THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
You asked, “If you are Swiss why would you worry about the oil being “made in USA” ? In any case, the world economy is so globalised these days that it doesn’t make any difference where the oil is or the nationality of the company that extracts it. You’ll won’t end up paying any less, and unless you own shares you won’t get a cut of the profits.”
Let me explain so (I hope) you can understand.
Switzerland is a tiny country. It’s surface area is only 41,000 sq.km., compared to Victoria (Australia) at over 5 times this at 238,000 sq.km.. Swiss population is around 50% higher than that of Victoria, at 7.5 million, compared to 5.2 million.
So whatever Switzerland (or, for that matter, Victoria) does has little impact on the world.
The USA, on the other hand, is the largest consumer of petroleum products. It imports a significant portion of its needs, resulting in a major trade imbalance. Unlike tiny Switzerland, the USA has large reserves of oil and gas, in particular those yet undeveloped deposits in Alaska plus huge deposits of oil shale in the western states, such as Colorado.
Your statement, “the world economy is so globalised these days that it doesn’t make any difference where the oil is or the nationality of the company that extracts it” is not correct. Ask any American (such as Brute) whether he agrees or not. It is a major problem for the USA to spend $500 billion per year to import oil when this could be produced locally.
You wrote: “There are big problems extracting oil from shale and tar sands, so you shouldn’t just take the number of barrels in these hard to work deposits at face value.”
Yes, there are “big problems”. There were also “big problems” getting to the North Sea oil and gas or to develop and exploit the Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska, yet these were overcome, due to the ingenuity of the oil companies and their exploration/development sub-contractors. The numbers I cited were conservative estimates of the net recoverable oil from the oil shale (not the tar sands). The tar sands are much smaller in total recoverable reserves than the oil shales, but they are already being exploited commercially (despite the fact that many people predicted that this would never be an economically viable source).
“The global consumption of oil is approximately 85 million barrels per day. That’s 31 billion barrels per year. So, the figure you have quoted for the Arctic is about three years of world consumption.”
Your calculation is flawed, Peter. With total proven reserves at 1.4 billion bbl, oil shale at 1.0 billion bbl and the Arctic at 2.0 billion bbl, we have a total of 4.4 billion bbl. At current global consumption of 75 million bbl/day this would last 160 years, provided oil consumption remains roughly constant by taking up the growth in global demand (1.2% per year?) with other sources.
If oil demand increases at 1.2% per year, it would only last 80 years.
Don’t know where you got your “Add to the equation that in the next 5-8 yrs the growth in demand is expected to be about 50% to over 120 million barrels p.d.”
There is no doubt that oil will shift from being a cheap source of fuel to being a premium hydrocarbon feedstock over the next several decades, so that its consumption will very likely decline rather than increase, but this is pure speculation, as are the imminent “peak oil” scenarios and your assumed 50% growth figure.
The fact remains that unless massive oil reserves can be found at very much deeper locations than are being drilled today, it will eventually become very scarce and be replaced by something else. Coal has got several more decades. Uranium (for nuclear power) is not about to run out anytime soon. Fast breeder reactors using thorium have got even more years (or centuries). And then there is always nuclear fusion technology.
We have no notion what new energy technologies will be developed in the next 100 years, just as we have no notion how Earth’s climate will change over this period. To fret about either (or start “mitigation” actions “just in case”) today would be folly.
Regards,
Max
I would agree with Peter on this point, (perish the thought), but I would like to see the US become an exporter of oil rather than an importer, (probably will never happen, but it would be nice for the Chinese and other countries to pay us for something for a change). One thing that T. Pickens mentions is the transfer of wealth from West to East. I would like nothing better than for the United States to hold the keys and drive the economic train for a while. We may pay a smudge less at the pump, (family discount rate as in Venezuela), but it certainly would be nice to keep some of our money here as opposed to sending such a huge sum overseas……..keep some of our money here for a while.
I also happen to believe that it is in the best interest of free nations, (Switzerland, United Kingdom and Australia), for America to remain economically sound. The US, like it or not, seems to be the glue holding things together right now and is the only influence keeping some of the more aggressive rogue nations from running rampant and brutalizing their neighbors, (Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait is an example), Iran would be another. The simple notion that the US might come to the aid of an ally that has been overrun I feel is intimidating enough to keep the lid on the pot…..keeping things from boiling over. Venezuela has designs on its neighbors and has been rattling their saber lately. If not for the presence of nations such as the US, Great Britain and Australia, Chavez would have zero compunction about invading and overthrowing his neighbors…….. Better to have a strong US economy/military than a weak one……for all of us.
Not a cheerleading statement from the imperialist, ugly American; just a simple fact. Better the devil you know. The US, with all of our faults, is a better system than the Chinese model, (for instance), with +/- 300,000 “dissenters” in re-education, (concentration) camps. I would also venture to say that even Peter would agree that the environmental policies of the United States are preferable than those of the Chi-Comms.
Max/Peter,
I didn’t realize that Australia was SO sparsely populated. Perhaps Ms Brute and I could relocate and bunk in with Mr and Mrs. Martin? I dislike people……(present company excepted). My wife’s psychologist friend says it’s quite normal……I have alluded to myself as being anti-social…..she says that I shouldn’t say that to loudly as it has a quite different meaning amongst her circle of colleagues!
I don’t remember who it was that said, “I adore mankind, its people I loathe” or something to that effect………..
I can see we’re getting a bit off-topic, but I’d like to comment on some of the comments above regarding balance of trade.
While in principal the idea of lower trade deficits (here in the USA) seem desirable, but I would argue that our significant trade deficit with China is not as bad as some would think.
I have worked for consumer product companies for many years, and since the late 1980’s US consumer product companies have been moving more and more MFG to Asia, particularly China. Sure, we now import most of our consumer goods from China, and that shows up as a trade deficit, but we turn around and resell these goods at a 50%-90% markup domestically, depending on wholesale-retail makeup.
Incidentally, many Chinese suppliers have been building factories in Vietnam as their (Chinese) labor costs escalate, resulting in some balance of trade issues for China vs Vietnam.
So while we are manufacturing our goods in Asia, they are made to our specs and at our direction and discretion, and we resell them at a significant margin. There are very few (I can’t think of ANY) Chinese companies who MFR and sell their products directly to consumers in this country.
Hi Peter,
Did some more checking on various estimates of oil reserves. First of all, I had a decimal point error in the potential Arctic reserves. Then I did not have a good estimate of the oil shale potential or the non-declared tar sand reserves plus the North American outer continental shelf (OCS) and new giant Brazilian offshore deposits.
Worldwide oil reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Oil Shale
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
Brazil giant offshore fields
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/brazils_offshore_oil_bonanza_m.html
Oil and Gas Journal states that “proven reserves” today are 1,317 billion bbl. This includes that portion of the Canadian tar sands that is now under development of 174 billion bbl, but excludes an estimated additional 200 billion bbl there. It does not include the oil shale, which is estimated to be more than twice what I stated at 2,500 billion bbl. Then there is the offshore Arctic at 90, Greenland at 110 and ANWR at 16 billion bbl.. The OCS is estimated to bring in 86 billion bbl and Brazil’s recently discovered giant offshore fields a total of 29 billion bbl.
This equals a world total of around 4.3 trillion bbl or 159 years at today’s consumption of 75 million b/d.
Doesn’t really change the conclusions, since the total is about the same.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
I would agree with your comments on balance of trade between the USA and China. I worked out of Hong Kong as a management consultant for a HK-based Chinese garment company that exported heavily to the USA from modern, non-sweatshop plants in China; they also added plants in Vietnam as well as Sri Lanka as their Chinese mfg. costs increased.
I do not see this trade imbalance as dangerous for the USA. It is based on free trade. And, in that business the US retailers marked up the landed import cost by 3 to 4 times, so there was money to be earned by everyone involved.
The US reliance on imported oil, particularly when it comes from politically unstable or even hostile regions where there is a price cartel is a different matter. This represents a major transfer of wealth. Sure the refiners and marketers in the USA also get a cut of the action, but (even at only $116 per barrel for the 9.2 million b/d of crude plus a 25% surcharge for the 2.3 million b/d of refined products) that’s over $500 billion per year spent for oil imports (out of an overall trade imbalance of $700 billion).
I may not agree with T. Boone Pickens’ windfarm solution as the best way to free up the US-produced natural gas as a motor fuel and cut this by around 1/3, but I’d agree with him that it is a problem the USA needs to address. This will probably take a multiple approach: open up ANWR and offshore drilling, start the development of the huge oil shale deposits in Colorado, etc., build a few wind stations plus solar where this makes economic sense, add several nuclear stations to free up the natural gas, develop economically viable bio-fuels, add new, energy-efficient refinery capacity, etc.
I do not believe big government needs to actually take the active lead in all this. Their track record is poor (ex: major subsidies to corn-based ethanol). Besides giving some selective basic research grants for brand new technologies, the main place where government can help is to not stand in the way, in other words to streamline the approval process for new oil and gas drilling, for building new nuclear facilities or refineries and for starting the development of oil shale.
At least that’s my opinion.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Good points all around. I fully support the ‘all the above’ legislation that the minority Republicans are touting in their—whatever you want to call it— “action” on the US House of Representatives floor in the adjourned Congress. If I could justify the cost of PV solar for my house I would do it in a heartbeat.
I also support aggressive development of other alternative energy sources, but to exclude new and expanded drilling and refining for oil is a foolish stance, as something like 60%-75%% of Americans (recent polling)support the idea of expanded drilling.
It will not only bring down the cost of energy worldwide, but will also help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and keep our money here. I’m surprised that the Democrats wouldn’t want more drilling, as the federal oil royalty rate is between 12.5% and 18%, which translates into more revenue for the Congress to overspend.
JZ,
Interesting; but do these relocated companies employ America or Chinese workers? I’m certain that Chinese workers are not paying U.S. income taxes, right? Do these companies pay taxes, (capital gains), to the US treasury? I understand that they are “U.S.” companies, but are they headquartered here in the U.S? That’s where it gets murky for me…..For instance; Ted Kennedy, (more specifically the Kennedy family), have massive real estate holding throughout the United States and other locales, but their base of operations is located in Fiji to avoid paying American capital gains taxes. Ironically, the biggest proponents of increasing taxes on the “average” American are………The Kennedys. Don’t get me started on the Kennedy/Clinton tax exempt trust funds.
Moving a business overseas is great for the business, bad for the country. If the politicians continuously make it more difficult for industry to thrive, they’ll simply pick up and move. Higher tax rates and impediments, (nonsensical environmental/labor laws), are making it impossible for any company to conduct business here. Anyone with any sense would move his company overseas to avoid the mess created by government. Look at the US furniture industry.
If oil was, for lack of a better term, produced here…..say from Alaska, Montana, California, or offshore, wouldn’t these companies pay capital gains on the profits if they exported oil to China or India?
I’m not a big tax increase guy, but I resent paying 40% when guys like Ted Kennedy are running around saying its not enough…….and he pays nothing. The US doesn’t seem to be exporting much of anything anymore…….maybe cigarettes and military hardware…..a few cars……..software……… and a whole lot of money.
We’ve become a services based economy. The transfer of wealth from the US overseas is a problem. We have to start producing/providing something that the world will buy. They’ll beat the hell out of us on labor costs every time. I know a Chinaman can get by on a bowl of rice a day for salary but that won’t cut it in the free world….. and Chinese industry has nowhere near the overhead. Labor laws, safety standards are non factors in these third world slave camps. All of the environmental litigation that suddenly “appears” around these US companies has to be factored into the cost of doing business as well as the Union labor expenses. Unions pretty much killed the US auto industry. It takes years before a company can recoup these expenses and actually turn a profit. The cost of the land to build a refinery or industrial plant is enormous in comparison…….The Chinese simply “appropriate” the land and infrastructure…..private property rights are non-existent.
We’ve got to be smarter and less beholden to all of the special interests, (the attorneys are the ones that really make the most from tying these things up……sorry Robin).
Whichever side wins, the attorneys on both sides benefit.
Max,
You say “I do not see this trade imbalance as dangerous for the USA. It is based on free trade.”
If the USA’s trade were really free there would be no imbalance. Under the classical laws of economics, the value of a country’s currency rises and falls according to the demand and supply in the market.
Any country running a deficit would find that demand for its currency would fall, meaning that its price relative to other currencies would also fall. This would make exports cheaper and imports dearer and so restore the balance.
Its true that the value of the US$ has fallen recently but nowhere near enough to restore its international trade balance or correct its budget deficits: to the tune of a half trilion dollars this year, I believe. So what is going on? How has it been possible for one country to live beyond its means for so long? Why isn’t the US $ worth a lot less than it is?
If you wanted a one word answer it would have to be ‘politics’. A political process is at work, backed up with military power, which distorts free trade, by demanding that the world’s reserve currency be the US$, that petrolem should be priced in US$, and that petrodollars should be recycled back to the USA. This builds up a huge debt which can’t be repaid and is clearly unsustainable in the long term.
This is as good an explanation as any of how it all works:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=21767
Brute,
Nearly all the US consumer product companies are US-based. Their corporate headquarters, including R&D, advertising, marketing, sales, distribution, etc. are all in the US. Only MFG is offshore. I don’t know of any major corporation (consumer product, anyway) that is not based here and operate in a similar fashion.
These companies use Asian subcontractors to build the products, and many of the Asian subs use subs themselves in even lower-cost labor countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. The Chinese companies that I have visited are very interested in improving quality, promoting safety for their workers, and generally work very hard to do a good job. No doubt they have much less stringent environmental regulations than we do here, but they are improving.
Peter, much of the dollars exported to China from the US trade deficit returns to via their investment in US Treasury notes. The intertwining of our two economies makes their continued investment here more and more imperative from their perspective—despite our massive budget deficits. They can’t afford to have their #1 market collapse.
At the same time, I strongly support urgent, intense action on the part of the US government to cut spending and reduce waste. We cannot get government spending under control soon enough, in my opinion, and in the words of Ronald Reagan, “we have deficits not because the people are taxes too little, but because government spends too much.” We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
I also believe that the US economy is so big and so strong in so many ways that we can actually easily overcome these difficulties and turn our fiscal situation around quickly. The biggest problems are the deficit, Social Security, and Medicare spending. But this subject is really for another thread…. (sorry Tony!)
Edit the above to read “…we have deficits not because the people are taxed too little…”
JZSmith,
It is true that ” dollars exported to China from the US trade deficit returns to via their investment in US Treasury notes” . But, I’m not sure if the word ‘investment’ applies when there is no possibility that the Chinese, or the other creditors, will ever get their money back!
Incidentally, the last link wasn’t quite the one I had in mind, although its still relevant. It should have been this:
“http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=19173 ”
It really doesn’t matter whether you consider that the US goverenment is raising too little tax or spending too much money; the net result is exactly the same. Those treasury bonds you mentioned are effectively being used to finance the Iraq war. It’s generally not known that it’s the Chinese who are funding that!
JZ,
I’m not a world economics guy…..just a humble Engineer. I really did need it explained to me. I am optimistic regarding the US economy. We go through fits and starts/cycles. I do believe that over regulation and over taxation are wearing us down though. We also have way too many “entitlement” programs. Everyone has their hand out. We have far too many people on the public payroll adding little and taking a tremendous amount. We also seem to always pick up the tab for every hard luck case and stray immigrant that happens to stumble across the border looking for a free handout. Comrade Hussein Obama and his tax and spend Liberal buddies will only make things much worse.
McCain isn’t that much better but at least will attempt to stop the pork and the hemorrhaging.
Thanks. I need to hear some encouragement from a fellow patriotic American now and again. It makes me feel better knowing that you’re out there and the entire US hasn’t gone Red.
Still at work at 8:45……been a rough day. See ya.
Tony,
Ok…..I won’t write anything more regarding this. I can hear you cursing from England all the way here in Washington D.C.
Hey JZSmith,
From all the poll feedback you cited (1006) it looks like the US citizens and taxpayers feel the pain of high gas and oil prices and want to:
· Increase oil drilling in USA, including offshore and ANWR
· Drill for oil in Gulf of Mexico
· Build more nuclear power plants
· NOT ration or increase the tax on oil and gasoline
Protecting the environment came out lower than developing new energy sources.
It also looks like it is a tie between conservation and expanding exploration as well as about relaxing environmental standards.
Can’t you get this message to the guys you elected to Congress?
Why do you let a handful of fuzzy logic pseudo-scientists and economists plus environmental activist groups and their lawyers control the mindset of your elected representatives rather than taking matters into your own hand and telling these guys what you want them to do (or else you’ll throw them out of office)?
Hey, your forefathers showed the world that the people have the right to decide their destiny, so why don’t you do it now?
I’d also like Brute’s answer on that question.
Regards,
Max
PeterM, it seems to have gone a bit quiet on the origins of oil, so I return to your 981, where you wrote concerning apparently erroneous high levels of isotope C14 in oil:
YAWN…. As I’ve said before, this C14 stuff, is a trivial issue. To expand on that; whilst it is indeed interesting, it neither proves or disproves anything concerning the origins of oil, but merely points to it all being a a big UH?. There are other issues which are more significant, and it is interesting to note that you ignore those, but really latch onto this trivia.
As I said before:
I seem to remember for instance that there was a Wikipedia entry on carbon dating oil to 50,000 years, and I know you have the utmost faith in Wikipedia!
Sincerely, I did NOT notice that the first reference on the Google list was “Creationist”, as you say it is. What I did notice was that it did seem to be soundly presented. It quotes the source of biological material that appears to have been dated by a variety of trusted labs, such as at Lucas Heights. If you want to shoot that evidence down, why don’t YOU research it? (I’m not all that interested)
Geez, I don’t often comment on the mysteries of world trade and, and stuff like; why do ingots of the rare, and largely useless metal gold^, (dug-up and processed at huge expense, environmentally and money-wise), have such significant monetary value? Apparently, it doesn’t matter where the gold is actually physically located, as long as you have some kind of certificate of ownership over it!!!!!!!
That is even far weirder to grasp than contemplating the origins of oil!
In Oz, succeeding governments have (relatively recently) attached great importance in having a federal budget surplus, and there is even a big government “Futures Fund” invested to grow and pay future superannuation for government employees and other stuff that might happen one-day. (I think that‘s right ….. I get splinters when I scratch my head on this….. Sorry, I’m only a mere engineer!)
But, concerning the USA incredibly amazing unbelievable surplus, I think it is MAD.
But, then an earlier MAD variation, with the nuclear stand-off with the USSR, worked-out quite well in the end.
So as I vaguely understand it; China could destroy the USA materialism (and that of the world) with MAD by moving funds etc, but of course that would be MAD.
I reckon that a tight-rope walker wobbling along a wire, high above the Grand Canyon or wherever, would be MAD too.
^ Could be actually useful for weighting the keel of a 12m racing yacht maybe?
Max,
I have written Congress and it is having an effect. I also have a loose coalition of E-mail contacts that are spreading the word also. We won’t get satisfaction from the conventional news outlets……wer’e spreading news around via the internet. Television ratings are dropping for the “Obama/Pelosi press outlets and newspapers such as the New York Times are losing subscribers at great rates. So, it is having an effect.
Drill, Drill, Drill Is Working
Thursday, August 7, 2008 5:45 PM
By: Larry Kudlow
As Sen. John McCain and the GOP leadership nationalize the drill, drill, drill message, the Republican Party might conceivably be riding a summer political rally. The question of offshore drilling, along with expanded domestic energy production, has suddenly become the biggest political and economic wedge issue of this election. Is there a Republican tsunami in the making?
According to the major polls, McCain has overcome a big deficit to pull even with Barack Obama. Meanwhile, according to a Rasmussen survey, Democratic Party identification has slumped.
While Republicans on the House floor shouted “vote, vote, vote” and “lower gas prices,” the Democratic majority turned off the lights, cameras and microphones. Determined Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell offered unanimous-consent requests to vote on lifting the ban on deep-water exploration, and the Democrats objected. When McConnell asked Democrats if they’d overturn the ban at $4.50 a gallon, they replied, “No.” When he raised the price to $5, $7 and $10, they cried, “No,” “no” and “no.”
On the Stephanopoulos Sunday news show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi underscored her refusal to allow a drilling vote. Asked about the Republican rebellion in the House, she said, “What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the handmaidens of the oil companies.” She went on to say, “We are spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic, when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.”
Oh, really? Voters have a much different view. Polls suggest that two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation wants to drill. To wit, while a just-released Obama campaign ad attacks McCain as a tool of big oil, McCain has taken his first-ever lead in a Rasmussen tracking poll.
There is a voter revolt going on, and it reminds me of the anti-tax rebellion that lifted Ronald Reagan into office 28 years ago. Is the conventional wisdom about to be swept away? As Republicans press home the drill, drill, drill message, might they pick up seats in Congress this year? And might the national clamor for a more realistic and balanced energy policy — one that includes more oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and the alternatives of wind, solar and cellulosic — carry John McCain to a convincing victory over Obama?
Without even realizing it, the GOP drilling offensive has become a new contract with America. And it appears to be working. The public is putting aside global warming and choosing instead new-energy production, a stronger economy and more job creation. Voters want growth, not austerity. They want Ronald Reagan, not Thomas Malthus. And by resisting this grassroots call, the Democratic Party is digging itself into one of the biggest political dry holes in history.
New economic statistics highlight the damage done by the unprecedented oil-price shock. Only a year ago, real gross domestic product was growing at 4 percent to 5 percent. Then came the dramatic rise of energy prices and down came the economy.
GDP contracted slightly late last year and rose a miniscule 0.9 percent in this year’s first quarter. And although real growth picked up to nearly 2 percent in the second quarter, that number is suspect, since the government does not count surging import prices from food and energy.
Wall Street blames everything on the housing slump and the subprime credit crisis. Of course, these are significant. But the drop in housing starts, sales and prices has been going on for nearly two years, without crunching down the economy.
It’s the oil shock that has brought us perilously close to recession. In fact, despite a slight rise in GDP, non-farm corporate payrolls have declined for seven consecutive months, while private payrolls have fallen for eight straight months. A year ago, the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. Today, it’s 5.7 percent. Topping it off, the inflation rate has climbed from 2 percent to 4 percent over the past year.
Right now, the recession call is still an open question. But the economic damage caused by skyrocketing energy prices is a no-brainer.
When President George W. Bush eliminated the executive moratorium on offshore drilling a month ago, effectively launching the drill, drill, drill offensive, oil was close to $150 a barrel. Since then, the barrel price has dropped to nearly $120, as futures-market traders anticipate a major shift in federal drilling policy.
Over at the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market, the probability of an offshore drilling bill passing in 2008 is now handicapped at 50 percent, up from 25 percent only a few days ago. Clearly, investors know market prices will move well before we see actual new energy supplies from offshore drilling. The likelihood of greater energy supply will incentivize those much-vilified traders to slash barrel prices much more, bringing relief at the pump and earning the gratitude of a whole nation.
At the same time, those wrongheaded Democratic leaders, from Obama to Harry Reid to Pelosi, will see their political fortunes plummet deep into bear-market territory.
Key degrees of difference
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
There are two sides to the climate story. You’re getting one.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/06/lorne-gunter-there-are-two-sides-to-the-climate-story-you-re-getting-one.aspx
Hi Brute,
You wrote (1018): “There are two sides to the climate story. You’re getting one.”
That is absolutely correct.
We are inundated by stories of imminent “tipping points”, melting ice caps, dangerously rising sea levels, more droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, etc. all due to AGW.
OK, the media like disaster stories, so you can write off what they bring to the public.
Politicians love imminent disaster scares, too, as the early-20th century American writer and journalist, H.L. Mencken expressed so clearly, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Al Gore is a politician, and his “An Inconvenient Truth” is a political movie, intended to frighten the public (including impressionable schoolchildren) into agreeing to carbon cap and trade schemes that will make him even richer than he has already become since leaving public office.
Then we have the UN bureaucrats plus climatologists, computer modelers, etc. contributing to IPCC in generating a 1,000-page (groan!) report on “climate change”, its human “footprint”, plus alarming predictions for the next 100 years, which the world is supposed to swallow as “absolute truth”, since it represents the “consensus view of 2,500 scientists”.
We even have some “scientists” turned AGW-activists, like James E. Hansen, attempting (April 2007) to frighten the U.S. Congress into legislating carbon taxes, shutting down all coal-fired power stations and embarking on a dangerous experiment of “carbon capture and sequestration” in order to avoid imminent “tipping points”, which will otherwise change (for the worse) our planet as we know it, cause several plant and animal species to become extinct and threaten humanity itself. In introducing his proposed action plan he is even arrogant enough to tell congress “Science (whodat?) provides a clear outline for what must be done, a four point strategy.”
Bad news travels fast and far and lots of folks are making a buck on it along the way.
But “good news” stories do not get much attention from the media or the politicians.
An example is the recent (post IPCC AR4) study by Roy Spencer et al., which shows based on extended physical observations from satellites that the feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed in all the climate models cited by the latest IPCC report and used as a basis for future climate projections.
(See Link 1 and 2 – posted separately)
Where IPCC had estimated a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks except cloud feedbacks of 1.9°C, and an increase to 3.2°C including cloud feedbacks, the Spencer study shows that the negative feedback from clouds will essentially offset three-fourths of the assumed climate sensitivity, bringing it to 0.8°C instead of 3.2°C.
This 0.8°C represents the total CO2 warming from the (1750) CO2 level of 280 ppmv to the expected (2100) level of 560 ppmv. At today’s 381 ppmv we have already seen around 45% of this 0.8°C, leaving the AGW warming from CO2 we can expect from today until 2100 at 55% or 0.44°C. Yawn!
This is great news! The press should rejoice, as should all the “concerned scientists”. But there is no joy and this side of the story is not being brought to the attention of the public.
As Roy Spencer was quoted a year ago, “If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests. About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling… or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence.”
It’s been seven years of no warming, and significant cooling since the end of 2007, so Spencer may be right when he suspects that the AGW bubble might pop soon. But, if it does, it won’t get near the media attention that AGW hysteria has gotten.
Regards,
Max
Link 1
Original Spencer et al. study
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Link 2
More recent update
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps
Most of the time, blogs like Harmless Sky can do little more than provide a forum for people who want to debate one of the most important issues of our time. But sometimes there is an opportunity to do rather more.
I have posted an article here about a mystery at the BBC and my attempts to shed a little light on it. This has been picked up by other blogs including Tom Nelson, Bishop Hill, and the Adam Smith Institute. I hope that their interest will lead to a very strange decision on the part of our national broadcaster becoming a subject of wider discussion.
Hi Brute,
I forgot to mention that in addition to the Spencer study, another longer-term study by Joel Norris, based on physical ERBE satellite observations and cloud cover records over many years also shows that the net impact of clouds over this period has been one of cooling, rather than warming.
His study shows a net cooling of 1.5°C from clouds over the study period.
Just another nail in the coffin for the 3°C 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” assumption, which is the basis for the whole hysteria.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Caltechweb.pdf
Regards,
Max
Brute,
I think you are perhaps guily of a certain amount of “Americo centrism” if you feel that a possible relaxation of environmental policy to allow more Artic drilling has been responsible for a recent $30 drop in the oil price. As I have been saying with climate data you don’t want to read too much into one set of figures. Look at the long term trends.
Max has disputed my figures of current world oil consumption of 85 million barrels per day or 31 billion barrels per year. However, your Mr Pickens has not only used exactly the same figures but he further claims that this represents the peak. In other words its never going to be higher that this. We’ll have to see if he is right about that.
If the rate of increase in oil demand continues to rise at 4%, 85 million bpd will become 120 million bpd in ten years time. If its 3% it will be 111 million bpd.
Saudi Arabian oil production is currently about 8-9 million barrels per day. So to meet the rising demand for fuel the world needs to bring on stream a new ‘Saudi Arabia’ at least every three or four years. So, while finding a few new oilfields in the Arctic might help in a small way, they aren’t going to be a solution to the problem.
The solution to both the AGW problem and the economic problems brought about by the rising price of oil is to recognise that the time is up for profligate use of fossil fuels. Other , and cleaner, energy sources will need to be developed. And yes, I don’t have a problem with going nuclear, providing that the new reactors are safe and aren’t a copy of the one at Chernobyl.
Hi Brute,
Also forgot to mention that Hansen told congress that “the dangerous level of CO2 is at most 450 ppm, and is probably less”.
Let’s do a quick check on that. We’re now at around 380 ppm and growing at 2 ppm/year, so that gives us exactly 35 years until the world as we know it will come to an end.
Most politicians think a bit more short term than that (after all congressmen have to get re-elected every two years).
Hansen was 65 years old when he made his prediction, so no one is going to call him on it when it doesn’t happen, because he will be 100 years old or long gone by then.
But to get the good congressmen (and women) interested, he added in “at most” 450 ppm, “and it is probably less”.
So what if the world will come to an end at 400 ppm (in 10 years) or even at 390 ppm (in 5 years).
We’d better act right now before it’s too late!
So Hansen has worded it such that no one will ever be able to call him on his prediction, but yet he implies that it could bring disaster imminently.
Smart guy. Has the skills to be a politician. Even if he is a bit wacko in his climate beliefs.
Max