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,
Just a quick sanity check on your figures plus a few comments on your 1024. You wrote: “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.”
Check this for recent growth in oil consumption:
http://www.ogj.com/display_article/332621/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/BP:-Free-markets-effective-where-allowed-to-work/
Quoting: “Global oil demand grew 1.1% last year, with robust growth in oil-exporting countries. Oil consumption growth by non-OECD oil importing countries has shown the greatest acceleration. Countries that subsidize energy prices accounted for all of the 2007 growth, Finley said, while oil demand in countries within the OECD declined nearly 1%.”
No doubt that oil demand will continue to rise slowly, but there will be a lot of pressure to improve energy efficiency, not only on automobile producers but also in other uses, in order to reduce the cost of imports. Proposals like that of T. Boone Pickens (to free up natural gas in the USA as a motor fuel) will be given serious consideration. This can be done with wind farms or nuclear generation, whichever is most viable based on economics and reliability (looks like nuclear is much better today than giant wind farms).
Alternate motor fuels will become a reality, not only in Brazil. Corn-based ethanol in the USA looks like a loser (even at US prices of $4/gallon), but there are other bio-fuel options that will be developed.
My guess is that there could be a continued 1% growth per year for the next few years, but that it will level off and then slowly start to decrease.
But no matter how much the growth declines and no matter how many new sources (like the US oil shale or Arctic drilling) are developed, there will eventually be very little oil going into either motor fuel or power generation. It will be primarily used as a petrochemical feedstock.
And some day in the distant future it will eventually run out completely.
Whether we are on a nuclear economy (like France today) or using more coal-fired power stations, or using coal to generate a part of our motor fuel and chemical feedstocks (as SASOL is already doing), we will survive. And we will figure out how to not only keep the economies (and prosperity) of the developed and developing countries growing, but also to help the remaining billion people or so that currently live in poverty improve their standard of living by giving them access to electrical power and clean drinking water, etc. (which will require the construction of more power plants, probably principally coal fired, since it will not be in the interest of the world to have every small African or Asian state running nuclear power stations).
You wrote that Saudi oil production was currently 8-9 million b/d. I’ve seen a figure of around 10 million b/d with the potential of increasing up to 13.5 million b/d on short notice, but I won’t quibble with you about a few million b/d one way or the other.
You wrote: “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.”
I can agree wholeheartedly with “going nuclear” since no one in his right mind would ever build an old Chernobyl type reactor in this day and age. Modern nuclear has been proven to be safe and reliable (France).
The “profligate use of fossil fuels” (meaning oil) will stop automatically and other “cleaner energy sources” will be developed. Coal will continue to be used for basic power generation, and there will probably be new coal-fired plants installed all over the world, as China is doing today, particularly once the AGW scare dies down, which I predict will happen by 2010.
So I do not see an impending disaster from either “peak oil” or AGW. People will learn to adapt to the world in which they live as they have in the past.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
Pete,
“Americo centrism”?
Did you just make that up? Just kidding, I know what you mean…….
In the context that I believe that my country is the only one that matters or that the rest of the world revolves around the United States……no, I don’t believe that, or suffer from it.
In the context that I am extremely proud of my country and grateful everyday that I have been blessed with all of the opportunities that it provides……..yes….. I can’t think of anywhere that I’d rather live. I’m certain that most people reading this thread feel the same way about their present living condition/country of origin; otherwise, they’d move.
The United States is a MASSIVE consumer of goods, arguably the greatest consumer nation on the planet. If the United States economy stumbles there is a ripple effect that impacts the world economy……probably more so than any other country. I would go so far as to say that the US economy sets the tune. Not from an “Americo Centrist” viewpoint, that’s just the way it is right now. In the late 19th century it was Great Britain….. before that Spain……….Portugal, Italy or whatever country happened to be the powerhouse Nation/Citystate economically through the ages……whoever had the most money to spend….(“disposable income” I think is the latest euphemism). The US housing/real estate market does effect the world economy……..Many of the assets held in the United States, (real estate), is owned by the foreign interests. The building where I currently work is owned by an Austrian and his German college buddies. Numerous other buildings and properties in the portfolio are owned by the New Zealand Sheep Herders Pension Fund or the British Teamsters Union or whatever. A hiccup in the US real estate market affects my stock portfolio and probably yours if you have one. Down the line it affected other markets……..
Seriously; you seem like a swell guy…..someone, (as stated previously), that I’d like to sit down and have a beer with and chew the proverbial fat. I simply cannot understand how someone of your obvious intelligence and wisdom is falling for this charade.
If everyone on the planet adopted Al Gore’s lifestyle…………..Scratch that………..If everyone on the planet adopted the lifestyle that Al Gore tells the rest of us that we MUST live, do you think the temperature of the planet would be perceptively affected?
We’ve heard this line of nonsense before. In the early mid 1970’s we were told that the world would run out of oil by 1990………it hasn’t. We were told that the Earth was going to freeze solid as a brick due to “the looming ice age”, meteors, asteroids, comets, black holes, gamma ray bursts, were all “just around the corner” and would be the end of mankind. Super volcanoes, tidal waves, earthquakes………Manmade Global Warming…….scare tactics and fairy tales to advance an agenda as Max, (and others) have so eloquently and thoroughly demonstrated over the past several months.
Your +/- 80 years on the planet vs. the 4 BILLION years (that they are currently estimating as the “age” of the Earth) is infinitesimal. Mankind’s appearance on the scene is quite recent and fossil fuel utilization is even a smaller slice in that history. This “green” or “environmental” craze is just that…..a craze, a fad. It will disappear and years from now people will look back on this and laugh at how backward and “unenlightened” early 21st century mankind was. Your lifetime is a grain of sand in an hourglass at the end of a line of hourglasses that would stretch from here to the Sun and back a few hundred times……can’t you see that you are being rooked by all of this global warming nonsense? Do you think for one minute Al Gore, Jim Hansen or any other politician gives a damn about you or “the planet”? If Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Prince Charles or any of the politicians or big mouth movie stars believed that the planet was “doomed” due to carbon dioxide, would they continue to zoom around the world in their personal jets and private yachts expelling more carbon dioxide in a weekend than I would in an entire year? Does Al Gore or Prince Charles set an example and live in a 1,000 square foot apartment?
They don’t believe in this nonsense anymore than I do. Their reason for fostering this hysteria is POLITICAL, pure and simple. These politicians want to get their hands on the money that is produced by business…..it’s a shakedown.
Global Warming is a lie propagated by politicians to maximize their power and to erode and diminish personal property rights and individual liberties. It is a ruse to gradually transfer power from the people to the government in order to better, (or completely) control industry, confiscate wealth, and incrementally limit personal choices.
On a personal note: I have just added another 8 cylinder addition to the Brute automobile family…..
http://www.erareplicas.com/fia/wwcar.htm
345 Horsepower, NO EMMISSION CONTROLS.
I’ve effectively cancelled your carbon credit.
Max,
Just a few points:
A dangerous level of CO2 isn’t the same thing as the end of the world. Even if human beings are silly enough to not address the climate change issue, the world and probably us too, as a species, will carry on. But, it will be the more expensive and more damaging choice.
I’m sure that if Dr Hansen had time to present his case more thoroughly, he would be saying that the length of time that CO2 levels remain elevated is just as important as the levels themselves. In other words, maybe even 450 ppm would be OK for a few years, but 400 ppm for a century or more would not.
I’ve seen it written that the current demand for oil is 87 million barrels pd but the supply is only 85 million barrels pd. That’s obvious nonsense. It’s a basic rule of economics that the demand must equal supply. In the future, the demand for oil will have to actually fall in line with supply.
You are probably right in saying that the demand has only risen 1% this last year. That means the supply has risen by the same amount too, and is, in fact, evidence that we are approaching the oil peak.
What has risen, and by slightly more than 1% of course, to keep supply and demand in balance, is the price.
Saudi Arabia has produced more oil in the past but according to Wiki their current production level for 2008 is 9.3 million barrels per day. The question has been asked if the fall in production is by choice or if their oilfields have peaked.
Even if they have not peaked, Saudi Arabian production represents just 11% of the world total. Most of the other 89% comes from oilfields which are close to peak, or already have peaked. For instance, oil production in the USA is falling at the rate of around 4% per year. Consequently, the production from any new oilfields will not necessarily contribute directly to an increase in supply. They will have to offset the decline from existing oilfields first.
Brute,
Well I must admit that I did type the term ‘Americo centrism’ into Google and I did find that it wasn’t a totally original term.
The good thing about the internet is that it has made the world effectively a lot smaller and we now do all interact much more on an international level than we used to. We could do with a few Chinese and Russian bloggers to get their world view, too.
You put me in an odd situation regarding Prince Charles. We are both republicans, so you don’t believe in the concept of royalty either, presumably? He’s now on my side of the argument on the climate change issue, so I feel I have to put in a good word for him, but in my youth I do remember seriously debating, usually in the pub after a few drinks, whether the royal family should be shot straightaway after the revolution or exiled to run a horse farm in somewhere like Tasmania or Canada! Maybe I have moved slightly to the right over the years, in that I’m less inclined to shoot them these days :-)
What you say about the very wealthy of the world not practicing what they preach may very well be true. But, the earth’s climate won’t make any allowance for that. If you are arguing that we should have greater equality in the world then there is still enough of my youthful zeal left, for me to not disagree with you on that point.
PeterM, Ah this wonderful AGW forecast to hit us for another week. I kid you not, that my computer claimed a temperature of 7C for Melbourne, at what should be the warmest part of the day. I reckon it was about 5C outside in the NE here, at that time! Snow forecast on the nearby hills! But, back to your account of biotic oil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is some important data, which you could Google to verify by title:
The solubility of oxygen in equilibration with air in fresh and sea (salt) water…
1] Temperature Centigrade____ 2] Sea Mg/L____ 3] Fresh water: Mg/L (at 1 bar abs)
1]_____2]_____3]———————-
20____7.2____9.1
30____6.1____7.6
40____5.3____6.5
50____4.6____5.6
60.….Not evaluated
Notice that with a water surface T of 50C, which is indeed hot, there is ample oxygen to enable aerobic decomposition. Furthermore, the water layers below would be cooler, thus permitting, via convection and wind action, higher O2 absorption. Please also note that some 40% of insolation is in the near infrared, which is fully absorbed and reemitted from only skin depth. The rest of the solar spectrum is absorbed varyingly at fairly modest depths. (and any back-radiation a la GHG effect would be a skin effect on the seas)
Question a) What sea temperature’s were visualized at this time when the world was so much hotter?
Question b) What is the source of your information? (RealClimate maybe?)
Question c) Currently the tropics are long-term stabilised to around 30-32C, and most global T variation is seen elsewhere…..what do you think happened back then?
Question d) The distribution of substantial oil fields are thought to be widespread, eg with renewed interest in the Arctic, and Brazil etc. Can you tie the current geographic locations latitudinally with any correlation to those past continental latitudes that are posited to embrace your hot seas?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some interesting extracts from Anaerobic Digestion from Wikipedia:
(The latter is more productive, but requires more energy input etc.)
Question e) Do you now agree that the account you gave in your 988/998, is severally unsupportable?
(It would be interesting to know your sources, so that I might check-out their validity)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question f) Do you agree that whilst oil has only been found on continental shelves, including off-shore, that that does not disprove the existence of oil under the greater deep sea-bed? (where currently the technical challenges of drilling are both too difficult, and totally unwarranted)
BoB_FJ,
I can’t say that I’d given the formation of oil much thought until I got embroiled in the AGW issue and found that some sceptics were pushing the idea of abiotic oil. I’m not one, as you’ll know, to accept anything other than the generally accepted scientific wisdom on a particular topic so I must admit that I’m pushing the party line rather than speaking from a deep personal knowledge.
But, as I understand it, the decay of animal and plant material, in the geological process of the production of oil, does have to be anaerobic. If oxygen is present the organic chemicals present are oxidised and lose their energy content.
Even now there are areas of very low dissolved oxygen, biologically dead zones, in the ocean which could have similar conditions to those in prehistoric seas.
http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml
PS My spell checker doesn’t know the word ‘abiotic’ and keeps on trying to correct it to ‘idiotic’. I must say that I have been tempted to let it have its way :-)
Peter,
I’ve moved your very witty #1024 to the BBC thread as it is more appropriate to respond there.
Incidentally this was caught by the spam filter which confirms that these false positives are not related to the links in them, but to the ISP that you are using. Obviously neither of us can do anything about this, but you have been particularly unlucky recently.
ADMIN
For the next few days I am going to be inundated by a cataclysmic family celebration. I will be able to keep an eye on the spam filer, but that is about all.
Hi Peter,
To my blog about Hansen’s hysterical hyperbole you wrote (1029): “A dangerous level of CO2 isn’t the same thing as the end of the world. Even if human beings are silly enough to not address the climate change issue, the world and probably us too, as a species, will carry on. But, it will be the more expensive and more damaging choice.”
I’ll leave your comment, “it will be the more expensive and more damaging choice”, with the thought that economists are not at all in agreement with your opinion on this (i.e. most agree that “adaptation” to whatever really happens when it happens some day in the future is a better investment than “mitigation” today against what we think might (or might not) happen some day in the future based on the virtual reality of computer models.
But let’s discuss Hansen’s hysterical hyperbole (presented to the US Congress as “fact”).
Hansen has equated the “dangerous level of CO2” of 450 ppm with horrible changes “in the pipeline” that will cause the “extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species”, a “sea level rise this century”, which “may be measured in meters” and the creation of “a different planet, with eventual chaos for much of humanity as well as the other creatures on the planet”.
Maybe you’re right that Hansen did not predict “the end of the world”, but what he predicted comes pretty close to “the end of the world as we know it today”.
Reminds me of the fringe lunatics you occasionally see in Hyde Park or Central Park, carrying “The End Is Near!” signs.
And Hansen has the arrogance to call his opinion on all this “science”, when he says of his proposal to the US Congress, “Science provides a clear outline for what must be done, a four point strategy”.
A lot of political hot air from a guy that is supposed to be an impartial and objective scientist on the US taxpayer payroll to give his employers (the US public) honest and objective weather/climate information, but has turned into a political activist for AGW instead.
And then (while prolifically generating hysterical articles and blogs) Hansen has the gall to imply he is being “muzzled”.
Nope, Peter, I do not have much faith or respect for this guy. He is a phony.
Regards,
Max
PeterM, 1032, you wrote in part on oil genesis:
Well actually, IF oil has resulted from geological entrapment of biota, then its quality would be at its highest if there is zero decay, be that decay either aerobic or anaerobic
What happens during aerobic decay is that hydrocarbons are lost largely as CO2 plus H2, (and lesser CH4 = methane), whereas in anaerobic decay they are lost largely as CH4 (and lesser CO2 and H2).
The end result is the same in that the decomposition results in the loss of hydrocarbons, and thus there is no feedstock to enable generation of oils from geologically applied high temperatures and heat
There is lots of stuff to Google under Anaerobic Decomposition, and Anaerobic Decay if you are interested. One paper that caught my eye was sub-titled:
Comparison of the course of decomposition of rice straw under anaerobic, aerobic and partially aerobic conditions
Straw is fairly tough stuff, containing woody fibres, yet the hydrocarbon loss seems equivalent, with or without oxygen. The favourite biota choice for oil is of course much more squishy and easily digested.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also wrote in part:
Even now there are areas of very low dissolved oxygen, biologically dead zones, in the ocean which could have similar conditions to those in prehistoric seas.
The link provided is interesting, but don’t get overexcited by the word ‘dead’ to describe those small bottom zones, typically at river-mouths probably because of excess nutrients from bad farming practices. They are almost certainly teaming with anaerobic bacteria and protozoa etc. If that water is cold, the decay would be slower than the process that you advocate in hot shallow seas, but we are talking geological time here, (presumably), so I don’t see that that would matter.
Max,
You say ” …most agree that “adaptation” to whatever really happens when it happens some day in the future is a better investment ”
It is true that some economists may say this but not ‘most’ of them. Some degree of adaptation is neccessary of course, it fact that is already happening.
I’d be interested to see any references that you may have which show the majority position to be that adaptation is generally a cheaper option than climate mitigation and therefore we need to do nothing much differently at the moment.
BoB_FJ,
I thought you said that this abiotic oil discussion was getting to be a bit of a yawn?
But anyway I think you have it mostly right when you say “What happens during aerobic decay is that hydrocarbons are lost largely as CO2 plus H2, (and lesser CH4 = methane), whereas in anaerobic decay they are lost largely as CH4 (and lesser CO2 and H2)”.
Except that if there is no oxygen present in the decomposition process there can’t be any CO2 formed, and if there is, CH4 is likely to oxidise to CO2 and water also. Methane gas being the simplest hydrocarbon.
Certainly we know that methane is often present in large quantities in oilfields.
I agree too that the term “dead-zone” wouldn’t exclude the possibility of anaerobic bacteria being present. Dead zones aren’t necessarily the result of human pollution. The Dead Sea is the obvious example, and the central and deeper parts of the Black sea is another.
Its possible that the same processes are at work now in the Black Sea, and that some oil may result in several million years time!
I’m not a geologist and can’t give you the full extent of scientific knowledge on oil formation, I’m just trying to give you a general picture of what is thought to have happened, and to show that it isn’t anywhere near as implausible a theory as has been previously suggested.
Global Warming, Global Myth
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html
Pete,
Just curious; what “adaption is already occuring? Is it the fact that I own a winter coat in my closet and I will “adapt” to the cold weather this winter by putting it on?
Adapt to what? What climate changes have occured that we have had to “adapt” to?
If it has been .6 degrees warmer over the last 150 years globally, have I had to “adapt” to that? Maybe I’ve “adapted” and didn’t know it?
Brute,
I know you’ll scoff at the mention of the words ‘computer models’ but short of finding a second earth, on which to experiment, there is really no alternative to basing sensible policy decisions on them.
As I recently wrote, these predict increased droughts for Australia, which is consistent with the fact that we are in the worst drought since European settlement began in Australia.
There is a fair bit of adaptation needed to cope with that as you can imagine.
The melting permafrosts in the Arctic are causing problems with roads and buildings.
London is worried that the barrage they built in the 70’s to guard against flooding is having to be used more than they planned and will not give the level of protection required in future.
Hi Peter,
Your exchange with Brute on the merits of “mitigation” to solve all these horrible virtual computer-generated problems before they (maybe) occur (some day in the future), reminded me of an interesting op-ed article by Bjorn Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal on July 28, 2008.
It listed 5 major global issues of our time and cited studies which calculated the annual cost for addressing these issues as well as the return on investment for each.
The issues were: Disease, Hunger, New Energy R+D, Terrorism and CO2 mitigation.
Interestingly, CO2 mitigation came out as the most expensive (at $800 billion) with the lowest return (at $0.9 per $ invested).
The graph below (by me) shows what the various studies concluded.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2751868737_aee7389e90_b.jpg
Looks like “CO2 mitigation” is a bad investment compared to all the others. Makes sense to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
Max
Max,
I’m not unsympathetic to what Bjorn Lomborg was trying to achieve in his book “The Sceptical Environmentalist” but I really think he needs to hurry out a second edition!
In the first edition, all his calculations were based on his claim that the oil price would remain steady at the then figure of $22 per barrel for the next 20 years. I don’t know if he’s missed the news, but that has proved to be slightly off the mark, and yet he keeps on trotting out the same conclusions and the same figures in justification.
What is much more apparent now than when he wrote the book, is that the move away from an oil and fossil fuel based economy is desirable not just on environmental grounds but also on energy security grounds too.
Anyway, Bjorn Lomborg is an interesting character but even he would reject the notion that he was promoting a majority view.
PeterM , 1038 you wrote:
My Reply [1] Nope, my earlier “yawn comment” was concerning your ad nauseating refusal to recognise that the 2006/7 regional loss of Arctic ice is incompatible with your church-view, that it correlates to CO2 increase, or is caused by AGW. (For instance, you never commented on why it was possible for three submarines to surface at the North Pole in open water, in MAY 1987, whereas that same area was ice-covered in the so-called record melt year of 2007 in AUGUST). However, the familiar tactics that you employ of avoiding and obfuscating the big issues, are being repeated with respect to oil genesis, and are beginning to become boring too.
My Reply [2] Look, I’ve already declared that chemistry was one of my weak areas back in my engineering study days in the 50’s, but I do have vague recollections like sulphuric acid = H2SO4, and common iron oxide = Fe2O3, and I think lots of other stuff like mud, and maybe even living matter, also contains bound oxygen. I suspect that even in an anaerobic environment, (without free oxygen) there maybe something going on that can do small bits of CO2 in anaerobic decay. (Max; help!)
My Reply [3] Your point being? My immediate recollection is that they have different depth sources even under biotic theory….. Although I don’t see this as an issue….. So what?
My Reply [4] Oh good, that’s nice!
My Reply [5] The Dead Sea is the consequence of hyper-evaporation resulting in excessive salt concentration I think, from recollection. Is that relevant to oil genesis?
My Reply [6] The Black Sea is up to 2,200m deep and is UNIQUE in that the top 100-150m is mostly positive overflow fluvial fresh water, whereas the bottom ~2Km is largely trapped by its higher density salinity and a combination of unusual circumstances that reportedly restrict its circulation to only about once in every thousand years. Furthermore, this unique situation has apparently only existed as maybe as recently as about 7,000 years ago, and the lower depth sea T’s are only around 8.5C. (Hardly a hot shallow sea, according to your original account, Pete.)
However, let’s have a REALITY CHECK: Although this is said to be the largest “Dead Sea”, (a misnomer), it is tiny compared to the oceans of the world, OR if you prefer to ignore the oceans, and only consider the continental shelves, let us say that it is roughly midway in size between Italy and France, and even smaller than Spain, which are just liddle bits of liddle ol’ Europe. (Take a look at a map of the world, and the distribution of oil-fields!)
My Reply [7] Your original account of hot shallow seas geologically trapping vast amounts of undigested biota is very unsupportable, it being contradicted by evident biology, physics, and chemistry. Your more recent substitutions to that original account, are equally implausible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d better stop there, because I feel you have suffered enough with the local AGW these last days, and for the week ahead as forecast! Boy, my computer says it is currently 12C in the city but I don’t believe it here in the NE, and earlier I was caught in a precipitation in the car that terrified the dog such that I had to stop. Water even entered the car through door seals, and the din of soft hail and rain was unreal!
Bob_FJ,
I think you are getting yourself too worked up over this. I’m just trying to give you the established scientific view on how oil was formed and which I suspect that you’ve had no problems with up until now, if you had any real interest in the subject at all.
What’s causing you, and I suggest Brute too, some concern are claims from people like your Mr Pickens, and who is probably the sort of oilman whose opinion would carry more weight than if he were one of your despised government scientists, that we may have reached ‘peak oil’. Hence a desperation to believe in anything that may offer some hope that you can carry on driving around in a SUV for the foreseeable future.
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the submarines at the North Pole. Even as long ago as 1987 there were concerns that the ice at the pole was thinning. I’ll not post the link , in case my posting disappears into Tony’s spam filter, but: Dr Wadhams and Dr Davis reported in Geophysical Research Letter
” The data on ice thinning were collected by two upward-looking sonar systems mounted on the submarines. The thinning of the ice between Fram Strait and the Pole was first reported by Dr Wadhams in 1990. He had found a 15% decrease in ice thickness between his voyage in 1976 on Sovereign and another in 1987 on a third UK submarine, Superb.”
The Superb was the submarine on the left in the photo you posted I believe.
Climate Change: Breaking the “Political Consensus”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9763
Pete,
I really don’t give a damn what T. Bone Pickens does. He can build windmills until he’s a little old oilman as far as I’m concerned……as long as he does it with his own money…..not mine. If he’s successful, I tip my hat to him……if not, those are the breaks.
I don’t know where everyone is getting this notion that this is “our” problem and that “we” have to “fix” it. (I don’t necessarily see a “problem” either on the peak oil or the global warming deal). If he can provide a reliable, efficient, economical energy resource he should move on it full steam ahead……with his own money and at his risk. If he can con some other rich Hollywood movie stars or former failed politicians to invest in his scheme he should pitch his idea to them and they can chip in their dough.
Again, I’m certain that Al Gore and Generation Investment Trust can open their wallets and come up off of a few dollars to invest in such a “worthwhile” cause. They don’t need my money or anyone else’s…..correct? If it’s such a great deal he can sell shares and people can buy as many shares as they’d like.
I don’t understand what is so difficult about this. I reiterate, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT FOSSIL FUELS ARE HARMING THE PLANET, I SUGGEST YOU STOP USING THEM.
Hi Peter,
Looks like you are evading my question.
I asked if you had any comments on a recent article by Lomborg, which cited several other recent studies and concluded that investing in “CO2 mitigation” represented a poor investment, with a very high investment and a return of less than 1 to 1, while addressing other world problems (all of which would cost less than CO2 mitigation) would bring returns ranging from 10-20 to 1.
Instead you commented on an old book by Lomborg, which used oil prices that are much lower than today to make some sort of prediction with which you were not in agreement.
Stick to the topic at hand, Peter, don’t waffle around and change the subject at random. Makes a discussion difficult.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’m not evading your question at all. Bjorn Lomborg made his reputation shortly after the publication of his book “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. As you say, just eight years have turned it into an “old book”.
But, he keeps trotting out the same figures and conclusions, when the foundations of his case have been completely undermined by the much changed price of fossil fuels in the meantime. When I’ve seen his updated calculations, and some explanation of how he could have got it so wrong on energy prices at the time, and feel slightly more confident that his next set of assumptions will be valid for slightly longer than his first lot, I’ll answer the point of his claimed cost benefit ratios of 10:1 or 20:1 or whatever.
Right now they are just out of date.
He does make some good points, though. I agree with him that funding research into new energy sources, I’d emphasise they should have low CO2 emissions of course, is important not just for the climate but also to bringing affordable energy to the world’s population.
Brute,
Thanks for your reiteration and suggestion. Unfortunately, I’ll have to discount it. It isn’t just the fossil fuels that I, or any other particular person, are using that is causing the problem of CO2 emissions being too high. It’s everyone’s.
Peter, regarding your post 1011 above, I have to take issue with your comment:
The US government has never defaulted on a loan, and it would take some unbelievable global financial collapse for that to ever happen. First of all, the US Treasury auctions off notes of differing maturities on very regular intervals, some maturities every week. They are a very transparent auction, and even YOU can purchase them directly from the US government!
I am a deficit and debt “hawk”, and am shocked an appalled at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and the Congress of the United States. They both are guilty of horrific spending sprees that the taxpayers of the USA will be paying for for generations. However, that doesn’t mean that investors “have no chance of getting their money back”. If real investors agreed with you—and they don’t—then market for US debt instruments would dried up tomorrow, plunging the whole civilized world into financial collapse of epic proportions. (“Complete moral breakdown, dogs and cats living together…” Ghostbusters the movie)