<Implications of Energy Return on Investment, Peak Oil and the Concept of “Best First” The Oil Drum Ukraine-Russia gas spat: some background and context>
<DrumBeat: January 2, 2009 DrumBeat DrumBeat: January 4, 2009>

200 comments on DrumBeat: January 3, 2009

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Black_Dog on January 3, 2009 - 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Re: Global Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

When one reads this story from the Washington Post, one again sees the massive problem we all face. Efforts to solve the climate change problem will most surely impact the economy in negative ways. The Cap-and-Trade proposals are directed at just the industrial side of the economy and don't directly address the individual consumers, who are the "source" of most of the CO2 emissions. This is especially true for petroleum, which fuels almost all transport.

Nowhere is there any mention of the other side of the problem, which is Peak Oil. As oil production peaks and begins to decline, we must expect that the average man on the street will not be satisfied with limits on his/her CO2 emissions, especially as coal or tar sands or oil shale would be the most likely alternatives for BAU.

In reality, life is only today. Planning for the future is pointless when today's world will always try to maximize income and the hell with tomorrow. The future looks very bleak. I would be temped to crawl back into a cave on some island (remember Pitcairn Island?), except I doubt that such a move would be worth the effort...

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 3, 2009 - 11:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Jared Diamond sees Pitcairn Island as a warning:

Just as the collapse of the Polynesian society on Easter Island warns us that environmental mismanagement can destroy those guilty of it, the fates of the people who lived on Pitcairn and Henderson warn us that societies can also be annihilated by the environmental mistakes of others.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jbunt on January 3, 2009 - 12:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere from a foot per year to thousands of feet in a century, or maybe tomorrow. Who has a link to a scientifically accurate site that has world-wide sea level measurements (probably there must be thousands of locations being monitored, based up the immense and imminent size of problem which forecasters are confident will result in the complete and utter demise of the earth) for the last 100 years? Especially showing the last 10 years as a guide for extrapolation (how many feet or meters did it rise in these past ten years; how many thousands of coastal sqaure miles have been lost in the US?). Maybe the US invaded Iraq to obtain more land mass as we are daily losing ours. How many people living now inland have taken out flood insurance and do you think I should? (I live in Oklahoma, but am only 900 feet above the current sea level.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on January 3, 2009 - 1:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've tested about 50 of these. look at Osolo, N and Galveston pier 21 for starters. Kind of like the out-liers.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml

Notice any shift in the recent trends? I think its mostly subsidance and the effect of the loss of the ice sheets in the higher latitudes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enemy of state on January 3, 2009 - 2:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere from a foot per year to thousands of feet in a century, or maybe tomorrow.

You must be watching Sci-Fi. The climate modelers only have something like 2-4 feet for the entire century. Even if ALL the ice on the planet were melted, sea level would only rise by a couple of hundred feet. The real danger is to very low lying areas with very small slopes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sterling925 on January 4, 2009 - 12:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And TODAY areas formerly protected by sea ice...:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec08/alaskawarming_07-1...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InJapan on January 3, 2009 - 3:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere from a foot per year to thousands of feet in a century, or maybe tomorrow.

Strawmen are rarely effective... and when constructed such that that don't even look like a "man", even less so.

Sea Level is a complex topic (of course!)... what after all is "sea level." There are many discussions on this topic online, if one is willing to look.

In recent decades sea level has rise has increased to an average of around 3mm/yr. The IPCC and other conservative collectives estimate sea level rise by 2100 of around a couple of feet, most of that coming from thermal expansion of water already in the sea. More aggressive estimates that include greater ice melt are that by 2100 several feet of rise could be possible.

Some sites to check:
From the UK: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/
From Aus: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

And some articles that highlight the developing research:
2001: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/415512a.html
2007: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
2008: http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL15778750.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Consumer on January 3, 2009 - 3:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think you guys missed the sarconol.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on January 3, 2009 - 3:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nope - jblunt pretends to be a contrarian. More of a troll tho.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
woodychuck on January 3, 2009 - 6:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Not to venture a guess about the question of sea level rise, BUT, the IPCC report and other related scientific studies do not include the effects of any feedbacks, period. We "seem" to be seeing the impacts in the methane releases in Siberia, in the accelerated melting of Artic Polar ice, and glaciers receeding at speeds not predictable ro predicted. Each of these events has its own set of impacts, but the melting events are masking the heating by providing an offsetting cooling, which itself will not be repeated when the persistent ice has disappeared - the temperature impact is mitigated by the dispersal of the cooling as it melts. For the disparate world population which is impacted by the rises, the oceans which are becoming increasingly acidic due to near-full absorption with CO2, and the changing global temperature patterns impacting agriculture and changing the homeostasis many species depend upon, even the few mm's per year is too much.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on January 3, 2009 - 9:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Right. The most dramatic impacts of AGW are shifting wind, current, and rainfall patterns. A few degrees on average, or a few centimeter (it'll probably be several meters, though) aren't as scary as long-used agricultural areas becoming dustbowls, while perhaps some former deserts just wash away in a grand-canyon sort of thing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on January 4, 2009 - 8:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

i asked that question a few weeks ago(the cooling effect of polar ice melt) and was assured that no such effect existed, or was so minor as to not be noticable.

i have noticed that local weatherpersons are frequently over estimating daytime highs, probably based on their gen x,y or z experience and their beloved models. a local gen-y weatheratti told us that the model for yesterday showed a 32 degree high, but he was going with 36, actual was 30.

this may be a colder than normal winter, possibly much colder. i'm looking for a spike in ng prices, about monday. another arctic blast is headed for the ne us.

gas drilling rig counts(early december) have dropped to a level which was previously able to support production about 7 bcf/d less than the july '08 high.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on January 4, 2009 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Any given day, week, month of weather is not going to tell you anything about changing climate, so obsessing about how accurate your weatherman is is pretty pointless. This is even more true when you consider that weather models are not the same as climate models.

Do bear in mind the climate models have been accurate... except for UNDERstating the reality. Anyway...

There has been a shift in wind patterns in the Arctic which bring more warm air in from the Pacific, I believe it is.

Consider: if cold air is being displaced by a general change in wind patterns,does it not make sense there might be some of that heading south into the US?

Maybe.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pragma on January 4, 2009 - 5:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Exactly, which is why I dislike "Global Warming".

Many are complaining about a particularly bad winter in the Northern Hemisphere and say "Bring on Global Warming!"

At the risk of being simplistic, if large arctic air masses are flooding Canada and the northern US, that cold mass must be replaced by something else, presumably from a lower latitude, and hence warmer.

The cold (lack of heat) that might have ordinarily remained in the Arctic region would keep the area colder, longer, and delayed the heating cycle in spring. Some of this may be cyclical but each year we are finding greater sea ice melting at a faster rate and higher ambient temperature in a distinct trend, as has been predicted (except at a lower rate).

Thus, IMO, people freezing their tushies off in NA are experiencing climate change, just not what they were expecting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on January 4, 2009 - 9:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Exactly, which is why I dislike "Global Warming".

Think we can get everyone switched over to Anthropogenically-driven Climate Chaos (ACC)?

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pragma on January 4, 2009 - 11:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm in!! Let's spread the word unless someone other than P-P has a serious objection. :-P

Cheers back at ya

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on January 5, 2009 - 8:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, climate change, ironically, came out of the BuCheney administration's attempt to make Global Warming sound less scary. Maybe we just throw a mind warp on Obama and - viola! - done!

Don't know any telepaths, do you?

:)

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Matthew on January 3, 2009 - 1:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From the link (emphasis mine):

Many centuries ago, immigrants came to a fertile land blessed with apparently inexhaustible natural resources. It lacked a few raw materials that were important for industry, but they were readily obtained by overseas trade. For a time, the land and its neighbors prospered, and their people multiplied.

But the population of the rich land grew too large for even its abundant resources. As its forests were stripped and its soils eroded, the land could no longer nourish even its own population, let alone grow food for export. Then, as trade declined, the imported raw materials began to run short. A kaleidoscopically changing succession of local military leaders overthrew established political institutions, and civil war spread. To survive, the starving populace turned to cannibalism. The fate of their former overseas trading partners was even worse: deprived of the imports on which they had depended, they ravaged their own environments until no one was left alive.

The modern day equivalents of Pitcairn Island are nations like Japan and Taiwan. These densely populated countries will eventually be "deprived of the imports on which they had depended" - namely, fossil fuels.

There is a crucial difference, however: the original Pitcairn Islanders weren't armed with ICBMs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Roysyl on January 3, 2009 - 2:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cannibalism will work until the last cannibal dies of starvation!!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sgage on January 3, 2009 - 3:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So, two cannibals are sitting around eating a comedian. One cannibal says to the other, "does this taste funny to you?"

Bada-bing!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on January 3, 2009 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

... The good news is that we have a choice, which the ancient Polynesians never had. We now know, as they could not, of the fates that environmental mismanagement visited upon past societies.

I don't know that ICBMs will make a difference one way or the other. Perhaps for a while, but we are so far into overshoot now that Diamond's summation looks like giddy optimism.

The other factoid worth mentioning about Pitcairn has been demonstrated by the mutineers — the island is probably to small to support a long-term viable human population. In Polynesian times they also depended on long distance trade to keep the gene pool stirred.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

200 comments on DrumBeat: January 3, 2009

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version