METROPOLITAN WOES: Climate change and peak oil will pose fundamental challenges for metropolitan communities, such as Merriam, a suburb of Kansas City.
Image: Flickr / ThirdHandArt
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Before the Lights Go Out: Conquering the Energy Crisis Before It Conquers Us (John Wiley & Sons, 2012), by Maggie Koerth-Baker.
Most people reading this would probably find Merriam, Kansas, very familiar. Not because they've been there, but because it's a lot like home.
Merriam is usually described as a suburb of Kansas City, Kans.—a small town that grew into a residential center for people who worked in the much larger city nearby. Yet the mental images that go with the word suburb don't really fit Merriam all that well. When I think suburb, I imagine something like Levittown, treeless insta-villages where rows of identical houses dot gleaming new cul-de-sacs recently carved out of some farmer's field. The greater Kansas City area certainly has its share of developments that would fit that description, but Merriam isn't one of them.
In fact, when I was a kid, I didn't even know Merriam existed at all. I thought it was Kansas City. Specifically, I thought it was where Kansas City began, the distinct point where you exit the Interstate and find yourself in the big city. This particular misconception has more to do with my family's regular travel plans than anything else—Merriam's main drag happens to be the same road that leads to the art museum my dad and I went to a lot and to the Christmas light displays I visited every winter with my mom. It also speaks volumes about what Merriam actually looks like, though, and it's tied to some important trends in the way most Americans live today.
Merriam isn't a small town. There's nothing really recognizable as a small town central business district. Instead, Merriam's stores and offices are mostly concentrated along two major thoroughfares—Shawnee Mission Parkway and Johnson Drive. These wide, multilane roads are dotted with clusters of shopping centers and big box stores, like necklaces strung with fat pearls. The municipal building and the police station are a couple of nondescript offices that sit off the frontage of Shawnee Mission Parkway, on a ridge overlooking the Interstate. Nothing about that says, "Classic Americana."
Yet Merriam isn't a suburb, either—or an urban city. It's too dense to be the first and not dense enough to be the latter. Merriam has a mixture of house styles. Drive down one street, and you'll see a 1930s bungalow standing shoulder to shoulder with a spare little 1950s Cape Cod. Next to that, there's a 1980s split-level with windows on the front and the back but none on the sides. More than three generations of the American Dream are living here.
Each house sits on its own little lot, generous by the standards of city dwellers, but those lots would seem cramped to anyone who grew up on an expansive, truly suburban range of lawn. Some neighborhoods have sidewalks; others don't. All in all, Merriam doesn't quite fit in with any of the paradigms we use to describe "place" in the United States, and that sense of befuddlement extends all the way to the edge of town—if you can find it. The truth is that Merriam's borders are hazy, known only to people whose jobs require them to be aware of that sort of thing. To most people, Merriam bleeds into Mission, into Shawnee, and into Overland Park. Those towns, in turn, nuzzle up against others just like themselves. You could almost call them neighborhoods, except that they have their own separate governments.
See what we're tweeting about
134 Comments
Add CommentProof positive of the importance of teaching Permaculture in the'public education'system . And you know they won't, So learn it and teach your kids .My 'education' in Detriot was dumbed down to make sure i understood the importance of owning a car and a house in the suburbs. What a cruel joke to play on little kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCripes, what a myopic look at the world. A dot of a dot. And 'conclusios' about peak oil and climate chanbge are drawn fromn this?1111 Shudder...Scientific Amnerican at its most unscientific
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just about the most ridiculous pile I have ever read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I find it interesting that SI did not feature an article, or exerpt, from the book I just finished reading called 'Energy and Climate Wars: How naive politicians, green ideologues, and media elites are undermining the truth about energy and climate'. It is interesting that there are some salient points in that book that are dismissed because they do not conform to the one world government ideology.
Strange that those of us that actually have taken the time to read the literature on both sides of this debate have come to the conclusion that there is no 'scientific consensus' (in fact there are more scientists that disagree with AGW than do). Additionally, we understand that we are all being used as pawns in a historically unprecidented power grab. What's worse our elected officials are allowing us to be handicapped by their utopian agenda all the while we are loosing ground, in terms of energy security, to China at an alarming rate. Are we really that stupid as a populace? It does appear so when a supposedly scientific publication completely igonres the other side of the arguement. Is it that the editors actually believe this pile of baloney or are they also complicit in the power struggle?
I am pretty tired of being called names because I will not drink the Kool-Aid and accept AGW and that we have to develop alternative energy at any cost to stop climate change. In fact, it is symptomatic of the hysterical (yes emotionally charged) manner in which climate change is portrayed and accpeted by people, that there are people out there that think we can actually 'stop global climate change' (we have just about as much ability to accomplish that feat as draining the world's oceans with a shot glass).
I have gone out and gotten the data and read leterature on both sides. That information along with my education and data analysis experience tells me something that most people are either not equiped to determine on their own or are just willing to believe everything that the experts say in a flashy headline. That fact is that the science that supports AGW is suspect at best and it is far from definitive. Call me what you want but until all of you believers can go through the same exercise(s) and support your conclusions with something more than links and references to other people's work, that you clearly do not have the ability to critique, then I will remain solidly in the 'denier' camp.
Also, we are so far from peak oil that it is almost silly to even use that term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOdd that you, an internet blogger, know more than somewhat over 96% of the world's scientists . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOdd that you deniers claim that scientists are only after project funding, yet you mentioned having read a book that promotes your blindness to the issue . . . I didn't know books could be published and distributed without cost.
Odd that you cannot understand the links you've been handed, but are perfectly willing to state that you'll gladly bury your head in the sand. Well, no, maybe that's not so odd . . .
But your great-grandchildren will have a few words for you, and "odd" is far better than you could ever hope for . . .
Okay, you said that I can call you anything I want, and if you did not say it exactly that way, then you may understand why you do not understand what AGW is trying to accomplish. Here comes the name calling: "I think you are a mentally retarded republican with a mindset." How's that? Do you feel better now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you seem to have trouble, as much trouble as the research reporters of this rag does and the editors in correcting some of these horrible articles, in understanding what AGW is talking about, let me see if you can understand me: First, it is not CO2 (carbon dioxide) that is causing global warming; our very life depends on the plants on this planet converting CO2 to oxygen so we can breathe. CO2 is an oil sucking republican ploy to confuse people about what Vice President Al Gore was talking about when he talked about what is causing global warming. It is CO1 (carbon monoxide) that comes from all the car exhausts and the smoke stacks from burning fossil fuel like oil, coal, and natural gas. The dark matter in the smoke - soot is absorbing the Sun's heat and heating up the planet. The simplest way to stop global warming is to stop using fossil fuel and start mass producing electric cars, geothermal power plants, solar, wind, and ocean wave power plants and get completely away from fossil fuel power plants. Even nuclear power plants are better than coal, oil, and natural gas power plants.
Second: You would have to be totally insane not to see that it is us humans that is speeding up climate change with our vehicles and fossil fuel power plants. We humans is speeding up climate change and we humans can slow it back down to its normal change. Just the two days that Bush stopped air flight in the U.S. until he got the Sody Prince out of Florida...the Earth did a remarkable job in cleaning up our sky. We can stop global warming and the rapid climate change quickly if we want to, but the republicans seem to think that a black president and an Oriental Energy Secretary is not smart enough to know how to do that. You republicans are really pathetic people.
Gotta love the anti-science tirades posted on a site called "Scientific American".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That fact is that the science that supports AGW is suspect at best and it is far from definitive."
That is the second most ridiculous bit of paranoid effluvia I've ever seen written in a serious voice.
The most ridiculous involved a guarantee that the world was ending in 37.54 days and that there would be a lot of Lithuanian ducks involved.
The science is the science, the evidence is the evidence. No amount of blathering on about what some sensationalist gossip site posted about climate scientists not wearing underwear and mostly being left-handed (sure signs of the devil) is going to alter the reality. Global temperatures have risen, CO2 levels have increased due specifically to human caused emissions.
Anyone who denies that may as well get in the Lithuanian duck line, right behind the flat earthers, the creationists and the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
I can shoot down (but unfortunately not shut up) the anti-science wackos with a few simple questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would climate scientists have to produce in order to convince you that the theory of AGW is correct?
2. Cite the name of just one published, peer reviewed science paper or the name of one specific data set used in a published scientific paper that has been found to have been manipulated, faked, intentionally distorted, destroyed or otherwise inappropriately modified or used.
3. It's a fact that 122 national scientific academies on this planet have had a look at the evidence, and have published statements affirming their support for the scientific consensus that human-caused CO2 emissions are a significant factor in the warming of the global climate.
So if AGW theory is fake/wrong then that means there are 122 scientific academies on the planet comprised entirely of people who are either lying or completely incompetent (or some combination thereof).
Which is it? There obviously can't be any competent or truthful ones since they're in unanimous agreement. Are they all incompetent, all lying, or both?
4. The sensationalist gossip-mongering media has made literally hundreds of claims that scientific data has been altered, destroyed, or faked, yet none of them have demanded that a specific paper be retracted or a specific scientist be disciplined.
Why is that?
You won't see a single anti-science type even attempt to respond directly to any of those questions. They scatter like quail (and Quayle) when they're asked to present evidence.
Hi evosburgh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might be able to find some scientists that think Global Warming has nothing to do with humans but how many have you found that claim the Earth isn't warming? Whether the global warming is anthropogenic or not doesn't really matter. The fact remains. The world is warming and there will be consequences. There IS "scientific consensus" that the Earth is warming. If you disagree with that, show me your math.
I've read a few chapters of the book you mentioned and was not impressed. It reads very much like it was written by a creation "scientist". That is probably the main reason it hasn't been featured on Scientific American. They don't like publishing pseudo-science.
The book you mention is flat out wrong when it comes to peak oil. It begins by claiming that "no peak oil alarmist prediction has to date been proven remotely accurate," and only a few pages later contradicts itself as it notes that Hubbert's prediction that US oil production would peak in the 70's was spot on. Beyond that, your authors claim that Hubbert's now famous curve doesn't take technological innovation into account. Hubbert observed that even with innovation and new techniques, the downward slope of his curve is only altered slightly. Innovation and advanced techniques make the decline less steep but in NO WAY prevent the peak or decline. This fact has been observed/demonstrated numerous times, just not on a global scale. It has also been shown that technology developed AFTER the peak only extends the decline while innovation that emerges before the peak makes the peak come quicker. (Look at the North Sea).
You may have a good deal of information on anthropogenic global warming (Got a site of your own? Links? Anything?) but you are very uneducated when it comes to resource depletion and "Peak Oil."
Your failure to understand the simple concept of resource depletion leads me to distrust what you have to say about anything else dealing with science. You may have "read" the literature on both sides but it seems you've only comprehended half of it (the half you want to believe).
So do you have a link to your own difinitive work showing the actual cause of the observed global temperature increase of the last 200 years? I'd love to see it :)
Global crude oil production has been on a plateau since 2005 and supplies are getting tighter and tighter.
Plan ahead... Plant a garden.
In response to this actual article...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCrude oil supply has been on a plateau since 2005 and no amount of price increases have led to increased production.
We are at the peak right now and the world has not prepared.
Expect a decade or two of energy shortages.
Seriously, plant a garden.
(Yes, make it a polyculture ++ :) )
I know a lot more than you seem to about peak oil because the production rate is controled by economics and IOC's (and by that stupid little thing in the deep water).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUYou obviously did not bother to actually read the whole book nor the references and therefore you cannot discount them as wrong unless i an allowed to discount all of the AGW articles that have been published just because I do not like what they say.
Your entire post is negated by attempting to call me stupid. I think that you are an uneducated lemming now do you feel better or is your blood pressure going up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do know what the AGW crowd is trying to do and it is to grab power for he that controls energy controls the world. If you want to let people use you as a tool to further their own cause go ahead.
Finally, I am a centerist which means that I take the best (what little there is) of both sides. You are just another bleeding heart liberal that will buy anything that you gods sell you aren;t you?
You obviously do not have a scientific thought in your head if you think that I am anti-scientific. What I have said many times over on these boards is that the science is not settled because a group of scientists claimed there was a consensus without actually responding to their critics rather than just villifying them and then dismissing them without showing their data and methods (which is what I used to think was proof of your work).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen drawing parallels where they do not exist in an attempt to diminish my comments is just plain obivous on your part.
You are right: science is science and if the people producing the so-called science were actually ethical they would not be massaging the data and then not telling how they did it. Nor would they not be able to find the original data sets. Nor would they supress and villify others with opposing view points.
Nice try, bt it is not 96% of all scientists. If you are going to post a statistic then at least understand where it came from and the context.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as our great-grandchildren what are they going to say about the collasal waste of time and energy and money that went into this false assumption?
Here we go:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. an actual verifiable model that accounts for all of the required inputs and dependacies which produces repeatable and verifiable results along with a complete uncertainty analysis. Since this is not actually computationally possible then I guess we are at an impass.
2. How about Mann's 'trick' to reduce the low and high points in the historic record. Also, that little problem that the original data sets seem to have gone missing? Ultimately it is not that the data itself is manipulated but rather that the assumptions that went into the analyses are pretty out there and they have completely ignored the really important climate drivers that cannot be easily modeled.
3. Fine, please name these organizations and their source of funding. Also, why is that when a 'denier' organization puts something out there it is automatically discounted as the product of lying?
Please explain the apparent lack of correlation between hydrocarbon usage and the various data sets presented in figure 13 of:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
I do not want to hear about the source or the text or anything else than your explanation of why there is no apparent correlation between the buring of hydrocarbon and the other data sets posted.
After looking at these plots and then denying that they are valid because they did not come from a 'climate scientist' (as if that is the only group that has the ability or right to compile such data) you will prove my point about the belivers.
Then please explain correlations in figures 9 through 10 regarding the nature of extreme weather events in the recent past (which coincidentally covers the modern data climate data record).
I read the book (preview copy from Science Online 2012.) It is a very balanced look at energy policy by an excellent reporter. She does not take political sides on the issue, but explains the very complex issues with the electric grid management as well as other very complex issues in energy policy. I recommend it for anyone interested in the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShe has a very approachable way of telling the story. Frankly, this sort of subject can be very dry, but the book was written in a way that kept it from being boring.
I forgot one more point: please explain why it is that cutting CO2 emissions is going to 'fix the climate' in light of the other information indicated in Figure 19.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: because it is possible to measure and model CO2 but the others are too complicated to be included in the relatively rudimentary GCM's. Is it that the models are nothing more than curve fitters that are not even proper 4 dimensional models.
And now for my favorite statement from the belivers: weather and climate are two different things. Can someone explain how the daily weather is not related to the long term climate? I am going to give you a clue: they are the same system at different time scales. The only 'difference' is that by looking at long term trends you can average out the high order cyclicity in the system. For example check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
What you see is that a high frequency data set can be averaged and then have a trend line put through it. However, the trick is that all of the forcings that are causing the high frequency trend are also resposnible for the overall trend. Trying to say that the long term trend has nothing to do with the high frequency trend is just plain dumb.
Roger: "It is a very balanced look at energy policy by an excellent reporter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the headline....alarmist crap. 'Twin Perils'...blah, blah, the end is nigh...drink th Kool-aid or perish.
Agenda and science do not mix...this is NOT a good reporter.
We have been living in an age of 120 IQ journalists, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen, the petit bourgeois nomenclatura. Real scientists like you, me, or Tesla are suppressed by the JP Morgan and Rockefeller banksters that keep this rag afloat, just like they keep the dead-tree media alive as long as they kowtow to this Malthusian depopulationary, Rockefeller diseugenical, socially Darwinian hoax started by Swedish eugenicist Arrhenius in 1896 and debunked in 1908 by R.W. Wood at Johns Hopkins. Once we catch all of this insane liars and bring them to justice at the new Climategate Grand Jury, live from Nuremberg, Pennslyvania can we witness the Fourth Great Awakening and enter a new era run by scientists with IQ's over 140.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are clearly the one who's drank the KoolAid. You lapped up tripe from an anti-science screed because you think it's science. You think it's science because you are scientifically illiterate and because you WANT to believe it for ideological reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists and climate deniers function on the same mental plane with conspiracy theorists of all sorts, except for the ones that know full well that they're lying. In both areas of science denial, it is clear from the arguments and tactics used that many at the top of the relevant enterprises know they are lying. Just like OJ Simpson's defense attornies clearly knew he was guilty.
But just like the OJ jury, the guys lying to you knew that you'd snatch up the KoolAid like you were dying of thirst.
The mass spread of conspiracy theorist science denial makes me fear for the future of my children and grandchildren more than anything else - by far.
For once, you're right, it's not 96% (of actively researching climate scientists).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's 97%.
Sorry, gotta call you a liar because... well, you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy proof? Cite a single *specific* published paper or a *specific* data set that was faked/altered/improperly manipulated.
You can't because it never happened and you know perfectly well that's the truth. That's why you won't respond to my simple questions.
What is the rational individual response to a "crisis" (if there is one) where no matter what you do, it will not change the outcome one iota?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You're avoiding the question, and no, we are not at an impasse, we are at the point where your anti-science position is made clear. You did not state specific evidence that could convince you, you simply mumbled something about a model and then stated that no possible evidence can convince you. You've taken an irrational, dogmatic position on a scientific question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. You're avoiding from the question. Cite the specific paper, cite the specific scientist, cite the specific retraction, cite the specifics. You claim to have all this knowledge of the subject but you can't even name *one*? You make wild claims of global conspiracy theories but you can't name *one* single specific instance?
3. You're avoiding the question. Are they *all* stupid, are they *all* lying or is it some combination of those? You're claiming global conspiracy/global idiocy, that all the scientists at 122 scientific institutes around the world are either actively participating in a conspiracy to discredit a handful of sensationalist websites and book authors. You make that claim but you can't even hazard a guess as to which it is?
0 for 3.
Any time you feel up to citing a specific paper, knock yourself out. You know what happens then?
I ask you why you and these other anti-science groups all "know" the science has been faked but not *one* of you has approached *any* scientific journal and demanded the papers in question be retracted or updated.
That's a rhetorical question because everyone already knows that you can't cite specifics. It didn't happen, you can't cite a single instance of it, you've made it all up in your head and you expect us to believe it.
You demand proof from climate scientists that basic physics works and then you can't even provide a *single* proof of this worldwide conspiracy you claim is really the cause.
If that were true you'd counter my points with facts instead of irrational "debate style" arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of my points still stand as you've addressed not a single one of them.
I do appreciate that link to the PDF. Interesting data there. Will let you know what a scientist thinks ;)
Have a look at the anti-science tactics folks. Just like creationists, which they are closely related to. (In fact you can get to a young earth creationist website from any climate science denial website just by following links, usually in two clicks or less. Try it sometime)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not matter what statement you make, they always have an answer. The words "I don't know" do not exist in their vocabulary. Ask a climate scientist specifics and they'll often respond with "we don't know" or "we're not certain".
Only in the dogmatic mind are the words "we don't know" a sign of weakness or a cause for shame. The anti-science characters *know* everything about ice extent, even when they obviously don't know the difference between sea ice and land ice. They *know* beyond a shadow of a doubt how mitigating CO2 will affect the economy of the world even when economists and business leaders say "we don't know". They *know* that no matter what the evidence may say it's "impossible" for human caused CO2 emissions to have altered the climate even when they can't explain where those hundreds of gigatons of carbon have disappeared to.
25 gigatons of carbon can disappear every year without ever warming the atmosphere. The oceans can become more acidic from CO2 without the atmosphere warming. Isn't that *amazing* physics the anti-science dogma preaches?
You know, the best thing is to ignore it. You aren't going to convince someone who's looked the entire gigantic mass of systematic evidence and theory of the past 40 years straight in the face and called it all a lie. You absolutely certainly without a shadow of a doubt cannot do that with logic, reason, and facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we can do is spend our time working in local, regional, national, and (what passes for) world governing institutions, or in the private sector, to produce real action. Reality is inevitable. The arguments can only go on so long. If half of us have to drag the other half into the 21st Century kicking and screaming by the scruffs of their necks at least their children may thank us. So be it, life is better when you live it for the benefit of everyone anyhow (yes Ayn Rand I spit on your grave, gladly too). It is what we're here for, or at least what we can make of ourselves, so what say you? Enough arguing with cavemen, more action! :)
I would love to know what a scientist thinks as this one has already said that there is no correlation between the hydrocarbon usage and the warming, glacier shortening, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to posts 21, 22 (and the climate scientists are the only ones who can actually have a valid opinion ... whatever), 23, 27 and 28: if you cannot respond to the questions that I have posed in 16 and 18 then it just goes to prove that no matter what contrary evidence might be presented that you all are unable to think critically for yourselves and are nothing more than sheeple being led down the primrose path by the AGW pipers. I mean come on ... can you really think that the science is settled because there has been a warming in the past 100+ years (which by the way per post 16 is NOT directly correlated to burning hydrocarbons) when there is another 4.5 billion years of history in Earth's atmosphere. Yes there has been warming (duh) and also it is not proven that it has been caused by mankind.
I would love to know what a scientist thinks as this one has already said that there is no correlation between the hydrocarbon usage and the warming, glacier shortening, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to posts 21, 22 (and the climate scientists are the only ones who can actually have a valid opinion ... whatever), 23, 27 and 28: if you cannot respond to the questions that I have posed in 16 and 18 then it just goes to prove that no matter what contrary evidence might be presented that you all are unable to think critically for yourselves and are nothing more than sheeple being led down the primrose path by the AGW pipers. I mean come on ... can you really think that the science is settled because there has been a warming in the past 100+ years (which by the way per post 16 is NOT directly correlated to burning hydrocarbons) when there is another 4.5 billion years of history in Earth's atmosphere. Yes there has been warming (duh) in the past 100+ years and also it is not proven that it has been caused by mankind.
First off, consensus is science is meaningless. If it's consensus, it isn't science. You can argue all you want on that issue, but you are wrong. End of story... non-negotiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to what information would change my mind, really, that is up to you to find it. It is not up to me to prove the case for AGW. It is up to the AGW researchers to show that no other explanation makes sense.
In the discussion of AGW research, it is obvious that a great deal of time, money and effort is being spent on finding data consistent with AGW. This is fundamentally unsound science. At least as much effort should be going into finding alternative explanations and eliminating them. That would be scientific.
A case in point is the recent claims of the "faster than light neutrinos". The researchers threw open the gates to all their data and invited scientists from all over the world to punch holes in their research and find out what they did wrong. As it turns out, a cabling error or possibly a GPS error can account for the faster than light issue. The rezsearchers involved in this topic understood the scientific method.
Now, let's look at how these same experiments would have been handled by scientists thinking like AGW style researchers:
1. The results would have been claimed as being settled as a consesus of like minded individuals agreed.
2. The researchers would not have released the data.
3. The AGW-researchers would have violated the Freedom of Information Act to deny access to data to anyone who questioned them.
4. Any other researchers who questioned them would have been labeled "Deniers", bullied, blackballed, villified and shut out of the process.
5. The AGW style researchers would have kept repeating the same experiment over and over, getting the same result, and still claiming it was settled, but would not tell anyone else how to recreate their results.
6. The AGW-researchers would create a computer model that duplicated the results and claimed that this computer model was evidence that they were correct.
7. Billions of $$ of research money would be requested, as that now that faster than light travel was incontrovertible, it would post a whole new way to explore the galaxy.
8. The military would start drawing up plans on how to deal with faster than light travel.
9. MSM outlets, such as SCIAM would breathlessly print every missive.
Anybody detect the pattern here? Does the AGW-style research look like it meets the same standard as the neutrino research?
Somebody is sloppy who do you think?
Amen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please explain the apparent lack of correlation between hydrocarbon usage and the various data sets presented in figure 13 of:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf"
I don't see any apparent lack of correlation. I see temperature rising after fossil fuel use.
The Warm/Cool pattern almost exactly matches economic growth, only offset by some years since the burning of fossil fuels doesn't increase temperature IMMEDIATELY.
You can see the activity before 1925 led to the temp increases in the first shaded "warm" section.
The economic depression during the "warm" period showed almost no increase in fossil fuel use.
Given that I would expect temperatures to even out about 20 years after.
Oh look that is the beginning of the next "cool" stage. It was during that stage that we increased fossil fuel usage dramatically.
Look at that... The temperature rises again.
I can see the pattern. Why can't you?
Also, given the pattern I see, the next "period" will be way warmer than the current period we're in.
The authors of the article seem to be expecting the temperature to enter another "cool" period.
I can't wait to see who is right :)
Mostly good data.
I bet you can't show me a real life example AGW researchers doing everything in your list?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want a link for each one.
Seriously though, science doesn't require any kind of consensus?
Are you r-tarded?
Thank you for your comment. See #4 of my comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have any data that shows a non-computer generated, real world example that proves a positive amplification of CO2's effects that would be helpful. I keep asking for someone, anyone to demonstrate that the postulated amplification of CO2's effects is real, but all I get is comments like yours.
And no, I'm not retarded, science does not require any type of consensus. It isn't a popularity contest.
However, if you believe in your heart of hearts, that science is settled by consensus, we can find you a helmet and a small school bus to ride, but please please, ... don't lick the windows.
@Shoshin and @evosburgh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really telling that neither of you can give an example of any kind of scientific evidence that would convince you that the Earth is warming and that humans have had some effect on this.
I'll show you how it is done.
I will be convinced that global warming is NOT anthropogenic if the world experiences a temperature peak before it experiences a fossil fuel production decline.
That is an example of something falsifiable.
What evidence would convince either of you that humans are at least partly responsible for the increase of average global temperature?
There has to be something.
I'm digging more and more into that PDF you referenced.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
The data all seems to be pretty good.
It is the interpretation of that data that really, really, really sucks.
Many of the interpretations seem to have a Bill O'Reilly spin to them all the way down to the quotes around "human-caused global warming" after already framing it as a hypothesis.
I have my own interpretations of some of those charts.
Look at Figure 12...
They, for some reason, are measuring from the INCREASE in fossil fuel use instead of from the time we started using lots of coal.
There is a striking correlation in that graph and the authors do their very best not mention the correlation at all.
We really started burning fossil fuels around the 1850s with a slow build up before that. Figure 12 shows melting glaciers and a sea level increase starting exactly around that time.
Did you even look at the chart?
And really, that PDF only deals with the effect of CO2 on the climate.
That PDF has political roots and was created for political gain.
There is very little science there.
"See #4 of my comments."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not shutting you out of the process because I disagree with you. I'm shutting you out because you don't even understand the scientific process to begin with.
But let me take it back. You're not r-tarded.
"And no, I'm not retarded, science does not require any type of consensus."
Well actually...
To become a "theory", a "hypothesis" must be tested over and over again by several different scientists. They must then reach... CONSENSUS (peer review) ...about what is being observed.
You may not be retarded but you definitely don't know what you're talking about.
And why just talking about CO2 in the atmosphere? It isn't just atmospheric CO2 causing increases in global temperature.
Seems you're stuck on that because that's the part that got "politicized."
And I notice you didn't provide any links or examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that?
Could it be that you have nothing? I hope not.
"Call me what you want but until all of you believers can go through the same exercise(s) and support your conclusions with something more than links and references to other people's work, that you clearly do not have the ability to critique, then I will remain solidly in the 'denier' camp."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the real data/evidence you've pointed to has been other peoples' work that you definitely don't have the ability to think critically about.
You still haven't provided me a link to your site with your data that shows how humans have nothing to do with global warming.
We're waiting and we'll probably be waiting for a long time.
@evosburgh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG Seriously?
Again, this is you...
"Call me what you want but until all of you believers can go through the same exercise(s) and support your conclusions with something more than links and references to other people's work, that you clearly do not have the ability to critique, then I will remain solidly in the 'denier' camp."
Show me how you've supported your own conclusions with your own work?
Your link definitely didn't help your cause.
It might sound convincing to you but thank goodness there are people that can see through its BS interpretations.
"If you have any data that shows a non-computer generated, real world example that proves a positive amplification of CO2's effects that would be helpful. I keep asking for someone, anyone to demonstrate that the postulated amplification of CO2's effects is real, but all I get is comments like yours."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah you keep asking for this demonstration but not even you know what kind of data or evidence in this demonstration would have to contain to convince you.
Give us an example of data that would convince you.
Why can't you list this?
Seriously?
The fact that you believe that consensus is necessary to science demonstrates that you have no understanding of science whatsoever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I stated earlier, there is no negotiation on that issue.... none. If you can't get past that consensus is irrelevant, the rest of everything that you post is meaningless.
Get back to me when you can get your brain wrapped around the fact that science does not require consensus, or peer review for that matter.
None of Einstein's papers were peer reviewed. Google it yourself. I'm not spoonfeeding you. Find out for yourself. If you're brave enough.
That's what scientists do.
As to CO2, there is a complete and utter fixation on CO2 to the exclusion of all else. Again, convince me; show me evidence that CO2's effects are being amplified by some positive feedback loop. The independent evidence that I've seen so far indicates little to no amplification, of possibly a small negative feedback, but nothing remotely on the scale claimed by the IPCC. And no, no links, go find it yourself. If you are as great a researcher as you claim to be it should take you about 32.8 seconds on Google.
So far the only place the positive feedback loop exists is in computer modeling. Which, like consensus, is meaningless.
As to peer review, the point of peer review is to poke holes in things. They're job is to sink your theory, not float it. Look at the vast majority of CRU peer revew papers. Only reviewers that agreed with them to start with were invited. Critics were shunned.
AGW is rife with abuse of the peer review process. And no, I'm not providing links. Go Google it yourself.
I told you what data would convince me. Do you have it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, now that I re-read your posts, your lack of understanding of science is so complete, that you must really be Sault using a new name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault? Sault??? Is that really you???
"None of Einstein's papers were peer reviewed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis peers have been trying to discredit his work for years and haven't been able to. It is THAT fact that has lifted his ideas to the status that they hold today.
Yes Einstein came up with a hypothesis and did a lot of work to test his hypothesis but he would have been nothing without his peers. Google it.
Facts don't require consensus. Science's interpretations of those facts, do.
Fact: Global Average Temperature is rising and has been rising since the 1800's when humans first started accelerating their use of fossil fuels.
Interpretation: The burning of fossil fuels by humans has led to some of this Global Average Temperature increase.
It is the scientific interpretation that requires consensus. I'm not saying whether there is or not.
"I told you what data would convince me. Do you have it?"
No you haven't told anybody here what data would convince you.
The most you've said is that you'd like to be shown some data that CO2's effects are being amplified by a positive feedback loop.
Are you saying that if a positive CO2 feedback loop can be found you'll be convinced of anthropomorphic global warming?
I don't think you are saying that. I think you have to see a feedback loop of a certain strength before you'll be convinced. You've apparently already looked at some data and are seeing "...little to no amplification, [or] possibly a small negative feedback, but nothing remotely on the scale claimed by the IPCC."
What data have you looked at already concerning positive CO2 feedback loops that you've been unconvinced by?
How much amplification is required to convince you? Just... more?
This is what I'm asking for. I'm asking to see the data you've reviewed and for an explanation as to why it isn't convincing. I also want to know how strong the amplification would have to be in order to actually convince you.
I don't personally believe you have these numbers and if you do, you got them from the internet which is perfectly fine but...
Please
Provide
A
Link
You probably won't post those links or your own data. You probably don't even have them. I am genuinely interested in seeing them because I want to believe that global warming and peak oil aren't going to bite us in the ass but so far all evidence is pointing to doom.
"And no, I'm not providing links. Go Google it yourself."
AND
"And no, no links, go find it yourself."
Wow you absolute refuse to back up anything you say with anything more than hot air.
"Sault? Sault??? Is that really you???"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNever heard of Sault. My monikers on the internet have been SelfGov and LogicaLunatic.
And you know what? Even if I showed you a strong positive CO2 feedback loop I don't think you'd be convinced.
I don't think you'd be convinced because I don't believe you can be convinced. I think you're set in you're beliefs because you believe what you want.
That is one place we differ.
I don't want oil to go into terminal decline in the next year or two but it is going to.
I don't want global temperatures to rise too fast for us to adjust but they're going to.
No kind of protocol or carbon currency is going to prevent this from happening. It is already too late for any kind of solution on that scale.
At this point all we can do is localize food production and pray.
Plan Ahead! Plant a garden.
Infinite Economic Growth is Impossible on a Finite Planet
Thanks for comin'out. Have a good life. I hope your particular brand of "science" works out for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou'd be the first.
I'd say we can't do much. Oil peaked several years ago, probably in 2005 - and the 2030 number is absolutely ridiculous. We can clearly see the state apparatus gear up for widespread and brutal instruments of repression, and those in power (i.e., those who have the wealth) do not want to lose theirs and clearly envision anyone else does lose (say) half of theirs. Think of Greece austerity, worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis unambiguously implies die off - in other words, the slow and gradual decrease in population caused by "soviet collapse" analogue crime, starvation, collapse in services, reduced access to medical care, violence, despair and such. Americans will be served a very heartwrenching reality as soon as the supermarkets run empty and the malls close for "renovation".
Most developed countries are now so overpopulated that "growing your own food" is absolutely impossible - it can only end in looting, plunder, feudal/gang protection rackets or worse - "culling human beings".
I propose doling nothing. I am in my 40s, and as soon as this starts unravelling i'll take a handful of pills and cut my losses. I had a nice ride so far and I had the highest level of luxury any populace on this planet ever had. And now our politicians do nothing. They know the score - there is nothing to be done! Maybe if we started with fusion research or O'Neill SSPS in the 1980s we might have been able to save some of the world, but it's too late now.
Who know, we might get lucky. Cold fusion, or some other breakthrough. So that's what I propose - ride it out, keep the party going for as long as it lasts and when it collapses, then deal with it with self-delivered euthanasia, or joining the gangs to plunder and kill for whatever small food reserves remain.
This reply post is of course intended as sarcasm.
Fossil oil powers 97 per cent of motion, the only path to rising living standards. Assuming "peak oil" in 2030 the gross inadequacy of all proposals to date of a sci-savvy civilisation to replace oil raises more sharply whether it can be replaced at all, as oil looks more and more like the DNA of our world, and the approach of 2030, only 18 years hence, makes those proposals ever more pallid. Assuming the fossil oil era can be succeeded, it is unlikely there will be readiness by 2030, pointing to the need to starting work on succession decades ago. However, our immersion in oil, and it has some punch to get those behemoths into the air to fly around the world, means our eyes never fell on the real game, to get to the non-oil era. Fossil has punch - the retrieval of natural resources for building infrastructure and propel its functioning to support economic activity, to support even advanced high services economies - the net runs on monitors, phones, offices all put together often at many points / stages by oil. Punch - the change to the planet's surface now equals that of natural forces. Explosives may dislodge much material but there is no point if transport cannot move it to another location or other locations - here think motion - at a sufficient rate, through the chain of production. The natural manner in which fossil oil was made means people cannot make an energy that accumulated over millions of years. Oil allowed high, go anywhere mobility energy compactness, courtesy of fuel tank attached to both stationary and mobile machines. To think the internal combustion engine, which has reached the limits of refinement, only applies about 20 per cent of the energy held by oil, but what that 20 per cent does is beyond comprehension. Boeing's Dreamliner has made fuel efficiency gains only through reaching the limits of body work construction rather than the jet engine. We are not the masters over oil, rather its prisoner, for the oil world has a critical mass and simply can only be fed more oil. Projections to 2035 show oil to be the most demanded energy, in a period when there will be take up of alternatives, pointing to growing reliance. At the moment oil is used to build even more that is reliant on oil, rather than turning matters away from such reliance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...'conclusios' about peak oil and climate chanbge are drawn fromn this?1111 Shudder...Scientific Amnerican at its most unscientific..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI first thought you were pointing out the misspelling of the word conclusions somewhere in the excerpt and following that with four of your own mistakes. Then I realized that it was just another mistake of yours. In the past, you've claimed credibility as a supposedly educated geologist, but it's hard to see how composing and publishing a sentence deserving of a sentence does much to create a favourable impression. Do you apply the same level of care to your 'research' into environmental issues?
World temperatures have not been just been rising on the average since the 1800s but since the end of the last ice age. And they will continue until the beginning of the next one. You hurt your own case by posting things like this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Getting excited over "peak oil" is a waste of energy. Replace the term "peak oil" with the term "peak peanuts"."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the most absurd comment of your I have yet encountered.
Are you under the impression oil is somehow being grown? Do we have oil producing plants on a farm somewhere currently being cultivated? Can gold miners also strike gold anywhere they go once their current mine is exhausted? Or should we move the "gold crop" to another field?
When we reach peak oil production, it means the supply of available oil has reached its maximum production capacity, and every subsequent year will have less oil being produced and greater energy/expense being expended by find/produce more. I can shift peanut production from a bad area to grow peanuts to a better area, oil cannot be found so easily. We have a finite amount and a very long time to wait before more is to be created through the natural process. If you have some means to produce oil artificially, you should let us know.
Or, put into the simplest terms possible: Oil is not a crop.
Please fact check the science you purport as truth before you destroy the credibility of this once-fine publication even lower than has already happened. Climate change and your quietly changing it from "global warming" has been revealed as the emporer with no clothes so get on with real science. I'll let yo udo your onw research on your recent peak oil hoax that has also been disproven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou reviewed the figures in the PDF provided by evosburgh. Shouldn't the trending rates of warming and water levels be much more dramatic now than in the initial stages (as you mentioned that coal use started 1850s with a small build up before then) as we've become more modernized? It seems the rate has been consistent even though fossil fuel use has increased exponentially.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRevealed by whom? And when exactly was this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you should tell the 95%+ climatologists who acknowledge climate change as scientific fact.
Seriously?!?! What that plot shows is that temperature and glaciers were shortening before we started burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate. I guess that we should not let the data get in the way of a good story huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as the science: the whole article is a response to the AGW 'evidence' so I guess what you are really saying is the there is no science in the AGW crowds proof. I guess that you did not bother to read nor take the time to understand the information. Typical believer rhetoric.
Really, just stop trying to defend your position when you are not able to do so.
I am happy to do so, just as I offered to send salt many times before. use supply an email address and I will forward along all of the work that I have done regarding:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- CO2 from super volcanism and the ensuing forest fires
-Hurricane frequency and intensity
-solar output
-the temperature record (the actual data and not the differential) along with the analysis that indicates that line that the greenies keep putting on it has an r2 of around 0.014 (not very compelling).
-ice core data: temperature versus CO2 compared to instrument record. strangely there are two completely different regressions and it makes me wonder why. which data set is in error and why?
I compiled all of this analysis in response to my need to understand the reasoning behind AGW and if I should agree or disagree. Now, I am certain that you will just continue to attempt to impugn my position and not take my offer up on supplying my analyses since them you might actually have to think for yourself and understand that the science behind AGW is less than compelling but I guess it is your right to do so. I will live comfortably in the knowledge that my vote will cancel yours out.
Sault, we know that it is you so just admit it. Using the same arguments with a different user name does not make them any less ridiculous. Why not just point us to skeptical science again? Maybe the guy that hacked your account last time will do s all a favor and do so again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop using that science black magic stuff:) There is no way that he is going to admit that there was a trend before we started really burning fossil fuels. Forget trying to point out the the use of fossil fuels during the plotted time frame is exponential while the trends that started before serious hydrocarbon buying are still linear and have flattened out for the past 10 years. People like this are going to hang on to their AGW religion, because they have nothing else to believe in, and swallow every word that their prophets vomit out. In the process they will do everything that they can to vilify the heretics that dare disagree with their dogmatic belief that mankind is going to be able to: (1) stop global climate change (good luck) and (2) destroy the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf greater impact is the price of oil, not when the peak production will be or was. Even if peak production were not for many years, we have an increasing number of consumers (China, India) making the actual supply less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a different issue than Global Warming which your author has jumbled to gether in this over-long article from which I learned nothing.
Actualy they can make crude oil like product from plants in a lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What that plot shows is that temperature and glaciers were shortening before we started burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell what the authors call the point of "increased fuel usage" is long after coal started becoming widely used.
The slope of temperature and glacial melt fit the fossil fuel slope so well it is only possible to miss if you're intentionally ignorant of it.
What the chart also shows is that glacial shortening and temperature increases started around 1850 when we started burning increased amounts of coal.
The interpretation of the data in your article is bogus as they lay it out.
You asked me to explain it and I have.
How do you explain the fact that the temp increases and glacial shortening started almost exactly when coal went mainstream in 1850?
How do you explain the other figures I pointed out?
You dismiss me so quickly. If I were to list all of the points I've made that you have failed to respond to I'd probably go over the character limit of this field.
"I compiled all of this analysis in response to my need to understand the reasoning behind AGW and if I should agree or disagree."
My email address is logicalunatic@selfgov.us
Send it all. I may even setup a website dedicated to your work and my opinion of it.
"Sault, we know that it is you so just admit it."
Again... I don't know Sault but it is obvious we would have gotten along.
"I will live comfortably in the knowledge that my vote will cancel yours out."
And you prove that this issue is only political with you :)
Hopefully it makes you feel better to hear that I don't vote at all.
Last I checked...it wasnt 96% of the worlds climatologists backing agw or global 'climate change'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off....the planet has not been 'warming' for over 10 years.
Second....in 2007 we had the largest average temp drop in over 100 years.
Third...the only thing PROVEN to affect the planets climate in total is the Sun.
What are you global warming nutters going to say, when our next "Solar Minimum" throws us into a mini-ice age?
"You reviewed the figures in the PDF provided by evosburgh. Shouldn't the trending rates of warming and water levels be much more dramatic now than in the initial stages (as you mentioned that coal use started 1850s with a small build up before then) as we've become more modernized? It seems the rate has been consistent even though fossil fuel use has increased exponentially."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah I totally did review it.
And yeah it appears that it IS more dramatic now.
Take a look at the last warm section in Figure 13
Notice the Northern Hemisphere Temp, Global Temp, and US Temp all increased at higher rates than they appear to otherwise in the Figure.
My belief is that the last "warm" period on that chart is the warming from fuel use during the previous "cool" stage.
That "cool" stage is "cool" because of the leveled off fuel use during the Great Depression.
The Great Depression is in a "warm" period because of the increased fossil fuel use leading up to the Great Depression.
My prediction is that we won't experience a new "cool" stage off the right side of that chart but a new "warmer than warm" stage.
From this data it is obvious that solar activity has some effect on global temperature. Its effects are extremely obvious in the Arctic Temperatures.
Also people, keep in mind I'm responding ONLY to the data in this paper.
Also look at Figure 12.
The slopes of the data sets graphed out are amazingly similar. I see a very strong correlation.
The data all look right but the interpretations appear highly flawed and probably a little biased.
Since it is these interpretations that require peer review, it isn't surprising that this article wouldn't have made it, if it was even submitted.
"Actualy they can make crude oil like product from plants in a lab."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah and they have to use 1 to 10 units of energy to produce that 1 unit of energy.
That is not a viable solution.
"I'll let yo udo your onw research on your recent peak oil hoax that has also been disproven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice.
Another "Peak oil is BS but you should just google to find that out for yourself."
I've spent hundreds of hours researching resource depletion and I guarantee you it isn't a hoax.
I know my guarantee probably means nothing.
What about the peak in oil production appears to be a hoax to you?
Are you aware that the Scientist behind what you would call "peak oil theory" accurately predicted the peak in United States oil production?
Are you aware that that same scientist accurately predicted that the world's conventional crude oil production would happen around the turn of the century?
What part is hard to believe?
Is it what you've been hearing from politicians and economists about 100 years worth of oil and gas?
Are you reading in the New York Times that the US has been able to increase production by multiple millions of barrels a day?
These are all lies. The truth is far scarier.
Are you unconvinced because of all of the drilling in North Dakota?
Do you know how quickly those wells peak? Do you know that the average well in North Dakota only generates about 550k barrels of oil in its LIFETIME?
Given that, how many wells are going to be required to produce enough energy to even build some fancy natural gas infrastructure?
You call Peak Oil a hoax and I bet you've never even heard of EROEI.
"Last I checked...it wasnt 96% of the worlds climatologists backing agw or global 'climate change'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHAHA Last YOU checked.
You in the survey business now?
And really...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not here to discuss AGW. The Earth is warming. Period.
I got here on a Peak Oil search.
The peak in oil production is a far more convincing reason to learn how to live with less fossil fuels; especially if you're in the US.
Peak Oil isn't a hoax. It is an observed fact. Humans tend to find and produce resources (of almost all types) in a predictable way.
At first when a resource is discovered we can produce more and more of the stuff almost every day.
At some point though (and this point is usually when half of the resource has already been consumed) the amount we can produce stops going up.
This is the peak.
Soon after, it gets harder and harder to produce even as much as we did the day before.
The resource starts to go into production decline.
This observation holds true for conventional oil, tight oil, sour oil, whale oil, coal and natural gas.
Natural gas is making a strong comeback and is creating an apparent double peak due to a double peak in discovery.
http://www.roperld.com/science/graphics/GasDiscoverExtract.jpg
Typically the peak in production follows the peak in discovery by about 40 years.
Add some for political reasons and subtract some for technological reasons.
Global conventional oil discoveries peaked in the 60's which led Hubbert to predict that the global peak in production would happen around the turn of the century.
As it turns out, conventional peaked in 2005.
Why does that matter? Imagine different kinds of fuel as different water hoses with different pressures.
Conventional oil is a fire hose with crazy pressure. When we first turned on the hose it shot out faster than we could really use it. The pressure has been steadily decreasing.
Deep water oil is a garden hose that is prone to leaks and requires a lot of the pressure from Conventional oil to be economical.
Tar Sands in Canada are also a garden hose but the water comes out extremely dirty and requires even more pressure from conventional oil fire hose to clean it.
Tight oil in North Dakota is just as bad as the Tar Sands.
There is nothing that can replace the power of conventional oil and even before it is gone we are going to know and appreciate how important it is.
The US is due for an oil shock unlike anything we've ever seen.
Plant a garden.
The US uses about 19.6 million barrels of oil per day. World oil production is about 90 million barrels of oil per day. China has almost 4 times our population. India has about 4 times our population. They want to be just like us, and are well on their way. So, do the math. As for climate change, if we screw up this world; there is not other place to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The US uses about 19.6 million barrels of oil per day. World oil production is about 90 million barrels of oil per day. China has almost 4 times our population. India has about 4 times our population. They want to be just like us, and are well on their way. So, do the math."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly.
What do you think the world is going to do when it realizes that oil is actually finite and that the peak is behind us?
Do you think the US is still going to get all of the cheap oil it needs to maintain the wasteful lifestyle typical there?
Not a chance.
Prepare for hoarding and war.
Ready for victory gardens again? Need seeds?
@evosburgh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you aware that deep water oil, when it comes out of the ground, is extremely hot?
Have you given any thought to what pulling millions of barrels a day of this hot liquid out of the Earth would do the the global temperature?
Do you think this would have a cooling effect or a warming effect?
This isn't a trick question. I'm genuinely interested to hear what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks.
HEHE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection...
It appears that the paper evo has linked to WAS peer reviewed...
(by creationists)
Self-gov
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't state the case for near-term peak oil as strongly as you do. I do believe we are at the peak, that there is good evidence that we are. However, I don't know what the evidence is against that idea. I have not been impressed by the arguments of those who publicly claim that peak oil is not a concern. Usually they talk about some abstract notion that innovation will save us. I would be happy to view contrary evidence.
People who use economic argument say that as fossil fuels become more expensive, a substitute will be found. That was true 100 years ago, as oil was refined and made into gasoline and alcohol was replaced by fossil fuel in cars. However, our knowledge of chemistry and geology has advanced quite a bit in 100 years and no viable substitute is in sight even at higher prices. We don't know of any chemical energy that is more concentrated that fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is more concentrated, but it is not a fuel for transport and there are problems. Solar and wind power have some promise for electricity, but both have problems with scalability. Bio-fuels have some promise, but so far require a great deal of energy input to get an energy return.
In addition to the plateau of energy production for the last six years or so, available oil on the export market is declining. The major exporters of oil are diminishing in number. Guess what? As they have generated oil revenue, their populations have demanded automobiles and consumables. They are using more of their own energy production at home and selling less on the open market. This is true of Saudi Arabia and many other OPEC suppliers. The amount of oil produced by non-OPEC suppliers is declining overall. Indonesia which used to export oil, now imports oil. Britain is now an importer. As supplies diminish, new finds are not keeping up with declines. Conventional oil is declining in production as unconventional (tar sands) ramp up. The production of tar sands is proving to be quite difficult as the quality of the resource is much lower than conventional oil. It takes more money and more work to get a usable fuel from tar sands than from conventional oil.
The "twin perils" of climate change and peak oil are posited because of the impact of one upon the other. As oil diminishes in availability and becomes more expensive, one of the few currently plentiful options available is coal. It is the cheapest fuel source for the generation of electricity. I don't know when peak oil will occur, but we have colliding problems.
Evosburgh--of course there have been past trends of warming and ice ages in times past. The issue is accelerated climate change. The addition of fossil fuels has accelerated the forcings which produce changes. We've stepped on the gas, so to speak, by introducing the gigatons of emissions to the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKansas in the future will face increasingly warmer summers and milder winters- the climate will begin to revert back to what is was in the Pliocene (3 million years ago) when C02 was where it is today- 394ppm- sustained over time. Whats troubling however in the Pliocene C02 continued to slowly drop- today C02 is rising rapidly- due to pass 400ppm in 2014, 425PPM by 2024, and the critical tipping point of 450ppm by the early 2030s (the highest in 35 million years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a New Englander I know also of shifting growing zones- my inland Connecticut location is now rated a 6a- meaning temps - lows of -10 F in the winter- but in actuality these new growing zones released by the USDA a few months ago are to the year 2006- now 6 years old. The climate here is already probably a zone 6b- (-5 F absolute low) and the last few winters a 7a. What can be grown here compared to 1990 is amazing- I have trachycarpus fortunei in my garden- (windmill palms) a hardy fan palm from Asia- only giving a winter covering with no heat. Giant Sequoia can also be grown- along with other subtropicals. Along the Connecticut coast- now a zone 7a - even more can be grown- these subtle changes are something many do not see- but are a harbinger of climate change.
you actually did not explain it but ignored the linear-exponential relationship between the two data sets. Stop writing huge long post in an attempt to cover your ignorance of the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is your definition of 'extremely hot'? the deep water reservoirs that you have been spouting off about, and once again with erroneous statements, are not all that hot relative to other reservoir that are currently being tapped. However, all that aside then here is my answer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake that the average formation temperature of the lower tertiary Wilcox sands, which are the largest untapped but characterized reservoirs, have an average temperature of 250 degF. Then let's take that the average temperature for basalt is around 1350 degF (if memory serves). That means that the thermal wasting of what Kileaua erupts in a given year (around 0.1 km3) is worth about 35 million barrels of the lower tertirary oil. Now I am unable, in a short time period, to get an feeling for the average amount of lava, basalt or other, that is erupted in a given year (but trust me I will this week) and what I expect to find is that when I stack that up against the thermal wasting between lava and hydrocarbons they are going to be at the very least equivalent I say this because I did the thermodynamics for the Siberian traps and it added hundreds of years worth of insolation due to the thermal wasting during the cooling of the lava.
So this is yet another false attempt to make me look dumb and you superior. Nice work.
Stand by. During the following week I will start sending my analyses. They are in Excel but they are good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhatever you say is pretty worthless- C02 even at these levels are a catastrophe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"you actually did not explain it but ignored the linear-exponential relationship between the two data sets."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou asked me to explain the apparent lack of any correlation between fossil fuel use, glacial shortening, sea level rises and temperature increases in Figure 13 of the following...
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
I explained that there is a huge correlation between the data sets that the authors ignore.
I've also pointed out other charts in the same document that show similar correlations that you have yet to explain.
All you've done in light of my explanation is wave your hand at it and then accuse me of being somebody I'm not.
Please explain the massive amounts of correlation between temperatures, sea level and fossil fuel use in the document referenced above.
"Stop writing huge long post in an attempt to cover your ignorance of the data."
Sorry about all of the big bad words I've been using.
"So this is yet another false attempt to make me look dumb and you superior. Nice work."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you mean failed attempt?
And it can only be a failed attempt if I were trying to make you look dumb.
I asked whether you think pumping billions of barrels of hot liquid petroleum out of the Earth and replacing it with cooler water could have had any effect on global temperature.
It is my unsupported belief that doing so would make the Earth decrease in temperature but I might be wrong.
I asked you to get your opinion.
It appears that your opinion on this matter is tied to something about Wilcox sands and lava.
I'll be patient and just wait for your answer of Yes, No or No Effect.
Kansas is gone by as early as 2030
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy home in Connecticut is better, but not by a hell of a lot.
Obviously you did not read the post or cannot understand the reasoning which just indicates your ignorance of the science behind your chosen point of view. What I posted was about 5 minutes worth of work that stitches together my experience and what I have found on the web regarding the thermal properties of lava. When you compare the difference in the amount of heat energy released you are sure to find that current volcanism, which coincidentally is pretty low, that the amount of heat released by producing the 'extremely hot' oil is vastly dwarfed by the amount of energy released from volcanism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you cannot understand that the temperature of the oil is low with respect to the volcanism and the thermal wasting in both processes then I am at a loss to explain to you why the science which is used to support AGW is 'suspect' as I have called it.
You clearly cannot understand that the link between CO2 and temperature does not pan out. The only reason that the greenhouse gas physics are used is because it is possible to create a curve fitter between those equations (of temperature forcing) and the temperature record. However, when that fit fails, as it has over the past 10 years, the logic behind that methodology fails. Since you did not bother to read the link that I supplied and then attempted to dismiss it as creationist baloney then you show yourself for what you are.
Interestingly it appears that you do not even realize that you are following another dogmatic faith (AGW) which is exactly the same as people that follow their particular religious beliefs regarding God. So each time that you make a stupid statement about how creationists are 'stupid' you fail to realize that you are just as dogmatic as they are.
Maybe you should stop trying to diminish other points of view with attacking the messenger and looking at the science. You clearly cannot understand that the amount of CO2 released since 1850 due to buying fossil fuel is exponential while the temperature increases, etc. are more or less linear (when applied to the long term trend which is as I previously pointed out a bit dodgy).
I await your next rave.
As to my thoughts: yes overall removing hot fluids from the Earth would increase the thermal energy in the atmosphere. I think that the contribution will be less than consequential but I am planning to do that research during my lunch hours (if I get any this week since I have plenty of model building to do).
I'll await your data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand lava is hotter than the oil that we pull out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to trap you into some logical gotcha.
I think removing all of the hot hydrocarbons from the Earth's crust would actually lead to global cooling.
What do you think of that?
What I'm expecting is a "Yes" or a "No and here's why..." type response.
You are very defensive.
I've been a geologist for close to 35 years. Much of that in the oil and gas industry. Peak oil? No idea how anyone has 'the' crystal ball. There are no definitive answers on peak oil one way or the other. Any rational discussion is clouded in agenda and ideology. Especially by those whose main tool of research is 'Google'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We have two problems: our metro lifestyles require energy, but we also want to avoid the negative impacts climate change and peak oil will have on metro communities... So, the question becomes "Now what do we do?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse LED light, install solar panel on your roof, ride a bicycle, switch to electric car. For private corporations and governments, build more wind turbines, nuclear plants, electric trains and electric cars. If you live in coastal areas and the sea rises, move to higher elevation. For governments, build dikes if economically viable.
Good chuckle in resiliantplanet.com today. Some researchers built a computer model that shows that the Earth's sensitivity to CO2 is a mere fraction of what the IPCC says it must be for their predictions to be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hilarious part is that the researchers readily admit that their model is very limited in scope, contains a number of variables and assumptions and that the only real thing that they can say for sure is that the IPCC's are exceedingly improbable.
The funniest part is that the IPCC's models contain massively greater number of variables and huge assumptions are utterly untestable and unlimited in scope. But the IPCC insists their models are bulletproof.
Hilarious!
"I've been a geologist for close to 35 years. Much of that in the oil and gas industry. Peak oil? No idea how anyone has 'the' crystal ball. There are no definitive answers on peak oil one way or the other. Any rational discussion is clouded in agenda and ideology. Especially by those whose main tool of research is 'Google'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAwesome!
As a geologist you've probably seen hundreds of wells peak and go into decline.
Have you seen the decline graphs for the tight oil plays in North Dakota?
I'd totally be willing to have a rational discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see peak oil when I see graphs like the following.
http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/indicators/miles-driven.html?miles-driven-CNP16OV-adjusted.gif
After the dollar moved off the gold standard it became the petro-dollar.
Ever since, the dollar has been a "symbol for what energy can do." - Michael Ruppert
I don't believe that the graph linked above and the conventional oil peak in 2005 are coincidental.
I see a tightening of supply. Yes there is still some extra but far less than there was before.
Spare Capacity is shrinking fast...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/us-energy-summit-capacity-idUSTRE75C4B320110613
Historically...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qX6_0wptckM/THMW0hPxusI/AAAAAAAADvs/KzJUyoVmp5s/s1600/4.jpg
Saudi Arabia IS in fact producing at an apparent 31 year high but this is not showing up in the exports. Saudi Arabia promised a lot to its citizens during the Arab Spring and is consuming way more oil than they used to.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d9ee98049e2ae86661a0000/saudi-oil.jpg
Also, that 31 year high number includes all liquids, not just conventional oil.
What do you make of this data?
SelfGov:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm with geojellyroll on this one. Only people who don't know what they are talking about can spek with total confidence.
If you know anything at all about your field of research or your profession, you know that there are holes large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Especially rocks. I'm also a practicing Oil and Gas P.Geol with 25 years experience and my M.Sc. All I can tell you for sure is: 1: New rocks lie on top of old rocks. 2: the smaller the rock the farther the mountain.
Other than that? It's up for debate.
>http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>I do not want to hear about the source or the text or anything else than your
>explanation of why there is no apparent correlation between the buring of
>hydrocarbon and the other data sets posted.
That's good, because your "source" was authored by luminaries in the field of metrology:
* Arthur B. Robinson - Professor of Chemistry
* Noah E. Robinson - Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. "Willie" Soon - PhD in Aerospace Engineering
I assume the "paper" was submitted to be peer reviewed and fact checked to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where we know it was given its just due.
TrollScore: 3/10
"If you know anything at all about your field of research or your profession, you know that there are holes large enough to drive a Mack truck through."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell I've posted some data.
What is your interpretation of that data?
Today is Monday - March 26th.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have yet to receive any email from EVOSBURGH that shows what he claims.
Just say'n.
Selfgove. Re North Dakota. Trying to determine anything about Peak Oil from variables in North Dalota is like trying to determine the future of rice production by studying Aransas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your point? folks in China can't grow mor erice bercause of Arkansas production?
Oil is a physical phenomenon. It's not a 'market' or a 'dollar exchange' or some ideology. The amount of oil that exists is not determined by economics anymore than than the amount of gold in the ground is determined by economics. The exploration, development and use of oil is determined by what 'people do' but not the actual amount of oil that exists. Nobody knows how much oil exists.
"Selfgove. Re North Dakota. Trying to determine anything about Peak Oil from variables in North Dalota is like trying to determine the future of rice production by studying Aransas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your point? folks in China can't grow mor erice bercause of Arkansas production?"
Actually the fact that North Dakota tight oil is profitable at all is evidence that supplies are tightening. The reason I bring up North Dakota is that some people (Obama) are claiming that we'll be able to become energy independent because of all of the oil there and in Montana. This sounds highly improbable though given how many wells have to go in and how quickly they peak. Would you agree?
My point is that I don't believe the US can produce enough of this tight oil quickly enough to bring the US to a state that we would call "Energy Independent."
"Oil is a physical phenomenon. It's not a 'market' or a 'dollar exchange' or some ideology. The amount of oil that exists is not determined by economics anymore than than the amount of gold in the ground is determined by economics. The exploration, development and use of oil is determined by what 'people do' but not the actual amount of oil that exists."
You are absolutely correct. Oil is a finite resource, just like gold. We can't produce more than exists in nature. We can produce a crude oil like substance from vegetation but biofuels are not economical at all.
Oil is a commodity. Currencies can be backed by commodities. The US dollar, given its position as the world's reserve currency, is on an oil standard, just the term petro-dollar.
"Nobody knows how much oil exists."
But we know how much oil we've found though, obviously. Where in the world have we not explored for fossil fuel resources?
Have you seen the latest supposed "massive" oil discoveries graphed out next to the discoveries we made in the first half of the 20th century? The latest discoveries aren't even a drop in the bucket next to how much oil we discovered in Saudi Arabia over 40 years ago.
So even with the latest in oil finding technology we haven't been able to actually find anything close to a new Saudi Arabia.
Yes there is a lot of oil in the bakken but for geographical reasons it requires exponentionally MORE infrastructure in North Dakota to pull a barrel of oil out of the ground than it does in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/perspective-march-record-warmth_2012-03-22
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccompanied by the end of a cold snap in Europe :)
Selfgove: "Actually the fact that North Dakota tight oil is profitable at all is evidence that supplies are tightening".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and that has no relationship to potential oil in the ground. Supplies are about current economics, infrastructure, etc...not about potential physical oil. Oi could quaqdruple in price or cut in half and it doesn't say anything about the amount of oil in the ground. Supply and demand is about economics...not geology.
Also, the USA and Obama etc, are not the world. Americans would do well to lift their eyes and rid themselves of a myopic view that the world equals domestic politics in the USA.
"Oi could quaqdruple in price or cut in half and it doesn't say anything about the amount of oil in the ground. Supply and demand is about economics...not geology."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed for the most part.
The price of oil isn't determined by how much is left in the ground but by how fast production can keep up with demand.
Whether it is economical to produce a certain grade of crude oil is dependent upon economics.
The speed at which oil can be produced is dependent upon geology.
Right?
Hang on a minute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnically we are at a peak in oil production, arnt we? Started around 2005....
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/kopits_eia_forecasts_jun_10.gif
The question should be is this peak the mother of all peaks? and if not what makes it not so?
"Hang on a minute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnically we are at a peak in oil production, arnt we? Started around 2005....
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/kopits_eia_forecasts_jun_10.gif"
You're right. There was a peak in the production of conventional crude oil in 2005. That peak doesn't include all liquids but NONE of the other liquids can compare to the power of conventional crude.
"The question should be is this peak the mother of all peaks? and if not what makes it not so?"
That is a good question. If Hubbert was right then this is the "big one" and we can expect an ever decreasing supply of cheap energy from here on out.
The amount of oil on the export markets is steadily decreasing yet the world is spending ever INCREASING amounts of money on it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-iea-oil-bills-idUSBRE82Q0ZU20120327
Ever since the US peaked in oil production the government has been printing money to make up for the lost energetic power.
http://goldseek.com/news/GoldSeek/2007/7-24mh/4.gif
This was fine while there was still excess energy supply but once supplies got tight in 2005 the additions to the money supply started being reflected in the price of oil.
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/world-oil-supply-and-brent-oil-price.png
No matter how high the price gets the world still can't produce more oil on a day by day basis.
If you also take into account the fact that drilling costs are rising exponentially you begin to see why less and less oil is actually reaching the market.
http://www.condition.org/as95-610.jpg
So far all evidence is pointing to this being the peak in our net energy consumption.
The entire world is going to face a future with far less energy available to it. Most countries will transition pretty easily. Some countries will experience pain. A few countries are going to collapse under their own stupidity, wastefulness and arrogance.
The US falls into that last category.
"The entire world is going to face a future with far less energy available to it. Most countries will transition pretty easily. Some countries will experience pain. A few countries are going to collapse under their own stupidity, wastefulness and arrogance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US falls into that last category."
The fact that there is still a Global Warming and Creation Science debate in the US political system is evidence that the US is NOT going to be the country to solve the world's energy crisis.
Today is Tuesday March 27th and I still have yet to receive any documentation or data from EVOSBURGH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully soon.
"Just switch to natural gas and biogas, when that runs out we may have solar power that is cost effective, and other options. Plus we can use more economical vehicles."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat will be about a simple as farting into an empty gas tank while the car is still running on fumes.
Good luck...
Stop for think!!! What's American Dream? What he has which this???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHINK!!!What's the relationship with their media???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday is Wednesday March 28th.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have yet to receive any data from EVOSBURGH.
I've checked my spam filter and everything.
It must be pretty comprehensive if it takes this long to prepare.
Am excited.
I read the first 2 pages -- flabbie flabbie fluff opinion -- then I went to the comments to read if those with more patience than I have uncovered gems --
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame-O same-O deniers spouting --
really it's getting not worth receiving these emails from SciAm-- it's a pity .
"then I went to the comments to read if those with more patience than I have uncovered gems"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you can explain to me what EVOSBURGH wasn't willing to.
Thank you for an excellent set of questions. I have often wondered at the absolute arrogance of someone who purports to be able to evaluate evidence better than the eminent scientists that compose the National Academia of Sciences. If they are totally incompetent or lying then we are all in trouble because they also oversee things like nuclear safety, drug safety, and recommend national science policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday is Thursday March 29th.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill nothing from Evosburgh.
Just say'n.
Check your email.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes ... of course nobody with chemisty nor astrophysics degrees could know anything about science nor model building.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right: attack the source and not the message.
Avoidance of the data score 100/100.
Does it escape your attention that the climate trends are linear and the CO2 from hydrocarbon is exponential? It is a fact that an exponential increase in CO2 from hydrocarbons has not caused an exponential increase in the trends that have been in place before the man induced influx of CO2 into the atmosphere began. Therefore there is no direct linear relationship and therefore there are other forces at play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn explanation of the coming implosion of the american way of life. Long understood and long predicted. Unfortunately denied by those that cannot realise the problems with the american way of living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ ErnestPayne
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"An explanation of the coming implosion of the american way of life. Long understood and long predicted. Unfortunately denied by those that cannot realise the problems with the american way of living."
You are half-right. More unfortunately, however, the american way of living and any other way that would emulate our way of living is hopelessly, shamefully corrupt and driven by moat economics. We are already in deep doodoo. Look at the Supreme Court oral arguments and last year's disgraceful budget deficit dogfight. Our culture (nee "american way of living") is rotten through and through.
No mention made of that.
I did not find the story convincing with respect to climate change. There are metro areas now in the deep south, and in the north, and in the middle of the US. (Globally there are even greater differences.) It seems obvious that people in metro areas can and do adapt to different kinds of climates. Yes, some changes might cause difficulties. Maybe people in Minneapolis will have to learn to deal with a climate now considered normal for Houston. But plenty of people live in Houston. And Houston might become tropical. But millions of people live in Brazil right now. Climate change, at least in moderation, will not make metro areas unlivable or even significantly less economically viable. (The exception could be sea level rises. New Orleans and Miami might be under water. Even this could be dealt with, but as Katrina illustrated, relying on dikes can be problematic, and will certainly be expensive. But Holland has managed, so far, to thrive despite being largely below sea level.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeak oil may be a meaningless concept because we can not just look at conventional oil fields. If oil becomes much more expensive; oil shale, coal conversion, and biofuels will be more economically competitive. In addition, where fuel is not essential, alternative technologies such as wind, solar, and geothermal electricity production will also become more economically viable. If oil (and other fossil fuels) are not used for electricity production, that leaves more for transportation. The point is, more expensive oil will encourage changes in energy production and use. These changes will be difficult to predict, because there are so many unknown factors, including new technology.
However, whatever the realities of peak oil, it is obvious that oil is a finite resource, and global demand is increasing as Asian economies grow and billions of people enter the middle class and want the same benefits of abundant energy as people in Europe and the US have enjoyed for decades. The price of oil is going to increase, regardless of the details of actual supplies and usage rates.
People in metro areas can adapt to the coming changes, and make a smooth transition. The technology is available, and well known. Or they can ignore what is coming and suffer the shock of an abrupt transition which will be forced on them.
The problems are really social and political, which are areas where Science has not been especially useful, unfortunately. But the demise of metro areas is hardly inevitable.
"Check your email."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks! I got your volcanism data.
"If you have any data that shows a non-computer generated, real world example that proves a positive amplification of CO2's effects that would be helpful."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee: planet Venus temperature compared to planet Mercury.\
For those that do not know, Venus is the second planet from the sun. It has an atmosphere primarily made of C02. It can have surface temperatures over 460 °C. This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
Curious, do the laws of physics and chemistry not apply to Venus?
Hello, Evo. About a week ago you linked a report claiming that agw could not be true because of a few pretty charts and figures. Throughout the last week you have spent a lot of time referring back to this paper asking for people to explain the lack of a correlation. You have challenged people to supply their OWN personal research to counter these other researchers findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off I challenge you to post for us a link to your own personal findings with your own personal research involving your own personal instruments. Please also include your funding source and all other relevant data to be expected in a science paper.
Second of all, your challenge was for us to intellectually challenge your cited papers data without referring to it's potential veracity and believability. Souly to draw a different conclusion with only the figures made available in this one individual paper.
I must say, this challenge is quite ridiculous. I'll take a slight jaunt to the side and display to you how these figures may have been manipulated or misinterpreted.
Author 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson#cite_note-19
It's wiki. I know. Spent about 20 min digging around the citations page curious about this dudes life. He seems to have a few outlandish theories about diluting nuclear waste and dumping it over civilian populations, though. That's neat. I take some of the wiki data with a grain of salt, but reading some of his words on HIS site makes me question his credibility.
Author 2: His credentials- http://www.oism.org/s32p1846.htm
Link to a paper reviewing his work: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf
link to author of above scientists credentials: http://www.climate.org/about/maccracken-bio.html
As you can see, Mr. Robinson primarily works with "laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory". Hardly climate science. I'm sure I could find a psychologist that can draw pretty pictures saying why AGW is real, but I don't. Why? Because psychologists are not authorities on the subject matter.
Author 3: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75Q1ZO20110628
speaks for itself
Now, thats not to say these mens work doesn't warrant a look at, but when there are hundreds upon hundreds of people with degrees in climatology geology physics etc... showing pretty charts that disagree with these three guys, I am going to tend to agree with the consensus.
"If oil becomes much more expensive; oil shale, coal conversion, and biofuels will be more economically competitive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistranslation: If oil becomes 15 dollars a gallon that 10 dollar a gallon alternative will be lookin pretty sweet. the poorest 20% will still be up a river with no way to make it to their work place because electric cars are out of their price range, and 10 dollar alternative fuel is no better.
(p.s. I pulled dollar amounts out of my ass to illustrate a point. I am no soothsayer, and will not pretend to predict gas prices post peek.)
p.p.s. oil supply is finite: fact
this fact is not denied or debated by anyone with more than 1/4 functional brain power.
That oil supply is finite brings us to a basic conclusion. Eventually it will run out unless we found a way to create more of it in a reasonable time frame. (alternative fuel, see green movement)
If you are suggesting we have 10,000 years of sustainable oil under our feet you are silly. Now that we have established the undeniable fact that there is a finite amount of oil under our feet that will run out some time in the (geological) near future we must ask ourselves when will this oil become more energy intensive to retrieve and refine (Canadian/Venezuelan oil is shit and takes more energy to make usable) than the energy output, or more realistically when will the energy input eat into the efficiency to the point of it being uneconomical to mass market in the billions of gallons.
This is peak oil. Less oil supply than there is demand. The only way to continue with our current standard of living would be alternative fuel sources (see green movement).
If you have some mystical idea of how we could continue using oil at this rate indefinitely without using alternative sources please do share.
well, the peak of crude oil production was in the early 1970's, and accorded wikipedia, consumption of oil will pass production in 2015AD. wake up scientists...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne oilfield in Canada, by itself, has enough oil to provide for America's current daily consumption for the next one hundred years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanada's oilfields are all privately owned. All of them are making a profit. That means they are getting more value out of the projects than they are putting in. They have been doing so since they started.
The ones with the highest energy cost are all making a profit. These operating costs have been dropping. The rate of the _decline_ in energy related operating cost has been increasing over the years. Labor costs have increased dramatically but the energy costs have declined.
Seemingly slow moving forces such as global warming but also including global population, and the evolution of unpredictable natural and cultural forces will have unexpected effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author buys into the currently popular idea that if we just controlled global warming everything would be fine. Global warming or not,12 billion people, just by being people seeking affluence and to live a good life will make global warming a minor problem.
Seemingly slow moving forces such as global warming but also including global population, and the evolution of unpredictable natural and cultural forces will have unexpected effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author buys into the currently popular idea that if we just controlled global warming everything would be fine. Global warming or not,12 billion people, just by being people seeking affluence and to live a good life will make global warming a minor problem.
"About a week ago you linked a report claiming that agw could not be true because of a few pretty charts and figures. Throughout the last week you have spent a lot of time referring back to this paper asking for people to explain the lack of a correlation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears the data in the report isn't that bad at all. It is the interpretation that sucks donkey balls.
The authors draw an arbitrary line in time and label it as the "beginning" of increased fuel use.
Many of the charts are actually quite damning when you remove the bias from the interpretation.
So far, this paper is one of the best examples of pseudoscience I've seen to date.
I have tried to follow the pro's and con's in the discussions on the climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the laws of climate science cannot be as rigorously proved as the rules in math.
So, all physical or technical arguments brought forward in favour of climate change due to enhanced CO2 levels can be countered by the skeptics with other arguments.
Ultimately - the case can only be proven if the climate run-away is actually happening.
But - we don't have to wait for this. We just have to look back about 60 million years, when the era of the Paleocene changed into the Eocene..
At that time the CO2 level in the atmosphere enhanced dramatically to about 1600 ppm (to-day it ist 390 ppm) driving up the average temperature such that our planet changed into a world without any ice (the paleo-scientists call this the PETM anomaly).
A good article on this is in the Oct. 2011 National Geographic magazine.
And then there are the re-insurance companies - one of the largest is Munich Re.
Munich Re has a large historic data base of natural desasters such as large inundations, hurricanes, extremely dry seasons affecting grain harvests etc.
And their data base shows, that the costs of reinsuring against those are going up in sync with the increasing CO2 level. That is - for the Munich Re people the climate change is already an ongoing fact.
Now - one can always claim that the climate change is happening by causes on which we don't have any influence and which are driving up the CO2 level as a secondary effect.
Result : Do nothing
But - if it is the rising CO2 level, which is responsible for the climate change, and we do nothing, then we end up in another PETM scenario - see above.
The climate is changing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no question that burning fossil fuels causes temperatures to rise.
This is obvious to anybody who doesn't have a political or religious ax to grind.
The PETM was a time of great carbon related warming which was actually BENEFICIAL to mammals.
Global warming isn't the civilization killer some make it out to be though. It will definitely F some people over though.
Still have ONLY received volcanism data from EVOSBURGH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has proven to me that volcanos exist and spew CO2.
It says nothing about the effects of burning fossil fuels.
Sure - the PETM was beneficial to mammals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut think about it - an ice-free earth means, that the sea level will rise by about 50 - 70 meter.
This means, that most of our large capitals will be under water (also my home town Berlin).
I wonder if our civilization would be able to cope with this.
What I would really like to know is how our government thinks smart meters are going to help. Smart meters use the same kind of craziness that big pharmacy uses to sell their bad drugs. They create a problem to solve where none existed. Then they make a ton of money from their solution...that causes more problems than they started with. And they make the public pay for it. They try to make smart meter look safe by leaving out all the thousands of studies that show this kind of technology cause alterations in cell function. They use ghost writers to twist statistics and findings. And besides killing off the very young and very old, it going to cost productive people (people working to pay taxes) a lot of money. Forcing smart meters on a world population that are resisting smart meters is, as far I know, the worst move in history for the world population...but the best thing ever for government control. The government seems like a malignancy that is metastasizing into our homes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmart meters help you to bring your electricty costs down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey keep track of the ongoing costs of your local electricity supplier. Around noontime the costs are high because of the high demand. In the evening the costs are going down due to to the reduced electricity demand. So you check with your meter before starting your washing machine.
Eventually you can have a wireless connection between your meter and your washing machine. You set the kwh cost at a level when you want to start your washing machine.
As soon as this cost level is reached, the meter will signal your washing machine 'ok now – start washing'.
The hourly fluctuation of the elecricity costs are fixed by the electrity exchange (similar to the WallStreet exchange, where you sell/buy shares), where the price of the kwh is settled by supply and demand.
In addition, the smart meter sends information on your current demand back to your electricity provider so that he can better manage his nets and the power stations.
If you worry about the electro smog of this kind of meters, then you have to stop also the wireless connection in your computer and stop using mobile phones.
And mobile phones are always kept somewhere on your body.
Why is Venus the hottest planet in the solar system? Because it has the most CO2. Do you want the earth to end up with 600 deg. F days? Well, keep releasing CO2 and you will find out. The evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will heat up the Earth is not even debatable. The sheer stupidity of denying this fact makes me sick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell it is completely obvious to me that burning fossil fuels raises the global temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo deny it proves you have a religious or political agenda.
Do you think we can burn enough fossil fuels to raise the temperature that much?
If you do think so, why do you think so?