 | The Implications of Biofuel Production for United States Water Supplies | The Oil Drum | Food Miles in Australia |  |
DrumBeat: November 30, 2007
Posted by Leanan on November 30, 2007 - 11:01am
Topic: Miscellaneous
OPEC Countries Will Rival China in 08 Oil Demand Growth
OPEC countries will rival China in global oil demand growth through 2008 and beyond, according to a report released Friday by investment firm Lehman Brothers Inc. (LEH).Consumption of oil in countries that are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries should grow 4.4% to 370,000 barrels per day in 2008, putting the producer group behind only China in terms of incremental demand growth, according to the report.
The prospect of $100 a barrel oil is evaporating as fast as it was conjured.The commodity, which nine days ago was less than a dollar away from $100, is on Friday at less than $90, tumbling on the reality that oil supplies are adequate and that Saudi Arabia will likely fight for an OPEC production increase at a meeting next week to push the price lower so sagging demand for the product might rebound.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Work Those OPECs!
It is amazing how the march of time dulls the minds of people who are otherwise extremely smart, and OPEC ministers too. Each year over the past three years, 2004, 2005, 2006 and now 2007 we have seen prices top their current range in the third and fourth quarters of the year. This year has proved no exception with NYMEX crude oil hitting $99.11 in trading last week.In 2004, OPEC still thought that we would return to its $22 - $28 per barrel price range; at least that is what it said it thought. In reality OPEC probably did not have a clue which way the oil price would go, it just said that for political reasons, and today is much the same.
The First Days Of Petro Collapse
At the moment it seems likely that oil production peaked about 2006, although production per capita peaked around 1990. (Yes, the politicians had their 100-year forecasts back in the 1950s, bless their little souls, but they never said a word.) The first sign, as Jay Hanson predicted several years ago, is stagflation: a combination of high prices and high unemployment. When the price of oil goes up, so does the price of everything else. Before 1970, economists claimed that a combination of high prices and high unemployment was impossible. One economic factor was supposed to cancel out the other. But then came the Arab oil embargo, and stagflation was exactly what happened. The same is happening right now. Much of it is hidden, of course. No sane editor is going to allow a journalist to say that the economy is going belly up.
Peak Oil: Dependence On Imports Has Consequences
Worse, exports are severely constrained by increasing demand inside the exporting nations themselves. As oil production declines in an exporting country, exports are severely curtailed to meet citizen demands within the exporting country. Typically what happens, as in the case of Britain’s North Sea oil, is that this causes actual exports to drop to zero with startling rapidity, as Governments cater to the energy needs of their own citizens. Thus British exports peaked at 1.3 million barrels per day in 1999, but only seven years later, in 2006, Britain had become a net importer These demand constraints on export availability are likely to be especially pronounced in Russia, the UAE, Iran, Mexico and Venezuela.
Does Our Energy Future Hinge on Iran?
Oil is likely behind our saber-rattling with Iran. But can military action in the Middle East actually work to secure oil for U.S. interests?
The End of the 2007 Hurricane Season Is Here
As the Gulf of Mexico's 2007 hurricane season draws to a close on November 30, the industry squeaks by with relatively little production disruption.
Study Details How U.S. Could Cut 28% of Greenhouse Gases
The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations, according to a new report.A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm.
EPA: Violations at Indiana BP Refinery
Federal regulators say BP PLC violated the Clean Air Act by making several unapproved changes at its Indiana oil refinery along the Lake Michigan shore, significantly boosting emissions.
We need a Manhattan Project to bust up OPEC
The president has made it clear that he's none too fond of this Congress. So why not up the ante and use his office's bully pulpit to mobilize the scientific and technology communities to a real call to arms. Such as? How about the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to bust up OPEC?
Nigerian forces torch illegal petroleum
Troops patrolling the militant-infested waterways of Nigeria's oil producing region torched two barges Friday after the boats were found transporting stolen petroleum products, police said.
OPEC could lift oil output at UAE meet - Nigeria
OPEC oil exporters could decide to raise output at next week's meeting in the United Arab Emirates and have some spare production capacity to do so, Nigeria's oil minister said on Friday.However, recent volatility in the oil market demonstrates that prices are being driven by factors other than oil supply and therefore OPEC has been right to adopt a "wait-and-see" approach to market moves, Odein Ajumogobia told Reuters in an interview.
With Congress back in session, renewable energy proponents are girding for a battle over legislation that could make or break the nascent solar power industry.
Most (and least) cost-effective hybrids
How much it costs to save a gallon of gas varies widely, even among closely-related vehicles.
Enbridge traces fatal oil pipeline fire to pinhole leak fixed weeks ago
The small leak had been fixed with a repair sleeve earlier this month.On Wednesday, workers shut down the line to remove the three-metre section that included the hole and sleeve. They replaced it with a new section of pipeline, but oil apparently leaked where that joined the old line, said Leon Zupan, Enbridge's vice-president of operations.
The company's metallurgists want to analyze the section to better understand why it leaked, said Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer. Electronic tools were put inside the pipeline in 2006 looking for dents and metal loss.
"There were no problems found in that area where the leak occurred," he said.
UK Coryton refinery fire-hit unit still shut
A fire at Swiss company Petroplus' Coryton refinery in southeast England in October is continuing to have significant impact on production at the plant, the Health and Safety Executive said on Friday.The unit damaged by the fire at the 220,000 barrel a day plant remains closed and an investigation into the causes of the incident on October 31 is continuing, the HSE told Reuters.
Iraq to sell 300,000 bpd Kirkuk oil in term deals
Iraq has allocated about 300,000 barrels per day of Kirkuk crude in term deals to 11 firms starting Jan. 1, an Iraqi oil official said on Friday.The deals reflect more reliable flows via Iraq's pipeline to Turkey, which has been idled by sabotage attacks and technical problems for much of the time since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
Ukraine will have to pay more for Russian gas
Gazprom is likely to raise gas prices for Ukraine in 2008.On November 27, the Russian energy giant agreed to buy Turkmenistan's gas at a higher price, and this sparked the rumor that the gas price for Ukraine would be raised since Gazprom resells Turkmen gas to Ukraine.
Entire world has vital stake in China's energy challenge
A major new report just released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) sheds stark light on one of the reasons why global oil prices are approaching an unprecedented $100 a barrel. The report provides truly stunning new details of the looming global impact of China and India on future energy markets and the prospects for climate change. It also brings a sobering clarity to the enormity of the energy challenge these two countries face and the huge stake the world has in their future energy choices.
Some varieties of algae are as much as 50 percent oil, and that oil can be converted into biodiesel or jet fuel. The biggest challenge is slashing the cost of production, which by one Defense Department estimate is running more than $20 a gallon.
Ethanol E85 fuel loses cost-benefit test to diesel
Anything's better than ethanol blend E85, even ordinary gasoline, a new cost-benefit analysis of alternative fuels by researcher John Graham at the Pardee Rand Graduate School finds.Diesels scored highest, surprising even the researchers. "We were kind of expecting that hybrids would outperform diesels when we went into the study. It's close, but the advanced diesel" provides better performance and fuel economy for the price, he says.
Important US Oil Complex Vulnerable to A Terrorist Attack
In early October, speculators, concerned about the dip in inventories at Cushing (currently, inventories are at the lowest since October, 2005), drove the price of a barrel of oil up to a then record $83. Conversely, when Cushing’s massive tank farms are filled, crude oil prices tend to plummet. What happens at Cushing has a marked impact on the global oil economy. A terrorist attack on the complex would have a profound impact on North America, and the ripples from it would spread throughout the world.
Experts can argue about the date, but from the global point of view it is obvious that the whole world, including Russia, will have to switch to alternative and renewable energy sources one way or another, because limited resources, no matter how large their supply is, will eventually be exhausted. This fact has been acknowledged and accepted by the scientific and technical community, by state authorities, by businessmen and common citizens. Even popular rock musician Yury Shevchuk has a song entitled “When We’re All Out of Oil.” Finally people other than ecologists and environmentalists are talking about renewable energy in Russia. Scientific and technological conferences and round tables are being organized at all levels and the press is also participating in the discussion of possibilities of alternative energy sources.
Kurds challenge Kirkuk oil rights
While the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdish administration and the central government in Baghdad are locked in a war of words on the right to issue oil prospecting contracts in the Erbil, Sulaimania and Duhok provinces the Kurds have increased the stakes demanding oil rights in the Kirkuk area which is outside their jurisdiction.An incident which surfaced on Tuesday when Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani announced "soldiers from the Kurdistan autonomous region are preventing the central government from developing a key Kirkuk oil field" has added to the already cool relations between Baghdad and the Iraqi Kurds.
Nepal: Fuel shortage cripples public transport in far west
Public transport in the far-western region has come to a grinding halt since yesterday due to fuel shortage.Reports coming in say that bus service in far-western districts has been shut with the transporters announcing indefinite strike against the shortage of petrol and diesel.
Fidel Castro: "A People Under Fire"
Cuban President Fidel Castro stated that the assassination of Venezuela's leader or a civil war in that country would blow up the globalized world economy, due to its huge reserves of hydrocarbons.In his Friday's article entitled "A People Under Fire," the Cuban Revolution leader says that such circumstances are without precedent in the history of mankind.
Assembly of Oil and Gas Companies Owners Decide to Stop Receiving Daily Fuel in Gaza Strip
The Assembly of oil and gas companies owners in the Gaza Strip decided Thursday evening to stop receiving their daily fuel in protest at Israel reduction of the quantity of fuel sent to Gaza.
Sinopec, CNPC told to run at full speed
China has ordered its two largest oil companies to run their refineries at full capacity in a further move to address a fuel shortage.The National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Finance have asked Sinopec Group and China National Petroleum Corp to fulfill their social responsibility to ensure market supply of refined oil products, the commission said in a statement posted on its Website yesterday.
6 price manipulation cases uncovered amid oil shortage
China's top economic planning agency said on Wednesday that 6 diesel price manipulation cases had been found in a nationwide inspection amid fuel supply shortages.These six petrol filling stations sold diesel at prices 43% higher than the government-regulated price to cash in on ongoing fuel shortages, according to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).
Turkey: Gov’t pledges unprecedented energy incentives
The government, concerned about a recent supply shortage in electricity, has pledged to introduce unprecedented incentives for the energy sector.
Naomi Klein - Guns Beat Green: The Market Has Spoken
Anyone tired of lousy news from the markets should talk to Douglas Lloyd, director of Venture Business Research, a company that tracks trends in venture capitalism. "I expect investment activity in this sector to remain buoyant," he said recently. His bouncy mood was inspired by the money gushing into private security and defense companies. He added, "I also see this as a more attractive sector, as many do, than clean energy."Got that? If you are looking for a sure bet in a new growth market, sell solar, buy surveillance; forget wind, buy weapons.
Climate plan will cost consumers plenty
The op ed by William Becker concludes that finding a cure for global warming will be easy and won’t needlessly or excessively increase energy costs. If that is true, then there is a certain bridge in Brooklyn available at a bargain basement price.
Winter tales become horror stories
One elderly man who called Midcoast Maine Community Action told receptionist Candy Downs that he was keeping warm by staying under the covers of a bed and running a hair dryer.
Saudi Aramco inaugurates new storage sites
Al-Buainain enumerated the benefits of placing strategic-reserve locations throughout the Kingdom. The added storage capacity, he said, supports the distribution of fuel in the Kingdom, where and when it is needed. That has been proved in some locations when local market requirements have been met during seasonal and emergency circumstances. Strategic storage also provides operational efficiency and greater flexibility in normal circumstances, and helps in the scheduling of refinery maintenance, which can be done without causing fuel shortages.
Power play: The dirty little secrets behind the pressure at the pumps
Former U. S. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey uncovered evidence that President George W. Bush agreed to a secret deal with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan to help the president win the election in November 2004. The alleged deal allowed high oil prices for most of 2004 in return for a boost in oil production and lower gas prices in the three months immediately prior to the November election. But the problem is not just political and does not rest only with price manipulation in the crude market. It’s in the industry and the core of the problem is manipulation of refining capacity.
We Welcome Our New Overlords From Asia
America is more concerned about taxing big oil, while other governments are doing their best to acquire it and subsidize the costs for their own citizens.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- CEOs of four Oklahoma energy companies encouraged state leaders Thursday to support polices that encourage the responsible use of fossil fuels and promote exploration and production.
Siberia basking in the oil boom
It used to serve principally as a place of exile for political dissidents.But now, suddenly, Khanty-Mansiisk - 1,400 miles east of Moscow, in north-western Siberia - has become Vladimir Putin's model town, the place Russia most wants to show off to foreign visitors.
ConocoPhillips proposes Alaska pipeline
Oil exploration and production company ConocoPhillips said Friday it submitted a proposal to develop a pipeline in Alaska that would transport about 4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the United States and Canada.The company said it is "prepared to make significant investments, without state matching funds, to advance this project."
Despite efforts, China still unable to wean off coal
In the heart of rapidly modernising Beijing, pensioner Zeng Qinglun and his wife have stacked up a pile of coal outside their home to use for heating and cooking through the winter.The couple, who live in a tiny house in one of the Chinese traditional "hutong" alleyways, would love to use a cleaner fuel but can not afford it on their meagre incomes.
Analysis: Asia likely to remain dependent on coal
New research by the World Wide Fund for Nature highlights three negative effects of the heavy dependence on coal as an energy source in Asia. These include social distress, environmental degradation and carbon dioxide emissions that accelerate global warming.
A dirty way to fight climate change
Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs and plant a tree – these are the most popular strategies for mitigating climate change today.Yet world leaders gathering for the climate-change summit in Bali, Indonesia, next week should consider an alternative. It's one of the most overlooked yet most effective and inexpensive strategies available: Store carbon in the soil.
‘Averting Our Eyes’: James Hansen’s New Call for Climate Action
James E. Hansen of NASA, brushing off coal-industry criticisms but acknowledging the need to be sensitive to people still haunted by the Holocaust, has elaborated on what he meant when he recently described continued coal burning as akin to sending untold species to their destruction in “death trains” and crematoria.
Abu Dhabi Becomes Largest Citigroup Shareholder with $7.5B Investment, Bailout Comes Amidst Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Record-High Oil Prices (audio, video, and transcript)
The Gulf Arab emirate of Abu Dhabi bought a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup, America’s largest bank, on Tuesday, making it the bank’s largest shareholder. As the U.S. credit crisis worsens and the price of oil hovers close to $100 a barrel, the injection of capital from oil-rich Gulf states is seen as a bailout of banks in trouble. We speak with NYU economics professor, Nouriel Roubini, and Hampshire College professor, Michael Klare, author of “Blood and Oil.”
Iran could choke flow of oil to world in case of war - but it would hurt itself by doing so
Iran's potential to shut down nearly 40 percent of the world's oil trade represents a weapon possibly more powerful than its missiles, gunboats or any arms system Tehran claims to possess.But such a move would cut both ways in any possible military showdown with the United States.
Oil prices drop below $90 a barrel
Oil prices fell Friday on expectations that OPEC will increase output next week and on fading concerns of a supply disruption from a U.S. pipeline fire.Light, sweet crude for January delivery fell $1.55 to $89.46 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midday in Europe. On Thursday, the crude contract gained 39 cents to settle at $91.01 a barrel in choppy trade.
Ecologist lectures on implications of 'A World Without Oil'
According to Kaufmann the days of "eat, drink and gas up" are coming to a close quickly. The oil problem is a well-worn topic of conversation in America today due to high gas prices and war. However, the reason the nation is looking at a scarcity of oil is not political."Two-thirds of the world's top oil producing nations have reached their peak in oil production," Kaufman said. "The height of world discovery of oil wells took place in the 1960s. Since 1983 production has exceeded discovery. For every 30 million barrels of oil that are produced only 6 million are discovered."
Gazprom considering selling gas in rubles
Russian gas export monopoly Gazprom's deputy chairman said on Thursday the company is considering selling its gas and oil in rubles, instead of dollars or euros.
A Diary Of The Onset Of The Greater Depression
For years I have been referring to the Terminal Triangle: Peak Oil, climate change, and global economic meltdown, the latter explained in Danny's book in terms of the international ramifications of the Greater Depression. And of course, there are "other horsemen" of the apocalypse, as enumerated by Sally Erickson in her recent blog, so I find it impossible to discuss the mortgage crisis without connecting it with the additional impending global catastrophes that spell the end of the world as we have known it. Just as we have entered the Greater Depression, we are engulfed by collapsing institutions - especially the American political system, which are in an abject state of dissolution and therefore incapable of affecting change at requisite levels, for all the reasons Danny has so thoroughly documented in his book.
Nigeria: Rising Fuel Subsidy Worries Government
Another increase in the pump price of petrol may be under way given the strident concern being expressed by top government functionaries over the rising price of crude oil in the international market and what they call the concomitant rise in government subsidy on petroleum products.
Refinery company will ask for zoning change
ELK POINT, S.D. - A Texas company that's considering construction of an oil refinery in Union County are planning to ask for zoning changes on land north of Elk Point.
Petro-Canada CEO: Arctic LNG Would be a Project 'To Die For'
Petro-Canada's (PCZ) natural gas assets in the Arctic would be a dream liquefied natural gas project, but regulatory and technical hurdles means it is still a long way off from development, Chief Executive Ron Brenneman said Wednesday.The company has significant natural gas reserves in the Eastern Arctic islands, but lack of a fiscal regime and the harsh operating environment means "it's too early to visualize what (a project) might look like," Brenneman said at an investors conference in Edmonton.
Wood Mackenzie says higher oil prices are offsetting the greater challenges faced by companies who explore for oil and gas - but only just. In analysis recently completed as part of Wood Mackenzie's Exploration Service, the average return on exploration for conventional hydrocarbons in the past three years was just under 15% - assuming that oil prices remain at US$70 per barrel in real terms.
One choice we can make is to build as if everyone drives and will always drive. This, of course, assumes that human behavior never changes (a difficult assumption to make, given the historical shift in Alameda over the past half-century or so from rail/transit to single-occupancy-vehicles as our primary transportation mode). I'd put money on the fact that various forces -- technology, diminishing land for increased road capacity, peak-oil, environmental concerns, to name just a few -- will see our transportation behavior continue to evolve.Which brings us to the other direction the city can go: Plan new areas of the city to accommodate many options and work to create convenient and flexible solutions that will accommodate transportation changes. We should expect that, 25 to 35 years from now, a lot of people will be traveling in a different way than they do today, much as they did 25 to 35 years ago.
Will Saudi Arabia Boost Its Oil Output on Dec 5th?
Already, the Western media is fanning speculation of a boost in Saudi oil output at the upcoming OPEC meeting in Abu Dhabi, to placate its military patron in Washington and cool oil prices. Within OPEC, Saudi Arabia is the only producer with any capacity to pump more oil. Saudi oil chief, Ali al-Naimi indicated the kingdom had spare oil capacity of 2.3 million bpd. Total OPEC spare capacity is 3 million bpd.On Nov 21st, former Saudi oil minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani was engaging in psychological warfare with crude oil traders, attempting to “jawbone” oil prices lower. “If there are no disasters, then oil prices could fall to $75 per barrel after the winter,” he said. Already, crude oil has tumbled to $91.50 /bl on expectations that Riyadh will boost its oil output by 500,000 bpd. How myopic have equity traders become, now that $91 for oil is considered cheap, after seeing $99 last week?
Middle class angst: The politics of lemmings, part 2
The deepest fear in suburbia, never spoken aloud, is that when this epoch unravels, Suburbia's citizens quite simply will not know how to survive. Even the veterans of war who withdraw back into these spaces are largely incapable of the most basic skills that will be required in a non-technocratic world: building healthy soil, making food, collecting potable water, basic medicine . . . seed-saving, canning, pickling and fermenting . . . all lost; and so Suburbia will fight tooth and nail for its "entitlement to the entropo-technocratic life-support system, even as that system withers away.Instead, our masculinized version of any post-collapse -- which we have compartmentalized into a "fantasy" that cannot be touched by our day-to-day -- is what we have borrowed from direct and vicarious experience of the military . . . a Mad Maxish world of roaming armed conflict. This will never happen.
The real choice that Suburbia will face is one between fascism or self-sufficiency, which is a choice -- as well -- between spiritual death or spiritual renewal.
China's Green Spending Falls Short
The good news out of China is that the People's Republic will be spending $200 billion on cleaning up the air and water pollution that has marred its rapid economic growth. The bad news is that sum is virtually unchanged from the last budget and is unlikely to make a difference.
U.S. Government to Distribute $1 Billion to Protect Shoreline Environments
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne today applauded federal approval of Louisiana's Coastal Impact Assistance Program, calling it a major step forward in providing up to $1 billion over four years to help Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas producing states restore and protect their shoreline environments.
Business leaders seek action on warming
Some of the world's top business leaders are demanding that international diplomats meeting next week come up with drastic and urgent measures to cut greenhouse gas pollution at least in half by 2050.Officials from more than 150 global companies — worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization — have signed a petition urging "strong, early action on climate change" when political leaders meet in Indonesia.
Rich nations must do more on climate change: Prince Charles
The world's haves must do more to combat climate change, Prince Charles and a former World Bank chief economist wrote in separate comment pieces published on Friday.
Climate change: "Carbon footprint" enters everyday vocabulary
Buying locally-produced fruit and veg, riding bikes or taking the train instead of using private cars, buying carbon offsets and staging carbon-neutral weddings: all are part of the climate-change awareness taking root in many countries.Individuals keen on reducing their "carbon footprint" -- the dangerous greenhouse gas that each of us emit through our purchases and activities -- can now turn to a multiplying panoply of tools to calculate their pollution, reduce it or compensate for it.
Bush clings to anti-Kyoto stance ahead of climate talks
US President George W. Bush, who rejected the Kyoto protocol, remains opposed to international constraints on curbing carbon emissions despite growing isolation ahead of a world climate summit.
The range of oil prices in the past year emphasizes that we are well within the peak oil era, charactarized by growing volitility of oil prices.
The following one-minute video illustrates why...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vGDwGLU7s
Every bit of news that talks about supply or demand, even in an oblique way, will cause the prices to swing.
Contrast this to the point a few years ago when we first entered the peak oil era (from about June 2003 to March 2004), which was charactarized by almost no volatility at all, as oil prices very slowly shifted from the former "stable price trend" to the new "increasing price trend".
The volatility will continue until we have a big drop in consumption, or a big rise (unlikely) in production.
Yes, I agree volatility is to be expected if we're at peak. Still, Moe_Gamble though $90 was the floor. Not today, it would seem.
Ya...we need some more bad news to lower the price some more. If there is any kind of logic involved in crude prices and the DOW these days...it alludes me.
Interesting bit on The President's Working Group on Financial Markets...
Mission Impossible
Two of my favorite columns over at Financial Sense, Deepcaster and Nyquist Column, with some interesting reads today...
PROFITING FROM INTERVENTIONALS + TECHNICALS + FUNDAMENTALS IN GOLD, EQUITIES, CRUDE OIL & THE U.S. DOLLAR
I love the term "Interventionals" he uses.
Political Philosophy 101
I wouldn't say that the price is totally out of step with logic. I got some data from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/Crude1.xls
and started making graphs.
Average oil price this year to date (11mths) is $69.54
Average oil price in 1998 was $14.36
thats about 19% YOY inflation.
However if you use 1998 $'s against a few other currencies (napkin calculations here) then this years agerage oil price is roughtly $48
thats about 14%YOY inflation.
Doesn't seem so bad now!
Also, if you look at historical prices, you could say that the oil price is not even adjusted to 1980 after inflation until it approaches $200 a barrel. (rough factoring of USD declines as it approaches)
And, Gold as well would need to get to around $2300 an ounce to approach all time highs. (possibly more as the USD declines as well). Historically, Gold would trade about 10X the price of oil...behind the ball at the moment.
A question:
If the cost of oil production is higher than 1980, and production is near maximum. Also, if population is increasing which also increases demand (met or unmet).
How much longer before the inflation adjusted peaks are met and exceeded?
Well...the words of Don Sailorman have haunted me ever since he wrote them way back when...and I am quoting from memory...he said that the Fed has lots of tools to help the situation and they aren't afraid to use them.
I think he's right, the Fed does have lots of tools. Some we know about and some we don't (see my link above). I think the Fed is and will do everything in their power to keep money, credit, and commodity prices within "acceptable" ranges for the masses. How long this can keep going? Perhaps only Don knows, but he no longer posts here so.
The Fed will, of course, play every short-term financial trick they can think up. Aside from interest rate cuts, I expect a lot of glowing financial rhetoric and creative accounting.
In the long run, these tactics can only do so much. However, the last card that the USA can (and will) play is a fire sale of assets. The opening shot last week was the sale of about 5% of Citibank to Abu Dhabi. Fortune has a good article on how this trend will likely accelerate in the near future:
A stake in Citi is just the start
regards,
Oz
that old Arab saying:
My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will fly a jet, but his son will ride a yankee (and own half of America).
by Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum
Amended last line slightly.
Yankees are easy to keep. They believe everything.
;-)
Dubya to the rescue:
Banks, U.S. near deal on subprime mortgages
Extended out to Nov 5th 2008? By any chance:-).
Marco.
It's not a permanent fix, but this is what the article says:
Sounds like he's allowing enough time for President Giuliani to pass the buck to his successor. Of course, by then it will be a problem for the Bank of Dubai, which will own Citibank, Countrywide, Bank of America and Wachovia.
regards,
Oz
The basic problem although this proposal has many is that the homeowner cannot sell the home without going through a short sale. Few people buy one home for 30 years. Most first time buyers sell within 5-7 years and most of the people in trouble are first time buyers.
http://www.selectlenders.com/first_time_buyer.asp
The chances that houses will be back to todays prices in 5-7 years is slim to none. And for a lot of these people they either will need to short sell or go into foreclosure. Also of course these people where not your general qualified buyer in the first place so chances are they will need to move sooner then the average say 2-3 years.
You can imagine that a lot of people will figure this out and mortgage backed securities are dead not just existing ones but all future ones without a explicit government guarantee and that might not be enough.
So if enough people get save its going to keep the housing market down for years well past the time even the biggest optimist thinks we will be having peak oil effects. And of course the plan if its implement at all will have a immediate cooling effect on the ability to get new house loans.
Plus obviously people left out will walk once their arm resets or at least quit paying to see if they can get the deal probably leading to foreclosure.
Whats probably going to happen considering the intellegince of your average American is that if the plan is allowed to proceed a whole lot of people are going to quit paying their mortgage assuming they will be bailed out without even determining if they can be. I could see this backfiring fast.
Chimp/Matt has a link on his site to http://www.thecottageeconomist.com This isn't the link to the exact article but I assume people can get there. Anyway, the arguement is that the institutions can make more profit foreclosing after 5-7 years. The guy makes a good case.
Todd
The problem is with our crop of subprime borrowers your looking at 1-3 years before they bail on average. If they are even smart enough to get the exception. And of course practically everyone rejected is going to bail and these are the people with better credit. This coupled with people trying to game the system by stopping payments in hope of qualifying will probably result in a higher foreclosure rate.
Most people don't know who owns their mortgage. Overall these are not the sharpest tools in the shed your talking about.
So at best this will result in about the same foreclosure rate as without it and worst it could significantly increase the foreclosure rate.
The smarter folks that probably actually have more money will figure out they are better off taking the credit hit now and saving to buy a home in seven years.
I'm actually surprised these guys figured they could get enough people to stay 5-7 years esp heading into a recession. This is the critical part of the plan. These people had planned if anything around a 1-2 year quick flip.
And what about all the investor owned homes ?
I get a kick out of some people actually liking this monster.
I don't necessarily agree (don't disagree entirely either) with Don.
However, the number of variables in play is much much more than ANY Fed Chair has EVER had to deal with.
Damned if he does, Damned if he doesn't(insert option here). No move is correct anymore. Far too many masters. IMHO.
'State freezes fund pool after run by local governments'
'"We can make payroll, but the fact is the purpose of that system is to help us move our money in and out and at any given time -- 24 hours a day," Blanton said. "Right now they have frozen that ability."'
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHE...
Here is the story of a run on a state fund pool by various governments of the State of Florida. From this mornings front page of the Daytona Beach News Journal. I believe that the governor of Florida, along with the rest of the government and the citizens of Florida would like a bit more reassurance that the Fed can 'stop the sub-prime crisis from spreading to the rest of the economy'...An oft heard refrain from those that continually trumpet the powers of the Fed to 'fix everything'. An item of interest that is left out of this report? Some pension and other funds are required by law to invest only in the highest rated debt instruments...
'Staff and wire report
Gov. Charlie Crist and two other top state officials suspended withdrawals from a state-operated investment pool Thursday, abruptly halting a run by local governments spooked over the downgrade of its mortgage-related holdings.'...snip...
'The State Board of Administration acted during an emergency meeting after local governments had taken out nearly $10 billion, or 40 percent of the pool's assets, in the past two weeks. That included $3.5 billion Thursday morning.'...snip...
'Local governments in Volusia County alone have pulled hundreds of millions of dollars from the fund. Flagler County government had no money in the fund.'...snip...
'(Governor) Crist and the other board members, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and Attorney General Bill McCollum, were worried that without suspending withdrawals, the pool would run out of money because of the downgraded assets. That would leave the last local governments in the pool with nothing.'...snip...
'Stipanovich proposed using the state's $137 billion pension fund to secure the downgraded paper, but board members were cool to that idea. They voted instead to seek advice from outside financial experts before considering the proposal again Tuesday.
"It's something that, speaking for myself, I'm not excited about," Sink said.'...snip...
'Stipanovich said there would be little risk to the pension plan because the downgraded paper is backed by highly rated mortgages that continue to return millions of dollars in premiums and interest to investors. Their market value, though, has plummeted because investors are shunning all mortgage-related securities due to losses on subprime mortgages.
Even if they do default, the pension fund would receive the mortgages as collateral and they would continue to pay off, Stipanovich said. He said they also should regain their market value, although that could take years.'...snip...
River
Ya I saw that story yesterday and posted it on the Stoneleigh's Finance post. This kind of thing is frickin scary and will most likely hit other States in the near future. I think California is already wrestling with a similar type issue. I fear it will lead to higher local taxes all around. I know my property taxes have gone up a bit again this year even though house values are dropping. Time to get a re-evaluation on my house I guess.
Here's a new development in the Florida state-run investment fund story...
Bloomberg: Florida Schools Struggle to Pay Teachers as Investments Frozen
Dragonfly41, thanks for the update of the Florida story. I am searching for more information as it becomes available. Our eldest daughter is a teacher and her hubby is a cop so this story has family interest for me.
If the State of Florida attempts to raid the retirement fund to bail out the hurting 'slush fund (state liquidity fund)', state employees might finally awaken to the dire straights our economy is in...maybe.
River, I have a sister-in-law and a brother in California and I'm afraid they will soon be in a similar situation. The State of California is going to start losing mucho dinero from the housing situation soon if not already. It's an expensive place to live when things are normal. Under stress, it's all the worse.
The mortgage scam is pervasive. The big banks are infected, the pension plans are infected, and insurance companies' funds are caught up in it ...
As I understand it when we went off the gold standard we sort of sneakily substituted oil as a new sort of specie to back the fiat, or more specifically the annual increasing volume of oil. When that ended the value of the U.S. currency, predicated on this volume meeting demand, began to drop.
Things with utility are best in these days - I don't know what I'd do with a chunk of money to manage for income and growth in these days - its a total minefield and who knows where the nuclear waste will pop up as those on the hook squirm around trying to find a way out of their predicament.
where did Don Sailorman go?
I don't post anymore, but I do read TOD. The Fed, in my opinion, has the power to avoid deflation--at the cost of increasing inflation. The effects of peak oil will be harsh, including many business failures and (over time) a huge increase in unemployment, but I think the Fed will try to accommodate to rising oil prices by pumping enough liquidity into the system to prevent a cascade of banks going broke and bringing down other financial institutions.
It is possible the economy could get stuck in a liquidity trap, when borrowing and lending dry up due to bleak economic expectations, but I think massive deficits by the federal government will result in a monetization of these deficits that will overwhelm the effects of any liquidity trap.
Hi Don, do you know anything about "The President's Working Group on Financial Markets"? I'd like to know more about them and what they really do.
I don't know anything about the president's working group on financial markets. Note that the president has very limited power to affect financial markets: The Fed creates monetary policy and Congress makes fiscal policy (taxing and spending by the federal government), subject to presidential veto.
Hi Don,
While agree that the Fed will pull out all the stops it has to mitigate what is taking place in the financial and housing markets over the short term, I'm not so sure it will be enough to pull the economy out of this rut over the long term.
What I see happening in the markets is unprecedented so there isn't much to go on to say what will happen either way. But the situation certainly looks bad, long term.
Paulson is playing a role as part of the president's working group by trying to get the SIV bailout going as well as the sub-prime bailout going. So far the SIV bailout is going nowhere. The sub-prime bailout is very interesting so far. What could he possibly be saying to these banks to make them want to rewrite these ARM terms?
Is he brow beating them? Offering them favors? Asking them politely? He has no leverage. Yet he wants to see results. My guess is the banks are humoring him. Pity the poor sucker who gets foreclosed on the week before the bank tells everyone else they've got 5 more years to pay at the intro rates. I'm sure that will go over real well.
Anyway, it's good to hear what you have to say.
-Don
Of course Peak Oil will play a role in the long term picture as well. If Saudi Arabia kicks in another million or so B/D then that will be delayed and prices will come down somewhat short term. If they don't, and oil stays above $100, I don't think there's much the Fed can do to avoid recession even in the near term.
I also think that recession for TPTB is as bad as it can get, because once things head lower there's not much they can do to control how much lower. So the game right now is to avoid the R word and keep sailing that ship on into the night, just ignore that gash in the hull.
-Don
...Is he brow beating them? Offering them favors? Asking them politely? He has no leverage. Yet he wants to see results. My guess is the banks are humoring him...
I see this sentiment everywhere. "HE" THEY.
Benny vs Banks, Paulson vs Banks Paulson vs Wall Street and the biggest false dichotomy Gov vs Banks.
They are the same thing. Goldman Sachs is one of the original stockholders of the Federal Reserve. In essence, Paulson while the head of GS, was "Over" Benny.
Wall Street, CB's, Fed are different faces of the same.
Probably wrong, but that's how it looks.
In this case FOXNEWS tells it like it is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197554,00.html
Read Creature from Jekyll Island if you get a chance.
Who Owns the Fed
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/fed_reserve.htm
Go Ron Paul
Indeed,
Is anyone else going to a Teaparty?
All I know is their nickname, "the plunge protection team". They are reputed to intervene at critical junctures by buying key stocks during a meltdown, thus (hopefully) taking some of the panic out of the system and allowing the market to catch its breath.
John Crudele has been trying to find out what they do for some time. He just received his answer via the FoIA.
http://gata.org/node/5791
159 pages of crap, almost all blacked out, and they claim they don't take notes of meetings.
worth the read.
'Böhm-Bawerk's greatest student was Ludwig von Mises, whose first major project was the development of a new theory of money. The Theory of Money and Credit, published in 1912, elaborated on Menger, showing not only that money had its origin in the market, but that there was no other way it could have come about. Mises also argued that money and banking ought to be left to the market, and that government intervention can only cause harm.
In that book, which remains a standard work today, Mises also sowed the seeds of his business-cycle theory. He argued that when the central bank artificially lowers interest rates, it causes distortions in the capital-goods sector of the structure of production. When malinvestments occur, an economic downturn is necessary to wash out bad investments.
Along with his student F. A. Hayek, Mises established the Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research in Vienna, and he and Hayek showed that the central bank is the source of the business cycle. Their work eventually proved to be most effective in combating Keynesian experiments in fine-tuning the economy through fiscal policies and the central bank.
The Mises-Hayek theory was dominant in Europe until Keynes won the day by arguing that the market itself is responsible for the business cycle. It didn't hurt that Keynes's theory advocating more spending, inflation, and deficits was already being practiced by governments around the world.'
http://www.mises.org/about/3224
Keynes had more on the job experience
than any before or since.
Keynes scored bullseye predictions at
a distance of 20 years.
Those who slag Keynes have motives.
His markets-drive-business-cycle
thesis not original to him. Well
established.
How much inflation is there left to wring out? Using the Fed’s own inflation calculator a U.S. dollar is now worth around 4 or 5 cents since the Fed’s inception in 1913; just how much inflation is left? A tenth of a cent? A one hundredth of a cent?
Aren’t we in a liquidity trap now? Wasn’t that what August was all about? When banks won’t lend to other banks, why would they lend to anyone else? Is this just a “temporary” liquidity issue? What happens when all those off balance sheet “assets” come back onto balance sheets, as they must come next year. Unless another deferment demand is successful? What lenders will be lending to shore up capital requirements as these assets are marked to market? Will this be the great U.S. fire sale? Is the next great funding hope the Middle East oil sheikdoms?
As for monetization of deficits, hasn’t that been going on for decades? Isn’t that at least a part of the problem in the first place? Will doing more of the same actually improve the situation?
Is there no point at which the dollar will become so debased it becomes worthless? Or will it always be worth a dollar, even if that’s only 4 cents? Will the dollar always be the reserve currency the world, valued above all others?
The basic problem peak oil presents to our fractional-reserve fiat monetary system is that if the money supply ever stops growing, the whole system will collapse. The reason for this is that virtually all money is debt that must be paid back with interest. This means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back all the outstanding debt.
New money must continually be created so people can get the money to pay back the interest on the loans. If that money is not forthcoming, then people will start defaulting on loans (since there isn't enough money in existence to pay the interest). Defaulting destroys money, thus causing more people to be unable to pay back their loans, and so on.
The reason peak oil (really, peak everything) is a problem is that we have reached the limits of sustainability on the earth. Peak production means the economy cannot grow to keep up with the necessary growth in money supply. An expanding money supply without expanding the underlying goods & services is the definition of inflation.
So, our two options (assuming we stick with a fractional-reserve fiat monetary system) is a deflationary downward spiral or a hyper-inflationary downward spiral (probably turning into a deflationary one once people realize there is no substance behind the money).
Just as we have entered the peak plateau for oil, I think we've also entered the "end days" of our monetary system. It might take a couple decades for it to come completely apart, but periods of inflation punctuated by liquidity crises ending in a greater depression and monetary collapse is what we have in store for us.
One unit of currency can represent as many transactions as there is time and mobility for. Your thesis lacks a dynamic concept of money. Sounds plausible though.
It's nice to hear Don's sage like voice again, even though I'm not convinced by his partial analysis of the current turmoil in the financial system. I believe there are signs that it's much, much, worse than it appears to be. We are, at present, just looking at the tip of the dirty iceberg.
Sub Prime is only the beginning. The effects are spreading throughout the system seemingly inexorably.
I've heard an interesting phrase "The Greater Depression" to describe what we may/possibly be heading for. Let's hope we don't even go half-way down that road!
I had a professor in college who's favorite saying was "you can't push string". (It was a course in classical mechanics)
The credit crisis seems like the fed is trying to push string, and not being all that successful.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index/a/15051
I guess we will just have to wait and see what super powers the fed actually has.
A nice link for watching the day to day fight is "Kevin Depew's daily Five Things You Need to Know".
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=15054
It's also a saying in working-horse circles. You can't push the horse with the lines...
But you can push string, only a very little a short way though. Threading a needle. Wax the string and push it furtherer. I do get the reasoning behind the saying though, I am just being facetious.
Even after threading the needle you are pushing the needle not the thread and pulling the thread.
I'd have been the one student to remind him of the threading of a needle everytime he used the saying. Maybe that is why some teachers did not like me much.
Charles.
and you can ride a camel through the eye of a needle too, you just have to construct a really big needle.
...or an awfully tiny GMO camel.
Of course we all realise which inflation figures we choose to use affects the figure. People on this site have recently said (and i feel this way too) that inflation is way higher than the official figures.
This makes working out what the inflation adjusted figure actually is virtually impossible. Media outlets are putting at $90-110. If some economic bloggers are right about real inflation this figure could be as high as you say. But i talk too much as we all realise this!
It has been discussed on this site that it would be better to show oil price as a ratio of disposable income but I don't think this is an entirely correct measure for a whole load of complex reasons all summarised by what can be made/produced/run/driven/fertilised with 1 barrel of oil. In 1980 I bet 1 barrel of oil didn't 'get' nearly as much as it 'gets' now due to efficiency changes. my head is sore now.
Marco.
Agree. Even the pipeline disruption did basically nothing to the price.
Strange (possibly mass denial engine) forces at work.
But no matter what the price, we are still on the plateau. Nothing KSA(OPEC) does on the 5th, with change the fact that 2007 was another year of lower production.
It's all about 2008 now. And, Oil not being the only game in town, it will be a fairly disturbing year to watch - highly volatile.
PeakTO...'Strange (possibly mass denial engine) forces at work.'...
It could be mass denial but I suspect that it is something beyond that. Did you check out Leanans story above 'The Dirty Little Secrets Behind The Power At The Pumps'...
It is the quandry of the river boat gambler of yore...'Of course I know its a rigged game...But its the only game on the boat!' :)
...snip...'Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, then chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, uncovered regular manipulation of prices by oil companies. A startling example was the discovery by Levin’s investigators of internal memos from BP Amoco PLC that set put a plan to “…influence the crude supply/demand balance by offering supply agreements to other oil majors in exchange for refining capacity shutdown and movement of product from the U.S. to warehousing in southern Ontario.”'...snip...
That caught my attention too, but it triggered my "doesn't quite add up" circuit. So I googled "in exchange for refining capacity shutdown and movement of product" and discovered that this 'news' from The Suburban today appears to be mostly a rehash from a policy paper from 2005, including that quote and much else of the substance of the item.
I'm 'perplexed' the 'quote' from the Senator's investigation doesn't turn up anywhere else, considering the significance that would likely be attached to such memos...
I've noticed lately that the oil market and stock market seem to be moving in opposite directions this means the pig men are playing a game first pumping the oil market taking profits then pumping the stock market. This seems to be tied to each Fed rate cut.
Now what I don't understand yet is that real oil buyers will probably use these dips to set up all their long range contracts hedge etc before the next rate cut causes the dollar to drop. Later as little real oil is available for delivery we see a price spike in oil. And the big guys start taking profits out of the stock market to push up oil. As long as the feds keep cutting rates like clockwork you get a nice game going. You need to be big enough to push the market but other than that its a sure bet.
But what happens if you decide to take delivery of oil and the oil is not available ? How are these settled ? If its by getting more contracts at a discount then they are in even better shape.
If one looks at volatility in percentage terms there has been very little change. Picking certain points on the chart and comparing other points can make it appear volatility has increased. From January 2003 to December 2004 prices ranged approximately from $25 to $55. From January 2005 to December 2007 prices ranged from about $50 to $100. Percentage wise these volatilities are nearly identical. Percentage is more important that absolute fluctuation IMO.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M
It does make sense to look at volatility as a percentage.
If we plot all the data points of the average prices for each week (from EIA data), and then compare that to the trendline, we will see that the "peak oil moment" of a few years ago was marked by very little volatility. Yes, the price did rise, but that is not volatility.
In this case, the price was steadily being bid up, over a period of nearly a year, until it started on a new upward, yet volitile, trend.
You do have a very good point that one needs to compare percentages here.
I think a good way of measuring volitility would be the area between the trendline and the actual price. Big ups and downs would count a lot more than spikes... and it would also take into account the increasing trend.
Delays, Cost Overruns at First EU "new nuke" in Finland
There has been a continuing debate about how fast the USA could gear up and start building new nuclear plants. My position is that the USA could finish the 60% complete Watts Bar 2 (mothballed for 2 decades) and 8 new starts in a decade (based in part of US Gov't evaluation of labor available) and anything significantly faster than that risks the sorts of dramatic cost overruns and delays that totally killed new nuke construction in the USA before. (The USA may be able to finish 10 new nukes rather than 8 in a decade, the estimates on capabilities are "fuzzy")
The most dramatic of these cancellations was TVA's $25 billion write-off (8 new nukes stopped construction, repairs stopped on 1 and 4 operating nukes shut down for 5 to 10 years for retrofits) and the WHOOPs debacle (5 new nukes started, 1 completed, $11 billion write-off).
China ordered some new nukes from Areva (French state firm) a couple of days ago. So I looked again at the first new EU nuke in Finland (same 1.6 GW EPR reactor to be sold to the Chinese) to update how things are coming along. A second EPR just started construction in France (clearly located for sales to England).
Several sources, but Wikipedia seemed to have the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
Please note that the Finnish Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto-3 has no competition for resources within the EU (except for the new French nuke that started construction a few months ago) and that the EU has a larger installed base of nuclear plants than the USA as well as more recent new nuke construction experience.
Best Hopes for New Nuclear Plants (built at a reasonable & economic pace),
Alan
Also see -India stops nuclear construction on lack of Uranium.
See also sanctions on India for violating the Nuclear Test Ban.
Heard the one about the US thinking it had secured Pakistani
nukes but just finding out that those clever guys replaced
six "real" nukes with the exact same type spheres containing
DU, which give off the same "readings" on cursory examinations?
reading malfunctions are not possible.
the first reading was probably visual, and sphere=sphere.
without a competent nuclear chemical facility to properly analyze the components it is guesswork. An alpha emitter is an alpha emitter. same for beta and gamma. All you can read is what is shooting off with a gieger counter, and im not even sure if geiger counters do different types or lump it all together!
Lack of domestic Uranium.
EPR is a new design, and at the same time builders did not have enough experience because of the years nuclear building industry was virtually non-existent.
Hence these initial delays were to be expected. It will take some years before the industry gets over the steeper part of the learning curve again.
I expect the US industry to perform better than this - the new Westinghouse design for example is just an evolutionary step from previous designs and is already tested in China and South Korea (IIRC).
I think it is meaningless to argue about sustainable rates of nuclear deployment - this will be determined by the performance of the industry itself, not by guesstimates or (even worse) - by government regulations.
Some minor disagreements on details.
...and at the same time builders did not have enough experience because of the years nuclear building industry was virtually non-existent.
An even more serious issue for the USA IMHO (to be fair, French experience a decade ago has limited use in Finland despite EU labor rules, The last Finnish reactor was finished in 1982).
Hence these initial delays were to be expected.
Then good project management would have included them in the schedule and cost estimates.
...the new Westinghouse design for example is just an evolutionary step from previous designs
Calvert Cliffs 3 will be an EPR (perhaps #5, with #1 near completion when CC 3 starts).
AFAIK, the EPR is an improved N4 (the last 4 French reactors built). Hence the new name "Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor" replacing "European Pressurized Reactor".
I think it is meaningless to argue about sustainable rates of nuclear deployment - this will be determined by the performance of the industry itself, not by guesstimates or (even worse) - by government regulations.
Yes and no. Apparently, zero US reactors will be built without gov't support (exception, finishing Watts Bar 2, perhaps Bellefonte).
So a valid question is how many new nukes should the gov't subsidize ?
And when framing a response to Peak Oil & Global Warming, one need to estimate the upper & lower bounds for the nuke contribution (thanks for your data on uprating :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
management always lowballs cost and delivery time, they sell the product and manage it. Engineers build it.
Engineers do a good job the first time through, or hopefully catch enough mistakes early enough as to remove uneconomical problems later down the road. The design/build process is iterative and few(probably nobody) gets it right the first time, to say anything of errors introduced with complex systems interacting.
where are/were the engineers in charge of (re)building iraq ?
US Army Corps of Engineers
see New Orleans levees
Best Hopes for the Dutch consultants,
Alan
The thing I hear in the media is that the americans still are not prepared to face up to the situation in NO. If you want to protect yourselves, that costs money and tough choices. Current politicians do not to go the whole 9 yards.
The other day I saw a video from a dutch prof at Delft University who was discussing the levees in NO. Basically an instructionvideo how not to build dikes. I can't find it anymore, maybe somebody else?
The thing that amazes me (and I guess a lot of other people) is that this thing could go this far. The technical guys in NO must have raised the flags a few times? And still do?
Here in the Netherlands, the discussion how to protect the country until 2100 has already started. You stop questioning GW and start fixing stuff permanently when the better part of the country can disappear.
Small joke:
- GW advocates say that sealevel can rise two feet the next 100 years. Well: that's all b*s*, the other day I went to the sea and it rises 1 meter in 4 hrs!
The most damming case of malfeasance by the US Army involves an upgraded levee (dyke) downriver of New Orleans. The design zero elevation was 1.5 to 1.7 feet (about half a meter) higher than the "as built" zero elevation.
They built 1/3rd before finding out the error. Just blazing incompetence to that point. They then decided to
1) Not go back and rebuild the levee that was too short
2) Not to build the new levee to the design height
3) Not to tell anyone.
We have asked repeatedly for an 8/29 commission (like the 9/11 commission) to find the truth, but none has come yet.
Best Hopes for Court Martials,
Alan
Still climbing out of the piles of rose petals thrown at them in 2003.
An email sent to me on Global Warming. There is a growing movement.
That was posted and discussed in the Nov. 9 DrumBeat.
There is a growing movement
Let us hope not. Just as I hope that Creation Science is not taught in Science Classes, the Great Flood in History classes, I would like the science deniers to be isolated from responsible public debate.
Best Hopes for Less Ignorance,
Alan
Then your hopes are going to be dashed as there is a growing base of scientists who have had enough of AGW theory nonsence and are starting to speak up.
How will your faith survive a refutation of AGW theory Alan?
Richard Wakefield
So YOU are a climate scientist, and unlike the vast majority of climate scientists who have studied AGW and accept it as a major cause of global climate change, YOUR brilliant research (unfortunately not published in any peer-reviewed publication) indicates that it is all "nonsence (sic)" and "faith"?
excellent work climate scientist Richard Wakefield (funny, I can't find your work on climate when I google)
I actually know and communicate with scientists who work on this subject - and sorry to burst your little denial bubble, but AGW is real - there are a few scientists who deny, but funny enough, a number are experts in other fields, just throwing their criticisms out in interviews etc. rather than publishing their work in peer-reviewed publications (insert tin-foil hat "they are being supressed!" theory here - lacking explanation for WHY a vast majority of experts in the field WANT AGW to be real - hmmmm, big $ in shutting down C02 emissions? I somehow doubt)
I know, I know, why bother with this argument? - arguing with you on this is EXACTLY like trying to explain science and evolution to creationist - but sometimes one must address
Ok McDuff - I admit I am very very confused.
I watched this scientist persuasively making the case that what we see as AGW is (a) not unusual in magnitude (it happened before in recent history), is (b) not unusual in rate (it happened faster before), and (c) has leveled off since 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Is what we are seeing just a cyclical rerun of the 1933/34 droughts and temperatures, or is this open ended?
I "get" the CO2 argument that CO2 SHOULD increase global warming. But I understand that temperatures in the US are not higher (yet?)than they were in 1934. So how does this all fit?
Please put this all in perspective for me in 10 sentences I can understand.
Francois.
This is misleading at best. 1934 was the warmest year on record for the US, but it was not the warmest for the world. In fact, the most top 10 or 20 warmest years have all been in the last 2 decades. AGW is something that affects the entire world. Cherry picking one year in one country does nothing to refute AGW. I will also note that AGW started with the industrial revolution and was well underway in 1934, but was partly counteracted by a phenomenon called "global dimming", whereby atmospheric aerosols tended to cool the earth. Warming has accelerated since clean air initiatives greatly reduced global dimming the past couple decades.
There have been no recent warming periods that rival the one we're in now. There have been no recent periods that have warmed as fast as this. Warming has not levelled off since 2001. It is, in fact, accelerating since then. That's why arctic ice is melting far faster than expected, and it is caused by CO2 levels increasing faster than expected by even worst-case models. What we are experiencing is unprecendented in human history.
If you want the real story on AGW from real climate scientists, go to Real Climate, not some guy on youtube who claims to be a scientist who makes demonstrably incorrect statements.
Thanks. This helps a lot.
Now we get to the meat that I was looking for - i.e. this "scientist on Youtube" is making incorrect statements that can be verified as true or false. I presume you mean the "leveling off" and "recent warming is business as usual" statements.
I will focus on those two issues.
Francois.
Also, go and read www.WorldClimateReport.com for reviews of science papers that have been published that does not support AGW. You won't get a ballanced view from RealClimate.
If you look at temp graphs for the world you will see we came out of the Little Ice Age in the late 1880's. The graph increases in temps until about 1940, where it falls again. Then around 1975 it starts to climb. I'd like to see the refs that the temp in the past 8 years has still increased, because the satelite data says no. There is one quick spike, but it them goes back down.
The notion that we started GW even as far back as the 1930's is not possible. Oil consumption so far has been about 990BB. But that consumption has not be all level through the last 100 years. Half that consumption has been in the most recent 40 years. This will be so for the rest of the FFs except coal that took a nose dive after the 1960s when oil replaced it for fuel. Just look at the human population alone. Since the 1930's we have increased human population FOUR TIMES at least. So our CO2 footprint up until about the 1950's have been irrelevant and hence it is not physically possible for us to have contributed to this current warming trend prior to the 1950's. As for the particulates, and that we were heading to an ice age, ask for references to support the claim.
Also note the comment that only a few years cannot make a trend. Make sure you repeat that back to AGW prophets when they claim that such and such storm is because of AGW.
Lastly, look at the tone in regards to the video. Clearly an adhominen attack on the lecturer. This is a common tactic used by people who's belief system is under attack. Divert away from the evidence and attack the messenger. Don't fall for it.
Oh, and the rest of his diatribe? Check it out yourself.
Richard Wakefield
Thanks - when I read the above post I was hoping someone would point out the obvious flaw in the US temperatures argunment.
Climate change: Aerosols heat up
Peter Pilewskie
"Solid particles suspended in the atmosphere have long played second fiddle to greenhouse gases as agents of climate change. A study of atmospheric heating over the Indian Ocean could provoke a rethink."
No comment needed.
Richard Wakefield
Actually a comment is needed.
Aerosols, with half lives of weeks and months, are recognized and their current effects (see China) may offset between a half and a third of Global Warming. Unfortunately, their warming potential lasts for centuries and their stronger cooling potential only lasts for weeks/months.
"Clean" coal does little good for cooling, what is needed is filthy belching uncontrolled pollution that makes the lives of those nearby shorter and more miserable. That helps offset GW. But as soon as one stops, within the year the cooling effect stops and the warming effect from combustion remains for centuries.
Alan
Bribe money -
Let's say that scientists who claim that global warming is happening are being bribed to say so.
Should it not also be assumed that scientists who claim global warming is not happening are also being bribed?
So what is the size of the potential pot of bribes for one group of scientists versus the other.
The real economic issue of global warming is the entire nature of the capitalist system. Oil companies, car companies, electricity companies, every company that makes something that must be plugged into a wall outlet, every company that builds anything at all using fossil fuels.
Then come all the industries that rely on breakneck consumption. The entire retail industry, the advertising industry, the commercial television industry, the financial industry, the home construction industry.
They all have a vested interest in lying about the consequences of burning fossil fuels.
What we seem to have here is trillions of dollars on one side of an argument versus a few hundred million dollars of "liberal" grant money on the other side.
So then the argument switches to what all conservative arguments eventually must: businessmen won't bribe scientists to lie because they are morally superior. So anyone who agrees with utter, absolute domination by business share in that moral superiority and infallibility. Because those on the side of God cannot sin.
Meanwhile in the real world, the financial industry fires one lying CEO per day, and all the whores of all the other industries who told us the good times could never end are beginning to sweat.
The same fatcats had an interest in lying about the benefits of reverting to brutal Victorian social Darwinism so they could get their tax cuts. Now they have to find a way to kill off a lot of us because the Earth can no longer support us.
Lie 1: revert to pre-1929 economics and all will be paradise.
Lie 2: the planet can endure the effect of those economics
Lie 3: the victims of Lies 1 & 2 are all terrorists and must be exterminated before they impose an evil caliphate on humanity.
Coming to a well-paid news channel near you.
It is not "faith", but belief in observed facts.
There is zero, NONE, scientific doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (such as freon)absorb infrared wavelengths and reemit them in all directions. This captures and reflects heat back to the earth that would have otherwise have radiated out into space, in very much the same way that a clear night sky has much greater cooling than a cloudy night sky.
This is NOT "theory" but fact indisputable (except by science deniers such as Creationists and AGW deniers).
It also clear (see readings from Mauna Loa & elsewhere) that the long term trend of CO2 in the atmosphere is ever higher (with annual spring/fall cycles) and the only reasonable explanation for such is humanity and our burning of fossil fuels.
All freon in the atmosphere in man-made. It is NOT natural. Another lesser Greenhouse Gas.
It is established fact that humanity has introduced a change into our climate, a new force. The details of this forcing are not entirely clear, and are exceedingly complex in their interactions.
For example there is a slight discrepancy between the amount of FF burned and the annual rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Does this mean that one does not cause the other ? Of course not, it means that there is a sink or other interaction going on. A second order effect.
How does additional heating interact with cloud formation and water vapor in the atmosphere ? Still ill defined altrhough progress is being made.
Burning fossil fuels also creates sulphate compounds and other short lived pollutants in the atmosphere, which appear to have cooling effects. How does this months long effect balance out the centuries long effects ? Still a matter of reasoned debate.
What would the speed and magnitude (and direction) of the world's climate absent the effects of humanity ? History appears to show that even the fast changes of the past (absent major super volcanos) were multi-century events and we appear headed for a major change in just one century (1960-2060). Still, it would be useful to know if the earth would have otherwise been stable, slightly cooling or slightly warming absent man. And the speed of past historic changes is a matter of intense research ATM (of course all done by scientists on the take).
You resort to ad hominem attacks on reputable scientists, which does nothing to discredit their work, but instead exposes only your own willful ignorance and bias.
Best Hopes for Less non-Scientific Trolling,
Alan
Ask anyone the question, ' If the world average temperature is about twenty degrees C, what would it be with a one percent warming?"
The answer is twenty three C. If most of that average comes from the polar regions, as it currently is, a lot less than one percent change in reflectivity will be most inconvenient.
Manhattan wasn't always an island. The next Atlantis?
I am a creationist. Among creationists there is a diversity of opinions on the subject of global warming.
On the issue of global warming, I agree with pretty much everything Alan said. The subject is depressing to me. I hate to read about melting glaciers, the threat to certain species, etc. Even here in Houston just over the time I've lived here it seems like winters are warmer than they used to be.
I do wish, though, that the subject had not become so political. It's difficult to ask a question about global warming without getting flamed. Here on TOD one is likely to get flamed by the "left", so to speak, but it is also true on more conservative web sites, which are likely to flame you from the other direction. I've had a few questions and just swallowed them, because it wasn't worth the grief.
And that is why the dogmatic postion must be challenged, please post your questions. No one should be afraid to ask questions.
BTW, my paper was on Robert Gentry's Polonium Halos. I'm sure you would know about it.
Richard Wakefield
Yes. Dr. Gentry's scientific discovery of poloniun halos (which has been published in scientific journals) really does present the question: How could these halos exist if the earth was a molten mass that cooled down over time? Either the earth never was a molten mass, or granite can be reproduced in a laboratory, and the halos were artifically injected as part of a global conspiracy of creationists.
There is absolutely no evidence that polonium isotope decay caused the halos Gentry found in the rocks. They could have been caused by several other isotopes. In fact they may not have been caused by radioactive decay at all.
This really dumb creationist theory has been debunked every way from Sunday. However because it sounds very complicated and scientific, creationists have seized upon it and keep making the same old really dumb arguments over and over.
Read this refution of Gentry's silly theory. And after you have read it I can give you many, many other refutations written by different scientists. After all such really dumb theories are so easily refuted it is like shooting ducks on a pond.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Ron Patterson
No amount of counterlogic can have an impact on someone so predisposed to a belief that they're willing to bend their whole world-view around a few anecdotal bits of data.
Face it: If 99% of the world's recognized experts on AGW can be so handily dismissed by Mr. Wakefield, what chance do you have of changing his mind?
See. classic ad hominen attack. You are trying to make it appear that me, a lowly nothing, is taking on the giants of the scientific world. Hence I MUST be wrong.
Have a look at some other scientists in the field who do not accept the theory of AGW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfA5nFnTH_s
Stop the personal attacks and deal with the evidence, as you only deminish your own position.
Richard Wakefield
You have posted ad hominen attacks at the start of this thread.
Thus, by the ad hoc rules of debate here at TOD (IMVHO), you are not immune to them.
Alan
Despite what your apparent anti-academic persecution complex might tell you, that's not what he's saying.
He's not saying anything about you being unqualified (although you are). He's not saying anything about the strength of the arguments you present (feeble). He's saying that your mind is so closed on this subject that it's useless trying to argue with you, as you'll just ignore anything that doesn't match your preconceived belief (seems the case).
So quit your whining about the big, mean academics and their big, mean conspiracy. People have looked at your argument and found it lacking. Continually harping on the same inadequate argument won't do a thing except make you look like a zealot. You want to convince people? Find better evidence.
If I misunderstood the post then I appologize.
Since all the references I present are just sluffed off out of hand, then we are going to have to wait and see what actually unfolds arn't we.
Richard Wakefield
then we are going to have to wait and see
That is the public policy disaster that will quite possibly dwarf our current "do little or nothing" public policy on energy.
That is the precise goal of you and other GW deniers, do nothing and wait and see.
Alan
That is the precise goal of you and other GW deniers, do nothing and wait and see.
Funny thing - I don't see the 'do nothing and wait' crowd state what they will do if wrong.
I watched the video you kept pimping.
I explained, in detail, why it wasn't convincing.
That you don't want to accept that is your problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo
Note who's at the end in the refs.
Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
Wakefield, J. R., 1988, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery,'" Journal of Geological Education, v. 36, p. 161-175.
Then read my paper
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
Richard Wakefield
Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?
This question assumes that all creationists believe what is discussed in the video link. Such an assertion is not scientific, but prejudice.
oh god that was funny.
I think questions are, per se, reasonably treated on TOD. Often they will provoke a long intellectual description.
It is conclusions (Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'). ad hominem attacks (Some dastardly scientists... environmental wackos...) and assertions of fact contrary to actual observations (an illusion of rapid global warming..) that result in flaming.
Best Hopes for Honest Questions,
Alan
I disagree with this POV Allan. Recently a real GW scientist came to this board and tried to post. He said he was on the AGW side, but had changed his mind and didn't think the evidence was a solid as claimed. This man was insulted, told to go back to school, and more.
No this board is not tolerant of opposing GW views imo.
Anyone who claims our understanding of any complex natural system is near complete is kidding themselves. I don't recall the thread but was s/he dismissed because his/her arguments were flawed, or just for raising the issue?
He explained his reasoning and gave his credentials, he was then summarily attacked, and he has never been back that I know of.
My comment was in regard to questions. As to assertions, The Oil Drum is a meatgrinder.
Some people by temperament cannot deal with this. Many others (and much more commonly in my experience) do not have the intellectual support & framework to deal with the rigorous & rough analysis that is common here.
Statements of credentials are of secondary importance, appeal to authority (i.e. I am the authority) are of minimal value here.
Euan Mearns has characterized almost every reservoir in the North Sea, and would be an authority on characterizing Ghawar. Yet he and Stuart Staniford (just a PhD in Physics & without specific oil experience) and others had an epic fact based analytical debate that resulted in a close (perhaps 5% delta) merging of estimates. My vague impression is that Euan moved slightly more than Stuart towards this consensus.
Perhaps due to temperament, due to time constraints or due to the intellectual weakness of his position, he did not stay and debate the merits. So be it.
I learned nothing from him (in fact vaguely remember him at all) and any statement he made had zero effect on my thinking and personal analysis.
Alan
My god have you ever been to a scientific conference ?
The oil drum is civil compared to real scientist.
The human part of science is 90% ego tempered barely by the scientific method which trundles towards the truth. I loved the argument part of science its incredibly intense. To say a scientist was driven off by comments on the oil drum ?
Yeah right.
Then you do not understand what a theory is. The facts you like to show I have no problem with (those facts that are correct, some have shown not to be). I accept this evidence (some with a grain of salt, as it appears temp seems to have leveled off this past 8 years, what that means either way is unknowable).
But what I, and many others who are scientists, disagree with is AGW theory (the explanation employed to explain what this data means), as well as many bits of evidence that appears to be ignored or sloughed off by those who support AGW theory. I can agree with the facts, but not the theory.
Any respectable scientist must always be skeptical of all theories in science. And the reason is theories have a tendency to change as new evidence emerges. I'm old enough to remember when plate tectonic theory was trying to make a break through. All the same lines of attacks and dogmatic stances you guys are doing now with AGW theory were just as voiceful and forceful that the continents did not move. It took a small team of 4 geologists who discovered the magnetic anomalies on the sea floor to permanently shatter the fixed continent people. Reputations were destroyed then too. (BTW, G. Brent Dalrymple of the USGS was one of those 4. He was my main editor when I published my paper in 1988).
Thus, what you guys are doing, by being so dogmatic and forceful that AGW IS FACT are espousing a faith position. Because NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS SO FIRM, nothing. The only healthy position in science is the one that accepts all the evidence, does not just off the cuff reject what you don't like, and remains skeptical about the theories used to explain the evidence.
I will ask again that you check out the reviews in www.worldclimatereport.com. Don't just reject them as being funded by Big Oil, look at the EVIDENCE that is presented. Just as I look at whatever evidence you present (such as satellite sea level change rates which did not support AGW theory at all. It’s inconclusive, too short a time frame).
Finally, when people get so emotional at being challenged over a position they hold to so dearly, to the point of ridiculing the person presenting the challenging information, then they have a serious credibility problem. You don’t see me calling any one names or challenging their intellect. I don’t need to as I stick to the evidence.
Richard Wakefield
It is fair to say that historic and current AGW is a fact. We can measure the parameters, and can calculate the impact quite precisely.
What is not fact, are the projections of future climate made using past AGW as a model. These projections make certain assumptions, and are uncertain, in either direction. The future could be a lot worse than the IPCC predict.
No. Which impacts have been "precisely" calculated to have been measured? Temperature increase? No, as that seems, I repeat SEEMS, to have leveled off the last 8 years even though CO2 is still increasing. Has the rate of sea level rise changed? No, in fact the recent satellite measurements (of only 8 years) showed an increase, but then a big decrease back again. Even the researchers themselves say they can’t differentiate the data from natural variations. Weathers patterns? Which ones? The hurricane season seems to have been a prediction flop 2 years in a row. Violent storms? No, seems the rate and intensity of storm in Europe has been constant for the past 5000 years (see worldclimatereport). So what does that leave you?
Or it could be a LOT better! How do you know? You are taking the pessimistic view a priori . A truly objective answer to that would be “We really have no clue what the future will be due to changes in climate. None whatsoever. It may be bad, it may be good, it may be both depending on where you are. What we do know is that the future almost always surprises us.” That’s the proper response.
Richard Wakefield
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/oct/glob-jan-oct-pg.gif
Looking at this data, I don't really see where global land and ocean temps can be said to have leveled off over the past 8 years. In any case, that wouldn't be much of a time frame to be looking at, as Prof. Carter himself would say. What I see with my layperson's eye and understanding in the data at the link above is that the ocean's ability to absorb the added C02 and heat is perhaps maxing out - there's your 'leveling' - but that land temps are ramping up at an accelerating rate as a result.
What PC fails to address in his look at the long record is that CO2 levels are already above anything experienced during the ice-core record, and we've already committed to pushing them far higher. As others here have said already, the physics on that is simple - heat will be retained in the atmosphere for longer than it otherwise would. This leads to only one result - global warming.
Add in the latent heat effect at phase change of water:
Ice requires 0.5 cal/g to raise it by 1°C for temperatures ranging from -40°C to 0°C.
Phase change ice to water at 0°C =80 cal/g (heat of fusion)
Water from 0°C to 100°C requires 1 cal/g to raise by 1°C.
So that Arctic ice has been up there, absorbing heat, warming up toward the melting point, and then REALLY absorbing heat - 160x more - to melt, as it did in huge quantity this summer. So thereafter, the same amount of incoming heat will warm up the water and surrounding atmosphere 80x faster than at phase change... Talk about your positive feedback loop. It was only upon getting my head fully around this that I really grokked the climate flipping between ice ages and warm periods that, yes, has happened in the past, but that, yes, we are causing this time around. As PC points out, were it not for our influence, the Holocene would be descending into the next ice age as we speak. But not now, thanks to US!
Clifman,
where is your evidence that surface heat melted the ice in the Artic. Where is your evidence of what did melt the ice this year. Is that what you are saying.
Please, just for kicks, what would be the amount of surface temperature/heat needed, compute to. To melt that much ice using air temperature would require a very high temperature, that I don't think happened from memory. Now does that match what the temperature was on the surface by recorded data.
I know the evidence that was recently (and quietly) put out by NASA said "IT WAS NOT AGW". You are fitting observations to fit your theory. Which is incorrect. Winds and changes in the Salinity of the ocean water and currents caused the great melt this past year. NASA said this, and also said that as much as people wish to point their finger at this as a AGW event, it IS NOT. I have posted this link several times. google NASA artic ice melt 2007 you should find it.
Just googled it, read it.
You read it again.
Ditto.
It doesn't contradict climate change theory.
What do you mean, where is your quote or link to your position and claim
here is what they said in brief:
A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.
“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
In simpler terms, polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would. Sea ice can easily be wind driven."
Now, if you wish to argue that wind currents and sea currents and salinity were directly effected by CO2 and could only work in one section please show it. Or what is your reasoning besides a claim.
The researchers said in the release that this could not be laid at the hands of GW, which these researchers are part of that group.
Where are you getting I should read it again, its appears to be you that does not read properly, if not, where is it in the release. Oh, if you can find it, seems to be buried for some reason in google ;)
The QuikScat study was published in the GRL on 4 October. (I haven't read it yet, but will do so soon.) The study looked at the extent of perennial sea-ice in March, so it says little about the minimum extent which was later seen in September. The data for sea-ice shows variation year-to-year and one year does not make a trend. However, the longer trend in sea-ice shows that it is headed down.
And, yes, a case has been made that some of the recent decline in Arctic sea-ice is due to changes in currents, such as, an increased flow from the North Pacific into the Arctic Ocean. I doubt that one can say yet which has the most impact on the rapid decline in sea-ice, but, given that all these variables are connected, the changes we are seeing may be the result of AGW. What if those winds return to patterns more representative of those in previous years, yet the sea-ice continues to decline? We won't know an answer to that until it happens, or until all the sea-ice is gone.
E. Swanson
Bear in mind that the actual measurements of sea ice in the Arctic has only been for the past 60-70 years. Does that make a trend? If a natural cycle is hundreds of years long, then no this cannot be a trend either. If the natural cycle is 1000's of years then this last 60 years is just a blip.
That's the problem with any and all of these so-called "trends" that are used to support AGW theory.
Let me ask a simple question that requires a simple answer. How you answer, all of you, will determine which camp you are in.
Is it POSSIBLE that what we are measuring is a totally natural set of fluctuations in climate change and that our emissions of CO2 have none or almost no effect? The link only APPEARS to be there, when there could very well be no link at all. I know what the IPCC said, but step back from that politically driven body and answer the question. Doesn’t matter the percent some group applies as the probability. Is it POSSIBLE there is no link?
If your answer is YES, then AGW is a THEORY not a fact and as time goes on, one of two things will happen: 1) the disconnect between our CO2 and climate change takes place and AGW theory is discredited. Or 2) the dance between CO2 and climate change continues and AGW theory is maintained, but still only as a theory, never a fact. Regardless of these 2 outcomes, if you say Yes to the question, then this means you MUST look at all the evidence, including that which does not support AGW theory. All "will be" future predictions must stop because you have no way of knowing for a fact that your predictions will come true. And you STOP ad hominem attacks against me or anyone else who wants to expose the flaws in AGW theory. As we do so, not for any personal gain, but for the INTEGRETY OF SCIENCE. In the long run I'm actually doing all of you a favour.
If you say NO to the question then you have left the realm of science and are clearly in the realm of dogmatic faith based belief. Hence you could be written off and ignored. Though I like to think that most people have enough decency, enough curiosity, to at least WANT to look at alternative evidence.
So look in the mirror and ask yourself which camp you want to belong with. I did that long ago and will ALWAYS stay with the evidence, regardless.
Richard Wakefield
Bear in mind that the actual measurements of sea ice in the Arctic has only been for the past 60-70 years.
Wrong.
It is my understanding (from Icelanders with PhDs) that they have observations of sea ice on their coast going back 1,000 years. Sea ice is at an all time minimum. I have not personally seen the data.
I was also asked several times in Iceland if it was true that there were really Americans that did not believe in Global Warming. (One time was in the Faculty Lounge at the University of Iceland).
The effects are many and varied there.
One interesting case is the recent flowering, for the first time of an extremely rare tree in Iceland. All known trees of this species appear to have been started by seeds brought by birds and then vegetatively propagated from a random start point. One such cluster appears to be about 5,000 years old (very roughly). There is no evidence whatsoever of seed borne propagation of this tree since the last ice age.
This is strongly suggestive that Iceland has never been this warm before since the last Ice Age.
Alan
In the long run I'm actually doing all of you a favour.
Not IMO. You have wasted much of my time trying to do damage control for poorly developed and thought out concepts of yours, based on faulty evidence.
You are so often wrong in your assertions (do a search for wrong in this thread) and I have failed to post several other faulty assertions of yours.
I would rather work on mitigation efforts but I also feel a duty not to leave error unchallenged.
Alan
I entered your search criteria exactly.
First article presents data of interest.
Nothing that denies or precludes GW.
All of the hundreds of other NASA docs that come
up on search are GW GW GW GW.
Learn to read.
Yes, thanks. I read it and I understood it. This contradicts climate change theory how? It doesn't.
Here, old hippie, and NZ. Because they say it doesn't fit.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
Where do you get they say its GW from that. "decadal in nature rather than trends caused by global warming.
Pretty plain what he thinks, so if you can prove him wrong then lets see the evidence. Which I notice you have not given Old hippie, but you seem to think your opinion or wish will suffice as evidence. Telling me to learn to read in the same breath. Sounds like troll debunking behavior to me.
The doc you are linking now is not what came up on your
original suggested search.
The new doc you introduce at this late stage is not
directly addressing the main issues on this thread. Can
secondary and tertiary phenomena be found in the Arctic
that do not directly connect to GW? Sure.
You are making up crap, yes crap, as you go along and
yes you are a troll.
Just out of curiousity concerning deniers I've looked
really a lot of the links tossed out in this thread.
All garbage. It only perplexes me that so many here take
you and wakefield seriously. If you follow the links
there is nothing there.
Again, there is no evidence that is contradictory to GW in that article. Surprise, surprise, it turns out the ecosystem is a complex system of interacting forces (as if anyone thought otherwise), which we don't model precisely. That doesn't disprove the idea that anthropologic CO2 level increases are affecting the environment and causing - whether directly or indirectly - a change in global temperatures. Here is another excert from your link:
"The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic."
Show me something that actually contradicts the idea of AGW.
You are correct, I don't see anything that directly makes this article contradict AGW, nor support it either. The authors do make a link to global warming with:
We will have to wait to see if that trend actually happens. But even if it does, that is still not the issue.
I don't deny the planet is warming, temperature being more moderated with an average that is going up. The evidence is very clear this is happening over the long term. This could very well be the continuation of emerging from the last Little Ice Age. If that is true, then our CO2 emissions could be nothing more than piggybacking on that already increasing temp (including intensifying it). If that is the case it would be near impossible to tease that out and know for sure we are the SOLE cause, regardless of the 90% "consensus." (Scientific consensus has been wrong before.) Hence the only SAFE place to be is skeptical of the human causation from CO2.
Richard Wakefield
Hence the only SAFE place to be is skeptical of the human causation from CO2
Safe in what sense ? In some hypothetical ivory tower intellectual sense (of which you are not a tenured faculty member BTW) or in the REAL WORLD ?
In the real world that we occupy and those after us will occupy, the only SAFE place is a massive reduction of GHG !
If that is the case it would be near impossible to tease that out and know for sure we are the SOLE cause
Have you been asleep ?
The IPCC did NOT say humanity was the sole cause. From memory, the modifier was humanity was the "predominant" cause of GW (with over 90% probability).
As I and I daresay a majority of other informed and concerned citizens agree, there is a definite chance that there is a natural warming trend that is being accelerated significantly by human activity (your beloved Ontario coal plants).
If the opposite is true (also possible) that, absent humans, the climate would be cooling now and we are overwhelming it with GHG, then that is VERY good news ! Relatively modest (say -2/3rds) reductions in GHG would dramatically slow the warming trend (since we are "swimming against the tide"). Disaster averted !
But if we are in a warming trend and we are pouring gasoline on the fire of AGW + nonAGW, our only hope to minimize disaster by eliminating ALL new GHG emissions as quickly as possible !
Slow climate change is bad, but can be adapted to at a cost. Rapid climate change happens too quickly for humans & nature to adapt to and will be a disaster. A disaster likely dwarfing Peak Oil (and I am VERY concerned about Peak Oil).
So will you join us and start rabidly encouraging new wind turbines (short term), new nuclear reactors (long term) and more conservation (short & long term) such as Toronto's Light Rail plans, more insulation and more ground loop heat pumps ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Scientifically safe means being skeptical of all theories, having no dogmatic position on anything, and leaving opinions out of it completely.
My coal plants are not beloved, the currently provide vital cheep electrical power which is why the Liberal (Kyoto loving) government did not shut them down as promised, and won't for some time to come.
Massive reductions in GHG will cost millions of jobs. Closing down steel mills in Canada just to import steel from China makes no sence. Means we emit CO2 by proxy.
Doesn't matter what IPCC says, the general public creates their own myth about what the IPCC says. Examples abound, including that most people percieve the 90% as we are 90% of the total cause. That's how the environmentalist groups play it to the public. It's a FACT as noted by people here. Well, it's not. It's a theory.
I'll only endorse what works, and what will prepare people for life after oil. That means no CO2 sequestering, no carbon trading system. WT where they work more efficiently, more nuke plants, and definitely push for GSHP.
The only light rail planned for Toronto that I know of is the one from down town to the airport along the existing CN/CP line. In a post carbon era it won't be of much value if there's no planes flying. High speed lines from Chicago to Montrial via Toronto have been suggested but the problem is the trackage is not designed for it and would have to be completely relaid. Abandoned as too expensive.
Richard Wakefield
Or it could be a LOT better! How do you know? You are taking the pessimistic view a priori.
Change is a priori bad, and the faster it changes the worst it is. We have developed a civilization (including agriculture & population patterns) based upon a certain climate & climatic patterns.
This embedded infrastructure (including population, agricultural practices) is optimized for "as is". Any change is suboptimal.
Slow climatic change, slower than changes in infrastructure and population shifts, can be adapted to at reasonable cost. New infrastructure and where people live (and how many children they have) has a chance to adapt without excessive waste and suffering.
Increasing global temperatures at the rate of + or - 0.25 C/century might be the slow change I am talking about (especially if it could be forecasted).
Alan
Hmmm. Let's see. Warmer winter weather, longer growing season, rainer in the midwest states and Arizona area. Those are changes that would be benificial. So your a priori notion is wrong and an opinion only. Good or bad can be relative terms dependant upon who it's good or bad for. Example, the complete crashing of human civilization, though bad for the people who have to live, and die, through that event would ultimately be good for the rest of the biota.
So no, saying the the future WILL BE worse is a politically motivated opinion that is not supported by evidence. Are you omni-knowledgable and know what the future WILL bring?
If it's adaption for our civilization, then people should stop building that civilization in harm's way. No more Los Angeles, No more New Orliens. Get everyone out of places that have the threat of massive civilization damage from other causes than GW.
We live in a world that is dangerous, in the long run you live with it.
Richard Wakefield
rainer in the midwest states and Arizona area. Those are changes that would be benificial
Wrong. Increased rains in the MidWest would likely result in more crop failures due to delayed planting and harvesting due to muddy fields and higher humidity promoting more mold and other plant diseases.
I can speak from personal experience that the drainage system of Phoenix AZ is undersized for the current rainfalls. More rain would likely result in massive flooding and significant erosion, plus some issues with salt control.
And 4 million Americans moved to Phoenix to enjoy the climate there. Said climate would be absolutely ruined by more rain. More pollen, much more humidity, less sun, etc. No reason for Canadians to come there in the winter.
But at least one GW model has less rainfall across the "Cotton Belt", from mid-California to South Carolina but significantly more (50+% more) rain in Canada and the rain would be more intense (more floods).
In the long run you live with it
Wrong. In the long run you die. And civilization collapses
The best way to postpone both is to minimize trauma, like Global Warming and, to a lessor extent, the negative effects of post-Peak Oil.
As for moving out of harm's way, you seem to have chosen to have moved into an even more auto dependent location, further to drive, as your response to Peak Oil.
Alan
Alan, you like to twist what I say don't you. I'm saying it's POSSIBLE that climate change could result in things being better. You categorically claim any change is bad.
Again, you twisted what I said. My over all energy use has dropped by half or more (according to the drop in money spent on energy since moving). I can now grow some of my own food, and a greenhouse to grow in the winter. I now exclusively work from home instead of the 3 hours drive every day I used to do. Driving my wife now is shorter than the drive she used to do by herself (40mns vs 20mns). So how is that not better? Stop twisting my position.
Richard Wakefield
I retract my statement about your commuting.
Alan
You protest:
Alan, you like to twist what I say don't you. I'm saying it's POSSIBLE that climate change could result in things being better.
No where in the quoted post about beneficial rains, etc from GW do you use the word "Possible", despite your highlihting it n your protest. It is just a couple of posts above for anyone that wants to confirm this. The relevant passage that you wrote was:
Those are changes that would be beneficial.
No "possible". No twisting your words.
Alan
Too wet in the spring, too wet in the fall, and we get very moody corn. What is ideal is a nice dry spring until the crop is in, a big shot of rain, then 2" twenty four hour soakers every few weeks through the summer, and a nice, dry fall.
We've had a shot of possible GW effect back in 1993 - all of Iowa was a shallow inland sea. We don't want things much different and big swings are not welcome ...
Okay, so it's only waddling and quacking and showing ducklike tendencies. When hooves appear we can go back to burning up the carbon as if there isn't any tomorrow. As yet I don't feel behooved to consider that adding CO2 doesn't do in nature what it does in a 'test tube' situation.
In my youth we would refer to the coldest time of the year as 'forty below'; the 'best' it can seem to muster now is about thirty. I wonder why? How much waddling and quacking do you need before you make a prudent choice about the odds? What's the lead time?
It seems as though the faith position is not the one taken by the majority of the scientific community.
"When hooves appear we can go back to burning up the carbon as if there isn't any tomorrow." Especially if it turns red grows horns and carries a pitchfork,even though it's still quaking like a duck. It's very American to have a devil may care attitude about the future. Wow, as for Richard's comments there is no other way to classify them other than as those of an extreme denier. There are so many logical fallacies in his arguments that it's difficult to even begin to address them.
Just curious, I wonder if he has homeowner's insurance on his house and would that be because he is an a priori pessimist and thinks his house will burn down in the near future?
You don’t see me calling any one names or challenging their intellect.
Yes I do !
Alan
This is classic denier spin, the skeptical camp is shrinking if anything. A recent survey of skeptics showed that most accepted there has been warming, and also that humans are at least partly responsible.
The only contribution of skeptics is a lot of nitpicking, which has actually helped make the AGW theory more solid. There is no counter theory to AGW, so in the literal sense skeptic "science" is denial, usually phrased as "I can't disprove it, I just don't believe it".
Science needs skeptics, but it needs good skeptics, and most AGW skeptics are very poor ones. They keep bringing up talking points which have been debunked many times over.
Oddly, there is a pretty big hole in the IPCC projections which no skeptic seems to have taken up.
Really???? Then you are in for a surprise. Those now coming forth are scientists from climatology and other related fields. And the alternative theory to AGW theory is that this is just normal flucuations in over all long term climate patterns. So there is a just as valid a theory that explains the same dataset.
Watch these videos, 4 parts of the same lecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
What will be interesting is your reaction to that lecture.
"He can't be right because AGW Theory is a fact!"
or
"Gee, isn't that interesting. Seems some things do not indeed fit AGW theory. Maybe there is a problem with it."
Which quote will you fall in with? One is dogma, one is skeptical. Which is which?
Richard Wakefield
It is not a valid counter theory because it has not identified the source for these natural variations, and has not been able to model the measured warming.
Indeed, the reason for suspecting an anthropogenic influence is because scientists were unable to explain the data purely in terms of natural variation.
So what? Just because the previous understandings does not take into account certain variations and evidence does not mean that the new theory is right either. It's just an equally competing theory. You must admit that AGW theory has serious problems. But for some reason those problems doesn't stop AGW theory from being a fact (which is scientifically false to begin with). Again, I urge everyone who want's a balanced view to read the reviews in www.worldclimatereport.com.
And, you did not comment on the lecture. I'd be interested in that because this person does indeed review this whole "anomolous" data that only AGW theory is supposed to explain.
Richard Wakefield
when you purpose a new theory to a phenomenon it should do two things.
1.model the phenomenon better then the previous one.
2.show how the previous one was flawed.
the variation one does neither.
Or the old theory is still valid with modifications to accommodate the new evidence. I'm not proposing any new theory, neither is any AGW skeptic. The choice between the two competing theories is: Is the current change in climate human caused or just normal fluctuations?
That's the two.
Richard Wakefield
I'm satisfied that I have taken a sufficient sample of skeptical opinions to conclude that either they are trivial criticisms that are not germane, or they are fundamentally flawed. I have also seen most of the criticisms leveled at AGW are just recycled old ones.
I do not believe in balance if that means giving creationists equal time with science. Most skeptical climate scientists do actually accept the basic premise of AGW, including worldclimatereport. The remainder of the skeptics are not climate scientists, and publish "peer-reviewed research" in journals of economics, therefore I would not give them equal weight.
Over 20 years of research have gone into producing the IPCC reports, it is not likely that significant factors have been overlooked.
What Wakefield said. If you can critique the lecture it will focus the whole debate for all of us.
Francois
Exactly.
Stephen Jay Gould used to talk about how when he was a student, he protested a "continental drift" lecture. He thought it was ridiculous quackery.
Of course, these days, almost everyone accepts the idea that the continents have moved. What changed? Someone came up with a mechanism. Plate tectonics made "continental drift" acceptable, because it explained how.
False choice fallacy.
Watching the video, my first reaction is "this is sophistry; he's making emotional, rhetorical arguments, but avoiding analysis of the pertinent data".
He's remarkably lax about how he applies analysis requirements, complaining that the linear-fit curves showing recent warming are not statistically significant while 15 minutes later dismissing warming as a "failed hypothesis" because the data points since 2000 haven't shown that warming trend.
Some of his "torpedoes" to global warming boil down to "if this effect seen in the tropics over a few days applies to the entire world over decades, then it'll change their models!" That kind of rampant speculation is hardly convincing.
He's also greatly overstating the homeostatic (self-regulating) nature of the climate. Enormous changes can and have happened, and some of them are balanced relatively finely. The Gulf Stream is one example, which is very important for climate regulation by carrying heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. This conveyor belt can shut down, has done so in the past, and the effects on livability in both the Caribbean and Europe would be substantial. Google north atlantic conveyor for more information.
He does have a good point, though, that the worst over-hyping of global warming is by news media and non-scientists. That's hardly a knock against global warming, though - that kind of thing happens with just about everything, unfortunately. However, he greatly overplays that distinction; enormous numbers of well-respected climate scientists - including a good friend of mine - consider the science behind global warming to be very, very solid.
Certain? Of course not. But probable enough to be very worrying.
Based on this video, he's relying first and foremost on rhetorical technique to make his point. He's not being at all scientific in his presentation; he's simply lobbing potshots, saying "this doesn't fit" without considering wider context. Plucking factoids out of context like that is bad science.
Much of my time here on The Oil Drum is spent ripping apart shoddy arguments; I'd leave this one in tatters. Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, his presentation is simply too rhetorical, too emotional, too scattershot, and too unscientific to be convincing.
I will accept this as a valid comment provided you apply the same to Gore's film, publicly here.
Richard Wakefield
Thank you, JRWakefield, for supplying those links. I don't have a strong opinion on AGW either way (PO worries me far more), but he certainly made some sense to me. I was particularly struck by the US weather station data, where the weather stations were built on tarmac! And the computer models which failed to predict effects of el Nino. What's that old saying about computer models, Garbage In, Garbage Out, or something?
I suppose the anecdotal evidence here on the Western Atlantic is that the winters are not nearly as cold as during the 1950s-1980s. But then again, if the climate is supposed to vary anyway, perhaps we should expect that. Time, as always, will tell.
I love how somebody can post something I posted 2 days ago ... And everybody thanks. I included more than just that but meh. Go find it yourself its by far more interesting when you see all the videos combined. But then again this is what happens when you post at near midnight nobody cares :/
Ohh well at least people have seen part of what I posted days ago.
Frustrating however.
Sorry SlicerDicer, belated thanks to you if it makes you feel better : )
Oh, sorry, I didn't see it either. The credit should go to you then.
Richard Wakefield
Bob, you aroused my curiosity as to what this hole is. By the way, I’ve come to appreciate your postings on this site on AGW as some of the best and most enlightening. Keep it up.
The hole is that IPCC take no account of PO in their worst case scenarios, and assume that FF use can rise indefinitely.
James Hansen co-authored a paper which took a more realistic view on FF usage, and concluded that the worst case scenarios were unlikely.
This should be not seen as a reason for complacency, Hansen found that CO2 emissions could still reach dangerous levels if not curbed. The impact of PO could derail efforts to control emissions. Most of the ways to mitigate GW would also help deal with PO, if presented as a combined strategy it might help get more traction.
People tend to have very unsubtle, all or nothing positions on Global Warming.
Personally, I was a "believer" a few years ago, as it seemed obvious that pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere would dramaticly raise the temperature.
The I started asking questions:
1) Where does all the CO2 come from?
From coal and oil. Where does the coal and oil come from? It was laid down millions of years ago as decaying plant matter. So it all used to be in the atmosphere previously.
How hot was it back then? About 6 degrees hotter. With CO2 levels up to 2000ppm. Was there a runaway positive feedback loop then? No.
2) What are the odd that will will ever manage to find and burn enough fossil fuels to get back to 1000ppm?
If you accept the official reserves figure of about 1 trillion tonnes of coal, we have enough left to get back to 600-700ppm. What if you don't accept those figures?
3) If the warming effect of CO2 straight-line, or logarithmic? If a world with 2000ppm and no ice caps was only 6 degrees warmer, what sort of forcing relationship does this suggest?
4) If the world was 6 degrees cooler than now 50,000 years ago with a CO2 level of 190ppm, and then heated up 6 degrees BEFORE we invented the steam engine, what does this say about the relative importance of Milenkovich forcing cycles and CO2?
5) Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but is actually very important compared to water vapour? All the IPCC models showing warming of more that 1 degree rely on positive feedback from water vapour to do the heavy lifting.
If such positive feedback cycles exist, why didn't the planet turn into Venus 50 million years ago when we had no ice caps and 2000ppm in CO2?
The point is - I don't dispute any of the science. But I question the conclusions people draw from the observed scientific facts.
Hey, maybe the theory is 100% correct - but we will run out of coal after the temperature rises 1 degree.
And as for the "other greenhouse gasses" argument - fine, lets phase out Freon. Let's stop chopping down forests.
And before the flaming starts, let me say that I think we should move to solar power as soon as possible so we have something to rely on when the coal runs out. And hey, I like trees. And yes, the world is overpopulated, I'd like to see our population gradually reduced to 1 billion with lots of national parks.
And for what is is worth, I sold my car, moved closer to work and walk everywhere. So hold back on the generalisations.
My point is - it is possible to agree with 99% of a theory, and think it is a load of hot air because the other 1% happens to make all the difference. Somebody who does not agree 100% isn't necessarily denying basic physics - they may just be sceptical about the projected magnitude of the effect.
I don't need to be a scientist to point out basic flaws in logic.
My assertions are:
1) You have to find it before you can burn it.
2) You are never going to find and burn more than a small fraction of the fossil fuel that was laid down during prehistoric times
3) Thus you will never get up to anywhere near the CO2 levels of pre-historic times.
Notice I am not "denying" Global Warming. I am debating whether the effect has sufficient magnitude to cause a problem. It is disturbing when people cannot see the difference.
The basic problem with your premise is that you can put thousands of years of C02 into the atmosphere fairly quickly burning coal or oil. Overall millions of years. The problem is this is getting pulsed in pretty fast in general much faster than known mechanisms outside of large volcanic events.
What I don't quite understand to be honest is people that don't "believe" in global warming don't really have a cohesive counter argument. A theory has to explain all aspects of the situation. The only valid source for warming other than man made that even seems to have a chance of working is increased solar radiation. Its valid and credible and has been proven to not be the source of warming. The other of course is volcanic action.
Now back to the heart of the matter the problem with CO2 is how its pulsed into the atmosphere. If your in a greenhouse type phase then you will have a natural system that might have had a chance to evolve/change to a high C02 atmosphere.
Pulsing it in rapidly with most plants and animals evolved for lower levels is going to cause problems.
I'm actually more worried about the effect of increasing CO2 levels on the biosphere esp the oceans than I am about direct global warming. This combined with what we have done to diversity is setting us up for a biosphere collapse or major extinction event. My bets are this will happen well before we get the physical effects of global warming.
And this has happened.
Ok if I take a greenhouse and pump in 1200ppm of CO2 the plants are going to EXPLODE in size. Hows that for a counter argument? Or is CO2 Enrichment a scam with growing ?
Thanks come again.
By the way I can pulse the CO2 from ambient to 1200ppm without issue in a hour and the plants are not angry. So explain this please for me it should be rather simple as you said plants cant handle it. Its going to cause problems blah blah
how 'bout if you pump the co2 and increase the temp simultaneously (maybe you could flood part of the greenhouse as well) ?
Greenhouse experiments on the Icelandic birch show that it fails to properly time it's winter hardening in the presence of elevated CO2 level (450 ppm from memory). The Icelandic Forest Service anticipates loss of almost all of their native forests as CO2 levels increase. They were not able to get funding for additional experiments at lower CO2 levels,
The Icelandic birch is an apparent natural hybrid of a shrub birch & tree birch that has evolved a unique adaptation to the extremely variable Icelandic climate. At Settlement, about 98% of the trees were Icelandic birch.
Plant life is NOT so simple as it seems,
Best Hopes in not fooling with Mother Nature,
Alan
And if you take the ocean and pump in too much CO2, the plankton that form the foundation of the food chain will be unable to create their shells, due to the higher concentration of carbonic acid. Google "ocean acidification".
Ok if I take a greenhouse and pump in 1200ppm of CO2 the plants are going to EXPLODE in size.
Alas I can not find the link that showed a decrease in tree growth in an outside CO2 experiment. Trees grown in a circle, had increased CO2 in center....perhaps someone will remember it.
No it has not been "proven". You can only prove things in mathematics. The only thing you can say with certainty is that "solar APPEARS to not have enough of an effect to do what we see." Semantics? No, preciseness. Saying proven means that there will never be any future measurements that will change the premise. That’s blatantly false as there could very well be evidence uncovered in the future that could reverse that premise and put solar back into the main mechanism.
Richard Wakefield
Semantics ?
Sophistry.
We have had space based measurements (thereby eliminating atmospheric effects) of solar radiation since at least 1960. Other than the 11 year solar cycle (observations now through 4 complete cycles), solar radiation is stable.
We have had observed warming since 1960. By my standard of proof (shared by many), this proves that increased solar radiation is not causing the global warming to date.
Perhaps in 2011, solar radiation will increase and global warming will increase. In such a hypothetical, one cannot then say that future GW is not affected by increased solar radiation (I suspect that it would). It would be an analytical problem to separate the two sources of GW, solar & AGW in this hypothetical.
The public policy response to some future increased solar activity should be a crash, near panic shut-down of current emissions of GHG.
Alan
Including the deaths of tens of millions with that done who would no longer be breathing? This sounds more like a political statement than a realistic response to changing climate. Or am I now the one putting words in your mouth?
I'm curious, Alan, actually all of you who have been on my case, what your position is on the http://www.politicalcompass.org map? How many of you are far left in your political and social views who also accept AGW theory as dogma? Then one can ask if your political motivation behind your support for AGW?
I can tell you categorically mine is not because I scored almost dead center. I did the test twice with a 3 year gap between to make sure. Bascially politically/socially/economically balanced.
Richard Wakefield
I prefer not to 1) spend time on such a test and 2) tell you what the results are if I did waste time taking the linked test.
Alan
I wish all of these self-anointed experts on all science pertaining to global warming actually bothered to get an education. The variability in total solar irradiance is 0.1%. Less than 2% of the variability is for wavelengths less 250 nm, about 8% of the variability is for wavelengths near 200 nm, 10-30% is in the range 100-200 nm and by far the most variability is in the extreme ultra violet range (5-100 nm). Radiation with wavelengths below 175 nm is absorbed by the atmosphere above 100 km. The heat budget of the troposphere and stratosphere is simply not significantly affected by the variable component of solar radiation. Green house gases have vastly (several orders of magnitude) greater effects on the thermodynamics of the bulk of the atmosphere and especially the troposphere. Thankfully we do not live in orbit around an unstable star that can destroy the habitability of our planet.
No it has not been "proven". You can only prove things in mathematics
The level of proof needed varies dramatically with the proposed purpose of the information.
For public policy purposes, 90% certainty is more than enough to change public policy. And IPCC stated that there was more than 90% certainty for AGW.
Alan
No it has not been "proven". You can only prove things in mathematics.
Ok, given that metric - you can not be proven right or wrong WRT a temprature measurement.
And you can neither prove YOUR position.
So: What are you hoping to do here?
I thought I've made that clear many times over. I have posted specific points on where I stand. I'm not presenting ANY position. Only that AGW is a THEORY not a proven fact. That the healthy position in any theory is to be skeptical. I'm skeptical of ANY theory in science. There are degrees of skepticism, like I would say the likelyhood that evolutionary theory being an incorrect view of how life changes to be very low. Though the Linnean theory of classification is very high as it is essentially dead, yet those who continue to support it disagree. So AGW theory is not the only one I'm very skeptical about.
I guess my main goal is to try and tone down the "this will happen" predictions often posted here. We all agree that no one knows what the future will bring, something could quite easily come up that completely contradicts AGW theory. But it's the distain agains those of us who feel the need to challenge the dogma of AGW theory that absolutely needs challenging. I find the flames and comments highly contradictory. I post something from Wikipeida and get laughed at for doing so, yet people have posted links to Wikipedia often here and never get laughed at. So why was mine so wrong? I get accused of showing a data set that is too short to show a trend, but it's OK to show a different short data set that seems to support AGW theory! I get accused of not providing evidence (which eventually I do), but it's OK not not provide any evidence at all to the wild and outlandish statements about the dire future of this planet due to climate change. Lasty, I'm told emphatically I'm "wrong" yet that person then presents an an opinion countering my position. Opinions are not right, or wrong, they are opinions and only evidence will deturmine which is correct.
So I guess my goal is to try to bring in some balance. And not just to AGW but to PO statements too, which we here often get into different points of view. Recall the one on population.
Richard Wakefield
Don't have time to go in depth but I will address the water vapor point - yes, water vapor is a GHG, and in fact 98% of the total, but it reaches equilibrium in hours to weeks while CO2 takes much longer.
We have a radiative forcing of about 4.0 watts/M^2 and about half of that gets reflected back by sulfate aerosols, mostly from human combustion of sulfur laden fuels. That is the heart of the whole AGW problem ...
Those are all good questions, asked intelligently. You, and others who are interested deserve coherent answers. Finding rigorous answers to all of them would probably require the help of experts in 4 or 5 different fields.
I have studied some of these questions in depth. Here is what I am reasonably certain of:
"1) 1) Where does all the CO2 come from?
From coal and oil. Where does the coal and oil come from? It was laid down millions of years ago as decaying plant matter. So it all used to be in the atmosphere previously.
How hot was it back then?..."
The sun has gradually increased in luminosity (energy output) over its 4.5 billion year lifespan. The extra CO2 compensated for the lower solar output. The best estimates of past CO2 suggest it was far higher in the past (say, 500 million years ago), on average, but temps were roughly similar.
Plus, the coal was formed over about half a billion years. It was never all in the atmosphere at once. It accumulated so slowly that natural sources replaced it as it was sequestered. There are natural geochemical reactions that recycle the carbon through the rocks, subduction into the mantle, and back out through volcanoes. These keep CO2 in equilibrium, on average.
"2)What are the odd that {we} will ever manage to find and burn enough fossil fuels to get back to 1000ppm?"
There are a huge amount of hydrocarbons in the sedimentary rocks of the Earth. Fortunately, only a tiny fraction is economical to extract with current technology. At the other extreme, if we have a crash program to develop the technology to convert all the coal and shale oil and every other carbon-rich sedimentary rock to liquid fuels (because we believed the AGW-deniers), there is enough CO2 sequestered in hydrocarbons to consume all oxygen in the atmosphere (ie CO2 = 200,000ppm). Of course that is not going to happen since the vast majority of the hydrocarbons are deeply EROEI-negative.
But better technology makes more and more carbon available at positive EROEI. Estimating how much carbon we will be able to get out by, say, 2200, with increasing technology and increasing demand for fuel... that's tricky. The CO2 we put in the air now will take 1000+ years to be re-absorbed by geology, and the warming and feedbacks it produces won't be fully felt for at least 800 years.
"3) If the warming effect of CO2 straight-line, or logarithmic? "
The effect is logorithmic. Each 100ppm has a smaller and smaller effect. Each DOUBLING has an equal effect.
"If a world with 2000ppm and no ice caps was only 6 degrees warmer, what sort of forcing relationship does this suggest?"
This question is not meaningful without context - like the rate of warming, the positive and negative feedbacks that apply, the initial conditions, etc.
The best way to answer this question, and to address the idea that warming is not really all that bad, is to look at the worst previous Global Warming examples from geologic history. This would take a very long post to cover in detail, but I'll give the short answer and let you confirm the details with further research...
... At the Permian-Triassic boundary, it is very possible that a 6-10 degC warming from volcanic CO2 kicked off a runaway feedback loop from ocean sediment methane clathrates melting, releasing huge amounts of powerful greenhouse gases and toxic hydrogen sulfide, producing ANOTHER 20-30 degC warming that basically killed every living thing bigger except fungus and sulfur-reducing bacteria on almost the entire Earth, except for a few isolated pockets (maybe mountaintops?) that repopulated the planet after a 10 million year recovery.
Also look up the PETM.
Which leads to the next question...
"If such positive feedback cycles exist, why didn't the planet turn into Venus 50 million years ago when we had no ice caps and 2000ppm in CO2?"
Positive GHG feedbacks cannot continue once their source is exhausted. After all the methane clathrates release all their methane, the feedback loop stops, no more increase in temp is possible (from that source).
Water vapor cannot form a positive feedback loop because the residence time is too short. An excess of water vapor cannot warm up the global temp fast enough to force more water to evaporate before the first pulse of vapor condenses into clouds and rains out.
Venus is a far different place in some important ways - almost no rotation, for example.
I hope that adds some light and not heat to your understanding ;)
The largest sequestering of atmospheric CO2 is carbonate rock formations. CO2 disolved in rain water which falls and forms the carbonate rock. One of the causes of the latest CO2 drop to the current low is the formation of the Himalayas when India collided with Asia. That changed the weather patterns forcing rain to fall before getting inland. That increase in rain fall disolved more CO2 reducing it's percent in the atmosphere.
Richard Wakefield
That increase in rain fall dissolved more CO2 reducing it's percent in the atmosphere
I see several fallacies in that statement and little science to support that assertion.
Alan
Gee, Alan is everything I post here a lie to you? Now I have to go and get that reference...
Richard Wakefield
"Lie" is not the word I would use, since that involves intent as well as misstating facts.
Alan
Here they are:
http://www.rps.psu.edu/sep93/eocene.html
This when the Indian Plate first started its collision. The resulting subduction forced more CO2 causing the greenhouse effect there. Note is was A LOT of CO2 over millions of years. This is significant with our current situtation. Here we have much higher concentrations of CO2 going into the atmosphere then than the doubling the IPCC claims will trigger this current warming. Yet 50 million years ago life flourished. This is the time of the great Mammalian radiation.
Once that subduction stopped, CO2 levels went down here is a possible reason why:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7168/abs/nature06273.html
http://www.maureenraymo.com/uplift_overview.php
Now this is HIGHLY significant:
Would this also include man made CO2 emissions? It must. The issue will be the rate. Can the rains in mountains take out the CO2 as fast as we emit it? Maybe not at first, but eventually one could claim that as the CO2 levels reached a critical point that rains would indeed start to remove it just as fast. Even if that is not the case, what it does show is that eventually, once our CO2 output collapses (one way or another) that the planet will soon remove that CO2. This would make any effects of climate change not the worse case.
See, Alan, I do have references to back up my statements.
Richard Wakefield
You misstated your position that you later elaborated on.
The proposed mechanism (as I read the post) is additional chemical reactions via weathering of the exposed rock (previously not exposed as much as surface area before becoming mountains), not as you originally stated it, which quite frankly, sounded nonsensical.
Estimates I have heard are 1.000 years to remove the current CO2 via geological processes, a blink of geological time, but significant for humans.
Alan
Read this, my original statement is basically this.
http://www.maureenraymo.com/1992_Raymo_Nature.pdf
Hence I'm not lying, nor presenting a misrepresentation.
You really should add a reference so people get to see the other possible causes, including meteroite impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
25% of species survived. And not just a few "pockets". There were groups of marine vertibrates that survived. Hardley mountain top isolates.
What we have here is an example of trying to convince someone to your position by only giving them part of the answer. You only provided the mechanism of that extinction that favours your AGW dogma position, ignoring the other possibilities. This is what I find VERY frustrating.
Read the link, it provides a much better balanced view of what happened then.
Richard Wakefield
wikipedia as a reference? LOL...
YOUR dogma forces you to latch onto the first plausible sounding scenario that doesn't involve Global Warming through CO2.
A big meteorite may indeed have hit near the p-T boundary. But it cannot explain the del 13C excursions found there:
"...The Permian/Triassic boundary, the greatest extinction event of the Phanerozoic3, is also marked by a large 13C depletion4,5. New carbon isotope results from sections in the southern Alps show that this depletion did not actually represent a single event, but was a complex change that spanned perhaps a million years during the late Permian and early Triassic. These results suggest that the Permian/Triassic (P/Tr) extinction may have been in part gradual and in part 'stepwise'6,7, but was not in any case a single catastrophic event."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6154/abs/331337a0.html
A meteorite cannot explain the huge bloom of sulfur reducing bacteria found at the p-T. Nor the complete cessation of coal formation for 10 million years. Nor the layer of fossil fungus spores found worldwide that replace every other type of spore - ie, there was nothing living on the surface of the Earth that could produce spores or pollen except fungus feeding on the decaying trees.
You can find further evidence that all vegetation died on almost all of the Earth. Before land plants became established in the Silurian, almost all streams and rivers were braided, carrying huge amounts of sediments washed off the land unprotected by vegetation. After the Silurian, meandering stream deposits are found. At the p-T boundary, all streams became braided again, leaving distinctive sedimentary features in the rock record. Over the next few million years, they returned to the meandering type as vegetation reclaimed the barren land.
The list goes on and on. The p-T event was the worst dying ever. You mention that 25% of species survived, but you obviously haven't thought through what that means. How many individuals of those species survived the period of no vegetation on most of the Earth? Probably only handful of each.
But please note that this is the worst case found in geologic history. I do not think current conditions are likely to lead to a repeat, even if we dump a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The ocean circulation changes that probably led to the p-T events are not possible now.
Lesser extinction events have happened in the past, some probably caused by climate changes. Recreating one of them by artificial means seems like a bad idea. Even one of the "mild" disasters from geologic history would be really bad for humans.
Yes it is. Excellent post and virtually identical to my position. Maybe between the two of us we can get these dogmatists to at least tone down at bit and allow us the freedom to challenge their sacred cow.
Good job!
Richard Wakefield
And if those skeptical scientists contribute to our knowledge by testing alternative theories for our observations that is great.
If on the other hand, they are simply joining the political debate and aren't actively contributing in the climatology field, then their opinion is about as important as mine, (which is not very important at all).
This post seems to have generated a lot of response. I'm not sure what AGW stands for. I think AGW is 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. If not, this is a really Off Topic comment.
AGW is not like Continental Drift, which was roundly rejected by the scientific establishment, but was eventually accepted as 'scientific fact'. The big difference that I want to discuss is that AGW involves human activity as an unintended cause of GW. Nothing comparable was involved in the Continental Drift discussion. For Continental Drift, all sides agreed that the controversy was purely intellectual. Reputations would be made or lost on how the question was eventually decided, but either way civilization would persist.
Not so for AGW. If we get this wrong, there will be, at the very least, a lot of avoidable human suffering. And the clock is ticking to some deadline for reaching a decision. Because the future of humanity may be involved, all sorts of people whose opinion could, deservedly, be ignored on Continental Drift, those ignorant boobs that make up the bulk of humanity, those people rightfully can speak on AGW, because they ARE part of humanity. Those who do have a clue on AGW must not get angry or derisive.
Ask people who live along plate boundaries if plate techonics is not a problem.
You are taking the alarmist position as gosple.
And to be on topic, the threat to civilization because of oil depletion is a far far greater and more immidiate threat than AGW ever will be. Worse case prediction is by the time the effect of AGW become toxic humans could very well be emerging from a huge population decline, be in economic ruin and be at war with each other over the remaining oil supplies.
How is my alarmist prediction any less relevant than that extreme alarmism of AGW?
Welcome to a completely new and unknowable, unpredicable, future.
Richard Wakefield
oil depletion is a far far greater and more immidiate threat than AGW ever will be
Wrong.
PO is the more immediate and much smaller threat. GW is the larger, more significant and longer lasting threat.
Even if your predictions of PO come to pass, they will be less than the effects of GW.
For example, I could see (in the 85+% percentile worst case IMVHO) PO resulting in population declines of 100s of millions to billions of people and a re-ordering of civilization on a scale not seen in centuries.
I see *F A R* worse possibilities with worst case GW
Alan
.
Then you must be a god, shall we bow to the Great Alan who see all the future laid out before him?
You asked for that.
Richard Wakefield
Please note the modifier "worst case" in front of GW.
Alan
Except no one knows what the worse case is for GW. People's OPINION on the worse case all over the map. We have the Lovelock view, we have now the Hawking view (like venus), we have much more moderate views. Yours no more trumps any of these than my worst case scenario for PO (which some claim could be 95% die off)
I don't subscribe to any of them as the future is unknowable and always surprises everyone.
That's my point.
And at some point we will have to make a call as to which of the two we pour funding to, as there is no way we will be able to afford to "fix" both where they compete for funding.
Richard Wakefield
there is no way we will be able to afford to "fix" both where they compete for funding
Based upon some as yet unpublished work I have done with the Millennium Institute, the best approaches for PO & GW give the best economic results.
Specifically, using Colin Campbell's oil supply #s, the policy of a maximum push for renewable energy combined with a maximum push for electrified rail (no time to add promoting bicycling in) resulted in a 50% reduction in GHG, a 62% reduction in oil use and a 50% larger GDP after 30 years.
The numeric results of their T21-USA model support the concept that the best environmental policy is the best economic policy (also T21-North America).
PO & GW are in conflict with tar sands and CTL, but these policy choices are not as effective economically as policies that deal with both PO & GW, such as wind turbines driving electrified trains.
Best Hopes for Dealing with Both PO & GW,
Alan
One can download a limited functionality copy of either T21-USA or T21-NA from their website for personal use.
http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/
Check out the history of electric railways in Canada (I'm also a model railroader, modeling specific railroad towns in Ontario. I know many people who work for the railways here.)
Electric railways were tried here, but failed because our winters are just too brutal. Albeit that was in the times up to the 1940's, when winters here were really bad. But they still are bad enough that electric railways are not a viable option. It adds to the already increasing costs. There was a study done a while back, might be on line, would have to look for it.
Where they are in use they work well, just the weather is not kind up here. Plus the two major railways here, CN and CP just bought all new locomotives. CN has a real maintenance problem with their engines trying to keep costs down. The've even been cited by the Government for infractions in safety.
It will be really difficult and expensive here to change to electric. Not including the decades it would take to switch over. Might be a nice dream, but we should have started on it decades ago.
That said, and I have advocated before, we need to return to more railways. The 1960-1980 era decimated small branch lines in Ontario. So CP could abandon a line they would spend all kinds of money on the line for "upgrading" then complain to the government that the line was loosing vast somes of money and should be abandoned. Now those right of ways are getting hard to find being taken over by farmers and buildings.
But we are going to need those railways in the future, which means we will have to lay it all back down.
Richard Wakefield
NONSENCE? That is about the as good as it gets. Can't wait to read the peer reviewed papers you will provide as evidence, you do have them available right?
Junior,
Hate to rain on your "analysis" but Alan is willing to trash all other cities in the US of A so long as San Francisco, New York and New Orleans survive.
All 3 of those cities are on the chopping block if AGW is correct.
"Faith" for Alan would have the cities survive and therefore AGW must not be a a matter of faith, but other reasons for him to find reality to AGW.
Now that that is outta the way:
At what point Junior should government stop supporting the coastal infrastructure and just write it off as going underwater?
Also watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
John Coleman may have been a great weatherman at the Weather Channel, but those folks have been distorting the science for decades. Several times, I e-mailed them to complain when they said idiotic stuff on the air like, "the low pressure area pulled the moist air up from the Gulf of Mexico" or "the low pressure area pulled the cold air down from Canada".
The fact is that a fluid can not PULL anything, except as there is flow past another layer. From physics, gases PUSH. The only source of PULL in the atmosphere is gravity, which PULLS the air toward the surface of the Earth. It also PULLS the more dense cold air to the lowest elevation, which thus causes less dense warm and moist air to "rise". Saying the air can PULL is like saying one can stretch a rope and PUSH a car with it. It's either crazy or an intentional effort to present "weather" to scientifically illiterate people.
BTW, the Icecap site is a populated with the most vocal AGW denialist, many of whom are said to have received financial support from FF interests. They are the small but vocal minority that has been able to discredit the many serious scientists who have spent decades studying Global Climate Change. Time and time again, they have been shown to be wrong, yet, they continue to spread their distortions and outright lies.
E. Swanson
Let me remind you that AGW scientists get BILLIONS in funding. Hellova incentive to keep the dogma going. Those trying to publish papers that do not tow the party line often get refused pubication and refused funding. Hardly scientific.
Keep your faith going, as when things finally fall appart for AGW theory, it won't be me who has the credibility to loose.
Richard Wakefield
" it won't be me who has the credibility to loose."
I think you probably meant 'lose'; spelling aside, I would agree that you don't have any credibility.
"Those trying to publish papers that do not tow the party line often get refused pubication and refused funding. Hardly scientific."
evidence to support this?
or could it be that they aren't being published in peer-reviewed publications because a) their work is not up to peer review, and that after peer review there are found to be substantial problems with their work? or b)they don't bother to submit to peer-reviewed publications (this is most common that I have seen - there is a prominent French scientist [NOT a climate scientist at all] who sticks to interviews etc. - he has not attempted to publish his "research", instead relying on the mass media to "get his message out"
this idea that there is SOOOOOO much $ out there for AGW research make me laugh - as compared to what? the income at coal and oil companies and the budgets that they posses to fight AGW research? (see Exxon Mobile's efforts for an example)
I'll get you some on the weekend.
That's what Time Magazine tried to say in October, or what is September, which ever. They had to retract their position the following week because it proved to be false.
Past 20 years $18MILLION to counter AGW, same time frame $50 BILLION for AGW research. BTW, how do you explain the motives of skeptics of AGW that are not funded by anyone but who are in the field of climatology?
Richard Wakefield
$2.5B per year for the last 20 years on global warming funding? I hope you don't expect anyone to take that seriously without evidence, especially as you've been ranting about "faith".
$50B would represent half of the NSF's budget over that period of time, and I can assure you that the entire field of climatology is a tiny part of that budget. As the US accounts for about 25% of world research, the odds of $50B having been spent on all of climatology, much less the narrow sub-field of global warming, is vanishingly small.
Are you seriously claiming that before 1990 the established, tyrannical paradigm was not that humans can't cause climate change? Everything you claimi about this evil Communist-treehugger conspiracy could be applied to the previous scientific consensus. How much research was suppressed, especially at schools whose engineering departments are dependent on oil company generosity, in those years?
Oh, I see, only left-wing paradigms are enforced unfairly, because right-wing paradigms are based on the ultimate truth that God created Earth for white businessmen to rape. Like the right-wing scientific belief that whites were genetically superior, leading to defective IQ tests that confirmed exactly that belief long ago, or the right-wing scientific belief that all lifeforms on Earth were unchanging, or the right-wing ecoomic belief that the velocity of money can't change and thus a prolonged capitalist depression was impossible.
Global warming deniers are like the enemies of evolution and Galileo not just because of their method, but because their agenda is to protect the social hierarchy at all costs. Whites over blacks, men over women, morality over equality, and property owners over the environment. Every one of these beliefs have had unpaid academic propagandists, because their of need to support the lie that the existing unjust system was beneficial.
You are not a steely-eyed revolutionary out to overthrow an evil King. You are the King's henchman, and global warming is proof that the King is a homicidal, short-sighted idiot.
Good point. It's AGW that has overcome the "establishement" view. Trying to claim that AGW denial is being ignored because it "doesn't toe the party line" doesn't make sense.
This is the essence of an area of psychological study called Right-Wing Authoritarianism. You can listen to a very enlightening podcast on this subject at the website Electric Politics; in it, George Kenney interviews psychologist Bob Altemeyer.
I disagree with your premise, but partly agree with your conclusion.
To an extent it is true that there is a status quo in science which resists change. There is a very good reason for that. It ensures that change occurs due to improved science, and not due to a fad or external influence. The "party line" in science is good science. Of course, papers get rejected or research refused all the time, because they are poor scientifically.
Uniquely in science there is a great deal of kudos to be gained by published something new, but it must be sound science. Obviously if science was dogma, it would have rejected all those scientists like Einstein who made radical proposals. Science could only have got where it is today by overturning dogma.
Therefore there is a balance between radical new theories and existing theories, and the only method of change is through scientifically provable theories. We can be confident that even if science doesn't have all the answers, it will have the best answers so far.
An unfortunate aspect of climate science is the politicization of science. Good scientists like Hansen become politicians (and bad scientists) when they go on chat shows to talk about "death trains". It is impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, therefore scientific projections should always be expressed as a probability.
Now the public has been set by Ban Ki Moon and others to expect a catastrophic 6m sea level rise in 10 years, which is in the 0.1% range of probability. If anything less occurs, you can be sure skeptics will be all over it, and the science will lose credibility.
The response to skeptics or deniers must not be to get more extreme or exaggerate small possibilities, it is essential to stay within what can be predicted with confidence. Otherwise you are handing them the argument on a plate.
Thank you. A sound and accurate post. Very refreshing. Now with that in mind go and have a read at www.worldclimatereport.com on the peer reviewed scientific papers where the evidence does not support AGW theory. Stick to the evidence, and keep the politics and emotion out of it. Then come to a conclusion.
Just a bit of clarification and a quick story. My position is that I do not believe anything. I let the evidence show me what is likely to be a close view of how the universe works. I had an experience long ago that forces that on me. To never again hold a dogmatic position. In my younger days I held the belief that the universe was not created and was infinite in its age. I was so against religion that having a created universe was simply out of the question (regardless of the mode of creation, including purely natural). Then I read The First Three Minutes . It changed everything and shattered my belief system. I vowed never again will I believe anything, but stick just to the evidence.
If that makes me uncredible in anyone's mind, that's your problem not mine.
Richard Wakefield
According to Pat Michaels who runs that blog, he says he agrees with the fundamentals of AGW theory, albeit at the low end of the IPCC predictions. His group gets funding from Exxon and other energy lobbies.
This proves my point made elsewhere, even the FF funded skeptics are in agreement with the theory of AGW, if not the future projections.
That site also funny.
Funny as in pathetic.
Um, you take reading a popular science book causing you to change your mind as analogous to claiming that if you read the non-published scientific papers you can see spot the a big conspiracy? The First Three Minutes is a good popular summary of what the scientific research says, but if, for the sake of argument, it contained deliberate distortions it doesn't contain anything like the level of detail that you could spot the inconsistencies. There is a difference between documents that contain enough information to tell you what the scientific "consensus" is and those that contain enough information for critical evaluation.
I'm an academic and can critically read papers in my own field and spot where the viewpoint is carefully chosen to avoid raising a difficult issue, where the experiment done is not giving meaningful data, etc. I don't have the in-field knowledge to read climatology papers and spot flawed logic, etc. Consequently I don't indulge in armchair quarterbacking but try and take the considered opinion of those people with experience in those areas. And listening to the discussion, I can't see more than a small fraction of active researchers saying the probability that "AGW to a degree that affects humans is occurring" is small enough to be ignored. (That, to my mind is the question that's relevant for public policy: it's not "is AGW happening?" but "is AGW definitely not happening?".)
Then I assume that you read the reviews on WorldClimateReport?
All it takes is one fundamental bit of evidence to topple a theory. Add many little ones together and the theory has serious problems, especially when the predictions don't pan out. Example. Polar bears going extinct? Not according to World Wildlife Fund Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! Just another bit of evidence that does not support the alarmism of AGW theory.
BTW, it would be totally illogical for me to be swayed ONLY by one book, after reading The First Three Minutes I did a LOT of digging and reading of cosmology articles and books, uncluding a couple of university physics cources I took on the subject, just to make sure I understood it correctly. But the book was the pivotal moment.
Richard Wakefield
That link does not go to World Wildlife Fund.
It goes to nutter right wing site.
The citation to a WWF report at your link is at
best garbled.
Why is anyone responding to the troll?
Why is anyone responding to the troll?
As Alan said - incorrect statements should be challenged.
Me, I'm awaiting Junior to answer my question, for I am interested at what point society says 'Yup, all that costal buildout - its going underwater so best to stop spending on it and start spending on moving the 80% of the population inland'
Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
Richard Wakefield
My reading of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" suggests that its author--Thomas Kuhn--would take exception to this statement:
Kuhn suggests that "the party line" in science is "good" scientific endeavor that falls within the realm of the prevailing scientific paradigm. It seems to me that we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift with respect to the science of climate change. The paradigm shift requires scientists to fully accept the idea that collective human behavior can have planetary consequences. Are all scientists fully and completely open to this notion? Why would we even expect them to be? (Note that the scientists on the Manhattan Project seemed ignorant of this viewpoint. I suspect that this mindset still exists; in fact, I feel very certain that there are many scientists who either deny or ignore the interconnectedness of existence.)
As Kuhn points out, the paradigm in which we operate creates our bias against things outside of that paradigm. This is no less true for the scientist than for the milkman.
The forces in opposition to the idea of anthropogenic climate change come mostly from those people who will continue to profit from the opposite, existing view. Namely, the industrial elite and their unscruplous hirelings.
Having said that, I don't find scientific opposition to the idea to be difficult to understand. Research or theory that is outside of the prevailing paradigm will be refused or rejected. Paradigm change comes slowly. Being on the cusp of that change can be a frustrating thing for those who are ahead of the curve and fearful for those stuck in the old paradigm; they have a lot to lose.
The same can be said for peak oil.
Exactly.
As the deputy editor of JAMA once stated: "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print." - Rennie Drummond
Peer review does not achieve what most people think it does. As always, look at methodolgy and results and form your own conclusions on subjects - this is the correct way to study something (assuming you cannot study it directly yourself). The former editor of BMJ recommended this approach after years of exposure to the peer review process, its inherent flaws and the pervasive hand of corporate science.
It's important to recognize that peer review hugely improves the quality of published papers, but does not result in perfection. There are all kinds of publication venues, of varying quality, all the way down to the widely derided "publication mills" - you pay to get published, and woe to your career if someone catches one of those places on your CV.
But compare the quality of published papers to the quality of what's on the web. It ain't perfect, but it filters out 99% of the nonsense, making the signal-to-noise ratio immeasurably better. Demanding perfection from anything will just lead to disappointment, though.
"It's important to recognize that peer review hugely improves the quality of published papers,"
That is highly debatable and depends on what you mean by "quality". If you mean it improves science, then many studies suggest peer review actually encourages mediocrity and stifles scientific advancement. Issues in peer review are being raised by some organisations (particularly in medicine), but the process is still plagued by conflicts of interest, bias (preserving the status quo), risk aversion, inability to detect fraud, lack of statistical discernment, etc.
The following is similar to many comments I have read by journal editors on the subject: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s102612.htm
Evidence?
Open a random journal. Then open a random web page on the same topic. Tell me there's not a quality difference.
Absolutely. But it's still much, much better than having no process at all.
Peer review is just a filter that improves the signal-to-noise ratio of what's out there, allowing researchers (and others who are interested) to more efficiently keep up with the research in the field. There's simply not enough time to keep up with the research everyone is doing, so peer review helps make the most of what limited time researchers have.
Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's more effective than having to rely on word-of-mouth alone.
I've never gotten that impression. It's experts in a field judging the merits of work in that field, rather like is done in many other contexts, and - like everything human - is imperfect. I've never had the sense that people saw or portrayed it as "quasi-sacred", but perhaps that's because too many of the people I know are part of the process, and hence know its limitations firsthand.
Indeed, if anyone tends to treat the process as quasi-sacred, it's the people writing the reviews, and that's simply because we know how important it is that we do our best to make the filter effective, get good information out to other researchers while offering advice on how to improve lesser results. To a large extent, this filter controls scientific knowledge, so it's very, very important that those of us effecting it take it seriously and do our utmost to make it as good as possible.
Not everybody does an equally good job, of course, but the large majority of reviews I've seen have been good. Any large enough group will always have people who cause problems, so it's entirely non-surprising that there will be cases of all of the problems you mention and more. It's woefully misleading to paint that as the general state of affairs, though, and does a grave disservice to (most of) the scientists as well as to those wondering how the process works.
Your either quoting Rush Limbaugh or Sen. Inhofe.
In the real world, the ENTIRE NSF budget is only around $6 billion, and a very small fraction of that goes to AGW research.
So much for credibility.
Then you did not understand what I said. Over 20 YEARS world wide, AGW funding was around $50BIllion, as noted in Time Magazine, I'll get the ref for you.
Richard Wakefield
Wakefield,
Got a great idea. Take your concerns that you have with the conclusions with AGW theory and the science involved, put it in a concise document and email it over to the people at realclimate.org asking them to comment on it. They are much more qualified to answer your concerns than people on this board. Once you get that done let us know the outcome.
I keep asking for this, skent, but they never seem to pull themselves together to do it.
The science behind it is pretty clear for anyone with the sense to read such things ... unfortunately the science of spin is the thing most studied today in this country these days.
One has to wonder what their refuge will be if the ice cap melt last summer was truly the beginning of a nonlinear response in the region ... will they be baking, burning, boiling, drowning, etc, and eventually they stop picking nits and just squeal "its god's will"?
Since my worldview is based on evidence, if the evidence for AGW becomes more concise, less tattered by contradictory evidence, and it's predictions become reality, then I will accept it.
The question is, if AGW theory falls flat, will you be just as willing to reject it too?
And if I did put something together and send it to RealClimate do you honestly think I'll get a rational reply, or just flamed out? I read the site often. It's called being balanced. I read the other's position.
BTW, I'm about as hard core an atheist as one can get, how did Dawkins put it, 8 or 9 on his scale?
Richard Wakefield
... then I will accept it
Then, however, it will be too late to take effective action.
You are actively campaigning against wind turbines, preferring to burn coal instead for a small direct economic savings.
Your personal standards of proof are SO high that they will be meet, if ever, long after the time for effective mitigation has passed.
The IPPC represents the consensus scientific view of what proof is enough to guide public policy. From slightly vague memory they concluded that there is a greater than 90% probability that the dominant force behind Global Warming are human actions.
Absolute scientific certainty is not required for public policy changes. "Preponderance of the evidence" is more than good enough !
After your ad hominem attacks your sudden devotion to "scientific truth" lacks credibility.
And your utter ignorance of the characteristics of your own provinces electrical supply, and the public policy you urged based upon that ignorance, bespeaks of the scientific rigor and intellectual analysis that supports your positions.
Alan
Alan, you know what? Since I have REPEATEDLY stated to you directly that THIS IS NOT TRUE of my view on either wind turbines or coal use, I have to conlude that you are now lying. Please stop putting words in my mouth that are not true.
Richard Wakefield
You have stated on another thread that you have told people that wind turbines only run 20% of the time (actual capacity factor 29%) and they have agreed that WTs are not useful or worth supporting in Ontario. That is actively campaigning against wind turbines (and the most effective means of campaigning BTW, word of mouth).
You have also supported continued coal burning instead of phasing out the coal fired plants, Canada "tearing up Kyoto" so that y'all would have no obligations to even attempt to reduce carbon emissions. You are concerned and against even slightly more expensive electricity by shifting to wind from coal.
As for ad hominem attacks, you certainly "throw the first stone".
I believe that my statement fairly represents what you posted in an earlier thread. And my "reputation economics" are adequate here on TOD.
Alan
Again a complete misrepresentation of what I said. To be clear, I said if there is sufficient wind energy then go for wind power. If there is not, then we should not be trying to pretend there is. In Ontario there is insufficient wind power to justify their installations (you never did tell me at what percent output you would consider inadequate). I NEVER said that wind power should NEVER be used anywhere. Stop twisting my position. I didn't say run only 20% of the time, the report was clear, 20% average output over a year. (16-19% in the summer).
And yes, Kyoto needs to be ripped up. Unachievable. One reason: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2326/stories/20070112002310400.htm
Richard Wakefield
I didn't say run only 20% of the time, the report was clear, 20% average output over a year
From YOUR own post !!
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3272#comment-267225
In Ontario there is insufficient wind power to justify their installations (you never did tell me at what percent output you would consider inadequate)
29% capacity factor would be just fine. Nice if they could get up to US average 32%, but certainly not essential.
With Ontario's massive hydro power, I could see getting twice OPG's goal of 12% of annual total MWh as quite doable (i.e. 1/4th) with some transmission upgrades. That is Ontario could run off of nuclear, hydro and wind and emit no GHG for electrical production.
And, in your own words, your anti-wind campaign
and your opposition to Kyoto is NOT because, despite best efforts, it is unachievable, but, in your own words,
Getting off coal completely is a big mistake
I am not twisting your words.
Alan