Coal Crunch?
Posted by Luis de Sousa on January 25, 2008 - 11:00am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: coal, cold, demand, electricity, winter [list all tags]
| With oil prices receding from the nineties, the energy crisis almost seems like in recess. Almost, because elsewhere there are millions of people affected by power shortages amidst an old fashioned Winter. It reminds that the energy crisis is affecting the energy sector horizontally and showing problems in an industry that not long ago seemed like our last resort safety net. |
 Source: Al-Jazeera. |
Crossposted at the European Tribune.
In the beginning of December it came to my attention that the coming Winter might be colder than usual, during the previous month the Arctic Sea Ice area grew by almost 4 million Km2, the fastest build up ever recorded. Although still 1 million Km2 below the reference average, it meant a significant temperature drop in the Arctic. During the following days temperatures in Europe drop enough to set new energy consumption records in France and Spain. December of 2007 turned out to be the coldest month since 2000.
This colder than usual winter had already been forecast by some meteorologic agencies, but in the beginning of January an extremely acute forecast by the polemic meteorologist Piers Corbyn warned of abnormally cold temperatures for central Europe. As the month draws to a close, it is clear that such forecast was correct for everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere but central Europe.
During the first week of January temperatures as low as -15ºC were felt in Greece and Bulgaria. Some days later bitter cold and snow storms reached Central Asia with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan being affected first. At latitudes under 40º, some places of Iran recorded temperatures of -25ºC. This would result in a series of Natural Gas supply cuts that would cascade as far as Greece, as reported earlier by Heading Out.
On the 11h of January it snowed in centre Baghdad, something that probably never happened during the XX century; during the same day it would snow in the north of Saudi Arabia. This abnormal weather has perdured across Central Asia; in Afghanistan more than 300 people have already died by cold or in consequence of avalanches. The effects of this abnormal weather can be observed in this image composed from NASA's MODIS sensor:
Source: Nasa. Click for more.
Later, colder temperatures than usual visited Siberia where the electricity grid was overloaded. Record low temperatures have been registered also in North America during this week, both in the Pacific as in the Atlantic coasts. The mercury also sank in US mainland and Canada; record snowfall hit Iowa.
In recent days this cold weather has spread to the Far East, affecting first northern India and then China. It is here that the fragility of the current energy supply system is becoming visible. Al-Jazeera reports:
China is facing its worst-ever power shortage as winter weather puts pressure on dwindling coal supplies.
Officials say reserves are down to emergency levels with only enough coal to power the entire country for another eight days.
According to state media the shortage amounts to nearly 70 gigawatts, equivalent to about the entire generating capacity of the United Kingdom.
From Reuters:
As of January 22, coal stocks in 355 power plants that depend mostly on railways for supplies had dropped to 19.68 million tonnes, approaching the "caution level" of 18.9 million tonnes, just enough for 8.8 days of generation, the report said.
Coal stocks in power plants in Hubei, Guizhou, Zhejiang, Ningxia and Anhui provinces were insufficient for even three days of generation, and the number of plants with stockpiles below requirement for three days had risen to more than 60.
The Press has been pointing that this shortage is also being caused by recent government action to curb growth of illegal or unsafe mining activities. But as noted by the BBC:
The China Business News newspaper said that 70% of all coal deliveries were made by road, and that heavy snowfall and icy conditions had contributed to supply problems.
All this is happening in a country that has 7 million Coal miners. This is an industry at a scale that probably never existed, providing 80% of the electricity consumed by 1.6 billion people, building a new coal power plant every week. And still it seems to struggle when the mercury drops.
Coal prices doubled in 2007 as China became a net importer earlier in the year. And consumption will continue rising, like Fatih Birol noted:
By 2015, China and India will be importing 170 Mtce (million tonnes coal equivalent), and by 2030 they will be importing 330 Mtce.
Before criticising these imports, we should remember that in India there are 420 million people with no access to electricity. How can we tell them not to use coal, which is the cheapest way of providing electricity?
A peak in Coal production is decades away, but this recent cold weather is showing a considerable disequilibrium between demand and supply. In the future this gap can eventually be mitigated with efficiency measures, especially at the electricity generation stage, but for now the demand growth rate, not only in China but also in India, is overwhelming.
Is this a Coal Crunch?
Luís de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe
This is a facinating report. Thank you very much for taking the time to present it.
I've been really busy this winter so I haven't followed the hydrocarbon issues very closely. However, every little hill and mountain in the southern end of the San Francisco bay area are not only covered in snow, but you could see the snow falling during the day, which I don't remember in my 45 years.
I've been joking for weeks at work complaining about the lack of global warming.
Does anyone follow the status of the thermal conveyor in the Atlantic and know of any changes, dramatic or otherwise, which may also be affecting sea temperature?
Is anyone worried that it's going to be really damn hot this summer?
I don't know what to make of it all. But thanks to your report, I'm at least thinking about it again.
Thanks,
Jeff
I don't know about the Atlantic, but the Pacific switched from El Nino to La Nina conditions in June 07 - that's why we've got floods in Austalia rather that droughts.
Our droughts tend to end with floods. Not necessarily anything to do with climate change, our climate has always tended to swing to extremes.
Quite likely there is some sort of linkage to the Atlantic.
Here's a link where you can track thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic:
http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/
Just provides data, no analysis.
Maybe only 15 years or so. Future Fossil-Fuel Production uses Hubbert Linearization to estimate future coal production and finds there is only 1.3 tboe left (about the same as conventional oil). All fossil fuel production peaks in 2021. Coal production peaked in the US in 1999 on a btu basis.
This is yet another reason that oil prices will stay high despite the economic turmoil. China will very likely go back to generating significant amounts of electricity with diesel. Someone will be priced out, and it may well be Western drivers.
Energy Watch (German scientific body reporting to government) predicts coal output will peak by 2025.
However nett energy production for coal is likely to peak much sooner, the easy higher energy density coal, has been preferentially extracted.
See New Scientist 19th Jan 08, The Great Coal Hole, feature article by David Strahan (of 'The Last Oil Shock', 'Horizon' etc.) http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/mg1972639...
Man fights Nature. Nature fights back. A flooded coal mine in Queensland a day or two ago.
>
Hello Boof,
Thxs for this photo--will gravity drain the mine, or do they have to bring in some huge pumps to get this water out?
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/01/25/afx4573337.html
--------------------------------
Australia's Macarthur Coal joins string of coal miners hit by floods
-----------------------------
My question: will most of these mines be back up in a few days, or are we looking at a month or more?
If shutdown for sometime--China, and the other importers of Ozzie coal, might really be hurting soon for the coal to power their genplants and metal smelting industry.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Did a little googling to answer my own question on shutdown timeframes:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23103775-664,00.html
---------------------------
Most affected mines are transporting coal from stockpiles and port authorities at Gladstone Port, where most of the coal is shipped from, said there had not been any disruptions to operations as yet.
A spokesman for one of the worst affected mines, owned and operated by Ensham Resources, yesterday said flood waters had reached a peak on Wednesday night and had started to recede. But water was still flooding draglines, and repairs could take more than 12 months.
Ensham, which is partially owned by Japanese customers, declared force majeure on Monday.
"We're going to see some pretty prolonged disruptions here, I suspect," ANZ commodity strategist Mark Pervan said.
"Supply is going to be considerably tighter now. There are not a lot of alternative supplies so it's certainly going to be a factor in negotiations on annual contract prices."
Annual contract coal prices, which are tipped to jump almost 50 per cent in the Japanese business year starting April 1, might be pushed higher, Mr Pervan said.
Market consensus is for prices to rise to $US140-$US150 a tonne this year, up from $US98, yet they might now be closer to $US200.
-------------------------
This price rise and potential shortage could really pressure Japan to restart it huge earthquake hit nuclear plant before everything is fully ready and people trained.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKSP34332420080116
-------------------------
ANALYSIS-Japan nuclear power plant on long road to recovery
-----------------------
So more info:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aR.9e4._pjvU&refer=h...
------------------------------------------
No Chance
``With the distribution network operating at breaking point prior to the floods there is little or no chance of making up this lost tonnage,'' Merrill analysts led by Sydney-based Vicky Binns said in the report dated Jan. 24.
------------------------------
Now I am wondering if China may be so short of coal soon that their Summer Olympics may be cancelled. That could certainly help awaken the world to Peak Everything!
Thanks for this info Bob, check the comment left below by Rembrandt.
Bob
I don't know the answer to that. Most mines have a sump (low point) which is constantly pumped out so when that is working the level should go down. If that's too slow they may bring in temporary pumps. This is bituminous (black coal) which can be left out in the sun to dry but in other parts of Australia lignite (brown) has to be air dried to increase the heating value.
TOD ANZ says some coal firms are declaring force majeure on contracts. Later I'm predicting kind of the opposite, when China wants more coal they'll get it global warming be damned.
I will ask the obvious:
What prevented the mine from parking their dragline on higher ground?
Surely there must be a reason; however, I cannot think of one by looking at the photo.
Why does the coal industry believe in carbon capture and storage?
irrational optimism
Here are a few figures of ships waiting at anchor at sea to load coal at Newcastle NSW.
Average Ships
Date Entered Average Waiting Ship Days
12/09/2005 17 3.7 13 48.1
20/12/2005 18 3.6 21 75.6
27/02/2006 17 8.04 0
26/06/2006 15 5.35 0
18/12/2006 19 18.68 0
25/06/2007 15 27.25 75 2043.75
10/09/2008 20 18.62 47 875.14
2/10/2007 18 18.57 44 817.08
31/12/2007 23 15.92 34 541.28
14/01/2008 23 15.47 34 525.98
21/01/2008 23 10.56 29 306.24
Many of these ships show their destination as Chinese ports.
The cost must be enormous.
I thought the whole drama of cascading energy shortages in connection with the very cold weather very educational--like watching dominoes fall. The events also reinforce BAU's inertia as there will now be an effort to ensure supplies and increase generation capacity.
The very vigorous low sitting over California has my current attention. The millions in the Inland Empire are likely using a lot of NatGas. It will be interesting to see what the national NatGas inventory level is Y/Y at the end of January and the futures price.
Luis - would you care to comment on why we saw such rapid cooling in the N hemisphere this winter. Not so long ago we were discussing record lows in Arctic sea ice.
As I indicated in the post, the fast build up of Sea Ice Area in the Arctic during the last Fall was an indication that temperatures were abnormally low there. This is where the high pressure fronts are formed – masses of very cold and dense air that are gusted towards south. The colder the Arctic the more frequent and stronger will be the polar highs formed. These highs tend to gather together in geographically constrained areas in what is usually called Anticyclonic Agglutinations.
A look at these images is enlightening (click to enlarge):
Whilst the Sea Ice Area was bigger in 1980, the ice concentration in Arctic Quasi-Triangle (the Sea north of Greenland and around the Pole) is considerably higher today. It is here and in the Greenland Highlands that the polar highs are formed (mind that these are permanent ice regions that have been frozen for some million years). The temperatures in these areas have been declining since the 1970s and the overall high pressure activity has been growing since then.
This is an exceptional month, and since Piers Corbyn was able to forecast it, I can speculate that some kind of decrease in the sun's activity must have occurred, facilitating abnormally low temperatures in the Arctic and speeding up the formation of the polar highs. Understandably, Corbyn seems to be unable to know with one month in advance were will the polar highs concentrate geographically.
Luis - I'm a little confused. I thought the Arctic Sea ice was thinning - but you seem to be saying that in the area N of Greenland it is actually thickening?
And why's all that CO2 not keeping us warm? And is it not the case that all that snow cover will be reflecting much of the sunlight (depleted) straight back into space?
I know one penguin doesn't make a winter - but if we get two or three of these good old fashioned winters in a row it will throw the GW debate and policy makers into a state of chaos.
Do we spend 10 billion euros on CO2 capture which will consume a vast amount of energy? Or might it just be better to spend that money building new low C power generation plant - following a precautionary principal - that is sustainable.
Hi there all. What most people seem to ignore is that we are in one of Milankovitch's cycles, basically entering (albeit very, very slowly) into another natural ice age cycle (much debate there as well...)must be some fighting going on between natural cycle and AGW ... so far, January 08 was 4 degrees Celsius above average in Western Europe, so... climate chaos as predicted.
No. NASA climatologist James Hansen says there will be no more ice age unless the human species goes extinct. The climate forcings from the Milankovitch cycles are much too small in comparison to the CO2 forcings from burning fossil fuels. I encourage everyone here to read Jim's papers. Then and only then will you understand global warming:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Jim clearly states humans are in control now of the long term climate trend, for better or worse.
Matt - Hansen may be the GW expert - but...
Here's a chart I made a while back based on FF data compiled by Luis:
The red line is CO2 from combined oil, gas and coal - PO in 2012, PG in 2029 and PC in 2046 - this is based on the work of Lahererre. I think the data it is overlaid upon is IPCC.
So its good to see that their data and ours match up to present day - but then what happens?
In this chart I see a mortal threat to mankind from energy decline with peak FF in 2020. So where does the real risk lie - Global warming or energy decline?
It is more than a little unsettling that reports of problems with electricity supplies are now virtually a daily occurrence.
Yes, while highly important, we can't simply focus on oil production decline impacts, ignoring natural gas and coal supply (and emissions) issues.
real risk to whom and to what? to those toiling on land for a subsistent living or to those with that non-negotiable way of life which can not be sustained with the energy decline?
nobody has a non-negotiable way of using energy. raise the price and things change.
The answer hinges on how much coal we really have available and end up using.
If the cost of coal extraction gets high enough then the build of coal electric plants stops and nukes replace coal. If the cost of coal extraction stays low enough then CO2 emissions continue to rise.
I think Peak Coal doesn't get the attention it deserves. One reason why Peak Oil gets analyzed more than Peak Coal is that Peak Oil happens first. Another reason is that oil is just a lot more useful, especially for transportation. Another reason is that the oil industry is larger and more visible and politically more complex.
But maybe another reason Peak Coal doesn't get the attention it deserves is that we simply have less data about it. So there's less for the analysts to work with.
Matt, as I see it, both you and Sun_Tzu_Sun may be right. There's some figthing going on and we are winning big time.
And as I see it, the fact that man is overpowering the Milankovitch cycle is definitely for better. I show why next, reproducing a post I made yesterday on another thread. (In all the charts, time goes from right to left.)
First let's look at the temperature record of the last 450 ky, derived from ice core readings at the Vostok site in Antarctica (blue line):
It is clearly seen that during that span the Earth has been in a cycle where benign interglacial periods like the Holocene (last 11.5 ky) are very brief spikes between much longer cold periods with temperatures around 6+ Celsius lower than today's.
From that chart it is also clear that the Holocene has already been an unusually broad top, and that coolings from tops, although not as steep as warmings from bottoms, are nevertheless quite fast.
Then, to see better where we stand today, I made the following graph based on the first in Stuart Staniford's post "Living in the Eemian". I took the Holocene's last 12 ky and superimposed it onto the corresponding period of the Eemian (the previous interglacial), 121 ky ago. This is exactly what Stuart did in the second and third graphs of his post, only that here I show it within the bigger picture.
From that chart it is clear that, if there were no human-caused rise in CO2 levels, the astronomical forcings that drive climate change ("Milankovitch cycles"), if left alone, would have the Earth's temperature start to drop very soon (in about 3 ky) and be 6 Celsius lower than today's in about 15 ky.
And finally, the following chart illustrates that sea levels during glacial periods have been substantially lower than today's.
To note, in the cited article Stuart was worrying about the possibility of a sea level rise of 5 (five) meters. We see here that the glaciation cycle would likely cause a sea level drop of 50 (fifty) meters in 10 ky. I wonder which outcome would be more disruptive.
From the above, it is clear that the only way for mankind to get the Earth out of this cycle was to introduce a new forcing (greenhouse gases) strong enough to overpower the astronomical forcings in play. And that the real alternative to global warming (which indeed means a higher sea level and an ice-free Arctic) would not be an extension of the Holocene. It would be a new ice age with a substantially lower sea level and an ice-covered North America. And at a time when there will be no fossil fuels to keep people warm.
Well that's different.
Pretty sure I don't agree, but I'm going to have to ponder that one for a while...
Thanks, I think...
--J
A bit off-topic, but while we are here...
Your chart showing temperature and CO2 is out of date. The current CO2 level is over 380ppm.
And attempting to extrapolate using one data point (Eemian) violates a number of statistical rules (i.e., Hypothesis Tests of Proportion, for starters).
And you show no sign knowing about the evidence for a long interglacial period (i.e., the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years);
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
So your 'analysis' is unfounded. On top of that, you do not address current and future impacts to agriculture due to ongoing global warming, but advocate the continuation of the forcing. How many millions would need to starve to prove you wrong?
Want opinions from the experts or from some guy with a keyboard? The American Geophysical Union (50,000+ scientists) released a statement last month;
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. "
Well, the short bottom line is (and the IPCC does now agreed on that one, quote "there is now a frightening possibility of simultaneous, rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets... ) that we are indeed warming up the planet way to fast !!
Nevertheless, natural, underlying cycles still do exists, it would be foolish to deny them. The climate system reacts to every little stimuli it seems, and the combination of all this is climate chaos, as we have seen it all around the globe over the last years.
True. (BTW, it's not "my" chart, and it's linked to the Wiki page where I took it from.) What you say is reflected in the following chart, also from Wiki (in this chart, time runs from left to right).
I strongly disagree. The data point I chose was not arbitrary, but one among the four that are suitable for the extrapolation.
From the chart it is unmistakably clear that:
1. The global temperature has been in a cycle for the last 450 Ky.
2. We are now at the top of one of the brief interglacial spikes.
Therefore I could have chosen any of the other 3 interglacial tops in the chart and have arrived at the same conclusions. (Moreover, the one preceding the Eemian, which has a temperature more like the Holocene, has a much steeper temperature plunge.)
And on the other hand, it would have been incorrect (and idiotic) to choose any other point in the cycles for the extrapolation.
And you do not address future impacts to agriculture due to the ice age that would be coming in a few millenia if mankind had not released massive CO2 quantities.
First, this picture implies the loss a big share of the world's best arable lands.
Secondly, I'll quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
Just in case you don't know, Australia and the Pampas in South America are prime agricultural regions too.
BTW, the quoted Wiki page takes its information from studies at the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project page http://pmip.lsce.ipsl.fr/publications/pub21k.shtml . Those folks don't seem to be just guys with keyboards.
As for the AGU report, either their reasoning or their perception of the big picture (in time) is downright regrettable.
Sure folks, but the record for the last 450 millennia shows that periods like this of benign, stable climate have a length of just a few millenia, and that they are always followed by plunges into much longer ice ages. So prolonging the climate of the last 8 millenia is not an option in the design specifications. Either we break out of the cycle into a warmer period or we plunge into a new ice age soon.
So, should we do our best to stay within the range of the past thousand years while waiting for the Milankovitch cycle to push us down the slope? Would planning for and adapting to a new ice age pose no global problems?
So, should we opt for cooling greater than 6ºC instead? Because, per the quoted Wiki page (again, based on many scientific, peer-reviewed studies), that path looks way more disruptive and ruinous for global agricultural productivity. Unless they are betting on the ensuing sea level drop of more than 50 meters to solve all those problems.
You completely punted on the subject of an extended warm period (50,000 years) during this interglacial period;
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
You focused on the Eemian period, which fails simple statistical tests (one of which you also punted on), then you bring up other periods that have sharp fall-offs that are not replicated by this Holcene period, hence you fail your own 'look at the charts' embarrassment to the scientific method.
I don't have to because this projection has not been established by any scientific body. Beach Boy "look at the charts" does not establish such a projection.
Your attempts to discuss agricultural impacts were not clear (first sentence did not parse, second link wandered with no thesis (and WIKIPEDIA on top of that!)). Attempting to counter the American Geophysical Union with such a sparse argument invariably leaves you in the unavoidably losing position.
For which you are providing the wrong link. From the chart of the last 450 ky, the widest interglacial is the oldest (4th before the Holocene), both according to Vostok and Epica records.
Using it instead of the Eemian would mean a 5 ºC drop in 20 ky instead of a 6 ºC drop in 15 ky. So my conclusion is still valid.
If you actually mean "sharp fall-offs", it is obvious that they have not (yet) been replicated by the Holocene. Thank God NO fall-off has been replicated by the Holocene yet!
If you instead mean "sharp peaking", the two interglacials that have more resemblance to the Holocene in this respect are the Eemian and the mentioned 4th previous.
So the studies linked in http://pmip.lsce.ipsl.fr/publications/pub21k.shtml have no value until the authors establish a "Global Association of Paleoclimate Modellers" and issue a position statement.
Yes, there was an "OF" missing. It should have been:
First, this picture implies the loss OF a big share of the world's best arable lands.
Personally, I'd have inferred that there was a missing "of" and not make an issue of it. And I think most people in this forum also would.
The second link and the quoted paragraph thereof does not present any thesis. It describes the global climate and vegetation during the last ice age. It is up to the reader to draw the appropriate conclusion from points such as:
"In warmer regions of the world, climates at the Last Glacial Maximum were cooler and almost everywhere drier."
"In Australia, shifting sand dunes covered half the continent, whilst the Chaco and Pampas in South America became similarly dry."
As for Wikipedia, I had already said that "the quoted Wiki page takes its information from studies at the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project page http://pmip.lsce.ipsl.fr/publications/pub21k.shtml ."
Sure, there is the possibility that the Wiki authors' work was not in line with the scientific studies. Since most of the studies linked in that page require a journal subscription for access, I could only have a look at The Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project, S. Joussaume and K. E. Taylor, proceedings of the third PMIP workshop, Canada, 4-8 october 1999, in WCRP-111, WMO/TD-1007, edited by P. Braconnot, 9-24, 2000.
The intended link about an extended 50,000 year warm climate interglacial period;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287
Just like that? Then why should we listen to all the PhDs in climatology that seem to come to completely different conclusions? Because you are a guy with a keyboard that interprets data without regard to multivariate considerations, pulling conclusions out of your [a dark place]? You must think that readers here are highly impressionable and mindless.
No, if we look at the other 3 interglacial periods, we would assume that the current Holocene period was an outlier, hence your reliance solely on the Eemian period is overly selective, fails the Hypothesis Tests of Proportions at a minimum, and hence your 'conclusion' based on faulty data collection is obviated.