Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Clearly pollution is bad and needs to be limited by some means.  It is especially unfair for industry (or anyone) to create particulate emissions or pollute rivers and not pay for this damage.  These societal costs (externalities) need to be captured and paid by the perpetrator instead of society at large.

 That being said I have always been quite skeptical of man made global warming caused by CO2.  The reasons for my feelings are numerous:

 1)     It always seemed to me to more about societal control than about science.  

2)     Too many of the pushers of this seemed to previously align themselves with socialist or anti-capitalist movements for me not to suspect that they have ulterior motives. 

3)     Near religious treatment of this topic by many of its followers.

4)     Demonizing anyone that has contrarian views

5)     Too many people seem to be interested in making a lot of money off this issue.  (Al Gore/Goldman Sachs/…)

6)     Too many people want to say that the science is in and the case is closed.

7)     Questioning where funding comes from only when that funding comes from industry.  Government funding which is probably at least 10 – 1 in favor of man made global warming is somehow considered impartial.

8)     The seeming indoctrination of our children in public schools

9)     The creation of a crisis to push through change that would otherwise be impossible to do.

10) The whole solar activity thing

11) The relative cooling over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have continued to increase

12) Cost to benefit ratio seemed to be quite horrible

13) … this list is almost endless

 This is not to say that everyone in these movements aligns with one or more of these reasons, but enough of them do to know that I want no part of it.  It also goes without saying that I am not 100% certain that CO2 does not contribute to global warming but I just feel that it does not deserve the hysteria that it gets.

The funny thing is that I used to feel much the same way about Peak Oil.  This was not because I had invested any time into researching Peak Oil but merely due to my gut scientist feelings that if this was ever a problem, a combination of the market, technology, and entrepreneurs would find a way to fix it.  When I first watched the crash course, I nearly dismissed the section on Peak Oil because it just did not mesh well with my technological belief system.  My inner sense put me much closer to Ray Kurzweil than to some Peak Oil alarmist.

Although I still believe that our long term energy problem will still be solved by some combination of solar/nuclear/wind/geothermal/…, I am no longer convinced that we have a high probability course to get there without serious societal disruptions.  After all it’s not just the energy generation problem that needs to be solved but also, and more importantly, the storage problem.

I was wondering what other people think about these two issues and especially their intersection.  One thing that did not occur to me until recently is that the powers that be may be trying to use global warming as a proxy fight against Peak Oil.  Could they do this because the effects of climate change are very slow to happen and letting everyone know about how screwed we all are with respect to energy might cause a panic which would be much harder to recover from?  Add in the fact that the major energy producers are not exactly friendly to US interests and it just makes me wonder what our so-called leaders are really up too.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

I should have posted this to general discussion and not current events.   Sorry...

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

The reasons to doubt the Global Warming hoax are legion. Here's one:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/11/clouds_hang_over_the_global-wa.html

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

goes211

Quote:

13) … this list is almost endless

It may be, but you have recited a fairly comprehensive list of the myths and canards of denialist movement.  You are apparently a cruiser of the many denialist websites.

The truth is that those who accept the science of climate change focus on the science.  That means peer reviewed studies, not politically motivated blogs.  Follow the science.

Doug

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug

From what I've seen the politically motivated crowd are the ones who have been promoting Global Warming.  I would point out that your post fits hand in glove with the "Traits and Tactics of the Disinformant"  http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/traits-and-tactics-disinformant/31047

Frinstance, dismissing legitimate questions as being "myths and canards of denialist movement."  I've never been on a Global Warming website, denialist or otherwise, but I have seen 50 years worth of environmental dire warnings fizzle out over and over again at great societal cost. Sorry, crying wolf again just fails to get my alarm bells clanging except to alert me to another hoax.  

Read my post above. It cites scientific members of your Global Warming movement who admit that there isn't increase of temps on the horizon. Or are they now to be dismissed as outlyers now that they disagree with your premise. That's the tactic I've witnessed from the hoaxers and their acolytes. Once again back to "Traits and Tactics of the Disinformant"

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Although I went into medicine, because I couldn't make a living as a marine scientist.  I really don't see much investigative science behind the global warming "scientists".  Most of their 'science' is based on calculations based on basic assumptions and calculations that have no experimental basis and are far too rough to extrapolate on a global basis.  They use the same calculations that are used by 'Big Oil' to discredit the energy output of solar, wind, ethanol,  and nuclear energy.

A pox on both their houses.

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug,

A follow-up thought if I may:

It seems hypocritical to accuse critics of GW of being politically motivated when the loudest voice of the advocates of the cause of GW is a.......POLITICIAN!!! 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

earthwise

Quote:

It cites scientific members of your Global Warming movement

Who?  I don't see anyone mentioned in your post.

Try to focus here. S-C-I-E-N-C-E

Here are a few sites to get you started:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf

Doug

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

goes211:  +1000

 I'm almost certain that GW is a cover story for the far more pressing (and certain) PO......

 Maybe a noble cover story.. maybe a hypocritical one..  Thrasymachus..

 

 Is it more useful to present oneself as a noble idealist protecting the planet...

 

 ... than a calculating pragmatist protecting yourself or your nation...

 

 I'm certain about the course I (+ we) need to follow.. but I'm tempted to cloak it in a Climate change agenda if only for

the moral  brownie points and competive advantage....

 They won't listen.. f*** em... screw the selfish.. and stupid......

 I think Prince Charles chose this (wise / cynical  but apparently "idealist") approach a long time ago.....

 

 smart guy..

 

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug

Check the link in the post.

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug

I have seen the S-C-I-E-N-C-E. But, unlike you apparently, I looked at the S-C-I-E-N-C-E both for and against and I find the S-C-I-E-N-C-E for GW unpersuasive in view of the critique by scientists. Read the article and you will find some, (among many) scientists. Here is the link again. http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/11/clouds_hang_over_the_global-wa.html

Have you given the issue a fair minded look, or a partisan one? 

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

For what it's worth here is my own understanding about AGW.  You can substitute opinion for understanding and it will be like every other post :-)

1.  Measurements over a not very long time show a warming in average global temperature.

2. There is an exponentially increasing production of CO2 by humans -- much more that is produced by volcanoes.  This yields a linearly increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. That humans are modifying the earth's atmosphere must be studied.

4. There is a correlation of CO2 concentration with the warming temperature.

5. A correlation is not logically necessary and much can be made of this.

That certain politicians may be exploiting the issue is not the same as their making it up.  The truth has little to do with what politicians say one way or the other.

Regardless of the truth, AGW is not a conspiracy worth worrying about.  For example, Canada signed the Kyoto treaty but broke that treaty because of shale oil production.  Energy production will be too expensive to care about AGW.  My own skepticism is that this is secretly a big concern here ;-)

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug,

Is a Harvard astrophysicist a S-C-I-E-N-T-I-S-T?  I think so.

From TG Daily, Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon says global climate change corresponds to solar activity:

Dr. Soon’s field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth’s atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).

So far in 2009, the sun has had no sunspots for 88 out of the 99 days so far this year. Dr. Soon calls what we are seeing “the first deep solar minimum of the space age”, and “In fact, this is the quietest [fewest sunspots] Sun we have had in almost a century”.

Here's more from Dr. Soon  

. This is one example that I found in 5 minutes of Googling. And it's not even the material I was looking for.

There are many, many more reputable scientists whose credentials are impeccable who refute global warming. Many of them are those whose names  AL Gore used fraudulently to add weight to his sham of a movie and who have since repudiated being associated with it.  You and I could engage in a game of "dueling scientists" but to what end? Only time will tell; I just hope the radical environmental movement hasn't destroyed whatever is left of our civilization after our noble politicians have had their day on the economic front. 

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Warming or cooling, you are going to have to adapt to it, because the only political solutions just redristribute the burning of fossil fuels which will continue to be burned as fast as they can be pumped either in the US, China, India, or elsewhere.  The earth has had periods of warming and cold in the past.  Life will go on.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

If you wish to discover how the large majority of physicists feel about it, see these links from the two foremost professional associations of physicists in the US, the AGU (American Geophysical Union) and APS (American Physical Society)

http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

Quote:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2009/11/10/aps-council-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposal-to-replace-societys-current-climate-change-statement/#more-224

Quote:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

And a recent affirmation of the APS position:

http://www.aps.org/

Quote:

The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.

Your argument is not with me, it is with the consensus view of climate scientists worldwide. (See IPCC 2007 report) here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

My guess is you are clearly outclassed.

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

earthwise

Willie Soon is a long time agw denialist funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Who shall we trust?  The IPCC, AGU and APS, or Willie Soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

Quote:

In 2003 Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[3]

Shortly thereafter, 13 authors of papers cited by Soon and Baliunas disputed that interpretation of their work.[10] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Soon and Baliunas study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[11]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[5] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[12]

The study by Soon and Baliunas was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute, receiving a total of $53,000 from them.[4] At the time Soon and Baliunas were also paid consultants of the Marshall Institute.[4]

 

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Ok so we go with your premise of global warming.  How do we adapt to it?  The current crop of Global Warming leaders don't give a crap about global temperatures.  Their solution is all about gaining more power for themselves -- not compassion for the environment.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

docmims

I'm not going to bite on your preposterous assertion that

Quote:

The current crop of Global Warming leaders don't give a crap about global temperatures

, I've been through this drill too many times.  But, to answer your presumably serious question, adapting won't work.  We need do the same thing we need to do about fossil fuels.  Conserve like crazy and use what fossil fuel remains to develop renewable non-carbon based energy sources.  And then, change our way of life as CM is proposing.  Think localization.

Doug

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug

There is soooo much to dismiss in your last post I don't know where to begin!!! 

I'll start with your source info: Wikipedia?? Anybody can post anything to Wikipedia so I don't view that as a very credible resource.

Of all the things I find discrediting of the GW movement, the demeanor represented in your last post has to rank high, high up on the list.  You asked for science and scientists and when presented with one, in the epitome of cynicism, you choose to impugn motives rather than deal with his science. You could be a poster child for "Traits and tactics of the Disinformant".

TRAITS AND TACTICS OF THE DISINFORMANT http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/traits-and-tactics-disinformant/31047

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth.  This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

This particular ploy of the GW crowd is especially galling in it's hypocrisy. Scientists are dismissed as beholden to special interests like the petroleum industry, while the GW scientists are the largest beneficiaries of special interest $ from the largest special interest group: POLITICIANS. The ruling elite will control the world economy through the Global Warming agenda and they use their scientists as a fig leaf to lend credibility to their power grab. If Dr. Soon is not credible because he split $53,000 from the oil lobby, then how can you attribute any credibility to the scientists who take grant money from government bureaucrats who seek power. This would be the height of hypocrisy if it wasn't for Al Gore, the first "CarbonBillionaire". Did you even open up the link on my first post? Try it. It won't hurt for long I promise. Here I'l give you a sample.

Hudson went on to cite numerous scientists skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But perhaps the most damning observation came from a scientist who supports the theory. Mojib Latif is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group that set the panic off with its 1996 report on global warming. According to Hudson, Latif concedes "that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

 

There are many scientist that dispute the theory, note theory, of Global Warming. The people in your cause dismiss any contrary opinion rather than address the S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

I find that boring. Good luck with your crusade.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil
earthwise wrote:

......I have seen 50 years worth of environmental dire warnings fizzle out over and over again at great societal cost. Sorry, crying wolf again just fails to get my alarm bells clanging except to alert me to another hoax. 

 

EXCUSE ME?  I can't believe I'm reading this...

When Rachel Carson blew the whistle on DDT (and other chemicals) she was ridiculed too, the science was flawed, blah blah blah... and it turned out she was right, and DDT was banned (and exported to countries with no regulations!) You call this a hoax?

When the hole in the ozone layer was discovered, scientists discovered that CFC's were the cause, and called for a ban. Again, the science was flawed, and it took I don't know how many years to get the chemical companies kicking and screaming to agree to another ban. Another hoax?

Same thing happened with leaded gasoline and acid rain, and I could fill this space with dozens more, but I won't bore you.....

FACT is, what you call "crying wolf" actually turns out to be that the problems were "fixed" because people who believed the problems really existed stubbornly campaigned for change to remove said problems. Those campaigners are heroes, otherwise we would all be living in the smog ridden cities we now see in Asia where laissez faire environmental dogma is allowed to continue.

I firmly believe that AGW is in exactly the same bag as those other examples, except it is FAR WORSE because it threatens to not only wipe US out, but most other species too. Globally.

The AGW science is far from perfect, but it doesn't mean its tenets are wrong. This is because the complexity of the problem is nothing like the easy science of working out that CFC molecules destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere.... and so huge margins of error are inevitable, and so the IPCC gives us a range of possible outcomes. Some of those scientists are now saying things are progressing much much worse than originally anticipated, ice caps melting at rates not anticipated for decades!

And for all you global cooling fans, you might like to know we had a record warm winter in Australia. then a record hot spring, not least the City of Adelaide experiencing 7 November days straight of near 100 degree temps (for the first time EVER) and it's at least another week before it's officially summer!

Mike

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil
docmims wrote:

Warming or cooling, you are going to have to adapt to it, because the only political solutions just redristribute the burning of fossil fuels which will continue to be burned as fast as they can be pumped either in the US, China, India, or elsewhere.  The earth has had periods of warming and cold in the past.  Life will go on.

Yes, but they weren't caused by an out of control species, and those climate changes could not be "fixed" in any way, unlike this one......  though I fear it may well be way too late already.

Mike

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil
Damnthematrix wrote:

Yes, but they weren't caused by an out of control species, and those climate changes could not be "fixed" in any way, unlike this one......  though I fear it may well be way too late already.

Mike

 

There have been many environmental catrastophies caused by out of control species in the past.  Mother nature has dealt with them and she will deal with this one.

for instance, as CO2 rises ocean biomass from plankton and algae will rise exponentially sucking up this CO2 food supply.  These organisms die and silt to the abyss where they are assimilated into the earths crust and redistributed by plate tectonics into new oil deposits.  The cycle begins anew.  Believe me. my dad is a retired college professor.  Their careers live and die with grant money.  You really should not just blindly believe in EITHER side.  And Mike, you are correct: It is WAY to late anyway.  We will just have to deal with the consequences.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

earthwise

Quote:

Did you even open up the link on my first post?

In fact I did open the link.  It's to a New Jersey columnist who, in the first two paragraphs, got the science so wrong I didn't go any further.

Quote:

The people in your cause dismiss any contrary opinion rather than address the S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

I suppose you could think of it as my "cause", but in fact several years ago I started looking at it from a skeptical perspective.  As I systematically eliminated denial point after denial point by looking at the real science, I grew to understand taht the denial movement is largely a product of oil industry funding of a few scientists and a lot of political blabbermouths that populate the blogosphere.  Time after time I discovered how little sound science they rely on, and how willing they are to sell their souls for a political agenda.

No, in fact climate scientists do what scientists do.  They examine the contentions and then, if they come in form of peer reviewed studies (which they rarely do), try to replicate the findings to see if they are valid.  If they are, they change the science accordingly.  That's how science works.  It is indicative of the scientific bankruptcy of the denial crowd that they have very little in the way of peer reviewed studies out there. 

Doug

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Doug,

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

 

BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

Greenland ice cap melting faster than ever

Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.

 

 

Jus tell them that the Earth is round and finite, not flat and limitless.

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil
xraymike79 wrote:

Doug,

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

 

BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

 

 

 

Jus tell them that the Earth is round and finite, not flat and limitless.

LOLSmile.  Also tell them North America represents less than 4% of the global ecosystem.

Seriously. the money needs to be spent learning how to deal with the effects.  This cat is out of the bag, and isn't going back in.  Thank god we reversed that global cooling going on in the 50s,60s, and 70s.  That was probably due to us humans also.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil
docmims wrote:

for instance, as CO2 rises ocean biomass from plankton and algae will rise exponentially sucking up this CO2 food supply.  These organisms die and silt to the abyss where they are assimilated into the earths crust and redistributed by plate tectonics into new oil deposits.  The cycle begins anew.  Believe me. my dad is a retired college professor.  Their careers live and die with grant money.  You really should not just blindly believe in EITHER side.  And Mike, you are correct: It is WAY to late anyway.  We will just have to deal with the consequences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408074403.htm

To investigate how this system will change in response to surface-ocean warming, the scientists from Kiel have enclosed natural plankton communities in eight tanks of 1,400 litres each. The communities were exposed to different temperatures, which corresponded to the warming scenarios projected by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) until the year 2100. In these “miniature ecosystems” the build-up and decline of the spring plankton bloom was monitored over a period of one month. “As expected, the metabolic rates of all components of the plankton community were accelerated with increasing temperature. What came as a surprise to us was that the plankton consumed up to one third less CO2 at elevated temperatures. Ultimately, this may cause a weakening of the biological carbon pump”, says Prof. Ulf Riebesell from IFM-GEOMAR, the principal investigator of the study. 

The reason for this weakening: While the photosynthetic build-up of biomass by planktonic algae shows only a minor response to warming, its consumption by bacteria strongly increases with rising temperature. This causes a greater portion of algal biomass to be degraded before it can sink to deeper waters. Thus, more CO2 is retained in the surface layer, which, in turn, will take up less CO2 from the atmosphere.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

Thanks Mike and DTM, good digs.

I knew that Greenland was melting faster, but the rate of melt is getting greater alarmingly fast.  The 2007 AR4 projections are being eclipsed by actual observations after only 2 years.

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

oops, double post.

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

As usual, even among the many smart people on this site, the argument inevitably falls into a false dichotomy - on every level. Either global war is the gravest threat facing mankind or it is a complete hoax. Either it is caused by man, or it is not. Each side is either relying on science or they are merely advancing a political agenda. And so on.

Personally, I think all the concerns goes211 raises in his opening list are completely valid, and I share them. But I also find the science that Doug is so well studied in, to be compelling. And so my position which offends just about everyone (something I'm good at!) is that global warming is happening and that fossil fuel emissions are a significant contributing factor. BUT ...  I also think the international and governmental response is so blatantly ineffectual and opportunistic as to strongly suggest that, just as the "deniers" fear, a crisis is in fact being exploited to advance an agenda, rather than solve the problem. 

Doug wrote:

goes211

Quote:

13) … this list is almost endless

It may be, but you have recited a fairly comprehensive list of the myths and canards of denialist movement.  You are apparently a cruiser of the many denialist websites.

The truth is that those who accept the science of climate change focus on the science.  That means peer reviewed studies, not politically motivated blogs.  Follow the science.

Doug

Doug

I admire your persistence and your thoroughness on this, but your insistence that we "follow the science" overlooks one very salient fact. None of us are scientists (or at least most of us are not). We cannot simply read the data and reliably interpret it on our own. Usually we rely on someone else more qualified to interpret it for us. And so we have to choose who to believe. The credibility of the messenger matters. This is why on either side of the issue, our beliefs are almost always informed by our ideology. Some of us look at anything sponsored by the UN, an organization which would deign to put an international terrorist, Moamar Khadahfi in charge of the human rights commission, and an organization, that through the machinations of the World Bank and the IMF, has done incalculable damage to the developing world, with a good deal of skepticism, much as you might be inclined to question a study sponsored by a self-interested multinational corporation like Exxon-Mobil. 

And this is why Al Gore matters so much to many of us. He is the most visible symbol of the AGW movement. But to believe Gore's message is to believe that his boundless hypocrisy is simply unconscionable. And so many of us chose to resolve our cognitive dissonance to the detriment of Mr Gore's credibility.

My experience with Mark Lynas, producer of the National Geographic special "Six Degrees," is the same. After the presentation of his compelling and disturbing documentary, he came on for a brief interview. After making urgent and dire predictions about imminent and irreversible tipping points he completely stunned me, saying we had to take immediate drastic action or face certain catastrophe, BUT ... that we could not ask India and China to participate! He said something like, 'we've had our growth. Now it's their turn to have theirs.' And so in an instant, for me, he negated his entire documentary. 

Global warming may be real - and unfortunately I believe it is (although, as CM likes to say, I reserve the right to change my position as new information becomes available) - but I think it's difficult to deny that that there is another agenda at work here too. And I think the "deniers" have every right to be very worried about it.

Greg

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

 

Intellectual dishonesty. The Global Warming campaign is replete with intellectual dishonesty. From it's head cheeleader Al Gore all the way down to Doug's posts here. They don't address rational objections or engage in honest debate. All dissent is dismissed out of hand and villified. Moreover, the double standard is repulsive. All scientists that question GW are not credible if they have even a remote connection to the oil industry while our government, who will be empowered by GW regulations, hands out truckloads of money in the funding of grants to whoever will spout the party line. Were the folks at the Council of the American Physical Society or the "committee of eminent scientists" that Doug cites ever scrutinized as to where their funding came from?

And then this:

It's to a New Jersey columnist who, in the first two paragraphs, got the science so wrong I didn't go any further

Doug's intellectual dishonesty is on full display here. The columnist did not offer any science; he is not a scientist. He quotes a scientist; actually three of them. But of course their science was wrong. How do we know? Because it departs from Global Warming orthodoxy.  See, that's the measure if one is a good scientist or not. If you endorse Global Warming then you are a "good" scientist. If not, well then you must be an outlyer, a corporate shill, a flat earther. The Global Warming crowd presumes that their position is right and offers as  proof that dissenters are wrong,  the fact that they are in dissent. Karl Marx would be so proud.

To dismiss all scientific evidence out of hand without confronting it--intellectual dishonesty.

Doug demanded S-C-I-E-N-C-E in a very demeaning condescending fashion using all CAPS. When, with a  very cursory effort, I cited four scientists, ( Dr. Soon and the three in the link) he waved them off without ever even addressing what they had to say. Intellectual dishonesty.

If I were to adduce a definitive  pronouncement from God Almighty on this issue, I fear that it would likely be dismissed because my fourth grade teacher caught me chewing gum and noted it on my 'permanent record'.

To engage in discussion on this level is just a waste of time.

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Intersection of Global Warming and Peak Oil

removed - incorrect information!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments