Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 Next
Comments 65551 to 65600:
-
actually thoughtful at 02:59 AM on 2 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I have no problem with the overall direction of this post - (ie peak oil) - but I think it is premature to call it at 2005. Although supply was inelastic in 2005, we have had 7 years to expand capacity, even while demand has shuffled along sideways. So I suspect human ingenuity will create an "overclocking" type blip, where we pull out more oil for a very short time (less than a decade from the next time the global economy is firing on all cylinders). In a way, we should thank the Bush-era policy makers for this 5-10 year time period when we are not experiencing the economic disruption of peak oil. I very much would prefer that the human ingenuity I spoke of where unleashed on the problem of renewable energy (ie a carbon tax). PS - Tom Curtis - your post #28 could be the core of a fascinating main article. -
J. Bob at 02:51 AM on 2 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
If one reads the ref., it seems with fracking, there will be considerable time left from the following site: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html Like it or not, without good energy storage like batteries, all the solar & wind is worth squat, in the middle of a still, -20 deg. night. -
Jim Eager at 02:49 AM on 2 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Re Daneel Olivaw @4: "Why is not valid to say that "global warming has stopped" based on 15 years of data but it's ok to conclude that "oil production has stopped" with just 5 years?" Every physical system time series has it's own period required to separate any underlying trend from the "noise" of natural variability, and that period is determined from the data set itself. See Robert Grumbine's explanation of determining the period for the climate system here: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html Petroleum reserves and production are a completely different system from climate, and are not entirely a physical system as consumption is based on human behavior rather than physics, so therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect a completely different time period. That said, I don't know if 5 years is the correct period or not. Perhaps someone else can address that question. -
CBDunkerson at 02:40 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
"political think tank" It has reached the point that 'think tank' is usually little more than a euphemism for 'propaganda unit'. Most of them conduct little or no actual research and instead are just 'cardboard cut outs' to help hide who is paying to deceive people. -
elsa at 02:40 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I find it rather difficult to see why you think your own approach is in any way superior to the cherrypicking that you highlight. If we are looking for evidence of temperature changes then surely it is temperature that we should look at. The graphs that you point to your opponents as having ignored relate to the extent of ice cover (all needless to say in the northern hemisphere) sea level (which presumably you think is moved by temperature alone) and something that you call "heat content". How appalling of your opponents to have ignored these and used the only graph that you show in that section which actually relates to the subject under discussion, temperature. You put a red line through the bit of this graph that has not been used by your opponenents, although when I try to look through the crossing out it seems that for much of that period there is no great evidence of warming. You then go on to show us a graph which includes satellite readings. Any normal human being would be hard pressed to see an increasing temperature in this, but helpfully you have inserted a trend line to ensure that the reader, who might otherwise be forgiven for wondering if there is any evidence of warming in it at all, is given the impression by your judicious use of maths that there is some warming going on. Yet we can see that in 2008 the temperature was no higher than it had been 10 years earlier. Even if your trend line is in any way representative it would appera that such warming as is taking place is about 0.1 degrees every 15 years or perhaps .7 degrees in 100 years, (-snip-).Response:[DB] Ideology snipped.
-
muoncounter at 02:35 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
There are some other forecasts of a low cycle 25 reviewed here. From this article's summary of Penn and Livingston 2010, there's a basis for this in the decline of sunspot magnetic field strength: ... since about 2000, the average field strength has declined from 2,500 or 3,000 gauss to about 2,000 gauss now. They expected Cycle 24's spots to appear with rejuvenated field strength, but they didn't. The average magnetic field in the centers of sunspots has continued a more or less unbroken decline, as shown here.
Forty five years of satellite measurements of solar mag field flux shows this decline over a longer period. (See Its the sun).
-
DSL at 01:02 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
Owl@5: I thought I knew what "eminent" meant. If that's what it actually means, I've been dissing good people for years. ("eminence front" more likely) -
citizenschallenge at 00:42 AM on 2 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Regarding Nordhaus Please note this from the conclusion of his recent New York Book Review: “Energy: Friend or Enemy?” by William D. Nordhaus, October 27, 2011 In his summation the professor writes: ~ ~ ~ "The conclusion is that oil policy should focus on world production and consumption and not on the portion we import, and should focus as well on the externalities from our consumption in the form of pollution and global warming. This means primarily that oil consumption should face its full social cost. The major external cost that remains to be addressed is climate change. Until countries put an appropriate price on carbon emissions for oil and other fossil fuels, energy policy will be incoherent, and energy and environmental policies will be working at cross-purposes. The National Research Council estimates cited above used a damage cost of $30 per ton of CO2 emissions. This is somewhat higher than estimates from my own work but is a reasonable target for a US carbon price over the next decade or so. If phased in gradually through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax, such a price would help promote both fiscal and environmental goals." ~ ~ ~ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/oct/27/energy-friend-or-enemy/?pagination=false =============== Chris Mooney has also weighted in: http://www.desmogblog.com/which-climate-skeptics-drop-lysenko-bomb-no-i-m-not-kidding ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cheers, Peter M. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2012/01/wsj-claims-theres-no-need-to-panic.html#more -
EliRabett at 00:27 AM on 2 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Interestingly the WSJ letter had a number of other bad affiliations besides McGrath, which, in the course of events is not terribly important but implies that the letter was perhaps not seen by all the signatories and it would be interesting to know if it came out of some PR shop or Murdoch international -
Tom Curtis at 00:27 AM on 2 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Tealy @32, you can reduce iron with charcoal. Indeed, that is the first way it was done. As the carbon in the trees used to produce the charcoal comes from the atmosphere, the process is carbon neutral. You can also directly reduce iron using hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide can, again, be produced from charcoal. No useful purpose would be served by a steel tax. A carbon tax would cover all the costs of carbon production both in processing iron, and in the production of energy needed. Ergo if your purpose is to reduce GHG emissions, the steel tax adds nothing to the carbon tax, and merely distorts the market. -
Bernard J. at 00:20 AM on 2 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
In addition to folke_kelm's reference to Bartlett (a favourite seeming-curmudgeon of mine), it's also worth pointing folk to Joseph Tainter's written work and presentations on societal collapse. As an ecologist I have been preoccupied for years by carrying capacities and system asymptotes. Tainter's explanations of societal collapse are very good, although I think that he could possibly and usefully emphasise the laws of thermodynamics a little more, and perhaps stick his neck out more about steady-state systems, especially separated from hangings-over of the old (failed) economic paradigm. If there is any deficiency in his analyses it would be in referencing complex, dynamic equilibrium states in ecological and thermodynamic contexts: by doing so, using a compare-and-contrast with various civilisatons' economic models, he could very effectively demonstrate what will and what will not work over the long-term in human societies. As to achieving a maximum atmospheric CO2 (equivalent or otherwise) concentration of 450 ppm, I have for several years now been convinced that 2017 is a pie-in-the-sky landmark. Barring extreme intervention on the scale of global warfare or ('flu?) pandemic (neither unlikely, by the way), I'd say the cut-off date for Peak-Opportunity-for-keeping-mean-global-temperature-to-less-than-2C-abov-the-pre-Industrial-Revolution-value occurred at around the same time as Peak Oil... 2005. -
lord_sidcup at 00:19 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
You missed the really fun bit of Rose's article (credit to Carbon Brief). Rose says:According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the 'Dalton minimum' of 1790 to 1830.
The Met Office press release actually says:The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the Sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun's past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.
Do you see? If there is an 8% chance of a new Maunder Minimum, there must be a 92% chance of a new Dalton Minimum. Prof Lockwood actually puts the chance of minimum similar to the Dalton Minimum at 50%. -
Tealy at 23:41 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Dudes thermal coal is used in power stations and metallurgical coal is used to make steel. Completely different mines. To stop using coal we need to stop making steel. We need to only use recycled steel. The government needs to invest in steel recycling. Cars use lots of steel but most have too much plastic shit that stops efficient recycling. The most recyleable car is still the trusty Jeep Wrangler with stuff all plastic shit. Put the baby on LPG and you have greenest cradle to grave wheels around. A carbon tax will not be enough we need a steel tax as well. Don't know why the government doesn't get it. -
dorlomin at 23:16 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
@PaulD. They have now ceased trading. However they were still being quoted on the 13th of January this year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086258/UK-weather-Britain-awakes-scenes-frost-freezing-fog.html?ito=feeds-newsxml -
Alexandre at 23:05 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I noticed the last 6 months show a distinct cooling trend on Fig 3 - 0.3ºC in the period!! I predict a full strength Ice Age by 2020. You will not see this in a peer-reviewed journal, which proves their bias. -
Paul D at 22:41 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I just tried accessing positive weather solutions web site (via a Google search) dorlomin and it says 'server not found'. -
dorlomin at 22:34 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
As the Daily Mail was named in the article it is worth pointing out there is serious doubt that many of the weather forcasters the Mail uses for its stories exist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/26/weather-forecasters-daily-mail?INTCMP=SRCH -
CBDunkerson at 21:26 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow, yes there is definitely a degree of geographical constraint with coal. For example, Hawaii does not have any significant fossil fuel deposits and thus must import their fuel over the ocean. That is cost prohibitive for both coal and natural gas (and too small a market to build a pipeline that far), so they have historically gotten almost all of their electricity from oil. Thankfully they have recently noticed that they have some of the best solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable (e.g. OTEC) resources in the world and are now working towards 100% renewable electrical generation. Yes, US coal production is now in decline, but China is just starting to ramp up. Indeed, Chinese coal is probably the single largest source of potential CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. -
Paul D at 21:11 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I like the graphs Mark. A visualisation of cherry picking. Maybe we should do such compilations more often, it probably gets that message over better than trying to write loads of texts to say the same thing. Can we create a cherry picking series to put in the library? -
Tom Curtis at 18:51 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
owl905 @5, I'm sure Judith Curry found the prediction "difficult to understand". Why she would admit to that level of incompetence is beyond me ... -
folke_kelm at 18:44 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
IN my opinion this is a very important post. We often forget the problems of depleting energy resources (ok, only "cheap energy resources)while discussing climate change. Obviously the solution for both problems is exactly the same, moving society away from fossil fuels to renewable. We may be able to use this argument in discussions with "sceptics". Unfortunately the mechanisms of denial are exactly the same in both topics.To show, how serious the problem with depletiong oil really is you should have a look at this site: http://www.theoildrum.com/ It is really worth reading. One figure shows much about the problem. If you are not familiar with ROI, it means Return On Investment. For one barrel oil we invest, we got 100 barrel out in 1930. Today we have passed 20 barrels, moving fast to a ROI of 10 barrels. This is a decline of 80 to 90%! It does not matter how high oil price will climb, if you get out only one barrel oil per used this is utterly meaningless. to give you a picture look at this graph: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/HallandDay.png from this post on the Oildrum: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625 It really is a scary picture that comes up, but again, the solution is exactly the same for climate as for energy. Only a little bit off topic, i recommend you all to have a look at a very exciting lecture about exponential functions by Albert Bartlett http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D -
owl905 at 18:41 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
From the article:- "Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand." That's actually twice as funny as it should be. -
Tom Curtis at 18:41 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
As an addendum to 28, exhausting Oil only will only increase CO2 concentrations by 180 ppmv, for a temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees C from current levels. Gas reserves will scarcely increase that at all. The real kicker is in the coal reserves, which is the logic behind James Hansen's proposed policy that no new coal fired power stations (or mines) be developed from now on, with all current stations being retired when they come to the end of their natural life. Such a policy might keep us below the 2 degree C guard rail with no further action, but is IMO not achievable politically. -
Tom Curtis at 18:34 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
KBow @27, that is a slightly complicated question. First you need to distinguish between reserves which have been fully mapped by geological surveys, and which are commercially recoverable at current price levels and technologies, and reserves which are believed to exist based on geological reasoning, but which have not been fully mapped, or which may not be fully recoverable. Based on which type of estimate you use, and whose estimate (there is some difference in estimates), reasonable projections of fossil fuel use in the coming centuries will lift CO2 levels to somewhere between 980 and 4600 ppmv. The later figure requires exhausting reasonable expectations of coal reserves, and is not possible within a single century (and may take as much as four centuries). In the short term (for a century or so), that increase in CO2 levels will result in an increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature by 5 to 11 degrees C. After a century or so, CO2 levels will decline to about 25% of their peak and then take tens of thousands of years to return to natural levels. That decline will reduce temperatures to between 2 and 6 degrees C above current levels. As 2 degrees C is the limit above which AGW starts going from harmful but manageable to very dangerous, anything like the full exhaustion of gas and oil reserves and 10% of coal reserves (the assumption in calculating the figure) represents a very significant risk for the future. These calculations assume no significant increase of natural GHG emissions as a result of higher temperature, which given developments in Siberia is not a safe assumption. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:17 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
The GWPF was started by yet another lord (little 'l' deliberate) of the UK peerage, IIRC. What are the upper crust smoking over there? Are they like the Republicans, where you have to be rabidly anti-science in order to attain membership? It is sad that the Fourth Estate has come down to occupying a factless, information-free zone which acts merely as an echo chamber for the Jovian pronouncements of the Masters of the Universe. Thank the Lord (big 'L' deliberate) for SkS and their ilk. -
KBow at 18:07 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Would it be feasible to project the potential amount of co2 we could produce from the remaining reserves? Also, with a time frame that sufficient levels, for civilian, use may be available. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:56 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Tom Dayton @ 35 Wonders will never cease! Fancy that: they publish the rebuttal letter, but not the original submission signed by over 200 scientists. Thanks for the link. Tom Curtis @ 38 Thank you for a much better - polite - response than the one I was thinking of. -
bill4344 at 17:44 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
Any of us who spend any time doing battle online with the various Muppets of Misinformation will recognise Figures 1 and 2, both of which are constantly referenced. But surely to be properly understood - via the Monckton Method, don'tcha know - Figure 3 should be rotated clockwise about 8°? Thanks for the laugh! It helps; sometimes I have to pinch myself and remember 'yes, they really are putting up that risible argument, and, yes, their powerful friends really will ensure it gets all the attention it doesn't deserve'... -
Tom Curtis at 17:38 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Adam S posted a comment which has since been deleted, so far as I can tell, not because of any particular word in it, but because it consisted of nothing beyond a political slogan to the effect that the entire debate was about whether AGW would be catastrophic or not. That is a false and obnoxious little meme on two grounds. First, contrary to Adam S's suggestion, there are many so-called skeptics who deny that there has been any warming since the 1940's. Even more deny that there has been any Anthropogenic contribution to the warming that has been experienced since then. These two groups are the "more reasonable" so-called skeptics dirty little secret. Although their existence is often denied, it cannot have escaped the attention of anybody discussing global warming on the internet that they exist. Despite that, there existence is denied when it is desirable to seem reasonable, and encouraged when the spreading of confusion can be maximized. So Adam S's slogan is false in denying the existence of this group, and obnoxious because that denial frees him from the obligation of all reasonable people to defend good science with respect to them. Not for Adam S any need to defend science against absurd attacks the second law of thermodynamics, or the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, or even the incontrovertible fact that humans have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In those arguments he can remain safely above the fray, confident in the knowledge that those arguments will help his political cause. Second, and again contrary to Adam's slogan, there is not a dichotomy of possible effects of AGW, but a gradient. Many defenders of effective action against AGW do not accept CAGW, but DAGW, but a merely dangerous AGW is not reason to do nothing. Some defenders of action against AGW do not even accept DAGW, but only BAUAGWWTSMAGW. But accepting that Business As Usual Anthropogenic Global Warming will be Worse Than Mitigated Anthropogenic Global Warming does not give you reason to do nothing about AGW. Indeed, even the catastrophists among AGW acceptors mostly do not accept CAGW, but SROCAGW, but again, a Significant Risk Of Catastrophe is not reason to do nothing to avert that risk. As it stands, the science very solidly supports the idea that AGW will be dangerous, with a significant risk of catastrophe. But the science is not certain. It can reasonably be argued that catastrophe is inevitable if we continue at BAU; and equally it can be argued that AGW will be very bad, and well worth mitigating, but will not be dangerous globally (if still dangerous for some unfortunate people). Richard Alley takes that position. What is not reasonable is the position that we will experience HHAGW! Adam's belief in Ho Hum AGW does not come from following the evidence (unless of course he inhabits a different universe, with different evidence to that available to me). Therefore he promotes the false dichotomy. By insisting all his opponents occupy the most extreme opinion of CAGW, he attempts to render his position more reasonable. Rightly the moderators will have nothing to do with slogans like that on SkS, where even comments are expected to be evidence based. Adam may object to my characterizing as intentional certain strategies implicit in his slogan. Well, granted, he may be a babe in the AGW debate woods, so that he does not know what is implied by his sloganeering. After all, everybody makes mistakes. But honest men man up after the mistake, admit it and correct it. We will see how honest Adam intends to be by his admittance that his framing of the debate was a false dichotomy, and by his arguing against that false dichotomy against his fellow "skeptics" in future. But if he won't man up, then he is guilty as charged. -
Bern at 17:23 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow: sadly, coal production doesn't appear to have peaked here in Australia yet. There are serious efforts afoot to open up an entire new coal basin here in Queensland, with proposals for mines extracting a total of some 40-50 million tons per year or more (does anyone have those numbers handy?). :-( -
Tom Curtis at 17:00 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
I notice that The Australian, never slow to distort climate science, has now printed the letter in its opinion pages. IMO The Australian has devolved under the leadership of Chris Mitchell from the premier newspaper in Australia to little more than a regurgitater and source of propaganda. -
Tom Dayton at 16:12 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Amazingly, the WSJ has published a rebuttal from real scientists! -
Fran Barlow2 at 15:49 PM on 1 February 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
When the
No, it doesn't. The permits are auctioned under the cap. There is revenue in that.tax{fixed price phase} stops, the revenue to pay compensation stops. -
Alex C at 15:48 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
You forgot to scribble out the trend line in the satellite data graphic. Whadya trying to pull? -
calyptorhynchus at 15:40 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
Yep the Australian denialist commentators have been reproducing this Daily Mail story too. -
Adam S at 14:48 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
@Albatross It will be very hard to convince a mostly scientifically-challenged public, who have become accustomed to an energy rich lifestyle, to give it up. Attempt to take it away and they will rebel (politically). In addition, as the Yale study concluded, the more educated one is, the more skeptical he/she is ofCAGW. This combination of the selfish undereducated and skeptical educated should repel any attempt at CO2 mitigation legislation. Thank goodness!Moderator Response: [muoncounter] There is no C in front of 'AGW.' -
Stevo at 13:50 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Interestingly, there was a news article on the ABC News website this week (Australian ABC, I don't follow the American ABC) reporting that the United States Navy is looking to shifting their reliance from fossil fuels to biofuels. Amongst cited reasons were the increasingly unreliable supply of fossil fuel and that biofuels could be sourced from reliable, allied sources. I find the USN to be an interesting example of an organisation driven by pragmatic rather than ideological reasoning. They also are looking at future redeploying of assets to deal commercial sealane protection with the projected projected increase of cargo shipping through the now navigable route across the arctic. Governments may be in denial but some organisations, such as the USN, appear to realise that they must follow current developments and function in the real world. -
Riduna at 13:34 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
“If oil production can’t grow, the implication is that the economy can’t grow either.” That claim is nonsense. The economy can and will grow if energy provided by oil can be replaced by energy produced from an alternative source at a competitive price. Energy produced by oil is primarily used for transport and heating. Both can be (and are) provided from alternative sources such as gas and electricity. While the largest source of electricity in most countries is burning fossil fuels, as the price of those fuels increases, so wind, geothermal and solar alternatives become relatively cheaper and, ultimately, cheaper than fossil fuels. Consumers, whether industrial or household do not care where their energy needs come from provided they are the cheapest available. Clean energy sources are becoming cheaper as technological advances are made in their production, storage and distribution. Advances are being made in the efficiency with which energy is generated: solar base load electricity generation (through heat storage) is now possible, geothermal energy is being more widely used (through improved heat mining) and electricity can be stored and transported (through improving battery technology). Dangerously polluting fossil fuels will continue to be used but there are alternatives to them. The need to use those alternatives are becoming increasingly attractive as the world grows warmer, extreme climate events increase and finite oil and gas deposits deplete with increasing rapidity. These aspects will relegate use of oil and gas to more profitable use in the petro-chemical industry, rather than inefficient transport and wasteful heating. -
Trent1492 at 13:09 PM on 1 February 2012CO2 limits will make little difference
Came to this page via the Christy Crocks page. When I click on any link in the Climate Myths column for April 1,2011 I receive the following error message:Media Player You are not authorized to view this resource.
I have received the exact same message in regards source links in the Lindzen Illusions. I am using Windows 7 with Firefox as a browser. -
Bert from Eltham at 12:48 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I find it rather curious that the same people that do not like centralist control i.e. big government hate the thought of decentralised control of energy production. When communities can generate their own energy requirements locally with renewable sustainable energy, they no longer need the corporations/monopolies. What is next? We ignore the junk they sell to fulfil our lives with ever endless things? Where would it end!? Bert -
Bern at 12:05 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica @ 18: Well, with the oil running out, you might say that the "unnecessary and painful economic upheaval" is going to happen anyway. Re-gearing modern economies to run on something other than oil is going to be a very, very big job. I know certain lobbies are heavily pushing a mass conversion to gas, but even the optimists only think that'll last for 20 years before the conversion has to be done all over again. The positive side is that this may just provide enough of a wake-up call to allow serious developments of non-fossil alternatives. Unless the fossil lobby buy enough politicians so that we're forced to stick with coal, that is. -
Stevo at 11:31 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
How long? About two years. Where found? An article on ABC Drum site. How often? A few visits every working day, and try to read all article and follow links to sources for topics of particular interest. What issues? Keep up the good work, although I'd like to echo Doug's suggestion of connecting with local AGW genuine skeptics in some kind of network. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:16 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
How long have you been a reader of SkS? Around the time you won the Euraka Award. How did you become aware of its existence? From a link on another site, I think. How many times a week do you visit the site? Several times a day, to keep up with comment threads. What issues would you like to discuss in future editions of the Weekly Digest? How to connect with like-minded true AGW skeptics/truth seekers in my local area, which has a right-wing regional paper and is dominated by right-wing pollies who expressly reject AGW evidence. -
Jeffrey Davis at 10:02 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
The reason it takes longer to determine a trend in climate is that there are different time frames for climate forcings. The forcings aren't all annual. Pumping oil out of the ground is a function of supply and demand. The world wasn't in recession in 2005 when pumping peaked, so that was a good benchmark for our capacity. When volume declined and rocketing prices didn't cause more to be pumped, it's a good bet that they're pumping as much as they can. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:01 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
17, rlasker3, The statement you quoted does not say we will reach 450 by 2017, only that we will be unable to avoid reaching it by that point. That is, putting on the brakes to slow emissions (if we don't start doing so until 2017) will be virtually impossible without unnecessary and painful economic upheaval. At the current rate of emissions (assuming no slow down or acceleration) we will reach 450 by about 2042. -
rlasker3 at 08:56 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
"Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change," Uhm ... didn't the IEA say that we are on pace to surpass the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is considered safe by scientists by 2017? Is the argument that oil demand will become economically critical before that point? http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1112 "The headline conclusion of the WEO11 report is that, while the 450 target is still achievable, our chances of success are decreasing with every year of delay, and that, by 2017, the target could be out of reach." -
Sapient Fridge at 08:38 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
A very good book on the topic of peak oil is "Beyond Oil - The view from Hubbert's peak" written by Kenneth S. Deffeyes who is both a geologist and second generation oilman. The book is written in 2004 and predicts that peak oil would be in 2005, based on Hubbert's peak theory. It has a serious topic, but manages to be an entertaining read at the same time. My favourite quote is the one about the efficiency of modern drilling sites: "The crew on site will consist of a driller and a dog. The driller is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the driller if he touches anything." -
michael sweet at 08:28 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc, There are also many issues with government and industry estimates of coal reserves. Much data is secret. They mine the best deposits first so only third and fourth rate deposits are left. It is difficult for a non-expert to sift through the conflicting claims to determine how much coal can really be extracted economically. When you look at the obviously fudged claims about oil (see link above), it makes you wonder how much coal there really is to be extracted. For example they measure coal in extracted tons of coal, but new coal mines have lower quality coal which has a lower heat content per ton. Because they need more coal they do more environmental damage extracting it. Eventually even West Virginia may say enough. -
CBDunkerson at 08:26 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow, one of the primary components of the price of coil is actually the price of gasoline... because you need to move the coal. Oil and gas can be sent through pipes, but coal has to be loaded into trucks and hauled around. As the price of gasoline goes up so does the cost of transporting coal from extraction sites to power plants, and thus the overall price of coal. This can be seen in that spike in coal prices you mentioned... which exactly corresponds with the spike in gasoline prices. So yes, there is still plenty of coal around, but the cost of coal power is going to continue going up so long as it requires gasoline to transport it. -
michael sweet at 08:17 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel, You need to consider that it has been forecast for decades that oil would run out in the early years of the 21st century. So the question is: when we see oil running out as expected is it really running out? Compared to Climate Change where we expect the climate to keep getting warmer and we see data that says it is still getting warmer in spite of claims to the contrary. Canada oil sands are not economic at less than about $100 per barrell. The people who want to build the pipeline obviously think oil will only go up in price.
Prev 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 Next
