The Oil Drum

Let's keep this report in perspective. It is not a peer reviewed scientific discovery; rather, the newspaper commisioned some experts to estimate the current "effective" greenhouse gas concentration (including the contributions of methane and other GHGs) and it came out to 425 ppm. This is higher than the 400 ppm ceiling which is estimated to keep global temperature increases less than 2 degrees C which is estimated to keep Greenland's glaciers from melting.

So there is still uncertainty here. We have an uncomfirmed report of one phenomenon (GHG concentrations) which is predicted to lead to another phenomenon (global warming > 2 degrees) which is predicted to lead to a bad outcome (Greenland melting). It's a somewhat tenuous chain. Among sources of uncertainty, the article mentions the impact of aerosols, industrial emisions that block sunlight and reduce global warming. It's not clear whether things are that bad once aerosols are taken into consideration.

The experts cited in fact put things more mildly: "What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate." It's not even clear what that means - could we "count on" a safe climate before? I don't recall being given a guarantee of a safe world when I was born. Maybe my parents lost the paperwork.

Part of the problem is that even if scientists believe this report, they can't come right out and say we're doomed, because it could actually undercut efforts to stop warming. "Why should we impose all these enormous costs when we're doomed anyway?" people might ask. (I love the guy in the article who said that fixing global warming is "affordable" - because it wouldn't cost any more than the Iraq war!) So the scientists would have to say, "well, we'll be even more doomed if we don't stop making things worse." It's not a very good way to sell a policy, that by undergoing enormous sacrifice you can improve from being "very doomed" to just doomed.

Should be interesting to hear how this "tipping point" stuff plays out in the next few months and years. Seems like neither side gains much political benefit from pushing it.

Although Deffeyes statement may be a bit on the bold side, one has to wonder just what it will take to wake up the sheeple to peak oil. What catalyst will drive the people to start thinking about their future or more importantly, their childrens future in a world with less oil, alot less oil I think we can all agree.

What I see happening now is a load of propaganda coming from the government, politicians, and oil companies that our future is GREEN and RENEWABLE.. That's the message the sheeple are getting and they believe everything will be OK..  

I for one, didn't even know about peak oil until about may 2005. SO until TSHTF, most people are satisfied to go about their daily lives not thinking about what tomorrow brings..

I am not of the "Deffeyes" school here. As you said, I would define the peak as the maximum daily production rate (of all liquids). There will be a very long tail. And if 2006 passes and I have not seen an increase over the maximum seen in Spring of 2005, as noted by Stuart in various posts, then I believe that new supply will never offset depletion ever again--though we will probably be in CERA's undulating plateau for a few years with no spare capacity whatsoever. The difference between CERA and me here being about 16 years if 2006 turns out the way I think it will. Already HO has reported early year OPEC declines that may be partially offset by Haradh coming onstream soon. But, it's a waiting game now. How will Russia do this year? Mexico? Will something happen with Iran? Will Nigeria finally fall apart? Will Iraq get even worse? How much will Canada squeeze out of those tar sands? How moody is Hugo?

Hey, it may be ridiculous, but at least you are thinking about the gas you were using.

Everyone needs to be thinking the same way.

I had the same problem at the weekend.  I used a chainsaw to chop up some trees for firewood.  Despite the fact that I was essentially producing fuel for our new wood-fired kitchen stove, I couldn't help thinking about the petrol I was using in the chainsaw.  Each time I set the saw down to throw some logs in the trailer, I was wondering if I should switch the damn thing off!

Why didn't you use a (Duluth) snow scoop and shovels? That's what I do, and the exercise keeps me in shape. Also I find that chopping down trees with an ax and sawing logs with a Swede saw, plus trimming branches with a machete is a great way to work off Berserker fury.

Also, I cannot stand the noise of snow blowers.

And don't tell me you're too old: I've been on Social Security for years.

I haven't burned a drop of gasoline blowing snow or mowing grass in years.  All the machinery I've got is electric.

I don't get the exercise Don does, but my back has stopped making sharp nasty comments since I quit using the snow pusher exclusively.

You are only sleepless because you can't figure out which way the price is going. Have you ever watched interviews with serial killers? The ones that know they're going to be executed soon seem to sleep fine. It's the ones that think they might get a pardon who have trouble falling asleep.

Bad analogy. I don't know if you're Christian, but try to think of Christmas eve. Once you know there is no Santa, you have no problem falling asleep.

You should be falling asleep simply because you are an oil trader. Holy Christ, how lucky could you be?

Oh, sorry. I just noticed you were a currency trader. I thought you said before it was oil.

Euro will stay between 1.15 and 1.25 for another month.

mid-oct thru early nov is when natural gas prices were at their highs - now cut in half.

Sorry, the link I put in to the chart above is not a stable URL and apparently shows whatever chart somebody looked at last. You can go to newjerseygasprices.com and look at it there, the U.S.A. average gas price over the past six months.