Lomborg I'm really not sure if one should laugh or cry.
Writerman characterizes Lomborg fairly, and Lomborg has been thoroughly rebutted by many scientists. I attended one of his presentations in 2005, and I can assure you that he doesn't understand the first thing about environmental and climate science, and he has no grasp of feedback systems.
If Lomborg had really discovered that the environmental and climate sciences are wrong on so many counts, he could have published in a peer-reviewed journal. Instead he published his Skeptical Environmentalist "results" in a Danish political magazine. He is not doing science, and he is not interested in science. Kysar describes Lomborg’s position succinctly:
Interestingly, I saw Jared Diamond's presentation a week later. I asked him about Lomborg’s book, and he said, "It is an embarrassment."
Here are some critiques of Lomborg’s "methods".
Climate scientists on Lomborg’s views about climate change
Danish biologist Kåre Fog's detailed "Lomborg errors" catalog
Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark: A skeptical look at The Skeptical Environmentalist
Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
Penn & Teller: Exposing Bullshit or Spreading It? Part 6
I like the errors catalog. The portion on the Copenhagan Consensus is enlightening.
Chris
A few more. If he was a doctor, we would call him a quack.
He actually acknowledges AGW; he just thinks we should leave it for 30 years for our kids to deal with, because they will live in a rich world. LSHIPIMP.
Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part I
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/13/105130/672
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/14/142514/357
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/151133/245
Svensmark 's work has been reviewed at RealClimate. Its a paper, not the book, but the thesis is the same.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-t...
Worth reading.
Svensmark's thesis has numerous problems, including:
-Night time temps have risen faster than daytime, which is tough to explain by varying albedo due to clouds
-Not much trend in Cosmic Rays, etc since 1952
-Cosmic rays may well cause ultra-fine specs (which is what the cited experiments prove). However, there are already plenty of these (salt, etc) near the ocean's surface. Ultra-fine specs aren't a bottleneck for cloud formation.
Nope, I'm not going to go buy a book whose main thesis has already been debunked.
HO - one speaker showed a slide of CO2 (Keeling / Muana Loa) and O2/N2 (I think) - it might have been Jeremy Legget, or was it Lord Oxburgh?
The fluctuation of O2 in tandem with CO2 seemed to show that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere was due to buring FF which removes O2 - as opposed to warming being the cause of increased CO2 from the oceans and clathrates etc.
The physicists seem to have nailed the blanket / greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gasses. So if higher CO2 is the result of burning FF, do we not need to accept that this is at least partly (if not wholly) responsible for observed warming.
As for educating the public - I feel that PO is actually a much more powerful argument than GW for getting folks to burn less. The Irish lady Councillor asked at the end how she could get her constituents to accept more wind mills - I say give them the stark choice between having windmills and having electricity. Having said that, reports of accelerated melting of ice in the Arctic and in Greenland is cause for considerable concern - we don't know what the consequences might be.
Euan:
Thanks for chipping in - scribbling as fast as I could, there was still a lot I missed. I am not sure how much you picked up on the Irish nervousness about being at the end of that "long, leaky pipe" of fuel supply, but it was something that I sensed as an undercurrent to the Conference.