97 comments on The rising fortunes of coal - perhaps
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
97 comments on The rising fortunes of coal - perhaps
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
The title should rather be called "The melting fortunes of coal", just as this news has come in:
Ice shelf 'hangs by a thread'
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ice-shelf-hangs-by-a-thread/2008/...
Once the ice shelf has gone, next in line is the ice sheet itself, sliding freely into the ocean, causing immediate sea level rise.
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/articles/eos.html
Almost to the day a year ago, NASA climatologist James Hansen had this to say:
".....and even of more concern is West Antarctica because it's now losing mass at about the same rate as Greenland, and West Antarctica, the ice sheet is sitting on rock that is below sea level. So it is potentially much more in danger of collapsing and so we have both the evidence on the ice sheets and from the history of the Earth and it tells us that we're pretty close to a tipping point, so we've got to be very concerned about the ice sheets."
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1870955.htm
The latest research by the Hansen lab indicates that at about 450 ppm of carbon dioxide we should expect an Earth free of ice, which would raise sea levels by about 80 meters (ca. 250 ft).
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf
"Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and icefree Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
Since peak fossil fuels will still let us go to 450 ppm, our goal should be to keep as much in the ground as possible. Instead we have an essay bemoaning the lack of capacity to use it up!
Personally, I could adjust to life with little and intermittent electricity and am totally willing to accept that if it is necessary to keep the Earth system fairly habitable for me, my descendants and other forms of life.
If climate change scientists and the educated lay people are "strident" it is because we prefer to live rather than have a die off that looks like the movie "Soylent Green."
I do not think that is the intent of the essay at all. I think he is bemoaning the fact that rather than build nuclear and renewables, the people who are trying to build power plants are assuming that coal will solve the problem. However, politicians in the west are blocking the building of coal plants, too, so that we will soon have power shortages. He does not even mention that there is good reason to believe that coal production will peak in about 15 years.
Conservation can mitigate the decline of fossil fuels but it cannot solve our future needs. The only thing that can is to build capacity of sources that have assured fuel and do not contribute to global warming. Those are nuclear, wind and solar.
He shouldn't be concerened. While the Arctic is warming Antartica is mainly unaffected by global warming. The only bit warming is the West Antarctic Penninsula. That has only a small area.
Ah, Hansen is an expert in paleoclimatology and the implications for ice.
He is talking about a complete loss of ice from the entire continent of Antarctica at 450 ppm or so.
If W. Antarctica ice alone goes that's ca. 5 m (16 ft) sea level rise.
Never mind, no need for concern (sarcasm alert).
He shouldn't be concerened. While the Arctic is warming Antartica is mainly unaffected by global warming. The only bit warming is the West Antarctic Penninsula. That has only a small area.
Antarctica temperature trend is very uncertain due to big interannual oscillations and short timeseries anyway recent data shows warming over most antarctica :
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...
Sorry, but that's a little misleading. Last southern winter the Antarctic had record maximum ice (since satelitte photos started). Active volcanoes have been found under the ice and under the Ross Sea ice. That's why West Antarctica is melting whilst the rest of Antarctica is cooling and ice is spreading.
Note the red hotspots in the temperature trends map at:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-activ...
From http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-ice-shelf-collapses-but...
Already in the approaching winter, Antarctic ice is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak.
In fact the southern hemisphere has cooled slightly over the last 70+ years, so these reports by Hansen et al with no balancing comments is very misleading!
The above link leads to following articles:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...
In Sciencedaily Jan 22nd, /2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm
Then, on March 4th 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229183818.htm
Hansen said he will soon publish a paper on Antarctica
Furthermore that image is old(1982-2004 trend), the new one is available here(1981-2007 trend):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...
Just three more years changed drammatically temperature trends inside antarctica due to strong short term fluctuations.
That's why antarctica trend are so uncertain.
Anyway there's no doubt antarctica peninsula warmed at a fast rate during last 50 years and ice shelves respond to long term temperature variations, it's not sea ice.