DrumBeat: November 9, 2007
Posted by Leanan on November 9, 2007 - 9:45am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Shell's Mars Oil Production Cut In US Gulf - Sources
Output of the largest source of lower-quality crude in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has been partially curtailed, people familiar with the situation say.Volumes for the Mars crude blend, which is produced on several platforms operated by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, may be down as much as 150,000 barrels a day, said one trader who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mars production averaged 273,459 barrels a day in September, the most recent month where figures were provided by Shell.
Also: Production halted at Mars platform
Royal Dutch Shell halted production at its Mars platform for repairs last weekend and hasn't been able to resume operations because strong currents are delaying the repair of a valve.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Neo-Liberalism's Ultimate Failure
Peak oil is not the result of geological constraints though of course they play a part. It is not the absence of hydrocarbons on the planet, we still have loads. Peak oil is not the failure of Middle Eastern countries to pump lots of oil. Peak oil is also not the failure of individual consumers like you and me. Peak oil is the failure of the modern economic system we know as “free markets” or “neo-liberalism.”
Valero: Port Arthur refinery at 60 pct of capacity
Independent refiner Valero Energy Corp said Friday crude oil processing rates at its 325,000 barrels per day (bpd) Port Arthur, Texas, refinery were 185,000 bpd -- 60 percent of capacity -- and were set to increase over the next few days.
BP plans reformer overhaul at L.A. refinery-sources
BP Plc plans a three-week overhaul on a reformer at its 265,000 barrel per day (bpd) Los Angeles-area refinery in Carson, California, beginning as early as Tuesday, according to sources familiar with refinery operations.
North Sea storm shuts Nexen's Buzzard platform
Nexen Inc said on Friday it had temporarily shut production at the Buzzard field in the North Sea after storms damaged the upper section of one of three power generation turbine exhaust stacks.Nexen said a full examination of the damage to the platform, which produced 177,000 barrels of oil a day in the third quarter, will take place when the weather improves but said it did not expect production to be down "for an extended period".
End Year OECD Oil Stocks Seen Under 5 Year Average - EIA
Commercial oil inventories held by the world's major industrialized countries will fall below their five-year average at the end of 2007, a U.S. government forecast said Tuesday.Stocks in the major industrialized nations that compromise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development are forecast to be 4.8% below a year ago, the Energy Information Administration said.
EIA projects that OECD commercial oil inventories will be sufficient to meet 50 days of forward demand cover at year-end, down from 53 days a year ago. At the end of the first-quarter 2008, the relative level of stocks will remain at 50 days, also down 53 days at the end of March 2007.
A Crisis to Shatter the Whole World
But if you – an oil producing nation – were concerned that one day soon your wells might run dry, wouldn't you want to get top dollar for the barrels you were selling today? Especially if the very Dollar itself was increasingly losing its value?
Cycles of History, Boom and Bust
When the economic situation changes, when peak oil has its say, when the Middle East crisis cannot be solved, when American politics reduces to a sharp ideological division, when the real estate bubble continues to burst, what will happen? What will the Russians and Chinese do? For thousands of years the world was about war and dominance, the power of oligarchies and the exploitation of peasants. Does anyone believe that the world cannot revert back? Does anyone think that the fall of modern capitalism will result in any other outcome?
Saudi 'showcase' opens OPEC to the world
With oil prices bent on hitting US$100 a barrel as soon as next week, and energy consumers around the world increasingly fretting about where the next oil supplies will come from, cloistered Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, is taking an unusual step: borrowing a page from marketing-savvy Western organizations and putting on a charm offensive on a grand scale....Rather than keeping usually arcane discussions about world oil supplies, prices and energy policies behind the scenes, organizers are switching on the spotlight.
United CFO Says Escalating Fuel Prices Could Ground Aircraft
Back in the 'good-old days,' when oil prices were closer to $80 per barrel, United had predicted its 2008 capacity would be relatively flat, with decreases in domestic seats available offset by increases in international travel.That plan may not work in a $100-per-barrel world, though... and Brace says the answer lies in increased fares, or fewer planes.
Higher costs may up your grocery bill
“It’s hard to transform a raw product into retail food,” said Jim Sartwelle, livestock economist for American Farm Bureau Federation. “When you have only 22 percent of the retail value going back to the farmer, it becomes clear that a larger percent is going toward the amount of energy it takes to process and transport the product.”
Ireland: Police break up gas plant protest
Several hundred police overpowered about 300 protesters who tried to block construction of a natural-gas processing plant in western Ireland. Three protesters were arrested and another was taken to hospital as officers cleared a sit-down protest at the gates of Royal Dutch Shell’s planned refinery in the unpopulated bogland of Bellanaboy, Co Mayo, police said.
Oil Market Is Bubbling Along Nicely
Stripping speculation out of the oil price could see the price of a barrel of oil following the price of a three-bedroom house into a black hole. It is difficult to sell a solar panel or a wind turbine to someone who has seen their heating oil bill halved – even more difficult if their house has been repossessed.
RAND paper finds diesel, hybrid vehicles can provide more societal benefits than gas-powered autos
Cars and light trucks powered by advanced diesel technology or hybrid technology can provide larger societal benefits than traditional gasoline-powered automobiles, according to a RAND Corporation working paper presented today.The research by RAND, a non-profit research organization, also found that light trucks and cars continuously fueled by a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline – known as E85 – compare unfavorably with the other two alternatives.
Peak oil: We ignore it at our peril
Oil supplies in the world are tightening. Even a small shortage of oil can cause a big tremor in people's lives. Oil is the lifeblood of our society and economy. A reduction in oil supply will push up costs for everything.Just look how far your dollar goes in the supermarket these days. The cost of oil has already hit your pocketbook. Heating our schools and homes, keeping the lights on in hospitals, and the production and transportation of every product from shoes to medicines has and will continue to cost more. The ugly truth is we either have arrived at or are nearing "peak oil."
Still waiting to cash in on Iraq's oil
Bush officials originally said oil money could help pay for reconstruction. But with production lagging, these funds barely cover the cost of running the government.
Norway seeks land power for offshore fields
Norway's centre-left government pushed ahead on Friday with controversial plans to power some offshore oil and gas platforms by electricity produced on land, in an effort to cut carbon emissions by the oil industry.
David Strahan - Oil: running out for good this time
With the markets hypnotised by the approach of $100-a-barrel oil, analysts are ready to point the finger at all the usual suspects: speculators, the Opec bogeyman, the weak dollar, soaring consumption in China and India and geopolitical tensions.All play a part - but the real cause is altogether less palatable. The world is running short of oil, and this time it is likely to be permanent.
Jeremy Leggett: Truth in reserve
The world's supplies of oil are running out, experts around the world are agreeing. But is Britain listening?
China seeks 30 pct increase in Saudi oil imports
- China has asked for a 30 percent increase in crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia for 2008 and also aims to raise imports from Iran, partly to feed two new refineries amid steady demand growth, trading sources said on Friday.
It doesn't even matter overly much if that barrel is selling for $80 rather than $100. The rule of thumb is that every 10% rise in the price of oil cuts global economic growth by a third of a percentage point over the following year. So if oil is at $100 a barrel in 2008 rather than $80, the projected global GDP growth rate of 5.2% would be cut to 4.4%. A hit to growth, yes, but not a plunge into recession.Even in the 1970s, it took a quadrupling of oil prices (from $3 a barrel to $12) to do that. Adjust for inflation and that would be $50 oil in today's prices. Yet we stand now at the threshold of oil twice as expensive.
After an eight-year bull run in commodity prices, the world has simply gotten used to living with expensive oil.
China says oil price not key to strategic tank fill
Oil prices are not China's main consideration when deciding whether to pump oil into strategic reserve tanks, a senior official said on Friday, even as crude markets restarted a drive towards the $100 watershed. "Oil prices are one of the factors we consider, but they are not the key factor," Wang Siqiang, vice director-general of the country's energy office, said when asked whether record prices had pushed the government to reconsider plans for the reserves.
World economy can live with $100 oil
Oil will breach the $100 barrier, but this will not kill off global economic growth, the head of Germany's Deutsche Bank said at the Reuters Finance Summit....But oil at $100 a barrel would not make much difference to cost pressures on the world economy, although it is psychologically significant, he said.
Bodman says government won't tap oil reserve
Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Thursday the Bush administration will not change its policy of using the government's oil reserve only for major supply problems and not to curb prices, in spite of record high oil prices and market fears about tight winter supplies.Bodman also said at an energy conference that the Energy Department's plan to keep about 12 million barrels of crude oil off the market and begin delivering it to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in January won't "materially affect" oil prices.
What About Oil Price? Voter Asks Clinton
Long-term energy plans are fine, the voter said, but with winter coming on what was Hillary Rodham Clinton going to do about rising heating prices?
Oil prices high due to high demand, not Iran: Bush
"Oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil. Oil is going up because developing countries still use a lot of oil," Bush said, speaking at a joint news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Canadian village calls for end to oil sand projects
A small aboriginal village downstream from Alberta's massive oil sands plants is calling for a moratorium on new projects in the region after a study found high levels of heavy metals and carcinogens in its fish and drinking water.
Ukraine, Russia Mull Oil Transit Fees
Ukrainian and Russian oil transit monopolies Ukrtransnafta and Transneft will start talks next week on raising transport prices through Ukraine's network, Ukrtransnafta head Ihor Kyryushyn said in an interview published Thursday.
Shell Suggests Developing Yamal Field With Gazprom
British-Dutch oil firm Shell has proposed developing oil and gas reserves in the far northern Yamal Peninsula with Gazprom.The project, put forward with other Dutch companies, involves the production and transportation of oil, natural gas, gas condensate and liquefied natural gas on the Yamal Peninsula and surrounding Arctic Ocean, Kirill Fyodorov, spokesman for the Industry and Energy Ministry, said by telephone Thursday.
A unit of Italian firms Eni and Enel will fail to start gas production at two Siberian fields from 2008 because Gazprom has denied them access to pipelines, Kommersant said Thursday.
North Sea storm closes oil platforms, Europe's largest port
A storm in the North Sea forced the closure Thursday of oil platforms off the Norwegian coast as well as Europe's largest port as British forecasters warned of the worst swells in 20 years, AFP reports.Authorities in Rotterdam closed the giant barrier that guards access to the Dutch port for the first time since its construction in the 1990s, shutting off sea traffic until at least 0500 GMT on Friday.
PetroEcuador Asks to Revoke City Oriente Contract
PetroEcuador, the state-owned oil company, said it asked the energy ministry to rescind the contract of the last U.S. oil company operating in Ecuador, saying it has refused to comply with a windfall profit levy.
Unseasonably Higher, Gas Prices Add to Strain on U.S. Consumers
“Usually Americans have more money to spend each holiday season because gasoline prices tend to give up 25 percent of their value after summer,” said Tom Kloza, an analyst with the Oil Price Information Service. “But this year there is a second coming of the gasoline rally that may be the Grinch that stole Christmas.”
Young Daniel Yergin as peak oil activist (book review)
I first learned about Peak Oil several years ago and have spent much time investigating the accuracy of our energy problems. The more you learn the worse it gets. I came across a book at a flea market entitled Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School, edited by Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin. At first I put it back due to Daniel Yergin’s position on Peak Oil. About a year later I returned and found the book still there. I bought it for 50 cents.
Twenty years ago, a dozen fields produced a million or more barrels of oil per day. Now there are four, and one of them, Mexico’s Cantarell in the Bay of Campeche, is collapsing. Mexico’s state-owned oil company, PEMEX, projects Cantarell’s output will decline 14% per year from now on. That’s the best-case scenario. 2006 actual production from the aging field actually fell 27%!If PEMEX’s worst-case forecast comes true, Cantarell will soon break below the million barrel a day, leaving the world with just three million-barrel-a-day fields by the end of this year.
China's remarkable economic growth is powering the global economy, but can the world afford to keep on supplying its ever-growing demands for food and raw materials?
Big Oil CEOs Point To Constraints On Supply Growth
Pointing to a variety of political and technological constraints on energy investment, chief executives at two oil giants Thursday highlighted systemic limitations on the growth of the supply of oil, implying that there will be high oil prices for at least the medium term.
But one day Eric read an article about Peak Oil and Climate Change and became a convert to earth-friendly living.“It really seemed to make the most sense,” Stephanie said. Even beyond Peak Oil and Climate Change theories, “it came to make sense on its own.”
“After our eyes were opened, we saw a lot we could do, and it’s fun,” Eric said.
The price of oil is volatile: it may well go down again at some stage. But even if it does, we need to keep investing in alternatives, so our children can enjoy what we take for granted.
Hydrogen: The Fuel Of Tomorrow
We are in the throes of peak oil prices, if not fully there yet, we are suffering the same effects where fossil fuel is so much in demand that it, as I write, is US $92 a barrel. We see the effects at the fuel pumps when we fill our cars and in the cost of things that have to be transported from near and far.
Crude realities for 'A Crude Awakening'
Oil is a finite resource, so the more of it the world's energy companies extract, the less will remain. On that, everyone agrees. One day, we will reach the mathematical peak of the world's reserves. When that day will be – or if it has already passed – is a question that continues to divide opinion.
The Energy Question: Who Decides?
Global energy security is the greatest challenge of our time, inextricably interlinked with our economic security and our national security. The exponential growth in demand for energy — for which there is abundant evidence — presents both extraordinary challenges, and offers equally extraordinary economic opportunities.A multiplicity of converging factors makes it bluntly obvious that a comprehensive global energy system restructuring has begun.
An Energy Crisis Of Our Own Making
As oil climbs toward an unprecedented $100 a barrel, we can only blame ourselves. By falsely demonizing oil in the debate over global warming, we assure an energy-impoverished future.
Tesoro refinery damaged, fuel output cut
Tesoro Corp.'s Oahu refinery was damaged during a thunderstorm early Sunday, reducing its capacity for producing gasoline for Hawaii customers.
Rising cost of oil threatens vulnerable economy
With oil prices advancing so rapidly, the immediate unknown is where they will stop before taking a breather. But the longer-term question may be even tougher to answer: How high can oil prices go before the higher cost of energy tips the U.S. economy into recession?
Rising Demand for Oil Provokes New Energy Crisis
With oil prices approaching the symbolic threshold of $100 a barrel, the world is headed toward its third energy shock in a generation. But today’s surge is fundamentally different from the previous oil crises, with broad and longer-lasting global implications.
Officials talk energy at forum
With oil approaching $100 per barrel, a prediction the price could double within a year grabbed the attention of local officials gathered here to learn how to cope with energy problems."We actually do face the possibility of $200 a barrel oil within the next year," author Daniel Lerch told the forum on "climate change and energy" convened by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
About 5,500 people, most under the age of 21, traveled from all over the country to the unremarkable suburb of College Park, Md., this past weekend to take part in the largest climate-change conference and rally in U.S. history. At Power Shift 2007, these college and high-school students established in clear terms the major differences between today's young Americans and their political leaders in Washington -- whereas the former can punch high above their weight, their elders are sitting out the fight.
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Global warming doomsayers would radically alter our economy
But just as the advocates of big government are past masters at harnessing Americans' charitable instincts, so does a new generation of bureaucrats and politicians now aim to use Americans' warm feelings about "environmentalism" to consolidate even more power in Washington.
China signals rejection of emission caps
A Chinese official gave the clearest sign yet that Beijing will reject binding caps on greenhouse gas emissions at a global meeting next month, saying Friday developing countries must be allowed to raise emissions to fight poverty."Climate change is caused mainly by developed countries," Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui said. "They should have the main responsibility for climate change and to reduce emissions."
Third of Africa coastline at risk from climate change: UN
Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN's Environmental Programme, told reporters at a press conference that the impact of climate change was already clearly in evidence and would become more serious in the coming years."By some projections, global warming could affect up to one third of Africa's coastal infrastructure by the end of this century," Steiner said at a press conference in Johannesburg.
"We know that we are on the course of having sea-levels rising from 20 (7.8 inches) to 60 centimetres (23.6 inches) in this century," he said adding that "port facilities, refineries will be affected."
Australia: The major parties' green credentials are off the rails
A fixation with road transport compromises climate change policy.
Chile's San Rafael glacier fast disappearing
Chunks of glacial ice tinkled in whisky glasses as chilled tourists gazed in wonder from their boat at the massive San Rafael glacier and the markers tallying its losing battle against global warming."How can we stop this," asked German visitor Herman Kirst, 70, reflecting on the 100 meters (yards) that the glacier has shrunk this year, and every year since Captain Luis Kochifas began ferrying tourists to this spot in 1978.
Contango! Check out the 2014 and 2015 crude light futures. They are finally swinging into contango. Has the market finally acknowledged peak oil or are those contracts slower to drop in price due to low volume?
I don't see it.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/marketquotes/quickquote.php3?sel=Crude+...
According to these figures December 2014 is at $83.91 and December 2015 is at $84.51. Now you may think that because 2015 is higher than 2014 that this means Contango. No, it does not. For it to be Contango then both would have to be higher than current December prices which closed yesterday at $94.46.
The market is still strongly in backwardation.
Ron Patterson
Thank you.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
When the newer long-dated contracts where introduced (for 2013 -2015), that part of the curve was in backwardation.
Somebody did an article on this a while back, noting the switch to the current shape. It's been steepening since.
Now we have contango from 2010 outwards and I do believe there's a good chance it's associated with peak oil.
Low prices way off in the future are measures of uncertainty.
When you can't predtict the price of oil from week to week, then how are you to predict the price five years from now?
Numbers mean nothing.
But basics do. How much oil is out there? How much do we need? How much will we get?
Not enough. Too much. Not enough.
I did inhale.
When you can't predict the price of oil from week to week, then how are you to predict the price five years from now?
Actually, it's often easier to predict long term trends than to nail short-term fluctuations.
Price means a lot. It will determine your life more than anything else.
How much we need is actually very subjective.
China wants 30% more oil!
Right, I'm off to;
http://www.permaculture.org.uk/
Its not our abilities that define us, but our choices.
Albus Dumbledore.
'However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.'
Well, that seals it - climate change is a non-event. Because a TV weatherman says so. Of course I'll believe him. Who wouldn't?
As a matter of fact, any aspect of climatic change has nothing to do with climate, that longer term averaging of weather, but merely people who aren't often on TV getting a chance to pollute the ears of the environmentally conscientious (I love that turn of phrase - Prius owner living in a hour drive's from work probably fits that category perfectly, especially if their second car is a Jeep to tow the trailer for the jet ski) - you know, scientists, researchers, people who actually gather data, developing techniques to analyze such data (under peer reveiew from others doing the same thing), and who develop new techniques, sometimes at great cost, sadly, to innocent clams who did nothing much except hang around for centuries.
Among other things I know are true from watching American TV - there is no housing bubble, the U.S. does not torture, and core inflation is the only measure of inflation worthing remembering. And something about how terrorists are ready, at every instant, to strike if the Homeland is not defended with an iron fist - oops, wait, I think the expression is closer to 'eternal vigilance is the price of freedom during eternal war.'
Without TV, I don't know how Americans will actually be able to understand the world around them.
And now should come a blizzard of evidence, local and global, of the climatic change currently going on right now. We could start with the accelerating nonlinear thaw of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the rapidly shrinking Arctic ice cap. And then lead into dozens of local reports of floods and water shortages, broken weather records across the board, and the effects on local ecologies.
Blizzards of evidence may be the only ones we get in this globally-warmed world (at least until the stopping of the thermo-haline conveyor kicks us into a new ice age).
But it depends on what evidence you accept, or look for, and what is conveniently denied because it does not fit the model. Patagonian icefields have fluctuated in size in regular intervals over the past millennia, as reported by(among others) Glasser
If the glaciers are retreating from their Little Ice Age maxima, as they are around the world as it comes out of that period, and this fits into a cycle that is also seen in Alpine glaciers, should this evidence not also be discussed?
"...should this evidence not also be discussed?"
Surely a quote worthy of Ahmadinejad himself.
Those local and minor fluctuations are indeed weighed and discussed ad nauseum by the people doing the real climate work, like NAS. It's a topic not meaningfully illuminated by burnt-out sci-fi authors and the like who'll snap up any factoid that supports a predetermined position.
It's reminiscent the Iranian president's Holocaust denial, or the work of the Tobacco Research Institute. Nobody believes their carp, not for a minute, but if their "debate" can forestall action against their clients, they've succeeded. The goal is no longer to win, but rather to not lose - simply to continue the play as long as possible.
We would be better off if we could discuss ideas related to global warming without fear of being branded as evil for asking a question.
Sure, NASAguy, let's stop referring the old and obvious questions to realclimate.org, and flog that donkey ourselves.
I know I'm no expert on the subject, and apparently that simple truth is not an advantage that I share with others here.
That can be done on various forums (randi's skeptics forum, several general science fora, realclimate blog comment thread).
However, if one just chooses to spam the fallacies that have been shot down by several peer-review papers (like most 'debaters' on the issue choose to do), then one only need to look in the mirror for the reasons on being branded as evil, moron and just plain stupid.
The actual scientific debate about effects, magnitudes, processes, models, forecasts, history, causes, etc. continues as ever in science forums, conferences and papers.
I don't think that has gone anywhere and hopefully never will. That's what science is about.
But wholesale unscientific rebuttal based on cherry picking of evidence is getting really tiresome.
When I see evidence that you are making a bona fide attempt to engage climate scientists re these objections, I'll take you seriously on this stuff.
A guy with your background could advance the debate. Why, instead, do you bring up piecemeal objections with us small fry? Doesn't make sense.
And so, I've wrestled with it, trying to figure it out.
My guess is that you sense the possibility of a serious rupture in our culture's view of the past and present. Instead of celebrating them, we may soon bewail the fossil fuel age and its captains. Even the myth of progress may be scrapped. It's a personal fight.
Grin! Well it is upon this wise. From time to time there are stories that appear at the top of this column that note some feature that is indicative of a changing climate. So being curious I then go away and see if this is the sort of thing that also happened in the past- particularly during the Medieval Warming Period, though now I am also starting to check against the Roman. And in, what was originally a surprise to me, most cases it takes almost no effort to find that yes the conditions indicate that a similar condition occurred during those times. The point of my posting here is that I am quite happy providing the readership with information that gives them a chance to make up their own minds. The existence of "the rest of the story" is something that is rarely indicated in what really is not a debate, and I don't think has been for quite a long time. Evidence that does not conform to the current way of thought is diminished, or denied and I find that unfortunate.
Did CO2 go past 450 ppm during the Medieval and Roman periods - and far beyond - or do you not believe in the precautionary principle?
Note that civilizations fell as a result of past climate change as well. You're promising no worse than that and then accusing Greens of suppressing dissent?
Exactly.
We have changed the composition of the atmosphere. The levels of CO2 and other heat trapping gases are at levels way above anything ever seen in the historical record going back to at least the last ice age.
Now, the CO2 molecule is a pretty simple beast, and the degree to which it traps IR radiation of various wavelengths under various conditions is known to fairly high accuracy.
If you put the relevant numbers into the computer you come up with a very real and large amount of solar heating input. The planet will no doubt deal with this extra solar heating in its own unfathomable way, but respond it will and must.
Whether the response turns up very visibly in the form of melting ice caps, or less visibly as a serious of prolonged droughts, monsoons and hurricanes is probably impossible to predict at the present time. However, since we certainly emitted all that extra industrial CO2 and agricultural methane we are responsible for the changes.
Ah, well you see that is part of the point. If, in fact, the CO2 levels were not as high, and yet the climate conditions did indeed change to provide warmer conditions than currently exist today, then perhaps we are merely moving into another Warm Period. Only after we filter out the conditions that this imposes (which appear to be in many places warmer than today) can we establish what role other forcing events might have.
And in regard to the suppression of dissent, have you noticed the amount of character assassination that seems to appear whenever a dissenting voice is raised. You have only to read some of the comments made here today to see this in practice. It's not exactly debating the science. And I am not suppressing dissent, but the tone of some of the comments surrounding this post would suggest that it should be (but only in the case of folk like myself that raise questions).
Character assassination is a form of ad hominem attack, which thankfully is absent from this thread, as far as I can see.
No, we don't have to treat all posts as valid until specifically refuted. We've wasted enough time on deniers of all stripes; that's not what I read TOD for. The time for proof is past - Now, how are we getting on with ELP? And what are the long-term (multigenerational) implications?
"Hey, they said on the news that the Nasdaq declined over 6% this week, but I don't see how that's possible, because my FXEN went up. See, it's all a scam!"
It's tiresome that you always bring up "the Medieval Warming Period," people always offer rebuttals, and then you scurry away without addressing the replies. It makes it hard to take you seriously when you don't even defend your claims.
Wideblacksky:
What exactly am I supposed to be rebutting ? And I am not making any claims, I am referring to information that is out there for you to read, and providing the references that allow you to do so.
"The point of my posting here is that I am quite happy providing the readership with information that gives them a chance to make up their own minds."
I don't buy it.
But then again, I suppose it's possible to be that naive i.e. to be incredibly blind to the complexities of another field.
Interesting how this illustrates how much of this "debate" takes place. Real facts are presented that show that all is not the way that it is presented to be. And in return there are insults, vague assertions and broad generalizations.
And I am not quite sure what you aren't buying. Perhaps you don't think that I write here to inform folk. If such is your opinion, I would, with respect, suggest (as exemplified by the reporting of the last ASPO's as an example) that the facts deny your opinion.
It all comes down to a single point:
Why not approach climate scientists with your objections and get back to us with a record of the debate?At least some of these guys are quite accessible.
Why do we have to be shrinking violets about this? Bring it on! Let's see the titans interact! If there really are gaping holes in the case for anthropogenic climate change, we want to know about it.
One thing for sure, nothing is going to be settled via the water-cooler type discussions that happen here. There may be the odd geologist around. But though there are people who know a lot about oil depletion, we have no climate researchers!
It's puzzling that a person like yourself, who purports to know more about climate change than the climate researchers, is willing to settle for 2nd-rate discussion on that issue available here.
Raise your sights, HO. Perhaps you underestimate yourself! Take on the consensus. It's waiting.
http://www.realclimate.org/
So what you are saying is that this readership should only be fed stories that show one side of a debate ? That you don't think that they can be given both sets of information and be allowed to make up their own mind ? Perhaps I give them a little more credit than you do. Most of the time I am not disappointed.
Since this is not a climate debate blog, yes readers will be fed just one side of the debate.
I am *NOT* a climate expert and cannot present the "pro GW" argument adequately. I know of no one else here that is a climate expert.
Alan
HO,
This is such a bullshit post on so many levels.
No one is "feeding" anybody anything.
You speak as though there is a "debate". There isn't. And that is because the data are clear.
There are not two discrete sets of "information" such that you can give "both sets of information".
There is simply data that anyone can "make up their mind about". If someone has real data, other than "I founded The Weather Channel", let's see it. Real data. Not something that has been addressed, explained, refuted several times before.
No one is denying anyone the chance to present their data.
"Perhaps I give them a little more credit than you do. Most of the time I am not disappointed."
How magnanimous of you.
Them? Who would that be? "Credit"? How could you be or not be disappointed? How do you evaluate that. What a meaningless bunch of word salad.
I can't see one thing in your post that is anything but polemic and trolling.
But that seems to be the trend these days around here.
If you would like to go back to where this post started, you will find that there was a story about the melting of the Patagonian icebergs signifying a further point in climate change. I pointed out that the Patagonian icefields have cycled several times in the past millennia, quoted an expert in the field who had reported it. There is thus a) data set one, that the Patagonian ice is retreating b) data set two, that this has happened at several periods in the past, in cycles that can be associated with recognized Warming Periods.
I would suggest to you that this is real data - being insulting in your response relates to a comment that I made earlier up the thread.
If the view comes from somebody who has demonstrated mastery of the issue and a willingness to engage the consensus experts, it's welcome (as stated above).
Otherwise, we risk wasting our time with sophistry. In fact, we risk being deceived by disingenuous purveyors of the 'other side of the debate'. Big Oil. Big Coal etc.
Are we qualified to arbitrate on climate change? No.
Do we have to have to choose sides as citizens? Yes.
The way you solve this dilemma is by goading the sides to engage one another in the highest quality debate possible.
If you really have a case, Heading Out, we will see you make headway. Kick their asses and you just might be able to win us all over.
Grin, well actually I am. When I first wrote a post commenting about the possible existence of the Medieval Warming Period, the comments dealt largely with my lack of intelligence, and how easily I was fooled. Now at least, vide a recent reply to one of my posts, there is an admission that the Medieval Warming Period existed.
The evolving question is as to whether it was just confined to Northern Europe, which seems to be the prevailing opinion among a number of papers on climate change that I have listened to or read.