Slashdot Mirror
Climate May Be Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought
a_hanso writes "A new study suggests that the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide on temperature may be less significant than previously thought. 'The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C. That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C."
...let the rational, even-handed and emotionally detached debate begin!
We should be switching to nuclear anyway, it's not about global warming, it's about the eventuality of the end of the age of oil. It will happen so it's better to be thinking about it now.
You can't handle the truth.
Confirming that anthropogenic CO2 does affect climate and proposing that the multiplier is slightly less than what others have suggested. Yawn.
Denier: Ah hah! Told you all! Told you all!
Warmist: World is still getting warmer, which means we will all die
Skeptic: These are all extrapolations which are barely worth the paper they are written on
Denier: We need to stop with the environmental programs, they are killing the economy
Warmist: We need to stop polluting, the world is in jeopardy
Denier: It will cost trillion to "save" the world, and it might not even be saved. Anyone who wants to spend that kind of money on a crapshoot is an idiot
Warmist: Can we afford to take a chance? Our choice is trillions now, or quadrillions later. If you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot.
Skeptic: Anybody who wants to take drastic action on the currently available data is an idiot.
Did you hear how Mother Earth is creating a new island in the canaries?
She's got it in for us, I swear. Nothing like putting a blowtorch in the hidden depths of your oceans to screw with those gnats on the surface: "They think they're so important, I'll show them."
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
If true, this is good news. However, it could end up being bad news if this report gets twisted in support of the 'drill baby drill' crowd....
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's also a 66% confidence projection using a new climate model that has undergone peer review but probably not much other discussion in the community. It's interesting, but hardly definitive.
There are hundreds of things changing the temperature contantly and it's very hard to isolate the changes CO2 caused.
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left.
While I find your argument of proof by repetitive assertion convincing, I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left. In another 40 years it may have reach 80 years left. Maybe there's more people repeating the opposite to you and it's actually driving the oil supplies upwards?
This is the kind of thing that tends to get the skeptics -- and those the GW proponents call "deniers" -- going.
Clearly, the process has problems; the data isn't as nailed down as many claim; the temperature rises not as predicted; the models flawed; the entire thing politicized to a notable degree. It certainly all seems worthy of paying attention to, when taken together.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually 1.7 to 2.6 due to a doubling of CO2 is fantastic. It means with the current trajectory we're only going to get the "expected" unavoidable warming (2 degrees C) even if we do nothing till 2050 or later.
Basically, we let Peak Oil kill off the internal-combustion engine automobile and ride out solar/battery improvements for stationary energy. It changes a lot.
It's an interesting piece of work. There are two issues to bear in mind:
- They are calculating climate sensitivity at the last glacial maximum. Climate sensitivity varies with temperature, so the sensitivity now may not be the same as the sensitivity at the LGM. It is entirely possible that both this study, and all the studies which put a higher value on current sensitivity, are both correct.
- Even their most likely value of 2.3C only gives us about 15 years extra breathing space to sort out our emissions.
- The UVic model they use is rather simplistic, and I'm not sure it reproduces 20thC climate that well. It would be interesting to see this work repeated with a model ensemble.
Now this one really does require a citation. And oil doesn't just have to be pumped in the traditional manner. There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil. There is fracking, and oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic that are just being discovered. And if the antarctic ice shelf melts to any degree, who wants to bet that oil companies won't be buying off politicians in Russia, the U.K., and America to get rules changed to drill there. A whole new continent that hasn't been exploited. But first before I believe there is only 40 years of oil left I need convincing with published facts, and even then it would have to be pretty damned convincing.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left.
We're digging 20,000 feet under ocean beds for oil now. Exactly how much oil do you expect there to be in the mantle?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Also, so does every gasoline and diesel fueled generator in the world, and that's probably a pretty hefty number.
See the thing is, if the gasoline and diesel burned in individual vehicles was instead burned in power plants, and fed to the vehicles as electricity, there would be a lot less consumption of gasoline and diesel overall, because those larger generation systems are a lot more efficient at getting power to the wheels, even given transmission line losses, charging losses, etc.
And, if the vehicles are electric, they become power-agnostic: you can "burn" anything.... oil, coal, nuclear, sunshine, hydro, congresscritters, and the cars don't have to change at all.
Ok, clearly, burning congresscritters would really be polluting, but the other stuff...
EVs make great sense. manufacturing them such that they serve us well in the roles we like to use them... we're not quite there. Soon, though, clearly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Only good can come?
Are you sure of that?
Because I can see many things wrong with your statement.
Many bad and not so good things can come from Reducing CO2.
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
I can understand 5 year olds thinking that all is good and nice. You though are presumably an adult.
try some critical thinking.
Are the benefits realized by these reductions worth the cost?
I do not know. I think that further reductions may in fact not be worth the cost.
But of this I am sure.
Not only good comes from the reduction of CO2.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Now this one really does require a citation
I know it's hard to live in the information age and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go. Also remember China is growing 9% a year. That adds the demand of a country the size of Australia, every year. And that's just China.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left.
While I find your argument of proof by repetitive assertion convincing, I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left. In another 40 years it may have reach 80 years left. Maybe there's more people repeating the opposite to you and it's actually driving the oil supplies upwards?
We have certainly reached "Peak Oil" - we are not increasing oil production in the face of increasing oil demand. We are going after harder to extract oil (oil sands, deep water oil), we ARE improving fractional production from existing wells through horizontal drilling and fracking and other methods but this serves more to make a long tail type of decline.
"Running out" of oil (or petrochemicals in general) is a more complex issue than can be stuffed in a sound bite. We will never run completely out of oil - there are thousands of 'stripper wells' pulling out a couple of barrels of crude oil per day and will do so for hundreds of years. But you can't run a major industrial economy on stripper wells. It will depend on a number of inter related issues - economic growth, conservation, solar / wind / hydro / nuc power, wars, etc.
But we;re already beyond 'cheap oil' - if that's any consolation to the planet.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
No, there's 250 years of coal left - at today's consumption rates. Now what is going to happen when we run out of oil and rely on coal for absolutely everything we used to rely on oil for? You think that might affect consumption and demand a little? Then factor in growth, because we're proving that we are going to grow as a global population until we exhaust our environment.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Hey, AGW people? Here's the bottom line. Read this carefully. Let it nourish your thought processes. You want to know why the general public hasn't panicked and fallen behind you in your crusade? Here it is.
Lets say we have many, many skilled scientists working on not one, but DOZENS of models that are constantly being refined and tinkered with. This has been going on for DECADES. They feed these models with thousands and thousands of hard, verifiable data points -- measurements from buoys, satellites, even ships at sea with calibrated instruments. Temperatures, pressures, atmospheric readings, all get poured into these models with loving care and infinite attention to detail. When using the models, another team of specialists carefully takes the average of these models, based on experience, to make cautious predictions.
They're called Hurricane Models. And even after DECADES of refinement, they still can't reliably predict the path of a storm past 3-5 days. They still can't reliably predict hurricane intensity AT ALL.
And you want us to believe that you can predict, WITH GREAT CONFIDENCE, that the Earth will be 10 degrees warming in so many years because of what mankind is doing?
"Oh, well, that's different," screams the AGW crowd. Maybe. But it does show the limitations of science, does it not? I appreciate everything that the hurricane forecasters have accomplished. They've saved a lot of lives. But there's a good, hard example of the limitations of ANY model that seeks to predict the behavior of a huge, complex, chaotic system.
What I'm desperately tired of is binary thinking: EITHER one believes the prevailing, dire theories about AGW and wants to take emergency action, OR one is an uniformed, reactionary dunderhead. (Or even worse, a Republican -- which I am NOT, by the way).
The question isn't whether the Earth is warming. I honestly don't know, but let's say it has. It's a long leap from that assertion to insisting that my barbeque grill is what's causing it. (More binary thinking: either you agree with us in all particulars, or you're no different from a Young Earth Creationist.) I need to be SURE before I repent and take the grill to the landfill. You haven't convinced me.
And here's the point: I AGREE that we need to reduce carbon emissions. Whether they're causing global warming or not, I'm tired of breathing stinky air in Birmingham, AL, if nothing else. (There's the "personal interest" angle.) Let's crush the stranglehold of Big Oil and find some real, green alternatives.
But I AM NOT going to allow anyone to wreck the global economy to achieve this. We can do it slowly and steadily, with planning and forethought. I'm not going to allow my government to enact some byzantine, "carbon credit" scheme that is, at the end of the day, just another boondoggle that lines the pockets of important contributors.
So: there you go, AGW proponents. Read it and learn, or begin with the condescending, sneering replies about how uninformed I am. It's really this simple: when your "scientists" finally achieve the ability to tell me, with at least 90% accuracy, that it will rain in my neighborhood next week, I *might* believe your claims about what's going to happen in the next century.
I think I'm being quite reasonable. :)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Thanks for the link disproving the parent statement. 3rd hit: http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/ from which I quote:
“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential.
'When only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. 'the science is settled'), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench'
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” -- Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! ”
"How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
"What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go,they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events,and all on the basis of tree rings –a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above"
"It seems to me that you have the difficult problem of wearing two hats: one as the advocate of particular policies and viewpoints, and the other as an editor of a journal which aspires to be a neutral forum for policy discussion."
So much more... Your beloved Climate Scientists are nothing more than a collection of thugs pushing a failed theory with propaganda.
What if a reduction in CO2 means a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels, and therefore a significant cost reduction, especially if oil-prices go up? What exactly will prevent another (possibly lasting) oil crisis? The oil is slowly but surely running dry, and certain (oil-dependent) countries are ready to fight over oil or use it as a weapon (just look at Iran; they are currently threatening to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, thus blocking not just their own but many other Middle-east countries oil export). It may be cheaper to rely on oil and gas at this very moment, but other energy sources, may well become cheaper in the (very near) future.
Weasel words: "At current rates of consumption". Even if it were true that there is about 3 times more oil, you cannot ignore exponential growth. 2% is exponential growth. 70/2 = doubling every 35 years. But the average world economic growth is around 3%, which means the world economy (and thus oil demand) doubles every 70/3 = 23 years. Therefore "At current rates of consumption" is a load of horse-shit that is only good for THIS year. You will find that in 10 years there will be significantly less than "140 years" of oil left. There are formulas to work out exponentials, and they are left as an exercise for the reader.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Try and prove that statement incorrect. I would be very interested in actual proof that the world has no more oil available. Don't forget to look 20 miles into the Earth's crust, we can't ignore any potential new source, now can we?
That's not what's needed for Peak Oil. Peak Oil means even with higher demand, as we have now, there won't be more Oil on the market. And that's exactly what happens since around 2005/2006: the absolute amount of oil extracted and sold sinks slowly every year, while before that it increased always except in times of severe crisis, economic or price hikes (1970s).
That 20.000 leagues under the Sea oil is more and more expensive to extract and therefore less and less is sold. In 2005 to 2008 we had a very much expanding economy and still there was less oil extracted.
I'm not the one making wild claims. You want to make horseshit claims, them back it up or expect push back. And your posted citation that you finally made here is a list that has no bearing on what you are claiming (it only shows consumption and has no mention of development of newly developed reserves whether traditional or otherwise). So stopcryingyouwhineyfuck.com and back up your claims or be called a bullshitter who thinks by 'repeating' things it makes them true. You must have been reading Carl Rove's book.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
You mean, pointing that oil is finite? That's all you need to prove your argument is false. Of course, you can dismiss the knowledge that oil is finite for how long you want. It is just a theory after all.
Also, that isn't proof that peak oil is now. The way things are going, nobody will ever be able to prove "peak oil is now", whenever "now" is.
Rethinking email
There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.
Extracting that oil is glacially slow (we're getting maybe 1.5 million barrels per day. that's less than 1/10th of the US' current usage alone. Every oil company in Alberta is running balls out to expand that, but capacity is only expanding at about 200,000 barrels/day/year), expensive (The cheapest most accessible stuff costs $40/barrel to extract and upgrade), and messy as hell.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
And only if their theories successfully predict new classes of oil traps where commercial quantities of crude can be extracted at reasonable rates and costs -- and it is my understanding that they haven't done that yet. There is no practical difference between "Diffuse oil from organic sources has been concentrated over millions of years in sedimentary rock structures with specific characteristics" and "Diffuse oil formed deep in the mantle has been concentrated over millions of years in sedimentary rock structures with specific characteristics." We're not finding new volumes with the proper characteristics at anything near historic rates, or even at rates that match our current extractions.
Weasel words from you too. "At current prices" and "at current rate of growth" and "assuming whatever assumptions are convenient for your argument" and so on. The point maybe we can agree on is that its an ass-load more complicated than "we're out of oil in 40 years" and its probably safe to say the answer is somewhere between "we're fucking doomed" and "nothing to worry about". You seem like a smart guy, dont you think posting links to "googleityoulazyfuck" is a little counterproductive to rational discussion?
Now this one really does require a citation. And oil doesn't just have to be pumped in the traditional manner.
Unfortunately the assertion that there is x numbers of oil left is based on a number of observations. So where to start.. We can start with the observation that for any given well or field supply/production follows a bell curve. Production increases until it hits a peak and then declines. Advancing technologies gives the bell curve a long tail but peak production is only hit once. If you add the curves for each well it will create a curve for each field. Add each field together and you get a curve for each region. Keep going and you will get a curve for each continent. At some point there will be a curve for the earth as a whole.
.5 trillion to as much as 2 trillion. Personally I think 2 trillion is wishful thinking as we have been looking for oil for a century now.
Now that's not all of it of course. There are undiscovered reserves. For any given region there is a bell curve for discovery. We discover more and more and then less and less. The discovery curve will tend to peak about 10 (give or take 5 year) before the supply curve. As an example we can look at the continental U.S. In 1956 Hubbert predicted peak oil for the continental in the United States to occur around 1970. He was correct. In the 30 years since continental oil production peaked, oil production has been on a gradual decline. Matching predictions made over 50 years ago. Note, the continental U.S. is just that it does not include Alaska and off shore oil but is an example of how peak production occurs in a given area and follows peak discovery.
Of course we need to know more to make an estimate for peak oil for the world. We need to know how much oil we've already used and how much we know about that is left and how much we don't know about that is left. For the first part we know we've used about 1 trillion barrels of oil so far. For the second part we know a range that geologist use. P10, P50 and P90 number provide 10%, 50%, and 90% probabilities of reserves. We use P90 numbers to denote proven reserves meaning there is a 90% chance that it is how much we have left. According to the oil industry proven reserves are between 1.1 and 1.3 trillion barrels in 2007. Adjusting for the last 4 years and that proven reserves are 90% sure not 100% lets just call it an even 1 trillion.
Ok so 1 trillion used and 1 trillion in proven reserves but of course there's the undiscovered oil too. Now we have to rely on speculation but we can take some things into consideration. For instance we have seen peak discovery in some areas so we can extrapolate what is left to be discovered by looking at the curves. We can further argue that larger fields are easier to find than smaller ones in much the same way we could say there are still undiscovered islands in the ocean but it is unlikely there are undiscovered continents. There is a lot of speculation when it comes to estimating what we haven't discovered. Some based on optimistic numbers and some based on pessimistic ones. It ranges from
But Ok, I'll give 2 trillion barrels of undiscovered oil. So now we can say total oil is around 4 trillion. We've used 1 trillion and have 3 trillion left in proven and undiscovered oil. The world uses ~80 million barrels/day or about 30 billion a year. If demand stays constant (there is no reason to believe it will, everything indicates it will rise) We can safely say we will use 1 trillion barrels in 33 years. So in 33 years we will have used 2 trillion bbls total and have 2 trillion left. This is the optimistic number for peak oil. Now for peak liquid oil (excluding tar sands and such) many estimates for peak liquid oil are put at sometime in the last 3 years. Probably around 2008. That year when gas in the U.S. went over $4/gallon and then dropped under $2 as the economy crashed and demand went down.
When supply peaks demand will be constr
Unlimited supply once you take pricing effects into consideration. That and we can make more. We could set this on up in Washington, or any eco zone... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4732398/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/researchers-turn-manure-crude-oil/
The manuscript is freely available here.
Oil is always going to be available. Whether or not it will be available at prices that allow for stable economies around the globe is the question. If oil hits, for example, $500 / gallon and thus gasoline prices are $15 / gallon "business as usual" (aka the economy) has big issues. Big issues.
1) China's and India's economies have been expanding at an insane pace in the last 10 years. More people in those countries drive cars now than every before. The demand has continually been increasing.
And the oil exporters in the Middle East, understanding they have a limited supply of oil in the ground are NOT increasing output much, if at all. The US / Canada in a mad attempt to keep up has been utilizing every drilling rig available for the past 5 years and we are just barely keeping pace with output reductions from the older fields.
So, if Chindia keeps munching on the fossil fuels and we keep doing the same AND production INCREASES don't keep up, you have, wait for it, Peak Oil.
2) Developed nations (most notably the U.S. and Canada) have politically decided that oil is "dirty" and entire industries have been prevented from expanded production of oil in these 2 nations (which have vast tracks of land, full of oil), this is to say nothing of the rest of the world, which seemed quite content to just let the monopoly OPEC exist and just deal with them.
Well, aside from the implication that the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are running things (you might want to tell them), we are, as I mentioned, punching holes through our 'vast tracts of land' and not keeping up with the big increases. Hint - go look up the geology of future North American 'conventional' oil reserves. The USGS keeps dropping that number every year. And a lot of geologists think that the official USGS figures are still overstated.
You have an funny definition of 'monopoly' - Oil is probably the most decentralized power supply on the planet. OPEC / Brazil / China / US / USSR / whateverstan / Non OPEC Middle East - it's everywhere. We've just sucked out the easy stuff.
Now it gets as Johnny Depp would say, complicated.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yes, the definition of 'peak oil' can be complicated. Absolute production is one metric, and of course, we will never know when that happens. The production curve has been pretty flat for a while (warning: complex, lots of graphs, don't just grab a number an run).
But just looking at production only shows part of the problem. If various economies are price sensitive to energy (which they appear to be) and economic growth is considered a 'good thing', then if demand increases significantly past production (which is our current situation), then you have a problem, Houston.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are the people who don't agree with anthropogenic global warming theory throwing a party over this story? It's about a new climate model that, if it's accurate, says CO2 emissions may raise temperatures slightly less than previously thought. 2/3 of the predicted temperature range lies within the range predicted by the IPCC in 2007. The very best interpretation of this data from a "skeptic" point of view is that AGW is even better supported with evidence, with only the exact impact being refined. This definitely doesn't look to me like evidence that AGW theory is alarmist, un-scientific FUD.
Be careful about posting a single citation that is contrary to the thinking of pretty much everybody else (except the abiogenesis folks). Your article's nice handwaving is trying to create the argument that 'estimated reserves' all over the world are much higher than everybody else believes.
But nobody in the business believes the reserves are high because those numbers are basically fairy tales. They are for political, not scientific consumption. It is incredibly difficult to figure out what an economically viable geologic reserve of anything is. It's not like you just do a seismic survey and punch in a number.
However, I would be willing to agree with you that reality is that we are somewhere in the middle of 'fucking doomed' and happy shiny thoughts forever. Personally, I think it's going to be along the lines of a whole lot of people are going to be less well off then they are today over the coming decades and some of that less well off-ness may happen pretty fast which will be be rather unpleasant.
After all, Murphy was an optimist, right?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So we're back to the argument, "Nobody can reliably predict the outcome of a single spin of a roulette wheel, so it is crazy to think that anybody can predict the average of thousands of spins!"
And meanwhile, the casinos continue to make money.
Strong candidate for the single dumbest argument against global warming.
Here is an interview with the author of the paper: http://newscience.planet3.org/2011/11/24/interview-with-nathan-urban-on-his-new-paper-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-temperature-reconstructions-of-the-last-glacial-maximum/
Q. It’s a little funny, to me, that your paper was receiving such positive comments from skeptics while many of those same skeptics also support claims by Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer purporting to find an essentially insensitive (~1C or less) or self-stabilizing climate. Does your paper support such incredibly low values for ECS?
Our analysis found a lower bound of 1.35 C for climate sensitivity (less than 5% probability of being below this bound). We tried a range of statistical and physical assumptions, and found sensitivities as low as 1.15 C, and as high as 4.65 C (if we analyze the land data). I don’t think sensitivities lower than our bound are consistent with either our study or paleoclimatic evidence in general.
Q: Any other thoughts on the skeptics’ reception of your paper?
One blog did surprise me. World Climate Report doctored our paper’s main figure when reporting on our study. This manipulated version of our figure was copied widely on other blogs. They deleted the data and legends for the land and ocean estimates of climate sensitivity, and presented only our combined land+ocean curve:
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
Yes, because pushing the cost of doing business onto the people living around your factory, farm or the users of your products is a god-given right in the Free Market. You're subsidizing businesses if you allow them to destroy the health and environment that people live and work in.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
There is, however, a shitload of coal left. Which can be liquified economically close to current oil prices,
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Not as much as you'd think. I ran the numbers.
3.3tn barrels of oil, at 2:1 EROEI works out to 1.65tn net barrels of oil. This is more than has ever been extracted in all of human history. And yet, at our current rate of use (30bn/yr) and growth (1.8%), we'll be out in 37 years. If it were ten times as much oil, it would still only last us just over 100 years.
No comment.
Do you seriously believe that easily available oil is there to be drilled when people are hailing -20000 feet deepwater fields and arctic fields that are a bitch to exploit as the next big thing? Where are those "vast tracks of land, full of oil"? Please, cite one major play that is not exploited yet.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
4.5tn barrels of oil at a 1.8% growth rate works out to 73 years of oil left. If we harvest every last drop.
No comment.
While I agree that TOD has all the information one needs, I'd rather not have the retards sent there. There is actually civilized discussion possible at TOD these days. I'd rather keep it that way.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Ah, one of those are you. Yes, there are scientists on both sides, as well as politicians, and pro capital propaganda machines masquerading as *green* organizations.
As to scientific method, the very foundation of scientific method is skepticism. Scientists come up with a theory and then other scientists immediately try to poke holes in it. Yet, the climate change group immediately demonize anyone that points to the flaws rather than finding ways to get better data.
So...where is the warming that your scientists have been saying that we were supposed to have for the past 25 years when even their own data (the stuff they don't hide) shows at best the temperature holding steady and at worst (for them) growing a bit cooler? Yes. Yes. I know. The record blizzards and cooler temerpatures are the result of warming. Up is down. Red is blue, yada yada yada.
FYI MTBE didn't particularly poison the ground water.
The problem with MTBE is it is detectable it the P.P.B. level by the human nose.
So MTBE let you know your well had been contaminated by gasoline for an unknown time.
Removing the MTBE returned the situation to the status quo. Now you don't know if you water is contaminated.
A thoughtful environmentalist (I know, oxymoron, they FEEL) would want MTBE to be required.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
(if oil prices were increased to $1000/barrel today, would you still say there are 40 years left?)
No, I would say that from an industrial perspective, it has ceased to exist already.
- that the quantity of all the oil in existence in known (hint: it's not - exploration and finds continue)
I take it you have never looked at an asymptotic function, have you? Or have looked at what kinds of oil finds are being made?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And someone else doesn't understand 'once you take pricing effects in consideration'. Not that is stopped him from demonstrating his ignorance.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We already know how to make all the chemical feed stocks from other sources. We use oil because it is still the cheapest.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The data is pretty sound, and only those who don't know the difference continue to act like it is the data, not their ignorance, that doesn't make sense.
When all of the surgeons say to use aseptic technique, the nurse who doesn't understand the microbial infections are expected to follow anyway and spend some personal effor at learning why if they don't understand. I defer to the best minds, as you do. The difference being that you only do it when they agree with you and you hold to miniscule, yet exaggerated doubt, when they don't.
I understand science, and as a stem cell scientist, I have learned through my experience that the best scientists are the most likely to be right, and also that major consensus has serious validity. Also, as an infrmed and aware citizen, it is clear that capital interests have major power over information and perception. Some humility and realism would serve you well.
We are just doomed a little later.
If this research is more accurate than previous studies then the climate change is progressing slower as expected. That is great news, as we wasted so much time. If the previous estimates are correct we are in big trouble. According to the new study we will be in big trouble a little later or if we act fast we still could make it and only face medium trouble.
I honestly do not understand why anti climate change honchos gloat over that news. It is like visiting the doctor and he tell you that his last diagnosis was a little too drastic and he has good news: You will not die next week, but in two weeks. So celebrate!
Actually, your example is quite poor: A casino can predict the long term trends of a roulette wheel with better than 2% accuracy. Climatologists wish they could say the same about the climate - but even this report has a variance of 1.35 to 4.65 C - a range of 340%.
The single biggest problem (aside from the politics of creating winners and losers in the climate game) with getting people onboard is that an honest skeptic would have very serious misgivings about basing public policy on a discipline with such poor predictive power. Climate science delivers only marginally better predictability than economics, or the stock market. Arm chair intellectuals often make the assumption that because other sciences can very accurately predict the outcome (e.g. physics, chemistry, etc...) of an experiment, that climate science can as well, and that's simply not the case. Climatology is still a nascent science, and still has a long way to go before they can deliver the certainty required of public policy decisions. It's not that it won't get there, just that it's not there yet.
And when you add in the politicization of the science - that the Democrats wanted to enact a scheme of carbon credits which would enrich the rich at the expense of the poor - even ardent believers would have had a difficult time enacting effective policy change. The entire global warming movement was denied by the Republicans, and turned into a get-rich-scheme by the Democrats, making effective change impossible. It was not the Republicans and their denials that kept change from coming about, but the Democrats who sought to use it as a means of increasing their power and the profits of their corporate donors.
BTW, I remember hearing that global temperatures would rise by decade's end by 2 C back around the turn of the century. Well, that's come and gone, and all we've got is about 0.5 C warmer over the last century. Not only did their predictions fail on their immediate premise, they failed to take into account the 100 year cycle - and should have predicted not a rise in temperature, but rather, a lessening of cooling - which did in fact happen.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.